03-26-2008, 02:00 PM
|
|
Executive Editor
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 29,160
|
|
The Question of Point and Shoot Cameras
My friend Ed Hansberry made a post to the Mobius mailing list, where we were discussing digital SLR cameras, asking whether or not he was the only one that liked point and shoot (P&S) cameras. This was my reply.
Ed,
I think everyone that has a DSLR also has a P&S - the two technologies are not mutually exclusive in any way. I never leave my P&S behind, even if I'm bringing my DSLR, but I will sometimes leave my DSLR behind and only use my P&S. P&S cameras are great, but there are some things they're not so good at: - fast shutter release (for getting that picture right away - even the worst DSLR is faster than the fastest P&S)
- flexible lens choices (though there are some P&S cameras with amazing zoom)
- low-light photography (noise free, focusing without much light)
- super-sharp images (I love my Canon SD 870, but the image quality it has pales in comparison to any DSLR)
On the other hand, P&S cameras have video while "real" DSLRs do not. The best camera you have is the one you have on you - so there have been many instances where my P&S camera got great pictures that my DSLR did not simply because I have my P&S on me.
Ultimately this comes down to the question of using what works best for you. If you're happy with your P&S, then that's all that matters. On the other hand, I know several people that are going to be buying DSLRs this year because they're frustrated with missing photos because the camera doesn't react fast enough. The whole issue of camera vs. photographer is something we could probably debate for hours on end. Ken Rockwell stirred up the hornet's nest here with his post entitled "Your Camera Doesn't Matter". It's mostly inflammatory bunk, but there's a grain of truth in there. If you're only taking still-life photos, sure, with enough skill and post-processing work, you can get some amazing results from a $200 camera.
That guy is clearly a talented photographer, and his vision transcends the limitations of his gear. On the other hand, I can tell you exactly what kind of photos that guy would have gotten if he were sitting where I was sitting for the Sumo match I was at. Amazing landscape and still-life photography can be accomplished with even the most basic camera, but sports/action/people photography...not so much. There's simply no replacement for having a big enough zoom to get closer to the action.
- Jason
PS: ...I forgot to add that it's a myth that everyone who's using a DSLR is using it in full manual mode. I'm not ashamed to admit that I'm a "P" shooter (full auto) much of the time. More often than not, I'm out taking pictures in environments where what I'm seeing is only going to happen once - the risk of putting it to manual and making an error in the settings, thus missing the shot, is too great. It's like automatic vs. manual transmissions: I trust that the car knows more about shifting gears than I do (yeah, yeah, I know it's "more fun" to drive stick), and in the same way if I don't have time to really stop and figure out the DSLR settings for a particular shot, I'd rather set it to auto and let the wonderfully smart camera do it for me. As a user, I focus on the things that the camera can't do: framing, composition, angle, etc. The beauty of a DSLR is that there is that manual control - at the Sumo match I was at, I started in full auto, then switched to shutter priority because full auto wasn't stopping the action with a fast enough shutter speed.
Jason Dunn owns and operates Thoughts Media Inc., a company dedicated to creating the best in online communities. He enjoys mobile devices, digital media content creation/editing, and pretty much all technology. He lives in Calgary, Alberta, Canada with his lovely wife, and his sometimes obedient dog. He loves his D300 and it has improved the quality of his photography even if Ken Rockwell might disagree.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-26-2008, 02:42 PM
|
|
Ponderer
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 108
|
|
I agree.
I have both a P&S (Canon SD1000) and a DSLR (Canon Rebel XT). When I am headed to places where carrying where I need the DSLR (i.e. Auto Races) I grab it. I will also bring my P&S.
Sometimes I can't have my DSLR. For instance Nationwide Arena here in Columbus will not let me bring it in for some Blue Jacket Games. So I bring my P&S. Not ideal for the fast pace of ice hockey but I make it work. Sometimes carrying a DSLR is just out of the question. You need something lite and small, no bulk.
When i comes to pure speed, I love my DSLR. I too use more of the auto settings than the manual. I don't want to miss that car spinning in turn one because I was fiddling with the settings. There are times that I have to use the manual settings but those are usually night events.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-26-2008, 04:09 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor-in-Training
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 63
|
|
The Question of Point and Shoot Cameras
I agree also!
I have a Nikon D200, lenses, flashes, tripod, lense stands and carrying it for all my needs is tough. To much weight to lug around. The Panasonic Lumix p&s does a good job for quick pictures and does a great job. At 8 MP + the camera can take sometimes as good as pictures as needed!
|
| |
|
|
|
03-26-2008, 07:20 PM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,350
|
|
My P&S is pretty decent. In fact, both Michael Reichmann and Uwe Steinmueller seem to agree on that. And Michael Reichmann is the one who responded to the Ken Rockwell piece with his essay You Camera Does Matter, so I guess his positive comments on the GX100 should mean something ;-).
