 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / October 20066 MP dSLR -vs- 10 MP point & shoot
A dSLR has many, many advantages over a point-and-shoot camera. Low light photography, stop action, bokeh, etc. Point & shoot cameras, especial 10 Megapixel ones, are horrible at anything above 200 ISO. But in perfect lighting (ie studio) with a stationary subject, would an expensive point-and-shoot like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 (10 MP, $480) produce a crisper, more detailed A3 print than a D70 (6 MP, approx $1000) with a 50mm prime lens? >A dSLR has many, many advantages over a point-and-shoot camera. Low > light photography, stop action, bokeh, etc. Point & shoot cameras, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > $480) produce a crisper, more detailed A3 print than a D70 (6 MP, > approx $1000) with a 50mm prime lens? There's issues about stuffing small sensors with lots of pixels. I returned a Canon S3 and went with a K100D. The noise, CA, and fringing were unreal on the S3. I really liked that cam but it was the small sensor is punishment. And the EVF for me, sucked. And you can't shoot RAW. Best to take your flashcards and go try these cams. See if you get the results you want. [] > There's issues about stuffing small sensors with lots of pixels. I > returned a Canon S3 and went with a K100D. The noise, CA, and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Best to take your flashcards and go try these cams. See if you get > the results you want. The Canon does not have the best lenses in its class, so please don't judge all non-SLR cameras by the results you got. Many cameras can shoot RAW, even if Canon choose not to provide that facility. Of course, the noise is simply a limitation of the smaller sensor, and such cameras are best used on low ISO settings. The EVF is an area which could do with improvement, and the VGA-resolution finder on the Minolta A2 is the best I've seen, and it was a delight to use. A lot better than many. What do you particularly like about the Pentax? David > [] >> There's issues about stuffing small sensors with lots of pixels. I [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > David Shake reduction works great. 3200 yields usable shots. Price. Hotshoe. > A dSLR has many, many advantages over a point-and-shoot camera. Low > light photography, stop action, bokeh, etc. Point & shoot cameras, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > $480) produce a crisper, more detailed A3 print than a D70 (6 MP, > approx $1000) with a 50mm prime lens? You can download some studio-type test shots from dpreview.com and print them yourself and see... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx2/page6.asp http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page22.asp Let us know what you reckon. Ian  SignatureIan Riches Bedford, UK > You can download some studio-type test shots from dpreview.com and print > them yourself and see... > > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx2/page6.asp > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page22.asp I looks to me like the 10 megapixel point & shoot has more detail than the 6 megapixel dSLR. The labels on the battery and the wine are much more legible on the Panasonic. Maybe the megapixel wars isn't all that bad afterall. For all the complaints about these cameras, people forget that noise only becomes an issue at higher ISOs. But when taking photos in bright light, I can see the appeal of these point & shoot cameras. >> You can download some studio-type test shots from dpreview.com and print >> them yourself and see... [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >an issue at higher ISOs. But when taking photos in bright light, I can >see the appeal of these point & shoot cameras. I'd disagree with that assessment. Take a look at, for example, the Gretag Macbeth color chart in the example you quote above; the P&S has quite a bit of obvious in the dark areas. And that's with the in-camera noise reduction in operation. It depends what you want, of course. There's no doubt that a P&S is more convenient to use; I occasionally take my wife's Casio Exilim rather than dragging around a DSLR. But for anything more than a quick snapshot I think it's worth starting with the cleanest image direct from the sensor. Bear in mind, too, that Phil's reviews are mostly done with the camera set to the default values. That means you aren't really comparing the camera directly - different manufacturers will have very different default values for noise reduction, sharpening, &c. That's appropriate for someone who is just going to use a camera straight out of the box, without ever exploring the menu options. If you applied the same amount of post processing to the image from a DSLR, I'm sure you'd see significantly less noise. Note, too, that there's quite a bit of sharpening being applied; this leaves quite visible halos around the colour swatches. you'd probably be able to get close to the amount of visible > I'd disagree with that assessment. Take a look at, for example, the > Gretag Macbeth color chart in the example you quote above; the P&S > has quite a bit of obvious in the dark areas. And that's with the > in-camera noise reduction in operation. Yes, there's more noise, but the question was which will produce a criasper print. I think it is clear that, in the photographs linked, the compact has more detail than the SLR. The noise does not reduce resolving power enough. In lower light, it would be a different story. > Bear in mind, too, that Phil's reviews are mostly done with the > camera set to the default values. That means you aren't