Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 8, 2007, 4:06 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Keoeeit

Your rant on DSLRs really had me shaking my head.
Yes, there are good "point and shoot" cameras out there. Absolutely.
The design of a DSLR will probably go away. I will argue that until they can make a reasonably priced high quality lens (as good as the best DSLR lenses- like the Canon 300mm f2.8 or 600mm f4) there is still a very good reason to have DSLRs.

Quote:
Even my S3 IS can attest to the DSLR design being a thing of the past. It makes any DSLR on the market today obsolete, especially with the CHDK Firmware-Overlay installed.
I'm sorry, but this is the most outrageous thing I've read in awhile on Steve's.
Some people *require* equipment of the highest quality, and P&S cameras aren't at that level yet. I will happily put my 600mm, 1.4xTC & 1D MkII N up against any P&S camera. It's spring migration, so we could go to the same park in the same situation and photograph warblers. I'm quite sure that we'll both get great shots... but the DSLR will get more.

I will have a more painful back and a shoulder that hurts more. But I will have more & better pictures.

You attack/defame DSLRs with the same zeal that you dislike in the way DSLR users attack P&S cameras (not me, I think there are some quite good P&S cameras out there. If you use them how they were intended to be used.)

There might not be a good reason for *you* to use a DSLR (or for many people, in fact. My mom is quite happy with a P&S. My dad uses both his D200 & Nikon S4 in different situations.) But I can tell you with absolute certainty that I get shots with my lowly, "ancient and dirt-collecting" DSLR that you can't get with a P&S without *WAY* more work - if you can get it at all.

Can your P&S do things than a DSLR can't? Absolutely. More power to it. And it will do those things for less money & weight than my equipment. But I have no destire to capture video, so while it looks like a neat feature I don't care about it.

Absolute highest image quality is what I'm after. I want to be able to take full-frame action shots of wildlife that are tack sharp and print them at 20x30 inches and still look great. Last I checked (and quite honestly I don't check often) that still requires a DSLR.

Could the camera makers make a P&S that was as good as the best DSLR? Yes. Absolutely. But it would cost more than the general market would be willing to pay. In fact, I bet it would be cheaper than the similarly equipped DSLR. But it would still cost too much. Eventually we'll get there but I don't expect it to be any time soon.

Now, maybe you meant your post to be about what the average person needs. But you didn't say that. You started talking about yourself and then shifted into absolutes, and when I see that I feel obliged to step up. When you say things like:
Quote:
Whereas full-featured one-lens fits all cameras, with the integrated EVF and LCD can far surpass anything a DSLR can do.
I have to say something.

Once a point and shoot camera is made that can do all my DSLR (& equipment) can do at the same quality level (or higher), and at a reasonable price, I'll buy it in an instant (and to me, reasonable is less than.... $4000USD.) My knees, back, and shoulder will be much happier. So please, tell me which one can? The way you talk, you already know which one it is.

Eric

eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2007, 4:52 PM   #22
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Keoeeit wrote:
Quote:
I now consider DSLRs the "bridge cameras", trying to retain old technology with new and it's falling behind, fast. Just because so-called "pro" and life-time photographers are so comfortable and familiar with that design they keep hoping that that camera design will still be useful in the future. (Sorry, no longer true.) Whereas full-featured one-lens fits all cameras, with the integrated EVF and LCD can far surpass anything a DSLR can do.
I guess I'm with Eric on this. I have both a p&s and a DSLR and they both have their place. But suggesting that a digicam can far surpass whatever a DSLR can do is very naive.

Show us, for example a shot taken at ISO 3200 and f1.2 with your S3. Oh wait, you don't have 1.2, how 'bout 1.4, sorry. How 'bout 2.0? Darn - well lets just say ISO 3200 400mm and f2.8 then. Oh you mean it can't do that either? Oh, OK. How bout just ISO 3200? Not a digicam in the world that has the noise profiles of the DSLRs in today's world. But hey, I'm sure your S3 has the same autofocus tracking ability of the 1 series, doesn't it? Oh it doesn't? How 'bout frame rates? which digicam has 10 fps - or even 8.5 or 5?

But hey, forget all that stuff. I'm sure National Geographic, sports illustrated and such are all using digicams, right? Pro wedding photogs too? I'm sure all the pro shooters in all the different genres would love to be in on the little secret that DSLRs are worthless compared to the digicams of today.

