A duel of two cameras

[bahadir]

JimC wrote:

In addition, Sigma might not want the comparisons with a higher quality lens to be shown in court.

I believe there's nothing which needsless justification thanyour frank opinion

[hercules]

bahadir,, i have a canon A620 and the difference you will see even in daylight shots is better resolution and the images seem more lively, personally i think the dslr isa way better camera than the point and shoot in every aspectlet alone in higher iso settings at really low light and speed, personally i just have 3 lenses and my sideline shooter on myside and i'm fine.

[bahadir]

Hercules, I had to hurry this morning so was not able to reply you. Nowreading your edited reply I must sayI am literally confused :?On the other handI also feelhappy on behalf of you, that you've started to become fully satisfied with your DSLR and do not bother carrying it withyour quite satisfactory IS lens everywhere you go

And as you'll remember, thisiswhat I wrotein another post of mine in Travel Photography section about my impression on less sophisticated 300D I've been using for a few weeks:

However, after getting used to shooting at partial metering at M mode always , and playing with parameters, I am now quite pleased about the results. Although I shoot at noon (you know the mediterranean sun!) with many white buildings around, no blown out walls! (which is very a real challenge for my good old S70) I brighten up the image in PS and still no blown out partsFor low light photography, it allows some advantage over S70, but due to noise starting at ISO 800 and slower lens, f/3.5 at wide (which is not advicable though, because the kit lens likes higher AV values such as f/8 ) not a very significant difference I can say...

Anyway, thank you for the update!

[hercules]

bahadir,,sorry to confuse you,, they are both good.

[bahadir]

hercules wrote:

..and i'm not a MALAKA to go out and start buying 2000 euro lenses.

LOL! I liked that... It's nice to see we use very similar, sometimes even the same phrases for the same situations :-)

i do not see a difference, but some people you know (ah how dare you try to compete with the dslr)

OK! so this was the tone I read in the morning and this is Hercules ı know blunt enough to say 'king is naked'! But still I can't see a reason why you should sell a imagewise dslr like camera to buy the kodak...If I were looking for a carry around compact I'd probably go for the pocketable Fuji 30 which hasthe bestlow light capability in compacts and consistently delivering veryneat, cleanimage as well.

Anyway here are two more shots. This time I applied some basic PS. applications to them (shadows and highlights adjustment & USM) but not sophisticated selective job to see how they end upafter a quickoverall post process. The first one is familiar to you!Canon 300D with kit lens:

[bahadir]

and here's canon S70:

[kenbalbari]

Again I think the S70 is a bit better. Though I wonder how much could be improved by in camera settings. As well as what wuld be the result if comparing something like a 50mm prime instead of a kit lens.

As for that big superzoom lens, I think the photozone survey Jim referred to actually underrates such lenses a bit. The design of the survey asks users to rate each lens for a number of qualities at both the wide end and long end. But they don't rate at anywhere in between!

In theory therefore, a long zoom like 18-200 could be very good from 28-100mm, and still rank far below a mediocre 28-100 lens on that survey, because of weaknesses at 18mm and 200mm.

It does certainly demonstrate some of the compromises in such a design however. With such a zoom range there will nerly always be distortion somewhere, normally at both extremes, flare tends to show up at wider angles, and softness will often be a problem, particularly at the tele end. But even the lower quality lenses will often be quite useable if stopped down to near f8.

But I think the reviews, user comments, and perhaps MTF tests do a better job than the photozone survey of telling the good from the bad in such long zooms.

[hercules]

bahadir wrote:

hercules wrote:

LOL! I liked that... It's nice to see we use very similar, sometimes even the same phrases for the same situations :-)

OK! so this was the tone I read in the morning and this is Hercules ı know blunt enough to say 'king is naked'! But still I can't see a reason why you should sell a imagewise dslr like camera to buy the kodak...If I were looking for a carry around compact I'd probably go for the pocketable Fuji 30 which hasthe bestlow light capability in compacts and consistently delivering veryneat, cleanimage as well.

Anyway here are two more shots. This time I applied some basic PS. applications to them (shadows and highlights adjustment & USM) but not sophisticated selective job to see how they end upafter a quickoverall post process. The first one is familiar to you!Canon 300D with kit lens:

Sorry about the edit i should have left it, but people do get upset, and i somehow alway's use that word in all my sentenses, bahadir, i'm not even thinking of selling my 350D, i was gonna sell my A620 and get the kodak, but you know the kit lense isn't to good of a lense, but if you put a better lense on it there will be no comparison honest, on my 17-85 IS in daylight shots with my A620 i see the colors stand out more with the 350D and the pictures look more lively. Filarako ta leme.

[hercules]

kenbalbari wrote:

Again I think the S70 is a bit better. Though I wonder how much could be improved by in camera settings. As well as what wuld be the result if comparing something like a 50mm prime instead of a kit lens.

As for that big superzoom lens, I think the photozone survey Jim referred to actually underrates such lenses a bit. The design of the survey asks users to rate each lens for a number of qualities at both the wide end and long end. But they don't rate at anywhere in between!

In theory therefore, a long zoom like 18-200 could be very good from 28-100mm, and still rank far below a mediocre 28-100 lens on that survey, because of weaknesses at 18mm and 200mm.

It does certainly demonstrate some of the compromises in such a design however. With such a zoom range there will nerly always be distortion somewhere, normally at both extremes, flare tends to show up at wider angles, and softness will often be a problem, particularly at the tele end. But even the lower quality lenses will often be quite useable if stopped down to near f8.

But I think the reviews, user comments, and perhaps MTF tests do a better job than the photozone survey of telling the good from the bad in such long zooms.

I don't think so, out of those two pictures the 300d is better look at the tree's better color and the tyles (Keramidia) on top of the buildings again better color saturation the 300d looks more lively.

[bahadir]

kenbalbari wrote:

As well as what wuld be the result if comparing something like a 50mm prime instead of a kit lens.

Ah, I think there's no question about the obvious superiority of a dslr with a prime lens! As you know, dpreview.com always does the comparisons with the sharp 1.4 prime lens.

In theory therefore, a long zoom like 18-200 could be very good from 28-100mm, and still rank far below a mediocre 28-100 lens on that survey, because of weaknesses at 18mm and 200mm.

Good point! One thing why I wouldn't consider the Sigma 28-300, although its a good matchto the kit lens even atthe wide end of its extensive range, is its weight which almost equals the camera itself!I'd ratherhave two lenses and carry the extra lens in my bag rather than carrying it on my neck always.

.................................................. ........................

Hercules wrote:

kenbalbari wrote:

I don't think so, out of those two pictures the 300d is better look at the tree's better color and the tyles (Keramidia) on top of the buildings again better color saturation the 300d looks more lively.

Hard to utter abold judgement indeed.... Ah, your observation on the 'Keramidia' or 'Kiremit' in my mother tongue and the trees also seems correct to me. Yet it is the foreground, the asphalt and the poles, as well as the background of mountains and distant apartmentswhich looks more dimensional and well exposedon the S70's .Still, I could say that; when the partial metering is used at M mode and the in camera sharpness is increased one stop at the parameters, I generally find the straight from the camera results of 300D somewhat more 'lifelike' thanmy good oldS70.

Btw, how about a furter S70 and A620 comparison??:G