Entry dSLRs are becoming P&S Cameras....

Effzeeone said:

The only way I can qualify it is with my own experience/equipment.

The Panasonic FZ1 that I own has an equivilent range of 35-420mm
with f2.8 throughout the range and very nice OIS. It does not
offer full manual, but does offer aperture and shutter priority, as
well as the usual manual white balance and such. It offers ISO
through 400 just like the G3. It does not take useable pictures in
a gym. Since the FZ1 is carried with my E-500 in the same bag, I
try it for fun at most of the same events, and I frequently use it
as a video camera in a pinch. Since I am able to compare the end
results side by side, I never regret moving on to the E-500 as my
primary camera.

Click to expand...

The FZ-1 has a 1/3.2" sensor as compared to the 1/1.8" sensor in the G3/6. That is a 5mm diagonal vs. a 9mm diagonal or almost two whole stops of sensor area disadvantage. It is also a Panasonic CCD and they have fairly consistently underperformed similarly specified Sony sensors. Granted, it is only a 2Mp sensor so the pixel pitch isn't horrible. But it is also a sensor that is quite old (around 2002). So it is no wonder that the E-500 trounces it. The G3/6 would also.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

I had no problem whatsoever understanding what you were pointing out so I'm not sure why that dude got his nose all bent. But at any rate - YES - with top of the line P&S models going for the same price as entry level DSLRs I think we are going to see quite a few more people carrying them around. Which will be good and bad, as you noticed that day. If folks want learn how to use them they'll do fine because, as you point out, there are some shots you just can't get with a P&S. But many more, I'm afraid, are going to blunder along getting poor shots and will wind up stashing their DSLR in the closet or just selling it on eBay.

But I could be wrong! We shall see where this goes...

Best,
Oly

Jay Turberville said:

The FZ-1 has a 1/3.2" sensor as compared to the 1/1.8" sensor in
the G3/6. That is a 5mm diagonal vs. a 9mm diagonal or almost two
whole stops of sensor area disadvantage. It is also a Panasonic
CCD and they have fairly consistently underperformed similarly
specified Sony sensors. Granted, it is only a 2Mp sensor so the
pixel pitch isn't horrible. But it is also a sensor that is quite
old (around 2002). So it is no wonder that the E-500 trounces it.
The G3/6 would also.

Click to expand...

Well, considering the G3 is a 4mp camera and the G6 is a 7mp camera, I would expect the sensor to be bigger than a 2mp camera. That being said, I'm confused by your criticism of the age of the Panasonic sensor. The FZ1 was announced in September 2002, but was not available in the USA until like March 2003. The G3 was announced in the same year (2002), so since I doubt they could look ahead and put 2003 sensors in a 2002 G3, I'm just guessing that the sensors are roughly the same "age".

The G3 does have much more impressive features than the FZ1, but one cannot argue that the FZ1 has a much better lens with a lot more reach that's faster at f2.8 at the max zoom of the G3, and continues at f2.8 throught the 420mm equiv. range I mean, we are talking about using P&S cameras from the bleachers in a dimly lit gym for action shots. 140mm equiv max zoom isn't going to cut it, especially not a f3.0 with a max ISO of 400. You can put a T-con on it all you want, but it will further slow down the lens and then you also face blur from camera shake above and beyond the motion blur that you're going to get at the shutter speed required for that low of ISO and that slow of a lens combo. Speed up the shutter and your still limited to ISO 400 so your photos are going to be dark. The G3 was also reviewed as having "noise worse than the competition" at ISO 100 (yes, that's ISO 100), so that doesn't sound like a very good low light performer to me. With a firmware upgrade, the FZ1 added aperture and shutter priority modes, as well as eliminated the darkened EVF syndrome that original afflicted it when shooting in dim light. The firmware also lessened the compression significantly to reduce similar "jaggies" that the G3 was criticized for (and not corrected).

So, before this gets off-topic any further into a G3 versus FZ1 debate, my point is that the FZ1 is a very difficult P&S camera to beat, primarily because of the lens -- the reach and the speed. It definitely blows the doors off of the modern day "pocket cameras" with the 25" LCDs (sarcastically speaking), no viewfinder, and whopping 3x optical zoom. Those aren't cameras that are going to cut it at sporting events, just like the meager reach of a 140mm equiv of the G3 isn't going to cut it either.

