Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

SLR vs point and shoot.

Nov 4, 2005 2:57AM PST

Like they say, you pay for what you get. However, there is also the law of diminishing returns. Your best bet is to move into the middle of the price range. You?ll get the most bang for the buck there. The high end point and shoot will rival some of the lower end SLR. If you buy the cheapest camera, quality of the picture will just won?t be that good.

A lot of times I can tell from how sharp the pictures that it came from a lower end point and shoot digital versus my film SLR camera. The images are just far more sharper on my SLR because of the better quality lens. Though the lens itself cost more than a lot of point and shoot cameras.

Another thing is that most point and shoots have these enormous zoom capabilities. Most SLR lens? do not since it really defies the laws of physics of the optical system. Another problem with most point and shoots is that most do not have a very wide angle lens. They tend to start on the low end at 35-45mm range which is really not that wide of angle.

In general, the focusing mechanism on the low end point and shoot tend to be slow. Plus, with the point and shoot, you never really know if the picture is in focus since you are not actually looking through the lens. Yes, you can see from the back screen, but most of the times, I haven?t been really able to tell if it is really focused or not until I look at the pictures on a PC. With a SLR you are actually looking though the lens at the actual image.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Yes, film takes
Nov 4, 2005 12:26PM PST

The most accurate color. As for the rest, you don't know what you are talking about. What are you doing, making a personal comentary, or demonstrating that you have an endless supply of money for film and developing chemicals. How much do you think a pro DSLR cost? How much do you think the lenes cost? Can you blow off shots on an impulse? How about 5 or 6 hundred shots. Can you do that?

- Collapse -
I , eventually, disagreed in these aspects.
Nov 4, 2005 4:41PM PST

SLR vs DSLR

I have no doubt in SLR camera ( film ) for a great picture quality. Especially, in the low light situation, the regular film camera outshoot most digital camera considering the details of highlight & shadow shooting in the very same picture; I still keep both SLR film and DSLR camera. Nevertheless, the costs of developing pictures are very frustrating to me. I can't undo what I want for the pictures of film camera. Unlike what I've been doing with my pictures shooting by my DSLR. I did compare the 4 x 6 inch pictures shooting by both SLR and DSLR frequently, from my recent trip to Shangrila - China. The pictures' quality comes to a pretty close call. But, DSLR provide me more convenience. Shooting in RAW and digital processing are what I have a great time with. I can be more selective processing my pictures. For SLR outcome, I just have to wait and see what the result will be.

Wide angle issue

Many P&S camera is now equipped for a wide angle lense. For instance, Canon S80 is capable to go to as wide as 28mm.

Focusing problem

It doesn't matter whether you shoot a picture using DSLR or P&S digital camera. To see if the taken picture is in focus or not. Zoom in for details and check the histogram will tell how good its camera owner shoot. Meanwhile, the recent P&S digital camera comes with a pretty quick focusing system. What's more relevant is what is the selected light metering ( for example spot, partial, or evealuative in most canon camera ). These metering systems eventually has some effects on how fast the camera will respond along with the focusing system.