Project 52 by Dave Humphries

[Dave Humphries]

John, Kris and Peter,

Thank you for your comments, sorry I have taken so long to acknowledge them.

Cheers,

[Dave Humphries]

Hi all,

Shamed by Rebecca picking up her P52 thread today, I decided it was time to return to mine
This week I am skipping over the previous months of shooting to something I shot last week.

I have always wanted to compare my DSLR against a bridge camera - sounds nutty doesn't it; DSLR must win, eh?

What I haven't mentioned so far is that I shoot birds and the DSLR (a Nikon D5000) has my Nikon 70-300mm on, which, with the crop factor, equates to 450mm - and I will compare it to a Nikon P510 with an equivalent focal length of 1000mm, over twice the reach.

I bought the P510 as an alternative to buying a longer DSLR lens, so was that wise?
It saved a lot of money, size and weight and gives me a second body+lens.

The two images were shot within approx. 4 minutes of each other, of the same Kingfisher on the same branch of a fairly distant tree.

Here are the full captures;
D5000 at 450mm FFE;


and P510 at 1000mm FFE;


I started with the D5000 shot, from a RAW original, with the zoom maxed out at 300mm (450mm equiv.), in PP I probably overcropped it, but to give a size to compare. The result is that from the 4288 x 2848px captured, all I was left with, at 100% viewing, is 408 x 357px

With as good a processing as I could manage, this was the result;



EXIF: 1/125s, f/8, iso400 - the shutter speed is obviously a bit slower than I'd have liked, this probably contributed to some of the softness.

I then processed a P510 shot, cropped it to the exact same branch boundary area, but then also downsized it to be same size here as the D5000 crop was. So while the D5000 is being viewed at 100% (and is still too small), this was downsized - which brings some benefits.



The EXIF for which is 1/250s, f/5.9 and iso400.

I think I hear at least some of you asking; "What did the P510 shot look like at 100%?"



Please click to view in Lytebox at 953 x 834px to see this at 100%

Not so impressive, is it? - but you'll note that the downsized one looks better, it was sharpened after the downsize, which helps a lot.

OK, if I want a bigger shot - i.e. no downsize, can I make the 100% look better?
Yes, with a bit of time spent cloning over the edge jpg artefacts and halo of brightness caused by the subject being backlit, we get;



Please click to view in Lytebox at 953 x 834px to see this at 100%

If we're brutally honest, they still ain't great, but it is a small bird, a long way off and backlit, possibly with the sun in the lens too - so a very harsh test for either lens. I never normally publish any shot at 100%, I always downsize by 50% or more, then sharpen, which makes stuff look OK. I think the smaller P510 shot is just OK, but the other 3 in this post are not up to my normal standard and wouldn't have seen the light of day here had this not been a test.

Here is the large one with cloning out of halos downsized and sharpened, should be the best of the lot.



I'd obviously like to hear what you think of the results, but do bear in mind I have done no artistic composition/crop or PP to tone down blown leaves, etc., this is purely to prove the money on the P510 wasn't wasted

... except now I want a Canon SX50HS, so I get RAW and 1200mm

Cheers,

[beckyhumphries]

I think you should be very happy with these, the kingfisher was blumming far away! I agree the downsized P510 last picture is my favourite.

Whilst the colours seem to 'pop' a bit more in the D5000 picture, the bokeh (personally) doesn't seem that nice compared to the less distracting P510 background. Everything seems a lot sharper and more natural in the P510 pictures.

Thanks for taking the time to show the process and full comparison.

Lets hope next time it lands right outside the hide

Rebecca

[Dave Humphries]

Lets hope next time it lands right outside the hide

Absolutely - just after catching a fish in front of us too - sounds unlikely, but as we both know, it can happen, as it did with that Heron in Bushey Park. Maybe that should be Week 17 - I never did get to those.

[Dave Humphries]

I think you should be very happy with these, the kingfisher was blumming far away! I agree the downsized P510 last picture is my favourite.

Yes, I just put the full frame captures in the post above while you were replying

[FrankMi]

With as good a processing as I could manage, this was the result;



Here is the large one with cloning out of halos downsized and sharpened, should be the best of the lot.



I'd obviously like to hear what you think of the results, but do bear in mind I have done no artistic composition/crop or PP to tone down blown leaves, etc., this is purely to prove the money on the P510 wasn't wasted

... except now I want a Canon SX50HS, so I get RAW and 1200mm

Cheers,

A very interesting test, Dave!