Much of that quality is caused by the great and sharp lens (less zoom sometimes is a good thing). But still, whenever I have shot with both the GX100 and the DSLR, I can spot the difference in image quality iimmediately. The GX100 shots are nice enough, but the DSLR shots are nicer. And to me, that quality difference matters. So, if I have a choice, I prefer to shoot with the DSLR. But sometimes, I do not have a choice since the situation doesn't call for a bag of camera and lens, but does allow a small camera in my pocket. So there's still a place for my P&S. With DSLRs getting smaller (E-420 with pancake 25 f2.8), and pocket size cameras getting bigger sensors (Sigma DP1), both worlds could meet in near future.
__________________
enjoy being here while getting there
|
| |
|
|
|
03-27-2008, 02:38 AM
|
|
Thinker
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 451
|
|
Marlof brought up the two more interesting camera releases that weren't really covered heavily, the E-420 and the DP1. Just some quick thoughts:
When the E400/410 was announced, I thought it was a great pity that there wasn't a pancake lens to go with it. Enterprising Oly users managed to tack on an old Konica 40mm "flat" (it's not quite pancake) lens to go with it, but obviously there was no AF, and I think there's no AE too. But it looked like a good combination, and having used an old OM1 as well as various Nikon manuals (FM2, FA1, FE2), sometimes, a small SLR with a tiny lens is great for just traveling about. I'm hoping the E420 with the new pancake lens does just as well. The only reservation I have is with the viewfinder; the only Oly 4/3s viewfinder I liked is the E3. The rest are varying degrees of terrible dimness and small-ness. If Oly can come up with something like the E3 it'll do well.
The other significant camera is the DP1. I haven't had the chance to toy with it (but I managed to see it in person recently), but it's another promising camera. While some may complain about the aperture of the lens (f/4), I think it's a fair compromise provided ISO400-800 works well enough. My main complaints are with the control system; Sigma added a control wheel for manual focusing, but I was hoping for more dedicated manual controls. Or at least, the standard dual wheel controls on most serious cameras nowadays. The other thing is its price. I haven't found what the street price, but the retail price wasn't very promising... a bit close to the MSRP of the E-420 with the pancake.
|
| |
|
|
|
03-27-2008, 09:00 AM
|
|
Contributing Editor Emeritus
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 1,350
|
|
That's an interesting comment on the viewfinders. I tend to like to put a camera to my eye (and not my eye to a camera) when framing a picture. And I don't really enjoy Electronic ViewFinders (EVF) like the one I can attach to my GX100, since I prefer a good Optical ViewFinder (OVF) as found in a DSLR. It's an area where they say the FourThirds system is limited, by the relation between sensor size (which is small in FourThirds) and viewfinder.
With DSLRs I started with an Olympus E-1. The E-1 viewfinder is pretty good in my opinion. It's bright enough, and gives 100% coverage, which is an asset if you like to crop in the field, which is almost a necessity when you only have 5 megepixels at your disposal. The viewfinder is small though, and a bit tunnel like, but in practice I never found it an issue. And that's coming straight from an old school SLR, with a gorgeous view of the world through the viewfinder.
I did manage to take a look through the E-330 viewfinder, and that one is dimmer (and I believe even smaller) than the E-1 (caused by the light path needed to create liveview A). I think that might be an issue, but people I know who use that camera (or it's stepbrother Panasonic L1) say they don't mind. The last consumer releases, the E410 and E510, have better viewfinders than other consumer cameras before, or so I hear, but I have no personal experience with them.
My latest addition, the E-3, has a (for the FourThirds system) great viewfinder, large and bright. Olympus enlarges the view, to overcome the negative effect on the viewfinder of their small sensor. I sense the difference in viewfinders immediately after changing from the E-3 to the E-1, but after a moment of using the E-1 I no longer realize the viewfinder is smaller, since I just use it. The enlarged view does have a negative side effect: the prism housing on the E-3 is pretty large, which contributes to the things that make it feel like a much larger camera than the E-1 before (even when that difference is not that great).
So I can not imagine that they'd use the E-3 viewfinder design in a camera that is created to be as small as possible with current technology. I haven't been able to take a look through the E-420 viewfinder, but I'd be surprised if that would be any better than the one in the E-410. I can imagine that someone who is used to the viewfinders of cameras based on larger sensors (especially full frame cameras), the FourThirds viewfinders might look difficult to use. I think that in real life, people will do fine with such viewfinders. And it beats having to look through an EVF, or even worse, having to frame while holding the camera with extended arms in front of you. 
But even than: such a camera has its advantage as well. There still is an enormous size gap between the smallest DSLR (E420 with pancake lens) and a true pocket camera, even when it has a large sensor (the DP1). See a thread on DPReview which contains an enlightening picture. The DP1 looks pocketable, no matter what you wear. The E420 will require cargo pants or jacket pockets.
__________________
enjoy being here while getting there
Last edited by marlof; 03-27-2008 at 09:04 AM..
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
Hybrid Mode
