Are SLRs really 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 ?

[hmhm]

The two "defining" differences between an DSLR and a P&S are the interchangeable lenses and the sensor size.

The interchangeable lens mount allows "access" to higher quality lenses, a broader variety of focal lengths, super-fast primes, and specialty lenses like macro, tilt/shift, etc.

The larger sensor size of the DSLR allows for reduced noise at a given ISO, allowing access to higher ISOs. The larger sensor size also allows "access" to shallow depth of field, while providing comparable access to deep DoF.

DSLRs may also be equipped with better AF sensors (faster focusing and better focusing in low light).

The P&S is typically far smaller and less expensive.
-harry

[Belmondo]

To really answer a quesiton like yours, you have to define your parameters. "Is an SLR better than a P&S at WHAT?"

Obvious benefits to a P&S are convenience, size, and and as a previous poster pointed out, the ability to preview your image on an LCD. If these are the most important features of a camera for you, then P&S is best.

If, on the other hand, picture quality and versatility matter most (irrespective of cost), then the SLR should be your weapon of choice.

In short, 'what's best' depends entirely on you.

I think there is a tendency among some people to assume that the SLR trumps the P&S in every respect, and that simply isn't true. My trusty old G2 goes with me everywhere and delivers very acceptable pictures. I assume a G5 would be even better if for no other reason than resolution.

Don't lose sight of the fact that to carry my10D around with everything I need to achieve the same functionality as my G2 requires a good sized backpack. The G2 (with both auxilliary lenses) fits in a small pack I can easily carry in one hand or on my belt. That's significant!

Converseley, if the picture really matters, the SLR is the obvious only choice.

[rainmanone]

well... in Canon EOS the sensor is CMOS, which as far as I know, is consider inferior to the CCD that is inside a P&S.
Even the processor is DIGIC in both cameras and the focus mechanism is in the lens module,

So, it seems that simply by taking a P&S body and allowing it to use interchangable lenses will mean CHEAP camera with GREAT quality
(the "Rebel" costs 900$ and the basic lens is 100$, the P&S version will be 500$ tops)

and the second wuation I ask, is WHY do companies still produce state of the art cameras with an ancient useless mechanism such as a single lens reflex ? why not keep the CCD exposed in "view" mode ?

[w10d]

rainmanone wrote:
well... in Canon EOS the sensor is CMOS, which as far as I know, is consider inferior to the CCD that is inside a P&S.
Even the processor is DIGIC in both cameras and the focus mechanism is in the lens module,

So, it seems that simply by taking a P&S body and allowing it to use interchangable lenses will mean CHEAP camera with GREAT quality
(the "Rebel" costs 900$ and the basic lens is 100$, the P&S version will be 500$ tops)

and the second wuation I ask, is WHY do companies still produce state of the art cameras with an ancient useless mechanism such as a single lens reflex ? why not keep the CCD exposed in "view" mode ?

Not sure where you get that idea about CMOS....


Interchangeable lenses on non-SLR cameras is not a new idea, but you soon get into parallex errors, even with lens dedicated attachable viewfinders. As for using 35mm SLR lenses on a P&S, would you really want to bog down your P&S camera by having to lug around bulky lenses, when you could only shoot through a small area of them (even less than the 10D does)? Better off with a compact built in zoom - which is why that is what most manufacturer's are selling.

Ancient? Compared to a seperate viewfinder an SLR is modern!
Seriously, WYSIWYG is the benefit of SLR, and it's a feature of many medium format cameras (and without the 'R' a feature of most large format as well)

;)

[slin100]

I've also heard that CMOS is not as good as CCD, but the 10D seems to hold its own very nicely, so the difference is probably negligible.

You might want to check out this dpreview (http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_01.htm) article on sensor technology. It describes some of the differences between D-SLR and P&S sensors.

In short, if you think a P&S produces images of GREAT quality, then a D-SLR produces images of OUTSTANDING quality.

As to whether or not you'll see a P&S with interchangeable lenses, simple business sense might dictate never producing one. The D-SLR is quite healthy and undercutting sales would not be prudent on the manufacturer's part.

[rainmanone]

if my concern was form-factor, I wouldn't add big lenses.
but if I'd like a "DSLR quality camera" in HALF the price.. well... that's another story.

as for the paralex... that's why LCDs are for, unless you insist on using a viewfinder instead of a screen.

I worked for a company that makes processors for DigiCams (so I was invloved in the making of the cameras for some of our customers).
I didn't think that LCD is better than a viewfinder (optical) until I had my own camera and found out I use less and less the optical viewfinder, and more and more the back LCD. not because of the paralex, it's just more... sensible ?! (excpet for the power use).

