Point and shoots beats DSLR's.

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by ben brugman, Nov 14, 2007.

  1. ben brugman

    ben brugman Guest

    Point and shoots beat DSLR's in number sold.
    Point and shoots beat DSLR's in number of pictures made.
    Point and shoots beat DSLR's in availability to people, at any time there
    are more point and shoots on the road than DSLR's.
    Point and shoots are often faster grabbed and ready than DSLR's.

    Point and shoots make often good enough pictures.

    But a DSLR make more often good enough pictures.

    Both camera types have their uses and advantages. For most people
    the point and shoot is choosen because it beats a DSLR on price,
    weight and handyness.

    DSLR's are often choosen by people who don't mind the higher price,
    the weight and volume of the camera, to gain on control and quality.
    It's has a steeper learning curve, but then it offers advantages.

    Point and shoot are incredable.
    DSLR's are incredable.

    Both in their own way.

    I myself am amazed what a point and shoot does offer in such a
    small package for a fraction of the costs of a DSLR. But I which
    the quality of the pictures was in all circumstances that of a DSLR,
    but allas, there are still a lot of circumstances that I am using the
    DSLR.

    Ben
     
    ben brugman, Nov 14, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. ben brugman

    Frank Arthur Guest

    Fords and Chevvies beat Rolls Royces in numbers sold
    Fords and Chevvies beat in numers of miles travelled
    Fords and Chevvies have more available service centers
    Fords and Chevvies are available to more people. At any
    time there are more Fords and Chevvies than Rolls Royces
    on the roads.
    Etc.
     
    Frank Arthur, Nov 14, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. ben brugman

    Pboud Guest

    Try a Canon G5, if you can.. While I'm sure there are other P/S out
    there that match it, this one I've played with and can vouch for.

    :)

    P.
     
    Pboud, Nov 14, 2007
    #3
  4. ben brugman

    ben brugman Guest

    And what is your point ?
    Does this in any way say anything about photo digital (slr) systems?

    Ben
     
    ben brugman, Nov 14, 2007
    #4
  5. ben brugman

    Pboud Guest

    The point, were I to make a guess, would be that you can likely look at
    numbers for disposable cameras sold and get similar results.. Results
    which will have nothing to do with why people buy DSLRs
     
    Pboud, Nov 14, 2007
    #5
  6. ben brugman

    ben brugman Guest

    Well by now the G5 is a bit outdated to buy. And as with all point and
    shoot's it only has a smal sensor. (1/5 in size (1/25 in area) of a full
    frame DSLR.)
    But yes the G series of Canon are incredable. There are loads of Point and
    shoots
    which can match it on some points, but none which can match the G series on
    all
    points. But that works the other way around as wel.

    I have a Panasonic TZ3 and if I do not look at quality and do not look at
    DOF,
    it can match a DSLR on most points and beat the DSLR on many points as well.
    But quality and (limited) DOF are not unimportant.

    ben
     
    ben brugman, Nov 14, 2007
    #6
  7. ben brugman

    Pboud Guest

    Absolutely.. That said, I've got an 11/14 print off my old G2 that's as
    good as anything else on my wall. I got a DSLR because the P/S could no
    longer give me what I wanted; essentially, I grew out of it you could say.

    the need to move to a DSLR is as subjective as anything else in
    photography.. it depends completely on the individual and that
    individual's needs. To compare P/S vs DSLR is usually an exercise in
    frustration since they're designed for different purposes and usually
    aimed at different markets.

    It's like comparing standard DSLRs vs Full-Frame DSLRs.. It's pointless
    since the users that went full frame did so for reasons that simply
    don't apply to everyone.

    P.
     
    Pboud, Nov 14, 2007
    #7
  8. ben brugman

    ben brugman Guest

    Different people will make different choices.

    But a lot of choices can be made objective. The reason to buy a camera
    should be to get the photo's in the end. (Allthough lot's of 'boys' buy a
    large SLR, because they want to show off).
    But sticking with the reason of getting pictures, there are quite some
    objective criteria to choose between a point and shoot (and which one)
    or a DSLR (half or full frame). Money, weight and volume can be judged
    fairly objective, even quality can be judged fairly objective.

    What I tried to say with the thread was, that we should be more respectfull
    to the other people who buy a different kind of camera. And allthough there
    are differences, we should respect other peoples choices, being it point and
    shoot or (D)SLR. For some people quality is premium, for other people
    handyness is premium, for most people mony does matter. Some people
    even know that they have to avoid plastics. (That last one is impossible in
    my opinion).
    So there can be different objectives in buying a camera, so differrent
    people
    end up with different camera's. Each camera having it's own specific
    advantages
    over other camera's. And camera's can and should be compared on their
    virtues, to aid in making a choice, not to decide that one is better than
    the other.
    If camera's are not compared how can you make a choice.

    ben
     
    ben brugman, Nov 14, 2007
    #8
  9. ben brugman

    Charles Guest

    What I tried to say with the thread was, that we should be more respectfull
    to the other people who buy a different kind of camera. And allthough there
    are differences, we should respect other peoples choices, being it point and
    shoot or (D)SLR. For some people quality is premium, for other people
    handyness is premium, for most people mony does matter. Some people
    even know that they have to avoid plastics. (That last one is impossible in
    my opinion).

    Huh?
     
    Charles, Nov 14, 2007
    #9
  10. ben brugman

    Scott W Guest

    Seems like a pretty well balanced post.

    I believe most of us that own and use DSLRs also own at least one point
    and shoot. I have to say that the photos I get from a point and shoot
    are every bit as good as I got with film, under the right conditions.

