If the S3 IS didn't look like a mini-DSLR, would it still be compared to a DSLR?

[nap]

There are numerous debates on the net pitting the S3 IS against entry-level DSLRs. Do you think confusion will still arise if the S3 IS, having all the same features is has (as in ALL, except for its looks), looked like any traditional point-and-shoot camera?

[FLiPMaRC]

:rolleyes: I really don't understand why people are comparing apples and oranges. With a DSLR you can actually use a wide angle lens as a wide angle lens.No matter what you do, you're ALWAYS better off with a bigger sensor. Imagine printing a photo out on your printer on an 4x5" sheet of paper and then again on a sheet the size of a stamp. The colors run together, image quality sucks.

The same thing happens on an image sensor only to a lesser degree. That's why I'll still put a 6MP DSLR up against any 8MP point and shoot when it comes to image quality when you start blowing up the photos past 8x10". The DSLR also has a ton of other little features the S3 doesn't but those are just things you'd expect on a pro SLR camera and should be pretty obvious.

When someone compares an S3 to a DSLR, it's really silly. They will never mention blowing the images up to poster size. All they do is try to say how a $3500 camera and $1400 lens isn't any good for a "normal" person. Well no shit. Notice how none of the "reviews" show us 100% crops of the digital file of truly tough spots that DSLRs excel at. :rolleyes:

[lathe]

The other advantage that DSLRs have is that when you swap lenses, you often end up with less glass in the way of your sensor. With the S3 (or any of the A or SD series), you are stuck with the Canon glass and can only add teleconvertors and wide-angle convertors.

[Dawoofo]

There are numerous debates on the net pitting the S3 IS against entry-level DSLRs. Do you think confusion will still arise if the S3 IS, having all the same features is has (as in ALL, except for its looks), looked like any traditional point-and-shoot camera?

It has some, but definitely not all the same features of any entry-level DSLR—not even the Canon entry-level DSLR. It's a great camera, but as said above, it's like comparing apples to oranges for numerous reasons.

That said, I think the fact that it looks more like a DSLR and less like a P&S camera is what causes much of the confusion, as well as the fact that it does have a lot of features that many don't expect from P&S cameras.

[BowerR64]

Doesnt the SLR rebel have a full auto setting? so isnt it still a P&S camera?

I remember last summer i went to a football game and these 2 people were talking about lenses the guy said my lens is to short to shoot this today, he said all i have is a 300mm lens so he had to shoot from the sidelines and fallow the game. The lady had a 400mm lens and she didnt move much. I didnt want to tell them i was using a using an S3 with a 430mm lens + the canon teleconverter giving about 630mm.

My point?

After we talked a little i asked her what she was using, i think it was a 20D. I wondered what ISO she was in sports mode. She didnt even know what ISO she was using.

I think people should progress like i did. Start with a pocket camera with some manual controls. Learn it then get somthing like and S3 then get an SLR i think jumping right into an SLR can be a bit much when you dont even know the basics of photography.

[nap]

I think people should progress like i did. Start with a pocket camera with some manual controls. Learn it then get somthing like and S3 then get an SLR i think jumping right into an SLR can be a bit much when you dont even know the basics of photography.

I A-G-R-E-E!

[lathe]

Doesnt the SLR rebel have a full auto setting? so isnt it still a P&S camera?

All of the SLRs I've seen in the last 10 years have a Auto setting. The better question is whether it has a manual mode, shutter priority mode, and aperature priority mode.


I think people should progress like i did. Start with a pocket camera with some manual controls. Learn it then get somthing like and S3 then get an SLR i think jumping right into an SLR can be a bit much when you dont even know the basics of photography.

Whole-heartedly agree.:cool:

[BowerR64]

Well i would think SLR would have manual controls. That would seem silly to have an SLR that is full auto wouldnt it? :confused:

[David Metsky]

Well i would think SLR would have manual controls. That would seem silly to have an SLR that is full auto wouldnt it? :confused:
Some older SLRs don't have full auto modes, but I doubt any dSLR doesn't have a full auto mode to go along with manual controls.

Many folks like the better image quality of a dSLR, the choice of lenses, the great ISO range, and the ability to learn lots about photography while still being able to start in full auto mode. It's a little more complicated to learn how things work on a dSLR, but some things (like dealing with manual focus) are much easier. Why shouldn't people have the best image quality while learning?