So, use a microDisplay LCD as a view finder and... you got the best camera ever: great wuality, low price, real-time LCD view and an eye viewfinder.

but, this camera will kill the SLR market, so it will never appear

[JMSetzler]

If you look at the difference between SLR and P&S cameras from the standpoint of the resulting image, there are MANY cases where one is no better than the other.

If you look at the differences from the standpoint of flexibility and overall control, the SLR is usually a better camera. The SLR will give you more options for exposure and lens choices.

[w10d]

rainmanone wrote:
as for the paralex... that's why LCDs are for, unless you insist on using a viewfinder instead of a screen.

but, this camera will kill the SLR market, so it will never appear

True an LCD avoids paralex, and I have to say I've always used the LCD on a G2 in preference to the viewfinder, BUT I don't miss the live LCD on my 10D at all. Somehow an optical viewfinder is more comfortable that an LCD. Given the choice on the 10D I'd be sticking with the viewfinder.

I don't think an interchangable lens camera would kill the DSLR market at all: it may even compliment it. Remember the film SLR pretty much killed off rangefinder and TLR.

I'd love a compact DSL with rangefinder and manual control, would be an ultimate P&S for me, but I doubt many would feel the same way..

[kn_guy87]

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

Yes, shutter and focus speed.
This is a very good example why SLR performs better.
In our last summer vacation, my wife brought the Canon G5 and I brought the 10d with 24-70 L glass to the swimming pool with our kids.
I had a bet with my wife to see who would get a perfect shot with the kids jumping/diving into the pool.
Guess who won? :) :)

Ken

[Chris1le]

Dont forget that a DSLR has little if any shutter lag. Combined with faster focusing gives the DSLR true point and shoot picture taking. :) This is one of the main reasons I'm looking to add either a 300D or 10D to go along with my G3. The G3 takes great pictures but trying to take pictures of moving targets takes a bit of planning. The G3 could be considered more of a point wait a second or two then shoot.

[DonCoon]

slin100 wrote:
I've also heard that CMOS is not as good as CCD, but the 10D seems to hold its own very nicely, so the difference is probably negligible.



I think "hold its own" is a gross understatement. I've owned Nikon and Canon PowerShot point and shoot cameras and neither's sensors perform anywhere close to the 10D's CMOS.

Last week I took some long exposures of the Northern lights at speeds ranging form 30 to 164 seconds. And to make the challenge harder for the sensor, I accidently had the ISO set to 400 on 5 of the shots.

When I got home I decided to try a "Black Frame" correction to improve these long shots. So... I took a 160 second exposure @ ISO 400 with the lens cap on to identify hot pixels.

I was shocked to find only 12. Only 5 could be seen on an 8x10. 12 of 3072x2048 is about 2/10,000th of a percent!!

#1 I could never shoot 400 ISO for even two seconds on my CCD equipped cameras without incurring unacceptable noise. AND my Canon was a Pro90 which employs fill-time noise reduction.

#2 A Black Frame shot for even 30 seconds on either P&S would have identified hundreds of hot pixels.

There's no doubt in my mind that Canon's CMOS sensors are miles ahead of today's CCDs.

[slin100]

DonCoon wrote:
There's no doubt in my mind that Canon's CMOS sensors are miles ahead of today's CCDs.

I was really thinking about Nikon's D100, which uses a CCD. Comparing a CMOS from a D-SLR to a CCD from a P&S is not really fair.

[RichardtheSane]

An SLR has far superior handling to a point and shoot.
Ask yourself why Film SLR's and 35mm rangefinder cameras have been around alongside each other for a long time.
Just because the medium for recording the image has changes, doesn't mean the methods need to.
Also, is there really a situation in which SLR will perform much better than a high-end P&S ?
Many.
Pro Sports photography.
Pro Wildlife photography
Arcitecture with a T & S lens
I think the situation contained within those examples is extensive.... but not even close to the number there really are.
Another thing, I would hate to have my 100-400 lens controlled by a zoom moter - ugh. Manul zoom and manual focus are important SLR features that a P & S simply doesn't have!!
I had a high end point and shoot, and my very old EOS 1000 SLR handled better. I tried substituting an SLR for a P&S that was designed to perform like an SLR and it just didn't. I now have an EOS 33 and a 10D and they are far superior in nearly every way to every P & S I have ever picked up.

but, this camera will kill the SLR market, so it will never appear
I strongly disagree with that. The SLR market is what drives digital technology, and also the manufacturers produce according to the market. The SLR market would not flinch if such a camera was released.

Finally, consumers like the right to choose. They don't like the manufacturer or anyone else telling them what is best for them. SLR's are better than a P&S for people who like the extensive benefits of SLR's.

[slin100]

RichardtheSane wrote:
I strongly disagree with that. The SLR market is what drives digital technology, and also the manufacturers produce according to the market. The SLR market would not flinch if such a camera was released.

I wonder how many fewer Digital Rebels would Canon be selling if such an alternative existed?

