DSLR in full auto vs P&S in full auto

[ph0enix]

It's apparent that many people buy a DSLR camera because knowing they have what is perceived to be high end equipment (according to the size of their wallet) makes them feel good. As an example, I was at a kid's birthday party last weekend and a friend of a friend came up to me asking questions about the Nikon D90 I was holding in my hand. He said that he has a Canon SLR. I asked which one. He didn't know so I started naming some models and he thought it was a "EOS, Rebel X...something" but didn't know which one exactly. He then proceeded to tell me that it's time for him to upgrade to a better camera because his Rebel is a few years old. Clearly he didn't know much about the equipment he owns and I'd venture to say that he probably knew even less about photography and that he has absolutely no intentions of learning about it. I'm sure all of you know a guy/girl (or a few) just like that who has a decent camera but never, ever uses any other modes but full auto. But what about the functional aspect? Composition, lighting, etc... aside, a DSLR even in full auto will take higher quality photos than most P&S cameras will when set to full auto and I'm guessing a pro level DSLR in Auto (P or whatever the closest equivalent is) will take even better photos than an entry DSLR. Perhaps that's why many people who have no intentions of learning photography buy them. Does it annoy you to see clueless people walking around with DSLR cameras? Discuss!

 

[Destin]

I STRONGLY disagree. A good point and shoot will make better photos than an entry level dslr in full auto, in my experience. Mainly because the kit lenses that come with most dslrs are so slow, which causes shutter speeds to drop and isos to jump higher. Most point and shoots nowadays have max. apertures of 2.8 or greater.

The other thing... The DOF on a P&S is much greater, and while that limits the ability to blur the background (bokeh), it has an advantage: It allows the camera to focus more easily. Full auto mode in a dslr simply means that it focuses on whatever is closest to the lens, or has the highest contrast. This results is DSLR's in full auto missing focus WAY more often then point and shoot cameras do. My dad has a Nikon D3000 that he uses on full auto all the time, and over half of his shots, especially indoors, are severely out of focus.

If I'm using a camera in full auto, I'm picking up the point and shoot rather than a dslr EVERY time.

 

[Shutter Nutter]

Nope, doesn't annoy me at all. The more people that buy expensive cameras the more it helps to keep the prices down as the development/marketing costs per unit reduce.

And the more people that produce rubbish or average photos, even with the most expensive kit, the more differentiation it puts between me and them so hopefully people will see the value in hiring someone who has half an idea of what they're doing.

It used to annoy me slightly when people said things like "Wow that's a nice camera, I bet it takes great photos" or "I need to get a better camera like yours so I can take nice photos too" but even that just washes over me now - I just nod, smile and say "Yeah, you should".

Edit. Plus if they're having fun and happy with either looking good with the kit and/or the photos they're producing then why not?

 

[iresq]

Not to mention that it makes for a great 2nd hand market also.

 

[cgipson1]

I agree with Destin... a good P&S will beat out a inexpensive DSLR with a kit lens.. any day! A Pro DSLR with a top end lens on auto or P will probably do as well as the P&S.. but not necessarily better (except for much improved IQ due to the better glass).

A good P&S is designed to be shot primarily in full Auto or P.. and the DSLR is not....

 

[Canuk]

I STRONGLY disagree. A good point and shoot will make better photos than an entry level dslr in full auto, in my experience. Mainly because the kit lenses that come with most dslrs are so slow, which causes shutter speeds to drop and isos to jump higher. Most point and shoots nowadays have max. apertures of 2.8 or greater.

The other thing... The DOF on a P&S is much greater, and while that limits the ability to blur the background (bokeh), it has an advantage: It allows the camera to focus more easily. Full auto mode in a dslr simply means that it focuses on whatever is closest to the lens, or has the highest contrast. This results is DSLR's in full auto missing focus WAY more often then point and shoot cameras do. My dad has a Nikon D3000 that he uses on full auto all the time, and over half of his shots, especially indoors, are severely out of focus.

Sorry but I have to disagree, to a point.

Most P&S camera's are not all that great. I have had several and even had a Oly Stylis Tough. I thought that camera was great, but looking back at my pictures I realise how bad it was. Now when I got my DSLR, my pics were much better, the shutter was way way faster. I used the camera like that for prob 6months before I actually started to learn how to use it. My daughter has a sony powershot, don't remember the model, that suffers the same shutter lag that is found on most P&S cameras.

And this is the part where I will agree w/ the above. Once you get into the more expensive Bridge level P&S then I would say that the quality is better than a full auto DSLR w/ kit lens. I only have experience w/ the G12 but that camera is pretty impressive, there are several models from each manufacturer that are similar but not familiar with.

My point is that basically you get what you pay for. Spend more $$ and you usually get a better product.

 

[Destin]

I STRONGLY disagree. A good point and shoot will make better photos than an entry level dslr in full auto, in my experience. Mainly because the kit lenses that come with most dslrs are so slow, which causes shutter speeds to drop and isos to jump higher. Most point and shoots nowadays have max. apertures of 2.8 or greater.

The other thing... The DOF on a P&S is much greater, and while that limits the ability to blur the background (bokeh), it has an advantage: It allows the camera to focus more easily. Full auto mode in a dslr simply means that it focuses on whatever is closest to the lens, or has the highest contrast. This results is DSLR's in full auto missing focus WAY more often then point and shoot cameras do. My dad has a Nikon D3000 that he uses on full auto all the time, and over half of his shots, especially indoors, are severely out of focus.

