How different are consumer cameras from DSLRs?

Discussion in 'Australia Photography' started by Douglas MacDonald, Feb 6, 2007.

  1. Image wise, not very different at all. Certainly not enough to justify 300%
    and 400% more expense Or should that be in accountant-speak? Oh shit...
    Accountants don't work that way, do they? OK Three times and 4 times as much
    to but a DSLR. Hows that for the money men?

    http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm
     
    Douglas MacDonald, Feb 6, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. (Same link, different group, same response..)

    First up, they are poor jpegs. I downloaded the *Canon* one first (so
    sue me, Douglas), and the artefacts and almost gif-like posterisation
    are glaringly obvious even in that one - how did he miss this..? On
    the Panasonic image there are strong sharpening halos and jaggies on
    high-contrast leaf edges... But because of his setting choices there
    is not a single high contrast edge visible on the Canon image - the
    central area of the plant is the only bit that is in focus.

    His description also states that he has heavily processed these images
    with levels (*and* shadow/highlight adjustments), sharpening (same
    settings for both, even though anyone who has used prosumers and dslrs
    knows that the sharpening regimes are very different), and then
    Neatimage. I thought this was comparing out of camera results rather
    than processing skills (or lack thereof)?

    Further, one would have thought on a simple subject like this, he
    would have at least made a token effort to match the images up, ie
    roughly the same framing and a little more depth of field from the
    Canon. According to the EXIF the Canon image was shot at 70mm focal
    length and f4.5, so he clearly had headroom.. The EXIF on the
    Panasonic image shows that he used an aperture of f5.6, presumably in
    the full knowledge of the additional d-o-f this was introducing, above
    and beyond that due to the different sensor sizes. Why?

    I also note with further disillusionment that he has overexposed by
    +0.33 (see EXIF 'exposure bias' data) on the Canon - not surprisingly
    he notes blown highlights. On the Panasonic? -1.33 exposure
    compensation.

    Sigh.

    The EXIF data makes his 'explanatory' comments interesting:
    "The (Canon) image has very clear blown highlights. This is after the
    automatic development had reduced the exposure chosen by the camera by
    1.25 stops. This suggests to me that the camera is unable to meter
    exposure as accurately as it should."

    The *camera* didn't choose to overexpose the Canon shot - *Douglas*
    did. Processing the RAW images (his 'automatic development') will
    *not* bring back data lost because of an initial poor exposure
    compensation choice. (Especially when comparing one image at +0.33
    with another at -1.33.) You can clearly see that the Canon image is
    overexposed - it has nothing remotely approaching the dark tones in
    the Panasonic image - not very surprising when Douglas shot the images
    with almost two stops different exposure.

    I can't be bothered going further.
     
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 6, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. : On Feb 6, 4:44 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas-
    : > wrote:
    : > Image wise, not very different at all. Certainly not enough to justify
    300%
    : > and 400% more expense Or should that be in accountant-speak? Oh shit...
    : > Accountants don't work that way, do they? OK Three times and 4 times as
    much
    : > to but a DSLR. Hows that for the money men?
    : >
    : > http://www.photosbydouglas.com/image-quality.htm
    :

    :
    : I can't be bothered going further.
    :
    Just as well. No one is interested in what you have to say.
     
    Douglas MacDonald, Feb 6, 2007
    #3
  4. Nicely sidestepped. So you are not even going to dispute (or
    apologise for) the fact that you exposed the cameras differently by
    nearly two stops, and then blamed one for blowing highlights?

    (O:

    Just the facts, ma'am, just the facts...
     
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 6, 2007
    #4
  5. Douglas MacDonald

    Pete D Guest

    But surely the cameras should have automatically compensated for Dogs total
    lack of knowledge of photography? Poor cameras must cringe every time they
    get picked up!!
     