really > comparing the camera directly - different manufacturers will have > very different default values for noise reduction, sharpening, &c. > That's appropriate for someone who is just going to use a camera > straight out of the box, without ever exploring the menu options. Yes, but the point here is that under these conditions (good light etc) the compact records more details. Yes, there is more noise, the image isn't as clean etc (so probably you could print at a lower dpi from the DSLR and get a good result). > If you applied the same amount of post processing to the image > from a DSLR, I'm sure you'd see significantly less noise. Note, > too, that there's quite a bit of sharpening being applied; this > leaves quite visible halos around the colour swatches. But in this case, noise does not play a significant role in how "crisp" a print will be. > Yes, there's more noise, but the question was which will produce a > criasper print. I think it is clear that, in the photographs linked, > the compact has more detail than the SLR. The noise does not reduce > resolving power enough. Of course, there is also the question of print resolution - a difference that is apparent in a 100% crop on screen may not be visible at all in prints smaller than 8x10". But more to the point, another question is, how easy is it to get shots as good as the controlled test shots Phil takes when shooting in the real world. That is, do the controls on the camera easily allow you to set the ideal parameters for the shot, or is the default shot going to be what you settle for because it is too much hassle to set it otherwise? And what range of shots are even takeable? Clearly, a P&S with a super-zoom is going to make some shots takeable that wouldn't without changing lenses on a DSLR. But if you need control over depth of field or focus or motion blur, the P&S may or may not even be able to offer you the option you want, and if it does, it may well be harder to get at. If none of these things seem like they would matter to you, then by all means, the P&S is going to do the job nicely. But these are definitely things that matter to some. --------------- Marc Sabatella marc@outsideshore.com Music, art, & educational materials Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer" http://www.outsideshore.com/ > > Yes, there's more noise, but the question was which will produce a > > criasper print. I think it is clear that, in the photographs linked, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that is apparent in a 100% crop on screen may not be visible at all in > prints smaller than 8x10". True. It may also not be visible on larger prints. It depends on how contrast changes when you print and other things, too. > But more to the point, another question is, how easy is it to get shots > as good as the controlled test shots Phil takes when shooting in the > real world. That is, do the controls on the camera easily allow you to > set the ideal parameters for the shot, or is the default shot going to > be what you settle for because it is too much hassle to set it > otherwise? I agree, I think that how a camera handles is much more important than most people seem to think here. >And what range of shots are even takeable? Clearly, a P&S > with a super-zoom is going to make some shots takeable that wouldn't > without changing lenses on a DSLR. But if you need control over depth > of field or focus or motion blur, the P&S may or may not even be able to > offer you the option you want, and if it does, it may well be harder to > get at. Well, control over depth of field is nice and makes some images possible that are not otherwise, but if that was the only advantage of a larger sensor, I doubt I'd ever buy an SLR, personally. And as far as controls are concerned (how easy it is to adjust shutter speed, aperture etc), they hardly need to depend on whether the camera is an SLR or not. See, for example, cameras like the Minolta Dimage A2: excellent ergonomics, everything easily reachable. However, nowadays, one needs to buy an SLR to get a camera that handles well. >If none of these things seem like they would matter to you, > then by all means, the P&S is going to do the job nicely. But these are > definitely things that matter to some. Well, the things you mention do matter, but not all that much. What does matter is ability to take photographs under low light conditions (ie good high sensitivity behaviour), speed and sensitivity of autofocus, short viewinder blackout time and generally quick reactions (I hate thinking faster than machines I operate can react, to the point that I actively avoid using them if this happens), good handling (as mentioned above), interchangeable lenses (preferably with the ability to use old manual focus lenses available used for not a lot of money), and various other things. I just find it irritating that people have to say that the images from the DSLR have more detail when they blatantly don't in this case (irrespective of other advantages, both image quality-wise and handling-wise). Just like when people tell me they print 4mp images at 30 by 45 inches and they look fine (ah, but it's from a Nikon D2h! Don't laugh!). > Bear in mind, too, that Phil's reviews are mostly done with the > camera set to the default values. That means you aren't really > comparing the camera directly To me, that IS comparing the cameras most directly. The default settings provided by the manufacturers are what they feel the vast majority of the users will want and use. They think the cameras will be likely used at those settings the majority of the time. It seems valid to compare the median settings of