Side-by-side test Nikon D80 vs Rebel 300D

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by Bob G, Jan 22, 2009.

  1. Bob G

    Bob G Guest

    No difference in sharpness or anything else discernible at high
    magnification (about 16x20in).
    One's 10MP, the other 6MP and 5-year old technology.
    Used a Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF vs a Canon 24mm f2.8 EF.
    Both cameras on tripods, ISO 200 in daylight.

    Comments?
     
    Bob G, Jan 22, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bob G

    mcescher Guest

    On Jan 22, 1:09 pm, Bob G <> wrote:
    > No difference in sharpness or anything else discernible at high
    > magnification (about 16x20in).
    > One's 10MP, the other 6MP and 5-year old technology.
    > Used a Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF vs a Canon 24mm f2.8 EF.
    > Both cameras on tripods, ISO 200 in daylight.
    >
    > Comments?


    Perhaps you could post some pictures for us to compare.
     
    mcescher, Jan 22, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bob G

    Me Guest

    Bob G wrote:
    > No difference in sharpness or anything else discernible at high
    > magnification (about 16x20in).
    > One's 10MP, the other 6MP and 5-year old technology.
    > Used a Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF vs a Canon 24mm f2.8 EF.
    > Both cameras on tripods, ISO 200 in daylight.
    >
    > Comments?


    Yes. Using the same professional quality lens with two camera bodies
    (6mp and 12mp) taking exposures (raw) of the same scene at about the
    same time using a tripod, bracketing to get exposure spot on between
    cameras, carefully adjusting the raw files using the same raw converter,
    then printing at 18x12", I can see the difference between 6mp and 12mp.
    (even if most non-photographers probably wouldn't unless prompted to
    what to look for).
    In that case, the most obvious difference isn't detail resolved (though
    some small improvement is surely visible if you look close), but that in
    fine edge detail with 6mp, aliasing can be visible, and that flaw tends
    to draw the attention of the eye (mine anyway). In that case I used a
    D70 and D300. The difference may be more obvious than in your test, as
    the D70 has a very weak AA filter resulting in visible aliasing (if you
    have reasonably good lenses/technique), the 300d having (from what I've
    seen) a good compromise of AA filter.

    Your result doesn't surprise me.
     
    Me, Jan 22, 2009
    #3
  4. Bob G

    Colin.D Guest

    Bob G wrote:
    > No difference in sharpness or anything else discernible at high
    > magnification (about 16x20in).
    > One's 10MP, the other 6MP and 5-year old technology.
    > Used a Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF vs a Canon 24mm f2.8 EF.
    > Both cameras on tripods, ISO 200 in daylight.
    >
    > Comments?


    You're right, there's little difference between 6MP and 10 or 12 MP
    cameras as far as image quality goes. The big difference is speed, of
    starting up, frames/sec, number of shots to fill the buffer, of writing
    to the card, etc.

    I still use a 300D (as a retiree I am a bit impecunious), but I compete
    with my 300D at camera club against owners of D300, 5D, 40D, and others.

    Being a bit of a techo, I utilize the best software for post-processing;
    shoot RAW, process through DxO Optics Pro, adjust the image as necessary
    in Photoshop, and print via Qimage and a Canon 9950 printer. Little
    things like never resampling in Photoshop, and using Qimage to do a
    once-only resample direct to the printer's native resolution retains the
    sharpest artifact-free image possible. The result is the humble 300D
    can give the bigger cameras a good fright in terms of image quality.

    It's not generally well known that most images suffer a double
    resampling - once in Photoshop to get the 'magic' 300 ppi, and again in
    the printer driver, resampling up to the printer's native resolution,
    600 ppi for Canon printers, and 720 ppi for Epson. The double
    resampling alone is guaranteed to take the edge off any image.

    Added to that is the resampling quality of the printer drivers is
    unknown, and Photoshop resampling is good but not the best. Quimage uses
    the best resampling techniques available.

    Colin D.
     
    Colin.D, Jan 22, 2009
    #4
  5. Colin.D wrote:

    > It's not generally well known that most images suffer a double
    > resampling - once in Photoshop to get the 'magic' 300 ppi, and again in
    > the printer driver, resampling up to the printer's native resolution,
    > 600 ppi for Canon printers, and 720 ppi for Epson. The double
    > resampling alone is guaranteed to take the edge off any image.
    >
    > Added to that is the resampling quality of the printer drivers is
    > unknown, and Photoshop resampling is good but not the best. Quimage uses
    > the best resampling techniques available.


