Reading mode: Light Dark

The "Gap" closeth

Go to last post
tycfung said:
I've got four points I want to make:

1. The 'gap' between P&S may be closing in terms of resolution, but
it may be a moot point. The megapixel race is becoming pointless
because we've reached a point where the resolution exceeds the
needs of most casual photographers. The advantage in image quality
doesn't necessarily come from resolution, but also includes the
quality of the lens and the image processor. I can agree that
many point and shoots now have exceptionally good lenses (like the
Leica-based panasonics), and Canon has fantastic image processors
for their compact cameras. For simple snapshots, compact digitals
are fine.

2. P&S's cannot compete on flexibility that an SLR has. If your
needs extend to specialies such as portraiture, macro or sports,
P&S cameras are totally inadequate.

3. SLRs will always have a numerically smaller market share, but
they will likely be very profitable in the years ahead. The
profit-margin from SLR accessories (flashes, battery grips,
filters, lenses, etc) are far higher than from compact cameras.

Lastly,

4. I think you're missing the big picture. In the area of consumer
electronics, stand-alone compact cameras are a threatened species.
The popularity of camera phones is now threatening the
profitability of single-purpose compact cameras. The number of
camera phones sold exceeds the number of stand-alone compacts.
While the image quality of camera phones is poor right now, they
are improving rapidly. Once the quality becomes 'good enough',
expect to see people abandoning compact cameras in droves.
There's a huge potential in devices that combine communication,
PDA-like functionality, cameras and music. Stand-alone compact
cameras won't make sense in the current marketplace, especially
with the new generation of users that are computer and cell-phone
savvy.

Just my two cents.

Good points Tycfung... the my beloved C-8080 is now out of the market, so will be the same with the FZ30, people will be buying either small P&S and DSRL.
Click to expand...
 
FFS said:
Alasaad said:
There are hundreds of millions, Billions of people who care less
about DOF.
Click to expand...
There are also a huge amount of people reading news from portal
such as news.yahoo.com that continually shows portraiture in
shallow DOF. That helps set the standard of what 'good pictures
made by pro's' look like.
Click to expand...
--

I was one of those "pros" for 37 years. The characteristic you point out is not "chosen" by we PJs, it is a characteristic of our "fast" (f/2.8 or faster) "pro" lenses. Which reflects on why so many discussions center on DOF.

Thus, it is not the PJ who set the "standard" look you describe, the lenses did and do. The DOF topic is fruitless in that far too much talk is devoted to something that is purely mechanical~ : you either have lenses that produce the effect or not, and 98% of DLSR owners don't:
DON'T own "pro" lenses that is.
 
ShooterPS said:
I still haven’t seen a convincing explanation that a DSLR with a
kit lens is better than a similarly priced or even cheaper fixed
lens camera. ISO? ISO 400 with IS and F2.8 is pretty comparable to
ISO 1600 with an F4.5 kit lens and no IS. And adding expensive
SLR's and lenses to the comparison is simply beside the point.
Spending thousands more buys you more, big deal. It's no longer
grapes to grapes.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmmmmm sorta comparing apples to cheese we dont know the focal lenght. if shooting at hmmm say 50mm there is considerble difference in depth of field between f2.8 and f4.5. but thats not really the biggest problem. The real diffaculty with point and shoots with a few exceptions is trying to be everything to every one all in one small neat package. Just in term of erganomics most of the slrs are light years a head dispite their bigger size or perhaps because of their bigger size. The lenses used in most p&s cameras are stretched to the limit to give the buyer that 10-1 zoom or even 5-1 zoom and things like registration of elements quality of image and longevity all suffer not to mention the abberations and distortions and slow f-stops.

The reasons for using an interchangable lens camera are not just about having lots of lenses its also about fast lenses that are opticaly superior to the lenses offered on almost all p&s cameras. Certanily the ability to use lenses as fast as f1-4 or 1.8 is a significant advantage for photographers not only for low light photography but for control of depth of field and optimal pereformance of the lens at more normal light levels. As p&s cameras get bigger and bigger sensors it will become more and more aparent to even casual user the deficencies of the optical compermises for these super zooms.

To complicate matters even more many also use electric moters to drive the zoom functions and this is painfully slow and inaccurate.

Almost universaly the p&s cameras use cheap optical finders or evf finders and I find them diffacult at best to use but thats more a personal thing.