the offerings. Think of it as the 'Default Camera' comparison.. mike > > Bear in mind, too, that Phil's reviews are mostly done with the > > camera set to the default values. That means you aren't really [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Think of it as the 'Default Camera' comparison.. Except for DSLRs, especially the better ones. Most of those stay on their default settings for all of about 2 nanoseconds after the box is opened. >> Bear in mind, too, that Phil's reviews are mostly done with the >> camera set to the default values. That means you aren't really [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the users will want and use. They think the cameras will be likely used >at those settings the majority of the time. I made precisely that point a little later, in the part you elided. It depends on why you are reading the reviews. If you want a camera that you can use, straight out of the box, without ever changing any of the settings, then the reviews are ideal. If, however, you are prepared to configure the camera to provide optimal image quality, and are trying to decide between one or two cameras, then you're still pretty much on your own. In particular if you expect to produce RAW images, without letting manufacturer-supplied software do much in the way of processing, the reviews aren't particularly helpful. A review process that makes sense for a miniature point-and-shoot isn't necessarily ideal for DSLRs aimed at the advanced amateur or professional market. >> A dSLR has many, many advantages over a point-and-shoot camera. Low >> light photography, stop action, bokeh, etc. Point & shoot cameras, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasoniclx2/page6.asp > http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond70/page22.asp Perhaps the Lx-2 should be compared with a D80 or 400d... http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond80/page22.asp Or the D200 or 5d : http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond200/page27.asp Wow - perhaps the little P&S looks as good as a 10mp dslr there. Looks like you have in order: Canon 5d 400d & LX2 second equal d80 & D200 equal third Yet that rascal Phil gave the LX-2 a poor rating of 7.5 for image quality... In my experience the top Sony EVF cameras, the late 828 and the current dscr1are the only "p&S" cameras that compare in quality to dSLRs, and that is stretching the definition of P&S. However opinion and taste trump technical quality so whatever floats your boat . . . >In my experience the top Sony EVF cameras, the late 828 and the current >dscr1are the only "p&S" cameras that compare in quality to dSLRs, and that >is stretching the definition of P&S. The quality of the results from the Sony DSC-R1 compare with those from DSLRs for a very good reason - it has an APS-C sized sensor. I use one. Used within its limitations, it is a fine 10 MP camera with a superlative lens. It is an excellent studio camera, and works very well indoors. However, it is almost unusable in daylight as the otherwise excellent LCD is far too dim, and the electronic viewfinder is about as woeful as electronic viewfinders get. > A dSLR has many, many advantages over a point-and-shoot camera. Low > light photography, stop action, bokeh, etc. Point & shoot cameras, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > $480) produce a crisper, more detailed A3 print than a D70 (6 MP, > approx $1000) with a 50mm prime lens? No. The noise of a Panasonic Lumix is visible even in perfect lighting. > A dSLR has many, many advantages over a point-and-shoot camera. Low > light photography, stop action, bokeh, etc. Point & shoot cameras, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > $480) produce a crisper, more detailed A3 print than a D70 (6 MP, > approx $1000) with a 50mm prime lens? That you RichA? Pretty good images but the noise will be higher and resolution possibly worse due to the lens. DOF won't be as shallow either which is a requirement in some images. At A3 the noise from the Lumix will show in the shaddow areas. At A3 the 6 Mpix DSLR will be at its limits for a sharp image. If you constrain the print size enough, of course, the Lumix will do fine, but that is hardly the point of studio shooting. And today's DSLR's at 10 and 12 Mpix will certainly outgun the smaller sensored cameras like the Lumix. Signature-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm -- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm -- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin -- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch. > A dSLR has many, many advantages over a point-and-shoot camera. Low > light photography, stop action, bokeh, etc. Point & shoot cameras, > especial 10 Megapixel ones, are horrible at anything above 200 ISO. > But in perfect lighting (ie studio) with a stationary subject, would an > expensive point-and-shoot like the Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX2 (10 MP, > $480) produce a crisper, more detailed A3 print than a D70 (6 MP, > approx $1000) with a 50mm prime lens? Depends mostly on the quality of the lens. Many P&S lenses do not have the resolving power needed for their MPix count. (And for that, even a good non-zoom lens can be underutilizing a dSLRs sensor, especially towards the borders, wide open or f/16 or slower ... That's why stopping down often improves the image quality.) Oh, and then there is the RAW->JPEG transformation, which does have a lot of impact. e.g. if the P&S oversharpens and oversaturates, the non-critical eye will think that image to be 'crisper'. -Wolfgang |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.