[Yance]

The whole point of P&S cameras is so that you don't need to lug a camera bag full of lenses and other equipment. I don't think a hybrid of the two would be good or particularly useful.

[psk4363]

Again, having come from the Powershot series to the 10D, my feeling is that both have their pros and cons.

I liked the lightweight and ultimate portability of the P&S cameras, abhore the weight of the dSLR cameras, love the increased functionality of the dSLR and despised the limited useability of a P&S camera.

Hope this helps,
Barry

[RichardtheSane]

slin100 wrote:
I wonder how many fewer Digital Rebels would Canon be selling if such an alternative existed?

About the same.
Most people who have bought the d-rebel have done so because they wanted an affordable DSLR - and a lot of them have come from higher end P & S camera to the D-Rebel :D

[openspace]

Wow. Big topic. First off, here's a great article on CMOS and CCD sensor technologies, resolutions, manufacturing processes and their differences.

http://www.shortcourses.com/choosing/sensors/05.htm

Basically, yes, the first generation CMOS sensors were terrible compared to their CCD brethren. But that has changed significantly in recent years, enough that Canon uses CMOS sensors not only in the 300D and 10D but also in their flagship 1Ds, considered to be the best digital SLR on the market today.

Keep in mind also that a sensor is just one piece of the imaging puzzle too. One also has to consider the analog/digital converter, and image processor as well. Canon's DIGIC image processor is truly revolutionary.

-----

Regarding SLR vs. P&S...

In a nutshell, an SLR is endlessly interchangeable. On any given day, I can take 1:1 lifesize shots of insects with a macro lens, capture images of a Sandhill Crane in flight with a 500mm, achieve extreme depth of field with a tilt-shift lens or capture a panorama with a 17mm wide angle or an 8mm fisheye.

I can mount an external flash unit on the camera, control cordless off camera units by infrared, or plug into a studio lighting system for professional portraits.

An SLR or DSLR gives me options - total control of aperture and shutter speed, depth of field preview, exposure and flash bracketing, mirror lockup to prevent shake during macro exposures, time-release (bulb) exposures controlled by a remote switch.

And because most SLRs are designed with professional use in mind, I can be sure that I am the recipient of a higher level of quality, especially in glass manufacturing, than what typically comes off the consumer P&S assembly line.

Don't get me wrong, there are some great P&S units out there. And to be sure, there are lenses manufactured for SLRs that suck. No argument here. But in general, SLRs are manufactured to a more exacting standard.

So what does all this boil down to? Simple. What do you want to achieve? Are you primarily interested in shooting for the family photo album, and printing the occassional 8x10 for the living room? Or do you want to display in a gallery or maybe one day sell to magazines?

Can you accept the limitations imposed by a P&S, recognizing that there are just certain shots you can't capture? Or does that drive you absolutely crazy?

Do you glance over your photos for a few seconds and think, "wow that's good", or are you the kind of person that will pour over an image on screen for 15 minutes looking for any imperfections because you demand the best?

Are you satisfied with your abilities as a photographer now? Or do you dream of expanding your horizons? Do you mostly shoot around the neighborhood, or are you the kind of person that will drive 100 miles just to photograph a rare orchid in early morning light - and wants to get it right the first time?

You see, we photographers that drop endless thousands of dollars, pounds and sheckels on SLRs, DSLRs and associated equipment are a demanding bunch. We demand perfection, quality and exacting control over the creative process. We argue endlessly over things like lens coatings and optical sharpness, maybe in part because we're obsessive compulsive, but mostly because we have a vision of capturing what we see and sharing it with the world, and nothing short of perfect will suffice.

Point and shoot cameras serve their purpose. And several of them are fantastic - the quasi SLR Minolta 7i comes to mind. But when that rare once in a blue moon image presents itself, I don't want to have to worry about whether my system is up to snuff. With a good SLR or DSLR and solid optics, I know it is.

[hmhm]

rainmanone wrote:
as for the paralex... that's why LCDs are for, unless you insist on using a viewfinder instead of a screen.


I do insist. EVFs and LCDs have limited frame rates and limited resolution as compared to an optical viewfinder, making them a bit iffy for shooting that requires critical timing or precise focusing.

There's a reason why both types of cameras exist, and it's because different people have different requirements. Trying to merge them together into a hybrid doesn't change this, and is just as likely to result in a product that neither camp wants.
-harry

[Belmondo]

Okay, this is going to rankle a lot of people, but I hereby declare ---

SLR's are better!

I am Belmondo, so I don't have to justify my position. I'm right, and that's all there is to it.

Nonetheless, to placate the doubters, here are ten reasons SLR's are better.

