Point & shoot vs DSLR

[lincoln30]

I have been surfing different photo forums and have noticed one or two where the tone is if you don't have a DSLR you, well, don't have a good camera. What is behind this thinking? I'm beginning to think all my P&S pictures are nothing more than a series of accidents!!

[AlexMonro]

This has been discussed recently in a thread on the "which camera should I buy" forum, see: http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=20865

However, while there certainly are some advantages of a DSLR, P&S have advantages for certain uses. Generally, DSLRs have larger sensors than P&S, with the notable exception of the Sony R1. A larger sensor can either give more pixels, enabling larger prints before pixellation becomes visible, or better sensitivity with less noise - most DSLRs go to ISO 1600 or 3200, many P&S have a maximum of 400. This enables better pictures in lower light. Don't forget that DSLRs are not the pinacle of quality images. There are such things as large format cameras like the Mamiya with 22Mpixel sensors, or 5x4" view cameras with digital backs and 45Mpixels.

DSLRs also tend to have faster processors and larger buffer memories, which gives less shutter lag, faster autofocus, and faster and longer burst mode, making them better for action shots.

However, the downside of the larger sensors is that they require larger real focal lengths for the equivalent field of view - this is particularly a problem at the telephoto end. Compromises in lens design mean that it's harder to make a zoom lens with a wide range, and those which do exist tend to have smaller maximum apertures and comparatively lower resolution than the short range or prime (fixed focal length) lenses, and don't really compare to the ultrazooms on P&Ss such as the Panasonic FZ20 or FZ30, Canon S3IS, Samsung Pro815 or Fuji S9500 / S9000.

There is the oposite problem at the wide angle end - a 28mm equiv focal length is only around 6mm real for a P&S size sensor, so there aren't many that go that wide, and whereas a DSLR can have an 8mm 180 degree fisheye, you wont find that on a P&S.

So to make use of the potentially better quality of the larger sensor, a DSLR user needs to carry around at least 3 or 4 separate interchangeable lenses, the longer focal length of which are significantly larger and heavier (not to mention more expensive!) than the whole ultrazoom P&S camera. The size and weight of a backpack full of gear is one reason why most photograhers don't carry it with them all the time, but many people might keep a compact P&S in a pocket wherever they go, and be able to grab a snap whenever they see a good subject. You can't take the picture if you haven't got the camera!:)

So, while there are some camera snobs who might try to say that you must have a DSLR, I reckon you should judge the picture, not the camera. Yes, there are some shots which would be difficult or impossible with a compact, but can be made with a DSLR, but there are a lot of excellent photos taken with P&S - take a look at some of John Reed's bird pictures on the Panasonic forum, taken on the TZ1 compact!

[nism]

p&s have movie modes
:D

[ReF]

I have been surfing different photo forums and have noticed one or two where the tone is if you don't have a DSLR you, well, don't have a good camera. What is behind this thinking? I'm beginning to think all my P&S pictures are nothing more than a series of accidents!!

the idea that one cannot get good pictures from less than a dslr is wrong, though a dslr does have tremedous heap of advantages. it really depends on how and what you shoot. certainly one of my very best images shot at f2.5, ISO 1600 1/60 sec in extremely low light (difficult to AF) would not be possible with anything less and therefore would not be with me today. also not possible on a point and shoot are the images that i shoot regularly at ISO 800 f2.8 or f4. point and shoot cameras have certainly improved tremedously - i've seen some really good samples of high ISO on the fuji's and a good amount of background blur from the ultrazooms. still, a dslr produces better results at high ISO and with the right lens can produce better background (and not having standing way back shooting at tele either). other advantages i can think of are response times, frame rates, continuous shooting, buffer depth, and an optical viewfinder. all are very important when shooting action. even with the entry level XT i can set my files down from RAW to L/Fine Jpeg and shoot a long series of bursts when needed (though 3fps isn't really fast enough). external flashes are something that i consider extremely important as well and not all point and shoots offer a hot shoe. what else is there... oh yeah, i can use extremely wide lenses like my 15mm fisheye (there are even wider lenses) or shoot at 640mm (400mm x 1.6) or 896mm (400mm x 1.4 x 1.6). manual zoom and focus rings can be used faster than electronic zooming and manual focusing, bracketing is a feature missing in many point and shoots, and optical viewfinder + little shutter lag means it's easier to shoot macros handheld with very shallow DOF (1-2mm). that's all i can think of for now. so as you can see, it all depends on one's shooting style and subjects. i still have a few images from my point and shoot camera days that rank among my best images but certainly i would have difficulty or the inability to shoot the images i do today without my current gear.

[ReF]

p&s have movie modes
:D

yeah, that's what's totally missing from dslr's at the moment

[some guy]

I have a dSLR which I use quite abit. But there are days I wish I brought along my swivel LCD screen A95!
If you are into photography it's all good. Even if you're using a camera phone.
Was at the Louvre and I saw so many young people cramming against Mona Lisa only to take pictures of the painting using camera phones. :rolleyes:

[cwphoto]

I have been surfing different photo forums and have noticed one or two where the tone is if you don't have a DSLR you, well, don't have a good camera. What is behind this thinking? I'm beginning to think all my P&S pictures are nothing more than a series of accidents!!

One is a toy, the other is a tool.;)

[tim11]

It's depending on what sort of photos you want to achieve. Sure, you can do much much more with DSLR but not everyone wants to explore that sort of capability [of DSLR]. And these days, a good point-n-shoot cam goes a long way.
Years back, I have this cousin who bought a top of the line SLR and he couldn't understand why his photos were always crappy compared to photos from my PnS camera. With DSLR you must have the patience to learn to use it and spend more on lenses; etc. Otherwise, stick with PnS.

[JMWallace]

One is a toy, the other is a tool.;)

DOH!:eek: Well, honestly don't know, as blunt as it was, if it could have been said and summed up any better.

Could add..." and breadth of expense to customize and ability to utilized creative contol is limitless."

[coldrain]

One is a toy, the other is a tool.;)
Depends on who you ask... for a portrait photographer, or fashion photographer, yes I am sure. But for other photographers a compact digital can be a very serious tool.

For instance for photo journalists like Alex Majoli.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

[cwphoto]

Depends on who you ask... for a portrait photographer, or fashion photographer, yes I am sure. But for other photographers a compact digital can be a very serious tool.

For instance for photo journalists like Alex Majoli.
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844

C'mon Coldy, stop being so politically correct.:p There are always one or two people out of the masses who try and fit square pegs in round holes.:rolleyes:

Notwithstanding the good work that Alex does, P&S cameras are a poor choice for 99.999% of professional work.

[Leo S]

The easy answer should be "both". Suppose I'm not the only one with a DSLR (Nikon D70) and an ultra compact (Sony DSC T9). The Sony is never more than 1 meter away 24/7 :D

But seriosly, as I stated in another thread, I think the question of DSLR's vs compacts is more a question of how big a camera you want to carry around. The price issue is of course there, but of less importance now that you get a DSLR for almost the same price as an advanced compact.

A couple of decades ago, when SLR's began to get really cheap, many of my friends bought one although they didn't consider themselves as semi-pro or even advanced amateurs. They just wanted the quality, the viewfinder and the possibility to use an external flash. They bought Chinons, cheap Minoltas and so on. And took great pictures in Auto mode.

The same thing goes today, I think. A DSLR will produce better quality pics in general, better control, and faster shooting. It's more true today than in the film days due to things like sensor size and processor/AF speed. Of course you can get great pics from a compact, but if you're reay to carry a DSLR around it's a better choice. And one doesn't have to learn so much so fast, it should be OK to use Auto mode when you feel like it and just enjoy the quality of the pics. And grow with the camera if you want to.

Although a SLR user for more than 35 years, I got tired of carrying my Canon EOS5 around. So I went for digital compacts for quite some years. When my daughter was born 3 years ago I had an advanced compact, but bought the D70 after a few months. My wife's comment when she compared pics: "Why didn't you buy that DSLR before?" Too many shots missed due to focusing problems in low light, harsh flash pics, shutter lag and so on.

Compacts are of course getting better, and the Sony is really fast and reliable, and I take maybe 3/4 of my pics with that one. But at important events, or when I want like portrait pics of high quality, it's DSLR time.

And my point after all this text is: you don't have to be "advanced" to use a DSLR either, that myth is keeping some people from buying them.

And my politically correct point is: if you go for a compact it's OK too. The best camera is the one you carry with you..(ooh, that's an old one):D

[jamiehs]

As someone who is an aspiring photographer, I'd say that in addition to a DSLR being more of a tool than a toy, it is much easier to 'snap that shot' when the moment happens with a point and shoot (since it can fit in your pocket), but I must say that I regret buying my current ultra zoom... my 5400 (and all the other cameras in it's class) seem like they are trying to be a DLSR...

I have played with a few DSLR models and I will be buying one in the next month (I like the Rebel XT and the Olympus E-500)

I think that it's easier to create art with a DSLR, but easier to whip out that 2.5X zoom 3.0MP silvery pocket thingie to capture the 3rd round of tequila shots ;) and you can even capture a movie with them.

Conclusion, I'm kind of sick of Ultra Zooms being just shy of a DSLR and I am ready to move up to the real thing. I'm done waiting 2~3 seconds for my 5400 to focus... and its CCD is officially gone too :( But that is a great excuse to buy that Rebel or E-500 :D

It would be cool to have a Silvery Pocket thingie as well, I must admit... :cool:

[cwphoto]

but easier to whip out that 2.5X zoom 3.0MP silvery pocket thingie to capture the 3rd round of tequila shots ;) and you can even capture a movie with them.

