SLR vs P&S?
These may seem like dumb questions so please bear with me...
I currently have a Sony DSC-P8. I usually don't adjust settings to take pictures, I just focus on composition and lighting as best I can. I am thinking about moving to a dSLR. I know a lot of it has to do with the person looking through the viewfinder. But seriously, how can I get a feel for what kind of performance differences I can expect? (for my knowledge as well to convince the wife!)
What kind of differences can I expect between my current P8 and say a Rebel XT?
Can anybody recommend a site or book for beginners?
Thank you all for you help!
I currently have a Sony DSC-P8. I usually don't adjust settings to take pictures, I just focus on composition and lighting as best I can. I am thinking about moving to a dSLR. I know a lot of it has to do with the person looking through the viewfinder. But seriously, how can I get a feel for what kind of performance differences I can expect? (for my knowledge as well to convince the wife!)
What kind of differences can I expect between my current P8 and say a Rebel XT?
Can anybody recommend a site or book for beginners?
Thank you all for you help!
0
Comments
Never be afraid to ask questions here, but do try to research to avoid asking questions that are common and general. Google is your friend.
A couple of Google requests returned these results:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22digicam+vs+dslr%22
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=%2Bdigicam+%2Bdslr+%2Bdifferences
Once you have specific questions about specific models, someone here will be glad to help (and that includes me, of course.)
Take care,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
I contend that a good P&S can get some very very great photos. In fact some of my personal 'best' photos have been taken w/ the old P&S. However I would never give up my dSLR!
In my opinion the biggest thing that the dSLR brings to the table is user control. After aquiring my newest 'pocket' P&S last week and futzing around w/ it in various shooting conditions I'm reminded why I was so extatic to buy the dSLR in the first place. Chaning shooting settings is effortless w/ a dSLR. Figuring out exposure settings is intuitive: there is a huge bar at the bottom, we call this a meter. Most P&S's lack this meter. P&S's are just a pain in the butt to use if you want to do any serious, creative photography. If you just want a snappie for emailing friends and family, the P&S wins no contest. But if you actually want to tailor the shot, the dSLR is a far easier beast to tame.
You also pay for speed: shutter lag has historically been totally pathetic on P&S cameras. Not so w/ dSLRs. When you click the shutter on most modern dSLR's, it actually takes a picture.
You also get better noise performance. Sure, some makers have come a long way recently w/ their high-ISO performance on P&S's.. but they still don't come anywhere close to matching the performance of any of the dSLR's out there. Less noise means you can crank the ISO setting w/o fear. Cranking ISO means more 'keepers' and less you just throw out because of unnatractive noise.
And a dSLR is more of an investment, not a purchase. W/ a P&S you can pour money in to a decent camera w/ a very good lens attached. But when it's time to change cameras, bye bye lens. W/ a dSLR you can invest in a lens and have it last a lifetime of shooting.
I haven't used the Sony but about 6 months ago I went from a Canon A75 P&S to a Canon 20D. I made the switch because I wanted better performance in these areas:
- Low light. The A75 was pretty bad above ISO 200, while the 20D can be used up to 800 with little noise and up to 3200 if you don't mind some.
- Faster response. Quicker auto-focus, minimal shutter lag.
- RAW file output. It makes a world of difference, especially when the lighting conditions are dicey.
- Wider variety of lenses to get better coverage. The bad news here is that you can easily spend a fortune on good glass.
- Sharper images. Better contrast and color. The lenses play a key role here.
- Better depth of field control. It was really hard to get anything not to be in focus with the P&S. Sometimes this works against you.
- More agile contols on the camera. Navigating through menus on the P&S was a pain when shooting conditions changed rapidly.
I'm glad to say that I got everything that I was looking for in the 20D. However, your point about the person looking through the viewfinder is absolutely correct. Many of my all-time favorite shots were taken with the A75.One thing I would suggest is that you stop using your current camera in automatic mode. Learn to use whatever controls it offers. This will give you a better idea of what to look for in a new camera. You are going to have learn all this stuff anyway, so you might as well get started.
