Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot

Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot

1. You shoot in low light.

Modern digital SLRs are able to produce low noise images at ISO speeds
up to 1600, depending on the camera. Point and shoot cameras, with their
small sensors, begin to exhibit noise at ISO 200, with some poorer
models being too noisy even at 100 ISO.

2. You want to use flash attachments.

While a few higher end point and shoot digital models have hot shoes for
an external flash, most do not. Some Canon P&S models without hot shoes
can use a wireless flash, but it's not a great flash unit.

3. You need a wide-angle lens.

Digital SLRs have super-wide-angle zoom lenses available with an
effective focal length of as little as 16mm. There are no point and
shoot digital cameras with lenses that wide.

4. You need a long telephoto lens.

Whether it’s doing wildlife photography in Alaska, or shooting at
sporting events, only a digital SLR can use long telephoto lenses. If
you only need a specialty lens for rare occasions, you can even rent one
for a couple of days.

5. You need fast auto-focus.

Most digital SLRs (with the exception of Pentax) use lenses with
internal high-speed focusing motors). Point and shoot digital cameras
cannot focus nearly as fast.

6. You need low shutter lag.

Whether it’s photographing your child on a merry-go-round, or capturing
the crack of the bat against the baseball, you cannot obtain these shots
with a digital point and shoot camera because the time between when you
press the shutter and the image is captured is far too long.

7. You want to produce images that can be printed in large sizes.

Only a high-resolution digital SLR is suitable for poster size prints.

8. You want an optical viewfinder.

While a few point and shoot cameras have retained an optical viewfinder,
it’s been cost-reduced out of most models. Composing a picture on the
LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is very difficult.

9. You want full manual control.

While some high-end point and shoot models have retained some level of
manual control, most have cost-reduced it out. On some Canon models,
there is third-party software that can get some of the manual control back.

10. Expandability and upgradability.

Not only a wide variety of specialty lenses, but flash attachments,
filters, vertical grips, remote shutter releases, etc. If you eventually
want to upgrade to a better D-SLR body, a lot of the lenses and
accessories can be used on the new body if it’s from the same manufacturer.

 

[...]

Plus:

11. It fits in your pocket

Oops... perhaps that should be added to the "Ten reasons to
choose a Point and Shoot over a Digital SLR" thread that
hasn't yet appeared.

What a pointless load of nonsense.

 

if there is no hotshoe or flash sync socket, then as little as $10 will
buy a flash slave (and some of the slaves handle pre-flashes).

there are wide angle attachments and nikon even makes a fisheye
attachment for the coolpix cameras.

<http://nikonimaging.com/global/products/accessory/converter/fc-e9/index.
htm>

there are telephoto attachments and some cameras have fairly long range
zooms without any adapter.

pentax is not anywhere near as slow as you make it out to be, nor is
screw coupling in general.

shutter lag can be minimized with careful pre-focus/preset exposure.
however, that is not ideal in all situations.

you mean like the billboard in times square from a 3 megapixel coolpix
990? so much for not being able to make large prints.

it depends on viewing distance, among other things.

not always. and if it is a problem, there are lcd shades that are
quite cheap (plus just using a hand to shadow it works).

a lot of p&s cameras have manual control.

what is it with you and vertical grips? someone who buys a p&s camera
is NOT interested in bloating it up with a vertical grip. that
basically defeats the size advantage of a p&s. nevertheless, if you
insist on a vertical grip, nikon (and maybe others) have one for some
of their models, such as the 8700.

<http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/NikonCP8700/Images/Accessories/mb-e57
00.jpg>

also, many p&s cameras have filter threads and they can be controlled
by the usb port (or serial port for the older models). nikon even made
a filter kit, remote control with intervalometer and a ring flash for
the coolpix cameras:

<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/NikonCP8700/page4.asp>
<http://www.steves-digicams.com/2002_reviews/nikon4500/4500_sl-1.jpg>

 

Sigh... the idiot needs to be corrected again. This is the problem with armchair
photographers who only use the internet for all their photography and
experience. They'll keep posting this crap forever because it's all they ever do
and can do, they don't have a camera.

Not needed when your long-zoom lenses have apertures large enough to use slower
shutter speeds. dSLR's NEED those high ISOs to make them functional.

Every camera can use a slave flash, or slave-trigger for any existing flash, or
use its built-in hotshoe. Do a little more research to find out just how many
P&S cameras, even some ultra-compacts, have external flash capability.

While you have a whole bag of lenses to accomplish this, only one accessory lens
is needed for a P&S camera to attain even greater wide-angle ranges than you can
get with your dSLR.

Odd, my P&S camera with the right tele-converter has all the reach I have ever
needed for wildlife photography. That's my primary use for any camera. If you
have to go out of your way to rent a long-zoom lens for your camera isn't that
telling you something? Quite a few things actually. An important one being that
you can't even afford what I can easily carry in my pocket.

If you are a photographer with any REAL experience, this isn't any real issue.
REAL photographers know all about hyperfocal distances and the advantages of
using manual focus presets on their cameras. This is particularly true in
high-speed situations where anyone depending on auto-focus only reveals their
inability to be a photographer, they will miss most of the shots. Because no
matter how fast you think your camera is at focusing, it's still not going to be
fast enough.

