Comparing Image Quality: DSLR vs. Point & Shoot vs. Smartphone

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
A user borrowed a friend's DSLR to compare its image quality against a point-and-shoot and a smartphone camera. The comparison involved taking pictures of a newspaper under controlled lighting conditions. Despite expectations, the differences in image quality were minimal, raising concerns about the value of investing in a DSLR. Participants in the discussion noted that while the DSLR should theoretically outperform the others due to its larger sensor and interchangeable lenses, the test conditions may have favored the lower-end cameras. Suggestions were made for more challenging tests, such as varying lighting conditions and subjects, to better assess the DSLR's capabilities. Many agreed that the advantages of DSLRs lie beyond mere resolution, emphasizing features like low-light performance and depth of field control. Overall, the discussion highlighted the complexities of camera performance and the importance of context in evaluating image quality.
  • #51
Andre said:
Dave, I guess your potential 400D has the 18-55mm USM version. Ask Borek about the quality of that one and you know why the result is so blurry, also due to lacking image stabilisation. It's successor the 18-55mm IS is a huge improvement, which has a new successor too recently.

These kind of tests should always be carried out on a tripod. Otherwise you just measure the caffeine concentration in the tester.

On a tripod IS or no IS (or IS off) should not make any difference.

Having said that, chromatic aberation does seem to be better on the newer version, and that has nothing to do with the IS.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
M Quack said:
These kind of tests should always be carried out on a tripod. Otherwise you just measure the caffeine concentration in the tester.

On a tripod IS or no IS (or IS off) should not make any difference.

Sure, but Dave is implying that he didn't use one, for the first test at least
 
  • #53
Mech_Engineer said:
You have some special requirements, but the point is the field of view is dependent on more than just the size of the sensor. FOV is calculated using the sensor size, lens focal length, sensor distance, etc.

Exactly- which is why I originally pointed out that larger sensor sizes do more than just give you more light sensitivity.
 
  • #54
M Quack said:
These kind of tests should always be carried out on a tripod. Otherwise you just measure the caffeine concentration in the tester.
Well, you test the camera's ability under real-world conditions.

If I had really wanted those pics, I'd not be able to make use of a camera that wasn't fast enough to freeze the image.
 
  • #55
Well, if the camera phone fulfills all your needs, all the better for you! I wish you all the best.
 
  • #56
M Quack said:
Well, if the camera phone fulfills all your needs, all the better for you! I wish you all the best.
:confused:I'm not sure how you come to that from where we were. Did I imply any of them fulfilled all my needs?
 
  • #57
Yes.

My reading of this whole thread is that you try to convince us that a in a 30km/h zone with speed bumps every 10m a Nissan Micra performs as well as a 5 series BWM or a Ferrari. That may be the case, but I fail to see the relevance of this particular test.

Nothing personal, but I just don't get the point you are trying to make.
 
  • #58
The point is that there is better use for a few $$$ than buying an old DSLR with an inferior lens.
 
  • #59
It depends on ho much it costs, and what it's condition is. I've take thousands of excellent pictures with that exact camera.

In the end it's a tool, you have to know how to implement it appropriately.
 
  • #60
M Quack said:
Yes.

My reading of this whole thread is that you try to convince us that a in a 30km/h zone with speed bumps every 10m a Nissan Micra performs as well as a 5 series BWM or a Ferrari. That may be the case, but I fail to see the relevance of this particular test.

Nothing personal, but I just don't get the point you are trying to make.

I'm not sure anyone is trying to convince you of anything in this thread. Use what you like.
 
  • #61
M Quack said:
Yes.

My reading of this whole thread is that you try to convince us that a in a 30km/h zone with speed bumps every 10m a Nissan Micra performs as well as a 5 series BWM or a Ferrari. That may be the case, but I fail to see the relevance of this particular test.

Nothing personal, but I just don't get the point you are trying to make.

Your analogy is spot-on. But I was not trying to convince anyone; I have merely been expressing my own pre-expectations. I did indeed expect the Beemer to perform better at 30km/h. It took me some convincing to concede that they should perform similarly.
 
  • #62
Surely they must be able to do the same thing. They are basically the same, internal combustion engine, a heap of gears and some wheels :-)

Anyways, the right tool for the right job. The Ferrari does not fit in my garage and cannot deal with the potholes around here.

The camera phone did perform better than I expected, see my first post. But note that most people correctly identified the DSLR pic
 
  • #63
I'd suggest taking pictures of plucked guitar strings and your cityscape at night.
 

Similar threads

How Does the X3 Sensor Technology Compare in Image Quality and Sensitivity?
Replies
2
Views
2K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top