my does my $10 p&s consistently produce better photos than my Pentax DSLR?

[Ace Crysler]

I have owned both a Pentax KX DSLR and a Samsung S630 p&s for a number
of years. Recently, I began to sell coins from an estate. I wanted to
capture the best photos possible, so brought out the Pentax and set it
up on a tripod while not even considering the S630 because I was almost
certain that the KX photos would be superior (I mean, that's the whole
point between RAW versus JPG files right?(S630 only offers JPG)).
However....

I was wrong! The S630 has consistently produced better images. Just
why, I'm not certain. Maybe you could tell me. I use the same lighting
set ups for both. I don't even use the tripod with the 630 and get
sharper photos. With the Pentax, I can't even seem to get it to focus
properly if, for example, I am doing image focus stacking in order to
show the depth of a coin from the side. I've even tried to set the
focus points manually, I get the beep confirmation, and then I'll still
have a section out of focus. And the entire image isn't as sharp as the
630. I've tried various F stops with the KX and will still end up with
a softer image.

The 630, on the other hand, produces sharper images. Technically, its
resolution is only half that of the KX (6 MB max versus 12 MB for the
KX), but, even so, I continue to be impressed. I can't figure out why
the contrast is better and the autofocus doesn't struggle like the KX
does. Only drawback is that I can't set the focus point manually (that
I know of), so have to move over various coin sections to try to get a
capture of the area needed. Much to my surprise, the resulting JPGs are
often workable in Photoshop. I can even sharpen them quite a bit
without introducing noise. I've gone through three S630's over the
years. When one goes bad (usually the flash), I toss it and order
another from eBay for about $10.

At this point, I'm about to put away the Pentax. Just seems not quite
right that the puny 630 should be doing so much better.

Ace

[David Taylor]

It sounds as if you're not getting the best from the Pentax, but if it was
faulty you would know, I'm sure.

My own experience has been with much more recent phones, and with the Google
Pixel 6 Pro my micro-four-thirds DSLR usage has dropped to virtually zero. Yes,
there are times when it would give better results, but not a lot better. With
the sort of photography you describe I would expect the Panasonic to do better.
Any chance you would try a different lens on the Pentax?

--
Cheers,
David
Web: http://www.satsignal.eu

[Bill W]

On Mar 29, 2022, Ace Crysler wrote
(in article <t1v6op$8m2$1...@dont-email.me>):

I don’t think you’ve posted here before, so no one is going to know your
level of knowledge. What AF mode are you using? What camera mode? What lens?
Is it clean? Are you sure you are beyond the minimum focus distance of that
lens? What aperture and ISO? Are you sure the camera is actually focusing
exactly where you want it to? And JPG’s can easily look better than
unprocessed raw files, until you process those raws. That Pentax is a bit
old, but should still take very good photos.

[Ace Crysler]

Ok, so I'll concentrate on the Pentax since that is the camera in
question. To answer your questions: I have tried both spot and multi AF
modes, both auto and manual. I've even adjusted the manual for
positioning on screen to focus on specific spots. AF is set to auto
currently, but I have also tried manual to no avail. I am using the
original kit lens. I do have telephoto lenses such as 135 and 200 mm,
but that would complicate matters as they would place the coin-lens
distance too far away for me to be able to adjust the lighting properly.
I also have a 50mm Pentax prime lens I have not tried for this. I
wouldn't think that I would receive a beep confirmation if in auto focus
if it wasn't focused(?). I use various apertures. For coins, I've
tried to stick around F13 or so, but I have tried down to F5.6 and
attempted to do more focusing of certain sections since there's not as
much focus available. ISO is always set to 200 or less. I also never
quite get the same coloring or contrast of the Samsung, the latter of
which always has better of each. Perhaps it's the original kit lens,
but I would think stopped down as I do that performance would be better.

[Ace Crysler]

The only fault I had until the other day was that the auto focus stopped
working. Cleaning the switch with a little electronic cleaner restored
operation.

>
> My own experience has been with much more recent phones, and with the
> Google Pixel 6 Pro my micro-four-thirds DSLR usage has dropped to
> virtually zero. Yes, there are times when it would give better results,
> but not a lot better.  With the sort of photography you describe I would
> expect the Panasonic to do better.  Any chance you would try a different
> lens on the Pentax?

I could try different lenses. I have M42 based 135 and 200 mm lenses,
but of course no auto focus and the greater lens-camera distances would
complicate lighting for me. I also have a Pentax manual 50mm prime
which, again, no auto focus.

>

[Bill W]

On Mar 29, 2022, Ace Crysler wrote

(in article <t1vcgn$pgq$1...@dont-email.me>):

I would at least try the 50mm lens to eliminate that. What is the shutter
speed, and are you using the tripod with the Pentax? And does the KX have a
focus indicator that shows exactly where it is focusing? And are you
processing the raw files before you compare? If not, try some jpg’s on the
Pentax. Other than what I’ve already said, I have no other ideas.

