DSLR vs non-DSLR- can you see the difference?

[Nicks Pics]

Just for fun, and out of interest, I put together 5 photos here, some of which were taken with a DSLR, and some with a super zoom. Can you tell which ones were shot with which?

It would probably be easier if you could see the originals, but I tried to upload fairly large images at decent jpeg, quality, so be sure to click on them and view full size. All of these have been processed, just in a normal manner. All have been cropped to some extent.

PS. I didn't make my selection trying to fool you! Just some shots I thought were decent from both cameras.

Let me know what you guess!

#1


#2


#3


#4


#5


(This is not a meant to compare the merits of one type of camera over the other because the images are downsized, and it doesn't compare one camera's capabilities against the other given the same subject and conditions)

[Manfred M]

Of course not. Shots on the web are reduced so much in size and quality that you'll never be able to tell.

I've done a similar post where I asked people to tell me which shot was taken with a 5MP Point & Shoot and a 36MP DSLR with pro glass. Same answer; can't tell.

Now if you did a 16" x 20" print (gallery size), it would be quite easy to tell.

[Venser]

Now if you did a 16" x 20" print (gallery size), it would be quite easy to tell.

I disagree because I've done exactly this.

I had five street shots up where one was shot with my Olympus OM-D E-M5 and the others with a D700 or D800. The printing house couldn't pick the odd one out and neither could most people. They were printed at 18"x24".

[Barbara Ponder]

Ok I will "play" I would say #5 is definitely point and shoot and possibly #4 the rest are dslr.

[Manfred M]

I disagree because I've done exactly this.

I had five street shots up where one was shot with my Olympus OM-D E-M5 and the others with a D700 or D800. The printing house couldn't pick the odd one out and neither could most people. They were printed at 18"x24".

Depends on the sensor size and glass quality. The difference between shots taken with high quality lenses using a 2x crop factor versus a full-frame is going to be a lot less noticeable than with a typical small sensor superzoom (1/2.3" for example) with a lens that has a 20x zoom. Typically clarity, distortion and CA are a dead give away.

I would say the same thing as you do when I compare shots taken with my Panasonic GX7 or my D800 at or near base ISO. The real issue I have with the GX7 is the performance of the autofocus and the noise at anything higher than ISO 800.

[Nicks Pics]

Of course not. Shots on the web are reduced so much in size and quality that you'll never be able to tell.

I've done a similar post where I asked people to tell me which shot was taken with a 5MP Point & Shoot and a 36MP DSLR with pro glass. Same answer; can't tell.

Now if you did a 16" x 20" print (gallery size), it would be quite easy to tell.

Quite understood. This is not a reasonable test of the absolute merits of one camera or the other. I will edit the original post to include a note on that! (It would only mean that if you take these pictures with these cameras and display them this size you will get results that are as similar as these are).

[Nicks Pics]

Barbara,

I'll see if I get a few more guesses before I tell! Thanks!

[GeoBonsai]

I can't tell what camera was used for Nick's photos. Looks like flash was used in #3 and #4, though. Nick's images are evidence that there are plenty of excellent images made all the time with super zooms (and point-and-shoots, and smart phones).

Here are more examples, if Nick doesn't mind that I expand on his idea: I took the two very similar photos below and without looking at the EXIF data, I can't tell which was made with my Canon PowerShot S95 and which was made with my Nikon D3300 DSLR. Can you? (Hmmm? Maybe I'll tell you which is which later )

#A


#B

[Shadowman]

Can't tell the difference.

[Brownbear]

I'll venture a guess and say that #1 and #4 were photographed with a DSLR.

[FrankMi]

I have shots taken with my cell phone camera that folks can't tell weren't taken with a DSLR.

The real difference is in what specific shots you can get with a DSLR and good glass that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

[Nicks Pics]

I have shots taken with my cell phone camera that folks can't tell weren't taken with a DSLR.

The real difference is in what specific shots you can get with a DSLR and good glass that wouldn't be possible otherwise.