The cameras are bigger, heavier, and more expensive, but for many folks that's not a really big issue.

Just my $.02.

[BowerR64]

I dont know, i just thought with an SLR you would want features in other areas rather then auto modes. I would think they could use that space for more manual options.

When i think of an SLR i just dont picture some one using one in full auto. Maybe people do? i dono.

There was a person on the cnet forum and they started a post called "SLR or good P&S" and i mentioned some things like ISO, apature size and sensor size and they replied with "What is ISO?" IMO if you dont know that much why are you spending the kind of money SLRs cost for that kind of a camera?

[David Metsky]

Yes, many people use SLRs and dSLRs in full auto mode most of the time. Why bother buying one then? Because the picture quality is still better then a P&S in full auto, they need to eliminate shutter lag, or they plan to learn about photography someday and didn't want to have to change camera, etc. It's not something I'd necessarily recommend, but it's not the worst purchase.

-dave-

[DonSchap]

Look, back when I started my photography, the SLR-camera was the only game in town. Oh sure, there were TLRs and the large format cameras, but we high school guys, back in 1971, used Pentax, Konica, Minolta, Nikon and Canon SLRs. There were 120 cameras and the 110 strip, but when you shot something you could play in the darkroom with, it was usually 35mm. Relatively easily to do and usually B&W, to cut costs.

No one recommended using an "Instamatic" to learn photography with. That was basic point & shoot ... with fixed aperture (or three position - indoor, outdoor and mixed) and no shutter speed control at all ... it was "smile" and push the release. They even had disposable flash-cubes that you tossed after four exposures. It was "The MOM camera".

Although today, some of the higher-end digital P&S cameras come with manual settings, they still do not deliver the full SLR experience. They are a little too "convenient" and seem to kind of ... miss the mark, in that regard. Oh sure, there will be those who argue the other side of this ... but in the end, the P&S requires a lot less from the photographer than the DSLR does. That's its gift. so to speak. It was simplified for a reason ... mostly convenience, compactness and you don't have to consider as many photographic nuances with it. It's "self-contained", for the most part.

The SLR is an accepted and standardized way for the photographer to take additional steps to "draw with light" (the literal meaning of photography). The SLR offers options that the standard P&S simply cannot. This flexibility is the strength behind the SLR-type of camera ... and its gift.

My question is: How are you going to learn these special assets if you don't even have a camera that can do it?

The answer is, of course: You probably won't.

Welcome to the world of the SLR ... practice your art happily with a wide array of light manipulating aspects. Call it: "Using a better brush." The rest of you ... run along and take your "predefined" pictures. :rolleyes:

I am not trying to flame P&S cameras ... but if you cannot understand the incredible difference between these very different types of cameras ... you need to try both. I did ... and the P&S is history. Others may choose ... differently. It really does become a matter of choice: Their's or yours. ;)

[XaiLo]

Dang... I've got to agree with Don. What's the world coming to... arrrgghhh. lol j/k Don. Let's look at this from a different venue and perspective for a moment though just as easily a flammable subject. Take "Flash" and "Photoshop" for instance these two programs have many pseudo counterparts. Arguably, there are other programs that can do what they can and in many cases much more easily. So what gives? Why are these two programs at the pinacle of their respective class. Simple! If you can imagine it, you can do it, they do not put limitations on your creativity and this is where they excel and surpass their competition. It's the raw power under the hood that's not readily obvious that gives it it's true value. They can take you where you want to go.

Likewise, though I find the S3 an exceptional camera for what it is. I do find that it is stifling my creativity. Does this mean I can't take a beautiful piture with the S3? Nooooo! It's capable of delivering outstanding pictures under the right circumstances and therein lies the problem. In photography, more times than not, you're not operating in a controlled enviornment. The ability to adapt dictates the end result. Not saying that one can not be creative under adverse circumstances, but it does tend to make life unnecessarilly difficult. I've shed my cacoon, now I'm ready to fly. There are certain nuances that I have come to understand that I would be better off with, for instance no shutter lag, usable consistant focusing, lighting and a decent flash system for starters. I'm just ready to go, where I want to go.