[Ace Crysler]

I try to keep the shutter at least 1/500 to avoid shakes. On the tripod
though, I can go less of course. Yes, I normally use a tripod with the
KX. I will have to see if it shows exactly where focusing, but I
usually zoom in to see where it is on live view. Yes, once the raws are
processed, I see better quality with the Samsung. Perhaps I'll try the
50mm prime and see how it goes. I'm not holding my breath though.

In the past, I've used the Pentax for photographing insects down to the
macro level. I used tubes to move the lens away from the body if unable
to get close enough with current lenses. However, much of the time yet
again the Samsung was the winner with both better contrast, focus, and
color. I did actually use the 50mm prime for much of the insect work.

[Bill W]

On Mar 29, 2022, Ace Crysler wrote

(in article <t1vdvo$6k9$1...@dont-email.me>):

Regarding the contrast and color, that still goes back to raw vs jpg. Raw
photos can look washed out compared to jpg’s, depending on the cameras. You
should be able to process the raws to look at least as good as the jpg’s.

[Ace Crysler]

On 3/29/22 13:53, Bill W wrote:
> On Mar 29, 2022, Ace Crysler wrote

> You
> should be able to process the raws to look at least as good as the jpg’s.
>

I can, but it's a lot more work for diminishing returns. For now, I'm
going to stick with the Samsung for most of the coins although I am
considering something with more features such as a used Canon G90 which
offers RAWS.

[Still Bud]

On Tue, 29 Mar 2022 12:35:33 -0400, Ace Crysler <ace...@hal.net>
wrote:

>Ok, so I'll concentrate on the Pentax since that is the camera in
>question. To answer your questions: I have tried both spot and multi AF
>modes, both auto and manual. I've even adjusted the manual for
>positioning on screen to focus on specific spots. AF is set to auto
>currently, but I have also tried manual to no avail. I am using the
>original kit lens. I do have telephoto lenses such as 135 and 200 mm,
>but that would complicate matters as they would place the coin-lens
>distance too far away for me to be able to adjust the lighting properly.
> I also have a 50mm Pentax prime lens I have not tried for this. I
>wouldn't think that I would receive a beep confirmation if in auto focus
>if it wasn't focused(?). I use various apertures. For coins, I've
>tried to stick around F13 or so, but I have tried down to F5.6 and
>attempted to do more focusing of certain sections since there's not as
>much focus available. ISO is always set to 200 or less. I also never
>quite get the same coloring or contrast of the Samsung, the latter of
>which always has better of each. Perhaps it's the original kit lens,
>but I would think stopped down as I do that performance would be better.

There are SO MANY things wrong with that synopsis that I can't even
begin to debunk it.

[Ace Crysler]

Such as?

[Ace Crysler]

Ok so, just for kicks, I decided to do almost everything "by the book"
with the Pentax DSLR this time around and see what result I would
achieve. I placed the camera on the tripod with the lens as parallel to
the coin's surface as possible. I used a couple of small bubble levels
to help. With a felt surface for the coin, even if the coin is
suspended a bit to help blur the black felt, it was still next to
impossible to achieve bullseye for both coin and camera since the felt
is uneven, but I got as close as I could. Then I brought my Jansjo
light as close to the lens as possible for the highest angle lighting I
could achieve. I never have used these lights (I have a pair of them)
because I never cared for their yellowish light, but went ahead anyway
and adjusted camera color balance which seemed to negate the effect. I
only used a single light getting it as close to the coin as possible
with as little shadowing on the coin's opposite side. With the felt,
you're not going to see shadow anyway, which is good (note that I have
normally been using a backlit light panel with coins placed directly on
top). Still using "kit" lens. I decided to try setting aperture
priority first, but wasn't happy with that and went to manual. F/8 and
shutter around 1/60 or so at 100 ISO. Everything in place, activate
shutter with 10s delay. I used the bulb both without diffusion and then
some shots with diffusion (milk carton plastic).

Results were promising. I can normally achieve similar lighting with
the Samsung, but I use a large 50 W LED spot light of course well
diffused and bright it up as close to the Samsung as possible around the
10 PM position. So, the Jansio, being much smaller, could be brought
even higher. It appears that more details could be seen in the
highlights than with the larger light. I suppose this could be a
workable system except the result still isn't as sharp as the Samsung
and also the bottom of the coin was just slightly out of focus. Barely
detectable, but there when viewed at full size. Hard to believe I'd
still have that at F8. Maybe try to increase to F13 or so for next tests.

In Photoshop, the RAW was opened and most of the contrast appeared to be
present with very little manipulation needed, which is different than
the norm. The color was close so did not have to be changed much.
Still had to apply some sharpening to get the sharpness to approach what
the Samsung achieves.