That is a fairly significant difference. In the first image you can barely make out the Kingfisher's eye. So what would it cost to match the P510's image with a new D5000 lens? Obviously you wouldn't need to go all the way to 1,000mm, but then there is the size, weight and image stability to consider for the D5000 lens....

[Otavio]

Dave, very technical and valid test, IMO. The result kind of surprises me, as I expected a considerable D5000 "win" over the P510. I think (just think) this D5000 victory would occur for focal lengths until the 450mm (35mm equivalent) on both cameras. 1000mm might be really too much, even for the 70-300 lens!

In statistics terms, it would be still better if possible to repeat the test in some manner (even with different subjects), then you could avoid possible "variables" that could affect the conclusion, such as focus (auto?), vibration (considering it was handheld), etc.

Anyway, I am sure the money on your P510 was not wasted! I think the same about my Z990 (CMOS, 840mm, RAW in only one CHEAP body+lens), which is not as good as the P510, but is also a superzoom and does a good job. They are a nice, cheap alternative for long distances...

Regards

[Dave Humphries]

A very interesting test, Dave!

That is a fairly significant difference. In the first image you can barely make out the Kingfisher's eye. So what would it cost to match the P510's image with a new D5000 lens? Obviously you wouldn't need to go all the way to 1,000mm, but then there is the size, weight and image stability to consider for the D5000 lens....

Hi Frank,

I was hoping you would find this post

Even the 1000mm shot was cropped down to 953 x 834px from 4608 x 3456px (16MP), thus the 1000mm was effectively 4000mm! However, we always crop don't we? This was a small bird 100 or more feet away.

Anyway, turning to your other question; with the 1.5 x Nikon DX crop factor on a D5000:
a 500mm lens would give me 750mm FFE
a 600mm lens would give me 900mm FFE
an 800mm lens would give me 1200mm FFE (like a Canon SX50HS)

I could spend about £800 (thrice the P510 cost) on a Sigma 150-500mm f/5 - f/6.3 OS HSM zoom and weighs in at 1.9 kg.
I could spend £7000 on a prime 600mm f4 ED VR AF-S Nikkor Lens and weighs in at 5 kg.
or I could drop the OS and look at a Sigma 300-800mm f/5.6 HSM weighs in at nearly 6 kg.

The P510 weighs 560g.

No contest really is it, even if I go get an SX50HS as well

Cheers,

[Dave Humphries]

Dave, very technical and valid test, IMO. The result kind of surprises me, as I expected a considerable D5000 "win" over the P510. I think (just think) this D5000 victory would occur for focal lengths until the 450mm (35mm equivalent) on both cameras. 1000mm might be really too much, even for the 70-300 lens!

In statistics terms, it would be still better if possible to repeat the test in some manner (even with different subjects), then you could avoid possible "variables" that could affect the conclusion, such as focus (auto?), vibration (considering it was handheld), etc.

Anyway, I am sure the money on your P510 was not wasted! I think the same about my Z990 (CMOS, 840mm, RAW in only one CHEAP body+lens), which is not as good as the P510, but is also a superzoom and does a good job. They are a nice, cheap alternative for long distances...

Regards

Hi Otavio,

Glad you found this too.

I think the D5000 with 70-300mm AF-S Nikkor should win to 600mm FFE.

I agree the test needs to be repeated, in fact I already have other comparisons available, just not processed them yet - perhaps that'll be Week 17

The P510 is not without issues and I am seriously considering an SX50HS to see if the Canon AF is any better, plus it gives me RAW - if/when Adobe issue a converter for it in CS5 - except I'll probably have to upgrade to CS6

Cheers,

[FrankMi]

I'm guessing that you are looking at Edwin's post Fun with new Canon SX50HS. as well. It looks like there really isn't a compelling reason to buy much longer lenses than the DX 300mm for my DSLR unless the budget suddenly isn't an issue anymore as in winning the lottery!

I'm finding that if I am not doing planned shooting, that is, night shots, focus stacking or close-ups, that the ease of use, light weight and not having to swap lenses has me using the Canon SX40 more than the D3100. The Canon certainly has its drawbacks, like the lack of RAW and much smaller physical sensor size, and it can't shoot as fast, but for many of the images I take that is not an issue. I carry both cameras on a dual harness now and I am finding that I reach for the SX40 more frequently than the D3100.

You do know that if you get the SX50, Nikon will immediately come out with a 1,500mm CoolPix that shoots RAW!

[Dave Humphries]

You do know that if you get the SX50, Nikon will immediately come out with a 1,500mm CoolPix that shoots RAW!