You need to get away from your keyboard and at least browse a few camera
stores. Shutter lag is near non-existent on many of the newer ones. My latest
P&S camera has a shutter lag of 0.05 seconds.

Print size is a function of the number of available pixels. Almost all P&S
cameras these days have the same amount of pixels as dSLRs.

No, I specifically don't want an optical viewfinder. I've lived with them most
of my life and I'm glad to be rid of them. They are never 100% accurate for
framing, they are dimmer in low-light conditions than using the electronically
amplified scene in an EVF, any stray light entering from the back will ruin any
exposure readings, and they don't show real-time shutter-speed effects as I
change my shutter speed. An EVF also doesn't dim down to unusable conditions
when I need to do a DOF preview. The DOF preview is active all the time. I'm so
glad that dSLRs have to retain the ancient optical viewfinder, it shows just how
poor they are in form and function.

All the better P&S cameras come with full manual controls. Some so advanced that
even $20,000 dSLRs don't have them. One only needs to research what's available
on any CHDK-compatible camera to see this.

Yes, you need that, because your one camera can't do it all. My P&S cameras can.

 

Okay, that's number 11.

Yes, I was correcting for the crop factor. Even so, you can go less than
16mm, even correcting for the crop factor, with the fish eye lenses that
go done to 8mm (uncorrected for crop factor).

That's a good question. It would be easy to implement. Maybe they figure
not enough users are interested. Firmware isn't free, there's a
development cost. Still it would be a marketing bullet to be able to
boast about it.

 

Sometimes you _want_ to be conspicuous.

Two years ago I was really getting upset over how people were driving
near my son's school. I started carrying my D-SLR with me, and taking
photos of them driving through crosswalks without stopping, etc. It got
to the point where just raising the camera to my face and aiming it at
their car would get them to behave, whereas using a small P&S or a
camera phone would have no effect. I got yelled at by some of them that
were upset about being photographed. I had tried using a P&S, but I
needed very low shutter lag. See "http://nordicgroup.us/dtshos/" Before
the dummy corp goes non-linear, note that I was using a long zoom for
many of these shots, and I reduced the resolution for the web site so
they will load faster.

 

Misinformation Corrector wrote:
[snip-snap]

Dear Misinformation

Finally you have found an appropriate name for yourself.
May I suggest you stick with it?

jue

 

You're right, firmware upgrading isn't free, but it should be. However software
to correct all the limitations with original firmware is most definitely free.

http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK

What a shame that you can't run that on your dSLRs. You could have your DOF,
Aperture, Shutter Speed, EV, and even ISO bracketing if you so desired. To as
many stops and frames as you needed for any subject. You could have all that
capability in the next minute for FREE, if you weren't waiting to depend on a
dSLR to do that for you.

Enjoy your dSLR dedication.

 

The ones without are not reflex.

The nearest I have seen to this is Canon's A-DEP mode which selects an
aperture to give the beet DoF for the scene.

I am not quite sure of the advantage, if the object is to throw the
uninteresting parts out of focus you will need to change the focus
distance as well so that you can select the best effect.

 

Are you going to work for free? Software doesn't write its self. The
camera manufactures recoup the cost by sealing the hardware.

 

At last some sense. I carry a P&S (Minolta Xt) almost everywhere and
only take the DSLR when on holiday or visiting interesting events and
places where I expect to take photographs. My P&S is not as good as the
DSLR (although I do have a few landscapes taken in good light that are
good), but it is better than no camera. In fact the camera in my phone
is better than no camera (I would not bother to print its snaps), so
make the P&S much better than no camera.

 

In fact it's often the firmware that delays the release of a product,
especially since you can't really completely test the firmware until you
have the final hardware to run it on! I design a lot of "development
boards" which allow the firmware to be written while the real
electronics are still being designed. But with a camera you can only do
so much without the actual hardware.

 

We can assume that the sock puppet troll won't take your
reasonable advice. Interestingly though, it has been sticking with
a single nym when it spams us with its CHDK announcements. In this
case, it uses "KevenGaston <>". This is unlike
many of its fake names in that an anti-spam domain (such as
"", "",
"", "" or
"") wasn't used. This indicates that the
troll is at least aware that it is spamming, and prefers to avoid
even hinting at the word "spam" when posting its CHDK spam.

 

Assuming the only thing that you shoot in low light will hold still
for you. Unless you don't mind motion blur. Show me a point and
shoot that will get a half way decent image at ISO 1600 or 3200 at
a/30 second or faster.

Yeah, it's a shame nobody makes a decent 18-600 mm zoom lens for a
dslr. From what I've seen, the greater the difference from min to max
zoom, the more compromise in image quality somewhere in that range.

I've tried add-ons to point and shoot cameras, but they degrade the
image to some extent.;

Crammed on smaller sensors, producing a higher noise to signal ratio
(therefore negating their high iso usefulness).


