point & shoot vs dSLR

ed_h · November 25, 2005

Hi
I'v been following a dslr thread on the UK GS list, one member commented "that as far as the Panasonic Lumix goes it light years behind the dslr's as are all point and shoot cameras", being new to the digital age could someone please explain why that is so, if it is
Cheers, Ed

gus · November 25, 2005

Ed that is the deepest of questions & really hard to pin point. Maybe you could think of it as a family car that does a bit of everything ok v's an off road vehicle that has interchangable parts to allow you to stop & rebuild on the spot to make the most of what-ever terrain you are on at the moment.

Gus... whom really has difficulty explaining stuff.

Nikolai · November 25, 2005

Ed,
I bet you heard the expression about "being the jack of all trades,...":):
In photography, as in many other different areas of human interests, there are different types of environments that require substantially different approaches. Shooting ballet is different from shooting insects that is different from shooting studio-type portraits that is different from shooting Friday night football game, and so on and so forth.
(d)SLRs, i.e. "cameras with interchangeable lenses" allow you to adjust to a particular task by selecting the lens that is most suitable for it.
Point-and-shoot, or fixed lens, cameras, as their moniker implies, simply cannot adapt in that wide of a range, at least with today's technology.
Some basic optics laws do not allow creating a lens for a conventional camera that would feature f/stop range from f/1.0 to f/100, uniformly sharp zoom range from 1mm to 10m, lack of CA or any distortion in any of those settings and, with all that, being portable and affordable.

Maybe, one day, with a totally different light capturing idea (like those micro-lens arrays, or something else) one "camera" would be able to work in all those different environments. Until that day, if you want better image quality under challenging light situations, you probably need to get yourself a (d)SLR..

HTH

PS
Welcome to dgrin!

Matthew Saville · November 25, 2005

ed_h wrote:

Hi
I'v been following a dslr thread on the UK GS list, one member commented "that as far as the Panasonic Lumix goes it light years behind the dslr's as are all point and shoot cameras", being new to the digital age could someone please explain why that is so, if it is
Cheers, Ed

Ed, in my opinion this is not true. DSLR's will always have the advantage of speed and versatility. Autofocus speed and apeture speed are two areas where I do not think P&S cameras will ever match DSLR's. Even in the latest of models, an ultrasonic or silent wave motor lens could out-perform, not to mention the superior AF capabilities of the DSLR bodies themselves. Also to consider are the super-wide and super-tele capabilities of DSLR lenses. Sure, you can get adapters for cheaper than you can buy the equivalent DSLR lenses of course, but there's definitely a far less assortment at one's disposal.

It's definitely a preference-based choice, highly dependant on one's shooting needs. I can see many, many photographers using high-end, P&S "immitation DSLR" cameras. On the other hand I can guarantee you that DSLR's will be the choice of many others who shoot in situations where DSLR's shine. I know two shooters for example who bought the Olympus 8080, a sweet camera for sure. For the shooting needs of one, it went right back to the store immediately, and for the other, it's quite possibly a "5-year+" camera. So it's all a matter of what type of shooting you're going to do!

Take care,
-Matt-

pathfinder · November 25, 2005

The difference between DSLRS and MOST ( but maybe not all, any longer - the Sony R1 for example or the Epson RD-1 ) Point and Shoots is the the DSLRs image sensors are larger and have larger pixel wells than the sensors in the P&Ss.
This results in two very significant differences.

First, larger sensors create the ability to have much shallower depth of field. This shallower DOF can be used to create images with lovely very blurred backgrounds. On the other hand, the smaller sensors allow much greater DOF and this can be advantageous for shooting macros where the DOF can be very limited with larger sensors.

Secondly, larger sensors allow much larger image pixel wells which can capture more photons of light for each and every pixel. This results in a much lower floor for digital noise than in a P&S. Most P&S cameras can create lovely images at ISO 100 or so, but up at ISO 800 or ISO 1600 they cannot even come close to the lower noise levels of the DSLR and this is built in to the design constraints of using smaller image sensors.

The day WILL come when P&S camera will use the larger image sensors and they will have more desireable qulities then. The Sony R-1 is one of these - it has an APS-sized sensor, similar in size to the one in the 20D and the D70, for example. But even the R-1 still does not focus as fast as a USM motored interchangeable lens.