    This has been so often repeated that it's taken for gospel. I'd love
    someone to give just one cite from Canon or Epson in the last two years
    that indicates there's a magic number of ppi for input. Of course, there
    are minimums as well as maximums for ppi's that'll produce decent to
    excellent prints.

    And if Qimage resampling was superior three years ago, PS has changed
    and improved sampling with each iteration of the CS series, so that
    proof of that claim is also lacking. (Save for the Qimage site and parrots)

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 22, 2009
    #5
  6. Bob G

    Me Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Colin.D wrote:
    >
    >> It's not generally well known that most images suffer a double
    >> resampling - once in Photoshop to get the 'magic' 300 ppi, and again
    >> in the printer driver, resampling up to the printer's native
    >> resolution, 600 ppi for Canon printers, and 720 ppi for Epson. The
    >> double resampling alone is guaranteed to take the edge off any image.
    >>
    >> Added to that is the resampling quality of the printer drivers is
    >> unknown, and Photoshop resampling is good but not the best. Quimage
    >> uses the best resampling techniques available.

    >
    > This has been so often repeated that it's taken for gospel. I'd love
    > someone to give just one cite from Canon or Epson in the last two years
    > that indicates there's a magic number of ppi for input.

    I doubt that you'll find that - but native dpi resolutions are divisible
    by 300dpi and 360 respectively, and if you play with the printers by
    feeding them test images resampled to those sizes, there's a very slight
    but perceptible (just - to the naked eye) improvement. So as
    sharpening should be the last step before printing, resampling to
    printer native resolution then sharpening might make sense for a known
    print size.
    That said, I don't bother these days - but I did when using a 6mp dslr
    (D70) where for large prints resampling to larger size and checking
    carefully with selective sharpening applied seemed to be well worth the
    effort to avoid exacerbating aliasing artifacts, but that's almost a
    different subject entirely.
    > Of course, there
    > are minimums as well as maximums for ppi's that'll produce decent to
    > excellent prints.
    >
    > And if Qimage resampling was superior three years ago, PS has changed
    > and improved sampling with each iteration of the CS series, so that
    > proof of that claim is also lacking. (Save for the Qimage site and parrots)
    >
     
    Me, Jan 22, 2009
    #6
  7. Bob G

    Paul Furman Guest

    Me wrote:
    > John McWilliams wrote:
    >> Colin.D wrote:
    >>
    >>> It's not generally well known that most images suffer a double
    >>> resampling - once in Photoshop to get the 'magic' 300 ppi, and again
    >>> in the printer driver, resampling up to the printer's native
    >>> resolution, 600 ppi for Canon printers, and 720 ppi for Epson. The
    >>> double resampling alone is guaranteed to take the edge off any image.
    >>>
    >>> Added to that is the resampling quality of the printer drivers is
    >>> unknown, and Photoshop resampling is good but not the best. Quimage
    >>> uses the best resampling techniques available.

    >>
    >> This has been so often repeated that it's taken for gospel. I'd love
    >> someone to give just one cite from Canon or Epson in the last two
    >> years that indicates there's a magic number of ppi for input.

    > I doubt that you'll find that - but native dpi resolutions are divisible
    > by 300dpi and 360 respectively, and if you play with the printers by
    > feeding them test images resampled to those sizes, there's a very slight
    > but perceptible (just - to the naked eye) improvement. So as
    > sharpening should be the last step before printing, resampling to
    > printer native resolution then sharpening might make sense for a known
    > print size.


    Right. I resample to 300dpi & sharpen there choosing an appropriate
    radius at that size. It seems to me printing loses lots of detail so
    anything the printer wants to do from there doesn't matter.


    > That said, I don't bother these days - but I did when using a 6mp dslr
    > (D70) where for large prints resampling to larger size and checking
    > carefully with selective sharpening applied seemed to be well worth the
    > effort to avoid exacerbating aliasing artifacts, but that's almost a
    > different subject entirely.
    >> Of course, there are minimums as well as maximums for ppi's that'll
    >> produce decent to excellent prints.
    >>
    >> And if Qimage resampling was superior three years ago, PS has changed
    >> and improved sampling with each iteration of the CS series, so that
    >> proof of that claim is also lacking. (Save for the Qimage site and
    >> parrots)
    >>