Reasons for dslrs 1 durability and ruggedness

2, far superior lens performance, 3 far better viewfinder 4 better erganomics, 5 better sensor noise performance,6 faster lenses, 7 far more other accessories such as filters, etc.
Speaking of filters lens hoods and superzooms

it is almost impossible to design a sun shade for a super zoom that is efficient at both the wide and telli ends in shading the glass, that is and keep the package small and neat.

Also from another side consider the camera manufacturer. Say Canon for instance. The profit margin on a 20d or 30d is many percentage points bigger initially and there is the great expectation of after market sales in lenses and other accories that have even better profit margins. I think the camera makers are aware of this and will start pushing the dslr and slow down on the high end be all and end all p&s cameras cus there is more profit potential in the dslr.

--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]
 
James Arnold 1971 said:
Hi, this might bring some substance back to this debate.

SLR stands for Single Lens Reflex? Its purpose is to provide the
photographer with an exact right reading view of what they are
taking a picture of. Correct.

This technology by itself could very well be replaced by an
elctronic substitue. Provided that substitute provided the same
qaulity of image withe the same level of convience (or better) to
the photographer. With none of the other advatages diminished such
as shutter speed. Once achieved production of SLR' cameras will
stop, I mean who could argue that removing the mirror would be a
bad thing?

As for the form of the camera. Camera form is not solely a result
of the SLR technology. Ergonomics are very important, but the shape
and positoin of controls aren't married to the SLR technology.
There are larger P&S cameras that also have well placed controls.

If they could make a lens that has a range of 8mm-2000mm with
perspective shift and all the bells and whistels. Maybe
interchangeable lenses will also be history. Or even develop a
technology that eliminates the need for a lens alltogetherl?

Having said that the beauty of SLR is that it is still a "mirror"
image of reflected light!

Look away from your monitor and you will quicly the difference
between reflected and transmitted light! Whie you are looking also
compare how sharp reality is compared to what you get on your
monitor. Technology has to match that quality before the age old
mirror in the SLR will become a dinosaur.

Comming up with a better solution than the mirror might be as hard
as designing a better wheel. Thouseand of years later its made
differently out of different materials it might work better but in
the end its still a wheel.

Any thoughts on this?

Jamie

Any bets on how long that will take
Click to expand...
Good points Jamie!! Thank you...
 
Before anything important can be discussed, we need far better words to describe the range of photo products. I hate "dSLR" and "P&S", as they each encompass such a wide range and overlap so much that they are useless.

I can't propose only two terms to describe all the various kinds of cameras!

Some words that seem to be important are:

"Reflex"... Is a mirror required to perform the "reflex" function? Can't this also be done with electronics? I see two expanded terms being needed..."optical reflex" and "electronic reflex".

"Single Lens"... If a camera has removable lenses, can it be truly called a "single lens" camera?

"Removable Lens"...

"Fixed Lens"... Would it not be better to get the lens fixed before we buy the thing? Prolly "non-removable lens" is a better term? ;-)

"Sensor Size" and "Photosite Size"...the ratio of these is the MP!

I'm a believer that the overall quality of images is proportional to the square root of the "Sensor Size".

Terms like "Through the Lens" are not really needed, as all digital cameras (within reason) are TTL. And "Single Lens/Twin Lens" is an ancient term that's also not needed to differentiate between camera types...point to an example of a non-single lens digital camera. ;-)

I think the major ways of classifying digital cameras should be:

Size...tiny;small;average;big;giant
Controls...zero;novice;amateur;semi-pro;pro
Viewfinder...optical;optical reflex;electronic reflex;screen
Lens...removable or non-removable;zoom ratio;FL;aperture;crop ratio

Sensor...sensor size;aspect ratio;photosite area;sensitivity;orientation
Speed (pix/sec)
Buffer Size (pix)

I skipped MP, ISO, subjective noise estimates, battery type and life, memory type, etc. It's not that these are not important, but rather that they don't DEFINE a type of camera. In fact, I suspect I've gone too deep with details anyway! Might need to drop the last three?

Thus, I propose that "small, novice, screen, 3X-70, F3.5, 1:4" describes a pocket size P&S camera with a 3X zoom (35-105 equivalent), with an F:3.5 aperture (at mid zoom), and a 1:4 crop ratio (thus, a 1/1.8" sensor). This could be abbreviated as: SNS3X-70F3.5/0.25...

