P200 vs. DSLR

Ominous · Nov 8, 2005

Nice shots, but no exif data to see the settings used.

Your Depth of field shot proves only that P&S cameras have a lot, but you don't show how they lack the ability to not have a lot

The low light one also isn't what I would call low light....high contrast...yes...low light...can't tell w/o exif.

Calico Cat · Nov 8, 2005

Ominous said:
Nice shots, but no exif data to see the settings used.

I sympathize with tko becuase a lot of photo editing programs lose the exif data. I've personally tried to find a program that would restore lost exif data, but couldn't.

Ominous said:
Your Depth of field shot proves only that P&S cameras have a lot,
but you don't show how they lack the ability to not have a lot

We already know that cameras with bigger sensors have shallower DOF, so I take it your point is that the lack of shallow DOF makes the camera a piece of junk.

Ominous said:
The low light one also isn't what I would call low light....high
contrast...yes...low light...can't tell w/o exif.

I assure you that with a tripod, you can get great shots at ISO 100 even if the light is really low.

Ominous · Nov 8, 2005

Calico Cat said:
Ominous said:

Nice shots, but no exif data to see the settings used.

Click to expand...

I sympathize with tko becuase a lot of photo editing programs lose
the exif data. I've personally tried to find a program that would
restore lost exif data, but couldn't.

Photoshop seems to work fine for me.

Calico Cat said:
Calico Cat said:

Your Depth of field shot proves only that P&S cameras have a lot,
but you don't show how they lack the ability to not have a lot

Click to expand...

We already know that cameras with bigger sensors have shallower
DOF, so I take it your point is that the lack of shallow DOF makes
the camera a piece of junk.

It makes it impossible to take shots with a nice blured background.

Calico Cat said:
Calico Cat said:

The low light one also isn't what I would call low light....high
contrast...yes...low light...can't tell w/o exif.

Click to expand...

I assure you that with a tripod, you can get great shots at ISO 100
even if the light is really low.

Of course...but sometimes you can't use a tripod. And if you need a tripod...I hope you are not trying to freeze anything that might be in motion.

Calico Cat · Nov 8, 2005

Ominous said:
Ominous said:

Ominous said:

Nice shots, but no exif data to see the settings used.

Click to expand...

I sympathize with tko becuase a lot of photo editing programs lose
the exif data. I've personally tried to find a program that would
restore lost exif data, but couldn't.

Click to expand...

Photoshop seems to work fine for me.

Awesome, you can buy me a copy, and buy one for tko as well!

monky · Nov 8, 2005

Ominous said:
Your Depth of field shot proves only that P&S cameras have a lot,
but you don't show how they lack the ability to not have a lot

DSLRs can be a bear to get adequate DOF and still keep the exposure handholdable.

shoot a p200 at f/2.8, and you have almost 5x the DOF as the DSLR for a given FOV. depth of field doubles with each f/stop of aperture closing... so that means to get the same DOF on the DSLR, you need to be more than 2 stops closed vs the P&S (about f/6.3). that can make a huge difference at times. for people that shoot landscapes this can be a major PITA if you dont have a tripod at hand.

again, im not bashing DSLRs or P&Ss... but i hate people spreading one-sided information.

ed

--

ed murphy ----------- AIM: monky9000

Ominous · Nov 8, 2005

". so that means to get the same DOF on the DSLR, you need to be more than 2 stops closed vs the P&S"

ISO 100 P&S
ISO 400 dSLR + IS or VR?

if wide DOF is my concern, odds are I'm shooting landscapes...and odds are I'm using a tripod and remote release. Most times deep DOF is not wanted in day to day pictures...atleast for me.

If I want shallow DOF is what I want, odds are I'm hand holding wide open. Or I could use a tripod if it is macro or some other low light situation where I also want a deep DOF.

Evil Eggplant · Nov 8, 2005

monky said:
monky wrote:
noise was actually my #1 reason for moving to DSLR.

