DSLR vs. PS

Dumb question:

I have a DigiRebelXT with a Canon EFS 17-85 IS lens and a Sigma APO 70-300 lens.

I'm happy with it, but notice ads in the paper for a PowerShot S5 IS for about a quarter the total price I paid.

I have 8 MegaPixels w/4x or 5x optical zoom (I think -- does 17-300 = 4x?), the 17-85 of which is IS. The PS S5 also has 8 MegaPixels, but has 12x optical zoom, all of which is IS. The dumb question: What is it that makes the DSLR better than the PS? I realize the DSLR can swap lenses; but the PS S5 doesn't seem like it would need to. The only other difference that jumps out from the ads is that the DRXT has CMOS sensor, and the PS S5 has a CCD sensor, whatever that means.

Some people will never need an SLR. It depends on how creative you want to become with your photography. If you only want to take snapshots, or have something small that travels well, the S5 will probably do all you could need, and more.

My calculator suggests that 300/17 = 17.6, so your gear covers about 18X. Even that is misleading though.

For one, your 17mm wide end is a lot wider than the short end of the P&S. If we go with 135 format equivalent FOV (that's how they like to quote them usually) your lens is a 27mm equivalent while most P&S start at 35mm eq.

On the long end you have the equivalent of 480mm FOV while the 12X would give about 420mm eq. FOV.

To sum up the ranges in 135 format equivalents:
You = 27mm to 480mm
S5 = 35mm to 420mm.

But none of this addresses the main reasons to own a dSLR which is that it allows more artisitc shooting over broader conditions with more pleasing results. The factors that allow this are:
Access to bigger apertures while using longer lenses for same FOV means the dSLR is much better for selective focus....you can draw the eye to the subject.
The dSLR works way better at high ISO and is a much better low light camera.
The dSLR fits a flash unit for bounced flash....onboard flash as main illumination almost never looks good.

If you get some books and read up, work on your technique and study then your dSLR can deliver much better results....oh and get a flash.

If you want to work in the auto modes and just take snapshots....then really the S3 will probably deliver very similar results for a lot less money. It's a lot more portable too.

No need to put the guy down for asking an innocent question!

Honestly, for most people, the difference between a P&S and a DSLR is lost. The advantage of a DSLR is in shutter response time - zero lag. The advantage of a P&S is that it's all in one package and often contains a video mode. If you never do sport and don't need ultra-high quality images then a P&S is best. For the more demanding then only a DSLR will do.

He is doing his Homework, he's asking a question on a friendly, and very knowledgeable forum.
Or at least I thouht he was

rhys wrote in post #4130344
Honestly, for most people, the difference between a P&S and a DSLR is lost.

Thats a very good point, I don't think its a one way thing either. I think a lot of DSLR users would be just as happy with a nice compact, and never really know the difference.

rhys wrote in post #4130344
The advantage of a DSLR is in shutter response time - zero lag. The advantage of a P&S is that it's all in one package and often contains a video mode. If you never do sport and don't need ultra-high quality images then a P&S is best. For the more demanding then only a DSLR will do.

Its interesting that shutter resonpse time is still considered an issue with compacts and P&S's.
Since there is no longer a mechanical connection in them, they can actualy respond faster than a DSLR to the shutter button being pressed.
They can now lock exposure just as quickly, (and since they are able to meter the whole final image) much more accuratly.
What lets them down is the Auto Focus speed. Since they use contrast detect of the image sensor there is a lot more data to process, usualy by a smaller, slower processor, and the mechanics of the system are a lot slower.


IMO the only things that make a DSLR better than a compact or P&S are:
1, Focus speed.
2, Better Image Quality from larger sensor
3, Ablity to change lenses (most important to me).
4, Easy of use with off camera lighting, flashes systems etc (also important to me).


I guess the thing to remember is a DSLR is a small part of a larger system, while a compact or a P&S is a complete system in one small package.

rhys wrote in post #4130344
No need to put the guy down for asking an innocent question!

Honestly, for most people, the difference between a P&S and a DSLR is lost. The advantage of a DSLR is in shutter response time - zero lag. The advantage of a P&S is that it's all in one package and often contains a video mode. If you never do sport and don't need ultra-high quality images then a P&S is best. For the more demanding then only a DSLR will do.

That's only an innocent question when it comes from someone who can't imagine spending over $1000 on a camera.
Those people are happy with the shutter lag, and taking low quality mpeg videos.
And this guy already has an SLR, if he thinks a PS is going to take better pictures, or maybe he thinks his DSLR is not performing. If that's the case, maybe it's not the camera.

I think it is a legit question, and I do not blindly agree that dSLRs always are better. I also don't think being able to spend over $1000 on a camera instantly makes one know why they might want (or not want) to do so.

As dSLR prices have fallen into the reach of a lot more people, a lot of people who can afford them will buy them without quite knowing why. Fundamentally a non-photographer probably knows that a dSLR is "better" and so if they can afford it then they might buy it. My BIL wanted to buy a D40X or a XTi....but I could tell as I explained the differences that I was way over his head. He is learning though....