Good luck.
Cheers,
Sensor:
Take a look at your P&S....most likely it is physically quite small. With all the bits that go into it, it is very likely that the sensor is quite small. For example, the 8mp Canon Powershot S80 has a 1/1.8" which equals a sensor about 7.2mm wide x 5.3mm tall. Compare this to the 8mp Canon Rebel XT dSLR, which has a sensor that is 22mm wide x 14.8mm tall, or about 9.5 times bigger. The larger the sensor, the more light and less noise it produces, so in this case, bigger is better. This also is why a dSLR can work with ISOs of 1600-3200, whereas a P&S can rarely function above ISO 400. For more very good information on sensor size, read Bob Atkins very good primer.
Lens:
Take another look at your P&S: chances are that cleaning your lens requires very small hands, and practice to do effectively. These are small lenses. As you know, a lens' purpose is to gather light to focus on the sensor. the bigger the lens, the more light. Compare that lens on a P&S to one on a dSLR. We are talking orders of magnitude in size here. Plus, as mentioned before, you have a huge range of lenses and lens classes to choose from. So, you can get much clearer, brighter pictures, most likely in a broader range of situations, with a dSLR lens, than with a P&S lens.
So, while a dSLR will do little for improving the shot around your composition and subject, it will give you more control, and the ability get a much better picture, one that is sharper, brighter, more balance and one that you can control to a fine degree, to suit your creativity, desire and intent.
Thank you all for the replies. I'm going to work on "learning" the "other" functions of my P&S. It sounds like even if a dSLR gives one "better" pictures if would be criminal not to understand how to use the camera's full potential. Kind of like buying a sports car and not knowing how to drive a manual transmission.
That Bob Atkins link is great!
Can anybody recommend a good beginner book on photography? (I saw "How to Photograph Your Life" in the review section - is there something more technical?)
Thank you all for your replies.
CONTROL: Everything from the camera settings to allowing you to shoot RAW & manipulate your images without quality loss. Its all about control & they give you more than you could ever hope for.
UPGRADABLE: As far as lenses & all the other add-on goodies, a DSLR allows you to move forward with your skills, without having to upgrade the body as much as a P&S would have you do.
QUALITY: Bigger/better sensors in the DSLRs means you get quality images that no P&S could ever give you. Combine this with different lenses & the ability to shoot & manipulate in RAW, there is no question that you can get a better end product with a DSLR.
But, keep a good P&S around for those times when you cant take a DSLR with you. Cheers...Kerry
Ah, you found it! (... and yes it is a very nice comparison.)
The three other responders to this thread have some excellent direct advice and are sharing their experiences.
What I would advise you to do, is explore more to find out what you're needs are. Then you will have a much better idea which photographic platform is correct for your needs.
A good place to start is by reviewing your own images to see what kinds of things you have photographed, and approximately, how you photographed them. Then you need to assess what you missed, because you lacked a particular feature or another. (... but you have to know what's available that you don't know about, and that requires personal research.)
I am extremely happy to see you mention that you wish to explore the camera that you have in more detail. That's an excellent way to learn.
It sounds like you have an active interest in more advanced photography, and that's great because I wondered from your first post whether it was just a passing interest or whim.
Stick around here, at DGrin, and try to use some of what you see and read to improve your own techniques. Much here applies to any camera platform or type of camera.
Glad to have you aboard,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
In my case, I typically photograph landscapes/nature. Sunsets, oceans, mountains, lakes, trees, glaciers... As far as misses... birds. The trails I walk have many birds on them. I can't seem to catch them for the life of me.
Right now, I think the SLR "plus" for me would be the quality. I don't think I know enough to get some of the other benefits at this time.
I did just go for a walk and play with the EV on my camera. Crazy how a little +1 can make the color pop in a picture. (don't laugh too hard - remember the days when you were learning
You have gotten some very good advice up above there, but I'll add my standard reply to the "Is a DSLR right for me?" type of question that you opened with.
In short-
If you have to ask-then NO a DSLR is not for you!