I thought your #1 reason was because you murdered your 828

monky said:
noise is the biggest image quality issue right now when choosing a
digital camera IMO.

For you and me, yes, noise is the #1 reason for the DSLR. That, and the ability to change lenses is a real plus. Some people don't care about the camera or photography. They just want to point the camera at their subject and take a picture. Noise is a non-issue. Ease of use, ergonomics and form factor. That's what many people want.

Until they wan't to shoot their kids when they're performing in the Nutcracker over the holidays. Then they find themselves in a situation where their camera is totally out of it's element.

You can have 90% of everything for under $500.00. It's the other 10% that's going to cost you thousands.

monky said:
they all have enough megapixels to print big,
and colors can be corrected later on... but what noise destroys
cannot be brought back.

I agree. It's worth mentioning that some images stand up to processing much better than others. Some images can barely stand a small tweak, others hold up well to major adjustments. Some cameras are better at making images that stand up well to processing than others. Sheesh, you want to push an image a half stop in post and all of a sudden theres nothing but noise. Yuck, That's the kind of $hit that sucks the fun out of photography (for me). That, and I find the compromises that must be made when NR is used to be unacceptable. My days of NR are over. Just a tad of luminance smoothing is all I will use, and only when the subject calls for it. If there is noise in the image it will stay there. A small amount of evenly distributed "grain like" noise is fine. Wipe out detail to reduce noise? For me, those days are gone forever.

Cheers

--
rich
http://www.photoallure.com

Harry Behret · Nov 8, 2005

Calico Cat said:
I assure you that with a tripod, you can get great shots at ISO 100
even if the light is really low.

But I thought you liked the P200 because you were inconspicuous with it. Kind of hard to be inconspicuous with a tripod.

Harry
--
http://behret.smugmug.com

'if you ain't having fun, you ain't doing it right'

Calico Cat · Nov 8, 2005

Harry Behret said:
Harry Behret said:

I assure you that with a tripod, you can get great shots at ISO 100
even if the light is really low.

Click to expand...

But I thought you liked the P200 because you were inconspicuous
with it. Kind of hard to be inconspicuous with a tripod.

You are 95% correct. If I'd bother to bring out a tripod, I doubt I would use the P200 because there wouldn't be much portability advantage. Might as well use the DSLR which takes slightly better quality photos, even though the P200 comes close. However, the P200 does take nice photos when used with a tripod.

I've been considering looking into inconspicous camera supports, if anyone has any recommendations, I'm reading them.

Without a tripod or special camera support, one can often "live off the land" and find various places to rest your P200 in order to take a photo. The live preview actually makes it easier to to this than with a DSLR which might require you to contort your body in a strange position in order to see what it's aimed at.

Harry Behret · Nov 8, 2005

Calico Cat said:
You are 95% correct. If I'd bother to bring out a tripod, I doubt I
would use the P200 because there wouldn't be much portability
advantage. Might as well use the DSLR which takes slightly better
quality photos, even though the P200 comes close. However, the P200
does take nice photos when used with a tripod.

I've been considering looking into inconspicous camera supports, if
anyone has any recommendations, I'm reading them.

Without a tripod or special camera support, one can often "live off
the land" and find various places to rest your P200 in order to
take a photo. The live preview actually makes it easier to to this
than with a DSLR which might require you to contort your body in a
strange position in order to see what it's aimed at.

W/o a doubt the compact cameras have some nice features that help getting a shot. I always enjoyed the adjustable lens of the 717. But those advantages don't compare with the better handling I get from my DSLR. I don't lose shots because of shutter lag or slow focusing. The ability to get off a sequence of up to 24 shots can't be matched by fixed lens cameras.

With the ability to shoot at high ISOs and with IS and VR lenses you can shoot in low light w/o a tripod if necessary.

--
http://behret.smugmug.com

'if you ain't having fun, you ain't doing it right'

tko · Nov 8, 2005

I have to be honest now. A lot of the pictures are panoramas or multiples exposures combines. How else can I compete with a dSLR : )?

