DLSR vs Point and Shoot Digital cameras

[jedirunner]

I totaly disagree with the lense quality of point and shoot cameras being equal to dslr.

Right. The lens on my P&S simply swats most lenses on DSLRs -- you gotta get the right P&S.

The AMOLED screen on my P&S is stunning. It's better than the retina display on the iPhone and better than any LCD on any current DSLR. I like the OVF on my DSLR but the fully articulated AMOLED on my P&S lets me take photos from 6 inches off the ground without having to lay down in the mud. Lay down in the mud with my 5D mkII or just do a little civilized stoop with my P&S -- not a tough call.

Is the IQ from my 5D mkII superior? Ultimately yes, but you couldn't see it in an 8x10 print. In the meantime my P&S saves 14 bit RAW files that are edge to edge sharper than Canon L series zooms. Yeah, it's a smaller sensor, but at ISO 80 it holds it's own. Oh yeah, that ISO 80 is easier to hang on to since my P&S zoom lens is an f/1.8. That's right, the zoom lens on my P&S has a max aperture of f/1.8. Did I say it was a zoom lens? -- you gotta get the right P&S.

Joe

What is this P&S you are using? Sounds like a pretty nice model.

Kevin

 

[Jeremy Z]

I totaly disagree with the lense quality of point and shoot cameras being equal to dslr.

Right. The lens on my P&S simply swats most lenses on DSLRs -- you gotta get the right P&S.

Agreed. I don't think most folks here really know how good a GOOD point and shoot camera can be. They went from mass market, consumer P&S straight to dSLRs. Or from older "ultrazoom" P&S to a dSLR. Both of these types of cameras have much smaller sensors than high end P&S and worse lenses too.

If we compare the lens on a $100 P&S camera to a kit lens on a dSLR, I bet the dSLR lens is just slightly better. If we compare the kit lens of a dSLR to that of a NICE P&S, (like a Canon S90, G12, Olympus XZ-1, etc.) the P&S lens wins. If we compare a nicer dSLR lens, like a fixed f/2.8 28-70 zoom, to that of a NICE P&S, it is probably even. But the point is that the dSLR still wins in final image quality because it's sensor is 4x bigger.

Now, about viewfinder coverage, several of you indicated that 95% coverage is enough. This is still a level of coverage that is only provided by the nicer dSLRs. I believe that for entry level dSLRs, 87% is more typical. It DOES have an effect. The effect is that you get more than you thought you'd get, and therefore you're losing resolution because you have to crop out that 13% extra. (or 5%, for those of you with 95% coverage viewfinders)

It may not be a huge difference, but let's not pretend it isn't there.

By contrast, using a display with 100% coverage means that if you compose carefully, you can use 100% of your camera's resolution toward the final result.

The AMOLED screen on my P&S is stunning. It's better than the retina display on the iPhone

Now THAT is hard to believe! Better in what terms? Brightness? Battery life? Because it is sure no match, resolution-wise. My incoming XZ-1 has the OLED (is that the same as AMOLED?) display; I can't wait to see it.

Is the IQ from my 5D mkII superior? Ultimately yes, but you couldn't see it in an 8x10 print. In the meantime my P&S saves 14 bit RAW files that are edge to edge sharper than Canon L series zooms. Yeah, it's a smaller sensor, but at ISO 80 it holds it's own. Oh yeah, that ISO 80 is easier to hang on to since my P&S zoom lens is an f/1.8. That's right, the zoom lens on my P&S has a max aperture of f/1.8. Did I say it was a zoom lens? -- you gotta get the right P&S.

You must have the XZ-1, because I don't know of any other P&S that has f/1.8. (?) I think you hit on a key point here too: practical image quality. 'Better' only matters to a certain point, to practical limits. On a previous camera, I found that there is no advantage to having resolution greater than 4 MP for up to 8x12 prints. (that was an older Olympus ultrazoom camera with a typical 1/2.3 sensor, too) #1) I rarely print any more. #2) When I do, it is usually 4x6 and never larger than 8x12. #3) My lowest resolution camera is 6 MP. #4) 90+ % of my shooting is between 28-105 mm.

I'm open minded enough that I question myself every now and then. I questioned myself after one trip to Europe, walking miles and miles carrying a bag-O-lenses. Being immediately targeted by street hustlers. I don't regret carrying it, as I got good pictures as a result. But the next trip there, I left it home and brought my trust little Canon S90, and the pictures were just as good. I did miss maybe 3 or 4 telephoto shots. The key was to have a pocket tripod always with me so I could shoot at ISO 80 most of the time. All I had was the camera in a belt pouch, a spare battery, a lens cloth, a spare memory card, and the tripod in a pocket somewhere.