1. They cost more and thus are status symbols.
2. They're bigger and heavier. Carrying one around is very good for your cardio-vascular system.
3. The big white lenses on an SLR look far more impressive than the little dinky lens that pops out of the P&S --- even if you paint the pathetic little thing white.
4. It's much better for name-dropping at cocktail parties.
5. An SLR requires several gadget bags, backpacks, and/or steamer trunks to carry everything you need. This impresses people, especially if they are bellmen working for tips.
6. They make better weapons should you have to defend yourself on a wildlife shoot. A properly thrown SLR can actually stun a Grizzly Bear sufficient to allow time for escape. Try THAT with your s-230 Elph.
7. They enhance Japan's trade surplus. (like we haven’t done that enough already)
8. Relatives will ask you to take pictures at weddings. This means you won't have to be in the bridal party (wear a tux) nor will you have to dance with the grandmother of the groom and her oxygen bottle.
9. People will assume you're a first-rate photographer. Regardless of how your pictures turn out, people conclude you're a pro when they see you whip out your big, black SLR with a battery grip and a huge honking lens on it. Pay no attention to anyone who says size doesn't matter.
10. They don't look ridiculous sitting on tripods.


I'm sure there are more reasons, but I think I've pretty clearly established that SLR's are better than Point & Shoot cameras.

Thank you for being so attentive.

Tom

[CyberDyneSystems]

The argumant is rather moot. DSLRs are not going top be expensive for long

You can get a really goos 35mm SLR for $200.00 or less.

And yet people still buy more 35mmm point and shoot cameras that will fit in a pocket or purse.

The same will be true whn DSLRs are more comparably priced.

Also,. there is a large market of these "in between " cameras allready. High end digitals now as affordable as $500.00. The only difference is the lack of a lens mount. But ewhy build a tiny digital that woill mount a massive 35mm lens when the lens carries more light info than 4 or 6 CCDs in the P&S could use?

The only snesible way to do it would be to create a line of lenses and cameras that use the samller CCDs of P&S and lenses that are scaled to there size.

Guess what,. Olympous has Allready started.

If the E-1 ever catches on,. on or the idea behing it, we will be seeing smaller more affordable interchangable lens digitals soon.

[ldivinag]

reason i went with the 10D was i had a very crappy shoot with my coolpix.

i kept looking through the "viewfinder" and of course the LCD had different eyes...

so that was it... SLR. it just happened to be a D... ;)

[defordphoto]

belmondo wrote:
3. The big white lenses on an SLR look far more impressive than the little dinky lens that pops out of the P&S --- even if you paint the pathetic little thing white.
10. They don't look ridiculous sitting on tripods.

I'm sure there are more reasons, but I think I've pretty clearly established that SLR's are better than Point & Shoot cameras.

Thank you for being so attentive.

Tom


LOL! That was great Tom!! These two reminded me of the following:

When at Portland International Raceway last year there was a point where the track officials at the Festival Curves would not let anyone through the restricted area to shoot if their lens was deemed too small. Didn't matter that they had photo credentials, if your camera and lens was too small, you didn't get through. We had a chat with the CART media folks and fixed that. But, it was sure funny at the time!

And at this girls soccer shoot we have been doing there is a lady with this miniature point and shoot the size of a cigarette pack and she has a monopod!! It's is the funniet thing I have seen! At first I thought it was some weird walking stick until I saw this itty-bitty camera attached to it.

And here are my wife and I with the 10D and the 100-400 and the D60 with the 70-200 and 1.4TC and we handhold the entire one hour-plus for the game.

Anyway, just thought I'd share...

[Belmondo]

Jim:
Unrelated, but I have a friend who scored a press pass for Oakland Raiders home games. He carried a camera as a prop, either borrowing or renting one for a while just to look 'official.' I finally convinced him that as long as he was there, he might put some film in the camera and actually take a picture. He did, got a few pretty good photos, and got the bug---I think he bought an EOS-1. I haven't followed up to see if he's stuck with it, but I do know he still goes to the games; when they're televized, I occasionally see him standing on the sidelines with his camera---. I always wonder if he still puts film in it or not.

Tom

[defordphoto]

ROFLMAO! That's too funny!! Heck, he's probably their official photographer now! Thanks for sharing that! You had Mary and I ROFL'ing!

[ChrisNardone]

I think this question is like asking: is a Hummer really better than an Outback? Is a Hog better than a Samari? Or is a... o.k. you get the point. Of the four best photos I've ever taken, 2 were with p&s's and 2 were with SLRs. Only one was film though.
On a side note, I think in the near future, we will look back and laugh at the size of sensors we are spending so much time debating about. Let's face it, DSLR's are just barely starting to be "good enough." I look forward to the day when Digital Rebels with full size sensors are the norm.

[cole]

Are SLRs really better than P&S ?

The answer is no.

If you're already using a P&S, and you're asking this question, save your money- you don't need an SLR.

