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

  • Thread starter Thread starter DaveC426913
  • Start date Start date
Click For 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.
  • #31
SHISHKABOB said:
it's how they getcha!

"we have big numbers in this!"

"well we have big numbers in this, and this thing sounds more important!"

"well our numbers are big in THIS REALLY COOL THING!"all in all it's just a big hooplah ...

Not amused. You are suggesting that I have been duped into thinking that gadgets on a camera make for camera that takes a "better quality" picture.

SHISHKABOB;3792987 we just got to accept that right now fancy phones do not have the best cameras in them[/QUOTE said:
Don't you mean we got to accept that DSLR cameras don't have the best optics?

My concern is that the DSLR is only incrementally better than as a cheap phone camera.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Mech_Engineer said:
The biggest advantages of a DSLR are the sensor size (which approaches that of a piece of film) and interchangeable lenses. The bigger sensor means bigger pixels which means better low-light sensitivity and lower noise at higher sensitivities. Paired with a nice lens (which range very widely, for example a 50mm f/1.8 which costs about $100 to a 50mm f/1.2 which costs about $1000) you can take pictures at much lower light levels than a point & shoot or cell phone. SLR's also typically have faster, more accurate autofocus and more "power user" settings (but you have to be a power user).

When you look at a phone with an 8mp camera, it's pixels are on the order of maybe 2 microns across. The SLR camera will have pixels which are 15 microns across, which means the pixels have effectively 50 times the area! This means the bigger sensor can collect 50 times the light in a given scene. Some good comparisons of noice levels at higher sensitivities for many cameras can be found here: http://www.dpreview.com (note the Canon XTi is highly rated there).
The older DSLR and the newer camera phone might not be that different in detectors. A newer DSLR, on the other hand, will dance circles around the old DSLR. Our department has two DSLR cameras, and older one and newer one. Not much difference in MPs, but huge difference in the detectors. I can get crisp photos of things with the newer one that couldn't even be seen as more than a pixelated blur with the older one. The colors appear more "true" to what I see by eye with the newer one, and the ability to enlarge a photo for detail is where I REALLY see the difference. In a small jpeg clip, I won't see as much difference, but when cropping and enlarging to show an area of detail, the sorts of things we use macro lenses to photograph, the difference is astounding.
 
  • #33
DaveC426913 said:
Not amused. You are suggesting that I have been duped into thinking that gadgets on a camera make for camera that takes a "better quality" picture.

My concern is that the DSLR is only incrementally better than as a cheap phone camera.

didn't mean to insult, just meant that the high cost is due to the people adding fancy components to it, to make it appear to be worth the high cost

I don't think this has to assume that you've been duped
 
  • #34
The industry (or their marketing divisions at least) certainly believe they can dupe most of the market. It is easy to advertize a huge number of megapixels, or gizmos like eye and face detection, scene modes and what not. The latest craze is full HD video which just flaps the mirror up and out of the way, loosing the dedicated AF unit and viewfinder along the way, so that you end up with a glorified point-and-shoot camera (with a huge sensor, admiltedly).

AF quality is nearly impossible to quantify. How to you print that on an ad? Pixel size? 20 years ago pixels where huge, now they are getting smaller and smaller. You need to explain why bigger pixels are better - easily done in a physics forum, but in a 10sec TV ad?
 
  • #35
These are tested under fairly static and "easy" conditions. With today's technology, a digital camera (whether it's on a phone or a unit unto itself) should be able to capture a image of some text in a relatively well lit location. Test these same cameras with any sort of motion or lighting issues and you will see some very significant differences. You have very limited functionality with a camera phone whereas the DLSRs will allow you to play with shutter speeds, f-stop, etc...

So, yes, if you are taking pictures of well-lit, motionless objects then any camera will do the trick in this day and age. What you are paying for with the more expensive DLSRs is the ability to go beyond that and still take very good photos.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #36
DaveC426913 said:
Everybody keeps insisting on this. I keep saying I was really expecting that, all flexibility advantages aside, in a straight up comparison, the DSLR would produce a higher quality image - less noise, less fuzziness, more crisp.
Ok, well now you know that in optimal conditions, cameras are chip resolution limited, not optics limited.

And now you should also understand that your test setup contradicts your stated goal: you said you wanted to test what you pay the extra $ for, then set up a test that eliminated the effect of the things that cost more $... like optics and a big chip.
 
  • #37
Mech_Engineer said:
The biggest advantages of a DSLR are the sensor size (which approaches that of a piece of film) and interchangeable lenses. The bigger sensor means bigger pixels which means better low-light sensitivity and lower noise at higher sensitivities. <snip>

That's partially correct: a larger sensor also increases the field of view.
 
  • #38
Bigger field of view is nice if you shoot wide angle.
 
  • #39
M Quack said:
Bigger field of view is nice if you shoot wide angle.

... so long as the optics can handle the bigger FOV without too much distortion, of course.

But if you just want bragging rights on pixels, Nokia just has announced a 41 Mp smartphone camera. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17178014
 
  • #40
DaveC426913 said:
Everybody keeps insisting on this. I keep saying I was really expecting that, all flexibility advantages aside, in a straight up comparison, the DSLR would produce a higher quality image - less noise, less fuzziness, more crisp.

