Nederlandstalige versie van de pagina
The table of content is at the end of the page
Comparison
Nikon Coolpix 5700
Sony DSC-F828
Nikon (564K) |
|---|
Sony (1915k) |
|---|
You can download the full picture (warning: very big file size!) or select two cropped areas containing interesting details.
Both pictures were taken in rather low light conditions, and there was some strong wind (had to use a high shutter setting) so it's quite normal to have some noise. Remember, when you see the pictures on the page, that they were taken in 'normal' conditions, not in a studio.
The Nikon 5700 is already in use for more than a year (16.130 pictures!).
Croppings from the images above so you don't have to download the full images
The Sony has a more wide angle setting compared to the Nikon, but because of it's increased pixel count, the resulting cropping is larger with the Sony than with the Nikon. Sony creates a larger picture (wider setting), but put also more detail in the picture. A win-win situation for Sony (and for memory card manufacturers). Chromatic aberration on the sony picture (more about this subject later)
First the bad things about the Sony:
- The battery must be charged inside the camera. What a dumb thing.
Since i need a second battery to be able to charge it while i use the first one, i'm obliged to buy a dedicated battery charger (price: 80 €). However, the batteries last much longer on the Sony compared to the Nikon.
- The traditional "Sony" factor. You can call it the XP factor, fun factor or any other name. It's an undescriptible factor. The Sony camera is more "fun" and less "professional". It's just some sort of feeling, but has ultimately no influence on the quality of the pictures. The Nikon seems more geared towards the pro user. For instance, the Sony has a "scene" mode, with standardised presets (portrait, landscape, ...) instead of fully controlable user settings.
- Compared to the Nikon, the Sony does not have user presets (where the user can store any setting, like custom white balance, sharpening, ...). I make extensive use of these settings, to ensure that pictures are taken with exactly the same settings, even with a varying environment (the subject does not interfere with the setting). The settings are even preserved accross sessions.
- It's much bigger (but that's not always a bad thing; it is very easy to find a good, stable grip).
- Not so good at macro, and the big lens makes it very difficult to correctly expose your subject. Of course the picture right was taken with a Nikon 5700. All Nikons (950, 990, ...) are very good at macro-photography).
And now the good things about the Sony:
- If you liked the 505, 505V, 707, 717, you will like the 828 for it's extremely high picture quality.
- Other improvements compared to the older models are: faster response (auto focus in tele, dead time between two pictures, ...), a real focus and zoom ring (the last one is even directly coupled to the lenses —no more "fly-by-wire"). Real pro's will appreciate.
- At last a Compact Flash connector, so your investment in a high capacity CF card (for your precedent camera) is not lost. Sony does not stop support for the Memory Stick, but they know that if they want to sell their products to a more professional market, they will have to abide by the de-facto standard. Sony claims they added CF support so you can use the faster Microdrive.
- The command dial, making it easy to switch from one setting to another.
Nikon (562K) |
|---|
Sony (1908k) |
|---|
When in manual focus, the Sony uses a focus assist (enlargement of the central part of the image when you rotate the focus ring), but it is still more easy to determine correct focus with the Nikon (they use artificial sharpening of the image).
In both pictures, the manual focus was set to minimum, and the camera was moved and zoomed untill the IC in the middle was in focus. With the Sony, it was not possible to focus on very small components. However, the dept-of-field is more important with the Sony.
Our "Corporate headquarters"
Download the full picture or look at the cropping.
Nikon (590K) |
|---|
Sony (1973k) |
|---|
Croppings
Canon Digital Rebel
This image is from a Canon Digital rebel (more about this camera in the next pages)
This picture (right) is taken with a digital SLR, the Canon Digital Rebel (6 Mpixel). You can compare this image with the same images from the Sony and Nikon.
It's important to note some key features:- Compared to film, the sensor is much smaller in size, resulting in a zoom factor of 1.5 (a 35 mm lens results in a 50 mm image when using a digital body)
- Compared to digital cameras, The Digital Rebel uses the standardised 3/2 format used in film (the image is somewhat wider).
- The operation of a digital SLR is not comparable to that of a digital camera: a mirror sends the image to the optical viewfinder, and when the picture is taken, the shutter closes, the mirror flips away, the picture is taken, the mirror drops back into place and then the shutter opens again. This complex mechanism is common to all SLR's, but not used in prosumer digital cameras.
Because of this, the LCD can only be used for reviewing pictures.
The Canon produces a realy nice, pleasing image (see cropping below right), and not some "digitally remastered" picture as you can see with both croppings above on the previous page. Portrait photographers will take advantage of this feature, because the resulting picture is more gratifying for the subject.
It seems both the Nikon and Sony are working at their limit, creating interpolation artefacts (the same you see on a videotape that is copied too much times). While the Sony gives a better overal image due to it's better lenses, it has also a fairly high noise level, caused by it's smaller pixel size. The Canon is like a big Mercedes with lots of power still available: the cropping is HUGE compared to the Sony/Nikon croppings (but i must say that the lens used (focal length of 28 mm) did not allow for the same coverage, because it's net result (due to the smaller sensor) is a 42 mm image). It's very difficult to compare a dSLR with any normal prosumer camera, because the quality depends mostly upon the lenses.
On the next page, we continue comparing digital cameras.