    >



    --
    Paul Furman
    www.edgehill.net
    www.baynatives.com

    all google groups messages filtered due to spam
     
    Paul Furman, Jan 23, 2009
    #7
  8. Paul Furman wrote:
    > Me wrote:
    >> John McWilliams wrote:
    >>> Colin.D wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> It's not generally well known that most images suffer a double
    >>>> resampling - once in Photoshop to get the 'magic' 300 ppi, and again
    >>>> in the printer driver, resampling up to the printer's native
    >>>> resolution, 600 ppi for Canon printers, and 720 ppi for Epson. The
    >>>> double resampling alone is guaranteed to take the edge off any image.
    >>>>
    >>>> Added to that is the resampling quality of the printer drivers is
    >>>> unknown, and Photoshop resampling is good but not the best. Quimage
    >>>> uses the best resampling techniques available.
    >>>
    >>> This has been so often repeated that it's taken for gospel. I'd love
    >>> someone to give just one cite from Canon or Epson in the last two
    >>> years that indicates there's a magic number of ppi for input.


    >> I doubt that you'll find that - but native dpi resolutions are
    >> divisible by 300dpi and 360 respectively, and if you play with the


    Still, a shibboleth. And it's ppi in the image, not dpi.

    >> printers by feeding them test images resampled to those sizes, there's
    >> a very slight but perceptible (just - to the naked eye) improvement.
    >> So as sharpening should be the last step before printing, resampling
    >> to printer native resolution then sharpening might make sense for a
    >> known print size.

    >
    > Right. I resample to 300dpi & sharpen there choosing an appropriate
    > radius at that size. It seems to me printing loses lots of detail so
    > anything the printer wants to do from there doesn't matter.



    You're resampling to 300 ppi, and then applying sharpening, which is the
    correct
    order, but to test parallel, the correct amount of sharpening needs to
    be applied to the, say 213 ppi image, to compare it to the upsampled
    image at 300 ppi and also correctly sharpened. And do it with a hq
    modern printer!

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 23, 2009
    #8
  9. Bob G

    Me Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Paul Furman wrote:
    >> Me wrote:
    >>> John McWilliams wrote:
    >>>> Colin.D wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>> It's not generally well known that most images suffer a double
    >>>>> resampling - once in Photoshop to get the 'magic' 300 ppi, and
    >>>>> again in the printer driver, resampling up to the printer's native
    >>>>> resolution, 600 ppi for Canon printers, and 720 ppi for Epson. The
    >>>>> double resampling alone is guaranteed to take the edge off any image.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Added to that is the resampling quality of the printer drivers is
    >>>>> unknown, and Photoshop resampling is good but not the best. Quimage
    >>>>> uses the best resampling techniques available.
    >>>>
    >>>> This has been so often repeated that it's taken for gospel. I'd love
    >>>> someone to give just one cite from Canon or Epson in the last two
    >>>> years that indicates there's a magic number of ppi for input.

    >
    >>> I doubt that you'll find that - but native dpi resolutions are
    >>> divisible by 300dpi and 360 respectively, and if you play with the

    >
    > Still, a shibboleth. And it's ppi in the image, not dpi.


    And it's dpi in the printer, not in the image. Did you have a point to
    make?
    >
    >>> printers by feeding them test images resampled to those sizes,
    >>> there's a very slight but perceptible (just - to the naked eye)
    >>> improvement. So as sharpening should be the last step before
    >>> printing, resampling to printer native resolution then sharpening
    >>> might make sense for a known print size.

    >>
    >> Right. I resample to 300dpi & sharpen there choosing an appropriate
    >> radius at that size. It seems to me printing loses lots of detail so
    >> anything the printer wants to do from there doesn't matter.

    >
    >
    > You're resampling to 300 ppi, and then applying sharpening, which is the
    > correct
    > order, but to test parallel, the correct amount of sharpening needs to
    > be applied to the, say 213 ppi image, to compare it to the upsampled
    > image at 300 ppi and also correctly sharpened. And do it with a hq
    > modern printer!
    >

    Done. My tests with images and resolution targets did show a small
    advantage to resizing image ppi to a divisor or printer native dpi
    resolution. (Epson 360dpi) I also commented that it's a small
    advantage, so small that I don't generally bother.
     
    Me, Jan 23, 2009
    #9
  10. Bob G

    DRS Guest

    "Colin.D" <> wrote in message
    news:glaps3$sm7$

    [...]

    > It's not generally well known that most images suffer a double
    > resampling - once in Photoshop to get the 'magic' 300 ppi, and again


    When I resize to 300ppi in PS I deselect the "Resample image" checkbox.
     
