dSLR vs point and shoot

I have been using a Fuji F10 (and two prior point and shoots), and
have just gotten a Nikon D50 with the 18 - 70 mm lens (and also Tokina
12-20). Most of the "serious" pictures I take are landscapes or
architectural on trips where pictures are taken rapidly without a lot
of time for setup or use of a tripod. I am capable at post processing
with ps and 3rd party sharpening and noise reduction software. I do
not print larger than 8x10. After comparing the two cameras, I am
questioning the advantages of a dSLR in this setting. I would
appreciate input from more experienced users.

I compared the two outdoors in sunlight, shade, and harsh contrasts.
I set both at ISO 200 and shot at either 35 or 105 35 mm equivalent.
Both are 6 mp. I reviewd both side by side at "actual pixels" size
(on the monitor, not printed).

Color, saturation, dynamic range were equivalent. Noise wasn't an
issue in these shots. The Fuji had more chromatic aberration. The
D50 was slightly sharper at the point of focus but the inherently
greater depth of field of the smaller sensor p&s made the total
picture sharper in the Fuji. I prefer high DOF for what I do and even
with higher f stops in the dSLR, I didn't match it without hitting
camera shake limiting shutter speeds.

The main advantages I saw to the dSLR were absence of shutter lag and
the wider angle of the zoom at the wide end.

Certainly, the SLR wins, but by a much smaller margin than I would
have guessed and not in most shots. Is this worth travelling with the
bigger bulk of the SLR? (A personal judgement I understand) Or do I
just need to get better with SLR photography? Is versatility the
greatest advantage of an SLR rather than better image?

Thanks for your opinions, and thanks for helping a newbie.

=================
Delete "abc" to reply by email.

wrote in message
...

I have been using a Fuji F10 (and two prior point and shoots), and
have just gotten a Nikon D50 with the 18 - 70 mm lens (and also Tokina
12-20). Most of the "serious" pictures I take are landscapes or
architectural on trips where pictures are taken rapidly without a lot
of time for setup or use of a tripod. I am capable at post processing
with ps and 3rd party sharpening and noise reduction software. I do
not print larger than 8x10. After comparing the two cameras, I am
questioning the advantages of a dSLR in this setting. I would
appreciate input from more experienced users.

I upgraded from the F10 to the D70s recently and the thing I like is
shooting in RAW which means I have much better control over the final result
(using nikon capture 4) compared with the jpeg output from the F10.

Another thing to remember is that the 18-70mm lens will not produce the best
results at each end, and I prefer the shots I have done at the 24-50mm range
in terms of quality.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 22:14:12 GMT, John A. Stovall, well known snob
and camera chauvinist did solemly say:

The main advantages I saw to the dSLR were absence of shutter lag and
the wider angle of the zoom at the wide end.

If that's all the difference you see, say with the POS camera. A
real camera would be wasted on you.

The Fuji F10 and the Nikon D50 are both "real" cameras. A real
attempt to explain this would be wasted on you. That's P&S by the
way, or does POS accurately describe how you view most things?

http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6468-7844
I never tire of posting this

Jem


----------------------------------------------------
Dramatised - Photography Granularised - Photographs
Black and White - Prints Blue and White - Cyanotypes
http://jemraid.wikispaces.com/

...
I have been using a Fuji F10 (and two prior point and shoots), and
have just gotten a Nikon D50 with the 18 - 70 mm lens (and also Tokina
12-20). Most of the "serious" pictures I take are landscapes or
architectural on trips where pictures are taken rapidly without a lot
of time for setup or use of a tripod. I am capable at post processing
with ps and 3rd party sharpening and noise reduction software. I do
not print larger than 8x10. After comparing the two cameras, I am
questioning the advantages of a dSLR in this setting. I would
appreciate input from more experienced users.

I compared the two outdoors in sunlight, shade, and harsh contrasts.
I set both at ISO 200 and shot at either 35 or 105 35 mm equivalent.
Both are 6 mp. I reviewd both side by side at "actual pixels" size
(on the monitor, not printed).

Color, saturation, dynamic range were equivalent. Noise wasn't an
issue in these shots. The Fuji had more chromatic aberration. The
D50 was slightly sharper at the point of focus but the inherently
greater depth of field of the smaller sensor p&s made the total
picture sharper in the Fuji. I prefer high DOF for what I do and even
with higher f stops in the dSLR, I didn't match it without hitting
camera shake limiting shutter speeds.

The main advantages I saw to the dSLR were absence of shutter lag and
the wider angle of the zoom at the wide end.

