Dimage 7Hi studio shot sample
David Kilpatrick
fuelled as far as I can tell by dpreview. When we were testing the Fuji
S2 and Nikon D100, a still life was set up in the studio, and also
photographed on the 7i and 7 Hi (the results were identical, only the
operation differed).
First point - the 5 megapixels of the 7 series, and similar cameras from
Sony, Nikon, Casio etc does not mean a lower overall image size to any
significant extent, compared to a 6 megapixel SLR. The comparison is a
1920 x 2560 pixel file, against a 2004 x 3006 (or similar) file. Most of
the additional megapixel in the SLR models is used to create a 1:1.5
ratio, 35mm shape picture; the 5 megapixel cameras create an 8 x 6
format picture. It's like cropping a 35mm neg to fit paper.
Second point - composition in electronic viewfinder prosumer 5 megapixel
cameras is nearly always 100 per cent. It is in the Minolta - you see
100 per cent of the image whether you use the electronic viewfinder or
the rear screen. This actually means you can make 100 per cent use of
the 1920 pixel image height, whereas with a 35mm DSLR you may be seeing
the frame with only 90 per cent accuracy, and have to allow some of the
extra 80 or so pixels for margins of error.
Basically, if you're making a 12 x 16 or 11 x 14 print, the 5 megapixel
has just the same pixel density.
Sorry, I can't put the Nikon and Fuji tests up in full form due to web
space limits but I've posted the complete Dimage (actually 7i not 7Hi,
my error in naming... the 7i one had nicer looking oxidised dev in the
wine glass...few days earlier) studio still life here:
http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/StillLife7Hi.jpg
It is 3 megs or so since it is a Photoshop Level 12 JPEG.
The Fuji S2 result is substantially better, the Nikon D100 is about the
same as far as fine detail, noise levels etc go. The S2 was used in 6
megapixel output mode, which I actually preferred to the 12 mpixel mode.
We did not publish the 7i results with the Fuji and Nikon, as that would
have been considered unfair, but have published this image two months
later in a different magazine, so that anyone who wants to make the
comparison, can do so by getting a copy of both. This is sort of problem
I encounter when running an independent photo mag, and also running a
magazine for Minolta owners. I have to be sure to keep Minolta well out
of the picture when reviewing other products.
David Kilpatrick
http://www.freelancephotographer.co.uk/
Jeffrey Cohen
I can't honestly say that the image your referenced is any better in detail,
color or sharpness than similar shots that I have taken with my 4.1 MP Sony
DSC-S85 (a much less expensive camera than the ones you cited).
Perhaps a lot depends on who's having the discussion. I doubt that I'm
enough of a pro to care about the subtle differences that your eyes would
see between your 5 MP cameras and my little Sony...
:)
Jeff
J. A. Mc.
found these unused words floating about:
>This is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that
>I can't honestly say that the image your referenced is any better in detail,
>color or sharpness than similar shots that I have taken with my 4.1 MP Sony
>DSC-S85 (a much less expensive camera than the ones you cited).
Are you viewing at 100% or scaled to fit your monitor's resolution?
>Perhaps a lot depends on who's having the discussion. I doubt that I'm
>enough of a pro to care about the subtle differences that your eyes would
>see between your 5 MP cameras and my little Sony...
The prints will tell .. <G>
Still, they're all great cameras, about equal for -most- personal
shots.
Stewart Pinkerton
>This is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that
>I can't honestly say that the image your referenced is any better in detail,
>color or sharpness than similar shots that I have taken with my 4.1 MP Sony
>DSC-S85 (a much less expensive camera than the ones you cited).
>
>Perhaps a lot depends on who's having the discussion. I doubt that I'm
>enough of a pro to care about the subtle differences that your eyes would
>see between your 5 MP cameras and my little Sony...
Less expensive, certainly, but still the resolution king of the now
unfashionable 4MP bunch! :-)
--
Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering
David Kilpatrick
Jeffrey Cohen wrote:
> This is interesting for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that
> I can't honestly say that the image your referenced is any better in detail,
> color or sharpness than similar shots that I have taken with my 4.1 MP Sony
> DSC-S85 (a much less expensive camera than the ones you cited).
>
> Perhaps a lot depends on who's having the discussion. I doubt that I'm
> enough of a pro to care about the subtle differences that your eyes would
> see between your 5 MP cameras and my little Sony...
>
Well, there's not much difference between 4 and 5 mpixels. We've been
printing full page repros from digital files every since 2.9 mpixels.
Main difference is the Sony could not use the studio lighting in the
same way, but before we had any access to decent flash control, I just
installed fluorescent HF studio lights (back in 1995) and for five years
we worked with those instead of flash.
As the Sony uses the same basic technology as Minolta, it should be very
similar in image quality. The two makes are quite closely related under
the skin.
David