An finally, everyone refers to "professional" photographers. Why is
it then, that the guys that know the most about photography use SLR's?
If they could earn their livings with much less expensive equipment, I
would certainly think that they would do so.

Bill

 

Indeed, the value advantage of D-SLRs doesn't show up nearly as much
with still images, in good light, that don't require a wide angle or
telephoto lens, and that will never have large prints made from the images.

This is true. Many newcomers don't understand the compromises inherent
in a very wide range zoom lens, both for SLRs and on P&S cameras. It may
be convenient to have a very wide range zoom, but the optical quality
suffers greatly.

The accessory lenses for P&S cameras (normally called "converters") are
only marginally acceptable in terms of optics. I bought the best one for
my G series P&S (an Olympus wide angle converter that is actually no
longer made but that was highly sought after and a big seller). It works
okay, but the optical quality is not nearly as good as a true wide angle
lens like the Canon 10-22 EF-s (L quality glass). What's more, it's a
real PITA to use, taking about ten times as long to assemble all the
pieces than to change bayonet mount lenses on an SLR.

Not sure why so many people find it so difficult to understand the
physics of noise and pixel size as it relates to high ISO.

The SLR offers overwhelming advantages, both to professional and amateur
photographers, and these advantages are much more pronounced in the
digital arena.

Some people seem to think that there is some huge cost savings in
eliminating the lens mount system, when in fact it's a plus for both
consumers and manufacturers, both in quality and in long term cost.

 

Another one of those idiots that was easily baffled by the Dr. Troll's bullshit.
Takes all kinds I guess.

 

Your experience seems to be quite limited. There are quite a few P&S cameras
that take admirable images at ISO 1600. *But before you go in search of them see
the note below about ISOs.

That's what you get for giving up searching and testing so quickly. Some add-on
lenses are a perfect match to some P&S cameras' lenses (not often from the same
company). Some of them even improving on the original lens' performance. I have
proved it to myself already, far too many times. When I found that fish-eye
adapter that even beat out a top-of-the-line Nikkor for SLRs I was totally
convinced that all this bullshit online about P&S inferiority is just
that--total bullshit being repeated by bullshit artists and blind followers who
don't and never will know any better.

* I guess you're the kind of photographer that would still be sitting there,
crying "poor pitiful me" because they didn't make any reliable ISO1600 color
film yet. Any photographer worth his salt knows how to make-do even with ISO50
as their one and only recording media. Just cut the crap and admit it, you
totally suck as photographers or this wouldn't be an issue with any of you.

Some do. Many do. I retired on what I earned from my photography back in 1989 at
the ripe old age of 28. Yes, I'm that good. No brag, just fact. Been enjoying
the easy life ever since. This is how and why I know, without a doubt, that the
vast majority of "Pros" are total idiots. When I found out that P&S cameras and
the right accessory lenses could surpass any SLR or dSLR I didn't even flinch
making the move. I was not swayed by following a pack of fools. If I was that
kind of person I would still be struggling to make a buck by doing what they all
did and are still trying to do.

YMMV

Try to catch up if you can, no matter what kind of mileage you're getting.

Good luck, you'll need it.

 

When there are poachers on my land I drag out one of my old gigantic SLRs and
put on a 200-500mm Tamron zoom lens on it. Film not necessary. They only need to
see that lens. It works much better than calling any game warden. No repeat
poachers, just new ones that may not have heard what happens if they step foot
on my land.

If they can't be easily found to show them the camera then I use the super-zoom
P&S digital that I had in my pocket and go photograph their vehicles and license
plates. Upon returning to the house I post the evidence on a safe place on the
net. Leaving a note under their windshield of what just occurred during their
absence. Again, no repeat customers. It's very entertaining to watch them with
binoculars when they get back to read the note. They don't even know which
distant house in the area was the source. Wildly looking around wondering what
to do. Then they speed off never to be seen again. Probably shitting in their
camo-gear all the way home.

 

My Kodak P850 works well at speeds I need to use.

My Kodak P850 has a hot shoe and a built-in flash. Besides, have you ever
heard of a 'hot shoe slave'??

I don't need that wide - I've never used anything less than 35mm.

My Kodak P850 with 12x zoom goes to about 420mm - I could not afford an IS
lens that long for a DSLR.

I don't often shoot sporting events. Haven't needed 'fast auto-focus' yet.

The shutter lag I experience is quite managable.

I don't WANT an optical viewfinder - I find a lot of advantages to an EVF
- and I'd just as soon chuck the outside LCD - it's useless to me.

I have full manual control on my Kodak P850.

If I 'eventually want to upgrade to a better D-SLR body' I will do so.

You forget one major handicap of the DSLR - portability. I do a LOT of
hiking, bicycling, snowshoeing and I can't manage all the crap it would
take to equal what I have now in one compact package. For me, the 12x zoom
EVF is much preferable to a DSLR for that reason.

 

Excuse me, I didn't realize that you were the world's foremost
authority on photography and know more than anyone else. I can see
that there is no point in arguing with you.

You, sir are either a troll or a self-important puffed up ass.

Good bye
Bill