I guess maybe I could work with this technique a little more. Anything
to cut the processing a bit. I have a lot of coins and it takes too
long to have to apply curves, sharpening, etc in Photoshop for every
coin. I suppose I could use something like Lightroom, but I don't have
it.

I still think the Pentax suffers. I am now beginning to suspect the kit
lens as the cause. It offers poorer contrast and lack of sharpness
compared to a better lens. No $ to afford a better one which was why I
was thinking of a cheap Canon p&s with an already matched lens that
offered RAW capability. Used of course.

[David Taylor]

On 30/03/2022 13:40, Ace Crysler wrote:
> I still think the Pentax suffers. I am now beginning to suspect the kit
> lens as the cause. It offers poorer contrast and lack of sharpness
> compared to a better lens. No $ to afford a better one which was why I
> was thinking of a cheap Canon p&s with an already matched lens that
> offered RAW capability. Used of course.

Not that it helps, but I did find that with my Panasonic MFT, getting a macro
lens was an great idea, and produces excellent results. It's a 60 mm,f/2.8
lens which gives a good working distance. Flat field, high quality etc.


https://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/lenses/om_d_pen_lenses/m_zuiko/m_zuiko_digital_ed_60mm_1_2_8/index.html

Maybe you already have something similar - if not perhaps there's something on
the second hand market. The "kit" lens will be as low a cost item as possible
most likely, and will not be optimised for very close working.

[Bill W]

On Mar 30, 2022, Ace Crysler wrote
(in article <t21j3c$40h$1...@dont-email.me>):

If you’ve gone through all that trouble, you might as well try that 50mm
lens, too. And does that camera allow focus peaking in live view?

[Ace Crysler]

On 3/30/22 14:19, Bill W wrote:
>
>
> If you’ve gone through all that trouble, you might as well try that 50mm
> lens, too. And does that camera allow focus peaking in live view?
>

Before I try anything more, I found one of my other Jansjo lights and
attempted high angle, nearly direct lighting of this coin:

https://i.imgur.com/BccXIPU.jpg

This one uses milk jug pieces as diffuser in front of the lights. And,
then there's the other

https://i.imgur.com/hFUsZqV.jpg

No diffusion again with the two lights. I used the Samsung for both
images.

I found a nice, used Canon S90 and it's on the way. I will at least
have the benefit of RAW instead of just jpg like the Samsung has.

The Pentax will be retained and used as I always have, mainly for
landscape photography.

[Ace Crysler]

So this time I decided to try axial lighting using a piece of glass at
45 degrees. Much greater contrast result than anything else tried:

https://i.imgur.com/DG6f1tg.jpg

Only issue with this technique are the hot spots. Even with diffused
light, I still get them. I think once the other camera arrives, I could
probably tame those areas in raw (the Samsung was used for this image).
I may use this technique for now on though, reveals more details than
any of the prior methods.

[geoff]

Looks fine to me. Can't imagine why anybody would want something in some
way 'better' for the purpose.

geoff

[Ace Crysler]

Thanks and I see your point. Well, the only bit of step up I'm taking
is that I'm going to use a raw capable p&s that I was able to find used.
Didn't cost much and I'll have the capability to better negate any
coin hot spots. It's kind of difficult to do such processing on the jpg
without introducing a lot of noise. Other than that, I'm done with
trying to figure out all of the lighting combinations. Since I posted
here and, after researching online, I have come to the conclusion that
there is no set standard for coin lighting and everything has their own
preference.

[Ace Crysler]

Before the Canon S90 p&s arrives, I decided to give a "proper" go with
the Pentax KX. This time, I switched out its kit lens for a Carl Zeiss
Jena Sonnar 135mm f3.5 I have here. It's an older, manual lens that is
supposed to be known for its sharpness. I added a couple of macro tubes
so that the coin would nearly fill the frame and so I could get a lot
closer distance. This is the result:

https://i.imgur.com/riTUnDI.jpg

Again, I used axial lighting. Very little post processing had to be
done as contrast was pretty much spot on. There was still a bit of
color imbalance, but easily adjusted. I almost don't know what to do
when I don't have to touch the contrast in post processing. Looks like
I won't have to wait for the S90 after all!

[geoff]

Colour balance is very much a variable at your end (unless you have a
calibrated monitor), and even more-so for the end-viewers, over which
you have no control (unless physical prints that you have supplied
yourself).

So don't get too obsessed over it !

geoff

[RichA]

No P&S costs $10. It might have cost you that (just like I can buy an old Canon DSLR with 8mp for $40) because
of the declining value of old tech. Having said that, I found an old Kodak 2mp P&S to have a perceptually better lens on its
sensor than a modernish Olympus 14mp P&S, but a 2mp sensor puts much less stress on a lens than does a 14mp
sensor leading to the perception the images out of the Kodak were better when it fact they had less resolution
than the much higher mp count Olympus.