Is there a real difference

[mjhulik]

I was also wondering if there is a real difference between a very good point and shoot and a DSLR? What can DSLR's do that the best point-and-shoot can NOT do? Any information what be great.

Thank

[RichNY]

Shutter Lag. With point and shoot cameras there is a few second delay from the time you press the shutter button to the time a the camera shoots the picture. If you are trying to shoot an object in motion you have to aim for where you 'guess' the subject will be and hope you don't end up with just the front or rear portion. (of course you could wind up with no subject because you guessed too early or too late)

[mjhulik]

thanks, thats what I thought and that is what I'm looking for, I just wasn't 100% sure.

Thanks

[krzkrzkrz]

I was also wondering if there is a real difference between a very good point and shoot and a DSLR? What can DSLR's do that the best point-and-shoot can NOT do? Any information what be great.

Thank

The few major ones that I can think of:

1) The ability to interchange between lenses for different "shooting" styles. i.e. night shots, outdoors, portrait, landscape, etc

2) Better image quality at high ISO levels. However, I am guessing that some good point-and-shoot (DSCs) cameras are able to obtain quite good ISO levels. Perhaps not as good as DSLRs

3) Shutter lag (as mentioned above). i.e. continous shooting

4) DSLRs are bigger than most DSCs

5) DSLRs can be quite expensive, especially when you look into having a lens collection

Hope these help :)

[mjhulik]

it all helps, thanks

[timmciglobal]

Well... short list has been covered but I'd say ISO performance is the biggest issue. The ISO 800 from fuji F30 (probably best high ISO P&S) doesn't come close to the dslr's.

The other major difference is depth of field control. Point and shoots due to small sensors have very large depth of fields at a given apature and making narrow dof shots is very hard in many conditions (for example portraits which require use of telephoto lenses standing far back at largest possible apature) where as a dSLR could use a 85 1.8 lens to acheive the result of a 430 mm lens on FZ-50 might in terms of background blur.

Tim

[ReF]

obviously i haven't tried the majority of point and shoots but i have gotten to use a few newish models and I find AF capability is lacking vs dslr.

[gary_hendricks]

I really don’t like point and shoot cameras because I like being challenged. There are a lot of issues that I just simply do not like with point and shoot cameras. The fact that there is a few second delay (shutter lag) simply drives me nuts. This is because I have missed a lot of good photo opportunities due to this delay. I shoot a lot of moving objects (different kinds of animals) and so I tend to miss the activity that they are doing and that was simply unacceptable to me. I also didn’t like the fact that I only had one lense and couldn’t change it even when I needed too. Again, I have missed some good pictures because of this. There were times when I was at the zoo and knew that changing my lense would have produced a much better picture because some of the animals were indoors, some were outdoors and some required portraits while in other cases landscape would have worked a lot better.

[Razr]

I really don’t like point and shoot cameras because I like being challenged.There are P&S cameras out there with full manual operation, exposure shift, Tv and Av mode: manual TTL flash operation, night capability, second curtain sync; what more could you ask for? All the same things as my EOS SLRs.There are a lot of issues that I just simply do not like with point and shoot cameras.You haven't seen the P&S you like. Nonetheless, they are out there, in and by the dozens: capable imaging machines worthy of even this long time SLR user's admiration.The fact that there is a few second delay (shutter lag) simply drives me nuts.Your P&S camera must be on and prefocused (especially superzooms), thereby reducing shutter release (not shutter "lag") times in the .20 to lower than .10 sec. range.
But that technique takes discipline, a trait which many shooters lack.This is because I have missed a lot of good photo opportunities due to this delay. I shoot a lot of moving objects (different kinds of animals) and so I tend to miss the activity that they are doing and that was simply unacceptable to me.Could have been poor panning technique or lack of Image Stabilization in your camera, which my P&S has.I also didn’t like the fact that I only had one lense and couldn’t change it even when I needed too.I have two lenses (Tele & WA) for my P&S superzooms and they spin on in seconds.Again, I have missed some good pictures because of this. There were times when I was at the zoo and knew that changing my lense would have produced a much better picture because some of the animals were indoors, some were outdoors and some required portraits while in other cases landscape would have worked a lot better.Your problem, at least as it regards P&S cameras, seems to have been indecision, not changing lenses.

///Under ordinary circumstances, it takes six-eight seconds to mount an SLR lens, and that when the lens does not have to be taken out of a protective case.
To bring an SLR (any) into full operational action from a cold start takes longer than any P&S made.

[murrays]

I was also wondering if there is a real difference between a very good point and shoot and a DSLR? What can DSLR's do that the best point-and-shoot can NOT do? Any information what be great.

Thank

Here's a good article covering lot's of differences: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm

For me, the biggest difference is no waiting: No waiting when I turn the camera on, no waiting when I want to zoom, no wating when I push the shutter, no waiting for the image to write to the card, etc.