Do not misunderstand, there are many of us who use and shoot DSLRs, who would really love to have a great non-interchangeable lens P&S for walk around shooting IF it did not entail so many other compromises. I looked at the R-1 very carefully, and still have not wanted to abandon my DSLRs. But I keep looking.

Also, consider that the built in zooms on P&S cameras ARE zooms. A great deal of the images I shoot with my DSLRs are shot with Prime lenses that have none of the compromises inherent in zoom lenses.

I bought my son a Panoasonic Lumix and he loves it. It takes great snapshots and I can print lovely 8x10 prints from it that are hard to distinguish from my 20D. But if I plan to print at 16x24, the 20D pulls ahead.
There is more noise in the Lumix images if it is dark, but in the sunlight they look pretty good.

I do not think that a DSLR is "better" than a P&S - I have posted many shots here on dgrin shot with a Canon G5 - Rather, which tool is most appropriate for the task at hand.

Much of my photography centers around landscapes and the better definition of the DSLR for that purpose fits my needs better. For shooting casual pictures of my friends, a P&S may work better!!

colourbox · November 25, 2005

I have both a Canon P&S and dSLR. In daylight, using moderate to wide angle, if I take photos with both cameras it's actually not obvious which camera took the photos unless you look closely. The P&S produces nice, sharp photos when there's enough light.

However, the dSLR starts to distinguish itself from the P&S as conditions become more demanding:

In lower light, the P&S aperture can't open up as far as either of my dSLR lenses. I have to resort to the flash sooner on a P&S...if it's powerful enough to reach the subject.
In lower light, I can turn up the ISO on both cameras, but the P&S only goes up to ISO 400 and produces noise that becomes unacceptable starting at ISO 200. The sensor in the dSLR creates nearly noise-free images up to ISO 800, and even ISO 1600 is acceptable for smaller prints or with noise-reduction software.
For fast action, the shutter lag on my P&S can cause me to miss some moments. On the dSLR, photos can be taken instantly and in a much more rapid sequence. There is no shutter delay.
As mentioned by others, the nature of the P&S limits how narrow the depth of field can be. With the dSLR, control over depth of field is limited only by one's lens budget.

I hope that helps you see the difference. Honestly, I think you need both. A quality dSLR for when the shots really count, and a quality P&S for all of the shots you encounter when you weren't going to take the dSLR with you.

Matthew Saville · November 25, 2005

A nice P&S, such as the Leica D-Lux 2!!! (my latest P&S camera obsession)

;-)

-Matt-

marlof · November 26, 2005

Before we go too off topic: Matthew, do you as an end user (and not a technical tester) care to write up a bit of the pluses and cons in the D-Lux 2 in a seperate thread when you've had a bit of experience with it? I'm kind of intrigued with the 16:10 format, and my experiences with an earlier PanaLeica crossbreed (the Digilux 1) made me realize that noise alone (as stated in the LX1 review) doesn't mean bad pictures. If you zoom in on my Digilux 1 pictures, you see tons of noise, but they print very nice (as long as you don't print too large).

marlof · November 26, 2005

I have a pocketcamera (Sony DSC-W12) ban advanced P&S (the Sony DSC-F828) and a DSLR (the Olympus E-1).

The pocketable camera is nice, since it's the camera I have with me "just in case". The image quality is sometimes a bit of a gamble, since you don't have much control over it. Usually you tend to shoot images with it, where the memory is more important than the image quality, so that's fine by me. \

The advanced P&S is a real nice crossover product. It is still pretty portable (albeit not pocketable), and gives you full control over your image. The small sensor means large DOF, wich can be a plus as well, especially if your P&S has a fast lens meaning you won't have to up the ISO in lower light. Because that is where the advanced P&S (with the exception of the Sony R1) is really lacking: shooting with higher ISO means you have much more noise than with DSLRs in the same range. Another difference with the DLSR is that you can't change your lens.

On the DSLRs, there are full zoom range lenses as well, but in general the quality of those lenses are a bit less than dedicated wideangle zooms / normal to short telezoom / telezooms, let alone primes. If that will be important to you I don't know. I know many people who don't see the difference, and they couldn't care less. Next to that, the ability to shoot higher ISO without too much of an image degradation is pretty nice.

Matthew Saville · November 26, 2005

While it's often mentioned that P&S cameras don't have removeable lenses, I once thought to myself "couldn't they turn this into a good thing, in terms of sturdiness and dust-resistance?"

