DSLR vs. PS

everyone here has their own reasons for why one is better then the other so here are mine. I do a lot of editing on my photos. Mostly artistic but I do have to correct my mistakes from time to time. The reason i have a DSLR is because my PS as well as most out there do a lot of image processing already. A lot more then a DSLR jpeg and well RAW is just that almost 100% representation of what the sensor viewed. The PS may look sharper and I think thats why a lot of peope think they may be better or they have a bad DSLR but its just because the PS applied a lot of image corrections to the image from the start. Which in turn give you less room to do your own.

If you dont edit your photos dramatically and a shallow DOF is not what you need then a PS can take great images and you should be happy. I have seen great photographers take extreamly beautiful shots with a PS. Its all in your creativity and style of photography.

The lag is going away with the PS cameras the MP is going up the fixed lenses are getting better and better every day. For action/sports, and high level photo editing you still cant beat a DSLR but for artistic photos portrats landscapes and the like a high featured PS can give you photos that are indeterminable from their more expensive DLSR counterparts.

just brows the PS section and look at some of the pictures there. You will see some stunning photos there that any DSLR would have been happy to take. Its more or less up to the user.

P&S have their place. I'll use my super-zoom from the backseat of my hubby's motorcycle - I will NOT do it with the XTi. He just has to settle for crappier images that way than if he'd actually stop the dang bike and let me take a picture!

However, I do get sharper images with the minolta while moving than I would with the XTi.

Usually - not always:
A point and shoot camera's controls are much less convenient
The image quality only allows you to shoot in very good light to make purty pictures
Moving subject matter is harder to shoot

You can learn photography, but what happens to many is that once they start shooting, they understand just how much better an SLR is and switch for a lot of reasons. Sometimes technical, sometimes they think their shooting will improve because of a different camera.

I will never go back to a P&S camera. Period.


Dont get me wrong, the supersteady shot on my Sony H2 is very nice, but only when the camera can lock focus. Right now inside my house the only things that I can lock focus on are lightsources. Basically my lamp and my computer monitor. The low light capabilities of the H2 are horrid. It shines when there is light, tho on a sunny day 1/1000 and F8 @ ISO80 can easily over expose on the H2 (Max shutter, fully stopped down for the H2). It was nice to have all the controls but it was like breeding a neutered dog.

Now I havent messed with my XTi much in the few days Ive had it, but I can say that being able to focus in any light, even pitch black (flashlight! cant do that on my H2) is awesome.

here is a good read:

http://www.kenrockwell​.com/tech/2dig.htm

Jimmer411 wrote in post #4131784
I will never go back to a P&S camera. Period.


Dont get me wrong, the supersteady shot on my Sony H2 is very nice, but only when the camera can lock focus. Right now inside my house the only things that I can lock focus on are lightsources. Basically my lamp and my computer monitor. The low light capabilities of the H2 are horrid. It shines when there is light, tho on a sunny day 1/1000 and F8 @ ISO80 can easily over expose on the H2 (Max shutter, fully stopped down for the H2). It was nice to have all the controls but it was like breeding a neutered dog.

Now I havent messed with my XTi much in the few days Ive had it, but I can say that being able to focus in any light, even pitch black (flashlight! cant do that on my H2) is awesome.

I have the H5--which is basically the same as the H2---its great for outdoor sunny day snapshot on non moving objects. When I could no longer tolerate the shutter delay and went DLSR I knew right away I would have to keep the H5 (what else was I going to send with LOML when she wanted a camera to take to Grandma's house?)

For me:

Potentially better image quality
Much better high-ISO performance
Better AF
Interchangeable lenses
True wide-angle
Low shutter lag, better overall response time
Easier manual focusing
RAW and options for external flashes (barring cameras like the G7/9 etc.)
The dSLR effect - people get out of your way

That's not to say PS cameras are inferior. Heck, I wanna get an A650 or a G9 right now - PS cameras certainly have their places.

<< 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. >>

What is "IQ"?

rmpcanon wrote in post #4134766
What is "IQ"?

Image Quality

rmpcanon wrote in post #4130247
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.