Yeah and if I don't, they won't

[Dave Humphries]

I'm guessing that you are looking at Edwin's post Fun with new Canon SX50HS. as well. It looks like there really isn't a compelling reason to buy much longer lenses than the DX 300mm for my DSLR unless the budget suddenly isn't an issue anymore as in winning the lottery!

Absolutely agree with this sentiment.

I'm finding that if I am not doing planned shooting, that is, night shots, focus stacking or close-ups, that the ease of use, light weight and not having to swap lenses has me using the Canon SX40 more than the D3100. The Canon certainly has its drawbacks, like the lack of RAW and much smaller physical sensor size, and it can't shoot as fast, but for many of the images I take that is not an issue. I carry both cameras on a dual harness now and I am finding that I reach for the SX40 more frequently than the D3100.

Yes, since the P510 also goes wider than I can currently achieve with the D5000, I find I use it for that end too.

With birds, it is useless for in flight shots, but fine for perched birds, as long as they are not within too much foliage which would challenge the AF - but at least with a perched bird, plus a tripod or bean bag, switching to MF is an option and obviously you may get lucky and have a perched bird lift off and fly parallel to the camera, thus remaining in MF range.

It isn't as good at macro as I'd hoped, although you can focus to the dust on the front element, this is only at 24mm, recent tests revealed the highest magnification shot I can get is 4cm across the frame width, I haven't worked out the magnification that represents, but it isn't that much. In comparison, the 105mm macro lens on the D5000, which goes to 1:1 and hence gives about 2.5cm across the frame width, albeit with a lot less DoF than the P510. Thus for tiny insects, the D5000 will be better, but for slightly larger subjects, say flowers, the P510 may be better, especially as it will have about 5 x the DoF of the D5000 at any given aperture number.

The P510 is definitely the camera to use if I can fill the frame with the subject and maintain focus (one way or another), so you can downsize to counteract noise and lens resolution issues. I cannot crop as aggresively as with the D5000 in low light.

Cheers,

[Otavio]

Frank Miller said: "You do know that if you get the SX50, Nikon will immediately come out with a 1,500mm CoolPix that shoots RAW! "

Dave Humphries said: "Yeah and if I don't, they won't "

I say: I liked this! Funny, sad and absolutely true!!!

The P510 is definitely the camera to use if I can fill the frame with the subject and maintain focus (one way or another), so you can downsize to counteract noise and lens resolution issues. I cannot crop as aggresively as with the D5000 in low light.

Dave, this is a great summary of the comparisson between a DSLR and a Superzoom. I feel (and experienced) the same with both my Kodak Z990 and D5100

[Panama Hat & Camera]

Dave,
many, many thanks for showing the pictures of Kingfisher, comparing the D5000 (+ lens 70-300mm) with P510. Your photos showed me that if I acquired a DSLR, I would not be happier than I am with my current cameras: a Canon S100 and Nikon P510 (besides the Kodak z990). For over 20 years, I took my Olympus OM-2 and 5 more lenses everywhere I went. And I do not want this anymore! I want to take just my S100 (which is quite small) and sometimes a camera that does everything (which is P510). I recently had the opportunity to handle a D3100, a D5100 and Pentax K-5 of my friends. I think they are fantastic cameras with photographic quality far superior to the P510 and S100, but I'm not tempted to buy any of them. It is not a question of money. Although not a rich man, I could buy any of them and, say, 5 lenses. But today, that's not what I want.
But I confess that I'm tempted to buy the new Canon SX50.
Antonio.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Antonio,

I want to take just my S100 (which is quite small) and sometimes a camera that does everything (which is P510).

It's odd, I actually find that (apart from zoom range), the Canon S100 (which I also have), is a bit more photographically versatile and shoots RAW.

The biggest bugbear of using so many different cameras is navigating the menus and (often in a hurry) finding the right button on the 4 way pad on the back; Nikon and Canon seem to have their flash/exp comp and macro/self timer swapped

Reports of AF on the SX40/50HS seem to indicate I could expect something better than the P510 AF experience. I might also hope the EVF is better quality too.

I think I will keep the D5000 and add an Ultra WA lens (Nikon AF-S 10-24mm f/3.5-f/4.5) and possibly a short, fast prime (Nikon AF-S 28mm, f/1.8), to shoot things where the reduced DoF is a benefit compared to what is possible on the S100 or P510. In FFE terms, these would give me approx. 15-36mm and 42mm. Of course, if money were no object, the Nikon 24mm, f/1.4 would be nice instead of the 28mm prime but it is significantly over a grand.

