Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


iq and sensor size

Attention!

This topic is locked.

Reason : subject of complaints


14 May 2013 10:16AM
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

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
14 May 2013 8:05PM

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 e2
8 889 26 United Kingdom
14 May 2013 10:16PM
Meanwhile, back in the real world...
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
14 May 2013 11:13PM
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
15 May 2013 7:09AM

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!
15 May 2013 7:48AM
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 e2
8 889 26 United Kingdom
15 May 2013 12:04PM

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 e2
7 2.1k United Kingdom
15 May 2013 2:07PM

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 e2
13 16.1k 6 England
15 May 2013 5:54PM

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
ChrisV e2
8 889 26 United Kingdom
15 May 2013 8:07PM
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?
Paul Morgan e2
13 16.1k 6 England
15 May 2013 8:27PM
Yes I do believe you are.
15 May 2013 9:28PM

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.

ChrisV e2
8 889 26 United Kingdom
15 May 2013 10:13PM

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 e2
13 16.1k 6 England
15 May 2013 10:44PM

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


Your own words not mine.
ChrisV e2
8 889 26 United Kingdom
15 May 2013 10:51PM
Pretty rapid back-pedal. Just what did you mean?