    Pete D, Feb 6, 2007
    #5
  6. Douglas MacDonald

    textilis Guest

    1hr into joining this group I'd have a wild guess that dougs accountant
    (probably his wife) says he can't afford a 20d.
     
    textilis, Feb 7, 2007
    #6
  7. Geez, you chose a bad time to wander in... (O;

    Just don't take Doug too seriously. And don't ever criticise his work
    or there'll be a bounty on your head!

    Anyway, as predictable as ever, Douglas has quickly withdrawn the
    damning images with their damning EXIF data... whoops I mean he ran
    out of bandwidth - so many thousands of folk were downloading them,
    that....

    No, I can't keep it up, forgive me while I laugh uncontrollably! Oh,
    Magoo, you've done it again!

    Hey Douglas, tell us why you have refused all offers from others to
    host your images on unlimited bandwidth servers? Or why don't you
    just put them on a free pbase account for 30 days?


    PS - "Comparrison" is spelt with only one R, I think...
     
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 7, 2007
    #7
  8. Douglas MacDonald

    googlegroups Guest

    Douglas, I have 5.5Tb (5500Gb) of allocated transfer each month. I'll
    host your two bandwidth-sucking full sized images for you.
     
    googlegroups, Feb 7, 2007
    #8
  9. Douglas MacDonald

    Oz Guest

    and I have my own server sitting here on a 10Mbit fibre optic backbone with
    no upload limit. I can host for you if you like, I'm sure that a couple of
    full sized photos wont even be noticed in the larger scheme of things. :)

    Oz
     
    Oz, Feb 8, 2007
    #9
  10. Douglas MacDonald

    Mr.T Guest

    Quite the reverse, I quite enjoyed reading his expose' :)

    MrT.
     
    Mr.T, Feb 8, 2007
    #10
  11. Douglas MacDonald

    Geoff Guest

    The only difference I have found is the aspect ratio. DSLR have an aspect
    ratio of 2:3, whereas the normal consumer cameras have an aspect ratio of
    3:4 (closer fit to the typical PC screen sizes)
     
    Geoff, Feb 8, 2007
    #11
  12. : On Feb 6, 4:44 pm, "Douglas MacDonald" <photosbydouglas-
    : > wrote:
    :
    : First up, they are poor jpegs. I downloaded the *Canon* one first (so
    : sue me, Douglas), and the artefacts and almost gif-like posterisation
    : are glaringly obvious even in that one - how did he miss this..? On
    : the Panasonic image there are strong sharpening halos and jaggies on
    : high-contrast leaf edges... But because of his setting choices there
    : is not a single high contrast edge visible on the Canon image - the
    : central area of the plant is the only bit that is in focus.

    I missed nothing Mark...
    Photoshop's compression is the problem. It's pretty hard for those on dialup
    and ADSL1 links to pull down a full size image without some compression and
    anyway... What are you doing downloading my images when I clearly forbid you
    from taking them? More stealing by the master of image theft?

    The concept of comparing 2 so totally different cameras this way is to let
    the cameras meter and focus on factory program mode. It levels out the
    results. Exactly what I did and clearly in the EXIF data. But you didn't
    mention this, did you?

    Is it my fault that the Panasonic consistantly need less intervention to
    correct exposure errors than the Canon does? Not my fault either that the
    Canon has an absolutely shocking ability to get it's "AUTO" white balance
    right all (most) of the time but the lowly consumer grade Panasonic doesn't
    seem to have that problem... Hmmm. My fault too perhaps?

    Mark, why did you take this opportunity to announce to the world that these
    were MY settings... Nice try, but as always... WRONG. I'm totally convinced
    now that you only look at pictures, don't read the whole article before
    shooting from the hip about which you know bugger all about.
    :
    : His description also states that he has heavily processed these images
    : with levels (*and* shadow/highlight adjustments), sharpening (same
    : settings for both, even though anyone who has used prosumers and dslrs
    : knows that the sharpening regimes are very different), and then
    : Neatimage. I thought this was comparing out of camera results rather
    : than processing skills (or lack thereof)?
    ---------------------------------------
    What's this? RAW images from different types of Digital cameras have
    different sharpening regimes? Better tell us these regimes, then. eh?

