Which DSLR produces the best jpg.

[KAD]

Looking to buy a DSLR, not too interested in post processing all my images. Which DSLR produces the best jpegs, right from the camera, with the most punch? Anyone have any samples? Does the fact that I want to shoot jpg mean I am better off with a point and shoot? I hope not, I really like the low light and speed of the DSLR's. Any comments would be appreciated.

[Jason25]

The Nikon D50 is said to have very good out-of-camera jpg images (best of the Nikons at least). With that said, I love the images that come out of mine, and have not yet done any real post-processing :) It's a great first DSLR!

[Rhys]

Looking to buy a DSLR, not too interested in post processing all my images. Which DSLR produces the best jpegs, right from the camera, with the most punch? Anyone have any samples? Does the fact that I want to shoot jpg mean I am better off with a point and shoot? I hope not, I really like the low light and speed of the DSLR's. Any comments would be appreciated.

The Fuji S3 Pro has a unique sensor that allows for greater dynamic range than most dSLRs. It saves faster in JPEG than in RAW and seems ideal for your purposes. I too hate post processing. Thus, I use an XT and shoot solely in JPEG.

[jeisner]

It depends on what you like, they all have different advantages and disadvantages...

Its a bit like film, there was more than one good film, different people like different things...

[erichlund]

The pros agree with Rhys. The S3 not only has the best dynamic range, but it's color in jpg is excellent, with outstanding, film like rollover at the extremes. The white balance is said to be iffy, and the camera mechanics are a nightmare, but if all you care about is image quality, the S3 is supposed to be tops.

I previously posted about the friend of Bjorn Rorslett, who switched to the D200. He gave an explanation on the Nikon D1/D2/D100/D200 forum. Turns out he still considers the S3 to have better total image quality, but for his studio work he does not need the level of DR, and he can match color on the D200. As far as camera handling, it's the first time he's ever had to wait for the lights to recycle. He was always waiting on the camera. The D200 is much faster.

[Norm in Fujino]

Color performance may be best in the Olympus E-500; this is a good test situation: take some CF cards to the store and shoot some from each camera, then compare your results.

[coldrain]

Color performance may be best in the Olympus E-500; this is a good test situation: take some CF cards to the store and shoot some from each camera, then compare your results.
Why do you think that? I have seen some samples, and they do not seem so wonderful... At least not better than others.
Look at the samples from Jeff:
E-500
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e500-review/PB010025-pp.JPG

EOS 350D/XT
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/digital_rebel_xt-review/IMG_4768-pp.JPG

D50
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d50-review/DSC_0162-pp.JPG

Don't look at the noise but at the colours in the next bunch of samples:

E-500
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/olympus/e500-review/testshot-e500-400-crop.jpg

EOS 350D
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/digital_rebel_xt-review/testshot-xt-100-crop.jpg

D50
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d50-review/d50_2-crop.jpg

To me that does not leave the impression of that the E-500 performs better in colour reproduction. Judging these two examples (I did NOT look for samples that would favour one camera, they were chosen quite at random) I would prefer the other 2 cameras, especially the EOS 350D. To be more precise, for the outdoor shot 1. Canon 2. Nikon 3. Olympus, for the studio shot 1. Canon 2. Olympus 3. Nikon.

[aparmley]

Just as it was stated by Jeisner, settings/processing/film/out of camera jpegs - these all effect each person differently. So telling you whats going to give you an image that you will interpret as the best jpeg out of the camera is sorta like asking us to tell you what your favorite color is. Now, thats a bit of a smart-@$$ remark, but thats me and thats the clearest way to explain it to you.

Simply, its difficult for anyone to know what you will like and what you won't like about jpegs straight from the camera. You could take a CF card to a store try them all out. Play with each cameras parameters and see what you get. . . That might be the way to go here. . .

Good luck.

It took me months of reading, comparing images, reading some more, evaluating each manufactures lens lineup/flash system before I made up my mind. . .

Maybe we should start a thread on how long it took to make up your mind about your current DSLR.

[Ali_baba]

I also prefer not to do post processing (ok, for RAW it is acceptable if the work is not too much). Already been too busy with projects at my job. I am thinking about Dynax 5D but not sure if the jpg quality is superb.

I have seen the sample pics on dpreview of 500, 35D and Nikon 50. Are those post processed pictures?

[coldrain]

I also prefer not to do post processing (ok, for RAW it is acceptable if the work is not too much). Already been too busy with projects at my job. I am thinking about Dynax 5D but not sure if the jpg quality is superb.

I have seen the sample pics on dpreview of 500, 35D and Nikon 50. Are those post processed pictures?
No, they are out of camera, standard settings pictures.

[patrickt]

I don't think it matters a lot. I believe all of the DSLR cameras have adjustments to set saturation, sharpness, and contrast to your personal preference. Whether you like one cameras default settings more than another is really irrelevant since you can set the parameters.

If you're looking for a DSLR that is the ultimate P&S then you're wasting both your money and your time. I shoot raw and spend very little time on post-processing, which I don't really enjoy. My advice would be to get the camera you like, set the parameters to please you, and go shoot pictures.

[Darth_furious]

on the outdoors shot, the canon could have been more like the olympus if it had a warmer WB. I prefer cloudy, over even "shade" on my XT. But saturation and WB adjustment can do more than the equipment. It really is the person behind the lens that matters and how that person controls what they are given. I seen some awesome shots from any camera, just gotta know the equipment and how to adjust color in camera settings.