Number #1 reason to use "Auto"... you do not have the time to make the proper adjustments. Number #1 reason to be happy you have "Auto"... you do not have the time to make the proper adjustments.

Each person is different some have the fortitude to suceed no matter where they start off. While others can find it difficult to preform the minimalist of tasks. To say it is generally better for a person to start off with a P&S is not necessarily true. It is very much dependent on the individual while some will enjoy it's simplicity, others will be put off by it's limitations. :cool:

[BowerR64]

You think the P&S and SLR will eventualy merge into 1 unit? like a super zoom with an SLR sensor?

[lathe]

Here's my 2¢.

I see 3 main groups of people:

Mom: just wants a simple P&S
High End Photographer: wants complete flexibility and doesn't care about bulk and weight
Mid-range photographer: wants as much flexibility as possible without exceeding certain bulk and weight limits (otherwise the camera doesn't get taken certain places so no pictures are taken). This cutoff varies a little by photographer. For many such people, the ideal camera is the S3. For me personally, it was the A640 (yes, I deliberately decided against the S3)


Also, I don't agree with the the statement that to learn photography that you must have an SLR. If you have a high-end P&S, you can learn a whole lot. Yes, there are some finer points that may be missed. However, you still can learn about ISO, shutter, aperature, macro/tele, filters, etc.

I've owned an SLR in the past, and while they are great cameras, they have their own limitations as well.

[DonSchap]

The AUTOmatic-setting on today's SLRs can be used ... or abused. What I like to do is to quickly "see" what the camera thinks is a good combination of settings for a particular image by simply pushing the shutter release until the metering starts and review what the camera's computer has decided. It is at THAT POINT that the photographer steps in, says "Excuse me, Mr. No-talent" and starts making his own decisions. Important variables have to be considered:


Subject Speed
Subject Lighting
Subject Activity
Subject location
The importance of the Surroundings
Are YOU moving?
Vibration


All these (and more) determine how you shoot the image. You will tighten or loosen the time of the shutter and open or close the aperture or back off or increase the ISO or even use a manual release. Fill flash? Hey, it may be a consideration. It's your image, pal.

90% of the time, AUTO will provide you with good starting point in your settings, but there is no guaranty you are going to acheive what YOU want. Going to MANUAL (if possible), based on AUTO's guess-timate will often allow you to "fine tune" the shot and make "a capture" simply incredible.

AUTO is exceptionally useful when you quickly change lens, too, because you often have a completely different set of settings with the new lens. Once again, it quickly gets you right back into the ballpark and you can make almost the same amount of adjustment to compensate and get roughly the same shot as with the prior lens.

Using AUTO to shoot all the time is, as others have pointed out, rather lazy and probably will not produce anything exciting. It is in the experimentation of our image creation that we experience the true freedom of "drawing with light."

Okay, there, I said it. :p

[leyo04]

After I use my camera I set it to auto before turning it off. You'll never know what happens right? If you see something, shoot it and capture the moment. :-)

[nap]

So, what is the conclusion to my original question? :confused: Haha! What a touchy subject I put us in. :D

[DonSchap]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... and is left in AUTO ... is it a bridge camera?

The SD 800 IS has a lot of the same features the S3 IS has, but doesn't look anything like it. I believe it falls short on the telephoto end 105mm vs 432mm, yet on the wide angle the SD 800 IS is 28mm vs the S3 IS's 36mm. As a whole, though, it reacts effectively the same.

Are people comparing the SD 800 IS to a entry-level DSLR? Not that I recall. So, the answer to you interrogative is most likely "yes" ... if it tends to look like a DSLR ... the expectation is usually there. Does the S3 IS deliver on that expectation? Hardly.

[Nickcanada]

For what it's worth I had an A95 that I used in Auto exclusively until I got the XT and learned how to use the camera. I think I've had the XT in Auto once or twice.

I could never get the hang of all the menus and sub-menus P&S use to get to where you want to go.