In the same vein, "large, semi-pro, electronic reflex-screen, 5X-72, F3.8, 1.67" can be shortened to: LSER-S5X-72F3.8/0.6, which describes my R1.

And "giant, pro, optical reflex, removable 11X-109,F4.6,1.53" describes a D200 with the 18-200 lens. Shortened, it would be:
GPORR11X-109F4.6/0.65.

Think we can get used to "GPORR", "LSER-S", and "SNS". No? Then we'll be "discussing" these subjects ad nauseum...with never a resolution or common ground... :-(

--
Charlie Davis
Nikon 5700 & Sony R1
CATS #25
PAS Scribe @ http://www.here-ugo.com/PAS_List.htm
HomePage: http://www.1derful.info
'I brake for pixels...'
 
poliscijustin said:
Alasaad said:
I would stress the cost of shooting SLRs: a minimum of $1,500 for a
DLSR of any repute. Add another $1,500 for "pro" lenses (anything
less and your product will have to undergo major reconstructive
surgery to pass muster).
It's the "pride" factor working in DSLRs favor right now. That and
the number of neophyte shooters with tax refunds buying what they
will sooner, rather than later, regret.
Click to expand...
Snipped

Normally, I avoid getting beligerent (sic) with people here, but since
you have decided to do the same....

This first statement is the Dumbest thing I have read on this forum
in months, hands down.
Click to expand...
Please, my intellect should not be questioned in that it reflects on my genetic background and parentage. I will not bring yours into the conversation if you leave mine out.

And please, point out to me where anything in that first statement is directed towards you? Or is any way “belligerent”? And why single me out for your own unwarranted belligerence? Ah, I dared express my own opinion: that’s it; right?

Sorry, but all you understand is MP and it
poliscijustin said:
isn't even clear that you get that. Can't get a DSLR of any repute
Click to expand...
for under 1500 bucks?

I hate to parse words (or minutiae), but a DSLR of repute is first and foremost Full Frame. Everything thing else is less; less than full frame, of lesser repute.

How do you define this? Sounds like you are
poliscijustin said:
calling 10mp plus as any repute. Get over yourself. Canon, nikon,
pentax, oly, km/sony, sigma all have offerings starting well under
that which certainly hang with and surpass pretty much any P&S you
Click to expand...
are going to put them up against.

10Mp and less than full frame? Yes, of lesser repute.

The only real competition for
poliscijustin said:
these entry level bodies with a decent (and not 1500 dollar lens)
is the sony R1, and in terms of handling, they all spank they
beejeezus out of it.
Click to expand...
First, the $1,500 worth of lenses is not just one lens, but at least two “pro” lenses. Next, I have not, did not introduce P&S in the first statement (the one you took issue with) so discussing P&S cameras would be out of context.
poliscijustin said:
If anyone has issues of pride, I'd say it is you and your napoleon
Click to expand...
complex trying to overcompensate for owning a P&S.

I own TWO P&Ss, four EOS SLRs (1n, 3, A2 (2), Canon F1, Canon T-90, Pentax LX, Pentax K-1000 & Pentax WR90. Any of my “pro” gear will do me when I am being paid, the P&Ss are for fun.

Being retired, on two pensions and Social Security and having been born well (and lucky), I have the resources to buy ANY DSLR made, ANY DSLR, but have chosen not to in that I see all but one of them as being “Crippled”.
poliscijustin said:
It makes you a
little sad inside, doesn't it? Makes you want to lash out? sour
grapes? Sweet lemons? I think both cameras have their place (I
still use a P&S when I don't want to or can't carry a DSLR). But
when I find the P&S ultimately extremely frustrating to use in
terms of speed and the over processing that it applies to images.
Does it have its place? Sure does, is it in the running to replace
a DSLR for some purposes? No. Have I used a P&S that does? Nope,
not yet? Will there be a P&S that surpasses todays DSLRs?
Eventually? Are we at the pinnacle of DSLR tech today? Nope.
Click to expand...
--

Actually Yes. More megapixels excepted, what more can be added except doing away with the mirror, which film did years ago?

Your own youthful and intemperate frustrations runneth over here. I sense your face…flushed as you pound away at the keys in frustration.