I started off with a P&S and the limitations were frustrating for me, so I got me a Minolta 7Hi (a cross between a P&S and an SLR). It was a great improvement, but I soon got frustrated again, so I got me a D60 SLR. I'm never going back to P&S again.

[MiG82]

P&S might be better because they are CCD? That's as silly as saying that a V8 is faster than a V6. You have to judge each case individually.


As for shooting photos of kids at the pool, is my G3's 1/2000th of a second shutter speed (1/1250 between f/2 and f/4) not enough to catch action? They must move very fast :)
Of course, that doesn't mean that the SLR wouldn't take a better picture, but I don't think it would be because of the shutter speed.
I've taken photos of water breaking against rocks and 1/1000 almost freezes the splashes (in 1:1 view you can see a bit of motion blur). What would be handy is a bit of extra sensitivity to allow the highest shutter speeds to be used in less than mid day sun. This is where the SLR with very little noise even at ISO 200 trumps the poor little P&S (which can shoot at up to ISO400 but it's quite ugly)

Oh, the G3 has 1/10th of a second shutter lag. That makes action shots a lot easier than some other P&S cameras. You have to prefocus though.

[w10d]

mig82 wrote:
As for shooting photos of kids at the pool, is my G3's 1/2000th of a second shutter speed (1/1250 between f/2 and f/4) not enough to catch action? They must move very fast :)


I took this to be a reference to AF delay.

That's the problem with compacts, has been for ages. People's photo albums are full of pictures of things that happened a few moments ago, a big splash in a pool, people laughing but not what they were laughing at.

Years ago I had a neat little Olympus compact: no battery, basic metering, rangefinder focus, manual or aperture priority. With a reasonable amount of light you could pre-set the focus and aperture, then grab a shot from head & shoulders to a group of people. Never any excuse for missing a shot with that... As for my G2, a great camera, but it doesn't always want to take a picture when I want it to.

[ilya]

How'd this get on this forum. Thought we established a while back that we SLR-ians are intolerant of any other puny little photo-forms. Shoo, get off this board. :D

CCDs vs CMOS - huh? My guess is that CMOS will phase out CCDs in next couple of years.

[psk4363]

Tom - you are a genius! I've just recovered from rolling about all over the floor in tucks of laughter - the image of dancing with the groom's grandmother and her oxygen bottle cracked me up and made my day.

Barry

[Dukeofurl]

RFMSports wrote:

When at Portland International Raceway last year there was a point where the track officials at the Festival Curves would not let anyone through the restricted area to shoot if their lens was deemed too small. Didn't matter that they had photo credentials, if your camera and lens was too small, you didn't get through.

I remember, in the early 1960s, when press photographers needed 4x5 cameras in order to be taken seriously. 35mm SLRs -- no matter how big their lenses were -- were considered to be rich men's toys. Rangefinder cameras like Leica? Forget it!

[Belmondo]

psk4363 wrote:
Tom - you are a genius! I've just recovered from rolling about all over the floor in tucks of laughter - the image of dancing with the groom's grandmother and her oxygen bottle cracked me up and made my day.

Barry

Maybe I should move this discussion to a separate thread --- WHY SLRs ARE BETTER THAN P&S.

I was really hoping folks would come up with a few different reasons besides mine. I'm sure those aren't the only ten.

Here are a couple others:
11. SLR is easier to spell.
12. 77mm filters can be used as coasters. Circular polarizers can be put under a plate and used as a lazy susan.
13. An SLR gives you something to do with your left hand when shooting photos.
14. Professional lenses provide a legitimate excuse for not having the money to put Junior through college.
15. You're not likely to leave an SLR in your shirt pocket and run it through the laundry.
16. An SLR with a long lens on it carried on a neck strap can hide a broken zipper---just don't forget and start snapping pictures.
17. With an SLR, you can take a really crappy picture and claim it's art. Someone will believe you. Take a really great picture with a P&S, and EVERYONE will think it was an accident.
18. I'm done.

[Dukeofurl]

Point and Shoot used to be the designation of a fixed-focus, single-shutter-speed, fixed-aperture, entry-level camera for people who wanted snapshots but were not interested in photography. It was not the alternative to a single-lens reflex -- a rangefinder camera was that. Rangefinders oftentimes are better than SLRs for certain applications -- like taking pictures in theaters where the kerplunk of a mirror would be almost as disturbing as a flash.

Today's non-SLR digital cameras are termed Point and Shoot not because they are simple, but because they are totally automatic. In theory, whether or not a "P&S" is as good as (or better than) an SLR depends upon the particular P&S and the particular SLR being compared. In reality, however, most of today's digital SLRs are better -- quality-wise, not necessarily application-wise -- because they had been fabricated with the intention of being high-end.

