Canon Powershot 120 IS vs Canon 300d

carvinrocks2 · Jul 14, 2010

I have a Canon Powershot SX 120 IS 10 MP and I have a Canon 300D 6.3 mp on the way. The 300D is a few years old, and the Powershot is basically brand new so I was wondering if the 300D image quality would still be better than the Powershot despite the age difference.

I know I hae more options because of lenses with the 300D but this thought has made it's way to my brain since I bought the 300D. (It will not be here for around a month)

iAstonish · Jul 14, 2010

Given the lens you use, you should be able to get better IQ with the 300d. The MP's mostly effect you when it comes to large prints.

carvinrocks2 · Jul 14, 2010

So that would be the only advantage besides me looking more professional with a SLR in my hands? Lol

Big Mike · Jul 14, 2010

The big difference, is the physical size of the sensor (the digital film).

The SLR Rebel has what we call an APS-C sized sensor. 22.7 x 15.1 mm (3.42 cm²)
The other camera, like 99.9% of non-SLR digital cameras, has a rather small sensor. 1/2.5 " (5.75 x 4.31 mm, 0.24 cm²)
That is a clear advantage for the Rebel (or any SLR over most non-SLR digicams).

There is certainly the age factor here though. The Rebel is very old by current standards. The 120 IS is exactly 6 years newer, and there has been a lot of new technology put into cameras in that time.

Of course, when talking about image quality, the lens is a major factor. The best part of the Rebel is that it can be attached to any Canon EF or EF-S lens. The 120 is stuck with the lens it's got.

My opinion, you could probably find a newer Rebel for not a lot of money. Something like the XT or XTi. That would have all the advantages mentioned above, but with much newer & better technology.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/compare_post.asp

carvinrocks2 · Jul 14, 2010

Yeah, I thought the PS might have some advantages over it, but I'll still enjoy the 300D even though it is older, but it was all I could really afford Digital SLR wise.

iAstonish · Jul 15, 2010

carvinrocks2 said:
So that would be the only advantage besides me looking more professional with a SLR in my hands? Lol

No, but you asked specifically about the image quality lol

Like Big Mike said, with the rebel you can switch lenses, which will be the biggest contributor and factor in regards to image quality.

The build is also very different than a point and shoot as well obviously. I guess this goes can be viewed either way, depending on your preference.

I don't know much about your specific point and shoot, but with the rebel you could manually adjust your settings and learn a lot that way about the technical side of photography. A DSLR is a great tool. One of it's main advantages is the control it gives you over your photos, so do yourseld a favor and put it in manual as much as you can. Try not to rely on using it always as an oversize point and shoot.

LCARSx32 · Jul 15, 2010

It's really hard to compare a point & shoot to a DSLR. Each has their strong points and weaknesses. It's really going to come down to how you plan to use the camera. If you want to be able to do more "artsy" shots (like where you have an out-of-focus background with a nice crisp foreground), you'll need the flexibility that the 300D or another DSLR provides. If you just want to take quick snapshots without thinking about how the picture will look ahead of time, you probably won't want the extra bulk of a DSLR. I'm guessing since you're on this forum, you'd like the extra control.

As far as how the pictures will compare, P&S's, in most cases, won't come close to the quality of a DSLR. Even a several year old one like the 300D (which I happen to use). My family have brand new 8 and 10MP P&S's and my 6 year old 300D still takes better pictures. Especially in less than ideal situations (low light, light behind the subject, etc.) because I can tell the camera exactly what settings to use and use my attachments to overcome most obstacles.

I think you'll be surprised just how good the pictures come out from this 6 year old camera.:thumbup:

Skyclad · Jul 15, 2010

LCARSx32 said:
It's really hard to compare a point & shoot to a DSLR. Each has their strong points and weaknesses. It's really going to come down to how you plan to use the camera. If you want to be able to do more "artsy" shots (like where you have an out-of-focus background with a nice crisp foreground), you'll need the flexibility that the 300D or another DSLR provides. If you just want to take quick snapshots without thinking about how the picture will look ahead of time, you probably won't want the extra bulk of a DSLR. I'm guessing since you're on this forum, you'd like the extra control.

To be fair though, the SX120IS gives you full manual control similar to a DSLR, and you can do many of those artsy shots. So thats a big plus for that camera. But even with that, its still not a DSLR and its a fixed lens, so it still has its limitations.

The 300D will definitely give you much more flexibility no question.

carvinrocks2 · Jul 15, 2010

Thanks for the responses! I was just wondering if spending the $225 was the right choice. The 120IS gives some manual controls, and I use them alot, but it is somewhat limited. Great camera, though, I would recommend it.

o hey tyler · Jul 15, 2010

The larger sensor in the SLR format cameras also handles noise better.

carvinrocks2 · Jul 15, 2010

o hey tyler said:
The larger sensor in the SLR format cameras also handles noise better.

I read a review where the guy had photos using the highest ISO setting, it had less noise than the PS half that ISO.

Big Mike · Jul 15, 2010

That's usually the case.

On factor of digital noise, is the sensor density (pixels/photosites per area). And because P&S cameras have such tiny sensors, they are very crowed. Especially the newer ones with high Megapixels.

On the other hand, the technology for reducing noise has also improved a lot. Which is why high MP DSLR cameras like the 50D, 7D, 5D mkII, don't show excessive noise.