Amen to that. Andy; you'd concur?:D

[scupking]

Who needs a DSLR:) I’m happy with my Canon S2-IS. I love the 12x optical zoom and the movie mod at less then half the cost of a DSLR. These are a few pics I took last weekend. I would say that the quality comes close to a DSLR at a fraction of the price.

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d154/scupking/4e7e2596.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d154/scupking/fc7d3c9c.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d154/scupking/e5a3652c.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d154/scupking/e36f0089.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d154/scupking/3a1c14ac.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d154/scupking/761e13a8.jpg

http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d154/scupking/b63119e4.jpg

[Robert Besen]

Nice shots! How'd you do the one with the spirals behind the propellors?

[JTL]

Reason to get a DSLR? So all the DSLR snobs don't put you down all the time...;)

Buy based on your requirements, not on what others think your requirements should be...

[scupking]

Nice shots! How'd you do the one with the spirals behind the propellors?

The spirals were created not because of a camera setting but because of the weather conditions. We had 100% humidity. So the props were basically vaporizing the moisture in the air. It’s great so people can see what a propeller actually dose to the air, it’s just usually invisible.

[some guy]

Very nice work. SLRs require commitment because it demands that. Anything less and you might as well get a P&S. But when you put the effort, it till deliver pictures that no P&S can. Sadly there are too many owners using an SLR as a P&S so the bad quality shows up more prominently. It magnifies the best and the flaws of each shot more than a P&S.

[MindBender]

As someone alludded earlier... it's not the equipment... it's the operator. The tools are great... but you have to have an artist behind the lens to get a great shot. I've seen crappy shots a plenty come from high end cameras... and I've seen a great photographer take a wonderful, evocotive photo with a disposable film camera. People were taking wonderful photos long before 35mm became the defacto standard... people are continuing to take wonderful photos now that 35mm is becoming a thing of the past. There is no substitute for the artists eye. Read that sentence again. Keep reading it until you realize that this thread is 99% academic. The best tool is the one that does the job you need it to. I'd rather shoot a DSLR for a lot of things because I want the control, the larger sensor, the better glass, and I like the feel of it. This does not include going out with friends, taking a trip to the beach with my girlfriend, or any other improptu moment. I want to have a little camera in my pocket to capture the moment... you can't lug a DSLR around with you all the time... and there are places I wouldn't even want to try. hehe. With a small camera I can capture many moments that you wouldn't be able to capture with an SLR camera... catch people when they don't know you're shooting them (I'm talking about parties and things where you want people's natural reactions rather than posed ones... NOT stalking people heheh). While not every shot you take with an SLR will be good... every shot you don't or can't take is bad.

$0.02

[BonjiB]

Well, like everyone seems to be saying, it's what you want out of a camera. I carry a canon a410 with me almost everywhere I go. It's a 3 mega pixel 3.2x optical zoomer with a pretty decent sensor, built in flash and a small body. I don't normally print larger than 4x6 from it and for that purpose it serves me very well. I also have a dslr wanna be fz30. GREAT point and shoot. If you aren't willing to drop the money into a decent dslr body with a set of lenses that cover a good range and possibly have a stabilizer on the far end, get an ultra zoom. I've been using the fz30 and the fz20 before that while I save up on the side for a, forgive the expression, "real camera." I've already got a good set of canon lenses for my elan 7e so it's just a matter of dropping a grand or so on a body. Admittedly with a p&s such as the fz30 the pictures are not as silky smooth as a dslr and you won't really have much control over your depth of field (limitation of a small sensor) but you will have a range of 35-420mm with good leica glass and a stabilizer (if you choose an fz30.)

Now, that being said, I’m buying a 20d this month because the fz30 will not cut it in the professional world that I’ve already started moving into. I've done some studio work with it and that's all fine and dandy but if you bump iso up beyond 100 on the fz30 or really any point and shoot you loose the ability to print noiseless enlargements (16x20 or larger) without applying noise reduction which unfortunately makes your subjects skin look plasticy. Only a dslr (and a relatively good one) can give you silky smoothness in low light, no flash, high iso.

So, with that being said, if I were just content with taking family pictures and maybe the occasional formal, my fz30 and a410 would do me well for years to come. Granted you more or less HAVE to have an external flash and flash bracket to get exceptional indoor pictures with the fz30. I've printed 8.5x11 at iso 200 but there is visible noise. I try to shoot with iso 80 as much as possible. You can't rely on bumping the iso on a point and shoot of any kind. Even the better ones really aren't that good (and yes, this is compared to a dslr.)

For my studio work I have some light stands with umbrellas and that whole set up and shoot iso 80 on the fz30. With iso 80 I can print up to 16x20 without any problems. I've done a print up to 20x30 with it without noise reduction but I will admit if you look carefully you do see some noise although it's "pretty noise" (looks more like film grain.) That's still something I’m sure wouldn't be there if I had shot with a 20d.

fz30= complete package for around 500-600 bucks
20d = 1100+ for camera body and crappy kit lens that WILL need to be supplemented at some point in time although maybe not initially.

How big do you think you'll get into photography? I thought "oh the fz30 will serve me for years." Then I started doing some professional level work with it and realized that it wasn't going to cut it. So it depends on what you're going to do with it. Choose accordingly and good luck.

[XaiLo]

I have been surfing different photo forums and have noticed one or two where the tone is if you don't have a DSLR you, well, don't have a good camera. What is behind this thinking? I'm beginning to think all my P&S pictures are nothing more than a series of accidents!!

Well sometimes there are good accidents and sometimes there are bad accidents. It really boils down to the individual behind the camera and your shooting conditions. Of course your ability to use the equipment to obtain the best shot possible is another story. Let's take it at face value that there is a wee bit of a difference between capturing an image with a disposable and an MRI image. In reality all cameras are P&S granted you'll get varying results. Some pleasing others not so much eh. First off what's most important is what's going to please you. If making x amount of adjustments to get a better picture is not appealing to you then I suggest getting a camera with limited or no options. If you are a control freak, jk, not really get a camera that will allow you as much control as you desire. If your an if-e individual and just don't know which way you want to go find something in the middle or if you would like the option of only having to deal with manual setting if you wanted to then choose something that affords you those options.

Wasting your time on what others think is right for you is an exercise in futility. Point blank if your not ready for a DSLR what good is it to you? Saying a $500 camera is incapable of a good picture is just plain ignorant. Like wise stating that you can compete with most DSLRs with a P&S for lack of a better word is absurd. Camera manurfacturers are very cognisant of their niche markets there is a really good business reason not to equip the S3 with RAW. It forces you to take a step up. My best advice is get something your actually going to shoot pictures with and something that has room for growth.:)

[nism]

im a believer in this equation of good pictures:

x/70+y/30=good pictures

x=your creative ability to capture moments-as you get better, you approach 70
y=the camera you are using-0 being a camera phone, 30 being professional dSLR

you=70%
camera=30%

god im sad

but yea, agree/disagree?

[JTL]

O.K. everyone who thinks they know something about something...let's have a little challenge. A lot of people are tossing around a lot of assumptions...let's test some, shall we?

What kind of camera was this shot taken with?
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79400019-M.jpg

And what about this one? Same? Different?
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79400024-M.jpg

How about this one? Any takers? Afraid to put your presumptions to the test?
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79400022-M.jpg

Here's another. Remember...not what camera...what kind of camera...
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79402078-M.jpg


Take a crack at this...come on...what type of camera? Your reputation's on the line...don't mess up...
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/50305801-M.jpg

Last chance...what about this one? Are they all the same type of camera? Or is each shot from a different type? Are some only the same? Well...?
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79403928-M.jpg

[nism]

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79400019-M.jpg
SLR
And what about this one? Same? Different?
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79400024-M.jpg
P+S
How about this one? Any takers? Afraid to put your presumptions to the test?
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79400022-M.jpg
SLR
Here's another. Remember...not what camera...what kind of camera...
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79402078-M.jpg
P+S

Take a crack at this...come on...what type of camera? Your reputation's on the line...don't mess up...
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/50305801-M.jpg
P+S
Last chance...what about this one? Are they all the same type of camera? Or is each shot from a different type? Are some only the same? Well...?
http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79403928-M.jpg
P+S

i have no reputation so yea...

[JTL]

Hey...you got two right...that's pretty darn good.:D The more interesting thing is what you didn't guess right...but, let's keep it a secret for now so others can play along if they wish...

[MindBender]

Okay. Just for fun... since we all know which side of the fence I stand on. ;)
Discounting social engineering (eg... trying to guess what kind of person you are and such.) and just looking at the photos... this would be my guess:

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79400019-M.jpg
P&S. Because the foreground and background are disparate color focus from a low set flash and the background is still in focus from a small wide angle lens.

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79400024-M.jpg
SLR. Because the foreground is very crisp and the background fades out with a nice DOF but retains detail and color intensity.

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79400022-M.jpg
P&S. Wide angle but not panoramic. Everything remains in focus as a small wide angle would do... like the infinity focus on a small P&S. Hard to avoid social assumptions on this one... most people only take their inexpensive camera's out hiking/camping... so that might color my perceptions a bit.

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79402078-M.jpg
P&S. Deep focus with loss of detail. There is a woman on the right hand side that is walking across the street and wearing a gray skirt. Her leg is blurred... seems to me a DSLR would have been able to shoot at a shutter/apeture combination that might have stopped the motion rather than having to step down to capture the light. Also, blown highlights on the street signs seems like, again, that it was stopped way down low. The P&S obviously has a decent sensor and some manual controls... maybe a canon A620.