[nap]

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck ... and is left in AUTO ... is it a bridge camera?


haha, good one DonSchap! :p

[B][U]
Take a good-looking woman over a not-so-great-looking one ... okay, okay ... reverse that! :cool: You see ... you can't win. :(

Now you got me lost here! :confused: :o

[Dawoofo]

I started with a fully-automatic Fuji 2Mp camera, then went to a 3Mp. I grabbed an S2 IS a year and a half ago for the zoom alone, and then discovered how much fun it was playing with the different settings. Things started clicking and I started learning about exposure and image quality, image processing, etc. I finally got to the point I could get just about as much as there was to get out of the S2 IS, and then I wanted a DSLR. I was finally able to get one a week ago today, and all I can say is I'm blown away by the image quality as well as other things such as the ability to take good pictures in low light. If I hadn't learned on the S2 IS, I would've had a hard time jumping straight into the DSLR world, but as it is, I'm already starting to get some good pictures but I have to admit I miss the flexibility of the S2's lens. :) The fully automatic setting works pretty well on the XTi, but on principle alone I seldom use it that way.

I'll always have a fondness my S2 IS, and I'll continue to use it on a more regular basis when the weather gets better. The S2 and S3 are great cameras IMHO. :)

[DonSchap]

Now you got me lost here! :confused: :o

I editted the post ... to avoid confusion. It should work better now, point made. :D

[BowerR64]

I started with a fully-automatic Fuji 2Mp camera, then went to a 3Mp.

My first was a fuji FX10 and i had no idea what i was doing, i was covering the flash and stuff and had no idea there was a manual control so i could alter the ev. That alone cold of helped me alot, it wasnt till i got an A70 i finaly took the time to learn the settings and i went bac to the fuji and it was easy to get better pictures using a preset white balance and some ev settings.

[drama]

Very interesting discussion here :)
Thanks for all the info guys

I have decided not to get any accesories for my S3 (The TC, was a gift from my brother )

I am still very much in the learning phase & its giving me a nice ride
The S3 has definite limitations, which you come across pretty early
Right now I am enjoying overcoming them but it can see that this will be tiresome long term

Any one here using a D80 with the 18-135, have been hearing good things about it
I tried the 400D & rather liked it too, but the kit lens wont give me any useful range

[lathe]

Seems like there are two discussions going on in this thread:

DLSR versus the S3 IS (what this thread originally was about) and versus P&S
Auto versus Manual (came a bit out of left field)

Of course there is some overlap between the two topics, but they are separatable topics.

Out of all this is really the question "what do you call the S3?" Is it a full blown DSLR? No. Is it a simple P&S for mom? No. Is there a term for such cameras?

[nap]

Out of all this is really the question "what do you call the S3?" Is it a full blown DSLR? No. Is it a simple P&S for mom? No. Is there a term for such cameras?

They have a fancy name for it: bridge camera.

[lathe]

Just out of curiousity, is there simple definition for what a bridge camera is or it is somewhat subjective? I would assume that manual mode is required to be called a bridge camera, but is the ability to add add-on lenses and filters required?

[DonSchap]

Just out of curiousity, is there simple definition for what a bridge camera is or it is somewhat subjective? I would assume that manual mode is required to be called a bridge camera, but is the ability to add add-on lenses and filters required?

Bridge Camera (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bridge_digital_camera)

Click on the above link and read on, brave soul! :rolleyes: It's a little "dated", due to the fact things change so darn fast, but it answers the question pretty well.

[FLiPMaRC]

Edit: Nevermind. Don beat me to it. LOL.

[DonSchap]

Edit: Nevermind. Don beat me to it. LOL.

Sorry, "FLiPMaRC", didn't see ya waitin' in the wings, there.

My take is that a "bridge camera" spends more time tickin' you off than it does taking great shots. If you don't have an SLR, I suppose you may grow into using "the Bridge" better, but if you do have SLR experience ... it certainly can be torturous, because you know what you really want in performance ... and it isn't quite there.

[lathe]

Just for the sake of other readers of this thread, there is a downside to getting an SLR: size and weight.

Yes, a dSLR has great capabilities that are beyond anything that that a P&S or Bridge cameras.

However, the size and bulk can limit where you take your camera. If you don't take your camera with you, regardless of quality, you don't get to take any pictures.

My advice, be practical and realistic about whether you will take a large camera with you. If you choose to get a smaller camera, be mindful that you will be giving up other capabilities, but there are good cameras out there that still offer decent flexibility. Also consider buying an SLR for your best shots and getting a 2nd smaller camera for times when you simply have to have something small.