In addition to the excellent points brought out in the other responses in this thread, a BIG difference between an SLR and a "P&S" is the shutter. A "P&S" has a between-the-lens leaf shutter, enabling the lens to be smaller and the camera more compact than an equivalent SLR. Giving a P&S an interchangeable-lens mount would be senseless without either (1) including a shutter in every lens, or (2) installing a focal-plane shutter. The former is excessively expensive and inefficient, and the latter would require moving the lens forward and making it bigger -- thereby making the entire camera the size of an SLR. The advantage of eliminating a mirror would pale compared with losing through-the-lens viewing.

[Mark Kemp]

Is a hammer better than a saw?

Depends if you want to drive in a nail or cut a plank.

Is a point and shoot better than an SLR?

Depends whether you want to just point it and shoot it or take a little more time and set everything up 'just so'

[robertwgross]

Isn't it odd that when the only tool you have is a hammer, that all of the problems look like nails?

---Bob Gross---

[CyberDyneSystems]

Yes Virginia,

SLRS really are better than Point and Shoots.

:D

[Belmondo]

19. If you drop an SLR in the 'loo,' chances are some portion of it will remain above water so you won't have to get your hands wet when retrieving it.

[Mashuri]

Read this if you really want to know the difference between a non-shutter CCD and a CMOS (CCD) behind a mechanical shutter:

http://www.dpreview.com/learn/Glossary/Camera_System/Sensor_01.htm

DSLR's don't have to use microlenses on their CCD's (CMOS's) and, because of this and their larger overall sensor size, they are much more sensitive to light. Attaching 35mm lenses to a P&S is self-defeating because now you have a mechanical shutter and pretty much require a body of SLR size. Even P&S cameras with interchangable lenses will stil be limited by their size: Focal lengths too short with relatively small apertures (this limits DOF control) and small CCD sensors. As mentioned above, another big advantage of DSLR is focus speed. I have my G3 (bought it a month ago) on Ebay right now because I got frustrated with its limitations. The images were beautiful but still not as sublime as a good DSLR. I also wanted more zoom and DOF control, particularly with portraits. Finally, I kept missing spontaneous shots with its slow focus speed. Don't get me wrong. The G3 is one exceptional camera but I needed more. Hope this helps.

[rainmanone]

First thing.. about mechanical shutters and CCDs, well, there are cameras with a mechanical shutter over the CCD (I should know.. I designed a few as reference designs for my company, and they worked great).

Second thing, the speed, I have no idea why a company like Canon or Nikonor any other camera manufacturer won't implement the phase detection autofocus mechanism, instead of using the "slow" software based "feedback" mechanism (going back and forward with the lens to get the max contrast).

as for quality, I've never seen a picture taken in an SLR (a still one, not a fancy fast movement scene, that is to fast for P&S) that can't be taken with a good qualite P&S (like... G3/5 of the Minolta 7i)

As for Zoom... we all know that there are P&S cameras with x12 Zoom and more... so.. it ain't SLR only

If P&S would have the fast focus as today's SLRs would you still pay 1000$+ for a DSLR ?

[RichardtheSane]

As for Zoom... we all know that there are P&S cameras with x12 Zoom and more... so.. it ain't SLR only
Which P&S cameras have manual zooming (a mazor feature of any SLR zoom)?

The zoom multiplier is not important as it gives no indication of how much magnification you will achieve.
I also believe that the AF speed is dow to a little more than the AF sensor. Lens motors are important too, and geting such moters into a really small lens would be really difficult and expensive.
As I said before. SLR's have their market, and P&S have their own market. It will stay that way for some time.

[hmhm]

rainmanone wrote:
as for quality, I've never seen a picture taken in an SLR (a still one, not a fancy fast movement scene, that is to fast for P&S) that can't be taken with a good qualite P&S (like... G3/5 of the Minolta 7i)


Have you ever seen any pictures like these?
- a portrait with narrow depth of field to blur the background
- low-light without flash, e.g. a 50mm at f/1.4
- very wide-angle, e.g. a 14mm on a 1Ds
- super telephoto, e.g. a 600mm
- super macro, e.g. 1:1 or even 1:5
- one taken at ISO 400 (the noise difference will be obvious)
- one taken at ISO 1600 or 3200 (what P&S even supports this?)
- high-contrast scenes that tend to cause chromatic abberation (a problem for P&S lenses)
- one that uses tilt/shift "movements" to correct perspective or change the plane of focus?

Besides the obvious limitations in flexibility, there's an inherent difference in image quality due to lower-cost lenses and small sensors. These compromises are done in the name of cost and size.
-harry

[Mashuri]

rainmanone wrote:
First thing.. about mechanical shutters and CCDs, well, there are cameras with a mechanical shutter over the CCD (I should know.. I designed a few as reference designs for my company, and they worked great).

