[exwintech]

JeffJS - Love those images - and I like reading your ideas and advice... Good stuff for we lower-end learners, so - many thanks!

But were you meaning that the O.P. couldn't use a P&S camera to do focused foreground targets with blurred backgrounds? It does seem possible with a bit of "working out".

I have a Canon SX10, and have just complemented what that doesn't do (the 10fps, etc) with a Fuji HS10 - which I'm just trying to learn to use... (On the way to a K-X, really, but don't know enough yet to use a DSLR properly.)

Anyway - I'm trying to do "DSLR-like" things with what I have! Here's one from the HS10 - 1/2.3 sensor and all...

Dave.

Attached Images

View Picture EXIF

File Date

 

[Jasvox]

examples would be nice...

To me if your P&S images are more attractive than your K10D images, you need to learn the camera/processing a bit more.

Jason

[JeffJS]

JeffJS - Love those images - and I like reading your ideas and advice... Good stuff for we lower-end learners, so - many thanks!

But were you meaning that the O.P. couldn't use a P&S camera to do focused foreground targets with blurred backgrounds? It does seem possible with a bit of "working out".

I have a Canon SX10, and have just complemented what that doesn't do (the 10fps, etc) with a Fuji HS10 - which I'm just trying to learn to use... (On the way to a K-X, really, but don't know enough yet to use a DSLR properly.)

Anyway - I'm trying to do "DSLR-like" things with what I have! Here's one from the HS10 - 1/2.3 sensor and all...

Dave.

You are very much welcome, Dave. I'm glad somebody gets something out of it.

I'm not saying it's impossible to get bokeh with a P&S, obviously it is possible but, you've noted the real problem with actually controlling it. The sensor size. With a P&S you can get it if the background is some distance away but with an SLR (of any type), that distance can be inches or less.



To be fair, I would never expect a P&S to measure up to the DA*300 that was used for the above photo, it's just to illustrate the point of inches vs feet when it comes to selectively blurring for effect.

Here is one from a Super Takumar 55mm f1.8, wide open.



Where I think an SLR really shines is not just in the lenses but in the ability to capture texture and detail. This one was done several years ago with a Panasonic FZ20 and a Nikon 6t closeup lens.



This one (same rose bushes) was done with the K7 and an A50 f1:1.2 (at f5.6).



Still not the fairest compare because everything is different between the two shots, including processing. However, no amount of processing would let me avoid the bled together reds of the FZ20 (I thought then, and still do, that was a great camera).

I did a lot of post processing to clean this one up but this was one of the first Macro attempts with my Tamron LD Di 70-300, using that same Nikon 6t and the K10d..


Just for grins and giggles, here is one from a Graflex Speed Graphic using a Schnieder 135mm f4.5 lens (couldn't tell you what the exposure info is) on Kodak 4x5 transparency film, Ektachrome 100, I think (the blue stripe is a light leak in the film holder).



There are more scan errors in the above photo than photo errors, I assure you. The transparencies are tak sharp. It's one of the first scans I made with my scanner (Epson V700).

Sorry to hijack the thread. I'll let somebody else talk now.

[Rondec]

A lot of people take the step from point and shoot to SLR and expect their photos to improve. The reality is that point and shoots are fairly automatic, whereas using an SLR requires more thought. To me, the biggest two issues are focus and post processing. Focus is much more important on an SLR, because depth of field is so much less. This can give awfully pleasing results, when your subject pops out of the background, but it can be terribly discouraging when everything looks a little soft. The second issue is postprocessing. I don't know what you are using, but most programs will give you the ability to adjust sharpness, vibrance, saturation, etc. If you want, you can easily get a point and shoot look, but truthfully, I don't like that look, in general. I like something that is not quite so saturated.

I think your Sigma is probably your best lens. I would strongly consider getting a prime (DA 40 or FA 50) and walk around with that for awhile. It will cost a lot less than an EP1 and you'll find that you see the world completely differently.

[Daveinozbikes]

My thoughts on this subject are this: Using a dslr is more FUN !!!! Lots of decisions, lots of knobs and wheels and thingies. Something to conquer and it makes the brain work.
A P & S is just that ...point and shoot. BORING !!! Depends how you get your jollies......
Been there, done that.......

[Marc Sabatella]

The raw file without any adjustments is flat, lacking vibrancy, and unsharp. Raw files need to be processed.

While that's true in the broadest sense - they need to be demosaiced and converted to some sort of RGB format in order to be displayed or printer - it's not really true that one has to do any sort of custom processing. Most modern RAW processing applications apply defaults during their processing designed to more or or less emulate what the camera would have done in its own JPEG conversions. Some will even look at your camera settings to see if you've changed the camera's sharpening or saturation or contrast controls from the default values, and if so, attempt to replicate that. Meaning that with most modern RAW processing programs, a default conversion from RAW should look as good as the camera JPEG.

But it's true that a P&S JPEG will typically have noticeably higher sharpening, contrast, and saturation settings by default than a DSLR.