You would not have lasted in the PJ craft with such headstrong impetuousness. I sense you have never sallied forth, vowing to shoot everything that day in full manual mode, even you flash.

Or set forth to completely chronicle a Garden, tripod and light meter in hand, your only anxiety being catching the sun just so that afternoon as it sets behind the wall, the reflections from the wall lighting a patch of Lillies.

I would also wager you would not dare, DARE mind you, shoot all day, inside and out-at ISO 80. No, because that takes photographic skill (probably more than you possess) and time, each shot metered and measured.
The only thing Napoleon and me had in common? Impatience with callow youths.
 
Alasaad said:
FFS said:
Alasaad said:
There are hundreds of millions, Billions of people who care less
about DOF.
Click to expand...
There are also a huge amount of people reading news from portal
such as news.yahoo.com that continually shows portraiture in
shallow DOF. That helps set the standard of what 'good pictures
made by pro's' look like.
Click to expand...
--
I was one of those "pros" for 37 years. The characteristic you
point out is not "chosen" by we PJs, it is a characteristic of our
"fast" (f/2.8 or faster) "pro" lenses. Which reflects on why so
many discussions center on DOF.
Thus, it is not the PJ who set the "standard" look you describe,
the lenses did and do. The DOF topic is fruitless in that far too
much talk is devoted to something that is purely mechanical~ :
you either have lenses that produce the effect or not, and 98% of
DLSR owners don't:
DON'T own "pro" lenses that is.
Click to expand...
That is not the point I tried to say. PJ's portraiture have that shallow depth of fields that current generation of P&S regardless of lens speed is incapable of producing. ( I know this, I have C-5050 which has a lens speed of f/1.8.)

My point is that portraits with shallow DOF are what is being published and 'promoted' in the media and not portraits with huge DOF. People get used to this and know that their P&S's are incapable of doing this and want it because it isolates the subject. If all the media shows portraits only with huge DOF, the flock would not know any better and then yes, there will not be any demand for shallow DOF and as you say billions would care less about it.
 
Alasaad said:
FFS said:
Alasaad said:
There are hundreds of millions, Billions of people who care less
about DOF.
Click to expand...
There are also a huge amount of people reading news from portal
such as news.yahoo.com that continually shows portraiture in
shallow DOF. That helps set the standard of what 'good pictures
made by pro's' look like.
Click to expand...
--
I was one of those "pros" for 37 years. The characteristic you
point out is not "chosen" by we PJs, it is a characteristic of our
"fast" (f/2.8 or faster) "pro" lenses. Which reflects on why so
many discussions center on DOF.
Thus, it is not the PJ who set the "standard" look you describe,
the lenses did and do. The DOF topic is fruitless in that far too
much talk is devoted to something that is purely mechanical~ :
you either have lenses that produce the effect or not, and 98% of
DLSR owners don't:
DON'T own "pro" lenses that is.
Click to expand...
Ok not sure I understand the argument here. In portrature it is by design that the background is put out of focus to make the portrait stand out and not the background? Is this not just a fundamental of photography along with things like the rule of thirds? Maybee millions of people don't care about depth of field, but I believe that photographers do? The control of DOF is mechanical but how it is used is up to the photographer. And it doesn't require a f2.8 lens to get a desired DOF.

PS, does PJ refer to photojournalist?

Cheers
 
Alasaad said:
poliscijustin said:
Alasaad wrote:

This first statement is the Dumbest thing I have read on this forum
in months, hands down.
Click to expand...
Please, my intellect should not be questioned in that it reflects
on my genetic background and parentage. I will not bring yours into
the conversation if you leave mine out.
Click to expand...
Huh you are really reaching on that. Where do you get him questioning your intellect or anything to do with "genetic" background and parentage? If you can't stand the flame, don't start the fire. Get a grip.
 