Now don't get me wrong. I fully agree that digicams are the RIGHT SOLUTION for many shooters. But to suggest they're more capable in all situations shows you havne't learned much in a lifetime of shooting.

Edit:
By the way - I completely agree the photog is the most important part of the equation. But whether it's wildlife, sports, wedding, landscape - put the same quality photog with the right DSLR equipment up against the same level photog with a digicam and the DSLR user will come home with much more quality shots.

I'm not a birder so I'll leave that to the experts, but no digicam on the market can match the quality portrait shots a 1ds and 85 1.2 can produce or the sports shots even my lowly 20d and 120-300 2.8 can produce. The optics aren't there, the sensors aren't there and the processing power isn't yet there (focusing).
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 8, 2007, 5:05 PM   #23
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Oh by the way, although not a birder - I'll say my inexperienced shots with a DSLR compete extremely favorably with the shots you posted from the s3 - more detail, less noise:








And remember - I rarely shoot birds. But i don't see the image quality from the photos you posted as being remotely close to this.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2007, 12:27 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Hey JohnG,
Nice pelican. Maybe you should shoot more birds?
And I really like the tail fanning out while it steers in the wind. Not the best technically, but I always love watching birds do that.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2007, 12:49 PM   #25
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

eric s wrote:
Quote:
Hey JohnG,
Nice pelican. Maybe you should shoot more birds?

Eric
Thanks Eric. In actuality, I have a tremendous respect for birders but I just don't have the time it takes. Finding the right locations, being there at the right time of day and still potentially waiting hours for your subject. These were taken at a 'target rich' environment - a beach (which is nowhere near me). That's the benefit of shooting sports - I know exactly what time and what day and what location my subject is going to be at. I can show up, stay for 2 hours and come home with 400 photos if I want Not so with birding. For instance there are a number of bald eagles nests in NE Ohio. But anywhere near by me you can't get within 100 yards of them (the ones I know about are fortunately in protected areas so they keep people from getting too close to the nests which I agree with). So, I'm at the mercy of trying to catch one of the adults perched in another tree or flying. That can be hours of time invested - time I unfortunately don't have. I think it's worthwhile and if I wasn't married and didn't have a 9 month old son I'd love to invest the time. So, for now I'll probably stick with my predictable sports shoots. Don't you wish your owls were going to be at a given location at exactly 4:15 PM - AND you could get within 30 yards guaranteed :G
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 9, 2007, 10:55 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Don't I know it!
I went out for 2 hours on Tuesday after work... didn't take a single picture. Some days, that is how it goes. Saw some nice stuff, but they never were good enough that it was worth it.

But some times they owls are right where you expect them to be and then its magical. I saw & photographed 3 of the hardest owl species in 6 hours time once. Truly amazing - I will never forget it. But it is rarely that good.

And yea, I don't have kids and my long term partner is a birder. She's in grad school now so I don't get to go out with her that often (and I miss it) but I'm lucky she understands.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2007, 11:38 AM   #27
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Keoeeit wrote:
Quote:
DSLRs are better? While you're busy changing your "perfect" lenses and trying to not get filth, dust, and dirt on your sensors, I'll have snapped off 60 high-quality photos just as nice as you could get and already walked away.
To be honest, I think there are 2 falsehoods in this statement:

1. A competant photog has the right lens mounted BEFORE they need it. If you're going birding you're not starting out with a wide angle lens and then saying "oh my gosh I need to switch lenses - no you start out with your birding lens. So, this aspect of your statement is not the reality.

2. Based on the photos you've posted in this thread I'm not seeing the image quality being anywhere near the image quality of the shots I posted much less a real birder like Eric. On an IQ basis only I see a huge difference.

Now, it's perfectly reasonable to be happy with the level of IQ that is in your posted photos. No need to buy better gear if you're happy with that level of quality. No need to incur the penalties of size, weight, lenses and cost. But, based solely on the evidence in this thread the IQ isn't even close. So your assertion that you could snap off 60 quality shots as good as what the DSLR produces also appears to be false - again based solely on the evidence in this thread.

But I sense you will disagree. So, it is up to each reader to judge for themselves whether the IQ is the same. After all it isn't my opinion or your opinion that matters. It's the opinion of the person making the decision whether superzoom or DSLR is the right way to go.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2007, 12:15 PM   #28
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

Keoeeit wrote:
Quote:
DSLRs are better? While you're busy changing your "perfect" lenses and trying to not get filth, dust, and dirt on your sensors, I'll have snapped off 60 high-quality photos just as nice as you could get and already walked away. This is the same reason I didn't bother with Nikon digitals, their options were so far buried in convoluted menus that I'd miss out on those award winning shots while trying to find the right setting, just as I would miss shots while trying to find the right lens to put on a DSLR. I've played that game before, you can keep it.