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/50305801-M.jpg
P&S. Very deep focus and wide angle which could be from a wide angle SLR lens, but the noise in the sky during full daylight seems like the sensor was trying too hard. It was trying to deal with all the information from the contrasting warm colors in the city and blew some of the noise into the solid blues at the top. Since this was obviously taken from a high location looking down on the city sprawl, it seems like an SLR would have had more opportunity to capture a better shot (ie less noise, not framing which is fine) and the photographer would probably, knowing that they weren't going to get here every day, have shot it in high quality JPEG or even RAW to capture as much detail as possible. The loss of detail at long focus and the sky noise seems like it was a P&S.

http://JTL.smugmug.com/photos/79403928-M.jpg[/QUOTE]
Long ways away, but detail is maintained in the buildings. There is probably some zoom involved and I'm doubting that most P&S cameras with the exceptions of ones like the SonyR1 could zoom that far and capture that much detail (things like the windows and antenae of the buildings) without distoring them. Even though the image has been reduced to post online, the loss of detail seems mostly confied to JPEG artifacts due to scaling and not problems inherent from the picture such as noise in the sky, which doesn't seem apparent (although this would lesses as the image was scaled and the per pixel contrast was softened). This was probably the hardest to form an opinion on because of the amount of detail and the small size of the photo.

$0.02, for what it's worth. hehe

[XaiLo]

I'm sure I've blown this (cop out) LOL but here goes
a) 1 and 4 same camera these are bad shots so I say SLR LOL
b) 2 and 3 same camera P&S
c) 5 SLR with crudy lens
d) 6 S2 with a CP

Come on...Come on...How I do?????:confused:

[JTL]

Well...I have to eat a little crow...because you guys are pretty darn good...and have critical eyes...:D

#1 was taken with a Canon SD500.
MindBender...impressive analysis!
#2 was taken with a Canon S2.
Nism and XaiLo weren't fooled...
#3 was taken with a Canon S2.
XaiLo nailed the fact that both #2 and #3 were taken with same type of camera. I sure wouldn't have been able to guess that if I didn't already know!
#4 was taken with a Canon SD500.
Once again, MindBender can spot the DOF give-away a mile away. And Nism wasn't fooled either.
#5 was taken with Nikon FG (film SLR) with some no-name lens.
XaiLo...how on Earth did you nail this one? I really, really want to know....because I threw this in to throw people off, but you weren't fooled. Why?
MindBender...you seemed to know something was up as well...the shot didn't make sense to you, and that's because I cheated and put a scanned film shot into the mix. But you could see that something wasn't quite right. I'm impressed. It was shot at 28mm, so you're initial instincts were dead-on.
#6 was taken with a Canon XT/350D and a Sigma 18-200 lens.
MindBender, you said everything just short of saying it was a DSLR, but you basically nailed it...200mm zoom and all. If it had been larger, I have no doubt you would have got it in a second.

Well no one got everything right, but all were guessed correctly in aggregate....so that does prove something...only not what I expected. People can discern differences by camera types...and sometimes for very good reasons.

Well I've learned I need to have a more critical eye for detail. Thank you Nism, XaiLo and MindBender for playing along and for teaching me something in the process! :)

[XaiLo]

JTL the first thing I noticed was that there no apparent pin cushioning and purple fringeing for what was a wide angle shot. Secondly the color saturation and detail they seemed like they wanted to pop out at you but for some reason they didn't. it also looked like a sky filter was used. So I just blamed the lens. #5 was the one I spent the most time looking at though. I hope you realized I was only being facetious with answer "a" LOL. #6 I lived in NY back in the day, bklyn to be exact where that pic was shot from, pretty close to RedHook if I remeber right. Actually that might be Queens instead.

np I also learned something so thanks.

[MindBender]

MindBender, you said everything just short of saying it was a DSLR, but you basically nailed it...200mm zoom and all.

I think I actually typed it in and it got messed up somehow because it seems like there is some missing text and the "quote" thing is visable too... oh well. hehe That one really threw me. I had to look at the scanned film one for a while too... sneaky :P. Didn't think to question whether it was really playing by the rules. I can see how shifts from scanning would throw off the balance in a photo, especially if it was flatbed scanned and not something like a slide scanner or drum scanner. :)

I'm still a firm member of the "it doesn't matter what you use to shoot as long as you shoot" school of photog. While some shots you take are bad shots...every shot you don't take is a bad one. So if you aren't carrying your heavy DSLR and bag and tripod and lenses and reflectors and flash... you probably won't get that cool shot when you're out to dinner with friends. If you have the P&S in your pocket and know how to use it well... you will get a great shot. Could it have been technically better? Maybe... but you can't pose spontaneity... so some of the "soul" of the image would be lots. Ever had that grandpa that has a fancy SLR camera... but takes 10 minutes to set the shot up so by the time he takes the shot everyone is still "smiling" with their mouths but their eyes and posture say "GET ON WITH IT!!!"... good technology but a bad picture. If he'd had an automatic P&S... the shot would have been taken and looked good.

Yeah a trained eye can spot some tell tale signs of each... and often be fooled, nice flower shot btw, but it usually doesn't matter.

It's like doing graphics, something I'm a little more familiar with technically ;). I see a lot of early graphic designers complaining because their clients didn't like the design... and invariably they say somethng that amounts to "well... they just don't know anything about design". No... they don't... which is why their impression is more important. They aren't muddled with all the know-how-n-learnin'... they just have what they like and don't like. They might not know WHY they don't like it... but they don't. Same goes for photos. You can have all the technicaly goodies in the world but sometimes you just get bogged down by them. Some of the best photos around were shot before digital...before SLR... before 35mm... before color... before film came in strips or exposed in a timely manner. They might not have been the best photos from a technology standpoint... but they had emotion and captured some of the magic of the moment. They tell a story... and isn't that what photos are about? Emotion and evocation? If you capture that... it doesn't matter if you use a Hasselblad or a wet banana... you are a real photographer.

$0.02

[JTL]

If you capture that... it doesn't matter if you use a Hasselblad or a wet banana... you are a real photographer.
Thanks for the compliment on the flower shot! :)

I couldn't agree with what you said more. But in my arrogance and ignorance I thought that no one could easily tell the difference between different camera types. The real thing , as you bring up, is that a good shot is a good shot regardless of the camera and a mediocre shot can be just as easily accomplished with "good" gear as with bad gear...

It just makes me seethe when people carry on about how "real" photographers only shoot SLRs and that non-DSLRS are toys.

I was surprised how easily you guys picked out the cameras...so I guess I proved the opposite point that I set out to make, but in the end realize it really doesn't matter anyway. Thanks for investing the time in this. I really appreciate it, and like I said, I learned something along the way!

[cwphoto]

It just makes me seethe when people carry on about how "real" photographers only shoot SLRs and that non-DSLRS are toys.

I dunno whether this is a swipe at one of my earlier comments or not, but the reality is that that compact cameras are designed for convenience and not performance - so in that respect they are toys versus tools in my book.

And before you all get your flame throwers out:
1) I use and love my compact digital. Great for keeping in the pocket for the odd grab shot and it goes places an SLR can't (nights out with friends, family outings etc).
2) Being classified as a toy doesn't mean you can't get good pictures out of a compact. Just that all things being equal, an SLR is much better at the task for serious work - it's a tool.

Flame away.:p

[JTL]

Flame away.:pFlame? I'll just yawn instead...:p :p

[XaiLo]

Thanks for the compliment on the flower shot! :)

I couldn't agree with what you said more. But in my arrogance and ignorance I thought that no one could easily tell the difference between different camera types. The real thing , as you bring up, is that a good shot is a good shot regardless of the camera and a mediocre shot can be just as easily accomplished with "good" gear as with bad gear...

It just makes me seethe when people carry on about how "real" photographers only shoot SLRs and that non-DSLRS are toys.

I was surprised how easily you guys picked out the cameras...so I guess I proved the opposite point that I set out to make, but in the end realize it really doesn't matter anyway. Thanks for investing the time in this. I really appreciate it, and like I said, I learned something along the way!

1) It was a very nice flower pretty stunning actually :)

2) Well I happen to like my toy even the broken one, that's why it still sits on my desk. My toy has also translated into cash in my pocket so for a toy it's impressed a few people that count. Granted it does not do everything I would like it to do, then again I purchased it for the things it could do. Flaming someone because of their choice of camera make about as much sense as flaming them for the car they drive.:confused:

3) Your premise was not that far off a few months ago I would not have been able to tell you about fringing. This is what happens when you apply yourself to anything. You just have more knowledge to draw from in which to base your assumption. Plus you only had three people to take you up on it.:o

4) Took my kids to a hockey game for the first time not too long ago, a spur of the moment kind of thing. All we had were two camera phones that captured the moment and i'm not complaining a bit.;)

[JTL]

Well I happen to like my toy even the broken one, that's why it still sits on my desk. My toy has also translated into cash in my pocket so for a toy it's impressed a few people that count. Granted it does not do everything I would like it to do, then again I purchased it for the things it could do. Flaming someone because of their choice of camera make about as much sense as flaming them for the car they drive.Thanks for the compliment on the shot! :)

Every photo I've sold in the past two years was either taken with a G6 or an S2...even though I own and use both film and digital SLRs. So, I don't make up fake rules about what's a toy and what's a tool, because that's just arrogant and silly...it's the image that counts. A wedding photographer may think an S2 is a toy, but by that same logic a high-fashion photographer would think that a is 30D a toy. That would make a great scene...all these guys running around measuring their cameras as proxies for their....:eek:

Your car analogy is a good one. According to the "toy" logic, any car that's not a professional "race" car is a toy! It's too silly to take seriously...

Well, thanks again!

[XaiLo]

That's interesting I was on my way to buying one until my friend suggested I take another look at what's available. It had been a while between evaluation and purchase. So i'm glad I took his advise I really enjoyed the S2 i'm still impressed with it.:) Good choices - I really would like a D200 for the few shots I can't get with my S3 oh to dream LOL. Even if I did get one I still believe that my S3 or S4;) will still see most of the action.:cool:

[cwphoto]

So, I don't make up fake rules about what's a toy and what's a tool, because that's just arrogant and silly...it's the image that counts.

