How much difference do you see, beetween the twos?

[simus]

Hi

 

I took two shots with two different Digital Camera one is a little more than 12 mpx the other one is little more 10 mpx.

Both shot in standard jpg. I put them on tripod, Both set at 200 ISO and aperture priority setting. shot about 60 mm equiv.

 

Ciao,

 

Antonio<div></div>

[simus]

Photo no. 2<div></div>

[simus]

I forgot to mention the the first was shot at 5.6, about more than 1 stop than the maximum aperture allowed.

The second was shot at 2.5, the maximum aperture allowed. I set them in apurture priority not to shot at equal aperture settings but to see how the two meters compare.

[frans_waterlander]

<p>You are comparing apples and oranges. The first shot is way sharper because of the smaller aperture opening. Any difference in the cameras and lenses is overpowered by the vastly different apertures. If everything is the same (lenses, apertures, sensor technology, in-camera processing, etc) you will not see much difference between a 10 and 12 MP sensor.</p>

[scott_ferris]

<p>1: Good</p>

<p>2: Bad</p>

[john_mcferren]

<p>I find number two a little too bright, but If I didn't see number one or the scene itself I would not likely be able to tell.</p>

[john v.]

<p>I'm not sure if sharpness is the main difference between the two images, although No. 1 does appear sharper. The main difference I see is noise. No. 1 is pretty clean, while noise is quite obvious in No. 2. It almost appears that you are comparing a DSLR to a point 'n shoot. Maybe even an old point 'n shoot, as newer point 'n shoot cameras typically aren't that bad at ISO 200 in daylight.</p>

[simus]

Yes, of course there is a difference, but not that much, in my opinion. The first is the 12 mpx. the second one is the 10. Both

where shot at 200 iso, but the second one can also be shoot at 100 ISO and even, 80 ISO.

I have tried to test a real situation comparison that would have led me to choose which of the two will be with me during a 2 wks

travel. Herewith attached is the 10 mpx 80 ISO Version. Seem there is an obvious improvment over the previous one.

[simus]

ISO 80<div></div>

[parv]

The 3d image, the one at "ISO" 80, looks almost the same as the very first image. Second image has horribly smeared details. Third image is a bit darker than the first; that could be why first image is still looks better.

[simus]

<p>Yes, iso 80 is the best and seems to be enough close to the one taken with the dslr, at least in good light. What if the twos shots were not put togheter side by side? and sould be edited a little bit ? <br />I think the little could grant good results, and I am seriously thinking about taking with me on the next trave, the little one and leaveing the DSLR at home. That's the reason of this post whose name - let's remember it - "How much difference do you see beetween the twos ?" <br />Considering the picture i took are JPGs, I think that by using their Raws it should be possible to achieve some more and I think that the little one might hava more space of improvent ahead, even though it cannot reach the DSLR quality.</p>

[simus]

<p>Hi I have done some more trial to decide which of the twos will come with me on holiday. I did some more test in dim light and the DSLR wins without esitation. I shot both at 1/20 sec P&S 100 ISO gives approximately the same quality my DSLR gives at ISO 800. Anyway I think i'll bring with me the DSLR, not exclusively because of the better quality in dimmer light but, also because i can also leave at home the charger as the DSLR gives me much more fuel that the little one. Anyway this trials were not carried out in a scientifical way and i am a quite normal user. So i meant just wished to simulate what I sould have needed during my camera use. <br /><br />Ciao, <br /><br />Antonio </p>

[simus]

<p>I ended up to bring with me the 10 mpx P&S and I was very happy about that choice. More weight would have been too much to carry around and the quality I got with the Ps satisfied me anyway. What I missed, sometimes, was the optical viewfinder, more often, when needed to mount the polarizer; then the use of the polarizer is a little bit tricky because of adaptor to be use, but it's not a great issue. I, sometimes, also missed some reach more than the 60mm equiv. allowed, while i found very useful the 24mm wide end.<br />herewith attached two of the photos I took along with the crops, choosen among the hundreds taken. The one inside the curch was taken at 1/13 and 2.8 which is the maximum aperture allowed at that focal lenght.<br />Ciao, <br />Antonio <br /> </p><div></div>

[simus]

<p>100% Crop</p><div></div>

[simus]

<p>another one. All the images are Jpgs got straight from the camera</p><div></div>

[simus]

<p>100% Crop </p><div></div>

[parv]

Thanks Antonio for the update. What really matters is having a camera when you need it.

 

The "boats" might look impressive when framed & printed around 12 x 16 inch or a bit larger.