Short? Maybe...
Rude? Well, not really.
Think about it this way...
There are literally thousands of books, webpages, and periodicals offering advice on photography available in stores, libraries, and on the net. An individual who is ready (...if you can snatch the stone from my hand grasshopper...kind of ready) to make the transition from P&S to SLR should be hungry enough and determined enough to *know* what photography means to them AND have a basic idea of what tool they need to get there.
The gathering of information in my opinion is the first test of a young Photo-Jedi. You must make the journey from asking for a fish to *learning* how to fish yourself. If you can read-you can learn.
While there are some technological differences between a Digital SLR and a 35mm SLR, the basic concepts are the same-(light + time=picture). A basic grasp of photographic fundamentals using your CURRENT camera will also help you to learn when you are ready to take the step up to an SLR (digital or otherwise).
Yes, there are countless advantages to an SLR based system. However, there are countless *disadvantages* (for some people) as well. These are concepts that can only be answered for you BY you. A hundred people on an internet forum can give you dozens of laundry lists as to why an SLR is *better* than a P&S. But, there is a price to be paid for these advantages at least in the era we are in today.
Upfront you need to consider-
weight
bulk
lenses and lens changes
price-of the body, the lenses, and the accessories
Does the thought of carrying several pounds of gear around the city, zoo, or woods excite you or turn you off?
Does the thought of spending a thousand dollars for a lens (to get those birds you're after...) give you pause?
Are you aware of 'gearitus' a guaranteed condition that comes with an SLR?
These are the questions that will enlighten you on your quest my friend. These are the questions you should be asking.
Ahh....what the heck...I just can't keep this up any longer!!!
cm5299-
Just buy a Nikon D50 with the upgraded kit lens (18-70mm), and start takin' pichas!!!
cm5299,
Thanks for the compliment!
Now that you have a little better definition of needs, let's start with the missed shots, birds. Birds are a tough subject, partly because they are shy, partly because they are fast (relatively), partly because of their size and partly because they can move in all three dimensions. I also contend that feathers and fur require exceptional sharpness and acuity to properly define the subject.
Because of these things, long lenses and fast shutter speeds are usually indicated for wild birds. The exception is where the birds come to you, in the form of a feeder and/or "blind". If you can get the birds closer to you, you stand a chance of getting some interesting shots with almost any simple camera.
If you want to shoot birds in their natural habitat, you need a considerable expense in both equipment costs and technique. The people here who consistantly shoot the wonderful bird images, and especially the Bird In Flight images (BIF), have pretty amazing equipment and expertise
The other subjects you mention can be captured with a simpler camera, although maybe not in a single shot or they may require more effort.
I am so glad you are discovering the EV compensation, because that is one of the few things you have some control over, on that particular camera. The imager/processor has a 14 bit A/D conversion, which is better than a lot of cameras. Unfortunately, much of that is compressed out during the conversion to 8 bit for JPG files. By taking multiple images, using a tripod and varying the EV a bit between each shot, you can effectively "capture" a larger dynamic range than any single shot can capture. (You might also try the "Beach" and/or "Snow" scene modes to see if maybe highlight information is preserved a little more faithfully. The built-in processing curves might be skewed a bit in those modes.
It requires additional software, and time, to manipulate the extra images into a composite image, but in difficult lighting, it can mean the difference between the ordinary, and the extraordinary.
Another thing your camera has is noise reduction for long exposures. That's something very cool to do for night compositions. This also requires a tripod, so you see where I'm heading? This mode can make a very special oceanscape at close to sunrise or sunset.
You also have a "macro" mode. Many of these smaller cameras do a splendid job with small subjects, given the right light. The builtin flash probably isn't gonna cut it, by itself anyway. Maybe macro is something to explore?
I'm looking forward to seeing some cool stuff, now that you're choosing to explore and challenge.
BTW, one of my best shots ever is of my kids at a special Thanksgiving celebration, taken with a simple Kodak, 3MP, P&S. It is nice enough, my Ex-wife even wanted a copy to display as an 8" x 10". Sometimes it's more about the subjects and the moment, than anything else.