There's nothing fake about it JTL - there is no comparison. Totally different cameras for totally different requirements. Compacts just aren't up to the task for serious work.

Arguing otherwise is just ignorant. You can spruik the politically correct crap of 'it's the image that counts' blah blah blah - but those of us who do this day in day out for a full-time living know what's real and what's bullshit.

[cdifoto]

I tend to agree with Christian here. Those who argue the PC side of it all tend to ignore the technical side. Paying clients do not. You can sell a print or two but to really make a living as a professional, you need to provide the client with a really nice technically clean as well as aesthetically pleasing photograph.

The sports editor doesn't want to hear "Oh I was going for a total blur from 200 yards off effect because it accentuates the frustration and extreme pain of the players during the heated moments nearing the end zone."

Oh and your disposable would melt away in the rain. It's made of cardboard.

[JTL]

There's nothing fake about it JTL - there is no comparison. Totally different cameras for totally different requirements. Compacts just aren't up to the task for serious work.

Arguing otherwise is just ignorant. You can spruik the politically correct crap of 'it's the image that counts' blah blah blah - but those of us who do this day in day out for a full-time living know what's real and what's bullshit.There are people who would say that an SLR is bull$hit compared to a medium format camera...blah, blah, blah, cluck, cluck, cluck...

[MindBender]

It's a poor musician that blames his instrument...

[cdifoto]

It's a poor musician that blames his instrument...

It's an even poorer musician who thinks he can get drum sounds out of his flute and calls it art when he doesn't.

[MindBender]

It's an even poorer musician who thinks he can get drum sounds out of his flute and calls it art when he doesn't.

I don't see anyone here shooting with P&S and then claiming that they're painting with oil and canvas. We're talking about levels of technology.

So if you're in the SLR is better camp... how do you explain all the good photos that exist before 35mm film became the standard? Yes, there are advantages to SLR just like there are to P&S... but to say that you can't get a good, usable photo most of the time out of the current generation of P&S cameras is ignorant and elitist.

Of course there are situations where you would want the strength that the SLR offers you... but it doesn't mean that the P&S is any less a viable option in most cases.

To me this always sounds like people trying to justify spending a lot of money on equipment when they don't understand their art well enough. I am not a professional photographer by trade... although I have worked in photo studios that did fashion, sports, political, archival museum, and portrait photography. Every photographer I know carries a nice SLR camera AND a P&S. Every single one. Being able to buy the biggest, flashiest, most expensive piece of equipment doesn't mean that you are better at what you do. I see this a lot in graphic arts... something I have been doing professionally for a long time now. People buy an expensive fast computer, a lot of high end software, an expensive graphics tablet... but can't design themselves out of a wet paper sack. I've also seen beautiful portraits and landscapes drawn in MSPaint that would be perfectly acceptable for use in design.

It is the shot that counts... even most of the SLR-only people have said that in one way or another... they just don't seem to believe that you can get it without the expensive gear. Yes, of course there is a reason that there are high end cameras... good tools make good art easier. Read that... "easier"... not "better". There are things that it's hard to do with a P&S that would make you want to have an SLR... but 99% of them you could do some other way with a P&S if you were creative enough.

$0.02

[cdifoto]

I don't see anyone here shooting with P&S and then claiming that they're painting with oil and canvas. We're talking about levels of technology.

So if you're in the SLR is better camp... how do you explain all the good photos that exist before 35mm film became the standard? Yes, there are advantages to SLR just like there are to P&S... but to say that you can't get a good, usable photo most of the time out of the current generation of P&S cameras is ignorant and elitist.

Of course there are situations where you would want the strength that the SLR offers you... but it doesn't mean that the P&S is any less a viable option in most cases.

To me this always sounds like people trying to justify spending a lot of money on equipment when they don't understand their art well enough. I am not a professional photographer by trade... although I have worked in photo studios that did fashion, sports, political, archival museum, and portrait photography. Every photographer I know carries a nice SLR camera AND a P&S. Every single one. Being able to buy the biggest, flashiest, most expensive piece of equipment doesn't mean that you are better at what you do. I see this a lot in graphic arts... something I have been doing professionally for a long time now. People buy an expensive fast computer, a lot of high end software, an expensive graphics tablet... but can't design themselves out of a wet paper sack. I've also seen beautiful portraits and landscapes drawn in MSPaint that would be perfectly acceptable for use in design.

It is the shot that counts... even most of the SLR-only people have said that in one way or another... they just don't seem to believe that you can get it without the expensive gear. Yes, of course there is a reason that there are high end cameras... good tools make good art easier. Read that... "easier"... not "better". There are things that it's hard to do with a P&S that would make you want to have an SLR... but 99% of them you could do some other way with a P&S if you were creative enough.

$0.02

The point is, a dSLR will get you a lot further on a professional level than a Point and Shoot will. When you're working as a pro, the idea isn't to be hidden, not seen, or to sneak shots on a whim. As a pro, you're there to shoot. People KNOW you're there to shoot. Being discreet is not the goal. You can do a LOT more with a dSLR and the right glass than you can with a P&S. As a working professional, you don't want to spend all your time working around the limitations of your gear. The more time you spend figuring out how to get a P&S to do what you SHOULD have a dSLR to do, the less time you're shooting and the fewer pictures you're providing for your client. Period. End of argument. End of story.

[cwphoto]

but 99% of them you could do some other way with a P&S if you were creative enough.

$0.02

With all due respect MindBender that's just totally ill-informed nonsense.

Try taking sports photographs with a P&S. Sure you'll get an image, saleable? Not to anyone except a sucker.

Try competing in the cut-throat wedding & portrait business without an SLR (exception: pro-grade rangefinders such as Leica M6) - you won't stand a chance.

Photojournalism? Not a chance. Editorial? You've got to be kidding? Travel? Maybe. Studio? No way.

It's not a question of creativity. It's a question of things like shutter-delay, lens speed, focusing speed, performance at high ISO, optical properties, speed of processing, frame-rate, dynamic range, long lenses, wide lenses, close-up lenses, compatibility with electronic flash, flash-sync speeds, optical view-finders...

The list is endless and the choice for discerning work is equally clear.:rolleyes:

[cdifoto]

Wit all due respect MindBender that's just totally ill-informed nonsense.

Try taking sports photographs with a P&S. Sure you'll get an image, saleable? Not to anyone except a sucker.

Try competing in the cut-throat wedding & portrait business without an SLR (exception: pro-grade rangefinders such as Leica M6) - you won't stand a chance.

Photojournalism? Not a chance. Editorial? You've got to be kidding? Travel? Maybe. Studio? No way.

It's not a question of creativity. It's a question of things like shutter-delay, lens speed, focusing speed, performance at high ISO, optical properties, speed of processing, frame-rate, dynamic range, long lenses, wide lenses, close-up lenses, compatibility with electronic flash, flash-sync speeds, optical view-finders...

The list is endless and the choice for discerning work is equally clear.:rolleyes:

Dammit Christian I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt! :eek: ;) :p

[JTL]

Hey Christian, I can't help but notice that you have twice ignored the fact that in some circles your DSLR is considered a toy...

Fasicinating...

[JTL]

The point is, a dSLR will get you a lot further on a professional level than a Point and Shoot will. When you're working as a pro, the idea isn't to be hidden, not seen, or to sneak shots on a whim. As a pro, you're there to shoot. People KNOW you're there to shoot. Being discreet is not the goal. You can do a LOT more with a dSLR and the right glass than you can with a P&S. As a working professional, you don't want to spend all your time working around the limitations of your gear. The more time you spend figuring out how to get a P&S to do what you SHOULD have a dSLR to do, the less time you're shooting and the fewer pictures you're providing for your client. Period. End of argument. End of story.Don...

This was never a discussion about "professional" photography. If the rabid dog pound would take the time to read the OPs original post, then you would see that clearly they weren't asking about professional gear. Here it is:
I have been surfing different photo forums and have noticed one or two where the tone is if you don't have a DSLR you, well, don't have a good camera. What is behind this thinking? I'm beginning to think all my P&S pictures are nothing more than a series of accidents!!Christian turned this into a professional gear diatribe. When people relentlessly and arrogantly imply that you can't take a good picture without a DSLR, that's just plain old bull. Plain and simply. And you know it. The only one who ever brought up the "try shooting a wedding or a portrait session with a P&S" argument were you and Christian.

Hey, if it makes you guys feel better about yourselves to berate others and make them feel bad about their purchases and make them feel bad because they can't afford $6,500.00 worth of "professional" gear (that they don't need to begin with) and make them doubt themselves even further (like the OP) then you're doing a fine job of it...feel free to say whatever you want. But you sound like a couple of a$$e$...read the OP...listen to what he's saying and then think about what you and Christian are saying...but I doubt either one of you can see past you're blinders so there's really no point...

[cdifoto]

No one ever said P&S cameras aren't capable of good images. No one ever said they don't have their place. It was stated that they can replace a dSLR for 99% of shooting. That's simply not true. Forgive me for using the term "professional" but that's the kind of shooting I had in mind when I think of what a P&S cannot substitute for. P&S cameras are severely limited in their uses, and that's a simple fact.

I apologize for getting off track but your tirade is just as uncalled for as my own.

[JTL]

No one ever said P&S cameras aren't capable of good images. No one ever said they don't have their place. It was stated that they can replace a dSLR for 99% of shooting. That's simply not true. Forgive me for using the term "professional" but that's the kind of shooting I had in mind when I think of what a P&S cannot substitute for. P&S cameras are severely limited in their uses, and that's a simple fact.

I apologize for getting off track but your tirade is just as uncalled for as my own.O.K..some of what I said may have been uncalled for...

