Is It True?

It's true that the smaller size of point&shoot camera's sensor ( either CCD or CMOS ) provides a sharper/contrast than that of DSLR for the same common shooting aspects; nevertheless, it's hard for me to tell the difference when putting on the computer screen. Any way, anyone can readjust the sharp/contrastness on photoshop to the way you want. So, it's not that matter to me any way. What I'm more concerned is that it's hard for the point&shoot camera to shoot the selective background blurry ( for the low f-stop ). This technique is very necessary for shooting portrait type picture.

Any way, the contrast/sharpness does vary upon the shooting conditions as well. Depends upon the following categories :

1. The distance between the shooting object and camera.

2. lighting condition.

When shooting at the dimmer light, point&shoot camera seems to reveal its limitation. The camera with a smaller sensor when shooting at the low light condition gives the picture more noise - comparing to grain when shooting with film camera - than camera with the larger sensor for the same ISO. It's hard to say which camera is better, just how you shoot the picture, I guess.

an SLR will be using a much better lense. If you say the lense must be the same, then you are limiting the SLR to the specifications that the point & shoot has. There is little point to doing that.

Focus is another. A modern SLR will have a much faster and more precise focusing ability. Ditto for metering. Ditto for shutter and aperture setting where a more precise range of settings is available even in auto (point & shoot) mode. Ditto for color saturation. Ditto for image processing within the camera which will yield a well balanced histogram. Ditto for resolution in the image (You can hardly insist that an SLR be limited to P&S sizes here. Even film SLRs have full 35mm frames for their images.) I could go on, but you should be getting the picture.

Even a film SLR has many of these advantages over point & shoot.

A couple had decided to invite a famous Photographer friend for dinner. They requested that he bring some of his photographs with him.

Before dinner, they looked at the photograhs that he brought. It was obvious why he was a famous photogapher because the photographs were outstanding.
The wife gushed about the excellence of the photographs and said "You apparently use some expensive cameras".

After dinner, when the photographer was getting ready to leave, he looked to the wife and said "That was an excellent dinner, the best I have had in a long time. You apparently use some expensive pots and pans".

...
..
.

The more expensive cameras have the potential to run circles around any point and shoot - if you are willing to read the manual and learn how to use it. Initially you will be put off by the multitude of buttons and controls on the dSLR. I have had my Nikon D70 for about 3 months now and I am not completely comfortable with all the controls. With my Canon P&S, it took me about 10 minutes to learn how to use the camera.

Both types of cameras will have an "idiot" mode. In idiot mode, the dSLR will be better than the P&S. However, the dSLR offers you control that the P&S lacks.

One other point to note is that the control over zooming on a P&S is sloppy at best since you do not actually control the zoom but you move a lever that sort of controls the zoom. In a dSLR, you rotate the lens barrel. If for no other reason than this, you will get much better composed pictures with a dSLR.

In general, the DSLR is always going to give a "better" picture. Even if the DSLR has fewer megapixels than the P&S, it usually has a higher quality that makes up the difference. In-camera sharpening usually is more of a "special effect" than something you really want to turn up; turning up sharpening will produce "halos" around objects. (Experiment and see!) Perhaps this is giving the effect that the smaller camera is producing a "sharper" photo. (I have sharpening set to "low" in my camera, which I decided on after a lot of testing.)


Sometimes there isn't much diffence in the better conditions, such as normal daylight. Start to make life difficult for the camera (dim light is a big problem), and the SLR has an advantage. You can use higher ISO and still have low noise, while non-SLRs will get extremely noisy.

However, if you tend to only print 4x6 or even 5x7, I doubt there's enough difference to matter (certainly for most people). And look at all the junk that people carry around with their SLRs! Lenses, bulky camera, tripods, etc. Yeah, great pictures, but such a hassle, I'd probably not want to take any pictures.

So, I got a really good non-SLR (Sony V3) with a lot of manual features, fast focusing, fast shutter speed, etc., and enjoy my hobby. I'm quite happy even with my 8x10 prints.

As advanced amateur who has USED, not owned,both, the question has no "yes" or "no" answer.

Right now I own an older Kodak D265. Some days I create outstanding printable 8x10s. Other times pictures not worth printing. I'd love to afford a dSLR of my own, but finances do not afford the luxury.

Beyond all the adjustments and potential creativity offered by dSLR, lies the skill and "eye" of the user.

Love the "cooking" story. Has lots of applications! How about the golfer who really is a hacker with pro equipment??? Does his equipment equate to Tiger Wood-like skills?

I am a very amateur photgrapher who has recently bought a Canon Rebel XT Digital SLR camera -- 8 mp. THere is a WORLD of difference in the quality. I took some pics at the beach the other day and you can count the feathers on the gulls they are so sharp!

You can change lenses with the DSLR so my camera can be used for macro as well as telephoto photos. The options are endless. I imagine I will see even more benefits as I learn more about the finer techniques.

