Two images - can you comment

Just a quick question really.

Forget the subject as it's just what was around - I'm just after an opinion regarding how these two shots compare (image quality wise) against each other?

1


2

I prefer the top one - mainly because the noise handling is much better, although it's sharper too.

What have you done differently?

First for me too, again for the noise handling.

A little computer jiggery pokery tells me this was a Canon/Nikon shootout?

I too would say the first but it seems there are differences in the compression used the 1st seems to be at 300psi and the 2nd at 72. There may well be other differences apart from the different cameras and lens, I am not that good reading the Exif data.

the bottom one is slightly noisier BUT shows more detail. An example of which is if you view both images at full size, and look on the yellow lego pieces the word 'lego' can be clearly read on the 2nd image, but it cant be on the 1st.

The first image is also slightly more exposed than the 2nd one.

It's two different cameras. The first is the Nikon D50 with and the second is the Canon 40D.

Could you tell me what you mean by the compression being 300psi in the first and 72psi in the second?

I seem to get a lot of soft shots with the Canon but with the Nikon I didn't remember getting quite so many. Yesterday I just thought I'd take two images to compare them. Both pictures were taken on full auto with ISO400 using a tripod.

Not sure what I mean Phil, the Exif said the first was at 300psi and the second at 72psi. Did realise they were different cameras and different lens.

Getting soft results is something I found with Cannon years ago and would not expect to find it now as the examples I see on this and other forums are crisp but in this example it does look soft but I thought that may be because of the different psi although I may have miss read or miss understood what I was reading.

Jack has said that the Cannon shot is clearer by noisy, will have to go back and look at that as I can't see if the Cannon shot is cleared how it can appear softer, I am sure there must be something I am not understanding.

EDIT have now looked at the two shoots again and I can see what Jack means but think it may be light reflection in the Nikon shot that makes it difficult to read the word Lego on the Canon one you can read it but there is overall less clarity the small figure is very soft in the Canon shot but almost too sharp in the Nikon one, I am wondering if there is a large difference in the way the cameras are developing these as I think they are jpeg and not RAW - perhaps a true test would be to take them in RAW.

RAW might be an idea.

I can pretty much set the Canon 40D to be as sharp or as soft as I like when shooting in other 'modes' but there's no doubt it produces softer results if left in auto.

By default - Canon DSLR don't sharpen the image 'in camera' as much as others. By all accounts because it's easier to make a soft picture sharper than an over sharp picture softer.

I'd still like somebody to explain the 300psi in the first and 72psi in the second thing though as I don't really undertand that.

I guess I'm just worried that I'm overlooking something and not getting the best out of the Canon.

Sorry, Phil I may have miss read but to me it seems the resolution on the Nikon is 300 and the Canon 72, see below.

[Image]
Make = NIKON CORPORATION
Model = NIKON D50
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 300
Y Resolution = 300
Resolution Unit = inch
Software = Ver.1.00
Date Time = 2009-02-21 23:49:05
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 216

Make = Canon
Model = Canon EOS 40D
Orientation = top/left
X Resolution = 72
Y Resolution = 72
Resolution Unit = inch
Date Time = 2009-02-21 00:46:33
YCbCr Positioning = co-sited
Exif IFD Pointer = Offset: 208
GPS Info IFD Pointer = Offset: 8670

I prefer the noise handling and exposure of the first shot however as JR mentioned, the second one has more detail.

You really don't need to worry about dpi (or psi as it is here) unless you are printing the shot. PSI is Pixels per Square Inch, so if you were printing the shot then the Canon would produce a much larger image as the pixels wouldn't be as compacted. I wrote the following a while ago on here:

Therefore the Nikon image would simply print much smaller (I think I can print up to approx 8" x 12" at 300 dpi).