DSLR in full auto vs P&S in full auto

[ConradM]

I agree with the OP. In my experience a DSLR will produce much higher quality photos than a P&S in most conditions.

Here are some examples of pics I've taken -

This was taken with a Canon SX3 (I think), It's a $400 superzoom P&S.

This was taken with my dad's Canon XTi in auto with the kit lens.

 

[ph0enix]

Why are you discussing how people spend their money. Good grief, nothing better to do?

Because we can

 

[Destin]

I agree with the OP. In my experience a DSLR will produce much higher quality photos than a P&S in most conditions.

Here are some examples of pics I've taken -

This was taken with a Canon SX3 (I think), It's a $400 superzoom P&S.

This was taken with my dad's Canon XTi in auto with the kit lens.

Sooo... one is overexposed, one isn't. They look equal in sharpness and such. The one from the P&S could easily be as good as the dslr shot with a slight tweak in post. Up he contrast a few points, along with the black point, and bring the exposure down ever so slightly, and they would look identical sharpness and exposure wise. This just tells me that the P&S needs an adjustment in it's picture control settings. (or whatever canon calls the contrast/sharpness/saturation adjustments in camera). They really don't look that different from one another.

 

[analog.universe]

The one thing I noticed was that the P&S backfocused and the SLR didn't..

 

[ConradM]

I agree with the OP. In my experience a DSLR will produce much higher quality photos than a P&S in most conditions.

Here are some examples of pics I've taken -

This was taken with a Canon SX3 (I think), It's a $400 superzoom P&S.


This was taken with my dad's Canon XTi in auto with the kit lens.

Sooo... one is overexposed, one isn't. They look equal in sharpness and such. The one from the P&S could easily be as good as the dslr shot with a slight tweak in post. Up he contrast a few points, along with the black point, and bring the exposure down ever so slightly, and they would look identical sharpness and exposure wise. This just tells me that the P&S needs an adjustment in it's picture control settings. (or whatever canon calls the contrast/sharpness/saturation adjustments in camera). They really don't look that different from one another.

Wow? Seriously? There's a clear difference in quality. Maybe the top picture is to small but it's noisier, not as sharp etc... Maybe I should pixel peep them because the top picture just looks bad.

 

[Destin]

I agree with the OP. In my experience a DSLR will produce much higher quality photos than a P&S in most conditions.

Here are some examples of pics I've taken -

This was taken with a Canon SX3 (I think), It's a $400 superzoom P&S.


This was taken with my dad's Canon XTi in auto with the kit lens.

Sooo... one is overexposed, one isn't. They look equal in sharpness and such. The one from the P&S could easily be as good as the dslr shot with a slight tweak in post. Up he contrast a few points, along with the black point, and bring the exposure down ever so slightly, and they would look identical sharpness and exposure wise. This just tells me that the P&S needs an adjustment in it's picture control settings. (or whatever canon calls the contrast/sharpness/saturation adjustments in camera). They really don't look that different from one another.

Wow? Seriously? There's a clear difference in quality. Maybe the top picture is to small but it's noisier, not as sharp etc... Maybe I should pixel peep them because the top picture just looks bad.

It's also taken at 150mm vs 55mm on the bottom photo. Lets get a fair comparison.

 

[ConradM]

Sooo... one is overexposed, one isn't. They look equal in sharpness and such. The one from the P&S could easily be as good as the dslr shot with a slight tweak in post. Up he contrast a few points, along with the black point, and bring the exposure down ever so slightly, and they would look identical sharpness and exposure wise. This just tells me that the P&S needs an adjustment in it's picture control settings. (or whatever canon calls the contrast/sharpness/saturation adjustments in camera). They really don't look that different from one another.

Wow? Seriously? There's a clear difference in quality. Maybe the top picture is to small but it's noisier, not as sharp etc... Maybe I should pixel peep them because the top picture just looks bad.

It's also taken at 150mm vs 55mm on the bottom photo. Lets get a fair comparison.

How is it not fair? 2 stock cameras shooting in auto. I could post a picture I've taken with my Sony @ 150mm but it wouldn't be in auto. Regardless, DSLR's put out higher quality in most conditions. If you disagree then post examples.

 

[ConradM]

Ok, let's try this again - Both pics are cropped, no PP shooting in Auto.

This one is at 88mm

55mm

I think that's as close a comparison as I have. Both sets of pics are pretty old.

 

[ConradM]

No replies now?

 

[usayit]

Any camera will perform well enough in ideal conditions. Its how well it handles outside those conditions that matter.

Any camera will degrade in performance when pushed outside its limits. The key here is how far is that limit.

Each and every person will have a different level expectation from the final output.

The meter Auto in this case is a means to the end and varies camera to camera... exposure is the only goal which can be duplicated in any mode. Again nothin being proven except the quality and accuacy of that particular meter.

The parameters are not specified nor being quantively measured. We are just left looking at websized examples of photos that are not even identical.