    Don't you know it's impossible to display a camera RAW image in a browser?
    Maybe you also didn't know a RAW file has to be 'developed' as in "heavily
    processed" before ever it is usable on the Internet too? Oh well, I guess
    you'll learn these things if you pay attention. It might help if you also
    had some experience with RAW file development too.
    ---------------------------------------
    :
    : Further, one would have thought on a simple subject like this, he
    : would have at least made a token effort to match the images up, ie
    : roughly the same framing and a little more depth of field from the
    : Canon. According to the EXIF the Canon image was shot at 70mm focal
    : length and f4.5, so he clearly had headroom..
    ----------------------------------------
    This is where the subjective nature of what I did, simply wouldn't work
    doing it your way. If I had matched the images up, they would not have shown
    the benefit of two totally different cameras taking different pictures of
    the same subject, one with a (35mm eq) 135mm lens and the other with a (35mm
    eq) 70mm lens which means a much wider gap in FL than in 325mm terms.

    It's very clear from your ravings Mark, you do not understand how a 1:1
    focal length varies between the three cameras due to different sensor sizes.
    Depth of field will be greater with smaller sensors, even though the 1:1
    Focal Length is almost twice as long on the smaller sensor camera.

    Mark... Before you start making an idiot of yourself (again), you first have
    know what you are talking about. Last year it was my enlargement of digital
    images you made such a fool of yourself over. The world has caught up now,
    you can buy better enlargement programs than the one I developed but one
    thing is unchanged... I did then and do today, enlarge postcard size images
    to wall posters. Something you never accepted I could do.

    This year it's your total lack of knowledge of the technical differences of
    images made with digital cameras having different size sensors and how it
    effects otherwise similar images. You've come a long way since you started
    to learn about digital photography but not far enough to stop making a fool
    of yourself by attacking someone who does know a thing or two.
    --------------------------------------
    : The EXIF on the Panasonic image shows that he used an aperture of f5.6,
    : presumably in the full knowledge of the additional d-o-f this was
    introducing, above
    : and beyond that due to the different sensor sizes. Why?
    :
    : Sigh.
    ---------------------------
    Sigh yourself mate. Do you actually read or just steal the pictures?
    Both cameras on "Program mode" means the cameras, not me, decide the
    exposure. Your chose to blame me for "choosing" the exposure... Nothing at
    all to do with my choice and everything to do with the way Canon created
    thier "program" mode.

    You really don't have a clue about photography with a variety of digital
    cameras, do you? One stop of difference with the smaller apeture using a
    (1:1) 135mm FL and the one stop larger aperture on (1:1) 70mm and the 70mm
    lens has ultra shallow DOF when if it were the same 1:1 size sensor, it
    would be greater...

    What does that tell you Mark? READ what I wrote about it and if you still
    don't know, SHUT UP until you do..
    -----------------------------
    :
    : The *camera* didn't choose to overexpose the Canon shot - *Douglas*
    : did. Processing the RAW images (his 'automatic development') will
    : *not* bring back data lost because of an initial poor exposure
    : compensation choice. (Especially when comparing one image at +0.33
    : with another at -1.33.) You can clearly see that the Canon image is
    : overexposed - it has nothing remotely approaching the dark tones in
    : the Panasonic image - not very surprising when Douglas shot the images
    : with almost two stops different exposure.
    -------------------------------
    Seriously Mark... You really need to stop targeting me for the sake of it.
    Something about you won't let you appologise when you are wrong. That same
    something must be the reason you so quickly grasped what I published and
    wrongly (yet again) thought you could do some "Doug bashing" with it when in
    reality, you are out of your depth.

    Program mode is what "Chooses the exposure", not me. READ THE EXIF you so
    wrongly tried to use as a means of belittling me. AUTOMATIC is the flavour
    of this comparison... AUTOMATIC exposure. AUTOMATIC exposure compensation by
    ACR based on Adobe's very, very good method of assessing the image and
    deciding on how much exposure compensation (if any) to apply to balance out
    a scene for dynamic range.

