Why DSLR is better than P&S ???

[rainmanone]

I heard a lot of arguments about how SLRs and DSLRs are much better than regular P&S (such as the S45/50 or G3/5).
The only conclusion I reached is that SLRs cost more, thus you get better optics and replacable lenses.

(and you loose the ability to watch the image on LCD in real-time and check the digital parameters effectivness before you capture the image, such as AWB)

So, why isn't there a P&S such as G3 which is compatible with the standard "SLR" lenses ? it will be a cheap camera with all the qualities of SLRs.

Also, is there really a situation in which SLR will perform much better than a high-end P&S ?
any examples ?

[cA70]

Are the P&S u mentioned have the propper view finder, IE what u see is what u get. I have the A70 and i know it dosn't. Would be interesting to see the other ones, cause its something that bugs me.

[rainmanone]

the only P&S with a WYSIWYG viewfinder are the ones with a digital (LCD) eye viewfinder.

Canon doesn't have these.

[Maestro]

Actually the Pro90IS has a digital viewfinder.

And as to why DSLR or SLR in general are considered better than P&S cameras.
There's actually quite a number of reasons. A couple you touched on. (D)SLR cameras have interchangeable lenses, thus you're not stuck with a 2x-10x zoom lens which the P&S cameras have.
SLR's allow you to use faster glass, bigger lenses which gather more light and allow the photographer the most control over the artistry of the image being produced; like controlling depth of field, which is notoriously hard to do with P&S cameras due to their very short focal lengths.
DSLR's allow you to view true TTL with the eyepiece (not sure if any are digital beyond the Pro90IS), however they all have a LCD backpanel for viewing camera status overtop of a realtime image. DSLR's use better imaging sensors than P&S digital cameras.
Many DSLR's use CMOS sensors without RGB filters versus the standard CCD in P&S. CMOS tends to offer better colour reproduction, sensitivity and larger frame sizes, which allows for higher quality photo's.
Those are just a few points to consider when comparing P&S versus SLR. There's a very good reason why the professionals use SLR and DSLR, and sometimes those very reasons are why non-professionals should pick a P&S instead.

[rainmanone]

1. CMOS vs. CCD, well until last year CMOS was considered inferior to CCD in term of noise and quality, but it was cheaper.
these days CMOS reaches the quality of CCD - because of better noise removal technology. so CMOS is no the advantage.
Also, there are P&S cameras (not Canon...) that uses CMOS (usually it's the 1.3-2 MP cameras...)
2. DSLR wil lnot allow real-time view on the LCD, because the mirror blocks the light from the sensor.

DSLR is better than P&S in 2 things:
1. Autofocus speed - which I really don't see way won't a the cameras companies implement the Phase detection method into high-end P&S, thus removing this SLR advantage
2. exchangable lenses. and how many pro-sumers really change their SLR lenses ???

[Maestro]

rainmanone wrote:
1. CMOS vs. CCD, well until last year CMOS was considered inferior to CCD in term of noise and quality, but it was cheaper.
these days CMOS reaches the quality of CCD - because of better noise removal technology. so CMOS is no the advantage.
Also, there are P&S cameras (not Canon...) that uses CMOS (usually it's the 1.3-2 MP cameras...)
2. DSLR wil lnot allow real-time view on the LCD, because the mirror blocks the light from the sensor.

DSLR is better than P&S in 2 things:
1. Autofocus speed - which I really don't see way won't a the cameras companies implement the Phase detection method into high-end P&S, thus removing this SLR advantage
2. exchangable lenses. and how many pro-sumers really change their SLR lenses ???


Well, I don't really want to get into an argument about the pros and cons of CCD and CMOS and P&S vs DSLR.

Obviously each specialty has it's own benefits to their users. While CMOS was at one point considered inferior to CCD, that is no longer the case.

After the introduction of the X3 and 3 colour sensors per pixel (no need for filters) CMOS (IMHO) has easily surpassed CCD in terms of producing higher quality images. In addition, their physical size is larger than that of CCD chips which allows for more light gathering, which in turn causes less noise.

As for your question about the interchangability of lenses, I would say that a large number of prosumers regularily switch lenses, I would also say that the quality of the lenses in terms of glass distortion and light gathering ability far surpasses that of a P&S camera.

While there's no doubt that the current crop of Digital P&S cameras made today are very good indeed, the quality of DSLR pictures, and pure flexability of the SLR format are still superior to a P&S camera.

[Tom W]

I spoke a little on this on the SLR part of the forum, but I'll answer here as well. Frankly, I think the two types of camera have very different purposes. I have both and I use them both. I carry my S-400 around often, and I use it often. It makes very good photographs. But when I'm wanting to produce the best that I can, I use the SLR. It has much more flexibility and it allows the use of very fine lenses. All of the enlargements that I have framed and displayed right now are the product of my Elan II SLR.

As for digital, I will be replacing the Elan soon. It will be expensive, but well worth it.