I was going to get into this but it is such fun!
Alasaad said:
10Mp and less than full frame? Yes, of lesser repute.
Click to expand...
A very bold statement that shows a slight amount of ignorance on the subject. Why is a smaller sensor of 'lesser repute'? And if you understood MP you should know how little practical difference there is between 8,10, and even 12Mp? At these sizes we are talkeing maybee and extra inch to a 16x20 print if that much as 10 vs. 12.
Alasaad said:
You would not have lasted in the PJ craft with such headstrong
impetuousness. I sense you have never sallied forth, vowing to
shoot everything that day in full manual mode, even you flash.
Or set forth to completely chronicle a Garden, tripod and light
meter in hand, your only anxiety being catching the sun just so
that afternoon as it sets behind the wall, the reflections from the
wall lighting a patch of Lillies.
Click to expand...
Well he sure coudln't have done all that with any P&S camera that I have seen. To achieve that would require more than the patience of a saint! And if you take a shot accross my bow, when I was taking photography we were not allowed to use autofocus or autoexposure (frankly prefered not to in favour of hand metering), always used a tripod (almost essential IMHO to do a really good job). And it wasn't a garden it was a harbour.
Alasaad said:
I would also wager you would not dare, DARE mind you, shoot all
day, inside and out-at ISO 80. No, because that takes photographic
skill (probably more than you possess) and time, each shot metered
and measured.
Click to expand...
In school all I used was Ilford, particularly PANF, inside and out! With my handy light meter

You see now you are getting at what I love about photography! Do you really think all that would be fun with a P&S camera?
Alasaad said:
The only thing Napoleon and me had in common? Impatience with
callow youths.
Click to expand...
I do like your good humour and sense of wit even if I find myself disagreeing with your point of view :)

Cheers
 
I shot with a pro who was using a 6MP D100. It was not the MP's he was after. I have that same sensor in a Pentax DS and I am quite amazed with that senor. I took some ISO 1600 macro shots today and they have a very natural look. It has more noise/grain than what you would get from ISO 100 film but less than what you would get from ISO 400 film. AND, it did it without any noise reduction whatsoever. Now, if someoone can make a 10MP sensor with the same characteristics.
 
Alasaad said:
I hate to parse words (or minutiae), but a DSLR of repute is first
and foremost Full Frame. Everything thing else is less; less than
full frame, of lesser repute.
Click to expand...
This is a common mis-understanding purpertrated by we old 35mm photographers and immortalized by the manufacturs. There is not such thing as full fram. digital sensors are what they are. Who is to say if they are full frame or not. We translate focal length of lenses so we oldtimers who are used to understanding what the coverage of a 28mm lens is can grasp what a 17 or 18 mm lens is like on aps. if you mean 24x36 mmm sensor thats fine but why stop there why not say 32 to oh say 48 there is more than enough room in most dslr bodies for a sensor that big
and what glorious photos one could make

but technichly there is no relation between sensor size and film size other than convienience. Full frame is nice but only cus we can use lenses we already own. full frame is a mis-nomer its 24x36.:-)

--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]
 
Shullinger said:
A pro shooter knows what a pro camera is, and it isn't just about
pixels.
Click to expand...
--

And a pro shooter has many pro cameras and then, one or two cameras he can stuff in his pocket, or hanng around his neck all day.

I have one such, a Pentax WR90 P&S: light, waterproof, shoots 36 frames of film from ISO 64 to ISO 3200 and flawlessly...from under five feet of water.
Only my EOS 1n, among my six "pro" cameras, can match that performance.
The question is: is my WR90 a "pro" camera?
 
Shullinger said:
I've read very few posts here, but megapixels do not a camera make.
Why the megapixel race? There is so much more that is important to
image quality than pixels.
Also, a pro will pay for a camera that you can drop from 5 feet and
get hardly a scratch on it. Try that with the average
point-and=shoot model. A pro body is made to last a long, long
time. The technology may not last, but at least some pros can
actually wear a camera out with a few hundred thousand images
before the next model comes out. Amateur cameras tolerate
considerably less use and abuse.
A pro shooter knows what a pro camera is, and it isn't just about
pixels.
Click to expand...
Try dropping one of today's DSLRs from 5 feet to concrete and see what's left.