This is not a meant to compare the merits of one type of camera over the other because the images are downsized, and it doesn't compare one camera's capabilities against the other given the same subject and conditions

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks for the input! Check back for correct answers and specs soon!

[HaseebM]

My guess is # 2 & 4.

[ajohnw]

The 2 shots that show leaves show signs of small sensor jpg's to me but tough as the snow seems to clipped in one so not so sure.

Lighthouse 2nd one should be dslr but processing is entirely different so either could be the dslr. It's not the sort of shot that shows differences clearly.

This one does as the in camera software had no idea what it was. It made a wonderful job of faces.



John
=

[chauncey]

I've read numerous threads on numerous sites regarding this very question and the consensus of opinion
is that the difference cannot be discerned, either with an internet posting, or in a print, with the proviso
that...the images taken were taken with an experienced user who is familiar with the gear.

It merely take trying to shoot...an extreme macro/BIF/very shallow DOF/a host of others as an example.
That eight inch area behind the camera can be adaptable, but even he/she has their limitations.

Most often, using one camera/lens, to "do it all" is an abject lesson in futility, that I usually overlook.

[Manfred M]

in a print, with the proviso
that...the images taken were taken with an experienced user who is familiar with the gear.

Here I will have to add a bit of a "yes but" comment. It depends on the specifics of the camera and the size of the print.

A small sensor camera; here I'm thinking of the typical point & shoot or superzoom with a 1/2.3" sensor versus a camera with a larger sensor (mFT, crop, FF or medium format), and one will quickly notice the difference in image quality, as print size goes up. A small print is going to be a lot like an image displayed on a computer screen, hard or impossible to tell. Print a really large image, and again, the smaller sensor will become noticeable.

[ajohnw]

Push the iso up WM and it's easy to tell the difference. You might like to visit

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/

On that site you can pick a camera, see what the jpg's look like and download raw files to work on yourself. Great fun. One thing to watch out for. Some camera may have a zoom lens that goes to a zillion mms or what ever and you may wonder why this particular camera doesn't have samples that are useful to see what the resolution is like. Same with ISO and when the longer setting is used it may have been from a relatively short distance. There is a huge difference even just going to the newer bridge cameras that have larger sensors, maybe even fewer pixels and as a result only zoom to maybe 300mm. Nikon 1's are a big improvement again.

John
-

[chauncey]

Yeah John...were I not so heavily vested in Canon glass, I would have bought that Pentax 645Z.

[Nicks Pics]

Thanks for putting in your guesses folks! The two cameras I used were Fujifilm SL1000, superzoom, and Nikon D7100 w/ 18-55 mm lens. SOme of your guesses were right, and some weren't, but I agree it's hard to tell!

The photos originated from each camera as follows:

D7100 images:

#1, evergreen, 1/100, f/11, iso 500

#2, Beaver stump, 1/50, f/11, ISO, 2200

#4, rabbit, 1/60, f/ 6.3, ISO, 200, on-camera flash



Fuji SL1000 images,

#3, rabbit, 1/100, F/4.8, ISO, 100

#5, leaf, 1/500, f/2.9, ISO, 100

I got about 65% correct guesses, I think, the, way I interpreted them, ( assuming Haseeb meant 2&4 are DSLR).

It wasn't my main point to compare the quality of the two cameras, but I suppose it does indicate that if you only shoot things the camera can handle, (enough light etc.) and use them on a screen this size or smaller, and do some editing of the photos, and use only ones that turned out well,the difference is not significant - though some of you could pick out some of them. Not everyone probably needs a DSLR even if they want great quality photos, though some probably do!

I didn't include long telephoto shots with the superzoom, because I didn't have any long telephoto shots with the DSLR. As for those, such as bird images, I think it would have been easier to discern which were which. I have a FEW bird shots that would be hard to tell from good DSLR bird shots, but far fewer of those than easier subjects especially those at a shorter. range than regular range.