Well, I realized just how out-of-luck I was when my P&S of 1 year began to get dust inside the front elements, just like I suppose all lenses do. On a 35mm lens, you can get quite a lot of dust in there and still have no effect on image quality, but with a P&S and it's tiny sensor, ample DOF, and super-close macro mode capability, the dust can really show. I found myself trying to flick the lens barrel with my finger to shake the dust loose. OW! If this happens, you're really in a bind because P&S cameras are much more closely related to all other electronic devices in that major repairs are about as expensive as what one would pay for a whole new unit. Like hard drives and alarm clocks- you don't fix them, you just toss them and get a new one. It is highly likely that most P&S cameras will fall into this genre.

I spent $270 to have my $1000 D70 repaired; not bad considering the salt-water damage from weekly beach visits and the sand damage from a windy day in the sand dunes... My girlfriend spent $200 to have a grain of sand pulled out of her $300 Nikon Coolpix; OUCH!

-Matt-
PS: I don't own the D-Lux 2 yet. I think a Pentax Optio WPI is first in line on my list of P&S cameras, cause the nifty-waterproofness-points beat the little-red-sticker-points by a little bit. But personally, I'm a huge fan of elongated composition, so I can already tell you that I'll love the D-Lux 2 and it's fully-manual controls as long as the low-ISO noise is acceptable. It would definitely NOT be a low-light camera, not when I have an APS sensor, ISO 1600-capable DSLR at my disposal. I know some would want the Leica to be a street camera and high ISO would be essential for them, since they're used to pushing 1600 ASA film to 3200 or 6400 in their rangefinders. Although I suppose if you're doing that then you're welcoming grain to begin with, but most people doing that would pick film grain over digital grain ANY day. But in my case, I wouldn't own the Leica for any reason other than it looks really cool and has a semi-panoramic format. It would be a "you have arrived" camera.

.

Thusie · November 26, 2005

Humungus wrote:

Ed that is the deepest of questions & really hard to pin point. Maybe you could think of it as a family car that does a bit of everything ok v's an off road vehicle that has interchangable parts to allow you to stop & rebuild on the spot to make the most of what-ever terrain you are on at the moment.

Gus... whom really has difficulty explaining stuff.

Gus I think that is a right fine explanation actually:D

pathfinder · November 26, 2005

marlof wrote:

Before we go too off topic: Matthew, do you as an end user (and not a technical tester) care to write up a bit of the pluses and cons in the D-Lux 2 in a seperate thread when you've had a bit of experience with it? I'm kind of intrigued with the 16:10 format, and my experiences with an earlier PanaLeica crossbreed (the Digilux 1) made me realize that noise alone (as stated in the LX1 review) doesn't mean bad pictures. If you zoom in on my Digilux 1 pictures, you see tons of noise, but they print very nice (as long as you don't print too large).

Michael Reichman has commented frequently how noise that is noticeable on a monitor, may not be terribly significant or distracting in a reasonable size print.

Matthew Saville · November 26, 2005

pathfinder wrote:

Michael Reichman has commented frequently how noise that is noticeable on a monitor, may not be terribly significant or distracting in a reasonable size print.

lol well I'd like to comment frequently that noise you might not think will show up in a print can rear it's ugly head more than you thought! If printing BIG, that is...

-Matt-

Perry · November 27, 2005

I'd like to stick my nose in this thread just long enough to say that I GREATLY APPRECIATE the explanations that have been given thus far.

I'm mostly a lurker here...trying to decide what camera to upgrade to. I have a simple P&S (Sony DSC-P9), and I just don't get the tradeoffs for going to the DAMN FRUSTRATINGLY higher priced dSLR's. So I've spent a lot of time reading here, reading about cameras, and never getting my questions answered....

....the questions that most experienced persons just assume are known already.

This thread is so valuable for me, that I'm going to have to read it at least 3 times.

I mean it, folks; there are guys like me out here who are aching to know what all these arcane terms (DOF, "prime" lens, focal length, you mean the sensor size affects THAT?, why I do I want a fast lens, WTF is "L glass"?, why are some lenses white and get the big $?, why should I care about all these zillions of sensor types and dimensions isn't the bottom line bigger and more $ is better? Lenses have 'sweet spots' meaning I'll need a few right?) mean and why they may or may not impact my style of photos.