Yes, it is unfortunate that so many people expect a camera to simply be "better" just because it is more expensive. The truth is that there is so much more to a camera than simply resolution or image sharpness at a single distance.
 
  • #41
M Quack said:
Bigger field of view is nice if you shoot wide angle.

AlephZero said:
... so long as the optics can handle the bigger FOV without too much distortion, of course.

I do, and it does. (Nikkor 15mm f/3.5). Zero distortion.
 
  • #42
Andy Resnick said:
That's partially correct: a larger sensor also increases the field of view.

That assumes either sensor uses the same optics (for example in an SLR that has a full-frame chip vs. an SLR with a crop-format). For the purposes of comparing a cell phone camera to an SLR (which use completely different sets of optics) the FOV can be designed to be basically the same.
 
  • #43
Moonbear said:
The older DSLR and the newer camera phone might not be that different in detectors. A newer DSLR, on the other hand, will dance circles around the old DSLR.

It all depends on the SLR. I suspect he's got a Canon Digital Rebel XTi, in which case there really isn't a cell phone camera out there that can compete in anything other than sunny conditions. Paired with interchangeable lenses and superior autofocus, there really isn't a contest (but that of course assumes they're both being utilized to their potential).

Moonbear said:
Our department has two DSLR cameras, and older one and newer one. Not much difference in MPs, but huge difference in the detectors. I can get crisp photos of things with the newer one that couldn't even be seen as more than a pixelated blur with the older one.

Do you mind telling us which model cameras you're comparing? I've had problems with SLR's in the past, but it had more to do with my lack of understanding/locating the proper camera settings. It all goes back to seeing the camera as a tool, not a magical perfect picture taker.

Moonbear said:
The colors appear more "true" to what I see by eye with the newer one, and the ability to enlarge a photo for detail is where I REALLY see the difference. In a small jpeg clip, I won't see as much difference, but when cropping and enlarging to show an area of detail, the sorts of things we use macro lenses to photograph, the difference is astounding.

Sounds like color balance or white balance issues, but some cameras do a better job than others when it comes to their "AUTO" mode.

We got a Nikon D3X at work with a Nikkor 200mm f/4 Macro lens, that takes some of the most amazing macro pictures I've ever seen! 1:1 scale on a 24.5Mp sensor is just breathtaking!
 
  • #44
Mech_Engineer said:
For the purposes of comparing a cell phone camera to an SLR (which use completely different sets of optics) the FOV can be designed to be basically the same.

Really? good luck trying to design a distortion-free lens that provides a 118 degree FOV (the Nikkor 13mm on 35mm format) in even a 1.6x crop factor. A 60 mm Hypergon gives a 135 degree field of view on a large format image- translating that to a 1.6x crop sensor would require a rear focal length of 2mm... sure, "basically the same".
 
Last edited:
  • #45
Mech_Engineer said:
Do you mind telling us which model cameras you're comparing? I've had problems with SLR's in the past, but it had more to do with my lack of understanding/locating the proper camera settings. It all goes back to seeing the camera as a tool, not a magical perfect picture taker.
I would if I could remember. They all sound like alphabet soup and random numbers to me. With the newer one, there are definitely a lot more settings to mess up. I get a lot of help from one of our technical staff who is geeky enough and has the patience to read the manual plus other books on how to use it when I tell him what I want to do. The downside is I usually have to listen to the SAME explanation of the gizmo he wants for the tripod to play with some technique he read about and wants to try, even though nobody can think of a good reason to need that.

Sounds like color balance or white balance issues, but some cameras do a better job than others when it comes to their "AUTO" mode.
I think it's more than color or white balance. I can't really correct for it to make up the difference, and when everything in the photo is shades of beige, picking up subtle color differences is a big deal. But, that's straying too much from what Dave wants to do to be relevant to this discussion. On the other hand, that might be the point too, knowing what you want to do and getting what you need for that. I'm perfectly happy with a camera phone picture for most things. The specific needs I have at work require something quite different. Different tools for different tasks.
 
  • #46
3 more tests. These ones at dusk. Medium to long range. No touchups at all.

These are a tiny 1/10x1/10 snippet from the whole pic - but at 100%.

I had no choice for the middle one but to boost the ASA to 400. I simply could not hold the camera steady. But the left & right two I took on auto.

You can definitely see how the DSLR pulls ahead of the other two.
 

Attachments

  • tests3-5.jpg
    tests3-5.jpg
    63.7 KB · Views: 409
  • #47
DaveC426913 said:
<snip>

You can definitely see how the DSLR pulls ahead of the other two.

Indeed!
 
  • #48
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.
 
  • #49
It's true, the stock lens isn't the nicest one ever to exist. The great thing about SLR's is you can buy a lens to match your shooting style and needs.
 
  • #50
Andy Resnick said:
Really? good luck trying to design a distortion-free lens that provides a 118 degree FOV (the Nikkor 13mm on 35mm format) in even a 1.6x crop factor. A 60 mm Hypergon gives a 135 degree field of view on a large format image- translating that to a 1.6x crop sensor would require a rear focal length of 2mm... sure, "basically the same".

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.

At very wide angles you may be right that a smaller crop-format sensor cannot compete, but it's because the focal length of the lens would have to get prohibitively small (e.g. less than 10mm) and you get into fisheye territory at that point.
 
  • #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.
 
  • #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.
 

Similar threads

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