Best,
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
And your closing sentiment is indisputable.
Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam
http://www.mcneel.com/users/jb/foghorn/ill_shut_up.au
I took a few pictures of the same scene with 0 EV, +1 EV, -1 EV just so I could get a feel for what it was doing. It was nice to see the histogram before the shot and how it translated into the final picture.
Funny you mentioned macro mode. I was walking through a field off of the trail and there was this chunk of granite sticking out of the grass. I got to practice with the macro mode.
Thanks to everybody for the advice and tough love! I'll keep plugging along. I have about 4 months to become a pro before our trip to Iceland. I figure I better make damn sure I can take GOOD pictures before I go.
Unfortunately,
The manufacturers are free to make claims about this mode and that mode which seem to be more clever marketing than useful engineering. Since the camera has a 14bit capture, it certainly has the potential for different in-camera curves for different "Scene" modes and situations. Whether they actually implemented that capability is anyone's guess, but you have the camera, and you can find out.
The test is to shoot the same image using the standard shooting mode, and then simply switch to a different "Scene" mode and take the same image again. Once you have the images on a computer, you can compare them. Look especially at the highlights and shadows. See if one method yields better results over another for given situations. It shouldn't be a startling difference, but it should be noticable.
Go cm5299, go! (But share some results. We want to learn too.)
Iceland! What's the old saying, "Greenland is ice and Iceland is green"?
Dang, did I mention the only way for you to get good images in a foreign land is to take me along? I don't whine (too much) and I can carry your luggage (the light stuff). I am so envious.
OK, now you have a great reason to improve your skills and techniques. Now I understand your comment, "Sunsets, oceans, mountains, lakes, trees, glaciers... ".
Now I think we need to change emphasis. Much of what you will photograph in Iceland could benefit from RAW image capture and processing. All of our preceeding discussion still applies, but if this is a once-in-a-lifetime trip, it's worth some extra effort. (Unless you do this trip "every" 4 months or so.) Things like the subtle differences in color thoughout an iceberg or icelandic sunset really need the extra discreet and targeted processing you can only get through an image workflow that includes RAW.
Either an advanced digicam, like the Sony R1 with excellent low-light capabilities or the Konica Minolta DiMAGE A200 with great glass and IS, might work well, or a true dSLR with some really nice glass, could work sooo much better, at the cost of both much more initial monetary outlay and the time required to learn the system.
It could easily take years to fully understand any of the preceeding cameras and systems.
Look here for some inspiration on Iceland images:
http://www.pbase.com/ricardoalves/iceland
ziggy53
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
EV 0
Anyway… above are a few pictures I have shot with the P8. Please rip away. I didn't know what I was really doing when I took these. Criticism and advice are greatly appreciated (it's all learning!).
These pics look fine to me....perhaps some post processing. I took that an did some levels work to bring up the highlights, then I did some saturation boosting (maybe too much) and some sharpening (again too much). Because there were two pics together, it was impossible to get it right, but this does show how post processing can transform a photo.
There is a bit of noise in the first photo, and the bottom one is quite good for a P&S. With an dSLR, you could have really fine tuned the shadow balance...but nice overall.
Keep working on her.
the EV+1 is a definite improvement.
The palm trees is a classic shot, nicely done.
The sea/landscape might have been a little better with a little less sky and more foreground, but I wasn't there to see the possible distractions in the foreground and help gauge the scene (just another reason to take me along.) A polarizing filter might have deepened the blue sky and increased the "mood" of the shot. Fiji Islands! I am sooo envious.
I hope you don't mind, I reworked the last one a bit.
Moderator of the Cameras and Accessories forums
The top picture is actually from Lake Wakatipu in Queenstown, New Zealand. We were on a helocopter ride and the pilot landed on the side of this mountain and let us out to take pictures. I guess I wanted to make sure I got the mountains and lake in the picture!
I'm going to read-up on "post processing" too. I hear what you guys did to my pics, but I honestly have no idea what it means.
Thanks again.