Of course, a pano give you instant wide angle. Blending multiple exposures gives you wide dynmaic range. Doing both can give amazing results. I can show with some very nice 30 MP images with perfect exposure between sky and land.

So, no EXIF data when for the pano images. The others should have EXIF data.

But I was just having fun. If I had a dSLR it would make a lot of my pictures better, and make them easier to take. If there is a point istthat's while it's nice to have the right tools, you can have fun with any camera.

PS - I wouldn't call my images low light but definately reduced or available lighing. You can not argue that having high ISO is a great advantage. Luckily for me, none of Calico Cat's excellent pictures were what I consider low light either.

monky · Nov 8, 2005

Ominous said:
if wide DOF is my concern, odds are I'm shooting landscapes...

there are others that require DOF beyond landscapes.

i wasn't trying to argue a point here. i am just presenting another point of view. like you said....

Ominous said:
atleast for me.

to each his own. but you shouldn't make it out that the deep DOF of a P&S is never an advantage.

ed

--

ed murphy ----------- AIM: monky9000

digital_ray_of_light · Nov 8, 2005

No one should question the statement that you find the P200 much better for your picture taking needs/requirements than a DSLR. If this works for an individual user, that's great!

However, when you make a general statement that the P200 is better than DSLRs then you get in trouble. The physical properties of today's DSLRs give them a significant advantage in some areas. Not because of the SLR name, but because of their compoments (bigger sensor, bigger lens, better camera internals/performance). These are measurable quantities. So when you make a blanket statement that the P200 is better, you will be faced with the physical properties of DSLRs that cannot be overcome by small sensors and lenses. Thus the general blanket statement falters. (OTOH, I am not claiming that DSLRs are better in every occassion either. I am simply addressing the original poster's assertion).

You may be able to show that in some instances under certain conditions the P200 may take better picture(s) than DSLRs, but that does not prove that for every picture, every situation and every user. That's a major leap of faith. The P200 certainly has its advantages over DSLRs. For example, the P200 certainly has a much better live preview and live histogram mode than DSLRs and records much better movies and fits in much smaller pockets and bags

Having said all that I do not have anything against the P200, infact it's one of the cameras I confidently recommend to people (even though I am not big on proprietory memory/batteries - (the last statement being a personal opinion/preference, not a blanket statement

)).

Calico Cat said:
I think I like my P200 better. It's a lot easier to carry around
and in most cases you can barely tell the difference when you look
at the pictures.

I feel really awkward in many cases using the the SLR and the big
lens, but the P200 is so inconspicuous. From a distance it doens't
look any different than a cell phone, and everyone is carrying
around a cell phone around here.

The P200 is also better with purple fringing. For example, on the
Olympus SLR forum I posted three examples of purple fringing using
each of the three different lenses:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=15645756

And then I posted a shot from the P200 which had much less fringing:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1022&message=15646140

People on the Olympus SLR forum got really mad at me for daring to
question the religion of Olympus.

--
My brand new photography blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/photographyetc/

Calico Cat · Nov 8, 2005

My original statement was "I think I like my P200 better." This is subtly but importantly different than the way you phrased it, "when you make a general statement that the P200 is better than DSLRs."

I also posted a specific example, purple fringing, where suprisingly the P200 seemed to outperform a certain model DSLR. Some people, mostly DSLR owners, have the attitude that there isn't a single area of picture taking where the DSLR beats the pants off a small camera like the P200. Not true.

Generally "better" or "worse" is much harder to compare, especially between a tiny camera that costs $400 and a much larger camera that costs over $1000. But to the credit of the P200, it looks nice, the menus are easy to use and figure out what they do, there is a surprisingly large amount of manual control, it has a useful live histogram, the light metering is very accurate, and resolution, I think, is as good as the Sony F707 that I have.

The P200 really is better than any DSLR for discreet photogrphay. There's nothing discreet about a DSLR with a huge lens.