    DRS, Jan 23, 2009
    #10
  11. Bob G

    nospam Guest

    In article <glaps3$sm7$>, Colin.D
    <> wrote:

    > It's not generally well known that most images suffer a double
    > resampling - once in Photoshop to get the 'magic' 300 ppi, and again in
    > the printer driver, resampling up to the printer's native resolution,
    > 600 ppi for Canon printers, and 720 ppi for Epson. The double
    > resampling alone is guaranteed to take the edge off any image.


    so match the printer's resolution, i.e., 360 ppi for epson. and it's
    not really as important as you might think.

    > Added to that is the resampling quality of the printer drivers is
    > unknown,


    epson's is quite good. i don't know about canon or others.

    > and Photoshop resampling is good but not the best. Quimage uses
    > the best resampling techniques available.


    that's *very* debatable.
     
    nospam, Jan 23, 2009
    #11
  12. Me wrote:
    > John McWilliams wrote:


    >>
    >>>> I doubt that you'll find that - but native dpi resolutions are
    >>>> divisible by 300dpi and 360 respectively, and if you play with the

    >>
    >> Still, a shibboleth. And it's ppi in the image, not dpi.

    >
    > And it's dpi in the printer, not in the image. Did you have a point to
    > make?


    Yes. See below.

    << Snipped bits out >>
    >>

    > Done. My tests with images and resolution targets did show a small
    > advantage to resizing image ppi to a divisor or printer native dpi
    > resolution. (Epson 360dpi) I also commented that it's a small
    > advantage, so small that I don't generally bother.


    No modern Epson, set for hq printing, prints at anything near 360 or 300
    dpi. More likely to be in the 1440 range.

    You simply show your ignorance by saying Epson's "native dpi" is what
    some think they should send to the printer in ppi. Do show me a cite
    from Epson about this, all right?

    --
    John McWilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 23, 2009
    #12
  13. Bob G

    Me Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Me wrote:
    >> John McWilliams wrote:

    >
    >>>
    >>>>> I doubt that you'll find that - but native dpi resolutions are
    >>>>> divisible by 300dpi and 360 respectively, and if you play with the
    >>>
    >>> Still, a shibboleth. And it's ppi in the image, not dpi.

    >>
    >> And it's dpi in the printer, not in the image. Did you have a point
    >> to make?

    >
    > Yes. See below.
    >
    > << Snipped bits out >>
    >>>

    >> Done. My tests with images and resolution targets did show a small
    >> advantage to resizing image ppi to a divisor or printer native dpi
    >> resolution. (Epson 360dpi) I also commented that it's a small
    >> advantage, so small that I don't generally bother.

    >
    > No modern Epson, set for hq printing, prints at anything near 360 or 300
    > dpi. More likely to be in the 1440 range.
    >


    1440 / 4 = 360
    2880 / 8 = 360
    5760 / 16 = 360

    > You simply show your ignorance by saying Epson's "native dpi" is what
    > some think they should send to the printer in ppi. Do show me a cite
    > from Epson about this, all right?
    >

    Jeesh - your condescending tone would make it very difficult for you to
    get a point across - presuming that by chance you've had one worth
    conveying.
    I never said at native dpi, but at a divisor of native dpi.
    You obviously haven't done any testing to see if the theory has any
    merit - as if you had (unless you were sight-impaired) then you
    shouldn't be arguing with me.
     
    Me, Jan 23, 2009
    #13
  14. Me wrote:
    > John McWilliams wrote:
    >> Me wrote:
    >>> John McWilliams wrote:

    >>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> I doubt that you'll find that - but native dpi resolutions are
    >>>>>> divisible by 300dpi and 360 respectively, and if you play with the
    >>>>
    >>>> Still, a shibboleth. And it's ppi in the image, not dpi.
    >>>
    >>> And it's dpi in the printer, not in the image. Did you have a point
    >>> to make?

    >>
    >> Yes. See below.
    >>
    >> << Snipped bits out >>
    >>>>
    >>> Done. My tests with images and resolution targets did show a small
    >>> advantage to resizing image ppi to a divisor or printer native dpi
    >>> resolution. (Epson 360dpi) I also commented that it's a small
    >>> advantage, so small that I don't generally bother.

