Can a point and shoot match a DSLR in excellent light?

MikeFairbanks wrote in post #10837549
So, is it possible that in excellent light the P&S can match the DSLR when viewed at 100%?

Nope. Not for pixel peepers.

I normally shoot with a DSLR but for the sake of convenience, yesterday, I took an S90 to a wedding for candids and posed formal shots (by the authorized professional shooters). Kinda disappointed with the results because in my mind's eye I'm comparing the IQ (etc) at a DSLR level. Expectations should be moderated!!

All of this rotates around the unspoken assumption that sharpness is the most important quality of a photograph.

For some applications, sharpness may be critical, but in many cases, it is the quality of light, the intensity of color, the composition, and the visual poetry which trump sharpness, and boot it to the sidelines.

Not at all - a shallow DoF, for instance, may be desirable for isolating your subject and a PowerShot can't match a DSLR for that.

Shallow DoF is again, but a single attribute, and one - I might add - that you'll have a very difficult time achieving in bright sunlight with your DSLR. Beyond that, how sharp is the OoF part of the image?

I can achieve narrow DoF with my SD780, and have posted images here demonstrating that, but no, the Powershot can't match the DSLR in all situations, nor can the DSLR fit in your pocket.

smaller sensor and inferior optics.

micro four thirds comes close, but you still wind up with a camera bigger than any p+s.

Smaller lenses are MUCH easier to make very good. My G9 vs my 1Ds with 24/70 was shockingly close at 100% view-even in the corners. RAW, and post-processed to an inch of their life. And I have a *good* 24-70. I have excellent 13" x 19" prints from the G9. *Landscapes*.

skid00skid00 wrote in post #10862491
Smaller lenses are MUCH easier to make very good. My G9 vs my 1Ds with 24/70 was shockingly close at 100% view-even in the corners. RAW, and post-processed to an inch of their life. And I have a *good* 24-70. I have excellent 13" x 19" prints from the G9. *Landscapes*.

Actually no they aren't - they're harder to make very good due to the extreme curvature of the elements needed to get short focal lengths. This means spherical and chromatic aberration and barrel/pincushion distortion are more likely and harder to correct for. What helped your G9 is that it was only a 35 mm equivalent at the wide end. Look, for instance, at S90/S95 images when either the internal or DPP-supplied lens corrections haven't been applied. Same sensor size, so same coverage required of the lens, and 6-22.5 mm instead of 7.4-44 mm. That extra 1.4 mm at the wide end makes a big difference, both photographically in the FoV you get and optically in the distortion you have to deal with.

No way Jose. You cannot overcome physics.

If you don't care about depth of field, then you can get acceptable results on a point and shoot (for most consumers).

f/2.8 on a G11 is not the same as f/2.8 on a 7D is not the same as f/2.8 on a 5D. Cramming 10 megapixels on a sensor the size of your pinky nail isn't going to get you anything comparable to 20 megapixels on a 36x24mm full frame.

bkdc wrote in post #10864056
No way Jose. You cannot overcome physics.

If you don't care about depth of field, then you can get acceptable results on a point and shoot (for most consumers).

f/2.8 on a G11 is not the same as f/2.8 on a 7D is not the same as f/2.8 on a 5D. Cramming 10 megapixels on a sensor the size of your pinky nail isn't going to get you anything comparable to 20 megapixels on a 36x24mm full frame.

well said. I'm still not sure if "f/2.8" is relative to the focal length, or the size of the medium (sensor)

wait, actually, it would make sense that it be the focal length - the FL is much shorter on a PnS so the "f/2.8" would be tiny as hell, and it's not consistent through the zoom range.

answered my own question

A P&S is certainly capable of taking decent photos in good light, there would be no point to having one if they didn't. They have their place, but comparing them to a DSLR isn't really fair and pixel peeping at 100% is not how most people view their photos anyway. Everyone has different criteria for what constitutes a "good" photo but I have a hard time believing that the optics on a 10MP S90 are as good at resolving detail as a good L lens on something like a 7D or 5D. My most expensive lens is only the 24-105L and I certainly hope it does a better job on an 18MP sensor than the built-in lens on the S90. Photos in good light are only portion of what many people on this forum shoot anyway.

Erik_L wrote in post #10864166
well said. I'm still not sure if "f/2.8" is relative to the focal length, or the size of the medium (sensor)

wait, actually, it would make sense that it be the focal length - the FL is much shorter on a PnS so the "f/2.8" would be tiny as hell, and it's not consistent through the zoom range.

answered my own question

A lens' f-number (or an f-stop) is defined as a dimensionless number obtained by dividing the focal length (f) by the lens' physical aperture. So f/2.8 tells us that the physical aperture of the lens is 1/2.8 of the focal length. A 6 mm lens at f/2.8 will have a physical aperture diameter of a little over 2 mm. A 24 mm lens with f/2.8 aperture will have a physical aperture of just under 9 mm.

Sort of...in some cases...

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​kidding.shtml

Dennis

The simple answer is no, not at 100%.

@denncald
Thanks for posting the link to the very interesting article from 2008, which shows that a Canon G10 matched a medium-format Hasselblad P45+ at print resolutions up to 13x19", and experts could not tell the difference between the two.

The article is highly recommended reading for everyone participating in this thread.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/​kidding.shtml

There's also this from KR:

"The microscopic lens of the SD780 is more than up to 12MP duty. It's the tiny sensor of this class of camera, which includes the G10, which is the limitation. The G10 is a little better, but not by much, and certainly not enough to want to haul a G10 instead."


http://www.kenrockwell​.com/canon/compacts/sd​780.htm