But, Don, I respectfully say, you are still missing the point. You're argument is like saying a car is severely limited in its uses because it's not a truck and can't haul cargo. Most people will never need to haul cargo. Just like most people will never need a DSLR. Period. End of story. And that's a simple fact.

[cdifoto]

O.K..some of what I said may have been uncalled for...

But, Don, I respectfully say, you are still missing the point. You're argument is like saying a car is severely limited in its uses because it's not a truck and can't haul cargo. Most people will never need to haul cargo. Just like most people will never need a DSLR. Period. End of story. And that's a simple fact.

And you're missing my point. You're saying people who want a truck because it can haul cargo are elitists because they don't want a car because it can't haul cargo...

[JTL]

And you're missing my point. You're saying people who want a truck because it can haul cargo are elitists because they don't want a car because it can't haul cargo...No...I say people who put down P&S cameras and P&S camera owners are elitists. You can't tell me that you really don't understand this, can you?

And people who put down artists usually do so out of feelings of their own inadaquacy...but that's a separate "discussion".

[cwphoto]

No...I say people who put down P&S cameras and P&S camera owners are elitists. You can't tell me that you really don't understand this, can you?

And people who put down artists usually do so out of feelings of their own inadaquacy...but that's a separate "discussion".

No-one was putting down P&S cameras per se. We're just highlighting that they aren't suitable for particular tasks - much the same as an SLR is unsuitable for convenient and compact picture taking (I thought I made this point already...).:rolleyes:

[XaiLo]

Can somebody please describe or define what is meant by professional here :confused: being that this seems to be a point of contention and how it's relevant to this thread:confused: I'm just looking for clarity here so please be kind.:)

Unless I'm missing something here the OP was concerned that

1) He did not have a good camera

2) Why was there a negative attitude towards P&S cameras

3) Shots that he was obviouly pleased with were mere accidents

He doesn't even state which camera he has so am I to understand all P&S cameras are created equal. And no P&S picture could ever compare to a dSLR?:confused:

Secondly is it professional to berate a piece of equipment because it simply does not meet a specific requirement?:confused:

Does not having a dSLR mean the OP should be dissatisfied with his equipment and shots until he obtains a dSLR?:confused:

[cwphoto]

Can somebody please describe or define what is meant by professional here :confused: being that this seems to be a point of contention and how it's relevant to this thread:confused: I'm just looking for clarity here so please be kind.:)

Unless I'm missing something here the OP was concerned that

1) He did not have a good camera

2) Why was there a negative attitude towards P&S cameras
The negativity was only when comparing a P&S to an SLR for discerning work. For what they are designed to do, P&S cameras are extremely capable (another point I raised earlier but the alarmists overlook).

3) Shots that he was obviouly pleased with were mere accidents

He doesn't even state which camera he has so am I to understand all P&S cameras are created equal. And no P&S picture could ever compare to a dSLR?:confused:
No, we're generalising. Some P&S cameras are obviously more capable than others. Your second comment is not under debate (at least by me)

Secondly is it professional to berate a piece of equipment because it simply does not meet a specific requirement?:confused:
Sure, why not?

Does not having a dSLR mean the OP should be dissatisfied with his equipment and shots until he obtains a dSLR?:confused:
Not necessarily, he seemed quite content that he was achieving good results for the subjects/scenarios he shoots. The rest of us however may or may not have entirely different needs/standards.

[MindBender]

Wit all due respect MindBender that's just totally ill-informed nonsense.

Sounds like a bit less than due. Just because I'm new to this forum doesn't mean I can't speak from experience. I've been doing photography most of my life, I got my first SLR in around 1991 and took classes to learn how to use it. I've worked with and for professional photographers as a shooter and as a graphics professional since 1994. I can see and am open to all side of an issue, but it doesn't mean I don't know what I'm talking about or that my opinions are ill-formed or "ill-informed".

Try taking sports photographs with a P&S. Sure you'll get an image, saleable? Not to anyone except a sucker.

And as I said... of course there are things that the SLR is much better suited for...I thought I'd even mentioned sports photog directly. This is the main one that I think the SLR can do that the P&S has a much harder time dealing with. Repeated quick focus shots at high shutter speed is really a foray for the SLR. Modern digital P&S cameras can shoot fast enough to capture some sports though.

Try competing in the cut-throat wedding & portrait business without an SLR (exception: pro-grade rangefinders such as Leica M6) - you won't stand a chance.

Having done wedding post processing... I've often had to get fill shots that the photogs missed from people that just happened to have their digital P&S cameras at the wedding for personal photos. Some of the photo ops were just plain missed... this was even more prevalent when the photog had to deal with loading film, but it still happens in the digital age simply because weddings and receptions are large formal affairs. I also used to work (as a freelancer) with a company that did portraits exclusively using digital P&S cameras. They were doing just fine and spending a lot less money on equipment than many portrait photogs.

Photojournalism? Not a chance.

You're telling me you've never seen a photo in the news paper that was shot by someone other than newspaper staff? ... and got paid for it? Even if the shot isn't perfect... there is a reason that newspapers and magazines hire full time on staff Photoshop experts. I've seen plenty of "professional" shots with expensive SLR cameras that I had to do a lot of post on because the photog just plain sucked.

Editorial? You've got to be kidding? Travel? Maybe. Studio? No way.

Like I said... I've worked in professional photo studios with multiple photographers. They all had two SLR rigs and one P&S when they went out. Just matter of course. This was even more common in the 35mm days... carrying a digital P&S to do coverage and "dailies" for landscape or event shots.

It's not a question of creativity. It's a question of things like shutter-delay, lens speed, focusing speed, performance at high ISO, optical properties, speed of processing, frame-rate, dynamic range, long lenses, wide lenses, close-up lenses, compatibility with electronic flash, flash-sync speeds, optical view-finders...

My point is that a lot of those things are only necessary in certain circumstances. If you find yourself in those circumstances frequently then you probably need to find tools that will keep up with you. Until then you're probably fine without expensive tools. P&S cameras are getting better and better. It used to be that you couldn't shoot high ISO with anything but film... then digital SLRs started doing it... now we have things like the Fuji F30 which can shoot a reasonable shot at 1600 ISO. Used to be that if you wanted to zoom something you had to have a huge, heavy, metal and glass lens... then optics improved and you could carry the same zoom in a smaller lens... then we got things like ultra-zoom P&S cameras with 12x optical zooms. That's more zoom than many SLR cameras have due to price limitations of large tele lenses. Modern cameras are changing quite a bit. It's like computers... anyone remember the movie TRON? It took $88,000 to buy just the computer that did the models for that movie. A decade later it could be done on a computer that cost $5000. Now you can do things like the Final Fantasy movies on a stock Mac off the shelf. Are there still computers that cost more than a Porsche? Yes... do graphics professionals need them to be productive? Not in the least. They'd be helpful, but they aren't necessary.

The list is endless and the choice for discerning work is equally clear.

The choice for production work that isn't budget constrained maybe... but to insinuate that anyone that doesn't use a SLR isn't discerning is just insulting and baseless.

The point is, a dSLR will get you a lot further on a professional level than a Point and Shoot will.

Of course it will. Not one person here has argued that it won't. The only thing that I, and others, have said is that it's not the only way to go and it's not necessary for most things. A SLR doesn't make your shots more beautiful, it makes them more efficient and easier to capture.

When you're working as a pro, the idea isn't to be hidden, not seen, or to sneak shots on a whim.

Depends what you're doing as a pro and what kind of pro you are.

As a pro, you're there to shoot. People KNOW you're there to shoot. Being discreet is not the goal. You can do a LOT more with a dSLR and the right glass than you can with a P&S. As a working professional, you don't want to spend all your time working around the limitations of your gear. The more time you spend figuring out how to get a P&S to do what you SHOULD have a dSLR to do, the less time you're shooting and the fewer pictures you're providing for your client. Period. End of argument. End of story.

I'll say the same thing again. In most instances you could still get the picture if you knew how to use the P&S effectively.

No one has argued that the SLR isn't a more complex and comprehensive tool... the point is that the P&S will work fine in most situations. Just because there are specialized situations that you really want the power of a SLR for doesn't mean that you can't take a good photograph with a P&S. Often people that aren't professionals will take better photos with a P&S because it's easier to use. The original question wasn't about becoming a professional sports photographer... but about using whether P&S cameras were okay or not. If you handed a DSLR to most people... the pictures they got out of it would be crap because they can't understand the techniques or the tools. But if you hand them a decent P&S camera, they'll be able to shoot very nice shots of their trip to the beach or little Billy's birthday party. That's true of most things. If it weren't, then there wouldn't be any job for professional photographers to do... everyone would have the best stuff and be taking the best shots all the time. That was my original point... learning how to take a good shot is 99% of photography. Without knowing how or what to shoot at... having all the great tools in the world won't help you a bit. In fact until you know how to make a good shot, you wouldn't even know what tools you'd want. In the majority of people's minds you point a camera at something and push a button and you get a photo when you're done. To go back to the car analogy... how many of you drive automatic transmission cars? Even if you're not a racer, manual transmissions have advantages over automatic ones... cheaper repairs, better gas milage, higher horsepower. Does that mean manual transmissions are better than automatic ones? No. Most people these days don't know how to use a stick shift and would break the car if they tried or negate the advantages by simply not doing it right. And before anyone says "but professional racers use manual transmissions"... technology has advanced beyond where human reflexes can deal with the engines in things like F1 cars, much of the shifting is done by a computer automatically now... the driver mostly controls when to down shift the car, not up shift. So that is a technology that has surpassed it's boundries. Cameras are getting to that point. New materials, technologies and methods are closing the gap between SLR and P&S. I remember having this same debate a few years ago about film vs. digital. Lots of "professional" photographers would rant up one side and down the other about how film would never be replaced and that digital was just a toy for computer geeks. Seems silly to look back on it from today... but they were vehement. You don't hear that opinion very often anymore. In fact... the only time you hear it is in special situations where the shooter is either unaware of something digital can do, or where the film has a special quality that hasn't been introduced into digital cameras yet.

