Didital Point and shoot vs SLR

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Denny B, Jan 12, 2006.

  1. Denny B

    Denny B Guest

    Can a 5 or 6 or 7 megapixel point and shoot digital digital
    camera take a picture comparable to a 5 or 6 or 7 megapixel
    SLR camera. We are talking here about the Canon's and Nikon's
    etc. Quality makes of cameras. We are also NOT talking of poster
    size pictures.

    I have had 30+ years of carrying around my 35mm film camera
    bodies and lenses, plus my incident and spot lightmeters.
    I am thinking of getting a digital SLR body to go with my lenses
    however when I think of the situation, I am fed up of carrying
    around all this equipment. Camera always swinging around my neck
    when walking, meters and lenses in pockets. Really most of
    the time ending up with pictures no better then people with quality
    point and shoot cameras.

    Thanks
    Denny B
     
    Denny B, Jan 12, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Denny B

    Skip M Guest

    If you are not talking of poster size prints, just what size are you/we
    talking of?
    At 4x6, you probably won't see the difference between a P&S and a DSLR of
    equal pixel count. Get up to 8x10, and you will. And if you are using one
    of the tiniest P&S cameras, the difference may be more apparent, smaller.
    My Casio 5mp camera doesn't even equal my old D30 3mp camera above 4x5 size.
    OTOH, if the notion of multiple lenses gives you the willies, then, by all
    means, go for the point and shoot, or at least a compact.
     
    Skip M, Jan 12, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Denny B

    Charles Guest


    I have a decent P&S, not as good as the one you are proposing. I got
    an SLR because I could not do some things with the P&S. I could not
    see the viewing screen well enough to properly focus on close-up
    objects. The camera would focus on something, frequently it was not
    the part of the sceen I wanted in focus. I made a magnifier shade for
    it, that helped some, but not enough.

    I still use the P&S when it is good enough to do what I want done.
     
    Charles, Jan 12, 2006
    #3
  4. Denny B

    ASAAR Guest

    Absolutely. But there are situations where the DSLRs using
    sensors having comparable resolution are noticeably better. One is
    if you intend to often make prints larger than 8" x 10". Another
    would be if you do a lot of low light photography where higher ISO
    needs to be used. The DSLRs will in general only degrade slightly,
    where the digital P&S cameras that use smaller sensors will suffer
    from "noise" that can be much more noticeable. You might even be
    satisfied with the quality produced by a P&S having a good lens but
    only a 4mp sensor. You *will* see the difference if you compare
    images with those produced by higher resolution cameras when
    enlarging greatly on a computer, but the test is if you notice
    differences when printing. A good way to determine whether a
    particular resolution will be insufficient would be to download
    images from one of the camera review sites such as dpreview.com and
    steves-digicams.com. With pictures of the same object taken by
    several representative cameras you can not only view them on your
    computer's monitor, but have them printed as well. You don't even
    have to print any 8" x 10"s or 11" x 14"s (if you'll be interested
    in printing at those sizes) if you crop the images and print 4" x
    6"'s that are enlarged to the same degree that they would have been
    if the entire images had been printed on larger papers.

    That pretty much answer's your question, assuming that you are at
    least moderately competent with your film gear. <g> There are some
    excellent P&S cameras available that should satisfy you, but try to
    avoid getting one that lacks a hotshoe. Also, depending on what
    kind of equipment you own there may be some DSLRs that are
    significantly smaller and lighter than your current film gear, and
    you wouldn't have to pack any meters or lenses when you go hiking.
    This assumes that you'd be satisfied with a single moderately wide
    range zoom lens, not something comparable to the more extreme 10x
    and 12x zooms commonly found on some P&S's. One other warning, if
    you've never used a digital P&S. Some of them have much longer
    delays (focusing, shutter lag, etc.) than others. dpreview.com has
    extensive timing data in their full reviews, but it would be better
    if you are able to actually take a few shots yourself, which most
    decent camera shops should allow.
     
    ASAAR, Jan 12, 2006
    #4
  5. Denny,

    Broadly speaking, the answer is "yes". I qualify that by saying:

    - keep the ISO setting on the small-sensor camera at no more than ISO
    50/80/100

    - I am talking about small-sensor cameras with excellent lenses

    Where the DSLR wins is in lower lighting conditions where you need, say,
    ISO 400 or higher, where you need a full range of interchangeable lenses,
    or where a smaller depth of field is required. But their strength is also
    their weakness, in that you have to drag a bigger kit bag round with you.

    I used to have 35mm SLRs, but I went with small-sensor cameras for digital
    and I now get much more enjoyment out of my photography. I have a Nikon
    8400 for wide-angle stuff, and the delightful Panasonic FZ5 for
    image-stabilised zoom shots to 432mm. The Panasonic weighs only 326g
    (IIRC), less than many lenses for DSLRs!

    http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz5/

    Cheers,
    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 12, 2006
    #5
  6. Denny B

    Bernd Steyer Guest

    I think that if you *really know what you are doing*, you can get a lot out
    of a good P&S camera. Casio Z750 or Fuji F10 immediately come to mind. It
    will be difficult for an average Canon 350 user to make better images than
    an expert on the Fuji F10.
     
    Bernd Steyer, Jan 12, 2006
    #6
  7. Denny B

    Martin Brown Guest

    Short answer is Yes (but there are some things SLRs do better).

