EOS Versus Compact Point and Shoot

I currently started taking a class in photography so I have a manual rebel camera. I was thinking of purchasing the EOS XTi. Anyways, I was wondering how the images compared between a point and shoot and a eos, if you are shooting the same subject with the same settings. I currently own a SD750. If anyone has some examples it would be nice.

first, DOF will drastically narrow at all f-stops. second, you'll actually be able to tell what you took a photo of at iso's higher than 100. want more? af will be more responsive. you'll actually have a buffer for continuous. 2x3 sensor instead of 4x5.25. RAW files ! (last is something you will love)

drawback? money

Speed is another big item - DSLR will be MUCH faster.

This comparison is like comparing a bike to a car. Both will "get you there"; however the DSLR is all about doing it faster, more efficent, etc etc...

Just like you said, I love all those factors about a slr camera that is why I'm debating whether I should purchase it. However, it's a lot of money. In bright light situation / landscape would you see a big difference between the two cameras?

Since I'm new to photography, I find myself really slow at taking pictures with a slr. Then again I'm using film so I don't want to waste a shot.

you will see a difference, but in order for the slr to look ok you'll need to post process, since p&s usually use layers upon layers of filters to make things more vibrant, increase saturation/ lower luminosity in the sky, etc. in the end though, an slr will always be better. unless you find that your current equipment is lacking, i'de say just wait on this question.

One other thing...Lenses! There are flocks of different lenses you can pick up for a SLR. P&S's have one lens. They cost money but just take a look in the lens section of this board to see some pictures from the different lenses.

JasonSTL739 wrote in post #4068965
...This comparison is like comparing a bike to a car. Both will "get you there"; however the DSLR is all about doing it faster, more efficent, etc etc...

So, is a DSLR a bike or a car?

ooo wrote in post #4068972
In bright light situation / landscape would you see a big difference between the two cameras?...

Quick answer, not really.

basroil wrote in post #4069164
you will see a difference, but in order for the slr to look ok you'll need to post process, since p&s usually use layers upon layers of filters to make things more vibrant, increase saturation/ lower luminosity in the sky, etc. ....

Though default parameters in a SLR are to not apply as much processing as most P/S or compact cameras, it is possible to set a DSLR to deliver shots very close to the same as a P/S just by increasing contrast, saturation and such. A P/S does not really have filters to do that, It’s just that they boost those parameters in their in camera processing.

ooo wrote in post #4068943
...I was wondering how the images compared between a point and shoot and a eos, if you are shooting the same subject with the same settings. I currently own a SD750. If anyone has some examples it would be nice.

In certain conditions such as strong light, low ISO settings, or slow or stationary subjects the differences will not be all that big. But move to the fringes like poor light, fast subjects, need for a narrow DOF or the need for quickness and the DSLR quickly outperforms a P/S or compact. The SD750 however looks to be a pretty decent camera. You might want to visit Steve’s Digicams:
http://www.steves-digicams.com/
as he has sample pictures there and you can compare full size images.

To follow up on Basroil's comments...the 'out-of-camera' pix will be soft compared to the PnS cam because Canon has a filter in front of the sensor.
YOU MUST use sharpening programs...either in camera for JPEGs (see "parameter settings")or in your PC for RAW images (images which have NOT been 'tainted' by any software). So do a lot of studying before you do a lot of complaining...

Here are some samples of Canon powershot A85 versus Canon EOS 400D (Xti).

PS will do pretty good job with auto in bright sunlight. A lot of color:

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

HTTP response: 403 | MIME changed to 'text/html'

Thanks for the images. I noticed that in PnS cameras the depth of field always seems to be infinity, but doesn't a low aperture make the depth of field less? I just started taking a course in photography a month ago. In your second example, I noticed my images comes out with a white sky as well. In terms of the lens, I have a (EF 28-90mm f/4-5.6 II USM) that came with my slr rebel k2. What is the difference between the EF-S lens? Is image stability really worth it on a lens?

ooo wrote in post #4069636
I noticed that in PnS cameras the depth of field always seems to be infinity, but doesn't a low aperture make the depth of field less?

In theory, yes, but i could not blur background with Minolta Dimage Z6 even with max zoom (420mm) and lowest possible aperture (meaning lens wide open). With DSLR it´s very easy. Actually DoF might be so narrow, it might be hard to get everything you want in focus.

ooo wrote in post #4069636
What is the difference between the EF-S lens? Is image stability really worth it on a lens?

EF-S lens is designed especially for DSLR bodies with 1,6 crop factor (smaller sensor than original 35mm), like Xti. They won´t fit to some higher end DSLR bodies or film bodies. They are cheaper than EF and some consider them to be low quality. EF lenses fit all Canon cameras. In the end, lens quality depends on the lens and not if it is EF-S or EF.

I´ll leave the image stabilizer question to someone who has used it.


Oh, and you can (and will ) blow out skies with DSLR too, it just might fare little better than PS.

With those images did you edit them in PS? Every time I look at the images that people take, I wonder if they edit it with PS and how much processing do they do.

ooo wrote in post #4069636
I noticed that in PnS cameras the depth of field always seems to be infinity, but doesn't a low aperture make the depth of field less?

I read some where that because the P&S's sensor is so close to the lens that it make the DoF much larger for the same aperture. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

New Hobby wrote in post #4069904
I read some where that because the P&S's sensor is so close to the lens that it make the DoF much larger for the same aperture. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

It's because the tiny sensor uses a lens with a very short focal length, and the shorter the focal length the deeper the depth of field.

JasonSTL739 wrote in post #4068965
Speed is another big item - DSLR will be MUCH faster.

This comparison is like comparing a bike to a car. Both will "get you there"; however the DSLR is all about doing it faster, more efficent, etc etc...

The bike comparison is also apt because just as there are cases where a bike just won't do, there are situations where you simply cannot get the shot you need with a point and shoot.

ooo wrote in post #4069894
With those images did you edit them in PS?

The 400D scene had very little sharpening and contrast tweaking in Digital photo professional, Canon´s own Raw converter software. The others are straight out of camera.

One thing to keep in mind when deciding between DSLR and PS is that if you´re in tight budget, you can get a lot more interesting lens with PS than SLR. For under 500€ you can get PS with image stabilization, macro capabilities and focal length of 28-420 (or more). With SLR you must pay hundreds or even thousands for lenses that will give you all that. They will be a lot better quality than PS though.