The original question was basically "are P&S cameras okay". And I stick by my original answer... it depends on the person behind the lens. Technology is always changing... art and talent are inborn.

I'm not looking to start a huge argument, or fuel an existing one. I'm new to this group, so no bones there.

Anyway... I've pretty much said my piece and these points are all going in circles. I think we've beaten this dead horse about as much as it'll take.

$0.02

[cwphoto]

Just because I'm new to this forum doesn't mean I can't speak from experience. I've been doing photography most of my life, I got my first SLR in around 1991 and took classes to learn how to use it. I've worked with and for professional photographers as a shooter and as a graphics professional since 1994.

Well you should know better then.

[cwphoto]

Having done wedding post processing... I've often had to get fill shots that the photogs missed from people that just happened to have their digital P&S cameras at the wedding for personal photos. Some of the photo ops were just plain missed...

This has nothing to do with the gear, and everything to with the capability of the photographer.

[cwphoto]

You're telling me you've never seen a photo in the news paper that was shot by someone other than newspaper staff? ... and got paid for it? Even if the shot isn't perfect... there is a reason that newspapers and magazines hire full time on staff Photoshop experts. I've seen plenty of "professional" shots with expensive SLR cameras that I had to do a lot of post on because the photog just plain sucked.

For the second time; this has nothing to do with the gear.

[cwphoto]

then we got things like ultra-zoom P&S cameras with 12x optical zooms. That's more zoom than many SLR cameras have due to price limitations of large tele lenses.

C'mon Mindbender you're really clutching at straws here. Ultrazooms are ignored almost universally by discerning photographers. You can get them for SLRs (eg; Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5/6 L IS USM) - but there are significant sacrifices one makes in using such a lens over say a 3x zoom or a non-zoom lens: optical sharpness, focus speed, lens speed, contrast, distortion to name a few.

It has nothing to do with price limitations and everything to do with wanting greater performance than any P&S can deliver.

[MindBender]

This has nothing to do with the gear, and everything to with the capability of the photographer.

That has been my entire point. The artist, not the tools, dictates the quality of the art.

Well you should know better then.

Ahhhh. An ad hominem and non sequitur to boot. That helps explain your logic about as much as saying "Is so! And you're a doody head!". If you want to discuss the topic fine, but degenerating it into an argument or a flame war serves no purpose and I don't think anyone is interested in wasting the effort, I know I'm not.

--edit--
C'mon Mindbender you're really clutching at straws here. Ultrazooms are ignored almost universally by discerning photographers.

Another logical victory eh? Just because you say everyone that disagrees with you isn't a "discerning photographer" doesn't make it so. It is, in fact, the definition of elitist.

It has nothing to do with price limitations and everything to do with wanting greater performance than any P&S can deliver.

My point was that someone, a layman in particular, might not be able to afford a DSLR with a 500mm zoom lens on it... but a 10x or 12x ultra zoom would allow them to capture photos from a longer distance. Also, not all ultrazooms are crap. There are some that come damned close to the capabilities of an SLR in the given circumstances that they are asked to perform in. eg... zooming and taking a decent photograph in halfway decent light.

[cwphoto]

A SLR doesn't make your shots more beautiful, it makes them more efficient and easier to capture.

And gives greater creative freedom: support for capturing RAW (ignored on most P&S - I wonder why?), greater control of shallow depth of field, ability to use electronic flash much more comprehensively, sharper lenses, better quality pictures at high-ISO, greater dynamic range...

...seriously 'Bender; what part of all this don't you understand?

[MindBender]

...seriously 'Bender; what part of all this don't you understand?

So what you're saying is that you think you are able to take good pictures with your canon camera? But Leica and Hasselblad make much better gear. How is it possible that you could take a good photo without the medium format digital back that Hasselblad uses? Or without the precision mechanical workings of a Leica?

Or is it that maybe you don't need the top level of technology to take a good picture... it might be possible to do it with something less than the "best" camera?

[cwphoto]

That has been my entire point. The artist, not the tools, dictates the quality of the art.

No it doesn't make your point at all. You brought up that silly wedding analogy to try and say that the guests' P&S cameras somehow 'saved the day' that the SLR pro stuffed-up.

Talk about spin-doctoring. The fact that you were able to salvage some shots from a P&S says nothing about how suitable they are for the given task. All your point proves is that a pro missed some shots and some other people got something else - what has that got to do with a P&S camera somehow being magically equal to an SLR for this work? Answer: nothing.

[JTL]

No-one was putting down P&S cameras per se. We're just highlighting that they aren't suitable for particular tasks - much the same as an SLR is unsuitable for convenient and compact picture taking (I thought I made this point already...).:rolleyes:Christian, you're a smart guy...so why be disingenuous? You were in "put down" mode. If what you were really saying all along is what you said in the above quote (which I take you at your word that it's what you meant) then why didn't you just say it? Instead you say inflammatory things like "P&S cameras are toys" which only makes other people feel bad. Maybe your think you made your point already, but it got buried in all the harshness...so we wind up arguing just as much about how the point was made as much as the point itself.

[MindBender]

what has that got to do with a P&S camera somehow being magically equal to an SLR for this work?

Well... since no one has said that... I wouldn't know. I can only discuss topics at hand, not ones you make up as you go.

What I've been saying is that you can take a good photo with a P&S camera. I never said that they were the same... in fact I said several times that they have advantages. What I have said, what I did say, what other have said, and what I continue to say is that understanding how to shoot is more important than your gear. That there are good P&S cameras that will allow a good photographer to take a good picture. Without talent, training, knowledge, and experience the best camera in the world is useless... which is the point that I did make when talking about wedding photos earlier. A bad photog can screw up with good equipment and a good photog can make a good photo with less.

It's not about whether one piece of technology is better than another. It's about how it's used. But since there is always a human differential... saying that an SLR is always better is myopic. A great photographer with the top of the line equipment could probably turn out things that no one else could turn out, sure. But that has as much to do with real life as a flat tire has to do with whale migration.

[cwphoto]

So what you're saying is that you think you are able to take good pictures with your canon camera? But Leica and Hasselblad make much better gear. How is it possible that you could take a good photo without the medium format digital back that Hasselblad uses? Or without the precision mechanical workings of a Leica?

Easy. For much of the work I do my Canon gear is the most suitable tool for the task. Hasselblad's aren't designed for sports, events, candid wedding photography etc. So for these tasks my Canon gear is actually better than the 'blad. Leica may come close but the lack of AF kills that system for me.

So Canon's gear is actually better for the type of work I do.

Question for you: for what type of photography is a P&S better than an SLR?

[cwphoto]

Christian, you're a smart guy...so why be disingenuous? You were in "put down" mode. If what you were really saying all along is what you said in the above quote (which I take you at your word that it's what you meant) then why didn't you just say it? Instead you say inflammatory things like "P&S cameras are toys" which only makes other people feel bad. Maybe your think you made your point already, but it got buried in all the harshness...so we wind up arguing just as much about how the point was made as much as the point itself.

Fair enough JT, I'm signing off from this argument as it's just going downhill.

For the record I wasn't in "put-down" mode. I love my little P&S and the "toy" reference was meant to come across as something easy and fun to use which gives the user pleasure. The "tool" reference was meant to mean something that is a precision instument, designed to produce best-of-breed, highest quality results.

Now surely that more or less describes the SLR vs P&S debate, no?

[MindBender]

Easy. For much of the work I do my Canon gear is the most suitable tool for the task.

"Most suitable". That's wholey different from "always best".

Hasselblad's aren't designed for sports, events, candid wedding photography etc. So for these tasks my Canon gear is actually better than the 'blad.

So the use of the camera might actually outweigh the technological advantage in image quality in this case? Huh... sounds kinda like what I've been saying.

Leica may come close but the lack of AF kills that system for me.

So all that extra control isn't what you want? You just want it to do it for you?

So Canon's gear is actually better for the type of work I do.

So what you're saying, essentially, is that because of the work you do and your training and knowledge of your particular equipment... it suits your needs the best? Okay. :)

Question for you: for what type of photography is a P&S better than an SLR?

The types and situations that I previously mentioned.

1. Candid photography, smaller size and no shutter noise means more unobtrusive.
2. Impromptu photography, easier to carry and less expensive means more likely to take anywhere.
3. Layman's photography, granpa isn't gonna get a good photo of the kids if he can't use all the features. If all he has to do is point and shoot...ahem... then he'll probably get a good photo.
4. New/young/impoverished photographer, P&S cameras are cheaper. Plain and simple. There are some that are more expensive than SLRs and some SLRs that are getting less expensive. But you can't get a DSLR for $150-$250. Someone that doesn't have money or is just starting out could learn the experience and technique in shooting on a P&S camera that they wouldn't if they could only shoot on a SLR. The photos that they got would be better than the ones they would miss out on by not having a camera... so in that situation, it's a better shot and better rig.

No one is arguing that P&S cameras are superior in quality to SLRs, although there are some limited exceptions. The point is that P&S cameras are fine if you know how to use them. Of course, once again, there are advantages to the SLR format... just like my example of the Hasselblad. If you wanted to take a picture of some impressive landscape... you can't do much better (with commercially available gear) than a Hasselblad. But it doesn't mean that the Leica SLR, or canon SLR, or Nikon SLR, or Fuji P&S, or Sony P&S....etc. can't take a good picture of it.

