Login or Join Now

Upload your photos, chat, win prizes and much more

Username:
Password:
Remember Me

Can't Access your Account?

New to ePHOTOzine? Join ePHOTOzine for free!

Like 0

iq and sensor size

Join Now

Join ePHOTOzine, the friendliest photography community.

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more for free!

New PortraitPro 12 SALE + 10% OFF code EPZROS814

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: subject of complaints
LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62458 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
14 May 2013 - 10:16 AM

It is interesting to see the original question is often getting overlooked "lets say you take a good compact something like canon g and a good ccs like a pen and compare it with results from entry level dslr with kit lens same subject same iso would you notice much difference in a4 print"
The question is about comparing a good compact, not particularly good DSLR and lens, base ISO, relatively small print.
Short answer - no.
Longer answer - this DSLR combination might come second.
Grin

Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links 
14 May 2013 - 10:16 AM

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315182 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
14 May 2013 - 8:05 PM


Quote: You seem to think that psychology has not part to play in business

No, not a lot.

And I`m not talking about M4/3.


Quote: No-one here has suggested that the simpler jobs could not be done with a an MFT camera but what kind of lazy twit would turn up to a client who was paying him top dollar with a consumer class camera?

This is such a daft elitest view Lemmy.

ChrisV
ChrisV  7768 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
14 May 2013 - 10:16 PM

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315182 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
14 May 2013 - 11:13 PM

Like in your world Chris ?


Quote: I've used that set up before for things which ultimately went on 48 sheet billboards as well as life-size pop-ups and the results were quite pleasing. The thing is I suspect if I had a decent prime at a sufficient AoV [I have the Panny f1.7 20mm but that would be too short] I'd probably get results everyone would be happy with from m4/3 at ISO160 with bags of light. Mind you if you have a lighting rig and backdrops you can't carry on your own, who's concerned about what the camera weighs?

I don`t think so Smile Smile Smile

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 14 May 2013 - 11:13 PM
MichaelMelb_AU
15 May 2013 - 7:09 AM


Quote: It is interesting to see the original question is often getting overlooked "lets say you take a good compact something like canon g and a good ccs like a pen and compare it with results from entry level dslr with kit lens same subject same iso would you notice much difference in a4 print"
The question is about comparing a good compact, not particularly good DSLR and lens, base ISO, relatively small print.
Short answer - no.


This question may be unanswerable in general - as we don't know:
- shooting conditions. Outside photos of inanimate objects on bright day or children/pets inside a not particularly well lit room;
-user level of experience. DSLR needs at least some skill to use it, compacts are tuned for "photography for a dummy" reader (no offence meant!);
With this sort of unknowns
Quote: Longer answer - this DSLR combination might come second. Grin

might come true. I would even say "any DSLR combination". That makes all of this thread pretty pointless. Thanks for reminding, Len!

Last Modified By MichaelMelb_AU at 15 May 2013 - 7:16 AM
Steppenwolf
15 May 2013 - 7:48 AM

It's simple. The bigger the sensor the better the high ISO performance, the better the low light performance and the shallower the DOF. That's about it.

Some people claim other benefits but I don't think they could back up the claims in blind tests. If you take a photograph within the capabilities of the camera (with regard to ISO and light level) and if you can adjust the aperture to get the same DOF then you'll struggle to tell the difference between the big sensor and the small.

ChrisV
ChrisV  7768 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
15 May 2013 - 12:04 PM


Quote: Like in your world Chris ?

I've used that set up before for things which ultimately went on 48 sheet billboards as well as life-size pop-ups and the results were quite pleasing. The thing is I suspect if I had a decent prime at a sufficient AoV [I have the Panny f1.7 20mm but that would be too short] I'd probably get results everyone would be happy with from m4/3 at ISO160 with bags of light. Mind you if you have a lighting rig and backdrops you can't carry on your own, who's concerned about what the camera weighs?

I don`t think so Smile Smile Smile

Not thinking may be accurate for you in general, but what in particular here are you not thinking Paul?

lemmy
lemmy  71831 forum posts United Kingdom
15 May 2013 - 2:07 PM


Quote: This is such a daft elitest view Lemmy.

Thank you for that well argued and thoughtful reply, Paul. Such comments are like a wet blanket on any discussion.

Anyway, I think you've effectively killed this thread for me and besides I mustn't keep you from your Wittgenstein.

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315182 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
15 May 2013 - 5:54 PM


Quote: This is such a daft elitest view Lemmy


Quote: Thank you for that well argued and thoughtful reply, Paul. Such comments are like a wet blanket on any discussion.

Anyway, I think you've effectively killed this thread for me and besides I mustn't keep you from your Wittgenstein

With comments like this what kind of response was you expecting ?


Quote: but what kind of lazy twit would turn up to a client who was paying him top dollar with a consumer class camera?


Quote: Not thinking may be accurate for you in general, but what in particular here are you not thinking Paul?

Go figure Smile

http://www.ephotozine.com/user/chrisv-52130

Last Modified By Paul Morgan at 15 May 2013 - 5:55 PM
ChrisV
ChrisV  7768 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
15 May 2013 - 8:07 PM

Don't be cryptic Paul, spit it out. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you appear to imply I'm lying about my professional work.

Now I may look at your portfolio and think it lacks merit. I wouldn't be so impolite to offer such an opinion unsolicited because it might appear spiteful and childish. But everyone is entitled to an opinion and we can debate the validity of that. Lenny asked you earlier what commercial work you've undertaken and you've chosen not to respond. Critical assessments can vary and commercial work is no guarantee of quality. But the fact someone is prepared to spend tens of thousands in production costs of that work is a fairly solid endorsement, don't you think?

Last Modified By ChrisV at 15 May 2013 - 10:03 PM
Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315182 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
15 May 2013 - 8:27 PM

Yes I do believe you are.

LenShepherd
LenShepherd e2 Member 62458 forum postsLenShepherd vcard United Kingdom
15 May 2013 - 9:28 PM

[quote]It's simple. The bigger the sensor the better the high ISO performance, the better the low light performance /quote]
It is not simple in the context of the OP about comparing a high end compact to an entry level DSLR with kit lens making an A4 print.
It's not simple either at up to A3 print size comparing DX to FX to about 1600 ISO because at lower ISO's and print sizes there is rarely any easily detectable difference.
Larger sensors only show an improvement of value to the average photographer in prints larger than A3 and ISO above 1600 - neither is an everyday situation relative to the OP.

Last Modified By LenShepherd at 15 May 2013 - 9:30 PM
ChrisV
ChrisV  7768 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
15 May 2013 - 10:13 PM


Quote: Yes I do believe you are.

Lying? That's a pretty nasty, not to say libellous statement (although of course this is just a silly Internet argument). Nevertheless this isn't difficult to prove. What sort of evidence would satisfy you? I could post images of the window graphics, the life size cut outs, bus liners, pull up banners, magazine ads. Of course anyone could capture those shots of the campaign, but I've also got PDFs of the artwork (I'm also the designer behind the project). Or perhaps you'd like to see the original shots including the outtakes?

Just how stupid do you want to look over this?

Paul Morgan
Paul Morgan e2 Member 1315182 forum postsPaul Morgan vcard England6 Constructive Critique Points
15 May 2013 - 10:44 PM


Quote: Lying? That's a pretty nasty, not to say libellous statement

Your own words not mine.

ChrisV
ChrisV  7768 forum posts United Kingdom26 Constructive Critique Points
15 May 2013 - 10:51 PM

Pretty rapid back-pedal. Just what did you mean?

Attention!

This topic is locked.
Reason: subject of complaints