Do you use your rebel XT on anything other than the green box mode? If not, then you probably could have spend a lot less on a camera. Granted, an XT with a 17-55 will take some darn good photos, its not likely that you need it. The difference is quality, speed, and control. If you don't need those, then you dont need an SLR.

on issue #446 of shutterbug mag. They have a comparison chart for sensor sizes. The S5 has a sensor of 1/2.5" (5.76x4.29mm). Canon's APS-C is 22.2x14.8mm (give and take) and it is used in the Xt line and xxD. That is the tangible difference of both. The S5 has Tv/Av/M which lets you be REAl creative. Now try to fit 8PM into the S5;s sensor vs the APS-C ? which one is going to be clear ? OR think of it this way. Eight people in a station wagon or eight people in a strech limo...

I have the S3 which I love, but after using the 30D. It is hard to use it. I learned a LOT using the S3. I thought the 1.6x sony tele lens was HUGE. Until I put it next to the 30D with 100-400...

S3, heavy PP using layer stacking.

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'text/html' | Byte size: ZERO

I use both a P&S and my DSLR. you can't exactly show up for a photo shoot with P&S even though my nikon p&s takes just as good of pictures as my 30D....(in sunlight conditions that is)

rmpcanon wrote in post #4130247
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.

Well, to begin with the Canon S series is a real nice Point and Shoot camera! I have an S3 IS, and it takes good pictures and has a lot of good controls.

But...

I haven't used my S3 IS in, well, close to a year. I use my 3D and my 5D for all of my "serious" photography for all of the reasons stated above.

That being said, I have a Canon SD360 pocket-sized P&S that I carry everywhere I go. I use it for quick pictures if I'm not packing my gear, and it has given me some good pics for such a little thing. I would never, though, conceive of giving up my SLRs for a point and shoot.

You say you have an XT, so presumably you've used it enough to get a feel of its performance. See if you can find someone who owns an S-series, a 3 or a 5, and try it out. The zoom on the S3 gives me about the same field of view as a 300mm lens does on my "1.6 crop factor" 30D, so you should have a good comparison on the telephoto end, but, as has been stated, there is no wide angle on the S series (or almost any P&S camera).

I think that in normal light you'll find the S camera takes great pictures, but, as has been stated, will seem verrryyy slooowww compared to the rebel. You will also note a significant drop in the S camera's IQ in lower light and with higher ISO settings. That's because the S5's sensor is significantly smaller than the XT. The S cameras are, well, high-performing Point and Shoot cameras, not in the same class as an SLR. Also, as has been stated, although the S3 has f/2.8 capability, the physical/optical characteristics don't allow for the narrow depth of field/selective focus possible with SLRs.

So, cost seems to matter to you, and if your XT is brand new, you could return it for full value and get the S5 for half the price. But if performance and Image Quality in all conditions are important, well, you will miss your XT!

Hope this helps a bit,

Tony
---------------
Several Canon cameras, too many lenses and stuff to list
Tony Long Photos on PBase

My P&S was a 4 MP G3 that produced fantastic pictures but it was slow to focus and it took approximately 4 seconds to write the picture to the card. In the 4 years I used the camera I missed several shots because it either would not focus fast enough or because I was waiting for the camera to write to the card. The pictures were sharp and looked good on the computer but I didn't have much success in printing. I am not a great photographer and I don't always frame my shots properly so I often have to crop a shot and with the G3 the result often was not great.

The 40D is fast focusing, records shots almost instantly, and has a resolution 2.5 time what my G3 was. I have been blown away with the sharpness and quality of the pictures and I have played around with cropping and printing and have been extremely pleased.

However, a DSLR is not for everyone. If you never print pictures a P&S will probably give you all the resolution you need for viewing on the computer. A P&S is smaller, lighter, and for some easier to handle. If a P&S will meet all your needs there is no reason to spend the extra money to get a DSLR and several lenses. Try to borrow a P&S like you are interested in and make comparisons to your present camera. If you like the P&S better then sell you DSLR and use that money to buy the other camera. The most important thing is to enjoy photography and whatever equipment helps you enjoy photography the most will likely make you a better photographer.

Just to jump in and add one point that I think has not been focused on and that is portability.
I personally love my 40d but there is one thing it can not do and that is fit in my pocket.
The first thing in getting a good shot is taking it. If that camera is not with you, then there is no shot. That, I think, is the one advantage a P&S will always have the over a dSLR.