For your amusement and edification...

Colin_D wrote:
> m II wrote:
>> One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
>> camera. The other was about 900$ US.
>>
>> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG
>>
>> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG
>>
>> Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed
>> reader tell which is which?
>>
>> There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre
>> photography, so please spare the vulgarities.
>>
>> Both files are about 3 MB each.
>>
>> This is as much about lenses as sensors...
>>
>>
>> mike
>
> Considering the images are downsized to fewer pixels than either
> cameras' native image dimensions, it's difficult to judge on
> definition alone, but observing the flare on pic2 and the better
> micro-contrast of pic1, I'd say pic 1 was the superior camera.
>
> Colin D.

Mike,

I preferred the very slightly lower visible noise and the reduced JPEG
artefacts (on edges) of number 2. Pic 2 showed some into-the-sun lens
flare, but had better detail in places (e.g. the distant snow, top right).
Pic 1 shows more purple fringing, and perhaps more sharpening.

I would be disappointed were a DSLR to take images of this quality, but
from viewing on the screen (rather than a print) I would vote for pic 2 as
being from the more expensive camera.

David
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

"Colin_D" <nospam DeleteThis @nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:47bfd9a2$0$26046$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>m II wrote:
>> One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
>> camera. The other was about 900$ US.
>>
>> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG
>>
>> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG
>>
>> Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader
>> tell which is which?
>>
>> There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography,
>> so please spare the vulgarities.
>>
>> Both files are about 3 MB each.
>>
>> This is as much about lenses as sensors...
>>
>>
>> mike
>
> Considering the images are downsized to fewer pixels than either cameras'
> native image dimensions, it's difficult to judge on definition alone, but
> observing the flare on pic2 and the better micro-contrast of pic1, I'd say
> pic 1 was the superior camera.
>
> Colin D.
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
>

If it is it is poorly focsed on purpose then.
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 09:42:39 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.neither-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
wrote:

>I preferred the very slightly lower visible noise and the reduced JPEG
>artefacts (on edges) of number 2. Pic 2 showed some into-the-sun lens
>flare, but had better detail in places (e.g. the distant snow, top right).
>Pic 1 shows more purple fringing, and perhaps more sharpening.

Almost exactly what I was going to write.

>I would be disappointed were a DSLR to take images of this quality, but
>from viewing on the screen (rather than a print) I would vote for pic 2 as
>being from the more expensive camera.

I have no idea if it was the better camera but I consider it
to be the better image overall - despite the flare.

--
John Bean
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

"m II" <c.RemoveThis@in.the.hat> wrote in message news:ZGQvj.36844$FO1.9246@edtnps82...
> One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
> camera. The other was about 900$ US.
>
> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG
>
> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG
>
> Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader
> tell which is which?
>
> There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography,
> so please spare the vulgarities.
>
> Both files are about 3 MB each.
>
> This is as much about lenses as sensors...
>
>
> mike

The DSLR case is missing in pic2 - hence it was taken by the DSLR. Also pic2
is not filled with purple fringing.

JOhn
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

"Eatmorepies" <jcf.TakeThisOut@ali.co.uk> wrote
news:62acojF221j9iU1@mid.individual.net...
>
>
> "m II" <c.TakeThisOut@in.the.hat> wrote in message
> news:ZGQvj.36844$FO1.9246@edtnps82...
>> One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
>> camera. The other was about 900$ US.


Image quality in both is really bad.
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

m II wrote:
>
> One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
> camera. The other was about 900$ US.
>
> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG
>
> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG
>
> Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader
> tell which is which?
>
> There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography,
> so please spare the vulgarities.
>
> Both files are about 3 MB each.
>
> This is as much about lenses as sensors...

I wouldn't call it a fair comparison then, with one lens at f/2.8 and the
other at f/5.6.
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

On 2008-02-23, m II <c.DeleteThis@in.the.hat> wrote:
> One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
> camera. The other was about 900$ US.
>
> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG
>
> http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG
>
> Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader
> tell which is which?
>

Neither of them is particularly sharp, they both let go of colour in a
rather ugly way. The second seems to handle the jaggies rather better. I
don't like the mess either of them has made of the road surface.

Even after looking at the EXIF I have no idea which is the more
expensive. I wouldn't want to pay more than £100 for the second one,
which I much prefer to the first. An acceptable snapshot camera, not
something I'd take out on a shoot.

And neither of them is an SLR so what's the relevance?

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008 08:20:09 GMT, m II <c.DeleteThis@in.the.hat> wrote:

>One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
>camera. The other was about 900$ US.
>
>http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict1.JPG
>
>http://www3.telus.net/public/echo4/Pict2.JPG
>
>Without cheating by looking at the EXIF headers, can the esteemed reader
>tell which is which?
>
>There has been no attempt at composition or even mediocre photography,
>so please spare the vulgarities.
>
>Both files are about 3 MB each.
>
>This is as much about lenses as sensors...

I'm going to assume you didn't do anything to the images other than
rescaling them. No sharpening, noise adjustments, distortion
corrections, etc. post camera.

If it's about sensors, image 2 has some hot pixels that are lit blue
in the bottom left corner. Looking at the noise in the darker areas
of the hood, image 1 has more harsh noise splotches while image 2 has
smoother, maybe a little more film-like sensor noise. So despite the
hot pixels, I think image 2 is the better sensor and/or in camera
processor.

As for lenses, looking at the row of trees, image 1 is clearer in the
center but really falls off very badly at the edges. Very Very poor
edge performance. Inexcusably poor. Image 2 is more consistent
across the frame even though it's worse than image 1 in the center. So
I'll go with image 2 as the better lens and just hope that it's a
focusing problem.

So, since I'd say image 2 is the better sensor and lens, my guess is
that image 2 is the higher priced camera.

However, I'd be very dissapointed if either of these shots came from
my D200 with any of my lenses.

Steve
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

Wilba wrote:

> I wouldn't call it a fair comparison then, with one lens at f/2.8 and the
> other at f/5.6.
>
>

Perhaps, but both cameras were set at the factory default settings and
who am I to argue with the experts?

Both were also on auto focus.




mike
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

m II <c.TakeThisOut@in.the.hat> wrote:
> One of these incomparable works of art is the result of a 129$ US
> camera. The other was about 900$ US.

Another "I can produce terrible pictures with any camera"
contest? Or a "In daylight even a P&S can produce usable
images" aka "See my NASCAR racer being just as slow as your
runabout in stop and go traffic"?

I'm suitably unimpressed.

-Wolfgang
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

m II <c.RemoveThis@in.the.hat> wrote:

> but both cameras were set at the factory default settings and
> who am I to argue with the experts?

Imagine a painter comparing brushes without using paint ---
since that _is_ the factory default setting for them ...

-Wolfgang
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification... 

m II wrote:
> Wilba wrote:
>
>> I wouldn't call it a fair comparison then, with one lens at f/2.8 and the
>> other at f/5.6.
>
> Perhaps, but both cameras were set at the factory default settings and
> who am I to argue with the experts?

LOL! What an astonishing thing to say ... you don't know what I'm talking
about, do you?
 >> Stay informed about: For your amusement and edification...