    : I can't be bothered going further.
     
    Douglas MacDonald, Feb 8, 2007
    #12
  13. :
    : : > Douglas, I have 5.5Tb (5500Gb) of allocated transfer each month. I'll
    : > host your two bandwidth-sucking full sized images for you.
    : >
    :
    : and I have my own server sitting here on a 10Mbit fibre optic backbone
    with
    : no upload limit. I can host for you if you like, I'm sure that a couple
    of
    : full sized photos wont even be noticed in the larger scheme of things. :)
    :
    : Oz
    :

    Thanks for your offer but 260 downloads of a pair of full size images in
    less than 6 hours and I actually want to know who is doing it. Anyone who
    wants the images, only has to ask.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas MacDonald, Feb 8, 2007
    #13
  14. oh you're seeing a whole team of shrinks, aren't you?
    Please explain to us how someone would view any of your images without
    downloading them.
    If you truly forbid anyone from downloading your images, stop posting
    them. And don't kid yourself, they aint worth stealing anyway.

    I'll ignore the rest of your possibly psychotic rant.
     
    Andrew Hennell, Feb 8, 2007
    #14
  15. So review your server logs.
    Add an authentication process before downloading.
    Or stop making them available and then winging like an '8yo kid who's
    dropped their icecream' when people actually look at the crap you're
    offering.

    :)
     
    Andrew Hennell, Feb 8, 2007
    #15
  16. : Douglas MacDonald wrote:
    :
    : > anyway... What are you doing downloading my images when I clearly forbid
    you
    : > from taking them? More stealing by the master of image theft?
    :
    : oh you're seeing a whole team of shrinks, aren't you?
    : Please explain to us how someone would view any of your images without
    : downloading them.
    : If you truly forbid anyone from downloading your images, stop posting
    : them. And don't kid yourself, they aint worth stealing anyway.
    :
    : I'll ignore the rest of your possibly psychotic rant.

    Hello Andrew...
    If you can read into me forbidding Mark Thomas from downloading any of my
    images as including you or anyone else. Maybe it is you who should be seeing
    the shrink?

    Viewing an image in a web browser does indeed put the image on your hard
    drive. It also guarantees it will be deleted after a reasonable time,
    usually measured in days.

    Downloading an image... Is not considered in the same way. Mr Thomas
    downloads my images and then uses them in a way never intended or done by
    normal people.

    This is not viewing them in a web browser as Internet images ...which is the
    only purpose images can legally be transferred to your hard drive without
    the permission of the copyright owner. It is taking them (stealing) without
    the consent of the copyright owner.

    Somehow I get the idea that you, as a publisher, might need to know the
    difference and maybe, just maybe, you really do know the difference but are
    bored and using this thread for your own entertainment instead of having
    anything constructive to contribute.

    There is no point in saying you were ever interested in buying my calendar
    business yet... You so desperately needed to get in on the act when a few
    genius accountants decided my plain English description wasn't good enough
    for them. I can't help but feel you are doing it again now.

    The traffic in this group has fallen to an all time low, thanks to useless
    posts by people like you with idle minds who want to argue about idiotic
    details of what represents a profit when they haven't a interest in the post
    anyway. What did you post in this thread that might have had something
    constructive to it? ZERO again.

    Now, when you have absolutely zero to add with any constructive comments,
    you are at it again. One only has to look at the appalling behaviour of a
    few genius photographers posting here with their attitude towards Daniel
    Rocha who once participated in this group but now only offers a link to his
    site. Regardless of his photos being good or bad, the wankers who condemn
    him contribute as much as you do (ZERO) to this group. How does that make
    you feel Andrew? Satisfied? Sick? What? Tell me mate, I really would like to
    know what makes you do it.