The P200 is an easy camera to "like" because of these features. The DSLR in question is much harder to "like" because of its inferior exposure metering compared to the P200, hard to understand menus with poor documentation, and a lack of quality control in the manufacture of its lenses, one of which I intend to take back for an exchange.

monky · Nov 8, 2005

Evil Eggplant said:
Evil Eggplant said:

noise was actually my #1 reason for moving to DSLR.

Click to expand...

I thought your #1 reason was because you murdered your 828

LOL... that wasn't really a reason to make the move... that just expediated the move ;-) kinda like the excuse i needed, if you ask my fiancee

Evil Eggplant said:
You can have 90% of everything for under $500.00. It's the other
10% that's going to cost you thousands.

exactly. a little more reach, a little faster focus, a little .... those cost ALOT. and once youre into the DSLR world of course... you have the same thing. one lens is a little sharper, but alot more money. one body has a sensor thats a little bigger, but alot more money.

Evil Eggplant said:
Just a tad of luminance
smoothing is all I will use, and only when the subject calls for
it. If there is noise in the image it will stay there. A small
amount of evenly distributed "grain like" noise is fine. Wipe out
detail to reduce noise? For me, those days are gone forever.

when i am in NR programs (not speaking of just a luminance smoothing in PS) i actually prefer to leave luminance noise alone... but when i have to run NR i will hit chroma noise hard. once the chroma is under control, the texture of the photograph looks much more random, much less splotchy, and much more like film grain IMO.

--

ed murphy ----------- AIM: monky9000

Evil Eggplant · Nov 8, 2005

monky said:
monky wrote:
LOL... that wasn't really a reason to make the move... that just
expediated the move ;-) kinda like the excuse i needed, if you
ask my fiancee

Fiancee, huh? Congratulations, my good man. One small piece of unsolicited advice, if I may. You know that 500mm f/4L you've had your eye on? Get it now.

When you upgrade from fiancee to wife, certain operational parameters change. Spend $1500 on a lens?

You'll be explaining the $30 you'll be spending on the UV filter for lens.

monky said:
monky said:

when i am in NR programs (not speaking of just a luminance

Click to expand...

smoothing in PS) i actually prefer to leave luminance noise
alone... but when i have to run NR i will hit chroma noise hard.
once the chroma is under control, the texture of the photograph
looks much more random, much less splotchy, and much more like film
grain IMO.

Interesting. With the 20D there is very little chroma noise. Shadows are pretty clean. Lately, I've been shooting weddings and kids. A tad of luminance smoothing does wonders for skin. One thing, ACR renders a ton of detail along with all the noise. C1, DPP and even RSE render much less noise, but for film-like, ACR seems to be the best.

Sometimes noise bugs me when viewing at 100%, but you simply don't see it in the print. Not at all.

Cheers!

monky said:
--

ed murphy ----------- AIM: monky9000

--
rich
http://www.photoallure.com

monky · Nov 8, 2005

Evil Eggplant said:
Fiancee, huh? Congratulations, my good man.

thank-you

Evil Eggplant said:
One small piece of
unsolicited advice, if I may. You know that 500mm f/4L you've had
your eye on? Get it now.

When you upgrade from fiancee to wife, certain operational
parameters change. Spend $1500 on a lens?

You'll be explaining the $30 you'll be spending on the UV filter
for lens.

LOL... thanks for the tip

Evil Eggplant said:
Interesting. With the 20D there is very little chroma noise.
Shadows are pretty clean. Lately, I've been shooting weddings and
kids. A tad of luminance smoothing does wonders for skin. One
thing, ACR renders a ton of detail along with all the noise. C1,
DPP and even RSE render much less noise, but for film-like, ACR
seems to be the best.

well, i find chroma noise starts to creep in at ISO1600 on the XT... but then i am pretty picky. when i push to 3200 (or 6400 in extreme cases, if i shoot RAW) chroma starts to get out of control. these situations are where i start to consider NR a valid option.

i fully agree with you on ACR... when i shoot RAW (yes, i can hear you yelling at me ;-), but i still rarely shoot RAW) thats what i use. i find it does a much better job handling chroma than the in-camera JPG.