[cwphoto]

"1. Candid photography, smaller size and no shutter noise means more unobtrusive.
2. Impromptu photography, easier to carry and less expensive means more likely to take anywhere.
3. Layman's photography, granpa isn't gonna get a good photo of the kids if he can't use all the features. If all he has to do is point and shoot...ahem... then he'll probably get a good photo.
4. New/young/impoverished photographer, P&S cameras are cheaper. Plain and simple. There are some that are more expensive than SLRs and some SLRs that are getting less expensive. But you can't get a DSLR for $150-$250. Someone that doesn't have money or is just starting out could learn the experience and technique in shooting on a P&S camera that they wouldn't if they could only shoot on a SLR. The photos that they got would be better than the ones they would miss out on by not having a camera... so in that situation, it's a better shot and better rig.


So let me get this straight: P&S is better for convenience, stealth, ease-of-use, and for people who can't afford an SLR.

Certainly valid photography but hardly the craftsman's choice for discerning work...

[cwphoto]

So all that extra control isn't what you want? You just want it to do it for you?

What extra control?

[MindBender]

So let me get this straight: P&S is better for convenience, stealth, ease-of-use, and for people who can't afford an SLR.

Essentially.

Certainly valid photography

That's what I've been getting at.

but hardly the craftsman's choice for discerning work...

Since the question wasn't, "What style of camera is best for professional sports photographers" and was actually more along the lines of "are P&S cameras okay to use"... then I'd say we've pretty well explored every facet that exists here.

Thorough job everyone. That's a wrap. Anybody for a cold one? :)

[Vich]

So this is what I missed going to bed and sleeping early, haha. Duke it out guys!

I'm an amature, not like CW who's 20+ years and 1,000+ weddings (had to slip that in, sorry Christian, I know you're modest) has solidified his professional appreciation of today's DSLRs.

I went the film route, then film P&S route. Mainly because my Pentax P&S was compact and waterproof. I'll note that film P&Ses still used the same film (ie: same "sensor size - and quality"), but the lens quality did miss that crystal clear, "let's make a 20x30 proster" quality. Sure worked for my personal prints. Besides, I lacked the skill to harness the SLR's potential - but owning and using both, even my eye could immediately see the difference at a glance.

Digital P&S on the other hand, has tiny lenses as well as tiny image circles.

Tiny image circle makes for tiny pixels, and amplified lens errors. This is largely compensated for by in-camera PP, mainly in the form of saturation and sharpening.

To cut to the chase, if you're satisfied with what a P&S produces, then that's really wonderful. Under some conditions, it takes an expert eye to tell the difference (but it's there). It's those other conditions, particularly the party, theater, and sports situations, where P&S dismally fails.

Sorry, I did the Digital P&S for 3 years before going DSLR and got loads of wonderful (albiet soft) outdoor shots. Without exception, I was unhappy with the indoor shots. They captured the moment fine, but the background was dark, the focus was often missed, and the subject's eyes were usually red. Additionally, I was utterly frustrated with the shutter lag.

DSLR handled all my issues with a vengance.

Today's Digital P&S has made great strides, but the "frustration potential" is still there.

I'd love to have 430mm (EFL) image stabalized, and on demnd macro, with decent image quality all in a tight self-containd package for those nature hikes and family outings not conducive to hauling my bag of bricks to. Rock climbing, no way will I haul up my DSLR. Surfing, well Pentax's new $300 waterproof looks wonderful.

I marvel at some ISO 80, bright daylight, IS improved superzoom results posted here. I also cringe at the over processed, over sharpened, over saturated junk some cameras spit out. Stuff nicely hidden if printed on 3x5, but my eye is spoiled by seeing quality stuff now.

I do photography as an artistic pursuit. I'll keep any shot of my 4 year old daughter and every parent should have a P&S to record those precious years.

But if you crave what you see in professional magazines, then P&S is the way to dissappointment.

Edit: I might add, poor photos are common on DSLR's too, they're not magic.

That's my .02.

[cdifoto]

Well said Vich. I wish I was that eloquent.

[coldrain]

Well said Vich. I wish I was that eloquent.
Well hey, don't be so hard on yourself, atleast you spelled it right! :D ;) :cool:

[ReF's temporary account]

i made some changes to my usual account and got tired of waiting for a reconfirmation email so that i can make posts again, so i made a temp account.

anyways, i agree, nicely said vich.

...CW who's 20+ years and 1,000+ weddings (had to slip that in, sorry Christian, I know you're modest) has solidified his professional appreciation of today's DSLRs.

yeah, pretty modest guy. has a ton more experience and used a ton more gear than most (if not all) of us here combined - that's including large and medium format if i remember correctly. and i'm glad he doesn't try to throw that in people's faces. also glad he addressed this:

Easy. For much of the work I do my Canon gear is the most suitable tool for the task. Hasselblad's aren't designed for sports, events, candid wedding photography etc. So for these tasks my Canon gear is actually better than the 'blad. Leica may come close but the lack of AF kills that system for me.

So Canon's gear is actually better for the type of work I do.


if anybody doesn't get it, medium and large formats are limited to certain types of photography (not to mention the costs, digital or film). 35mm format SLRs excell at speed and many difficult shooting situations.

[XaiLo]

Secondly is it professional to berate a piece of equipment because it simply does not meet a specific requirement?


Sure, why not?

Using your own logic here what is the basis for your own arguments in this thread.

Once again refering to the OP context he was looking for understanding and qualification not continued beratement or he would have posted in a dSLR section.

No one here is arguing the technical superiority of a dSLR over a P&S... obviously by the OP own words his needs were being met. So excuse me I have to repeat myself...using your own logic here what is the basis for your own arguments in this thread. His context was in relation to his needs not yours. And I have to ask how do your responses edify when they are presented in the form of bias. I'm not saying nor is anyone else that your technical assertions are incorrect.

What we are validating is that a P&S is quite capable of producing and capturing a good quality photo of a particular moment in time. Most photo albums are not filled with studio and professional photos. More importantly the people who usually look through them don't even care.

The other main point thrown out is that it has more to do whith the artist / technician behind the camera than the camera itself. All any camera can do is reproduce what it's technically capable of at best, but it is the artist that brings the ah je ne sais qua life to it.

but hardly the craftsman's choice for discerning work...

Once again this statement reflects ego stroking rather than clarification Mind you I am not saying it is incorrect. But it is relative to the work at hand and in this case it's context is not meeting this specific need. I am sure it was discernable in the original post this individual is not a professional.

[cwphoto]

Once again refering to the OP context he was looking for understanding and qualification not continued beratement or he would have posted in a dSLR section.

I don't see how the OP has been berated. Let's face it, his thread was pretty antaganostic itself - what sort of responses did you expect to see?

[cwphoto]

And I have to ask how do your responses edify when they are presented in the form of bias.

How can I be biased whan I use and like both types of cameras? I just know their place.

[cwphoto]

Once again this statement reflects ego stroking rather than clarification Mind you I am not saying it is incorrect. But it is relative to the work at hand and in this case it's context is not meeting this specific need. I am sure it was discernable in the original post this individual is not a professional.

There are many discerning photographers whom aren't professionals. No-one's stroking an ego here, if you can't read the difference between facts and egotism then what can I do?

[Vich]

Once again this statement reflects ego stroking rather than clarification Mind you I am not saying it is incorrect. But it is relative to the work at hand and in this case it's context is not meeting this specific need. I am sure it was discernable in the original post this individual is not a professional.
Wammo, Bam, Crack.

Here's my suggestion XaiLo and Mindbenger. Go to this (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21591)thread and make some suggestions for a good concert camera.

Surely, some P&S cameras will create night club images where you know who the people are, perhaps in focus even. I've not tried with P&S and can say from experience that even with DSLR it's not easy. I'm inclined to say that probably one of the high ISO Fuji's and bring a monopod or sandbag to steady it against a pillar or something. Then take it in RAW for easier color correction (or just use Black and White).

Just think what wonders an attached flash, accurate focus, f1.8 at 50mm would do for them. It's not a contest, its a matter of predicting (hopefully a well informed prediction) how some camera may perform for the person.

It's not an ego trip saying DSLR will do a consistantly better job, and in this case, perhaps a P&S will surely be very frustrating. I do hope you have a P&S camera to recommend this person, I'd really like to hear it as well since I may want to purchase such a model, or at least recommend it to a friend.

[XaiLo]

Wammo, Bam, Crack.

Here's my suggestion XaiLo and Mindbenger. Go to this thread and make some suggestions for a good concert camera.

Surely, some P&S cameras will create night club images where you know who the people are, perhaps in focus even.



I am going to try hard here not to insult your intelligence as you have mine. On second thought your response is indicative of the fact that you did not comprehend what was stated. So please read it again and actually try to present a relevant point.


I don't see how the OP has been berated. Let's face it, his thread was pretty antaganostic itself - what sort of responses did you expect to see?


How so? He expressed how he felt over a given situation. Where did he ever mention my P&S is better than a dSLR. For that matter where do you find that stated anywhere in this thread.


There are many discerning photographers whom aren't professionals. No-one's stroking an ego here, if you can't read the difference between facts and egotism then what can I do?


I have to ask you the same question I asked Vich did you not read what I stated? I never said you were wrong, all I said was the comment was out of context. No one in this thread has stated that a P&S is superior to a dSLR so when you made that statement, what did it benefit in stating the obvious? Your arguing a point that is not even in question here and you have been told so repeatedly so forgive me if you came accross as just stroking your ego.


How can I be biased whan I use and like both types of cameras? I just know their place.


Glad you brought that up I had decided to leave it alone but since you mention it. Why do you have a P&S? From the tone here I would never have guessed it. So here is your opportunity to berate your own piece of equipment have at it.