However, I am already selective which lenses I take out with me, usually only 2 of my 4, although that has caught me out once or twice. Trouble is the P510 now sits where a 3rd lens did

Cheers,

[FrankMi]

However, I am already selective which lenses I take out with me, usually only 2 of my 4, although that has caught me out once or twice. Trouble is the P510 now sits where a 3rd lens did

I don't use a camera case or backpack but I do hang the Wide-Angle and 55-300mm on my belt in their zippered pouches and the tripod in an over-the-sholder enclosed quiver. The remote cable, extra batteries and SD cards are in a plastic pouch in my pocket. With the two cameras on a dual harness I figure if I had to, I could still add my fanny pack for more lenses, etc. and still have both hands free. So long as I don't buy another camera....

[Dave Humphries]

Hi all,

I am going to (sort of) resurrect my abandoned P52 thread

I think the problem was I tried to make each week's effort into a mini tutorial or investigation, the work involved, along with a full time job and moderating was just too much and I lost the will to continue

So what has happened since my last post above? - not a lot; I haven't bought anything photographic, so I still want that Nikon 10-24mm UWA lens, but cannot justify it (in my head) if I never actually produce anything!

Therefore I am going to produce the best one or two shots I can from the rest of my 2012 shooting without going 'overboard' and since they were shot last year, they ought to go here.

Unfortunately, if I do that, many will miss them (because buried in an old thread), so I think I'll start new threads for each week/subject, but put a link from the first post here.

Hope that's OK.

[Letrow]

Sounds like a good idea Dave, looking forward to your efforts.
You should get that UWA someday. They are lovely lenses. I still have the 12-24mm, although I am in the process of replacing it with a 18-35mm for my FX camera. Surprisingly though, the 12-24mm works fine from 18-24mm on FX, no vignetting there.
You can get great shots, if you are prepared to get really, really close. Works good for street photography as well, they never see you coming.

[Dave Humphries]

Sounds like a good idea Dave, looking forward to your efforts.

Thanks Peter,

without going 'overboard'

Hah, my plan went awry at the first attempt

I started on processing an open air musical trio shoot, but got so engrossed in analysing which ones worked, which didn't and why, the limitations of kit I was using (50mm and 105mm primes and a D5000), that I so far have only produced one image!

I intend to do one each of the band members, then I'll publish, along with my notes (already written) as a guide for myself (and others) 'next time'

Furthermore, now I want an f/2.8 medium zoom, as well as the 10-24mm
I was shooting with 50mm and 105mm lenses, FFE of 75mm and 157mm and the fixed lengths were a framing problem, there were only certain distances I could shoot from. I think the 24-70mm is about all I can afford though and that may be a bit too short. Even then, it's a lot of money for a focal length range I already have with the good, but slower, 18-200mm.

(UWA) Works good for street photography as well, they never see you coming.

And with the D5000 quiet shutter mode, they may not hear either

Cheers,

[StacyB]

Week 15-2:

On this; I couldn't find a tree this isolated, so I had to do a lot of cloning out of surrounding trees in the sky to get the simple composition I wanted. If I'm honest, I lost interest trying to make the sky look good, it still contains lots of 'cloning clues', not to my usual standard, so treat this as a learning shot rather than a finished example.

I had hoped to get the foliage sharper than this, but accidentally focused too close (only 1.06m up the trunk according to the EXIF data!) my excuse is that peering upwards, against a sunlit sky, squinting to see the LCD screen, prevented me checking all the options before taking the shot, for example; setting the aperture to something more appropriate than f/2.2, e.g. f/8, for a better DoF!

Week 15-2:


Canon S100 at 5.2mm: 24mm (FFE), 1/2000s, f/2.2, iso80, EC 0 (20120324_0435_ed1)
Hit Kbd F11 and click image to see at 973px × 750px (recommended)

I did rotate this in PP too, I think this looks more dynamic, what do you think?
Here's a small version of the capture to compare;



You can also see just how much I had to clone out, far too much, lesson learnt!


As usual, I'd be grateful for comments because you always see the (often blindingly obvious) things I don't

Thanks for viewing,

I am curious how long did it take you to clone all of that? And also what photo editing software did you use? I have paint shop pro but am considering photo shop. I am very new to photography so would love any input you have on the software you could share. The cloning in paint shop pro seems to be very obvious when I use it and I'm not sure if it's the software or the user probably the user