[egordon99]

Just got back from a weekend visit to MD. Took some shots on Sat = bright and sunny, and Sun = gray overcast. Took some at the same time and same subject as Mrs. yustr did with her new Nikon S6000 P&S. And upon downloading back home her's look better. More vibrant both color and contrast. Sharper too. Her's done in various auto mode JBGs, mine in RAW. Exposures are fine there's just no punch to them.

I'm guessing its my lens (kit 18-55, Promaster (Tamron) 70-300 and Sigma 28-70.

Somebody help before I put the whole kit up for sale and get a E-PL1

Your wife's camera's JPG engine is better at post-processing than you are

[Bob photo 4 life]

Just for grins and giggles, here is one from a Graflex Speed Graphic using a Schnieder 135mm f4.5 lens (couldn't tell you what the exposure info is) on Kodak 4x5 transparency film, Ektachrome 100, I think (the blue stripe is a light leak in the film holder).

Call it emotional attachment, I used to shoot a lot of Ektachrome transparency film because I could get it free, but I really like the look and feel of this one.

[LeeRunge]

I went through something similar to the original post with my K-7 in the first few weeks. I was using a Canon SX200 (manual control p/s) and it outputs very saturated images.

I checked the manual and changed some settings on the K-7 from bright (default) to vibrant and boosted the saturation slider +2 as well as the sharpness +2. After a few more weeks with those settings the saturation was starting to bother me (using lightroom) as it's just so easy to use pp to fix colors exactly as you like. So now it's set to "natural" and default sharpness/saturation which I prefer. The colors are muted vs the Canon out of the camera but in pp they don't get overblown as easy when you adjust for more saturation. Also some sunsets etc are better with gentle colors.


The biggest difference between the 12 mp Canon and the K-7 (14mp) is you can go 1:1 with the K-7 and see much more detail because the ISO reduction doesn't smear out detail like Canon does. Of course you get grain which is adjusted per your taste in pp but you don't lose the detail, I prefer the control.

The DA* lenses also seem to give a "depth" or 3d feeling to shots where the PS just can't compete.

That said a regular user would see little difference between either at lower resolutions used on todays monitors or posting to facebook etc. Most people don't like to hear that a 3000 dollar camera setup is the same as a 350 dollar ps but it's hard to tell the difference on a bright sunny day with your average posted to the web resolutions.

[Laurentiu Cristofor]

I'm surprised no one pointed this out, but it's worth exchanging cameras with the wife - if she still gets better shots...

[oliver939]

I'm surprised no one pointed this out, but it's worth exchanging cameras with the wife - if she still gets better shots...

indeed, that's a good point

[Wheatfield]

Just got back from a weekend visit to MD. Took some shots on Sat = bright and sunny, and Sun = gray overcast. Took some at the same time and same subject as Mrs. yustr did with her new Nikon S6000 P&S. And upon downloading back home her's look better. More vibrant both color and contrast. Sharper too. Her's done in various auto mode JBGs, mine in RAW. Exposures are fine there's just no punch to them.

I'm guessing its my lens (kit 18-55, Promaster (Tamron) 70-300 and Sigma 28-70.

Somebody help before I put the whole kit up for sale and get a E-PL1

It isn't unusual for P&S camera images to appear to have more vibrancy and sharpness. The manufacturers of these cameras set them up this way to mask the fact that they just don't really take very sharp images.
They set the default sharpness, contrast, etc quite high to make the images appear better than they are.
This satisfies the needs of many people, since a lot of users jusdge images based on this criteria.
You can emulate this with your DSLR to an extent by cranking your sharpness, contrast, saturation, etc up a few notches. Many raw converters will take the camera settings and apply them as the default processing parameters.
Don't be afraid to play around with these settings (or the sliders in your raw converter) to get results that you like, and then save that as a preset (if done in a raw converter).

I expect that if you really look at two same images from each camera you will find that your SLR images contain more detail since the SLR lenses are certainly better than P&S lenses.
You just need to take the extra step of optimizing the images to your taste.

[yustr]

Thanks for all the responses - well most of them anyway.

I think I figured out what my issue was: I was viewing her pics on her iMAC and mine on my computer. When I viewed them side by side on the same computer (either) my images were clearly superior; sharpness, more natural color, DoF, etc.

I will take some of the advice and play with pushing the vibrancy and saturation in PS.

[civiletti]

Raw gives maximum info, not most impressive effects. As several have mentioned, post production is key. I'm almost certain that the k10 d with kit lens yields higher IQ images than any small sensor point and shoot.

[mtngal]

I think I figured out what my issue was: I was viewing her pics on her iMAC and mine on my computer. When I viewed them side by side on the same computer (either) my images were clearly superior; sharpness, more natural color, DoF, etc.

Sounds like it's time for a new monitor! I do know what you mean about such things - I use a monitor at work that has lousy contrast, isn't very sharp and isn't calibrated. I try very hard not to look at pictures on it because whatever I see isn't what they will look like on my calibrated, very nice and sharp computer at home! Glad you could figure out what was going on.