DLSR vs Point and Shoot Digital cameras

[bobbyfrancisjoseph]

I am a rookie in photography but unfortunately a techie too. So I would like to get one thing clear in my head. Based on my reading I easily understand why the optical viewfinder of a dSLR gives a more accurate view of the scene than in the case of point and shoot digital cameras. But why is it that the LCD screen is able to give a better view in case of dSLR. Is it because expensive and bigger sensors are used. Would I correct if I say that I am not taking advantage of the SLR principle if I am looking into LCD screen instead of viewfinder of a dSLR when taking photos.

 

[tirediron]

Larger and better sensors, yes, and to a degree, higher-quality LCD displays, but probably the most important factor is larger, faster, higher quality lenses funneling the light onto that sensor. You would be correct; the 'reflecx' aspect on an SLR (film or digital) is based around the moving mirror. When you're using live view, the mirror (on most) DSLRs is raised out of the light path, and not part of the equation.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Based on my reading I easily understand why the optical viewfinder of a dSLR gives a more accurate view of the scene than in the case of point and shoot digital cameras.

False. The optical view finder is always less accurate than what is shown on the LCD, whether it is a point & shoot or an SLR. The advantage of the optical viewfinder is that it is not impacted by bright sunlight and that having the camera against your face gives it another point against which it is stabilized.

Would I correct if I say that I am not taking advantage of the SLR principle if I am looking into LCD screen instead of viewfinder of a dSLR when taking photos.

The through-the-lens (TTL) optical SLR viewfinder was a huge advantage before there were LCD screens and digital cameras. Every other camera's viewfinder was an approximation. Once digital cameras came out, the optical viewfinder became more of a convenience and stability point than anything else.

Also, the optics of SLR lenses are not necessarily any better than those of point and shoot cameras. (especially the better point & shoots) The main reason SLRs yield higher quality images is because they have larger sensors; less enlargement is needed to get a usable image size. Same reason 35mm gave better images than 110 film and 2-1/4" film gave better image quality than 35mm.

 

[o hey tyler]

Based on my reading I easily understand why the optical viewfinder of a dSLR gives a more accurate view of the scene than in the case of point and shoot digital cameras.

False. The optical view finder is always less accurate than what is shown on the LCD, whether it is a point & shoot or an SLR. The advantage of the optical viewfinder is that it is not impacted by bright sunlight and that having the camera against your face gives it another point against which it is stabilized.

I'm going to disagree with this.

OVF's don't have refresh rates. LCD's do. While I agree it shows the entire IMAGE area on the LCD, OVF's are more accurate.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Good point about refresh rate. But that applies to fast moving subjects. Sports, for instance.

For everything else, I would argue that seeing 100% of what one is capturing is more important.

 

[o hey tyler]

Good point about refresh rate. But that applies to fast moving subjects. Sports, for instance.

For everything else, I would argue that seeing 100% of what one is capturing is more important.

A handful of DSLR's have 100% Viewfinder coverage, so I guess that would be the same thing.

I think on my 5D it's 95%, and the 5D2 is like 97%, but the 7D has a 100% full coverage viewfinder... Meaning you don't need to reference with the LCD, but I see what you're saying.

 

[Jeremy Z]

Yes, but those are few and very expensive cameras.

For those of us who can't drop a couple grand on a camera body, it is a moot point.

 

[o hey tyler]

Yes, but those are few and very expensive cameras.

For those of us who can't drop a couple grand on a camera body, it is a moot point.

Lets put it this way... I've been shooting dslrs for the past 5 years. The negligible difference in frame coverage has not effected my photos In the least. Not really a moot point.

 

[Josh66]

I do like 100% viewfinders, but in practice 95% or 97% is fine.

I mean, it's not like you take a picture with a cheaper body then scream-
"OMG! There's an extra 10 pixels around the edges that I didn't account for in my composition!"

 

[SCraig]

Wow! Guess those of us who grew up on cameras without LCD's were in trouble the whole time and didn't even realize it. Honestly, whether the LCD covers 95%, 97% or 100% really means nothing whatsoever to me.

 

[APHPHOTO]

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

 

[greybeard]

The added image enlargment needed by a P&S is a big disadvantage when compared to a dslr. True, a 12 MP file .jpeg from a P&S is the same size as a 12 MP file from a dslr but, the image from the P&S has to be enlarged several times more than the image from the dslr, even with a crop frame because the physical size of the P&S sensor is so much smaller than that of the dslr. This makes it really tough for a P&S to compete with a dslr. Eventhough the lens quality of a P&S may be high, the added enlargments needed would nigate any quality advantage the lens may have.

 

[djacobox372]

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

The lens quality is equal, its just that they are smaller and focusing onto a smaller area, so final performance is diminished. Sort of like comparing the "quality" of a 2 liter engine to a 5 liter, the 2L might be as good or better in quality, but that doesnt mean it produces more power.

 

[Ysarex]

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

 

[greybeard]

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.


Joe

Another reason why we need an articulated screen on a FF dslr!
Cameras are photographers what wrenches are to a mechanic. Whatever gets the job done.