    >>
    >> No modern Epson, set for hq printing, prints at anything near 360 or
    >> 300 dpi. More likely to be in the 1440 range.
    >>

    >
    > 1440 / 4 = 360
    > 2880 / 8 = 360
    > 5760 / 16 = 360
    >
    >> You simply show your ignorance by saying Epson's "native dpi" is what
    >> some think they should send to the printer in ppi. Do show me a cite
    >> from Epson about this, all right?
    >>

    > Jeesh - your condescending tone would make it very difficult for you to
    > get a point across - presuming that by chance you've had one worth
    > conveying.
    > I never said at native dpi, but at a divisor of native dpi.
    > You obviously haven't done any testing to see if the theory has any
    > merit - as if you had (unless you were sight-impaired) then you
    > shouldn't be arguing with me.


    Wasn't condescension so much as a statement.
    IAE, virtually everyone else talking about "native resolution" speaks in
    terms of ppi. Your interchanging them rather than showing any citations
    from Epson, or Canon for that matter, pretty well concedes the point.
    That stated dpi settings for the printer is often a multiple of the
    oft-quoted preferred ppi input settings proves nothing.

    See if you can inject an actual fact!

    --
    john mcwilliams
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 23, 2009
    #14
  15. Bob G

    Me Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Me wrote:
    >> John McWilliams wrote:
    >>> Me wrote:
    >>>> John McWilliams wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>> I doubt that you'll find that - but native dpi resolutions are
    >>>>>>> divisible by 300dpi and 360 respectively, and if you play with the
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Still, a shibboleth. And it's ppi in the image, not dpi.
    >>>>
    >>>> And it's dpi in the printer, not in the image. Did you have a point
    >>>> to make?
    >>>
    >>> Yes. See below.
    >>>
    >>> << Snipped bits out >>
    >>>>>
    >>>> Done. My tests with images and resolution targets did show a small
    >>>> advantage to resizing image ppi to a divisor or printer native dpi
    >>>> resolution. (Epson 360dpi) I also commented that it's a small
    >>>> advantage, so small that I don't generally bother.
    >>>
    >>> No modern Epson, set for hq printing, prints at anything near 360 or
    >>> 300 dpi. More likely to be in the 1440 range.
    >>>

    >>
    >> 1440 / 4 = 360
    >> 2880 / 8 = 360
    >> 5760 / 16 = 360
    >>
    >>> You simply show your ignorance by saying Epson's "native dpi" is what
    >>> some think they should send to the printer in ppi. Do show me a cite
    >>> from Epson about this, all right?
    >>>

    >> Jeesh - your condescending tone would make it very difficult for you
    >> to get a point across - presuming that by chance you've had one worth
    >> conveying.
    >> I never said at native dpi, but at a divisor of native dpi.
    >> You obviously haven't done any testing to see if the theory has any
    >> merit - as if you had (unless you were sight-impaired) then you
    >> shouldn't be arguing with me.

    >
    > Wasn't condescension so much as a statement.
    > IAE, virtually everyone else talking about "native resolution" speaks in
    > terms of ppi. Your interchanging them rather than showing any citations
    > from Epson, or Canon for that matter, pretty well concedes the point.

    And where exactly did I "interchange them"?
    > That stated dpi settings for the printer is often a multiple of the
    > oft-quoted preferred ppi input settings proves nothing.

    The results of an experiment to test the theory does seem to support it.
    But I suspect that you'd prefer to argue rather than test it yourself.
    > See if you can inject an actual fact!
    >
     
    Me, Jan 23, 2009
    #15
  16. Me wrote:
    > John McWilliams wrote:


    >> See if you can inject an actual fact!
     
    John McWilliams, Jan 23, 2009
    #16
  17. Bob G

    Me Guest

    John McWilliams wrote:
    > Me wrote:
    >> John McWilliams wrote:

    >
    >>> See if you can inject an actual fact!

    >

    Aaahhhh.
    Nice trolling John.
    You had me for a while.
     
    Me, Jan 23, 2009
    #17
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alice

    SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

    Alice, Mar 6, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    128
    Views:
    1,569
  2. Alice

    SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

    Alice, Mar 6, 2005, in forum: 35mm Cameras
    Replies:
    126
    Views:
    1,770
  3. .
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,202
    Max Perl
    Jan 27, 2008
  4. Bob G
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    334
    Bob G
    Jan 24, 2009
  5. Alice

    SIDE BY SIDE - D70 vs Rebel XT/350D

    Alice, Mar 6, 2005, in forum: Digital Cameras
    Replies:
    88
    Views:
    763
Loading...

Share This Page