If you're into pixel-peeping, I agree, it won't do. If you're into good results that look good at any practical resolution for a non-pro, it is quite liberating.

I apologize, I kind of went off on a P&S crusade there. My point was that we should challenge our thinking once in a while.

The Canon G1-X is coming out soon. It is basically a G12 with a sensor that is very nearly as large as an APS-C. This is the next photographic resolution, guys. Like it or not. Most people (we're not the norm) STILL do not want to be bothered with the bulk, weight, and expense of an SLR. Or even a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. (ILC)

 

[o hey tyler]

Now, about viewfinder coverage, several of you indicated that 95% coverage is enough. This is still a level of coverage that is only provided by the nicer dSLRs. I believe that for entry level dSLRs, 87% is more typical. It DOES have an effect. The effect is that you get more than you thought you'd get, and therefore you're losing resolution because you have to crop out that 13% extra. (or 5%, for those of you with 95% coverage viewfinders)

You didn't actually look that up did you? Entry level DSLRs are between 94-95% viewfinder coverage. I just looked up the Canon T2i, and Nikon D5100. Both were in that range. 87% is just a "pulled it out of your ass" number... Lets be honest.

By contrast, using a display with 100% coverage means that if you compose carefully, you can use 100% of your camera's resolution toward the final result.

By contrast, using a DSLR with an OVF that DOESN'T have 100% viewfinder coverage allows you to frame your shot in the viewfinder, but have a padding of 1.25% on each side of the frame allowing a crop buffer if need be. Most types of shooting do not rely on extremely critical frame placement... MOST, not all though.

You must have the XZ-1, because I don't know of any other P&S that has f/1.8. (?) I think you hit on a key point here too: practical image quality. 'Better' only matters to a certain point, to practical limits. On a previous camera, I found that there is no advantage to having resolution greater than 4 MP for up to 8x12 prints. (that was an older Olympus ultrazoom camera with a typical 1/2.3 sensor, too) #1) I rarely print any more. #2) When I do, it is usually 4x6 and never larger than 8x12. #3) My lowest resolution camera is 6 MP. #4) 90+ % of my shooting is between 28-105 mm.

So your opinion is biased because you don't print photos... That's kind of a big deal for DSLR users. Most of them make their living off quality prints. I do a lot of printing at 20x30, so my opinion is different than yours.

I'm open minded enough that I question myself every now and then. I questioned myself after one trip to Europe, walking miles and miles carrying a bag-O-lenses. Being immediately targeted by street hustlers. I don't regret carrying it, as I got good pictures as a result. But the next trip there, I left it home and brought my trust little Canon S90, and the pictures were just as good. I did miss maybe 3 or 4 telephoto shots. The key was to have a pocket tripod always with me so I could shoot at ISO 80 most of the time. All I had was the camera in a belt pouch, a spare battery, a lens cloth, a spare memory card, and the tripod in a pocket somewhere.

If you're into pixel-peeping, I agree, it won't do. If you're into good results that look good at any practical resolution for a non-pro, it is quite liberating.

I agree, for traveling P&S cameras are great if you need to pack lightly but still have something to document your trip with. It can indeed be quite liberating.

The Canon G1-X is coming out soon. It is basically a G12 with a sensor that is very nearly as large as an APS-C. This is the next photographic resolution, guys. Like it or not. Most people (we're not the norm) STILL do not want to be bothered with the bulk, weight, and expense of an SLR. Or even a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. (ILC)

The Canon G1x is coming out soon. I'm sure it will be a nice camera for photo enthusiasts, not professionals.

I do not believe it is the next "photographic revolution." Others have claimed that EVF's and ILC's are the new "photographic revolution." That DSLRs are 'out of date', and on their way to the tech toilet. Obviously that isn't the case, because of the evident drawbacks of EVF's and ILC's... And the soaring number of consumers picking up DSLRs on the daily. Especially since the G1x is priced around the same as an entry level DSLR, and doesn't have interchangeable lenses.

I agree, most people don't want to be burdened with the weight or bulk of a DSLR... And those are the people that will not be shooting your wedding, the models in the ads that you look at in magazines, the fine art you see in museums, and the 1:1 macro work that everyone seems to love. It just won't happen.