I cannot emphasize enough that this stuff isn't explained well enough in one central spot to help me understand why in the world I'd want to go from the relative ease of a P&S to the complex world of bodies, chosing the right lens (and spending for it!) for the job, learning the interaction of all the factors, etc. It is frustrating enough (both in costs and confusion over technologies) that I am not willing to make a purchase because I just cannot figure out what will be my best next move.

This thread has the potential to be HUGE in the sense of it's impact upon we, the uninitiated. But even if it peters out now it has given me a good deal of USEABLE info.

Never underestimate your power to educate and influence the Lurkie Bodies out here. To that end, if you are explaining something to a questioner don't assume that DOF (or other acronyms and abbreviations) means a damn thing to him. Some of you might know the difference between an ADF, VOR, TACAN, DME, and ILS, but the rest of you will read this sentence and think I just made up some letters just to be cute, as opposed to the "basic everyone should know" acronyms they are to me. I say that just to get you onto the notion that it helps *this* Lurkie Bird a lot to have things spelled out in threads. And I'm just really appreciative that folks jumped on this thread with such enthusiasm and really helped me a lot.

P.S. I finally noodled it out that DOF was depth-of-field. Those acronyms of mine are aviation navigation transmitter types.

Matthew Saville · November 27, 2005

Perry wrote:

I'd like to stick my nose in this thread just long enough to say that I GREATLY APPRECIATE the explanations that have been given thus far...

Perry, thanks for posting! And thanks for posting in a humorous manner, I enjoyed reading.

The bottom line is this: Control. Buying a DSLR will give you control. Shooting with a P&S camera hands over much control to the camera, and honestly cameras are getting better and better at taking control and giving us stunning results. But forever there will be those who wish to have complete control, and for them there are DSLR's and RAW capture.

The problem then lies in LEARNING all the (I'll be the first to admit, mind-bogglingly confusing) aspects of DSLR capture. If you think DOF etc. is confusing, try getting your head around ppi vs dpi and the "from hell" trio of image size, (pixels) image size, (inches) and image resolution. (pixels per inch) Yes, I said image size and image size lol. It's a b'yatch, you just have to be very visually / spatially inclined otherwise it will give you nightmares.

Many such as myself coughed up and paid for photography classes, film SLR and digital SLR both, so that we could figure out all these ridiculous things and share our knowledge with the rest of the world. I and others would be more than happy to answer any questions we know the answer to if you were to contact us by email. And if you ask a question we don't know, it'll only give us an excuse to try and tackle it with you!

The best way to learn might be to go back to the "prehistoric age" and take a B&W 35mm SLR class. However, I once reccomended this path to a friend of mine who's first SLR was digital, a breed that is growing and growing. He ended up hating the darkroom and having to use chemicals in exact ammounts with exact timing in order just to see his negatives. While I'll admit the relative uselessness of learning these particular skills in an age where feedback is instant on an LCD, I can confirm that this discipline will definitely teach a photographer that methodology is the name of the game the second after you click the shutter, as well as a little bit before the click, too.

So, if you're ready to tackle all the control that is going to be handed over to you like a thief unloads stolen goods on an innocent passer-by and then splits without explaining a thing, buy yourself a used Canon 300D or better yet a new Nikon D50 or an Olympus E-300 or E-500, all camreas that are just insanely inexpensive, considering. We'll be more than happy to help you figure things out. And if the budget still isn't large enough for a DSLR, that doesn't mean you can't continue lurking! And please feel free to stick your head in and ask as many questions as you want, too. I'm almost a "regular" on DPReview's Nikon D1/D2/D100/D200 forum, and I don't even own one! I just hang out there because there's tons of knowledge to be had.

Cheers and good luck,
-Matt-

ScottMcLeod · November 27, 2005

Perry wrote:

I'd like to stick my nose in this thread just long enough to say that I GREATLY APPRECIATE the explanations that have been given thus far.

I'm mostly a lurker here...trying to decide what camera to upgrade to. I have a simple P&S (Sony DSC-P9), and I just don't get the tradeoffs for going to the DAMN FRUSTRATINGLY higher priced dSLR's. So I've spent a lot of time reading here, reading about cameras, and never getting my questions answered....

....the questions that most experienced persons just assume are known already.

This thread is so valuable for me, that I'm going to have to read it at least 3 times.