-murray

[BonjiB]

Want the #1 reason people buy a dslr over point and shoot? Answer: image quality. With the exception of a rare few (the fuji f30 comes to mind) Almost ANY dslr will beat the snot out of a p&s at any iso above 200. A good dslr provides silky smooth images up to at least 400 and many up to 1600 (depending how much you spend.) Any point and shoot you find out there can barely do iso 200 with dignity. That's the primary reason i upgraded to a dslr is the crappy image quality at higher iso speeds. My 20d can bump to iso 800 without any problems with noise. Iso 1600 starts to push it a little and 3200 i only use for 4x6 prints BUT... the important fact to note here is that i can/do use them! Either way if you can afford a dslr... buy one. It's well worth it.

[Rhys]

I find image and lens quality is better with a dSLR. Less lag helps too. Don't get me wrong - I love my P&S cameras but when push comes to shove DSLRs get the shots that compacts don't.

Example - I needed a photo of a spider web for my stepson's school project (charlotte's web).

I tried several times with my digital compact (because it was so much quicker and easier to get out). None of the photos were that great. Some were better at focus than others but none were really sharp.

Then I used my dSLR. Focus locked on quickly, I set the aperture, raised the film speed and shot. The result - a nice RAW image which I then tweaked in order to emphesise the web. The end result - a wonderful photo of a web illuminated by sunlight and diffusing the light along the threads. There's even a spider in the middle.

[DonSchap]

I was also wondering if there is a real difference between a very good point and shoot and a DSLR? What can DSLR's do that the best point-and-shoot can NOT do? Any information what be great.

Thank


You really should read the following thread to get a taste of just how much angst the difference causes among photographers.

THE ANGST OF P&S CAMERAS (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showthread.php?t=21296)

You may laugh through it... but, it truly was disheartening. Many images did not survive the ensuing battle between the shutters.

[gary_hendricks]

You are right that there are some point and shoot cameras that would probably suit me and what I’m looking for and need. I would have to look into those that have the full manual operation, exposure shift, and manual TTL flash operation. I really like to have the opportunity to “mess” or “play” with these things. It has provided me some very neat photographs. I guess I should just keep looking for the point and shoot camera that I really do like. I want one with more than one lens and the ability to manually play with my camera. I honestly don’t think that my issue is with indecision but I am willing to learn. So, I am wondering if you can tell me how to take my camera off of prefocused mode so that I don’t have this shutter release (sorry for using the wrong term earlier, I really should have known better).

[Riley]

the thing about P&S is the specification is usually a rather uninspiring tableaux designed to satisfy fairly average circumstances.

comparing a $400 P&S against a system probably 3x+ its value is a tad unfair. if your shooting requirements are then average, a P&S will get the job done, some will do particular parts of it better than others
.
of note too is that P&S get better and better as time goes on, as do dslrs but in my judgement at a slower rate

Riley

[erichlund]

///Under ordinary circumstances, it takes six-eight seconds to mount an SLR lens, and that when the lens does not have to be taken out of a protective case.
To bring an SLR (any) into full operational action from a cold start takes longer than any P&S made.

I'm pretty sure that most people store the body with a lens on. Given that, my D200 is ready to shoot before I can get the lens cap off, if I remember to turn it on as I pick it up. It's far less than a second.

There are lots of other advantages to SLRs.
Buffer size allows full speed shooting for exensive periods (varying with model).

Even the cheapest dSLR is generally tougher than P&S. Those small lenses are very complex and require tiny, easily damaged, control parts. DAMHIKT.

The viewfinders on P&S, even when optical, are poor in comparison to any dSLR, and pitiful in comparison to a dSLR with a good viewfinder.

Manual focusing controls are much better on dSLRs. Autofocus and metering options are more sophisticated, and generally offer more points of control.

Red eye control is simply not a factor on dSLRs. There are a few P&S that are not awful.

Built in flash on dSLRs is better, more responsive. External flash options are generally more flexible with a dSLR.

If you want to pay the price, lens quality is superior with dSLR, and there are some bargains that also have superior quality.

Batteries last much longer (because you don't use the battery for image preview).

Controls are more accessible on a dSLR, with physical buttons and dials rather than menu options.

I'm not saying that P&S cameras are not the right choice for some people, even many people, but the best reason for P&S cameras is simplicity and traveling light. Generally speaking, they are not going to win a performance contest in the realm of what dSLRs do, and they are not expected to. P&S cameras are in a small margin market, and the manufacturers are not going to make them to compete against their high margin dSLR products.

[DonSchap]

Aren't they putting P&S cameras in cereal boxes, now?

Okay, just kidding... guys, hey guys... put down the weapons... honest, I was just teasin'! No... really... it was a joke... :(

16599