 

[Jeremy Z]

You didn't actually look that up did you? Entry level DSLRs are between 94-95% viewfinder coverage. I just looked up the Canon T2i, and Nikon D5100. Both were in that range. 87% is just a "pulled it out of your ass" number... Lets be honest.

I pulled the number from my memory, and it was wrong. Nevertheless, I don't appreciate your tone.

So your opinion is biased because you don't print photos... That's kind of a big deal for DSLR users. Most of them make their living off quality prints. I do a lot of printing at 20x30, so my opinion is different than yours.

Most SLR users make their living off of quality prints larger than 8x12? I doubt it. I'd be curious to hear where you got that stat Tyler. (did you notice how I phrased that?) I would suggest that if you frequently make 20x30 prints, you're in the minority of dSLR users, even pros. I bet there are at least 200 dSLR users for every one that prints something bigger than 8x12. Even if we poll the forum, I bet you are in the minority.

The Canon G1-X is coming out soon. It is basically a G12 with a sensor that is very nearly as large as an APS-C. This is the next photographic resolution, guys. Like it or not. Most people (we're not the norm) STILL do not want to be bothered with the bulk, weight, and expense of an SLR. Or even a mirrorless interchangeable lens camera. (ILC)

The Canon G1x is coming out soon. I'm sure it will be a nice camera for photo enthusiasts, not professionals.

Yes, and I bet most of us here are not professionals.

I was referring to TPF users. Most folks I know that have switched to dSLRs are former P&S users who have switched because of the faster and smarter focusing and exposure calculations. They can't seem to catch their kids' moments with a P&S. This is another thing that can be improved upon without the need for interchangeable lenses or a mirror.

 

[Ysarex]

You must have the XZ-1, because I don't know of any other P&S that has f/1.8. (?)

Close -- it was a contender. My camera is the other compact with a 1.8 zoom -- Samsung EX1.

The XZ-1 missed on one critical feature. I was born with 24mm (eqv) eyes in my head. I can't use a camera that can't see like I do. The XZ-1 is widest at 28mm (eqv). The EX1 has a Schneider zoom that starts at 24mm (eqv).

Other than that it has to save RAW files, provide full manual control and fit in my pocket. As a bonus the EX1 also provides manual focus and that awesome articulated screen.

The real plus of the EX1 is it's lens. Edge to edge resolution more like a prime than a zoom. I'm dead serious when I say it bests the L series zooms on my 5D. CA -- almost non existent. It's a firecracker camera and it can go where I go.

P&S is a broad category. As soon as the camera has a fixed lens, no reflex viewing system and a compact size it gets labeled a P&S. It's true that the smaller sensor has it's trade offs, but that's the game. On the other side of that trade is a camera in my pocket that's always there.

Joe

 

[Ysarex]

I think you hit on a key point here too: practical image quality. 'Better' only matters to a certain point, to practical limits.

I'm going to show you a photo I took today. I had to go to work today (once a week) -- a long drive and really bad traffic at rush hour, so I go two hours early (30 miles). When I get to the area, I stop at a nearby nature reserve and get in a small hike. 5D mkII stays at home, but my EX1 is always in my pocket. It was a gloomy, actually drizzling, day and I hiked along a little stream. I saw these tree roots at the edge of the stream that caught my eye and I grabbed a shot. I had to raise the ISO from 80 to 200! I hate doing that, but there was no alternative -- left the monopod at home. Here's the photo:

http://photojoes.org/roots.jpg

That's full res. RAW file processed through C1 out to 8 bit RGB and then unsharp mask in Photoshop radius 1.2 amount 110 for web display. No CA correction needed! When you get the image fully downloaded go take a look at the lower right corner at 100% res. For that matter go look at the upper left corner -- any corner. Then imagine it would be better at ISO 80.

My EX1 cost just under $400.00. It fits in my pocket. The lens kicks b*tt. It save 14 bit RAW files. It has full manual control including focus. The fully articulated AOMLED is awesome. Given an APS-C sensor DSLR and kit lens that costs twice as much and I wouldn't trade.

Joe

P.S. My EX1 also has a hot shoe that will take any flash and/or trigger for an external flash -- bases covered.

 

[gerardo2068]

I believe that small cameras will get a lot better as time pass. But dslr are not out dated.

Yes most people want small camera and they will shoot like a dslr soon. Thats fine But still all that means is that the dslr are gonna shoot even better!

Look at the Nikon D4

And if in 4 years a P&S camera shoot just like a D4 all that means is that the D5 or D6 will shoot even better.