Sony a850 compared with Canon Compact IXUS 95IS

[peteloud]

Hi Guys,

A couple of days ago I did report for another forum, dpreview, on which I am contributor, I thought that it might be interesting to share it with my friends in UK. It shows that there was very little difference between the images from my top of the range Sony a850 and my Canon compact IXUS 95IS. I do not wish to suggest that my Sony is bad. I am unsure why there is so little difference, just that there is more to photography than equipment. Here is the message that I posted,
--------------------------

Here are a few test shots comparing my Sony a850 with my 10MB Canon Compact IXUS 95IS.
http://www.peterloud.co.uk/photos/Temp/a850_Comparison.html

All shots were taken handheld with the same degree of care. On the a850 the submarine was a high-res jpg, the market was a RAW. The small samples from the sub. images are actual pixels.

On the assumption that many of you will not want to believe your eyes and dismiss me as an incompetent photographer I include a link on the webpage to a few more of my photos, some a850 and some Canon 350D

BTW I am not unhappy with my a850.

--------------------------

I am reluctant to ask myself whether the a850, or any other expensive camera is worth the money :-(

Cheers,

Pete

 

[HoppyUK]

If you play to the strengths of one particular camera - in certain conditions, with certain subjects - you can get surprising results.

Here's a comparison between a Canon G10 and a $40,000 Hasselblad http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml But I don't think many Hasselblad owners were taken in by it, as for the work they do and the way they do it, the little Canon doesn't stand a chance