Second thing, the speed, I have no idea why a company like Canon or Nikonor any other camera manufacturer won't implement the phase detection autofocus mechanism, instead of using the "slow" software based "feedback" mechanism (going back and forward with the lens to get the max contrast).

as for quality, I've never seen a picture taken in an SLR (a still one, not a fancy fast movement scene, that is to fast for P&S) that can't be taken with a good qualite P&S (like... G3/5 of the Minolta 7i)

As for Zoom... we all know that there are P&S cameras with x12 Zoom and more... so.. it ain't SLR only

If P&S would have the fast focus as today's SLRs would you still pay 1000$+ for a DSLR ?


Did you even read my link??? I think you're arguing for argument's sake rather than trying to learn. A non-shutter CCD has to continuously dump the image off its sensors. Because of this, they don't "fill-up" as well as a CMOS/CCD behind a shutter. This is why ALL non-shutter CCD's have microlenses on them, which is just one more obstacle for the light to pass through (they have a tendency to cause aberrations.) Simply because you cannot see the difference doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I sure can see the difference. As far as the zooms go, even if you put a 300mm focal length lens on a G5 it still will have a very small aperture and simply cannot get the DOF control that a DSLR can. It's not just magnification but depth of field. Besides, all these other things you're demanding of a P&S (faster focus motors, better AF systems, etc.) will end up pushing you into SLR pricing and beyond anyway. That, and the fact that DSLR's continue to come down in price, pretty much negates your value argument.

[rainmanone]

I guess what Iwant to see out there is a "DSLR quality" camera in a P&S form-factor and price.

[Andy_T]

Wouldn't we all?

???

Regards, Andy

[RichardtheSane]

rainmanone wrote:
I guess what Iwant to see out there is a "DSLR quality" camera in a P&S form-factor and price.

If you run to the window quick you might just see the pigs flying by :D :D

[Belmondo]

RichardtheSane wrote:
rainmanone wrote:
I guess what Iwant to see out there is a "DSLR quality" camera in a P&S form-factor and price.

If you run to the window quick you might just see the pigs flying by :D :D

Item 20 on the list of reasons SLRS are better than P&S:

When people covet your camera and wish its technical superiority was within their financial grasp, you can make allusions to flying pigs. This is very empowering.

;) ;)

[rdenney]

slin100 wrote:
DonCoon wrote:
There's no doubt in my mind that Canon's CMOS sensors are miles ahead of today's CCDs.

I was really thinking about Nikon's D100, which uses a CCD. Comparing a CMOS from a D-SLR to a CCD from a P&S is not really fair.

My wife has a D100 and I have a 10D. So far, I've seen no evidence to indicate that the CCD as implemented by Nikon is any better than the CMOS as implemented by Canon.

Rick "who is comparing real products not theoretical simplifications" Denney

[rdenney]

rainmanone wrote:
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 ?

Not to be pedantic, but a camera with a fixed zoom lens and through-the-lens viewing on an LCD is properly categorized as a ZLR, not a point-n-shoot. A point-n-shoot is merely a fully automatic camera, including auto exposure and auto focus. Thus, even an SLR has point-n-shoot modes.

My beef with the ZLR's that I've handled is that because the sensor is used for composing the image, it takes a while for the camera to transition from viewing mode to picture-taking mode. This causes unacceptable shutter lag.

Many specialty lenses require manual focusing, for which LCD or viewfinder viewing is unsuited. I use my 10D for, say, copy work, and I want to be able to manually focus the lens. And my slick and cheap Russian fisheye requires manual focus. Don't try to focus manually on the low-res LCD of a ZLR.

In short, the SLR gives you an optically projected image onto a ground-glass screen, which is a much more accurate representation of the final image than is possible with LCD viewing.

Rick "who prefers seeing the image not a thumbnail representation of it" Denney

[rdenney]

rainmanone wrote:
First thing.. about mechanical shutters and CCDs, well, there are cameras with a mechanical shutter over the CCD (I should know.. I designed a few as reference designs for my company, and they worked great).

Second thing, the speed, I have no idea why a company like Canon or Nikonor any other camera manufacturer won't implement the phase detection autofocus mechanism, instead of using the "slow" software based "feedback" mechanism (going back and forward with the lens to get the max contrast).

as for quality, I've never seen a picture taken in an SLR (a still one, not a fancy fast movement scene, that is to fast for P&S) that can't be taken with a good qualite P&S (like... G3/5 of the Minolta 7i)

As for Zoom... we all know that there are P&S cameras with x12 Zoom and more... so.. it ain't SLR only

If P&S would have the fast focus as today's SLRs would you still pay 1000$+ for a DSLR ?

Show me a 12X zoom with the image quality of my prime and 3-4X zooms, and I'll show you a sensor with too few pixels to make a big print.

And I've never seen a 12X zoom with fisheye projection, or a correct flat field for copy work, or soft focus (at least on purpose), or that maintains good performance at, say, f/2.