Enjoy your DSLR, but at least be objective about what they can and can't do, don't let how much money you put into them sway your objectivity.
Maybe I should just let this die, but you seem to be ignoring everything that I said. Yes, for my needs, P&S cameras are not good enough. *FOR ME and for thousands of professionals out there*. Trust me - I know many professionals who also have P&S cameras for casual stuff. They understand the benefits of them. If they were good enough for their professional use, they would use them. They *already* own them after all. No one like hiking with 40 pounds of gear when a 3 pound camera will do.

You seem to ignore that *thousands and thousands* of people don't believe what you do, yet you put forward your opinion as fact. It isn't *fact*, it's opinion. Just as my opinion is opinion - but I'm backing up my opinion with practical experience and the experience of many other pro photographers that I deal with.

I clean dust off the sensor of my camera maybe two to three times a year. This is a *NON FACTOR*. I don't know why you fear it so much. I don't switch lenses that often. You talk like it happens every day and I miss shots because of it.

A much more important factor, where your point & shoot is better is weight and size (I hate the term "point and shoot", I'd happy use a different term if there was one. I devalues those cameras... they have evolved way beyond that name.) I don't miss shots because I'm switching lenses or because of sensor dust. I miss shots because I have to carry around so much weight and setup a tripod. If you want to make that argument (that P&S are better because they weight less) I'll completely agree with you - because they are better in that way. But I'm not going to throw out my DLSR and announce P&S are better in every way because they weigh less. Yet you've basically said that P&S cameras are inherently better in every way and I should get rid of my DSLR.

In image quality, the most important thing to me, there is no P&S camera that is as good. It is certainly getting there and I can't wait until it is as good (and then better) than DSLRs. But it isn't there yet. Please prove me wrong. I will happily send you a large, high quality print made on my printer. A picture that would have been much harder (if not flat-out luck) to make on a P&S. It is the only way to demonstrate how P&S cameras are not good enough for what I do.

Don't you think that companies like sports illustrated would have switched to much cheaper P&S cameras instead of DLSRs if they were good enough? It would save them so much money it isn't even funny. Think about how much they would make selling their used equipment! They would do it in a heart beat. But they don't. Can you tell me why? If your answer is "Because they've already purchased so much DSLR equipment" then that is an argument we'll just have to walk away from. It is like arguing religion - it depends on faith. I believe (have faith) that someone at sports illustrated would have figured it out and gone to their boss and showed them some prints of a sporting event they took and say " You like these shots? Publishable quality, right? Look, I used this P&S camera. It's as good as that heavy, expensive, dusty-sensored, out-dated DSLR... can I use this instead when I shoot the Olympics? It will save us money on shipping & travel, medical costs, insurance... it's a win-win for the company." Heck, the company that made those P&S camera would, I'm sure, give them free cameras just for the good press it would produce.

But it HAS NOT HAPPENED!

I'm quite happy if you said "P&S cameras are good enough for me. They are good enough for most people out there." Because that is about personal opinions and personal standards. And I'd *completely agree* with you. But you didn't say that, you said that P&S cameras are flat out better than DSLRs. And for many applications they are not.

Oh, and I completely agree with you about the interfaces of cameras. Camera makes need to spend more money and time on making them better. P&S cameras are better in this way (but could be better still!) I hope Canon's newest DSLR (1D MkIII) is a step in the right direction.

This is my "opinion" based on experience, and it fits with many people I know. I'll say up front that I haven't tested the best P&S cameras lately (I did a few years ago - eons in camera years.) I have occasionally borrowed quite good P&S cameras over the years. I do have the almost-best sports/wildlife DSLR that money can buy (Canon 1D MkII N) and my backup camera is a prosumer 20D. So I can talk quite well about that side of this.

P&S cameras are better than DSLRs because:
they are lighter
they are cheaper
they are smaller
larger depth of field (some times you need this)
easier to use

All things being equal:
- P&S cameras are good enough for most people, and for reasons above are even better than a DSLR (My mom wants a camera that fits in her purse. Clearly I recommend a P&S.) But because they are "good enough" for most people doesn't make them inherently "Better" in every way and should - right now - replace all DLSRs.