Pros don't make the market, consumers wanting to act like pros do. There are a heck of a lot more of them.
According to Consumer Reports Sony has a higher reliability rating than Nikon.
 
bosjohn said:
Hmmmmmmmmm sorta comparing apples to cheese we dont know the focal
lenght. if shooting at hmmm say 50mm there is considerble
difference in depth of field between f2.8 and f4.5. but thats not
really the biggest problem. The real diffaculty with point and
shoots with a few exceptions is trying to be everything to every
one all in one small neat package. Just in term of erganomics most
of the slrs are light years a head dispite their bigger size or
perhaps because of their bigger size. The lenses used in most p&s
cameras are stretched to the limit to give the buyer that 10-1 zoom
or even 5-1 zoom and things like registration of elements quality
of image and longevity all suffer not to mention the abberations
and distortions and slow f-stops.
The reasons for using an interchangable lens camera are not just
about having lots of lenses its also about fast lenses that are
opticaly superior to the lenses offered on almost all p&s cameras.
Certanily the ability to use lenses as fast as f1-4 or 1.8 is a
significant advantage for photographers not only for low light
photography but for control of depth of field and optimal
pereformance of the lens at more normal light levels. As p&s
cameras get bigger and bigger sensors it will become more and more
aparent to even casual user the deficencies of the optical
compermises for these super zooms.
To complicate matters even more many also use electric moters to
drive the zoom functions and this is painfully slow and inaccurate.
Almost universaly the p&s cameras use cheap optical finders or evf
finders and I find them diffacult at best to use but thats more a
personal thing.

--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]
Click to expand...
Thanks for the post. Actually my comment referred to F2.8 being more available, not less available, on fixed lens cameras. Also, I disagree about fixed lens cameras trying to be everything to all... in fact most are targeted at typical focal range (3x zoom) while some are targeted at low light performance (Fuji) and others and higher end users (zoom cameras).

The DSLR tries to be all things to everyone... but in the kit lens form (which is the way most people use it), it is actually not much of anything. In fact it takes several thousand dollars to give it focal lengths that are different than those commonly found in fixed lens cameras.

Thousands of dollars is not hundreds of dollars. We are talking a factor of ten here. Car reviewers do not put 20 thousand dollar Civics in comparison tests to 200 thousand dollars Ferraris... with good reason. Civics are better for 99% of tasks, 99% of people, and 99% of budgets.

--
ShooterPS
 
I moved up from a fixed lense camera to a DSLR for a couple of reasons:
1. speed (F2.8 on digicam ≈ F8.0 on SLR)
2. bokey (see 1.)
3. frame rate and buffer
4. autofocus speed
5. IQ > ISO 200
6. IQ in general (I use L lenses)

7. ease of producing photographic endeavours. I found that I grew to place with a digicam where it was limiting my photographic ability, and suddenly the joy of photography was waning.
8. keeper rate of photos taken

I dont know if the fixed lens camera these days have much faster autofocus, less purple fringing, better sharpness, good frame rates with acceptable buffers (for RAW), low(er) noise at > ISO 200, better bokeh etc... but if the SLRs are still as far ahead in these departments as they were last year, then I don't think it is fair to say (OP) that the gap is closing.

Every photographer ultimately seeks the best value equipment to realise his photographic endeavours. If yours is a digicam, fine! If yours is a SLR, fine!
bosjohn said:
ShooterPS said:
I still haven’t seen a convincing explanation that a DSLR with a
kit lens is better than a similarly priced or even cheaper fixed
lens camera. ISO? ISO 400 with IS and F2.8 is pretty comparable to
ISO 1600 with an F4.5 kit lens and no IS. And adding expensive
SLR's and lenses to the comparison is simply beside the point.
Spending thousands more buys you more, big deal. It's no longer
grapes to grapes.
Click to expand...
Hmmmmmmmmm sorta comparing apples to cheese we dont know the focal
lenght. if shooting at hmmm say 50mm there is considerble
difference in depth of field between f2.8 and f4.5. but thats not
really the biggest problem. The real diffaculty with point and
shoots with a few exceptions is trying to be everything to every
one all in one small neat package. Just in term of erganomics most
of the slrs are light years a head dispite their bigger size or
perhaps because of their bigger size. The lenses used in most p&s
cameras are stretched to the limit to give the buyer that 10-1 zoom
or even 5-1 zoom and things like registration of elements quality
of image and longevity all suffer not to mention the abberations
and distortions and slow f-stops.
The reasons for using an interchangable lens camera are not just
about having lots of lenses its also about fast lenses that are
opticaly superior to the lenses offered on almost all p&s cameras.
Certanily the ability to use lenses as fast as f1-4 or 1.8 is a
significant advantage for photographers not only for low light
photography but for control of depth of field and optimal
pereformance of the lens at more normal light levels. As p&s
cameras get bigger and bigger sensors it will become more and more
aparent to even casual user the deficencies of the optical
compermises for these super zooms.
To complicate matters even more many also use electric moters to
drive the zoom functions and this is painfully slow and inaccurate.
Almost universaly the p&s cameras use cheap optical finders or evf
finders and I find them diffacult at best to use but thats more a
personal thing.