Sure you can get great composition with any camera, but the better the lens the better the sensors, etc.. the better your creation will be presented. I wanted a camera that would give me the best possible results in any situation without going into debt. We cannot always have conditions perfect to get a perfect P&S shot. The DSLR will give you more adaptability. Well worth the extra bucks.

Although digital cameras are still going through growing pains, advantages have been documented. If you are only wanting to snap a photo, the point-and-shoots (PNS) are fine. Keep in mind, however, that their limitations are plenty. DSLR's offer much more including depth-of-field control, the ability to adjust specific settings when shooting under various lighting conditions, ability to change lenses and focus control. PNS cameras don't offer these. Advantages of PNS cameras include lower price, less weight to carry and are usually more compact. Also, the user doesn't have to understand all of the above, they just POINT AND SHOOT without the photog having to think. So if you're going on vacation and you just want something to help remember the good times, PNS cameras are the key.
Bottom line: if you want BETTER pics, a DSLR is superior. If you want FUN pics, PNS is the answer.
Happy shooting!
Howling Wolf Photography
Colorado Springs, Colorado

NOT TRUE

Digital SLR is usually better. It has a higher quality sensor.

Assuming similar settings and skill of the photographer, the dSLR will usually take better pics due to a larger sensor, which will have a lower s/n ratio and greater light sensitivity. Account for lens quality and the disparity is often greater. Keep in mind, this has no bearing on how good a photo will look (that's dependent on the photographer) but the quality of the file is dependent on the camera.

It is true that my comparison does not fit the question exactly because my point-and-shoot has fewer megapixels than my dSLR, but the results are consistently so dramatically different that I thought I would reply. I own both a digital point-and-shoot and a dSLR with 5.0 and 6.2 Megapixels, respectively. The dSLR regularly turns out better shots. The shots from the point-and-shoot nearly always require more care and attention in photoshop. Low light, sunlight, etc. - it doesn't matter - the dSLR is heads and tails above the point-and-shoot in terms of consistently reliable picture quality (focus, exposure, color).

I am what most people would call a hobbyist photographer. That being, I know more than the average guy/gal about photography but nearly as much as a pro. I began my sojourn into digital photography about 6 years ago with an Olympus P&S 2 megapixel camera. It was virtually identical in every way to our Olympus 35mm. My wife and I could both use it with ease and get consistently good results.

About 2 years ago I purchased a Canon EOS Digital Rebel 6.2 Megapixel D-SLR, and a couple lenses, flash, and other accessories. The overall flexibility and different shooting options are wonderful, but getting consistently good results has been a learning process.

I think the main reason for seemingly better P&S results is that P&S cameras use an infinite focus length. You can tell the difference between a P&S and D-SLR by glancing at any picture where the subject is relatively clse to the lens. On a P&S camera the background will generally be in focus just like the subject. The depth of field is much greater on P&S lenses. A D-SLR will show an background that is more or less out of focus, depending on the focal length of the lense.

In terms of sharpness, saturation, etc., these are all greatly affected by the settings of the camera.

Digital photography can be simple as point & shoot, but to unlock the true potential of any camera, you must read the user manual and learn all the features. You will be very happy with the results.

As has been pointed out above, the size of the image sensor (Canon Powershot = 5x7mm, Digital Rebel = 15x23mm)and lens size and opening (ISO 50-400 vs 100-1600) make the DSLR a hands-down winner. In addition, DSLRs are faster and more expandable, but they are big, heavy, and require a tripod and massive lenses totalling up to $5000 for the whole enchalata.

The newest technology limited to the "advanced compact" units, such as the Canon Powershot S2-IS, Sony DSC-H1, and the Panasonic FZ5 which incorporate electronic stabilization (used in video camera for years). This minimizes the need for a tripod, and motion can ruin the picture on ANY camera at shutter speeds below 1/60th sec. The impressive zoom on the new cameras (12x to 15x) may yield a better resolution than a cropped shot from a DSLR.

The original advantage of the SLR was the ability to see the same edge-to-edge scene as the film. In cameras with sensor-derived viewfinder in high resoution, the advantage tips to the advanced compact, since you not only see the exact image the "film" sees, but in low light, the image can be brighter. In a few years, the sensors will be larger and more sensitive, rivaling the DSLRs. (Of course, the DSLRs will catch up with full-sized (24x36mm) sensors (already in Kodak Pro and Conon EOS-ID Mark II $5000+)with image stabilization and eletronic/optical viewfinder.)


In addition the new advanced compacts have MP-4 video at VGA , 30 fps, for up to 20 minute "home movies". That is not likely to come in DSLR. Check out this clip: http://img2.dpreview.com/reviews/canons2is/MVI_1741.AVI

www.pcphotomag.com has comparison articles on the subject.