Poindexter

People ask all the time why one would spend all the extra money on a SLR camera. I offer up this thread so others can see a few opinions, and hopefully make good purchasing decisions

I'm not going to get into details, but start off with two pictures:

Shot with a Sony DSC-F717 (a step up from a basic $300 Point & Shoot Camera) by my girlfriend - using it in Auto Mode.



Date Taken: 2006-03-14 15:54:01
Date Digitized: 2006-03-14 15:54:01
Date Modified: 2006-03-17 14:54:17
Make: SONY
Model: CYBERSHOT
Size: 2030x813
Bytes: 518452
Aperture: f/4.5
ISO: 100
Focal Length: 48.5mm
Exposure Time: 0.002s (10/5000)
JPEG Quality: normal
Flash: Flash did not fire.
Exposure Program: Normal program
Exposure Bias: 0
ExposureMode: 0
LightSource: 0


Shot by my Canon 20D with a Sigma 70-200mm f2.8 lens.



Date Taken: 2006-03-14 15:52:38
Date Digitized: 2006-03-14 15:52:38
Date Modified: 2006-03-17 15:15:20
Make: Canon
Model: Canon EOS 20D
Size: 1890x918
Bytes: 524899
Aperture: f/5.6
ISO: 200
Focal Length: 280mm (guess: 408mm in 35mm)
Exposure Time: 0.0012s (1/800)
Flash: Flash did not fire, compulsory flash mode
Exposure Program: Aperture priority
Exposure Bias: -0.333333333333
ColorSpace: sRGB


These pictures were taken at almost the same time (despite the clock settings on the cameras in the exif showing about a 2 minute window). The ducks landed in the water, we both turned and shot at the same time. We were about 20 feet apart.

Both photos have been sharpened and color/light balanced in Photoshop CS2 - they were also cropped.

eSeM

The Aperture, ISO and Focal Lenght is significantly different between the two shots.

The depth of field control from the Canon improves the picture.

Penforhire

To me there are a couple of reasons for wanting a dSLR over a high-end digicam. Better high-ISO sensor noise (generalization but 99% true) and interchangeable lenses (with screw-on adapters reducing this advantage) are big hitters. Some people also can't live without a through-the-lens viewfinder. Shutter lag used to be a big difference but I think some of the new digicams are fast enough. The controls on dSLR's are slightly more intuitive than on the smaller digicams with more control over focus-and-exposure lock (separate button from shutter release and usually programmable). Not many digicams have a remote shutter release (self-timer works for some shots but not, say, sports shots) or hot shoe.

As I get older I find myself using well-balanced fill-flash on more of my best shots. Built-in digicam flashes are not usually powerful enough and hard to add modifiers to (e.g. my favorite Lumiquest stuff).

There are also a reasons to prefer a digicam. They are smaller and less expensive with a wide-ranging zoom lens. That zoom lens usually works pretty well with a small sensor.

I used to put dust-on-sensor as a digicam advantage but zoom lenses eventually allow dust into the system and then you have to clean it just like a dSLR. Besides, if this was a concern you'd get a super-zoom for your dSLR and leave it on all the time.

Interesting topic though. I have some absolutely stunning images taken with my old digicam and, properly printed, you could not tell what sort of camera was used. And a small digicam you carry everywhere is infinitely more valuable than a dSLR rig that is not with you when you need it.

Spec_Ops2087

The main BIG differences between SLR and P&S are the more obvious...on a SLR you can change the lense and the picture you see through the viewfinder is the picture you take.

In P&S cameras, there is a second lense for the viewfinder which can really be a problem when you are taking macro shots.


There are some other differences (options, etc) but those are the main ones.

Getting a SLR will NOT improve your images much (IMO). I've taken beautiful images with my canon S60 (P&S) and also have taken some bad ones. The same goes with my SLR.

All in all, it comes down to the person behind the camera...not the camera itself --- something to think about

Costas

That's kind of a bad example between the two.

But as the guy before me said, it's more of the person behind the camera vs the camera itself, but the camera does help in some situations though.

Poindexter

I realize that the examples are a bit different but they're the only ones I have that even come close to being comparable by light and subject.

no_really

the ability to swap lenses seems to be associated with better sensors and image processing, because it seems virtually every system has the ability to capture images that are unquestionably technically better than their fixed-lens counterparts. But "technically better," is not the same as a better photograph. I'd rather chase better aesthetics than image quality. That said, yeah, an interchangeable lens SLR is probably going to take technically better photographs, but that is such a side part of a picture. You can do so much more with an image than try to capture shadow detail.

got rice?

It will improve depending on your shooting subjects. Action/sports photography, there is a huge advantage with an SLR, mainly the higher fps, superior af, better high iso image quality, ability to use a longer focal length telephoto lens, and less shutter lag.

Saki GT

Here's a shot with my "point and shoot" Nikon 5200 - notice the fishbowl effect?



With any camera that allows lens attachments, mid range to full dslr, I could attach a wide angle lense to straighten out the buildings.

The two things I miss most from my film SLR are the hot shoe and the ability to swap lenses and filters for specific subjects. I solved one of those issues with my Panasonic FZ7 (I hope).

Penforhire

Even my best wide angle lenses have some rectilinear distortion. But that is pretty bad barrel distortion! I prescribe an installation of Panotools for its lens correction tool.

I'm not sure about your 5200 but I have a hotshoe adapter (plugs into the body) for my 990 and a really good quality 2x teleconverter, both Nikon accessories.