Opticallimits

Heya everyone,



A friend of mine took the first one with his £150 [size="1"](@ISO400)[/size] while I shot with my gear [size="1"](@ISO1600)[/size] that is roughly 10x more expensive.



Just out of curiosity, do you think there is a real justification of a price premium of 1000% over a compact regarding these two quick comparison pictures? Besides this, there is also a quite significant weight and size difference. I'd like to know which camera class would have the best so-called "Price / Image Quality ratio"; is it the entry DSLR class or the newer EVIL (electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens camera) cameras like the Sony NX-5/NX-3?













I'd like to see your image differences if you wouldn't mind posting them here <img src='http://forum.photozone.de/public/style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/smile.gif' class='bbc_emoticon' alt='' />



Regards and good night





Harald

Whether you like photography and how much you're willing to invest to get some kind of result is really a personal matter.



Regarding your image samples - I wouldn't take any image here at all simply because the different beers, wines and/or cocktails are all far more interesting than taking images here.

With good PP I reckon the first image could be made to look a lot more like the second image. And, in IMO, in this circumstance it is not worth spending 1000% extra! However, try and take some action, low light without flash, or ultra low dof shots with a compact then you realise its worth spending 1000% extra!



Allan

[quote name='Klaus' date='08 June 2010 - 09:15 AM' timestamp='1275981321' post='333']

Whether you like photography and how much you're willing to invest to get some kind of result is really a personal matter.



Regarding your image samples - I wouldn't take any image here at all simply because the different beers, wines and/or cocktails are all far more interesting than taking images here.

[/quote]



I see two or three things in these pictures that are even more interesting, but to each his own.



-Lars

[quote name='larsrc' date='08 June 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1275998551' post='338']

I see two or three things in these pictures that are even more interesting, but to each his own.



-Lars

[/quote]



That said, neither of them are very good. The top is flatly lit (on-board flash, I'd say) and the colors are washed-out compared to the other one. The bottom picture is slightly overexposed (which is probably fixable) and the background was better off being in darkness.



Bottom line: It's the light, stupid (to paraphrase James Carville).



-Lars

[quote name='larsrc' date='08 June 2010 - 02:02 PM' timestamp='1275998551' post='338']

I see two or three things in these pictures that are even more interesting, but to each his own.



-Lars

[/quote]



Hey, my girl friend may scan this forum ... ;-)

[quote name='Klaus' date='08 June 2010 - 02:52 PM' timestamp='1276001577' post='341']

Hey, my girl friend may scan this forum ... ;-)

[/quote]



I'm pretty sure my wife never will, but if she did, she'd say the same



-Lars

It's an interesting comparison ... I would never have actually thought of doing something like that.



In brief I'd say that most digital cameras of 35mm sensor or less, given the exact same lighting, more or less the same focal length and aperture, would produce fairly similar results. Even a Nikon DX3 or a Canon 1D is capable of producing crappy pictures, given the 'right' circumstances.



However, a good photographer with a good camera and lens (and maybe some extra lighting) would be able to select the optimal focal length, aperture, pose (it's important to know what to do with your subject) and lighting to make a fantastic group portrait, even in this fairly ordinary setting.



So ... your question is actually back to front: it should be about what the photographer can make out of a situation, regardless of the price of the camera - otherwise you are simply comparing the effect of light on different sensor/lens combinations.

The comparison is interesting, but the picture used shows a rather typical who-met-who picture. It is not the best use of a compact camera and it certainly does not show the way to use a DSLR. If you want to make these kind of pictures use a cellphone. That way it gets really a challenge, which might yield something.



Also a cellphone is easier to carry than a compact camera (not mentioning the DSLR).



Since a DSLR is all about controll, I'd ask myself why the DOF is comparable with the compact, why the picture is overexposed, why a high ISO was used, why the flash is used directly (no bounce or off-camera flash) and if it was not possible to choose a different background.



Flash photography is off course all about balance between the flash and the background light. If you want to use a flash the right way I'd try the strobist approach using external flashes and manual settings to eliminate camera interference. But I don't have the skills and the equipment. It would be too much trouble to set up for me anyway. (Unless someone was willing to keep up an umbrella for me...)

I don't think that, these two images can be a criteria for such a comparison. Try to take wide-angle and tele shots with natural daylight. You'll see that the less expensive handy camera will be bleeding in your arms... That said, I believe there's no overall perfect "Price / Image Quality ratio". It is subjective and depends on the way you take photographs and view/print them.



Regards,



Serkan