Sharpness comparisons between 3 cameras
Mar 17, 2024 12:04:48 #
a6k
Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
Sony 𝜶6500 with Tamron 150-600 lens
Sony RX10 m4
Nikon Coolpix P1000
Image quality is more than sharpness. And sharpness is different at different distances and lens lengths.
In the next post, below, I will provide actual JPGs that I took using my favorite target for sharpness and more.
For the Nikon and the RX10 I used F8 at 1/800 or 1/1000 with ISO 100. The Nikon was 1/1000 because it would not do 1/800.
I also took one with the Nikon in Bird Mode and it turned out the best. That's the one my wife always uses.
These are not really lab quality comparisons but I think it will be obvious what some of the differences are.
I will also provide screenshot(s) where I attempted to equalize the image size in pixels. That would matter in printing. In those screenshot(s) I had to make some minor exposure corrections.
Sony RX10 m4
Nikon Coolpix P1000
Image quality is more than sharpness. And sharpness is different at different distances and lens lengths.
In the next post, below, I will provide actual JPGs that I took using my favorite target for sharpness and more.
For the Nikon and the RX10 I used F8 at 1/800 or 1/1000 with ISO 100. The Nikon was 1/1000 because it would not do 1/800.
I also took one with the Nikon in Bird Mode and it turned out the best. That's the one my wife always uses.
These are not really lab quality comparisons but I think it will be obvious what some of the differences are.
I will also provide screenshot(s) where I attempted to equalize the image size in pixels. That would matter in printing. In those screenshot(s) I had to make some minor exposure corrections.
Mar 17, 2024 12:36:56 #
Digital cameras have pixel resolution. Lenses have resolving power. Your proposed comparison really makes no sense at a technical level.
Mar 17, 2024 12:43:05 #
a6k
Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
a6k wrote:
Sony 𝜶6500 with Tamron 150-600 lens br Sony RX10 ... (show quote)
Here are the 4 shots. I changed my mind and did not try to fix the exposures. All but the BirdMode shot were taken in raw and converted to JPG using Pixelmator Pro on my Mac via a "shortcut" that does no modification, just converts to maximum quality JPG. The Nikon does JPG only in BirdMode. Since different cameras modify the internal raw to JPG in too many ways, I shoot raw and convert to best JPG. That keeps the sharpening out of the test.
In the size equalized view I made the RX10's 100% and made the others smaller as needed. The sizes are indicated in each of the frames.
The screen on the target is, I think, 1/20" squares. The distance is over 400' according to Google Maps.
RX10m4 22o mm (600 mm equivalent)
(Download)
𝜶6500 500 mm (750 equivalent)
(Download)
Nikon Coolpix P1000 manual exposure 540 mm (3000 equivalent)
(Download)
Nikon Coolpix P1000 in BirdMode (JPG only) 540mm (3000 equivalent)
(Download)
Screenshot 4-up with sizes equalized
(Download)
Screenshot 4-up all at 100%
(Download)
Mar 17, 2024 12:50:04 #
a6k
Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
CHG_CANON wrote:
Digital cameras have pixel resolution. Lenses have resolving power. Your proposed comparison really makes no sense at a technical level.
What makes sense is to compare what cameras do. Two of those cameras have non-interchangeable lenses. The one with interchangeable lens uses the best I had for that. It happens to be very good. It would make no sense to use an inferior lens.
See for yourself if the comparison is useful for some people.
Mar 17, 2024 13:00:18 #
a6k wrote:
What makes sense is to compare what cameras do. Two of those cameras have non-interchangeable lenses. The one with interchangeable lens uses the best I had for that. It happens to be very good. It would make no sense to use an inferior lens.
See for yourself if the comparison is useful for some people.
See for yourself if the comparison is useful for some people.
Comparing the 1 to 1 image results is a tad more relevant, without regard to the underlying technology.
Mar 18, 2024 00:01:09 #
Mar 18, 2024 06:06:39 #
a6k wrote:
Sony 𝜶6500 with Tamron 150-600 lens br Sony RX10 ... (show quote)
I have recently purchased an unused RX10ii (8x Zoom) as I believe the 20x Zoom on the iii and iv cannot be as sharp, although both use a Zeiss Vario Sonar 2.8. Do you have any thoughts on this? I can say that the lens on the RX10ii is as sharp as the lens on my previous Leica d-lux 109 (3x zoom).
Mar 18, 2024 06:34:20 #
CHG_CANON wrote:
Digital cameras have pixel resolution. Lenses have resolving power. Your proposed comparison really makes no sense at a technical level.
Mar 18, 2024 08:31:17 #
billnikon
Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont
a6k wrote:
Sony 𝜶6500 with Tamron 150-600 lens br Sony RX10 ... (show quote)
Sorry, amateur lens tests only prove one thing, amateur's should not do lens tests.
Mar 18, 2024 08:41:34 #
I am not quite sure what camera did what , but on the 2 picture that shows 4 , the upper right ones win . The p1000 is definitively not as sharp . Thank you for that test , very informative .
Mar 18, 2024 08:43:36 #
imagextrordinair
Loc: Halden, Norway
a6k wrote:
Sony 𝜶6500 with Tamron 150-600 lens br Sony RX10 ... (show quote)
Resolution is a function of your digital sensor and is is not directly responsible for perceived sharpness until you add in distance.
"Acutance" is a combination of lens quality, and post-processing. "Acutance" is the only aspect of sharpness which is under your control... after the shot has been taken. "Acutance" is what is enhanced when you digitally sharpen your image. Photos require both high "acutance" with appropriate resolution in relationship to size or viewing distance to be perceived as critically sharp.
An example is an image which is designed to be viewed from farther away, such as posters or billboards, may have much lower resolution than fine art prints in a gallery, but yet both may be perceived as sharp because of your viewing distance.
This explains why a lens will be rated for it's sharpness and a camera body for it's resolution.
You are comparing lens/ camera combinations, not camera bodies.
Mar 18, 2024 08:57:49 #
a6k wrote:
Here are the 4 shots. I changed my mind and did no... (show quote)
Although I'm a Nikon person, I have a friend who wanted an all-in-one camera to take to Africa. She didn't want to be changing lenses in the field where a lot of dust is often caused by vehicles or animals. I took her to B&H to look at what was available. A salesperson there showed us some photos taken with the Sony you tested. One shot was of an airplane so high it looked like a mosquito and then showed us a blowup of the plane where it filled the entire photo. The name and plane identification #s were so clear it was very impressive. She bought the Sony and on two trips to Africa she has had very nice shots of lions and elephants. She tried some birds in flight with less success but I feel it was more technique than camera failure. When it comes to a camera with a fixed lens, I don't think there is any question that Sony is the champ.
Mar 18, 2024 09:12:42 #
Mar 18, 2024 09:31:55 #
NCMtnMan
Loc: N. Fork New River, Ashe Co., NC
Of course there are differences. They are completely different systems. What did you expect?
Mar 18, 2024 09:36:33 #
a6k
Loc: Detroit & Sanibel
Another UHHer said I was wrong about the RX10 not being as good at focal lengths beyond its equivalent 600 mm. He also said he did not believe the Nikon Coolpix could be better at longer distances, smaller sizes.
If you look at the equal sized images you will see that the Nikon is the only one that can clearly show the screen's squares.
All the other criticisms are off the point.
If you look at the equal sized images you will see that the Nikon is the only one that can clearly show the screen's squares.
All the other criticisms are off the point.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.