I've never seen a ZLR that can be manually focused (or manually zoomed).

Fast focus isn't the issue. That isn't what makes shutter lag times so long.

Rick "who thinks each camera has its...different...place" Denney

[Tom W]

rainmanone wrote:
First thing.. about mechanical shutters and CCDs, well, there are cameras with a mechanical shutter over the CCD (I should know.. I designed a few as reference designs for my company, and they worked great).

Second thing, the speed, I have no idea why a company like Canon or Nikonor any other camera manufacturer won't implement the phase detection autofocus mechanism, instead of using the "slow" software based "feedback" mechanism (going back and forward with the lens to get the max contrast).

as for quality, I've never seen a picture taken in an SLR (a still one, not a fancy fast movement scene, that is to fast for P&S) that can't be taken with a good qualite P&S (like... G3/5 of the Minolta 7i)

I have - with a good fast lens, the SLR can produce a quality beyond that of a P&S. Pictures with a great deal of contrast benefit from the larger lenses, and benefit as well from the quality of glass that is available on the SLR. That's not to say that P&S cameras can't take very good pictures - I've taken some great shots with my S-400 as well as with my older Olympus 35mm P&S. Its just that the flexibility exists with the SLR format that cannot be found in a P&S.

As for Zoom... we all know that there are P&S cameras with x12 Zoom and more... so.. it ain't SLR only

If P&S would have the fast focus as today's SLRs would you still pay 1000$+ for a DSLR ?

I have to admit first that my SLR experience exists solely from the use of film cameras. That said, there are trade-offs that need to be recognized here. A 12X zoom lens has quite a job to perform - it needs to cover a very wide range of magnification. There are physical limitations on lenses that force a compromise. In the case of a 12X zoom, that compromise will be an image quality issue, as well as a lack of aperture at higher magnifications. It would cost a good deal of money to use the special types of glass needed to get top quality from even half of that magnification range IMHO.

Myself, I'm getting quite close to buying a DSLR to take the place of my Elan II film SLR. I fully expect to spend $1000+ on it. It's worth it to me. I'm not a professional, but I am a hobbyist - I enjoy photography just as some enjoy golf, tennis, or softball.

[Andy_T]

Tom W wrote:
rainmanone wrote:

As for Zoom... we all know that there are P&S cameras with x12 Zoom and more... so.. it ain't SLR only

If P&S would have the fast focus as today's SLRs would you still pay 1000$+ for a DSLR ?

I have to admit first that my SLR experience exists solely from the use of film cameras. That said, there are trade-offs that need to be recognized here. A 12X zoom lens has quite a job to perform - it needs to cover a very wide range of magnification. There are physical limitations on lenses that force a compromise. In the case of a 12X zoom, that compromise will be an image quality issue, as well as a lack of aperture at higher magnifications. It would cost a good deal of money to use the special types of glass needed to get top quality from even half of that magnification range IMHO.


The intention of the original post asking for a 12x zoom RANGE was not to mount a 12x zoom lens on his SLR, but rather by using DIFFERENT lenses, getting a zoom RANGE from, say 16 mm to 200 mm (or even 400 mm). a 12x zoom would be the solution for the P&S camera (e.g. the 2 MP Panasonic Lumix or else), but it would be nowhere near the combination of a 10D with a 16-35, 24-70 and 70-200 lens (of course, also not pricewise :))

Best regards,
Andy

[Belmondo]

The irreverent side of this discussion has moved to a new thread:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=19896

These guys are trying to have a serious discussion --- we should let them.

Tom

[hervero]

Hi
Just arriving into the discussion. It seems to me not bringing positive impact in that forum. Those who buy a small car are not asking the others why they buy a big one and both are happy.
herve

[rdenney]

hervero wrote:
Hi
Just arriving into the discussion. It seems to me not bringing positive impact in that forum. Those who buy a small car are not asking the others why they buy a big one and both are happy.
herve

I'm not sure I agree. Many have spent large sums on the 10D thinking their snapshots will be better therefore, and then complain frequently on this forum because the images are flat and seem less sharp than what they got from their G2 (or whatever). There are some folks who should NOT buy an SLR.

But hearing from folks who prefer an SLR the basis for their preferense will provide them what they need to avoid making that mistake.

What's not useful in the forum are the repeated complaints about images from new DSLR's being unsharp and flat, when they are targeted for Photoshop manipulation rather than for immediate viewing and printing.

Rick "who uses the versatility offered by SLR's but who doesn't pretend everyone does" Denney

[Belmondo]

rdenney wrote:Many have spent large sums on the 10D thinking their snapshots will be better therefore, and then complain frequently on this forum because the images are flat and seem less sharp than what they got from their G2 (or whatever). There are some folks who should NOT buy an SLR.



Blunt, but true. Well said. --Tom