    Douglas
     
    Douglas MacDonald, Feb 8, 2007
    #16
  17. : Douglas MacDonald wrote:
    :
    : > Thanks for your offer but 260 downloads of a pair of full size images in
    : > less than 6 hours and I actually want to know who is doing it. Anyone
    who
    : > wants the images, only has to ask.
    :
    : So review your server logs.
    : Add an authentication process before downloading.
    : Or stop making them available and then winging like an '8yo kid who's
    : dropped their icecream' when people actually look at the crap you're
    : offering.
    :
    ::)

    Hey Andy... Get Stuffed.
     
    Douglas MacDonald, Feb 8, 2007
    #17
  18. It just proves that 260 people read your post and went to your website.
    When I posted my "Comets love the MZ60" post, I had a couple hundred hits
    pretty quick too. There must be a lot of lurkers in the NGs. who read but
    don't post. In case you've missed it, every time someone views a web page,
    the html file AND any images referenced in the html file are DOWNLOADED by
    the web viewer. If you think downloading images is illegal, then in Doug's
    Fantasy World, every person who has ever viewed a website, is guilty of
    illegally downloading images. Get over yourself doug - the images aren't
    worth stealing. If I was to do an image comparison like you did, I would
    post 2 images not worth stealing too. The 260 downloads would simply be 260
    people who read what you posted and wanted to see for themselves what you
    were talking about. They were not 260 image thieves.
     
    Graham Fountain, Feb 8, 2007
    #18
  19. Long post, mainly only of interest to Douglas.

    With every post, he just digs deeper. Dunno why I bother, given that
    everyone here now knows what he is like, but I can't resist rubbing it
    in, given his recent attacks on all and sundry.
    So you admit they were bad. The "Photoshop compression" bullshit is
    just that - sewerage. You could have avoided the problem completely
    by saving the full size ones as TIF's. And even as JPEG's you could
    have simply wound the quality up so that the loss was negligible - but
    you have already proven you have no f-ing idea about jpegs when you
    post rubbish like this:

    http://www.photosbydouglas.com/Gallery/balls/slides/group-pier-2 (Small).html

    I particularly like the overall softness (covering lack of focus - did
    you focus on the tree perchance?) and the astonishing artefacts,
    especially above the girl's (6th from left) head. Nice colours. (O;
    What a joke.
    First you complain that too many downloaded them, then you say that?
    Your posts and website *told* everyone to click on them to get them -
    that's a download, Dougie. By visiting any page with an image on it,
    the viewer has *downloaded* it and it gets saved to their hard drive
    cache. You still having problems with this concept?
    More crap from someone who hasn't yet been able to prove that I stole
    anything?
    Yes, I did. And it was the EXIF data that showed that YOU had played
    with exposure compensation. (It's called Exposure Bias in the EXIF
    data - I told you this before but maybe you weren't listening - why
    not go check it now, or would you like me to post it for you?) You
    had the Canon overexposing by +0.33, and the Panasonic was set to
    underexpose -1.33. Yes, it's sitting there in your EXIF data and it
    was seen and noted by plenty of folk other than me. Just check the
    other thread (rec...35mm, "D-MAC'S PICS !") - you know, the one that
    you haven't had the guts to return to.

    Exposure compensation is something the *camera operator* does, Dougie
    dear, especially when in PROGRAM mode (see below).

    So you are lying or incompetent - which?
    So you honestly think the sharpening you would apply to the Panasonic
    is the same as you would give the Canon? Did you even glance at your
    own images? Ignorance and inexperience.
    The idea was that you were presenting the UNTOUCHED, UNPROCESSED
    images for people to examine. Otherwise the comparison is absolutely
    worthless, even before your incompetence hits it. Most people with a
    clue know how to view tif's and even, gasp, raw files. I can... (O;
    And yes, double gasp, we would have to temporarily save the file -
    just like any image is temporarily saved in the browser's cache.
    Yes, well done Doug, and as soon as you process, it is no longer as it
    was taken, and could have been deliberately manipulated to make a
    point, or incompetently processed. Or in your case, clearly both.
    And then you added on Photoshop manipulations, Neatimage... If you
    wanted to simply show your 'mastery' of those programs, you did that
    quite well... (O:
    Sarcasm seems to be all you have left. You have no credibility.
    *I* didn't mention the different focal length, other than to note that
    they were zooms, it was a static subject, and you could have even
    moved back or forward...! It would not have taken rocket science to
    align the image content a little better. Clearly it *is* rocket
    science to you.

