Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Samtb, Mar 8, 2015.
What advantages do DSLR cameras have over point and shoot?
The image sensors are much bigger in general and the optics are better.
Don't get carried away with MPs, its not a direct measure for quality.
So for me, its mainly image quality, then its the options/features.
Don't forget many manufactures have a middle range often called bridge camera that are a mix of both to try and get a balance.
Speed, control and setup flexibility, image quality across a wide range of conditions. Generally ruggedness and user feedback too. By 'setup flexibility' I mean the ability to use a range of specialist tools such as flashguns, specialist lenses.
Advantages over what? Film SLR? iPhone? P&S? Kodak Disc Camera? Etch a Sketch?
User interface: I like being able to keep my eye on the shot and adjust settings with physical buttons.
You see through the lens.
Low shutter lag (time between pressing the button and picture snapped)
Low startup time. I can power on my D7000 and snap a picture faster than I can get to the camera up on my iPhone, even with the quick access menu.
Larger sensor than P&S, phone, and most mirrorless options.
Better lens selection.
RAW images > jpg
Can be used as a weapon if need be
To name a few
Then is whole world of mirror less that has much less size, weight, and cost compared to DSLR. Image quality does not have to equal 35mm.
I was able to get far sharper and clearer photos with far more detail using my Nikon DSLR than my iPhone 4S or 6. The iPhone 6 smudged out small details like leaves in a full tree or animal fur. A DSLR maintains those details.
I can get as good a raw image capture with my mirror less as I did with my previous 5D3. The image quality is more about the knowledge and skill of the photographer than the features of the camera.
It's got to be at least 6x7.
You are correct in terms of esthetics, but the quality of an image in technical terms is a function of the grade of glass and engineering in the lens and size of the sensor. Whether it has a mirror or not isn't relevant.
10x8 all the way!
This pretty much sums up the phone camera experience in a nutshell.
Agreed about the quality of the glass. But the size of the sensor if not a limitation, if you know how to use it. You can find shoots of D810 vs the Olympus E-M5II where the E-M5II is definitely delivering more detail in its high resolution mode than D810. The sensor shift idea is a similar idea to how Hasselblad uses a 50MP medium size sensor to create 200MP images. Granted the E-M5II's high resolution mode needs to used on stationary objects. But I can't image try to shoot sports with a D810 either.
You've posted too vague a question for you to likely get the answer you're looking for.
wider range of focal lengths
wider range of special optical attachments
After that, everything is the same until you narrow the scope of "DSLR" and/or "P&S" to a limited range of models of either type. There is no universal, always true distinction.
True, most P&S models use smaller sensors and have limited control. This is NOT the case with every model available. DSLRs tend to use larger sensors than most P&S models but there are a few P&S models with sensors larger than most DSLRs.
Most "DSLRs" focus faster, shoot at higher FPS, and offer more in-camera configuration and adjustment, but again this is not universally true of all models.
The highest pixel count on DSLRs exceeds the highest on P&S models, but there are some P&S that exceed the pixel count of most DSLRs.
Optically, while many DSLRs have better lenses than the common P&S models, the best of the P&S cameras have better lenses than the most commonly used DSLR lenses.
If you and the subject are stationary, you could stitch together a huge resolution photo just as easily.
Sports is not the only example of moving subjects.
Mirrorless has advantages, SLRs has advantages. Until one has all or most of the advantages, neither one is ultimately "best".
Save me from googling, will you? A link?
This includes the ability, depending on the camera, to use older 'legacy' lenses, and even mix 'n match across systems by means of adapters. A nontrivial feature considering how expensive new lenses are.
Fortunately, there's no rule limiting you to only one camera, either (or at least I hope not!). I know plenty of people who carry a small camera just so they always have something, and a bigger one for more demanding situations.
"Chelsea & I test the new Olympus to see if the "40 megapixels" claim is a gimmick... or if the world's best still-life camera is 1/3 the price of the Nikon D810. Landscapes & product photography."
The conclusion in the second section of this video is that E-M5II is the best camera for still-life until you move into medium format.
"The conclusion from our lab testing is that the Olympus E-M5 II's new high resolution shot mode is truly ground-breaking for applications involving shooting non-moving imagery from a tripod. Landscape photographers, architectural photographers and studio product photographers can rejoice! It's flat-out amazing to see this kind of performance from such a compact, affordable camera. Stay tuned, as we'll take it out into the real world and run it through its paces there as well."
I'll agree with that. For my senior project in college I shot two parallel portfolios, one in 35mm film and the other in 4X5 film. I tried to make the 35 equal to or better than the view camera with the same subject matter. The edge sharpness of the contact prints from the 4X5 couldn't be matched but you had to be looking for stuff like that.
Next time try making 16x20 prints from both, and then look.
While P&S cameras can't do this, it is not accurate to imply that it is unique to DSLRs. All of the interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras have this ability. In fact they can handle a vastly wider range of legacy lenses than any DSLR.
Thanks! That's a clever solution, and very interesting. Perhaps one day Olympus (or somebody else) will find a way to make this be effective outside of a studio, or off a tripod. That would be great.
I'll just go OT a little bit.
I've mentioned my friend the 4x5 guy in a few postings in this subforum. He's the one who also shoots with a Sony RX100. I've seen his 16 x 20 prints but I haven't seen his negatives as they look projected on his easel. I'd like to.
I keep trying to get him, and my other friend who's a decent photographer but these days shoots almost everything with his Samsung phone, to go out with me (D810) and shoot in the same area at the same time -- I'm talking about a patch of landscape (or even in town, if they want) where each of us would shoot whatever we wanted to (not exactly what Designer Dale did), and then afterwards we'd compare.
My thought is that it would be an interesting comparison, because each camera is good at different things and of course is going to be used in a different way.
"Better" or "worse" would be irrelevant. The whole idea would be to highlight what you can and can't do with different equipment, and perhaps more importantly, how what you "see" as a photographer is intimately connected with what you know you can do.
My Samsung friend and I hiked down into a volcanic crater a few weeks ago, and there were distinct differences in the kinds of images we brought back. I'd say that no more than half our shots overlapped in terms of what we shot and how we shot it.
We haven't succeeded in convincing the 4x5 guy to go out with us. I don't think he's against it (we're all friends) but he just doesn't seem to really want to do it. I wish he would.
My Ricoh GR agrees with you!
My Hasselblad agrees with you!
Or just loaded!
Fair point; I guess I don't really perceive DSLRs and mirrorless cameras as being that fundamentally different.
Puny 6x6! (He says, impatiently awaiting the arrival of his 'new' Mamiya C330)
You get instant focus acquisition and no shutter lag if you like shooting fast moving subjects, such as racing cars or flying jets.