[plugsnpixels]

Ha, the title makes this thread sound really exciting but it's not, just an informal comparison between two cameras I am currently using.

For the past couple of years I have been using a non-DSLR Nikon Coolpix L810 for general shooting. My favorite feature on this camera is the huge zoom range (since switching to digital I always missed the long lenses I had with 35mm cameras). The photos from the Nikon are decent overall; you've seen them on my website and in my ezine.

Just a couple of weeks ago I needed to buy a DSLR for my daughter's college photography class which starts next week. Of course I've always wanted one but since I only shoot "stock" photos for my own use, I couldn't justify the expense. But her class needs made it a good time to go shopping.

I was open to either Canon or Nikon (I used to shoot both in the film days), and found a great deal on a 9 condition used Canon Rebel T3 at B&H (the same thing cost $100+ more in a local used camera shop, sorry guys...). Then a friend gave me his unneeded 75-300 Canon zoom, so we now have a nice complete kit going on.

Yesterday we went out shooting for practice while I explained f/stops and shutter speeds (etc.) to her. I also took the opportunity to do some informal comparisons between the Nikon and the Canon.

The photos attached show the zoom range comparison (turns out that even with the Canon 18-55 and 75-300 zooms, the Nikon's permanently attached zoom lens has a slightly longer range on both ends, wide and tele). Note the different image dimensions from each camera, the Canon being more strongly rectangle. [The Canon sequence shows the widest and longest end of both lenses and is of reduced dimensions due to file attachment size limits.]

Of course I was interested in image quality, and obviously a DSLR would have an advantage, but I wanted to see exactly how much I had been missing. The attached comparisons are actual size screenshots from Photoshop with the images displayed at 100% (both cameras were shooting high-quality JPEGs). While the full frame photos from both cameras looked remarkably similar at smaller on-screen magnification (25/33%), the 100% view clearly revealed where the prosumer Nikon camera falls short. And of course a Nikon DSLR would have rivaled the Canon.

All of the two-image side-by-side comparisons (Canon on left, Nikon on right) were shot at or near the extreme long end of the focal range from a distance. You are only seeing a small section of the overall image.

The three sets show the dramatic resolving difference between the two cameras. Both sets were auto-focused, which may be a factor in either/both shots. The set with the trees is from the extreme upper-left corner of the images, and you can see where the Nikon introduces edge-of-frame distortion as well.

Obviously a DSLR is better than a prosumer camera (and you can see how much more so), and if the brands were switched in this test, the results would likely still be the same.

   
   
   
   
[attachment=3314]

[mcveed]

This is a big SO WHAT? You have demonstrated the obvious. A DSLR has better resolution than a peewee sensor 'point & shoot'.

[plugsnpixels]

Agreed, and now we see exactly how much. Interesting to note the used Canon DSLR and a new bridge/point-and-shoot camera cost about the same. So one must decide whether a super long zoom range or better image quality is more important out of the box, because you can't have both.

[mcveed]

Agreed, and now we see exactly how much. Interesting to note the used Canon DSLR and a new bridge/point-and-shoot camera cost about the same. So one must decide whether a super long zoom range or better image quality is more important out of the box, because you can't have both.

But this has nothing to do with Canon vs Nikon. It has only to do with small sensor vs big sensor. And you haven't quantified anything. We can see one picture is blurry and the other isn't, but how much of that was operator error and how much was due to the sensor size. Little point and shoots are notoriously hard to hold steady.

[plugsnpixels]

I didn't have any (motion) blurring problems (note the lack of motion trails in the details), but as you stated there is an obvious difference in resolving power which always bugged me when I viewed the lesser camera's images at high magnification. I also stated at the end if the brands were switched (i.e., a Nikon DSLR and a Canon point-and-shoot), the results would probably be the same (again, because of sensor size).

Again, this was a fun test and it does show that the better sensors provide better images, and approximately how much better one can expect. Obviously this was not meant to be on the level of a DPReview report!

[Freeman]

I admire the way you have taken care to log the comparison shots. It's a good reminder too of my journey through long zoom bridge cameras, to DSLRs, and it is definitely a one way ticket in my case at least.