Reasons for dslrs 1 durability and ruggedness
2, far superior lens performance, 3 far better viewfinder 4 better
erganomics, 5 better sensor noise performance,6 faster lenses, 7
far more other accessories such as filters, etc.
Speaking of filters lens hoods and superzooms
it is almost impossible to design a sun shade for a super zoom
that is efficient at both the wide and telli ends in shading the
glass, that is and keep the package small and neat.

Also from another side consider the camera manufacturer. Say Canon
for instance. The profit margin on a 20d or 30d is many percentage
points bigger initially and there is the great expectation of after
market sales in lenses and other accories that have even better
profit margins. I think the camera makers are aware of this and
will start pushing the dslr and slow down on the high end be all
and end all p&s cameras cus there is more profit potential in the
dslr.

--
bosjohn aka John Shick [email protected]
Click to expand...
--
passion to reveal beauty through images
 
It seems to me that the current market model for SLR is abit silly ... buying a new body every tme a new kind of film comes out???

As time goes on, I suspect we will see the "film" becomng less importnat but the body becomeing more modular. It is not hard to imagine a modern version of the Nikon F2 with nterchangeable, sopeciualized viewfinders and backs.

OTOH, I knoe pros who likes the Leica M3 and never got another camera. At some point, the dSLR may bbecome good enough.
--
Stephen M Schwartz
SeattleJew.blogspot.com
 
Alasaad said:
You are in full denial, denying the advance of technology and
Moore's Law. A 10 Mp P&S portends a 12Mp P&S, sooner rather than
later. The "Gap" is miniscule vis-a-vis even 3 years ago.
Click to expand...
1. Moore's Law is not a law;
2. Moore's law seems to have reached the point of diminishing returns.
Alasaad said:
Denial again. You're making points you don't need to make, none of
which will disprove or halt the advance of P&S. With 10MP in hand,
12Mp P&Ss are more than llikely lurking on a few drawing boards.
Click to expand...
Would you forget MPs? Who cares about MPs? Most guys shopping for "a good camera" will never print a image, just resize to 640x and email.

Let me give you a few hints:

1.ergonomy;
2. Hi ISO low noise
3. subject isolation - read DOF
4. ultra wide or super tele lenses
5. EVFs are still pretty bad
6. fast lenses - think 50mm f1.0 or 85 mm f1.2. Couple that with No. 2
7. Focus speed

Before pointing me to future technological advances, think that all advances will also apply to a large body camera.
Alasaad said:
Alasaad said:
Yes more than 90% of people want P&S cameras, and 99.9% of pictures
are snaps that doesn't mean SLR's and fine art photography will
evaporate. There are still people who want more and will pay more
for it and as long as it is profitable the camera companies will
provide!
Click to expand...
You recited all the reasons DSLRs will dissappear. Not from the
hands of the "purists", nor from those who, as DSLRS fall out of
favor for highly adroit P&Ss, those DSLR owners who will begin to
"collect" the growing husks of dead Dinosaurs to use them as the
sign of times gone by and for spare parts.
Click to expand...
You go ahead and shoot some sports with a P&S. A wedding maybe. Portraits of kids playing. Or dogs, they move at about the same speed. :) Go for some birding.
Alasaad said:
"Amuzing"? More like "frightening" to many DSLR owners, who smell
the P&S coffee.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I am frightened. Have you noticed the Sony move? they launched a bridge camera, and then a dslr...

And don't worry, most of us dslr guys also have a nice compact camera as well. We know the strengths and weaknesses of both systems.

Enjoy your camera!

d/n
 
Ofcourse the gap is closing. the dSLR has been pionering and the consumermarket is reaping the advantages. In a couple of years we will have prosumer compacts with 12x quality zoom and high almost noise free ISO ranges. This is inevitable. Ofcourse the speed of innovation goes faster in areas where there is still more room for that.

I don't think that it will touch the high-end dSLR market, but it will give the entry level dSLRs like the Rebel and the Nikon d50 a run for their money.

But apart from that, a SLR will always have the flexibility that a P&S doesnt have.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top