    And next to this strawman argument, I notice you still avoid answering
    why you used a SMALLER aperture on the smaller sensor, which
    exaggerated the d-o-f difference. You didn't *have* to - you *chose*
    to. Just like you CHOSE to use inappropriate exposure compensation to
    ensure the Canon image was overexposed.

    Again - deliberate manipulation, or incompetence. Which?
    Bwahahah!! That's funny!!! In other words, you give up, and now you
    want to cover your arse, just like you have tried to do by pulling
    these images.. Anyone is welcome to search on those threads and they
    will see that Douglas' claims about his enlargements have been roundly
    criticised and questioned by *many* others, and not once did he manage
    to show anything conclusive. Even those he claims to have supported
    him (Gordon Moat and Colin D. amongst others) have had to post
    disclaimers correcting various Douglas.. er.. 'interpretations'.. And
    Gisle is still waiting for his challenge - I wonder what Douglas'
    excuse is *now*, given his marvellous interpolation algorithm has now
    been surpassed. Why not show us? - we could compare it to what was
    available then. (more excuses will follow..)

    All talk, no walk.
    No, Douglas. I always said of course you *could* enlarge them, but I
    questioned their *quality*. You claimed to be able to add real
    detail, and to have an algorithm that was better than all others. I
    never accepted *that*. And now.. funny how it just sort of... died.
    Bit like the printing franchises/stores that never existed. If they
    did/do, give us an address - I and others still want to test your
    enlargement quality.
    Nice attempt at another strawman. The way you roll these out anyone
    would think you were a scarecrow manufacturer. Your images damned
    you, Douglas. YOU chose to use exposure compensation to distort the
    results. YOU chose to use an aperture smaller than necessary on the
    smaller sensor camera to exaggerate the d-o-f difference and make the
    images so different it was a useless comparison, even before the post
    processing stupidity.

    The images were downloaded (on Douglas' suggestion) by numerous folk
    other than me - I'm happy to repost the image's EXIF details if anyone
    wishes to see it, and others will be able to verify it. Why don't
    *you* repost the EXIF data, Douglas, so others can see where you blew
    it? Scared that it will show your subterfuge, or scared that it will
    blow your bandwidth again? (O:

    And don't bother trying to fudge it - too many people have seen the
    real thing.
    Who is that? It certainly isn't you.
    Astonishing lack of knowledge. In *Program* mode you *can* set the
    exposure compensation (it's called bias in the EXIF) and YOU DID -
    it's right there to see in your own EXIF data!! Before looking even
    more foolish, think about this *very* carefully, and then go read your
    manual. Are you ready?

    It's *only* in fully Auto (that's 'A U T O' - look it up) mode that
    you don't get to set the exp.comp. In Program mode you *can*, and
    did. The same terms are used on both the Pana and the Canon (except
    Canon calls it Program AE I think). Let me repeat:

    Don't you know *anything* about your own cameras????? Clearly I know
    more about them than you do...
    Pot, meet kettle.

    Douglas, you couldn't have screwed this up worse if you tried. But
    thanks for the laughs!
     
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 8, 2007
    #19
  20. Thanks, MrT. (great name by the way - I often get called that at
    work.. hey you aren't *me* are you? I try not to sockpuppet, but
    maybe I've lost the plot.. (O: )

    I hate to tell you this, but there's an even longer expose below...
    (O;

    But you can skip it - basically just says the same things, given that
    Dougie is now pretending it all never happened, as usual...
     
    mark.thomas.7, Feb 8, 2007
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.