[Wesan]

I agree with lathe. But would also like to add, that it is also a question about cost and need. Can you afford a DSLR and all the lenses and other equipment for the camera? Are you willing to spend the money? Building yourself a "system" for DSLR-photograhy will be expensive, until you have all the lenses and other equipment you might need or want. What are your needs, really? Does your photography, the way you use your camera, make it necessary for you to have a DSLR?

I used a film SLR-camera (a Canon EOS 600) with a 35-105 mm lens before. Wanted to get more lenses for it, since I found the 3x zoom too limited. But could never afford more lenses. That's the main reason why I decided on the S3 - the zoom range was there already. And, I think, for my photography and the way I use the camera, it will be enough for my needs. And I could afford it. ;)

Well...I have bought some accessories for it, like the slave flash and accessories for the slave flash among other things too, to make it more versatile. I guess I might be building myself a "bridge camera system"! LOL :o But it's cheaper than doing it for a DSLR, I think. And if you can learn to handle the camera and equipment the right way (and, OK, live with the limitations it has, considering your needs), you can still get great photos from the S3 too. Or another bridge camera. :D Which, BTW, has been shown over and over in the "Some S3 pics" thread... ;)

If you really want a DSLR and have the money to spend on one, and the equipment you need and want for it - go ahead! If your budget is limited, a bridge camera like the S3 might be a smarter choice and still cover most of your needs. :)

[DonSchap]

I really hate analogy, but what the hey?

A man has to get from Point A to Point B, which is 10 miles away.

He is offered a ride in a pedicab or a scooter. The pedicab goes 6 mph, at best and costs $4. The scooter ... 50 mph and costs $8. He has 15 minutes to get from A to B. A choice awaits?

Yes, both will get the man to the location, but only one will do it within the prescribed time, but costs twice as much.

The same thing applies to learning photography and producing results within a set of parameters. You spend for performance. If you feel the S3 IS or a device like it is all the camera you ever want or need, so be it. Take what you can and enjoy.

Personally, my photography (as basic as it is) requires just a little more effort. I didn't embark on this to just snap "canned" pictures. I came to learn, experiment, play and hopefully turn out some really hot stuff, on occasion! I have learned that performance cost a buck or two. I know High-performance is even worse. Do I need that top-drawer performance? Well, if I do ... I know what to do. Dig deep or rent.

Commonly, Light is our chosen hobby. You just need to see the light and have others see it too, to realize just what a wonderful and fulfilling hobby it really is. All you have to do is show the new grandparents an image of your newborn to realize how powerful a medium it can truly be. Will they care if it is a dSLR that got that shot or just a simple cellphone. Beauty is always in the eye of the beholder.

Proud Grandfather :D : "My God, son, the f/2.8 bokeh on that shot is just marvelous. The low-light response of that lens of yours is just fantastic."

Proud Grandmother :cool: : "Your use of the ambient lighting is awesome, sonny boy. The color balance is right on the mark for that overhead fluorescent ... and you say, no flash, huh? Shutter speed at 1/30th and ISO-1600?"

Yeah, sure. That's a real conversation of the future.

It's more like: Proud Grandmother :D : "Oh look, Howard... how sweet she looks .... just like my Aunt Rose."

Proud Grandfather :rolleyes: : "That cellphone all you can afford, these days, boy!" :eek: "Let's get you something a little more ... capable. I've had my eye on this new camera, over at Roy's Camera Barn ..."

Sonny Boy: :D

I suggest you do your best ... with what you have. And if you can do better with it ... make it so. :)

[XaiLo]

I can relate to what your saying because compactability was a real issue for me. That's why I'm initially going with a D40 it's only slightly larger than the S3 but it will allow me to do a lot I can't do now in the conditions I find myself in. Take tonight for instance at an international festival we were having at my church in the gym. I literally got so frustrated with the results I was getting and just stopped shooting. A year ago I would have suffered through it well I learned a lot since then, now it's just a pain. Now here's the funny part, even though my primeary reason for getting the D40 is to replace my S3 I get to hear why it's not enough camera from some. lol So the moral of the story is get what works for you and allows you to produce the types of results you want and are happy with. :)

edit: coupled with an 18-200VR I get the feeling this is going to be one walk around gem.