DSLR vs. P&S Smackdown -- the Answer

It may be kind of anti-climactic by now, but I've updated the website at
http://www.classtech.com/DSLR_PS_Smackdown

to show the original out-of-the-camera JPEG's. A summary of the EXIF data is
under the mid resolution original pictures and the full EXIF data is embedded in
the originals.

Navigation help:
You can click on a thumbnail to get a medium resolution view. Then you can get
a full resolution view by clicking in the lower center of the picture or the
download icon in the lower right of the screen

As most folks figured out, A is the DSLR picture, and B is from the P&S. I
thought the one who figured it out from a tiny bit of dust was particularly
insightful.

It is clear to me that a current model P&S can produce excellent pictures when
it is operating in it's sweet spot. These pictures are right in the P&S sweet
spot. There is more than adequate light, so high ISO noise not a problem. The
subject is static, so shutter and focus lag are not an issue.

As several people have pointed out, the P&S does have more chromatic aberration
and noise even in this "easy" picture. But until you get to pretty large
prints, that's pixel peeping. Don't get me wrong, this comparison invited, even
required pixel peeping.

As you move away from the sweet spot, the DSLR starts to come into it's own. The
lack of shutter lag and high speed focus is a real asset when you are dealing
with fast moving subjects, such as 2 year olds. More difficult lighting,
macro,or long telephoto turns the P&S into a paper weight. The DSLR with it's
interchangeable lens, manual controls, and post processing of raw files will
allow a photographer to keep making pictures.

Of course, the DSLR costs more, weighs more, and bulks bigger. So the world is
full of trade offs. What's new?

This smack down has also highlighted one difference between the two that I
hadn't considered. It seems the P&S manufacturer expects most users won't do
any post processing on their pictures, while the DSLR manufacturer expect that
they will.

The P&S image is sharpened in the camera to the point of losing much of the
texture in the stonework. There doesn't appear to be a camera setting to reduce
this. The DSLR image has little sharpening in camera. There are camera
settings to increase this, but I want the camera to give me a minimally
processed image so I can get it the way I want.

For the record, I've owned both an SLR and a P&S for over 20 years. They both
have their place. I'd suggest that your average vacation and/or family
photographer will be very pleased with a modern P&S.

This has been fun. Thanks.

-- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
[]
The P&S image is sharpened in the camera to the point of losing much
of the texture in the stonework. There doesn't appear to be a camera
setting to reduce this. The DSLR image has little sharpening in
camera. There are camera settings to increase this, but I want the
camera to give me a minimally processed image so I can get it the way
I want.

For the record, I've owned both an SLR and a P&S for over 20 years.
They both have their place. I'd suggest that your average vacation
and/or family photographer will be very pleased with a modern P&S.

This has been fun. Thanks.

-- Doug

Thanks for posting that, Doug. I found the exposure difference too great
to make an accurate comparison, but I agree with your comments. I found
the blacks too crushed in the DSLR, but that may be just the exposure.
The lower exposure may have increased the apparent colour saturation.

I also own both types of camera, and use them as is required by my
situation. I prefer the DSLR and its results, but if I am very pushed for
size or weight, I will happily use the compact (Panasonic TZ3) and be
aware of its limitations.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor"
wrote:


Thanks for posting that, Doug. I found the exposure difference too great
to make an accurate comparison, but I agree with your comments. I found
the blacks too crushed in the DSLR, but that may be just the exposure.
The lower exposure may have increased the apparent colour saturation.

I discovered that the DSLR was set for a -0.3 EV exposure, which explains what
you are seeing. -- Doug

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote:


Thanks for posting that, Doug. I found the exposure difference too
great to make an accurate comparison, but I agree with your
comments. I found the blacks too crushed in the DSLR, but that may
be just the exposure. The lower exposure may have increased the
apparent colour saturation.

I discovered that the DSLR was set for a -0.3 EV exposure, which
explains what you are seeing. -- Doug

I have just that setting on both my DSLR and on my compact! "I prefer the
results that way."

Cheers,
David

"That80sGuy" wrote in message
...
In message , Douglas
Johnson done wrote:

It is clear to me that a current model P&S can produce excellent
pictures when it is operating in it's sweet spot.