    But I also have to say there their are times when I have nothing but my
    point and shoot and really, really wish I had my DSLR with me. Case in
    point is this photo.
    http://www.pbase.com/konascott/image/73249323

    I was on a one man canoe when I shoot that with a small waterproof point
    and shoot. I was delighted to have any camera with me, but it was
    getting near dusk and the point ans shoot really did not have near
    enough light to get a truly good photo.

    Without the point and shoot there would have been no photo, but if I had
    my DSLR I would have had a great photo.

    Mostly when I don't want to take all my lenses and stuff I just put the
    28mm on my 350D and I have a very small light camera to take with me,
    sadly not water proof.

    For those who don't have a DLSR, very good photos are still possible,
    but they are harder to get and IMO not nearly as much fun to take.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Nov 15, 2007
    #10
  11. I agree with you. I have four DSLRs now, but still use compact digital
    cameras much of the time. Can't beat 'em for handiness and in fact they'll
    do some things my DSLRs will not.

    I don't like the term "point and shoot" though unfortunately it's become the
    usual way of referring to compact cameras. The term "point and shoot" was
    originally coined to describe simple, auto-everything 35mm cameras that
    generally had no user controls beyond a few flash choices and a self-timer.
    With such cameras that was really all you could do -- point 'em and shoot.

    Even the simplest digital cameras today have far more controls than that, so
    I think "point and shoot" is just not appropriate for such cameras. It is
    simply ridiculous for example to call my Nikon Coolpix 8400 and 8800 cameras
    "point and shoot" -- when they have far, far more user controls and
    capabilities than any 35mm SLR I ever owned.

    Neil
     
    Neil Harrington, Nov 16, 2007
    #11
  12. ben brugman

    ben brugman Guest

    I must agree with you that the name point and shoot implies a different
    meaning
    than the type of camera where it is used for.
    But still most point and shoot's include a point and shoot function next to
    a whole lot of other functions. But the name is indeed not totaly suetable.

    ben
     
    ben brugman, Nov 17, 2007
    #12
  13. ben brugman

    Not4wood Guest

    Toyotos and Hondas beat Jags in numbers sold. So what, who cares and whats
    your point???

    Not4wood
     
    Not4wood, Nov 18, 2007
    #13
  14. ben brugman

    Orange Guest

    Well of course. The mass market is always in the cheap stuff.
    What the majority of the people want is a small, inexpensive, simple
    camera that will just take pictures.
    So they will always sell a lot more small, cheap, point-and-shoot
    cameras.

    Heck, I have a couple of them myself, in addition to my DSLR. They
    even take beautiful pictures.
    They are amazingly good, considering what they cost and what they are.

    But watch out for that giant qualifier: CONSIDERING...

    They are not the best technology obtainable, just "good enough".
    They have serious limitations. They totally fail when the light gets
    dim. They don't have enough zoom, and you can't hang a telephoto lens
    off of one.
    And that's why I bought a good DSLR.

    Now the majority of people won't do that. They will decide that a
    point-and-shoot is "good enough".
    And they will shy away from the price tag on a good DSLR.

    So it goes.
     
    Orange, Nov 18, 2007
    #14
  15. ben brugman

    ben brugman Guest

    From the original message:

    "
    Point and shoot are incredable.
    DSLR's are incredable.

    Both in their own way.
    "

    The reaction was to the number of messages not going in to the "their own
    way" part but only claiming that one product is superior to the other.
    Similar to the way that you are suggesting that a Jag is superior to the
    other two brands you mention. I do not think a Jag to be superior. I do
    think that a Jag can be superior in it's own way, as the other two brands
    can be.

    Economic limitations often are part of the choice. When making a choice,
    everybody tries to make the best choice, considering the circumstances. A
    Honda can be a best choice for somebody. There is no better choice than the
    best choice, so in that case Honda is superiour to the other brands, because
    it's the best choice. Altering the circumstances can alter the best choice.


    ben
     
    ben brugman, Nov 19, 2007
    #15
  16. ben brugman

    ben brugman Guest

    I totally agree, except that DSLR's are also mass marked cheap stuff.

    From the original message :
    "
    Point and shoot are incredable.
    DSLR's are incredable.

    Both in their own way.
    "

    The both in their own way, has the same function as your qualifier.

    The message was a reaction to the number of messages which claim one or the
    other supperiour without a qualifier or without 'in their own way'.
    Hopefully most people got that.

    ben
     
    ben brugman, Nov 19, 2007
    #16
  17. ben brugman

    John Adams Guest

    His point is they both get you from point A to B which is all that
    really matters in the end.
     
    John Adams, Nov 20, 2007
    #17
  18. ben brugman

    John Adams Guest

    I did. And my next camera purchase will be a decent P&S with more MP
    than my Oly 2020Z 2.1mp has to compliment my DSLR and not replace it.
     
    John Adams, Nov 20, 2007
    #18
  19. ben brugman

    Craig M Guest

    I think they both have uses, I have P&S sony cyber shot that is handy for a
    quick pic of something I am posting to sell, or maybe a face shot of some
    one to post, or to just carry to have a camera, beats cell phone cams
    anyway, I also have a Nikon D50, couple of lenses, tripod, monopod, ect, I
    LOVE it, yes it was more then the sony, but the sony cant freeze a humming
    birds wings in flight as its comming up to the feeder, the Nikon can, enough
    said.
    C
     
    Craig M, Nov 22, 2007
    #19
    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.