Difference- Digital and DSLR?

bisp21 · May 14, 2008

What are the main differences between a 10 megapixel digital camera and 10 megapixel DSLR?

Are the pictures going to come out much better on the DSLR that spending the extra cash is worth it?

Picture quality? Options? Etc?

Overread · May 14, 2008

A digital camera has a single lens attached permenantly to it.
A DSLR (digital single reflex camera) has interchangable lenses.

This is important as a lens is a key part in capturing a shot, a digital camera can have a go at almost anything (barring super zooming) and thus whilst having a wide range is master of none.
A DSLR on the other hand can change lenses for different needs, allowing it to be a master camera for macro, or portrates or long range. This means that a DSLR is a larger investment as lenses (especially the high quality ones) can be very expensive.
It should also be noted that in many (but not all) cases a DSLR has far more customisable settings than a digital camera which is often based around using preset modes rather than changing prefrences for the desired effect

sultan · May 14, 2008

There is a HUGE difference.
1. DSLRs features interchangeable lenses of higher quality than P&S lenses. They are far more flexible than compacts.
2. DSLRs are SLRs. They feature a moving mirror, focusing screen, prism etc. that show exactly what the lens sees. When you focus the lens, you see the image as focused in the VF. In addition, there are no parallax errors.
3. DSLRs generally offer more control over your images compared to compacts. They all offer full PASM controls, MF and RAW image format support.
4. They offer superior image quality, esp. in low light at high ISOs. They offer much more detail and far less grain/noise.

These are just a few differences. If you are seriously interested in photography, I strongly recommend that you get a DSLR.

Big Mike · May 14, 2008

The biggest difference is the size of the sensor. A larger sensor is a huge advantage.

Go to www.dpreview.com and compare the sensor size of a typical digicam and a DSLR.

Rachelsne · May 14, 2008

It depends what you want the camer faor if your uninterested in learning about various settings and functions and you are going to use either camera on the auto mode, then point and shoot is going to be the better cheaper option.

With a DSLR even with an 8 mp you can get better quality images from it in comparrison to a 10mp point and shoot camera, this is because using a DSLR you have control over everything, so if its low light you can set the camera to reduce noise (grainyness) set white balance so the colours show up as they apear in real life, choose a shutter speed slow or fast, great of sport (fast) or dark rooms (slow with no moving objects)

Gopherkid · May 14, 2008

A slr requires some playing with before getting the hang of it. With control over everything, its much easier to take a bad picture. That being said, once you learn, the quality of the photos are not even comparable to a point and shoot.

sultan · May 14, 2008

An SLR is no harder than a P&S. Av and Tv semi-auto modes are very simple. And if you're an idiot, you still have the auto mode.

Gopherkid said:
A slr requires some playing with before getting the hang of it. With control over everything, its much easier to take a bad picture. That being said, once you learn, the quality of the photos are not even comparable to a point and shoot.

Joves · May 14, 2008

Just look at a P&S digital like it is a film disposable camera and, the Dslr as a 35mm camera. That is the diffrence in quality.

djrichie28 · May 14, 2008

Is it true that an DSLR has a physical shutter as opposed to a capture timing sensor?

sultan · May 14, 2008

djrichie28 said:
Is it true that an DSLR has a physical shutter as opposed to a capture timing sensor?

Most of them do but IMHO an electronic shutter is actually better because of flash sync and no distortion of fast moving subjects (leaning).

someguy5 · May 14, 2008

I dunno if P&S cameras are getting better, but my main gripe with my P&S is the lag between the time I press the shutter and the image it captures.

Miaow · May 14, 2008

This was an article I posted a little while ago thats got a bit of info on the differences.

http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122413

bahandi · May 14, 2008

someguy5 said:
I dunno if P&S cameras are getting better, but my main gripe with my P&S is the lag between the time I press the shutter and the image it captures.

what kind of compact camera did you have? hell, for me, canon's marketing regarding the digic II processor sold me on my second p&s and i was more than happy

djacobox372 · May 15, 2008

Joves said:
Just look at a P&S digital like it is a film disposable camera and, the Dslr as a 35mm camera. That is the diffrence in quality.

LOL, it's not that big of dif... some of the better P&S kick the snot out of some of the worse SLR's.

The only thing that makes an SLR is the mirror which allows you to see exactly what the lens is seeing, and interchangable lenses... neither of those positively effect quality, actually they both hinder it somewhat... but they do provide options which allow the photographer the ability to reach their ultimate potential.

But... in the hands of an inexperienced user my $ would be on the P&S to achieve better quality out of the box.

goodoneian · May 15, 2008

in response to what's above, i think that a d40+ 18-55mm kit lens can still out preform a high end point and shoot. for example an 800 dollar sigma dp1 still doesn't have the control options and capabilites as a 480 dollar d40 kit. i could be wrong, but that's just my opinion

PS: also in response to above me, i don't see how having interchangeable lenses can hinder the quality of the picture unless you use lenses constructed of only like cheap clear plastic and not glass