I mean it, folks; there are guys like me out here who are aching to know what all these arcane terms (DOF, "prime" lens, focal length, you mean the sensor size affects THAT?, why I do I want a fast lens, WTF is "L glass"?, why are some lenses white and get the big $?, why should I care about all these zillions of sensor types and dimensions isn't the bottom line bigger and more $ is better? Lenses have 'sweet spots' meaning I'll need a few right?) mean and why they may or may not impact my style of photos.

I cannot emphasize enough that this stuff isn't explained well enough in one central spot to help me understand why in the world I'd want to go from the relative ease of a P&S to the complex world of bodies, chosing the right lens (and spending for it!) for the job, learning the interaction of all the factors, etc. It is frustrating enough (both in costs and confusion over technologies) that I am not willing to make a purchase because I just cannot figure out what will be my best next move.

This thread has the potential to be HUGE in the sense of it's impact upon we, the uninitiated. But even if it peters out now it has given me a good deal of USEABLE info.

Never underestimate your power to educate and influence the Lurkie Bodies out here. To that end, if you are explaining something to a questioner don't assume that DOF (or other acronyms and abbreviations) means a damn thing to him. Some of you might know the difference between an ADF, VOR, TACAN, DME, and ILS, but the rest of you will read this sentence and think I just made up some letters just to be cute, as opposed to the "basic everyone should know" acronyms they are to me. I say that just to get you onto the notion that it helps *this* Lurkie Bird a lot to have things spelled out in threads. And I'm just really appreciative that folks jumped on this thread with such enthusiasm and really helped me a lot.

P.S. I finally noodled it out that DOF was depth-of-field. Those acronyms of mine are aviation navigation transmitter types.

Good optics are easier to establish in prime lenses because you don't have to make sure each ray of light is making it through properly as lens elements move back and forth in zoom lenses. Also, it's possible to make them with a 1.8/1.4/1.2/1.0 aperture, without having to charge ridiculous amounts for them.

babybluetx23 · November 27, 2005

I think one of the biggest things that sets a lot of P&S cams and DSLR cams is the fact that a DSLR has an OPTICAL zoom where as most of the OLDER P&S cams had a digital zoom that just didnt leave you ANY Flexibility when it comes to editing your closer photos. Now a days they do make some pretty excelent P&S cameras that offer more options and also offer an optical zoom rather then the Digital zoom. I know there is a P&S that is out on the market now that is a 5.2 megapixel, it has a 3 inch lcd view finder and allows you to shoot in a manual mode that most P&S dont. I Think it is a pentax...not sure, but it is one of those compact P&S shirt Pocket type cams. I saw it on a cnet tech gaget review show that Tivo recorded for me! Pretty cool!

ed_h · November 29, 2005

Where do i start and who to thank, everyone actually who took the time and effort to reply.
A bit of my background, my mother was a professional studio photography my father a keen amateur, by time i was ten i had my own corner of the dark room using a 4x5 speed grafix as an enlarger, this was after 3 or 4 years of jiggling trays and trying not to scratch prints while turning them over. My first real camera was a Minolta Autocord also used the S/Grafix at times with a 120 back. In 1971 i purchased a new Canon F1 while in Hong Kong used it continuously till 2003 with out missing a click. A few years ago my Honolulu high school graduating class did a 60th birthday reunion cruise to Alaska, I must have been the only guy on the ship shooting film and to top it off 40+ rolls of film through airport security is no fun. I retired the F1 and bought a very basic digital p&s, OK for the grandkids birthday parties etc works well outside in full light. With the F1 i accessorized it to the max and i know if i bought a dSLR would probably do it all over again. From what i'v read and with your help the Sony DSC R1 looks like it would be what i want/need.
Thank-you again for clearing up a few things for me, personally i think the moderations should take your replies putting them on a sticky for all newbies to read.
Ed

colourbox · November 29, 2005

I know there is a P&S that is out on the market now that is a 5.2 megapixel, it has a 3 inch lcd view finder and allows you to shoot in a manual mode that most P&S dont.

That describes my Canon s60 (two generations old) except that it doesn't have a 3-inch LCD. As long as we're digressing into film vs digital I have this to add. A P&S will never match an SLR, but there is one thing many digital pocket-sized P&Ss can do that most comparable film P&S cameras cannot do: set the aperture and shutter speed manually. To have aperture priority, shutter priority, and total manual exposure control in a digital P&S makes a digital P&S so much more useful than a film P&S.

point & shoot vs dSLR

Comments