Sorry but I have to disagree, to a point.

Most P&S camera's are not all that great. I have had several and even had a Oly Stylis Tough. I thought that camera was great, but looking back at my pictures I realise how bad it was. Now when I got my DSLR, my pics were much better, the shutter was way way faster. I used the camera like that for prob 6months before I actually started to learn how to use it. My daughter has a sony powershot, don't remember the model, that suffers the same shutter lag that is found on most P&S cameras.

And this is the part where I will agree w/ the above. Once you get into the more expensive Bridge level P&S then I would say that the quality is better than a full auto DSLR w/ kit lens. I only have experience w/ the G12 but that camera is pretty impressive, there are several models from each manufacturer that are similar but not familiar with.

My point is that basically you get what you pay for. Spend more $$ and you usually get a better product.

And for your money, a good point and shoot (Canon S95, or now, the S100) is going to BLOW away a canon t3 or nikon d3100 on full auto. They are made to be used in full auto, and they are still cheaper. I'm not saying the dslr isn't better, it is. Just not on full auto.

And most entry level DSLR's have something worse than shutter lag when used in full auto... they are set up so that the shutter won't trip unless the focus is locked, and with the slow kit lenses, the focus tends to hunt in low light or on fast moving subjects, creating a shutter lag, or even shutter block, where it just won't take a photo because it won't release. This won't be a problem in other modes, but in full auto you aren't able to change it.

 

[Canuk]

Switching the DSLR or P&S to the scene modes will get rid of the AF hunting. The DLSR on sports will most definately out perform a P&S on sports mode, by several FPS.

My G12 boasts a 3FPS rate but in reality will only do about 1-2 (full auto, sports or manual w/ high speed continuous shooting).

In full auto mode that AF hunting can be an issue, but even my 7 year old daughter know how to switch modes on her camera for different scenes so it really is a moot point.

 

[usayit]

Perhaps that's why many people who have no intentions of learning photography buy them. Does it annoy you to see clueless people walking around with DSLR cameras? Discuss!

Not One Bit... its their money. Besides, how else do you think I get great (hardly even used) equipment to enjoy?

I do find it annoying when someone comes up to interrupt me with the intention of starting a debate of which is better.... pisses me off! I love it when people come up to talk... just make it worth the time with a genuine interest in photography rather than just a contest.

PS>Equipment == Enablers nothing more......

 

[Destin]

Switching the DSLR or P&S to the scene modes will get rid of the AF hunting. The DLSR on sports will most definately out perform a P&S on sports mode, by several FPS.

My G12 boasts a 3FPS rate but in reality will only do about 1-2 (full auto, sports or manual w/ high speed continuous shooting).

In full auto mode that AF hunting can be an issue, but even my 7 year old daughter know how to switch modes on her camera for different scenes so it really is a moot point.

The sports mode on entry level DSLR's is TERRIBLE. Not to mention that most entry level DSLR's are also only shooting at 3fps. I'm not saying that they aren't better than point and shoots, they are for sports. But they both suck pretty terrible at it if you don't know what you're doing.

 

[MReid]

The vast majority of people who "graduate" to a DSLR would have been better served to stay with a nice point and shoot.
To really learn to make the most of really good equipment....there is a long steep learning curve.

For me I don't notice or care what kind of camera anyone is carrying around. There are a lot of people with crap cameras taking awesome photos and a lot of people with expensive equipment who can't take a decent photo to save there life.

A quality photo is much more than just a properly exposed photograph with good color.

 

[cgipson1]

I STRONGLY disagree. A good point and shoot will make better photos than an entry level dslr in full auto, in my experience. Mainly because the kit lenses that come with most dslrs are so slow, which causes shutter speeds to drop and isos to jump higher. Most point and shoots nowadays have max. apertures of 2.8 or greater.

The other thing... The DOF on a P&S is much greater, and while that limits the ability to blur the background (bokeh), it has an advantage: It allows the camera to focus more easily. Full auto mode in a dslr simply means that it focuses on whatever is closest to the lens, or has the highest contrast. This results is DSLR's in full auto missing focus WAY more often then point and shoot cameras do. My dad has a Nikon D3000 that he uses on full auto all the time, and over half of his shots, especially indoors, are severely out of focus.

Sorry but I have to disagree, to a point.

Most P&S camera's are not all that great. I have had several and even had a Oly Stylis Tough. I thought that camera was great, but looking back at my pictures I realise how bad it was. Now when I got my DSLR, my pics were much better, the shutter was way way faster. I used the camera like that for prob 6months before I actually started to learn how to use it. My daughter has a sony powershot, don't remember the model, that suffers the same shutter lag that is found on most P&S cameras.

And this is the part where I will agree w/ the above. Once you get into the more expensive Bridge level P&S then I would say that the quality is better than a full auto DSLR w/ kit lens. I only have experience w/ the G12 but that camera is pretty impressive, there are several models from each manufacturer that are similar but not familiar with.

My point is that basically you get what you pay for. Spend more $$ and you usually get a better product.

Good point.. because I basically meant the so-called Bridge camera when I posted earlier. I don't even consider most "true" P&S's to be cameras... more like snapshot machines!

 

[Patrice]

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

 

[Joel_W]

Doesn't bother me one bit. It's their money, and how they spend it is there business. The more they buy, the cheaper those products become.

 

[cgipson1]

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

excuse me.. I feel so chastised! (hangs head in shame!)