DSLRS are better than P&S cameras because:
faster auto-focus
better focus tracking
higher frames per second
lower digital noise at higher ISOs
shallower depth of field (some times you need this)
higher quality lenses are available (if you actually need them) (this effects image quality)
longer battery life (in trade of weight)

Please, show me a P&S camera that can produce as good an image at, say, ISO400 at 1/200 f5.6. As my setup. Oh, and it must have the same field of view as a 780mm lens taken from the same spot because that is the shot I would take

In other words, in exactly the same conditions, produce as good or the same picture using a P&S. Since you seem to say that P&S are better than DLSR and DLRS shouldn't exist any more - then clearly a P&S should be able to do it, right? Just put on a TC if you can't match 780mm.

You talk like DSLRs are worse in every way than a P&S Camera, yet I can still do things that you can't with your P&S camera. What you said is clearly not true. I'm not saying that P&S cameras aren't the right choice for many people and for many situations (my parents own two of them - and I recommend them!) But this statement:
Quote:
Whereas full-featured one-lens fits all cameras, with the integrated EVF and LCD can far surpass anything a DSLR can do.
Is absolutely, completely, and totally false. I can guaranty you that there are things that I can do with my DSLR setup that you *can not* do with your P&S. And I'd even go so far as to say that *no* P&S can do it.

There are things you can do with your P&S that I can't do with my DLSR. I completely agree with that (heck, you've listed one. You can record video with sound.)

And I completely agree that DSLRs will eventually go away. Eventually camera makers will find way to make cheaper high quality lenses and high quality sensors such that larger fixed length lens cameras will be produced that have equivalent image & optical quality with the same focal length I get right now. It will happen, of that I am sure.

But they are no there yet... and I don't believe the economic model is there to support it. The camera makers make too much money off selling separate lenses. Someone willing to buy a 600mm f4 (like me) might also be willing to spend $1500 on the 180 f3.5 macro (I'm not, but I'd like that lens.) If they produced a P&S equivalent to replace my big lens, how will they deal with my want for that macro lens? I feel it will take longer to build a fixed lens camera that can can be as good as the Canon 600mm f4 and the Canon 180mm macro (or the Sigma 150 macro.) But if they do, they just lost that sale of a macro lens.

There is a market that *demands* that level of quality. And current P&S cameras are not there yet. You can't make a 20x30 print out of a top-of-the-line P&S of a butterfly and say it's as good as the same print made with a top-of-the-line DSLR. I've seen it tried, and they weren't. You seem to be saying that they would be equivalent.

Eric
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2007, 5:12 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

Keoeeit, that second photo you posted is certainly a nice capture, but it looks like a photo that could have been taken with any camera with the right timing. Can't say much about the image quality at that small of a size though.

Your first image, however, looks exactly like what one would expect from a p&s. It's extremely noisy, smudgy looking and oversharpened, despite being shot at ISO 100. Is this a 100% crop? You say you did well in a contest with it, but I don't know of any stock photography sites that would even consider accepting this image. All of John's samples look significantly cleaner and more detailed.

Saying that p&s cameras are better than DSLRs is like saying my mountain bike is better than a car. It's lighter, cheaper, never runs out of gas and can take me anywhere a car can (and many places a car can't). Only a lazy or incompetent person would spend so much on a car when they can get everywhere they need to on a bike.
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 23, 2007, 8:17 PM   #30
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Corpsy wrote:
Quote:
Your first image, however, looks exactly like what one would expect from a p&s. It's extremely noisy, smudgy looking and oversharpened, despite being shot at ISO 100. Is this a 100% crop? You say you did well in a contest with it, but I don't know of any stock photography sites that would even consider accepting this image. All of John's samples look significantly cleaner and more detailed.

First let me say these shots are better than your 'test' shots but I'm afraid Corpsy is correct. Still less detail and more noise in this shot. AND you had an easier technical subject - stationary vs. in-flight. So, lets look at some stationary subjects, shall we?





OOOOHHH, an added bonus - a pleasantly blurred background, nice and smooth.



Now, we've already established you're an award winning nature photographer and I'm a hack with a few wildlife shots (truly - probably taken a couple hundred in my life). And yet my shots have better IQ. You're the better photog, so that can't be it. Could it be the equipment?


And let's face it - these are small images we're looking at and the IQ difference is noticable. Forget about 11x14 prints.


Or were the above shots you posted just more "test shots"?



JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 7:56 AM.