"Its", not "it's".

No, it would be "its".

Cheers.

Pete

PeteD wrote:
"That80sGuy" wrote in message
...
In message , Douglas
Johnson done wrote:

It is clear to me that a current model P&S can produce excellent
pictures when it is operating in it's sweet spot.

"Its", not "it's".

No, it would be "its".

Cheers.

Pete

Your both rong. Its its.

--
Frank ess

David J Taylor wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote:
"David J Taylor"
wrote:


Thanks for posting that, Doug. I found the exposure difference too
great to make an accurate comparison, but I agree with your
comments. I found the blacks too crushed in the DSLR, but that may
be just the exposure. The lower exposure may have increased the
apparent colour saturation.
I discovered that the DSLR was set for a -0.3 EV exposure, which
explains what you are seeing. -- Doug

I have just that setting on both my DSLR and on my compact! "I prefer the
results that way."


Good exposition, Doug; thanks. Hopefully it might reign in those on the
extremes, but being usenet, it won't.

A perhaps truer test would be to get RAW files from each, but
unfortunately, a lot of compacts don't allow that. At least then, all
the sharpening, tweaks in exposure, color balance, etc. could be the
same, and chromatic aberration left alone or treated the same.

--
john mcwilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I'm
not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

Douglas Johnson wrote:

I'd suggest that your average vacation and/or family
photographer will be very pleased with a modern P&S.

Apparently not as pleased as in the recent past. I was just in
Yellowstone and the Grand Tetons, and I was stunned at the huge number
of D-SLRs I saw compared to just a couple of years ago. I'd say that 30%
of the cameras I saw being used were D-SLRs. I got to handle quite a few
of them as groups would ask people to take pictures of them, and I think
they felt more comfortable handing their D-SLR to someone that had one
around their neck. Almost all of the D-SLRs were Canon and Nikon. I saw
maybe three Pentax D-SLRs, but no Olympus or Sony models. Someone
actually handed me a _film_ SLR, I had no idea any of those were still
around. Can you even buy film anymore?

We came across some bears and people were taking pictures of them, and
without a D-SLR and a long telephoto lens you could forget about it, as
was the case with much of the wildlife (same thing in Alaska). There
were people with $7000 Canon 500mm lenses, and my wife said, "you need
one of those!" Actually I used the wide angle lens a lot more than the
telephoto, since we had a group of 12 people that I often took pictures
of. The EF-S 10-22 is a great lens.

Once someone uses a D-SLR, even on a vacation, they're hooked. The
wide-angle and telephoto capability combined with the lack of shutter
lag are big pluses in many situations. For kids, the P&S was still very
much in evidence. They love taking videos.

Now it's true that the type of person that vacations in a National Park
is very different than the type of person that goes to Walt Disney World
or Maui, so the relatively high number of SLRs in use was almost
certainly skewed by the location.

I do with that Canon had a lens similar to the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
G ED-IF AF-S VR DX.

On Wed, 6 Aug 2008 13:50:30 -0700, Frank ess wrote:

"Its", not "it's".

No, it would be "its".

Cheers.

Pete

Your both rong. Its its.

It's too late to change it now. It sits.

SMS wrote:

Someone
actually handed me a _film_ SLR, I had no idea any of those were still
around. Can you even buy film anymore?

Sure. Every time I pick up my beloved Olympus OM-2, I get reminded how small
and light it is. But no image stabilization, no auto focus, and 100 ISO with
color. OK, I know you can get to 400 ISO, but that gets pretty grainy.

Oh, yes. Photoshop is much easier, cheaper, and more powerful than a darkroom.
And you don't end up smelling like chemicals.

There
were people with $7000 Canon 500mm lenses, and my wife said, "you need
one of those!"

Say "yes". She's a prize.

Once someone uses a D-SLR, even on a vacation, they're hooked.

If they are the kind of photo geek that hangs out here.

I do with that Canon had a lens similar to the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
G ED-IF AF-S VR DX.

That lens was what made me ebay my Canon 20D and buy the D300. I take pictures
while on vacation. I don't go on vacation to take pictures. A one lens
solution is important for me.

-- Doug