Evil Eggplant said:
Sometimes noise bugs me when viewing at 100%, but you simply don't
see it in the print. Not at all.

after all, that is what its all about, right? holding the finished product in your hand.

have a great night rich

--

ed murphy ----------- AIM: monky9000

digital_ray_of_light · Nov 10, 2005

Calico Cat said:
My original statement was "I think I like my P200 better." This is
subtly but importantly different than the way you phrased it, "when
you make a general statement that the P200 is better than DSLRs."

Yes, that was the original statement. But you also posted follow-ups including statements like this:

Quote: [I'm not "pitting" any cameras against each other, this was more of a demonstration that a small camera with excellent quality like the P200 can capture better shots than a DSLR].

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1009&message=15774662

Again, I am not disagreeing with most of what you are saying, I am simply pointing out the scope and constraints when making such comparisons.

Calico Cat said:
I also posted a specific example, purple fringing, where
suprisingly the P200 seemed to outperform a certain model DSLR.
Some people, mostly DSLR owners, have the attitude that there isn't
a single area of picture taking where the DSLR beats the pants off
a small camera like the P200. Not true.

Generally "better" or "worse" is much harder to compare, especially
between a tiny camera that costs $400 and a much larger camera that
costs over $1000. But to the credit of the P200, it looks nice, the
menus are easy to use and figure out what they do, there is a
surprisingly large amount of manual control, it has a useful live
histogram, the light metering is very accurate, and resolution, I
think, is as good as the Sony F707 that I have.

The P200 really is better than any DSLR for discreet photogrphay.
There's nothing discreet about a DSLR with a huge lens.

The P200 is an easy camera to "like" because of these features. The
DSLR in question is much harder to "like" because of its inferior
exposure metering compared to the P200, hard to understand menus
with poor documentation, and a lack of quality control in the
manufacture of its lenses, one of which I intend to take back for
an exchange.

--
My brand new photography blog: http://www.livejournal.com/users/photographyetc/

Pepe-Lepue · Nov 10, 2005

Calico Cat said:
The P200 is an easy camera to "like" because of these features. The
DSLR in question is much harder to "like" because of its inferior
exposure metering compared to the P200, hard to understand menus
with poor documentation, and a lack of quality control in the
manufacture of its lenses, one of which I intend to take back for
an exchange.

Your apparent difficulty in using DSLRs doesn't apply to everybody. It is true that DSLRs require the photographer to have more intimate understanding of their gear as well as photography.

Rather than blame the camera system, you should weigh your ability against the different systems available to determine your choice. DON'T assume that your experiences and reasons are true for EVERYBODY. . . they are far from it!!!

--
'I am ze locksmith of love, no?'
Stephen Reed

sigsegv · Nov 11, 2005

At this time Oly's 4/3 glass is woefully inept comparing to Canon's L glass. Canon's L glass and for that matter (yes it sounds insulting) Tamron SP and Sigma's EX line are all very easily significantly outperforming olympus' entire 4/3 line. Oly's 4/3 lens are prolly a little worse then Canon's low end consumer line.

source:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/index.html

specific examples:
Canon EF 10-22 http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1022_3545/index.htm

Olympus 4/3 11-22 http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1122_2835/index.htm

50mm macros
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_50_2/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_50_25/index.htm

200mm tele-zooms
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_50200_2835/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_70200_28/index.htm

std zooms:
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/olympus_1454_2835/index.htm
http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/canon_1740_4/index.htm

http://www.photozone.de/8Reviews/lenses/sigma_1850_28/index.htm (canon mount sigma)

Sadly Olympus trails Canon (and Tamron and Sigma) far behind in their lens performance. It's ironic, because you would think due to the smaller sensor and higher resolving power the 4/3 system provides due to extra pixel density Oly lens would be better.

P200 vs. DSLR

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts