PX versus GXR

[Blow-in]

quester asked this:

BTW, do you still have the PX? How about posting two identical shots taken with the GXR and the PX? Make it something in good light, 100 ISO, same focal length and with some detail - houses or whatever... do whatever PP you want to the PX shot. Let's see how much of a difference there is while viewing on a monitor.

So I've taken 4 shots of the same scene with each camera. To try to level the playing field I used 3:2 F, ISO 100, EV -0.3 and Program mode on both cameras. The PX was zoomed to x1.9 which is around 52mm in 35mm format. I've not done anything else with the shots other than to resize them to 1024 pixels.

So PX first then GXR:










The GXR cost me x4.4 what I paid for the PX...was it worth it?

OK this is not a real test and the differences are more marked when cropping or printing or using the camera under water!

Richard

 

[Wiener]

I guess the PX could just win the underwater challenge!
Nice shots from the old steading belwo Roskill that I know so well. And bless you, you have even managed to squeeze in another Highland Railway bridge in #3&4!
The colours are very different between the two cameras; I am guessing that the PX is a little warm, but the GXR A12 a little cold? I guess PP would alter both a little with ease...
Have you tried the free photo software Picasa 3? It is easy to use and gives a very good impression of how 'other' versions of the same shot might look. It also crops, sharpens and even reduces file size for forum posting.
All the best,
Andy

 

[Blow-in]

I guess the PX could just win the underwater challenge!
Nice shots from the old steading belwo Roskill that I know so well. And bless you, you have even managed to squeeze in another Highland Railway bridge in #3&4!
The colours are very different between the two cameras; I am guessing that the PX is a little warm, but the GXR A12 a little cold? I guess PP would alter both a little with ease...
Have you tried the free photo software Picasa 3? It is easy to use and gives a very good impression of how 'other' versions of the same shot might look. It also crops, sharpens and even reduces file size for forum posting.
All the best,
Andy

Thanks Andy. I used 'natural' in both cameras as the image setting. Think the PX is warmer than the GXR is cooler. I resisted PPing any of the images as I think it might confuse the comparison. I think the PX does remarkably well at this size of post....here are a couple of 40% crops where the differences are more apparent.

I have used Picasa in the past....should look at it again.

Richard

 

[s1moran]

All i can say is the GXR A12 gives it a darker tone ,and the px a bit lighter tone if thats the right word to use,as far as i can see .....nice pics Steve

 

[lensman]

Richard,

Interesting comparison, I was expecting to see a greater difference in quality between the GXR & PX, thought I think the good light helped the PX a little. I suspect that in low light condition the GXR would be far superior.

David

 

[Blow-in]

Richard,

Interesting comparison, I was expecting to see a greater difference in quality between the GXR & PX, thought I think the good light helped the PX a little. I suspect that in low light condition the GXR would be far superior.

David

David,

Yes, I agree. Quester asked for good light which of course he has most of the time. The PX is better at the wide end (sharper) but otherwise this was ideal shooting conditions for the PX and as you know yourself it can 'punch above its weight' in this situation - especially with some modest PPing.

Handling is a different matter. The PX really is a point & shoot and changing settings via the menu is a bit tedious although the EV is quickly accessible.

At the end of the day a good photograph is about much more than the camera!

Richard

 

[lensman]

Richard

"At the end of the day a good photograph is about much more than the camera"

Never a truer word spoken

David

 

[quester]

Richard thanks very much for your efforts - this has been a real eye-opener for me. I would not have believed that in these conditions the differences between the two cameras would be so small - I'd say even insignificant. I've not seen any real differences in detail or dynamic range in this comparison.

As these are the conditions I usually shoot in, I see that I can re-think what's important for me in my next camera : sensor size, while important, is not top priority any more. And while the PX is certainly limited, I see that there's no rush for me to go and get something new - no reason not to wait a bit more and see what Ricoh/Pentax will bring out further along the year.

Thanks again Richard.

 

[riccadonna]

Please everybody. It`s just not very instructive making the comparisons at say 600x1000 pix. Not many pixel peepers will be able to see relevant diff between Iphone and FF digital. If you want to be substantial just make say 200% crop of each pict and display it at 1200x900. Otherwise it`ll boil down to " my guess is just as good as yours". And I`m talking about low ISO. Reminds me of my first digi, some ten years ago Kodak 4800 with CCD 1/1.8" sensor. At 100 ISO it could pull A3 B/W HP laser prints of the picture showing the parked bicycles. The whole frame was filled with them and you could count every spoke on them. At higher ISO the quality felled rapidly apart. So please be reasonable for Gods sake.

 

[riccadonna]

Oh forgetful me. Here`s the pict. Taken at 28mm (EQV)

 

[quester]

Hi riccadonna - thanks for the input and the great photo.

In my original request, what interested me was the differences "while viewing on a monitor", and these are typical regular-sized pics for monitor viewing in usual circumstances, at least for me. I hardly ever print photos - one of the reasons being that the small sensor does not enable large prints. It's clear to me that for any other needs - cropping, pixel-peeping, low light and printing - the large sensor cameras are of course much more capable. It's just that those are not my needs right now - and in these specific conditions, the differences are very small.

 

[Blow-in]

I'm happy to agree here with everyone's points. The quest (sorry) for better IQ only makes sense if you are going to use it. I've had a similar discussion over the use of digitial zoom with the GRD4 - if all you want to do is post the results here at 1024 px wide they can look really good at x1.4 for example. The difference between that shot and an optical shot becomes far more apparent when you print and it seems to me the extra fine detail provides much more depth that the brain recognises even if the eye struggles to see that detail.

Anyway, I've added a couple of more crops to fuel the discussion.

Richard

 

[riccadonna]

Richard, now I can see the difference and only if compared side by side. You`re right, isn`t it amazing that at a good screen there`s not much difference with suitable adjustment between different sizes. I forgot to add that my old Kodak 4800 was 3MP camera! Of course at 400 ISO it was useless. I often wondered if anybody made a serious comparison between my fav street cam GXR A12 28 and GRD IV which I don`t have. Looks like everybody wait for V model which will certainly have CMOS sensor. So bye, bye CCD which many say has better midgrey B/W gradation then CMOS. ( see discussion Leica M9 vs. M240 ).
I`m myself far from pixel peeper, on the contrary what interests me is how far down the scale you can go and still maintain decent quality. Another example of Kodak 4800 3MP grey scale . The photo is a 1/3 crop of total. My son by the way, some ten years ago.