Conrad, the exercise is full of variables and holes that you are not addressing and the conclusion or point being made is essentially pointless. In my lifetime, I have shot al sorts of equipment. I have produced quality pictures with each and every unit. I have also produced crap from each and every unit. Ranging from a low end PS, high end PS, small sensor micro 43, crop high end DSLR, full frame DSLR, to a high end full frame digital Rangefinders. In the professional field there are photogs that are highly equipped and lesser equipped all earning a living according to the constraints of their profession and business expense.

I have no doubt that most photogs would experience the same exact thing and come to the same conclusion.. Cameras are simply enablers. Nothing more.


And before you clump me in with the other camp of opinions from which you disagreed, you should do a search and understand that I have argued the position that even a low end Point and Shoot has its place in the market.. posted quite a few pics from them and also translated into how I approach someone shopping for a camera.

 

[ConradM]

Any camera will perform well enough in ideal conditions. Its how well it handles outside those conditions that matter.

Any camera will degrade in performance when pushed outside its limits. The key here is how far is that limit.

Each and every person will have a different level expectation from the final output.

The meter Auto in this case is a means to the end and varies camera to camera... exposure is the only goal which can be duplicated in any mode. Again nothin being proven except the quality and accuacy of that particular meter.

The parameters are not specified nor being quantively measured. We are just left looking at websized examples of photos that are not even identical.

Conrad, the exercise is full of variables and holes that you are not addressing and the conclusion or point being made is essentially pointless. In my lifetime, I have shot al sorts of equipment. I have produced quality pictures with each and every unit. I have also produced crap from each and every unit. Ranging from a low end PS, high end PS, small sensor micro 43, crop high end DSLR, full frame DSLR, to a high end full frame digital Rangefinders. In the professional field there are photogs that are highly equipped and lesser equipped all earning a living according to the constraints of their profession and business expense.

I have no doubt that most photogs would experience the same exact thing and come to the same conclusion.. Cameras are simply enablers. Nothing more.


And before you clump me in with the other camp of opinions from which you disagreed, you should do a search and understand that I have argued the position that even a low end Point and Shoot has its place in the market.. posted quite a few pics from them and also translated into how I approach someone shopping for a camera.

I think it's pretty straight forward actually. I took 2 pics, 1 with a newer expensive P&S and 1 with a much older DSLR. Lighting conditions are the same, subject is the same. The P&S picture is just way lower quality.

I'm not really sure what's going on in this thread... Every P&S I've ever used has looked like crap next to a DSLR even shooting in Auto. I can only guess that some people feel like something is being taken away from them in saying a DSLR can produce good photos in auto.

 

[Derrel]

ConradM,
My buddy Steve has a small FujiFilm P&S digital.I forget the model number. It's a silver-bodied one. One summer we were camping at a park that had a full vine maple and fir tree mixed canopy over the camp sites. The lighting is what one would call "deep shade mixed with dappled sunlight shafts". The small Fuji with its ability to synchronize flash at high shutter speeds produced markedly better images than I was able to get with my d-slr.

One interesting issue with P&S digital I learned when I had a Canon G3 high-end digicam; with a "real flash" in the hotshoe, that camera created BEAUTIFUL flash images!!!! With the built-in flash....not so much....

The comparisons in this post seem to me to show a P&S that has a poor lens on it--one with visible chromatic aberration that makes the enlarged images look crummy.

Usayit's post above lays out the situation superbly.

 

[Natalie]

The comparisons in this post seem to me to show a P&S that has a poor lens on it

This. It's clear the P&S has a much lower quality lens than kit lens on the DLSR, and most compact/bridge cameras aren't going to be any better than this. Even my Canon Powershot G9, which is from Canon's "flagship" line of P&S cameras, had bad chromatic aberration like that. The CA is simply terrible on the sample photo posted, and is visible even when the photo isn't enlarged. Now I think most beginning photographers have more important things to worry about than the quality of the glass on their camera, but the very fact that the glass is crappy and can't be changed to something that's even equal with the kit lens of the DSLR means the DSLR will take higher-quality photos (not considering composition/artistic ability), everything else equal. The chromatic aberration is probably also worsened by the fact that compact cameras have smaller sensors, making defects in the glass appear larger and more noticeable, in the same way that defects in the lenses of DSLRs become apparent when shooting with extremely small apertures.

 

[Ballistics]

Ok, let's try this again - Both pics are cropped, no PP shooting in Auto.

This one is at 88mm

55mm

I think that's as close a comparison as I have. Both sets of pics are pretty old.

This proves what? That you can take poor pictures with both cameras? Auto can't be your only control in an experiment like this. The lighting, angle, pose, background, vantage point, distance from subject, and so on are different. This isn't a close comparison. I'm not saying that a P&S won't be outmatched by a DSLR most of the time, but at least make a comparison on a level playing ground.

No replies now?

So at 10:40pm to 2:40am you were expecting what? Is this you thinking that you made some sort of immaculate indisputable point?

 

[cgipson1]

Ok, let's try this again - Both pics are cropped, no PP shooting in Auto.

This one is at 88mm


55mm


I think that's as close a comparison as I have. Both sets of pics are pretty old.

Still not an accurate comparison.. the P&S isn't focused on the dogs face... the DSLR is.. so hardly a valid comparison.

Need similar poses, focal length, focal points.. etc..... for comparison. These are too dissimilar!