[Francis]

Fuji S3, no doubt about it, however, I didn't make pictures with a Nikon D200 yet.

[capedeci]

KM 5D have the least compreession

[coldrain]

KM 5D have the least compreession
That is not true.

[capedeci]

for file size?

i dont know then

i heard over other ppl conversation on this
km have 2.5 : 1 on extra fine mode

dunno if other model have less jpg compresison

[erichlund]

The pros agree with Rhys. The S3 not only has the best dynamic range, but it's color in jpg is excellent, with outstanding, film like rollover at the extremes. The white balance is said to be iffy, and the camera mechanics are a nightmare, but if all you care about is image quality, the S3 is supposed to be tops.

I previously posted about the friend of Bjorn Rorslett, who switched to the D200. He gave an explanation on the Nikon D1/D2/D100/D200 forum. Turns out he still considers the S3 to have better total image quality, but for his studio work he does not need the level of DR, and he can match color on the D200. As far as camera handling, it's the first time he's ever had to wait for the lights to recycle. He was always waiting on the camera. The D200 is much faster.
I know I put this answer above, but the real truth is:

The one with the best photograper behind it.

All of these dSLRs have compromises. The 35mm size itself is a compromise to allow hand held shooting, a key to making cameras more mobile and spontaneous. I suspect some of the medium format backs will blow any of these dSLRs away for image quality, but I have no specific evidence.

It also depends on the type of photographs you want to take. If you are shooting indoor b-ball, the S3 is not going to keep up, and a fast camera like the Nikon D2Hs, D2X or Canon 1D MkII is going to give you the best chance to get the shot. So the S3 doesn't really qualify. OTOH, wedding formals don't really require operating speed, but dynamic range is critical because that white dress is so prone to blowout. So, here, the S3 excels, as it does in landscape photography.

While the new D200 from Nikon is said to have improved dynamic range, that appears at this point to be little more than impression, and we will have to wait for real testing to find out. Of course, the camera is revolutionary in that it is opening up a whole new form of photography: Light bulb shots at +4EV. :rolleyes: Still, it seems that combined with Photoshop CS2 or Capture 4.0, it is able to recover detail in blown whites that was previously unrecoverable on most Nikons. Of course, it's not all the camera, mostly the software, but the responsiveness of the camera will have a lot of wedding photographers switching, or using the D200 in combination with the S3 for the formals.

[Spot focus]

"The one with the best photograper behind it."
That is so true ;) taking time to set up shot and having the correct settings and lens for the job.;)

[George Riehm]

"The one with the best photograper behind it."
That is so true ;) taking time to set up shot and having the correct settings and lens for the job.;)

Definately not a sports or wildlife shooter. Me either, and I suck at both (not enough practice), but as I remember, the few time I have tried it, there was very little time to set up a shot, much less change settings... and forget changing lenses.;)

In my opinion, with the advent of very good low cost (or even free) RAW processors, and cheap memory and storage, JPEG just doesn't make sense anymore. Getting used to the change in workflow is a little painful, but once you do, it's a whole new world.

[Rhys]

I found sports photography quite easy with 35mm and manual focus lenses. With AF, I never found they could keep up with the action; indeed they make it harder to get a good photo, IMHO. If Nikon ever comes out with a full-frame digital camera that will work 100% with MF lenses and costs less than $1000 then I might have to get it. I decided it's not yet worth my getting a Nikon D1/D2 but it could be at some point.

[erichlund]

I found sports photography quite easy with 35mm and manual focus lenses. With AF, I never found they could keep up with the action; indeed they make it harder to get a good photo, IMHO. If Nikon ever comes out with a full-frame digital camera that will work 100% with MF lenses and costs less than $1000 then I might have to get it. I decided it's not yet worth my getting a Nikon D1/D2 but it could be at some point.
I suspect that's going to be a long wait. I'd suggest you see if you can find a D200 to try out (OK, I realize it's about 70% higher than your limit, but it doesn't cost anything to give it test run in the shop). I've found the D200 viewfinder is pretty darn decent for manual focusing. It's not full frame, but I just don't see Nikon going that direction for at least several years.

Of course, this is just my feeling, but I'm somewhat convinced that Nikon wants to stick with the APS C size until they come up against a hard limit. I personally think that could be a while.

[coldrain]

Rhys can always manual focus on an EOS 5D and have full frame. He can even use his manual Nikon lenses if he wishes to, and the 5D has quite a bigger dynamic range than the D200 and 20D.

If he only wants a full frame Nikon, I can make him a nice Nikon sticker ;)

[erichlund]

Rhys can always manual focus on an EOS 5D and have full frame. He can even use his manual Nikon lenses if he wishes to, and the 5D has quite a bigger dynamic range than the D200 and 20D.

If he only wants a full frame Nikon, I can make him a nice Nikon sticker ;)
Rhys wants an under $1000 camera. Which one do you think will get there first? Considering the current price of the two camera's, if the 5D gets there first, that would be telling.

Bottom line, Rhys being Rhys, he's not buying either, so it's a moot point (I have to use this phrase a lot, I'm tired of people calling it a mute point. There are just certain things that wear the enamel off my teeth). ;)