    Don't necessarily go for the maximum number of pixels. A good lens well
    matched to the sensor is just as important. The thing I most like about
    my Canon Ixus is that it is compact enough to carry everywhere. And easy
    enough to take quality candid photos without lugging round heavy gear.

    In some circumstances a lugging round a huge conspicuous camera makes it
    much more difficult to put subjects at their ease.
    I did eventually move to digital SLR with an istDS. But I still have
    film bodies for the odd thing that can more easily be done on film - eg.
    slides for classical projection, fish eye shots. One big advantage of
    digital is having instant feedback on the LCD just like old Polariod
    proof shots.

    Regards,
    Martin Brown
     
    Martin Brown, Jan 12, 2006
    #7
  8. Denny B

    Denny B Guest

    I am talking about 8x10 largest prints. Truthfully in 30+ years
    of photography 99.5% of my pictures were smaller then 8x10.
    It is impractical to store large amounts of large prints. Most
    SLR...ers
    just don't do it.

    I would also NEVER buy those tiny point and shoot cameras.
    I am talking for eg. about the Canon A620 size cameras.

    Thanks
    Denny B
     
    Denny B, Jan 12, 2006
    #8
  9. Per Denny B:
    If I had it to do all over again, I'd so exactly what I did: buy a P&S first
    and then a DSLR later when I felt the need.

    You can get some *really* small P&S cameras that take half-decent pix.

    Now that I have both, I'm reminded that you have to have a camera to take pix -
    and with the bulk/weight of a DSLR, you don't have a camera with you anywhere
    near as often as with a P&S that's about half the size of a pack of cigarettes.
     
    (PeteCresswell), Jan 12, 2006
    #9
  10. Denny B

    m Ransley Guest

    I went from an A1 with alot of top quality lenses and equipment to a
    Sony w5, I did not get it for the quality but for transfering from
    memory stick from a camcorder. I used to shoot kodachrome, tripod, und
    use alot of filters. One review pointed out at 100 asa the w5 could be
    as good as a Canon 20d. What I have found is my camera gets 100 times
    more use because its portable, always with me, and quality can be very
    good at 100 asa. With all the exrtra features its no contest that my
    film camera is now just a backup collecting dust. You have little to
    loose to try a P&S, if I did it again without memory stick
    considerations I would have gotten 7-8mp for cropping and either a sony
    or Canon model with manual control and lens -filter ring adaptor, my
    sony has this but I handhold filters. Get one and try, many stores have
    30 day return policy, my first month I shot 1000 shots, something I
    would never do with films cost. Sure I wold like a 5d, but like the A1
    its to much metal to carry. A unique camera comming out is the new Kodak
    5 mp, dual lens, 23 and 3x zoom 180 panoramic 3 shot auto stitch. There
    are alot of limitations but alot of extras in P&S and they are cheap.
     
    m Ransley, Jan 12, 2006
    #10
  11. Sure. It's easy to degrade an SLR picture to make it comparable to a
    P&S picture.

    Um, seriously, sadly, no. Pixel quality is much higher from the large
    sensors on the DSLRs.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 12, 2006
    #11
  12. Denny B

    Sel Guest

    Giday Denny,

    Take a good long look at the Fuji s9500/s9000 Prosumer( same camera ). I
    was in the same position as you are with 35mm, bags of lenses and a sore
    back :) I now carry one camera, the s9500 and sometimes just my Fuji
    E500 P&S. ( This has now been superceded with the s900 )
    Check my photo link below for examples from both cameras.

    Sel ........ :)

    --
    "Sel's Computers"

    http://sel.enternet.co.nz/
    http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~selorme/weathersat.html
    http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~selorme/photos.html
    Ph: 07-5781950
    Tauranga.
    New Zealand.
     
    Sel, Jan 12, 2006
    #12
  13. Denny B

    Bernd Steyer Guest


    Nice fotos!
    The foto of "Kelly" shows the advantage of the large depth of field of these
    small sensor cameras (which has also disadvantages of course sometimes).
     
    Bernd Steyer, Jan 13, 2006
    #13
  14. Denny B

    Skip M Guest

    Here's a good comparison, and since Frank suggested it, I feel free in
    linking to one of his images:
    http://www.fototime.com/ftweb/bin/f...A33C-2EA902D22235}&GroupId=&screenheight=1024
    Here's my shot of the same engine, different angle, with a 20D and a
    28-135IS:
    http://www.pbase.com/skipm/image/44141389/large
     
    Skip M, Jan 13, 2006
    #14
  15. David J Taylor, Jan 13, 2006
    #15
  16. Denny B

    Skip M Guest

    I didn't have to log in, I wonder why you did?

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    "David J Taylor"
     
    Skip M, Jan 13, 2006
    #16
  17. Denny B

    Skip M Guest

    Oh, I see, the whole url doesn't work.
    Try this:
    http://www.fototime.com/inv/274D94DC7C3EB01
    and then go to 1971alfaT33_35319.jpg toward the bottom of the page.

    --
    Skip Middleton
    http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
    "David J Taylor"
     
    Skip M, Jan 13, 2006
    #17
  18. Thanks, Skip. I tried:

    http://www.fototime.com/inv/274D94DC7C3EB01

    but it just seems to hang.

    Davod
     
    David J Taylor, Jan 13, 2006
    #18
  19. Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Jan 13, 2006
    #19
  20. Ed Ruf (REPLY to E-MAIL IN SIG!), Jan 13, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.