Certainly, the SLR wins, but by a much smaller margin than I would
have guessed and not in most shots. Is this worth travelling with the
bigger bulk of the SLR? (A personal judgement I understand) Or do I
just need to get better with SLR photography? Is versatility the
greatest advantage of an SLR rather than better image?

Thanks for your opinions, and thanks for helping a newbie.

=================
Delete "abc" to reply by email.

I feel these sort of questions are related to the old adage, "If you have to
ask how much it costs, you can't afford it." If you have to ask if an SLR
type camera gives you any advantage over a point and shoot, or if those
advantages are any more than minimal, then an SLR type camera is probably
not for you. If the things that a DSLR will do for you, like increased lens
selection, flexibility, low noise at high Isis aren't important, then you
don't need them. Especially if you value low weight, small size or
simplicity more.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
wrote in message

wrote:

The main advantages I saw to the dSLR were absence of shutter lag and
the wider angle of the zoom at the wide end.


Generally a DSLR gives access to a huge choice of lenses and equipment
to master different photographic tasks. I have been happy for years with my
point and shoots and I am happy now with my Canon 5D DSLR. By the way
I am still using *all* my cams as each is a specialist (size of body, image
quality,
file size, speed etc.).

Andreas

--
http://www.subworld.at

wrote in message
...
I have been using a Fuji F10 (and two prior point and shoots), and
have just gotten a Nikon D50 with the 18 - 70 mm lens (and also Tokina
12-20). Most of the "serious" pictures I take are landscapes or
architectural on trips where pictures are taken rapidly without a lot
of time for setup or use of a tripod. I am capable at post processing
with ps and 3rd party sharpening and noise reduction software. I do
not print larger than 8x10. After comparing the two cameras, I am
questioning the advantages of a dSLR in this setting. I would
appreciate input from more experienced users.

I compared the two outdoors in sunlight, shade, and harsh contrasts.
I set both at ISO 200 and shot at either 35 or 105 35 mm equivalent.
Both are 6 mp. I reviewd both side by side at "actual pixels" size
(on the monitor, not printed).

Color, saturation, dynamic range were equivalent. Noise wasn't an
issue in these shots. The Fuji had more chromatic aberration. The
D50 was slightly sharper at the point of focus but the inherently
greater depth of field of the smaller sensor p&s made the total
picture sharper in the Fuji. I prefer high DOF for what I do and even
with higher f stops in the dSLR, I didn't match it without hitting
camera shake limiting shutter speeds.

The main advantages I saw to the dSLR were absence of shutter lag and
the wider angle of the zoom at the wide end.

Certainly, the SLR wins, but by a much smaller margin than I would
have guessed and not in most shots. Is this worth travelling with the
bigger bulk of the SLR? (A personal judgement I understand) Or do I
just need to get better with SLR photography? Is versatility the
greatest advantage of an SLR rather than better image?

Thanks for your opinions, and thanks for helping a newbie.



FWIW, I've got a Pentax *ist D (the original & best), a couple of thousand
pounds worth of lenses (including a Limited), external flash, plus a drawful
of accessories such as cable release, macro bellow, etc, etc.

I get some reasonable shots. However, my daughter and her husband returned
from holiday with photo's snapped with a £70 Vivitar 4mp P&S - and, you know
what? - their pictures were good, not 'A1', but very good.

As I looked at them I found myself wondering why I'm ****ing about with a
Domke full of lenses that only give me a bit better performance than a small
camera that they carry in their coat pocket.

If you want my honest opinion, half of this dlsr craze is down to snobbery
and the desire to be flattered by technology - I'd lay odds that 99% of
owners could get all the quality they need from a small P&S costing a
fraction of the price.

Pentax Fan wrote:
wrote in message
...
I have been using a Fuji F10 (and two prior point and shoots), and
have just gotten a Nikon D50 with the 18 - 70 mm lens (and also
Tokina 12-20). Most of the "serious" pictures I take are
landscapes
or architectural on trips where pictures are taken rapidly without
a
lot of time for setup or use of a tripod. I am capable at post
processing with ps and 3rd party sharpening and noise reduction
software. I do not print larger than 8x10. After comparing the
two
cameras, I am questioning the advantages of a dSLR in this setting.
I would appreciate input from more experienced users.

I compared the two outdoors in sunlight, shade, and harsh
contrasts.
I set both at ISO 200 and shot at either 35 or 105 35 mm
equivalent.
Both are 6 mp. I reviewd both side by side at "actual pixels" size
(on the monitor, not printed).

Color, saturation, dynamic range were equivalent. Noise wasn't an
issue in these shots. The Fuji had more chromatic aberration. The
D50 was slightly sharper at the point of focus but the inherently
greater depth of field of the smaller sensor p&s made the total
picture sharper in the Fuji. I prefer high DOF for what I do and
even with higher f stops in the dSLR, I didn't match it without
hitting camera shake limiting shutter speeds.

