So I replaced my $6k camera setup with a $300 digital
 

Ok I didn't totally replace it. My Canon EOS-1DMkII (24-70mm 2.8L glass, 550EX flash, about a TB worth of memory cards) is off being repaired, so I picked up one of those Canon Digital Elph SD30's at Fry's. Below are some sample shots taken with the 1DMkII and some sample shots taken with the Digital Elph. Do you guys think it's worth the $5k+ difference?

EOS-1DMkII
http://www.omgzilla.com/jayden/divinity171_03.jpg

http://www.omgzilla.com/jayden/divinity171_04.jpg

http://www.omgzilla.com/jayden/divinity171_05.jpg


Digital Elph SD30
http://www.omgzilla.com/jayden/divinity181_02.jpg

http://www.omgzilla.com/jayden/divinity181_03.jpg

http://www.omgzilla.com/jayden/divinity181_05.jpg

besides the colors are more vivid not much different lol

Just more proof that it's not the camera that really matters but the hands that it's in. :thumbsup

Prefer the Digital Elph SD30

Not worth the 5k+ upgrade as far as I can see

ha...ha...haa choooo

http://www.omgzilla.com/jayden/divinity181_05.jpg


go bless you!



Both sets look great :thumbsup

If you add a $20 filter attachment to the digi I'd say they're equal ;)

I like the result with the 300$ cam, but there's one big difference :)

How can we tell if you don't use the same amount of compression on each set?

Show some high quality, large pictures of each set, and maybe we'll be able to say something useful :2 cents:

Different lighting, different background.. it's not a fair comparison.

I think it helps that you know about lighting and angles to shoot .. the first set does have better color ..

I shoot with a 4 mg camera myself

It was 2 different days ugh ? The lightning is so different ... the first = warm lithing

the 2nd = cold light

Yeah, shot different days, similar conditions. The SD30 was set on "Auto White Balance" and unfortunately the pics came out on the cool side. Almost looks Nikon'ish. I couldn't get the nice warm tones like I could with the 1-series. One thing the pics don't show is the speed of the camera. With the 1-series I can just crank out as many pics as I care to take. Press the button and the thing fires. With the Digital Elph, usually when I press the button it takes a good 3-4 seconds for the thing to actually fire. This is in itself is so frustrating it makes the price difference almost worth it for that feature alone. :)

I don't think the difference is anything that matters for web, but the elph ones are a little flat in color, not as much contrast.

But isn't it amazing the pics some of the cheaper cameras can take these days?! If your lighting is right, there's very little difference noticable on a computer. I always have my old coolpix with me when I shoot because there's some types of lighting it just handles easier.

all pics are perfect.

Look at the URL watermark on each set. The first has been compressed so much that the photos look like shit.

The last pics are way better.

web jpg compression rates downgrade image quality of high rez camera sensors and lenses.

so you really can't tell too much with small web samples.

now if you were looking at full-size raw images you would see huge difference.

also, the closer you are to the subject matter will be a factor and how the image is cropped.

shooting a landscape and then enlarging it to full size you will see a big difference.

true, a digital rebel is probably good enough for web work, but for pro photography requiring cropping, or large display prints you need good equip.

truth is, "consumer" grade cameras will usually look better for web work because they are setup with default sharpening and color saturation, with pro cameras you are usually doing more post processing work to get the look you want.

Sweet fucking ass -- :thumbsup -- whatever equipment ya use -- :winkwink:

http://www.omgzilla.com/jayden/divinity171_03.jpg

2hp

ummm would surfers really notice the difference? probably not so why waste more money.

there ya go :thumbsup

This isn't 1997. Monitors are big and beautiful now. Images online can now be better than that of magazines and rival photographs. So I don't agree with the old "it's just for the web" stuff anymore.

The Elph images can be improved by adding saturation in an image editor. I just tried bumping the first one up +20 and there is a clear improvement in the color.

they are all nice pics :)

I like the first pic the best, nice focal lenth. You can do that with the cheap cameras.

Hmm interesting. I'm going to try that right now :thumbsup

I like the DOF and color rendition on the EOS-1DMkII better, the Elph reminds me of the cheaper sony ccd's like the early cybershots. With the Elph you could maybe get by with smaller 800x600 sized web photos but try making a calendar of prints of your exclusive girls for members and it just ain't gonna compare.

i think im going to go pick one of those up soon!

Can't really tell so go with the 300 cam :)

http://www.omgzilla.com/jayden/divinity171_03.jpg

awesome shot - she's got a gorgeous body.

Great subject:)

A picture is a picture, even ones taken with a cheap cell phone.

For example.
http://www.fastestturbofireengine.co...ixing/sky3.jpg

Anyone can produce content these days. I started out with a Cybershot 3.2 Megapixel. The technology makes it easy, it's point and shoot.

Havign an eye for whats good is a whole different matter but then again "Whats Good" is perceptual. What you think is good might not be,what you think is bad I might like.

Jayden is oh so fine...

i prefer the sharpness of the digital pics

The 1DII shots look heavily filtered. Can you post sample shots straight out of each cam, resized & watermarked only?

I don't think I'll ever give up my brick - no compact goes down to 12mm rectilinear!

Those are pretty much straight out of the cam. Except for some Gaussian Blur brush to hide some of her acne and a couple mosquito bites that she got (we forgot to bring bug spray. Color, contrast, DOF, etc are all straight out of the camera.

nice pics...
I'd say it's not worth the extra $.

For some reason, the first set just looks like they have been shopped already. I like the colors in the second set. Now I know exactly what you mean about the speed of the photos. I have a 20d, and an older SonyFD95. the 95 shoots 2.1mega, and the photos are nice, but it takes about 18 seconds between photos.

based on those sample pics, it's not much of a difference

I've been using the Canon Elph at the last three shows and I think that they are best for the closer shots. The lighting can be tricky especially when you are not using the flash. It is frustrating having to hold the button and wait for the click. The camera's size is also what makes it such a great little camera.

If I were going to sell the photos then I would definitely go for a more sophisticated set up.

_

personally I prefer the second set with the cheap camera! maybe because it's more real looking...

actually you lose the depth of field with the 300$ jobber

Yea i love my elph :)

The 2nd set from the less expensive camera looks much better.

depth of field is much better on a real camera, if you're shooting pro, there's NO way to get DOF with the elf.

Take 5,000 photos and see which shutter still works.