The truth is though that shooting either in good daylight on inside with the onboard flash all in the auto modes the difference between a dSLR and a P&S will be pretty small. In fact, for people who really just want snapshots the P&S is better because it is a lot more fogiving on focus and it is smaller, cheaper and handier.

I see a lot of people running around with an XTi or D40X with the kit lenses who are just taking snapshots. I'm not saying anything but I suspect a lot of them would be well served by a G9 or an S5.

I can't believe it really hasn't been brought up: Depth of Field control. With the small sensors in point and shoot cameras, there is really no way to blur our the background intentionally...practi​cally everything is in focus in every shot. That doesn't lend itself to much creativity when there's nothing you can do about it. The only time to get shallow DOF is when shooting macro with a P&S..and even then, it's not even close to the shallow DOF you get with a DSLR.

Also...you can't shoot true macro with a P&S...unless you want to touch the subject to the lens.

Example: Here's practically the shallowest depth of field I could achieve with my P&S (a Fuji F31fd...which is really a good little camera): Shot nearly wide open (f/3.2) at the minimum focus distance possible:

I actually did mention selective focus as an SLR advantage.

As for macro, a lot of PS cameras are quite credible. One nice thing about them is that the high magnification with short focal lengths means the DOF is not as severely thin when shooting macro as with a larger format camera.

I personally don't want a 1mm thick focus plane when shooting macro. With a dSLR I'm stopped down to f/11 - f/16 for macro DOF. Then I need a tripod because the aperture is so small and the shutter so slow.

My mother takes lots of close up pictures hand held of flowers in her garden with a PS camera. It delivers great shots and is faster to use than my dSLR.

I see it as a matter of control. Put bluntly, with a dSLR, you exercise your skill to make the camera do what you want; with a P+S, the camera does what it wants, and you have to put up with it.

xarqi wrote in post #4130951
I see it as a matter of control. Put bluntly, with a dSLR, you exercise your skill to make the camera do what you want; with a P+S, the camera does what it wants, and you have to put up with it.

So where does a compact with the Canon A series fit into it?
They have manual focus and exposure just like a DSLR.
There is also manual on board flash control (unlike an EOS DSLR), and some of them let you move the focus point around the scene, rather than being restricked to fixed locations (unlike most EOS DSLR's).

And of course all the EOS range consumer and prosumer range have an AUTO mode, and even the 1 series cameras still have a P mode.

Moppie wrote in post #4131011
So where does a compact with the Canon A series fit into it?
They have manual focus and exposure just like a DSLR.
There is also manual on board flash control (unlike an EOS DSLR), and some of them let you move the focus point around the scene, rather than being restricked to fixed locations (unlike most EOS DSLR's).

And of course all the EOS range consumer and prosumer range have an AUTO mode, and even the 1 series cameras still have a P mode.

That's where the "put bluntly" part comes in.

My first foray into digital was with an A70, and the reason I chose it was for the manual features. In the end though, it just couldn't deliver: shutter lag, inability to focus at close range, poor flash metering... It was really frustrating, because although these things were supposed to work, in practice, they just weren't reliable (in my hands anyway). Biggest hassle: shutter lag.

ryant35 wrote in post #4131097
He said do some homework, like the rest of us.

Buddy, if comming on here and asking a question like that is not someone wanted to be explained why the two cameras are different, then I don't know what is.

Have you ever considered the fact that the OP has googled all the info that he/she could get, but still was not able to get the answers they needed? This is a forum for gods sake and I was under the impression that no question was a dumb question? Poeple are members here for #1 ,to get answers on things that did not know about or #2 to help people who are here for number #1. If you and your friend want to ridicule another member who has a genuine question, then I say this forum is not for you.

ryant35 wrote in post #4130760
That's only an innocent question when it comes from someone who can't imagine spending over $1000 on a camera.
Those people are happy with the shutter lag, and taking low quality mpeg videos.

Shutter lag has historically been largely a result of processing power -- how long it takes the camera to assess the exposure, for instance. As technology advances, this will become less of an issue. There may be other factors that I'm failing to consider, though.

Anyway, my point is that there isn't anything in principle that makes a DSLR any faster from the shutter lag standpoint than a P&S.

DSLRs are more flexible for other reasons.

Maybe it's not the camera. But perhaps, for the kind of shooting he's doing, a DSLR doesn't have any significant advantages over a good P&S. You have to admit that P&S cameras have improved a great deal over the years. Almost to the point, in fact, that most of the advantages that DSLRs have today are the result of their physical characteristics, such as sensor size, lens size, etc.

I prefer a DSLR myself, but am quite frankly astonished at the capabilities modern P&S cameras have. I don't think it's all that wise to criticize them so quickly, but hey, what makes things so interesting is the vast array of opinions, and things would get boring very quickly if everyone believed as I do.

ryant35 wrote in post #4131097
He said do some homework, like the rest of us.

I believe it was the tone that bother some of us here at POTN.

Personally I have P&Ss & DSLR. They each have its benefits. For P&S is advantageous when carrying DSLR is not appropriate for the occasion. As a matter of fact I pickup the S2IS (similar to the S5IS) for occasions when I don't want to carry my DSLR. But, by comparison P&S can't compare to DSLR in IQ and since I shoot in RAW (DSLR) color is richer when converted to TIFF16.