[Vich]

I am going to try hard here not to insult your intelligence as you have mine. On second thought your response is indicative of the fact that you did not comprehend what was stated. So please read it again and actually try to present a relevant point.

This got highly arguementive and counter productive.

I have removed this post since it has indeed gotten personal, inappropriate, and aggressive. I should clarify my stance - P&S camera's do not suck and are very appropriate for many, but will be dissappointing under difficult circumstances. I will add that many find those difficult circumstance results adequate. Often, even many of those low-light photos will be just fine.

In particular, concerts, nighttime or indoor sports, and parties such as indoor wedding receptions, such as the one that this (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21591)thread is asking for a recommendation on.

Like physics, it's not a competition; It's a relevant question and no amount of forcefulness will change the correctness of an answer.

[ReF's temporary account]

ah, cwphoto, i think this is going nowhere. if fact it's going in circles and repeating things already addressed. seriously some people you just can't get through to, and i see that some are taking this a little too personal. so why don't we get out of this room of nonsense (more like attacks) and lock the door on the way out and throw away the keys?

[XaiLo]

You fail to accept that there are people out there craving a camera to take shots of their kid performing night football, attending concerts, etc.


Wasting your time on what others think is right for you is an exercise in futility. Point blank if your not ready for a DSLR what good is it to you? Saying a $500 camera is incapable of a good picture is just plain ignorant. Like wise stating that you can compete with most DSLRs with a P&S for lack of a better word is absurd. Camera manurfacturers are very cognisant of their niche markets there is a really good business reason not to equip the S3 with RAW. It forces you to take a step up. My best advice is get something your actually going to shoot pictures with and something that has room for growth.


Vich here is part of my original post now exactly what is it your telling me I don't understand.


Instead, you resort to name calling and insults to people trying to present truthful discussion in good faith.


What name did I call anyone at least keep the facts straight? Even cwphoto did not respond as though I was calling him something. I commented on the statement not the man.


One is a toy, the other is a tool.


After Ref did an excellent job of breaking down the differenes. This was cwphoto original post. Granted he's entitled to his opinion but who is to say the OP is not some kid who saved up his money to get a camera and now feels dejected because of a remark.


And as you so eloquently described cwphoto qualifications it's just a shame those qualifications were not reflected in his response.


It's not an ego trip saying DSLR will do a consistantly better job, and in this case, perhaps a P&S will surely be very frustrating.

First off I never said anyone was on an ego trip. (see above)


I do hope you have a P&S camera to recommend this person, I'd really like to hear it as well since I may want to purchase such a model, or at least recommend it to a friend.


Since you wanted a serious answer here try a kodak instamatic. Quit accussing someone of something so you can feel justified in your own responses. And since you have already accused me of name calling. It should even be apparent to you at this point that you came in on the tail end of a situation and attempted to be a smart a$$. I never said anything to you or towards you period to justify such inconsideration. Quit faining to to be the better man here.

[JTL]

Boy oh boy...I've never seen an OP question so distorted and so missed. Once again, let's use cars, since people can't seem to see past their viewfinders.

A kid needs/wants a car. All he can afford is a inexpensive Korean model. All he needs is to have it get him back and forth to school. He asks "what's wrong with getting this car"? Instead of people saying "for your purposes, nothing" they say "it's a toy" and "you'll never be able to enter it into a stock car race". The first statement is a belittlement of the car and the kid's choice of the car. The second has nothing to do with what the kid needed the car for in the first place.

There is really nothing more that can be said to anyone who doesn't understand this.

[Smokeyblog]

I do hope you have a P&S camera to recommend this person, I'd really like to hear it as well since I may want to purchase such a model, or at least recommend it to a friend.
Hi Vich!

May i join this discussion?

Like you can see in my signature, i have a Fuji Finepix F30.
And i'm very satisfied with it, i need no DSLR.
The Fuji is doing it's job just great and i love this camera, and i'm not the only one.
Already seen Jeff's F30 review?

[scupking]

A relative who is a professional photographer came over last week for are annual fourth of July party. I showed him pictures I took with my canon S2 and he was just astonished at how clear and clean the pics looked, he kept asking me what lens I was using. I told him it was built into the camera. After I showed him most of my pics I took my S2 out and showed him the camera and he said he will probably pic one up. He just couldn’t believe it was a point and shot camera (though I don’t consider the canon S1-S3 a point and shoot camera). He thought all the pics where taken with a DSLR. That just shows you how good todays P&S cameras are.

[tim11]

:rolleyes:
This thread is going round and round in a cycle.
I'm not professional photographer but all cameras, PnS, DSLR alike, are all toys to me. I'm not having a go at cwphoto's comment which has been blown out of context but why can't people accept others' choice and needs? And also each individual's idea of quality is different to the next person.
Let me add this again, PnS are great when there is sufficient light but if you are a sport photographer arming with only a PnS covering a night football match, there won't be dinner on the table for the kids.
But, as someone already mentioned, if you are fashion designer why waste money on DSLR and lenses and carry all the weigh when a PnS will do the job?

BTW: I think I will buy a Fuji F30 soon, and later on pick up a Nikon or Canon DSLR.

[cdnphotographer]

hope I can sneak in here and ask a question..plain and simple question...

Canon S3 IS is it worth it over the S2 IS?? I know there are some subtle diff. wondering if it's worth the money or if I should buy the S2?? Thanks!!

[Vich]

Hi Vich!

May i join this discussion?

Like you can see in my signature, i have a Fuji Finepix F30.
And i'm very satisfied with it, i need no DSLR.
The Fuji is doing it's job just great and i love this camera, and i'm not the only one.
Already seen Jeff's F30 review?
I did unsubscribe, but it popped up.

First, appologies for getting sucked into a rash response and thereby loosing any sense of elequence.

Smokeyblog, I am curious, how do your nighttime shots come out? I mean parties, concerts, campfires, etc? Do you do night sports.

I think the F30 looks like a fine camera and I wasn't being sarcastic that I'd like to find a good recommendations for such situations. So far, I've just said "you'll have to accept medeocre results due to inadequate flash and, where a flash wouldn't help anyway, poor high ISO performance and too narrow aperture."

As stated earlier, I believe that many P&S cameras perform beautifully in ideal lighting conditions. Also; many produce oversaturated and oversharpened junk. I would expect the F30 to be in the former category, although some Fuji's tend towards high saturation in their default settings.

So; in all sincerety and please don't get defensive, and in all honesty, how are your night shots? Night sports shots? Can you recommend this camera to someone demanding good results in these situations?

[XaiLo]

hope I can sneak in here and ask a question..plain and simple question...

Canon S3 IS is it worth it over the S2 IS?? I know there are some subtle diff. wondering if it's worth the money or if I should buy the S2?? Thanks!!

That's really a relative question and wholey depends on you.
The most note worthy improvements are:


Live Histogram
Increased Focus Accuracy*
Larger LCD
Decreased Shutter Lag
Decreased Purple Fringing Levels
Rule of Thirds Grid*
Increased Dynamic Range Control*
Decreased Highlight Clipping*
(Color) Black
Dedicated ISO Button*
Post Editing
16:9 Aspect Ratio
6.3 Mega Pix
Faster Shutters Speeds*
Sports Mode



Histogram has to top my list it is an excellent tool for viewing your pic data. Larger LCD extra viewing area is a plus even if it's only a small increase. Decreased shutter lag and purple fringing are winners in this round up. Sometimes seemingly little things can add up to a lot and this seems to be one of those cases in my opinion I opted for the S3. But in the same token these extras may not be important to you. hth

* Added to reflect a more comprehensive list

[JTL]

That's LIVE histogram...

Don't forget the dedicated ISO button (no more resorting to the func button and scrolling around!)...more accurate focusing, less highlight clipping, more custom settings (including greater control over the dynamic range) and a little addition, but fun one...the "rule of thirds" grid...

All in all having owned both cameras, I find the changes in total quite significant contrary to popular myth...;)

[cdnphotographer]

That's really a relative question and wholey depends on you.
The most note worthy improvements are:


Histogram
Larger LCD
Decreased Shutter Lag
Decreased Purple Fringing Levels
(Color) Black
Post Editing
16:9 Aspect Ratio
6.3 Mega Pix
Faster Shutters Speeds
Sports Mode



Histogram has to top my list it is an excellent tool for viewing your pic data. Larger LCD extra viewing area is a plus even if it's only a small increase. Decreased shutter lag and purple fringing are winners in this round up. Sometimes seemingly little things can add up to a lot and this seems to be one of those cases in my opinion I opted for the S3. But in the same token these extras may not be important to you. hth


ok those just sold me as well as personal reviews from actual owners of the
S3 on this board! I love the idea of the histogram and faster shutter speeds (now why couldn't they have put RAW in here ;) ) everything else on the list is wonderful to hear thank you!!

[XaiLo]

Not a problem let's see some nice pics soon ;) I'm glad the info helped you'll enjoy the S3. :)

[cwphoto]

Glad you brought that up I had decided to leave it alone but since you mention it. Why do you have a P&S? From the tone here I would never have guessed it. So here is your opportunity to berate your own piece of equipment have at it.

I use my P&S for convenience. Some examples:

1) My mum's birthday - we all went out to dinner at a local Chinese place. Just wanted to grab a couple, SLR wan't appropriate.

2) A Mate's buck's night - SLR no good here for obvious reasons but still wanted some 'memories'.

3) For my kids to use to learn taking pictures (like a recent excursion for school) without me feeling they are going to wreck something really expensive.

4) Sydney Royal Easter Show - day out with family to an event with a million other families. Space a premium as trying to juggle showbags, strollers, lunch etc. Potential spot for thieves/damage.

There's just four I could think of. For these purposes the camera is perfect and does an admirable job, but it just does not compare to what I can do with my SLR when the convenience and other factors mentioned above aren't required.