....and this is why people who would normally get P&S cameras are turning to dSLR, because the P&S cameras simply can't cut it at these types of events. They're great for bright light landscapes, useful at parties for their compact size, etc. I'm not saying that they're without purpose, but they have little to know purpose at an indoor sporting event.

--

--
Catman





http://www.richdow.smugmug.com

The camera makers are dumbing down the cameras with better program/ auto modes as well as scene modes to make cheaper dslr's more attractive to the masses.

Most camera buyers use their cameras in the vacation/snapshot type use and the designers know that. basic cameras are built to take pictures in decent light, its no different if they are dslrs or p&s.

The one that produces a entry level dslr/P&S that can handle the widest range of situations with the least amount of imput from the user wins.

I can see a Dslr coming that will be more expencive than entry level, a bundle of auto settings, faster lenses IS and high iso abiltys that will act as a P&S/Dslr.

Yes sir, that dslr is only $700, but you will need to know something about photography and spend more than you think. Now this model here while being twice as much will produce the results you want simply by pushing the shutter. You say you want more reach, well sir we have a full line of lenses optimized for use with this camera that will produce the results you want.

This is how the P&S evolved, the prosumers were able to take wonderful pictures in a wider range of situations than their cheaper counterparts. The lenses were of better quality, faster, and did macro all at once. Even though you could set the dial to P and get increadable pictures straight out of the camera, you could also get as manual as you wanted. They also did everything faster than more basic P&S would. They could also be expanded with flashes, grips and converters.

Did all these wonderful abilitys come at a cost, yep. The 8080 and its counterparts retailed at a much higher price point than the less able models. Higher in fact than entry level Dslrs do today.

All of the things we want in the next model, fast focus, high iso, IS, just makes it easier to produce a dslr that can be aimed and the shutter pushed. No need for scene modes, the camera will do everything.

Right now the cameras do a pretty good job for the majority of what is shot and can be customized for different situations. The flash on the 500 pops up if the camera thinks its needed, live veiw makes composition easier, The 18-180 is intended for those that may never change their lens at all. The 400 shows the trend for fully capable Cameras in small sizes. Vivid mode cuts PP time.
All this points to a P&S Dslr, which will be very popular indeed.
JimB

--
It all started long ago and far away with a lowly OM-G

The OM of Getto cams

With the advent of digital Photography far more people own cameras than ever before. A lot of people are becoming serious about the quality of the pictures. The people want a camera they can hold and see what they are taking. The DSLR like cameras are great but they have one problem (electronic view finder). A friend who has a Canon S3 was looking through my E-500 said “wow you can actually see what you a taking and it’s so clear.” And this on an E-500 viewfinder. People are realizing that if you want video go and buy a video camera. The Major manufactures have realizes that the P&S market has about 5 years to run due to the integration into cell phones (Nokia is the largest digital camera manufacture in the world for what its worth ).These manufactures feel they need to start “upgrading” there clients. The clients also feel they need something they don’t have to be a rocket scientist to use. I remember a few years back when Red Hat and a few others jacked up their Linux GUI a few Linux propeller heads complained that “ Its getting to easy to use and people do not really understand what Linux is about.”.

The other thing is people want to try and buy something for the long term. A DSLR gives the option for the long term with interchangeable lens’s even if they only have one lens’s and will not change it (Like some of my canon friends). Costs are also a major factor we see daily on these forums “ new 14-54 arrived tody etc” I myself have a Sigma 135-400 on backorder. Not so many people can afford to join this “Exclusive Club” so a cheaper simpler DSLR makes long term sense to current P&S users and manufactures.

--
Collin

Sony R1

JiminDenver said:

The one that produces a entry level dslr/P&S that can handle the
widest range of situations with the least amount of input from the
user wins.

Click to expand...

JiminDenver said:

All of the things we want in the next model, fast focus, high iso,
IS, just makes it easier to produce a dslr that can be aimed and
the shutter pushed. No need for scene modes, the camera will do
everything.

Click to expand...

The most powerful way to use a camera is by knowing how the camera works: difficult.

Scene modes (describe what you are shooting and we will do the rest) don't work (too much choices or what ?)

