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

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 16, 2007.

  1. 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.
    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 16, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    John Bean Guest



    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.
    John Bean, Nov 16, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    Guest Guest

    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.

    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.


    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:

    Guest, Nov 16, 2007
  4. 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.
    Misinformation Corrector, Nov 16, 2007
  5. 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.
    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 16, 2007
  6. 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.
    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 16, 2007
  7. Misinformation Corrector wrote:

    Dear Misinformation

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

    Jürgen Exner, Nov 17, 2007
  8. 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.


    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. :)
    HaroldSpencer, Nov 17, 2007
  9. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    Prometheus Guest

    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.
    Prometheus, Nov 17, 2007
  10. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    Prometheus Guest

    Are you going to work for free? Software doesn't write its self. The
    camera manufactures recoup the cost by sealing the hardware.
    Prometheus, Nov 17, 2007
  11. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    Prometheus Guest

    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.
    Prometheus, Nov 17, 2007
  12. 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.
    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 17, 2007
  13. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    ASAAR Guest

    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.
    ASAAR, Nov 17, 2007
  14. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    Bill Guest

    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, Nov 17, 2007
  15. 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.
    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 17, 2007
  16. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    Harlan Alset Guest

    Another one of those idiots that was easily baffled by the Dr. Troll's bullshit.
    Takes all kinds I guess.
    Harlan Alset, Nov 17, 2007
  17. 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.


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

    Good luck, you'll need it.
    Misinformation Corrector, Nov 17, 2007
  18. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    M.Grant Guest

    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.
    M.Grant, Nov 18, 2007
  19. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    ray Guest

    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.
    ray, Nov 18, 2007
  20. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    Bill Guest

    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, Nov 18, 2007
    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.