G2 to 10D .... image quality questions

[edmund]

I moved from a G2 to a 10D. I was happy with the image quality of the G2 but needed the responsiveness and flexibility of a dslr. I've had the 10D for a few weeks - with the 17-40L, 28-135IS and 50/1.8 - and have been thrilled with it. Wow! However, I am surprised that there doesn't seem to be a significant jump in image quality with any of the lenses over the G2. I've done tripod comparisons of interior bookcases etc with the G2 and 10D with each new lens - all set at f5.6 using large jpegs - and, out of camera, there isn't a whole lot of difference in out-of-camera images between the two cameras. I am happy with the idea that the 10D produces a softer image out of camera and that post-processing is necessary .... I like using PS7! But tell me people - am I missing something? I haven't tested the 10D and lenses using RAW .... will that produce the mystical 'tack sharp' images? Or am I expecting too much on the image quality front. Your comments/ advice would be appreciated.

[edmund]

perhaps I should add that I view 'actual pixels' in Photoshop before doing any processing.

[billhercus]

You surprise me. After using the DRebel for 9 months with some good lenses, I took my G3 on a sailing holiday and have just processed the RAW results.

Not to mention the much greater noise of the G3, there is a marked image quality improvement with the 300D at 100%.

You must have a problem, may I humbly suggest.

[wintoid]

I love my old G1 but even with the kit lens my 300d completely trounces it for image quality, not to mention control over the focus, exposure and flash. When I strapped a 50mm 1.4 lens to the 300d the quality improved by several orders of magnitude IMHO. I do generally shoot RAW.

[OviV]

A couple of things to consider are:

1) G2 will do in-camera sharpening, 10D does not.

2) 5.6 is probably not the sharpest setting for most lens. Try stopping down a little more and see what difference it makes.

Ovi

[msvadi]

that's strange. the image quality of the DRebel is much-much better than with my old G2. To tell the truth, the difference is simply shocking for me.

[jyrgen]

10D vs G3, big difference for me too. Biggest difference is in noise, probably. Of course, even more shocking were the differences in focusing speed, shutter lag and such things.

[Cordell]

Honestly, point and shoot cameras are execellent today. The results are remarkable. However, DSLRs are not just for simple image comparisons. The true nature of DSLR and SLRs is in handelining and the flexabiltiy it allows in difficult to photograph situations. To me it all depends on what you are trying to accomplish with the shot. Go into a low light situation and try cranking the ISO of a point and shoot to it's highest level then compare that image to a DSLR in the same lighting situation. Your old Canon G series will be shamed at best. Of course there are many other factors to consider with the DSLR too, but I'm not getting into all the "L" issues.

[edmund]

So - can any of you post a 100% crop of something in focus at a distance of 10plus feet ..... something you consider 'tack sharp'. (or alternatively, tell me how to post a crop for you all to have a look at). As I've said, I'm definitely not unhappy with the camera - but when I hear some of you saying the difference between your old G series and new slr's is startling .... well, I'd like to see waht you mean.

[scottbergerphoto]

I moved from a G2 to a 10D. I was happy with the image quality of the G2 but needed the responsiveness and flexibility of a dslr. I've had the 10D for a few weeks - with the 17-40L, 28-135IS and 50/1.8 - and have been thrilled with it. Wow! However, I am surprised that there doesn't seem to be a significant jump in image quality with any of the lenses over the G2. I've done tripod comparisons of interior bookcases etc with the G2 and 10D with each new lens - all set at f5.6 using large jpegs - and, out of camera, there isn't a whole lot of difference in out-of-camera images between the two cameras. I am happy with the idea that the 10D produces a softer image out of camera and that post-processing is necessary .... I like using PS7! But tell me people - am I missing something? I haven't tested the 10D and lenses using RAW .... will that produce the mystical 'tack sharp' images? Or am I expecting too much on the image quality front. Your comments/ advice would be appreciated.
I expect the G2 to produce almost identical quality to the 10D under certain conditions.
How are you comparing image quality? What Iso are you using?
The G2 is a great camera with 4mp's. It will print beautiful 8x10's but the detail will not be quite as good as the detail on an 8x10 from the 10D if you look real close. You won't see any difference at all on a computer monitor. All you need is 72dpi for that. There really isn't that much difference in resolution between a 4 and 6 mp camera. You will notice greater differences as you go up in ISO. The G2 will show more noise at higher ISO's and if you start to get really big in image size.
The real advantages of a dslr over a p&sare:
1.flexibility with lenses and attachments
2.low noise at higher iso's (200 and above)
3.reduced shutter lag time
4.ability to narrow the dof with wide apertures
5.AI Servo to track moving subjects
As you see you can do much more with a DSLR then a P&S. That doesn't mean a good P&S won't give you a great image.

The G2 and 10D will both produce beautiful 8x10's at low ISO (50-100). My G2 is always in my bag.
Regards,
Scott

[edmund]

thanks Scott - and others. It's kind of reassuring to read your post - I guess it echos my intuition. As you rightly say, when it comes down to issues such as usable high-number ISO, general flexibility and responsiveness - the 10D is fantastic. One of these days I'm going to have to print something .... then I'll see the difference??
Thanks again

[scottbergerphoto]

thanks Scott - and others. It's kind of reassuring to read your post - I guess it echos my intuition. As you rightly say, when it comes down to issues such as usable high-number ISO, general flexibility and responsiveness - the 10D is fantastic. One of these days I'm going to have to print something .... then I'll see the difference??
Thanks again
If you want a portrait with a blurred background as soft as butta, put down the G2 and pick up a 10D with an 85mm f/1.8 wide open. That's something you just can't do with the G2. The same is true for ambient light night photography hand held at ISO 1600. This was shot with my Mark II, handheld, Iso 1600, Canon 16-35 f/2.8:

http://www.pbase.com/image/31607976.jpg

Regards,
Scott

[dsze]

Scott,

...handheld, ISO1600, f/2.8..... I'm going to guess that your shutter speed was 1/45?

-daniel

[scottbergerphoto]

Scott,

...handheld, ISO1600, f/2.8..... I'm going to guess that your shutter speed was 1/45?

-daniel
1/40. Give the man a cigar! :)
regards,
Scott

[dsze]

Haha.. thanks.. Actually, after I posted that guess, I looked back at the photo and thought maybe the ambient light was a little more than I had originally thought and I wondered if I guessed too slow.... Its hard too tell based on that sky? Was it just toward evening or was that in the dark of night?

Nice photo by the way!

-daniel

[DocFrankenstein]

This is the second thread. People are getting better pictures with their point and shoots. :? The world is going crazy.

[scottbergerphoto]

Haha.. thanks.. Actually, after I posted that guess, I looked back at the photo and thought maybe the ambient light was a little more than I had originally thought and I wondered if I guessed too slow.... Its hard too tell based on that sky? Was it just toward evening or was that in the dark of night?

Nice photo by the way!

-daniel
Thanks. It was about 1 hour after sundown (9:00PM)
Regards,
Scott

[scottbergerphoto]

This is the second thread. People are getting better pictures with their point and shoots. :? The world is going crazy.
If you can settle for ISO 200 or less, using the same lens all the time, shutter lag, no Servo mode for moving subjects, then a P&S can give you great shots.
Photos from DSLR's have less in camera processing and need more out of camera work.
Scott