The main advantages I saw to the dSLR were absence of shutter lag
and
the wider angle of the zoom at the wide end.

Certainly, the SLR wins, but by a much smaller margin than I would
have guessed and not in most shots. Is this worth travelling with
the bigger bulk of the SLR? (A personal judgement I understand) Or
do I just need to get better with SLR photography? Is versatility
the greatest advantage of an SLR rather than better image?

Thanks for your opinions, and thanks for helping a newbie.



FWIW, I've got a Pentax *ist D (the original & best), a couple of
thousand pounds worth of lenses (including a Limited), external
flash, plus a drawful of accessories such as cable release, macro
bellow, etc, etc.
I get some reasonable shots. However, my daughter and her husband
returned from holiday with photo's snapped with a £70 Vivitar 4mp
P&S
- and, you know what? - their pictures were good, not 'A1', but very
good.
As I looked at them I found myself wondering why I'm ****ing about
with a Domke full of lenses that only give me a bit better
performance than a small camera that they carry in their coat
pocket.

If you want my honest opinion, half of this dlsr craze is down to
snobbery and the desire to be flattered by technology - I'd lay odds
that 99% of owners could get all the quality they need from a small
P&S costing a fraction of the price.

I'm not sure snobbery and self-indulgence are the principal motives
for jumping into dSLR country, but there is no doubt in my mind that
your bet is a good one.

Every field of endeavor I've had sufficiently enlightening experience
in has its high-end attractions, and many fewer people who are
actually capable of extending them than who aspire to or acquire them.
Many don't know if the tools will be appropriate to their talent until
it is exercised in the edge of the envelope.

I'd temper a "snobbery" assertion by suggesting some idea about the
value of measuring needs and capabilities against known "bests", in
conserving energy and time, and in minimizing anxiety about realistic
assessment of potential. I have counselled in the past: "If you do get
into dSLRs, be ready to take responsibility for your work. If it ain't
that good, you can't blame the gear. On the other hand, good
photography doesn't require exceptional photography equipment; the
determining influences are most often 'soft': eye and mind will out".

--
Frank ess

Thanks, good points. The one thing I'll take issue with is that I
find the noise levels at high ISO's unacceptable in the dSLR as well
despite theoretical advantage. The one advantage I see is that RAW
files seem to me easier to deal with for noise reduction than post
processing with photoshop or Noise Ninja.

On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 16:12:57 -0700, "Skip M"
wrote:

Delete "abc" to reply by email.

I feel these sort of questions are related to the old adage, "If you have to
ask how much it costs, you can't afford it." If you have to ask if an SLR
type camera gives you any advantage over a point and shoot, or if those
advantages are any more than minimal, then an SLR type camera is probably
not for you. If the things that a DSLR will do for you, like increased lens
selection, flexibility, low noise at high Isis aren't important, then you
don't need them. Especially if you value low weight, small size or
simplicity more.

=================
Delete "abc" to reply by email.

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 01:33:50 +0100, "Pentax Fan"
wrote:

FWIW, I've got a Pentax *ist D (the original & best), a couple of thousand
pounds worth of lenses (including a Limited), external flash, plus a drawful
of accessories such as cable release, macro bellow, etc, etc.

I get some reasonable shots. However, my daughter and her husband returned
from holiday with photo's snapped with a £70 Vivitar 4mp P&S - and, you know
what? - their pictures were good, not 'A1', but very good.

As I looked at them I found myself wondering why I'm ****ing about with a
Domke full of lenses that only give me a bit better performance than a small
camera that they carry in their coat pocket.

If you want my honest opinion, half of this dlsr craze is down to snobbery
and the desire to be flattered by technology - I'd lay odds that 99% of
owners could get all the quality they need from a small P&S costing a
fraction of the price.

Maybe you're confusing the *technical* quality of the images with the
ability of the user to use the equipment?
Certainly, many P&S cameras can come very close to, if not exceed, the
'pixel peeping' quality of entry level DSLRs.
But that doesn't mean that DSLRs are in the same class as P&S cameras;
instead, it points out that equipment doesn't make the image, the
photographer does.
Trying to compare P&S cameras with entry level DSLRs on strictly an
'end result' basis entirely misses the point: DSLRs offer much more
choices to the user. Those who can't see that are probably better off
using P&S cameras, because the extra versatility of the DSLR would be
wasted. There's nothing wrong with sticking with what works for you,
but trying to say anything else is somehow "less" or only used because
of "snobbery" is just an attempt to justify your own lack of skills.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"