The Eternal P&S vs. DSLR Debate

Why all of the obsession over comparing P&S vs. DSLR cameras?

It's no different than asking "Which is better: a hammer, or a screw
driver?"

There is no answer!

They are intended for very different purposes. Use the tool that is
right for the job at hand!

Gary

Gary Edstrom wrote:
Why all of the obsession over comparing P&S vs. DSLR cameras?

It's no different than asking "Which is better: a hammer, or a screw
driver?"

There is no answer!

They are intended for very different purposes. Use the tool that is
right for the job at hand!

Why ask why?

The question itself has been postulated ad nauseum, dissected, buried,
exhumed, taken to water, beaten after death, reaped after being sown,
etc, etc. ---- So, maybe it's not about the question, really.

--
john mcwilliams

"Gary Edstrom" wrote in message
...
Why all of the obsession over comparing P&S vs. DSLR cameras?

It's no different than asking "Which is better: a hammer, or a screw
driver?"

There is no answer!

They are intended for very different purposes. Use the tool that is
right for the job at hand!


Exactly, they are for different purposes. I have both a P&S and DSLR but use
them for different purposes as the lenses on the DSLR are vary technically
superior but if you don't want the messing around or bulk of a DSLR and just
doing snapshots then the P&S is the preferable choice.

But at the end of the day its not the camera that makes good pictures but
the person behind operating it! No amount of expensive equipment will
automatically take good pictures.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:15:08 +0100, "Stephen"
wrote:

"Gary Edstrom" wrote in message
.. .
Why all of the obsession over comparing P&S vs. DSLR cameras?

It's no different than asking "Which is better: a hammer, or a screw
driver?"

There is no answer!

They are intended for very different purposes. Use the tool that is
right for the job at hand!


Exactly, they are for different purposes. I have both a P&S and DSLR but use
them for different purposes as the lenses on the DSLR are vary technically
superior but if you don't want the messing around or bulk of a DSLR and just
doing snapshots then the P&S is the preferable choice.

But at the end of the day its not the camera that makes good pictures but
the person behind operating it! No amount of expensive equipment will
automatically take good pictures.

Exactly!

Not only do I have both a P&S and a DSLR, but I still use a film camera
on rare occasions. VERY low-light photography is one area where film
still seems to come out on top, even with the noise reduction
capabilities of the higher-end DSLR cameras.

The right tool for the right job!

Gary

Gary Edstrom wrote:

Why all of the obsession over comparing P&S vs. DSLR cameras?

It's no different than asking "Which is better: a hammer, or a screw
driver?"

There is no answer!

They are intended for very different purposes. Use the tool that is
right for the job at hand!

Gary

I think it more RichA who has the obsession.
--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Gary Edstrom wrote:

Exactly!

Not only do I have both a P&S and a DSLR, but I still use a film camera
on rare occasions. VERY low-light photography is one area where film
still seems to come out on top, even with the noise reduction
capabilities of the higher-end DSLR cameras.

The right tool for the right job!

This is true, a 35mm film camera with ISO 400 film is better than an APS
sized sensor D-SLR in some lighting situations, though probably a full
frame D-SLR, which I don't own, would do as well in low light as film.

You don't need to qualify "low-light" with "very." Low light is where
P&S digital cameras do especially poorly, both because of the small
sensor and because the contrast detect auto-focus has a very difficult
time focusing in low light. It's an extremely common complaint of P&S
PHD digital camera users that their indoor photos are far inferior to
what they were able to capture using film (this is second only to the
complaint about the shutter/AF lag).

In article , Gary Edstrom
wrote:

Not only do I have both a P&S and a DSLR, but I still use a film camera
on rare occasions. VERY low-light photography is one area where film
still seems to come out on top, even with the noise reduction
capabilities of the higher-end DSLR cameras.

actually that's where digital shines, by quite a bit. when's the last
time you shot iso 3200 film and it didn't look like a grainy mess?

The right tool for the right job!

yes.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 23:15:08 +0100, "Stephen"
wrote:

"Gary Edstrom" wrote in message
.. .
Why all of the obsession over comparing P&S vs. DSLR cameras?

It's no different than asking "Which is better: a hammer, or a screw
driver?"

There is no answer!

They are intended for very different purposes. Use the tool that is
right for the job at hand!


Exactly, they are for different purposes. I have both a P&S and DSLR but use
them for different purposes as the lenses on the DSLR are vary technically
superior but if you don't want the messing around or bulk of a DSLR and just
doing snapshots then the P&S is the preferable choice.


Superior? Oh? You mean like the one on this EOS450D, a simple to design and
manufacture 3x zoom lens that can't even beat a 20x P&S lens? Superior like
that?

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is putting out 4.3x's more
chromatic aberrations than the P&S lens. Similarly, the P&S lens is
resolving about 10x's more detail than the DSLR lens when adjusted for
sensor size differences. Yeah, that sure is "technically superior" alright.

Or how about this P&S camera that is now going head to head against a
medium format Hasselblad, something that no DSLR owner can even think about
doing.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Remind me to never ask you to help me make any purchase decisions based on
"technically superior" qualities of anything.

On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 16:20:23 -0700, SMS wrote:

Gary Edstrom wrote:

Exactly!

Not only do I have both a P&S and a DSLR, but I still use a film camera
on rare occasions. VERY low-light photography is one area where film
still seems to come out on top, even with the noise reduction
capabilities of the higher-end DSLR cameras.

The right tool for the right job!

This is true, a 35mm film camera with ISO 400 film is better than an APS
sized sensor D-SLR in some lighting situations, though probably a full
frame D-SLR, which I don't own, would do as well in low light as film.

You don't need to qualify "low-light" with "very." Low light is where
P&S digital cameras do especially poorly, both because of the small
sensor and because the contrast detect auto-focus has a very difficult
time focusing in low light. It's an extremely common complaint of P&S
PHD digital camera users that their indoor photos are far inferior to
what they were able to capture using film (this is second only to the
complaint about the shutter/AF lag).

SMS, do you know how silly you look trying to agree with everyone just so
you have some imaginary friends online? You've never owned a camera in your
life. Proved many times.

In article , Gary Edstrom
says...
"Which is better: a hammer, or a screw
driver?"

A better comparison: an SUV vs a compact car. Some people might not want
to consume all that fuel or might not be able to find a parking for the
SUV.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site