I foresee a silently-bracketing camera: when at home you just select the best version and ignore whether an ISO, aperture, speed, focus change or any post-processing did the trick!
--
Georges Lagarde http://www.panorama-numerique.com

JohnMcL7 said:

http://www.play.com/Clothing/T-Shirts/RGNNR/3-/1015091/No_I_Will_Not_Fix_Your_Computer/Product.html

Tempted to buy one as I work in IT but don't thinkmy company would
approve.

Click to expand...

I dunno, in my company, I've seen most of the IT staff wearing the shirt from time to time. In terms of the OP, I'm expecting a swing back to bridge cameras like the Panasonic, as people get frustrated with the limitations of DSLRs (kit lenses, softer image defaults, etc.) also. The problem is a lot of gyms have really horrible lights, and it can be a challenge to get the shot even if you have the more expensive faster lenses, and you know how to use the camera blindfolded.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

Entry level SLR's have been "point and shoot" for a long time, with fully automated operation used a large proportion of the time.

I think it is better to refer to the smaller cameras as "compacts", because size is the main difference, not how much automation or manual control they offer. Including lens size.

What you have seen with school sports shows the natural advantage of physically larger lenses with larger aperture sizes: better image quality at high shutter speeds (once ISO is used properly), and also an advantage in AF speed and shutter lag.

I agree with Cephalotus: what dSLR's for beginners need to improve their "point and shoot" performance is a full auto mode that selects shutter speed, aperture and ISO speed. And maybe a sports mode for slightly more knowledgeable users, where one selects shutter speed and the camera selects both aperture (wide open?) and ISO speed.

Effzeeone said:

Well, considering the G3 is a 4mp camera and the G6 is a 7mp
camera, I would expect the sensor to be bigger than a 2mp camera.

Click to expand...

Right. Which is a fundamental advantage. The total area is about three times the 1/3.2" sensor in the FZ1. 12 mm^2 vs. 38mm ^2.

Effzeeone said:

That being said, I'm confused by your criticism of the age of the
Panasonic sensor.

Click to expand...

Just to make it clear that the sensor's 2.8 micron pixels shouldn't be compared to any modern 2.8 micron pixels.

Effzeeone said:

The FZ1 was announced in September 2002, but was
not available in the USA until like March 2003. The G3 was
announced in the same year (2002), so since I doubt they could look
ahead and put 2003 sensors in a 2002 G3, I'm just guessing that the
sensors are roughly the same "age".

Click to expand...

Yep. But as I said, Sony sensors have typically outperformed Panasonic sensors pixel for pixel given the same pixel pitch. And the G3 has twice the number of pixels and larger ones (3.1 micron vs. 2.8 micron). All of this adds up lower noise for a given print size given the same ISO and lens aperture.

Effzeeone said:

The G3 does have much more impressive features than the FZ1, but
one cannot argue that the FZ1 has a much better lens with a lot
more reach that's faster at f2.8 at the max zoom of the G3, and
continues at f2.8 throught the 420mm equiv. range

Click to expand...

Not as much as you think. Just cropping the G3 to 1600x1200 gives you about 190mm equivalent focal length - and you still have larger and better photosites.

Effzeeone said:

140mm equiv max zoom isn't going to cut it,
especially not a f3.0 with a max ISO of 400. You can put a T-con
on it all you want, but it will further slow down the lens

Click to expand...

Actually, it doesn't slow it down in any appreciable way (1/10 of a stop maybe).

Effzeeone said:

and then
you also face blur from camera shake above and beyond the motion
blur that you're going to get at the shutter speed required for
that low of ISO and that slow of a lens combo.

Click to expand...

You are going to be wanting to shot at 1/125 or better to deal with subject blur. Even at 240mm equivalent, that will OK for most people that are shooting from a seated position in bleachers. But it would be better to be thinking about shooting at 1/200 second or better. At least that's been my experience.

Effzeeone said:

Speed up the
shutter and your still limited to ISO 400 so your photos are going
to be dark.

Click to expand...

With 4Mp or 7Mp which means more signal and a better signal to noise ratio, you have more room to boost levels in post processing.

Effzeeone said:

The G3 was also reviewed as having "noise worse than
the competition" at ISO 100 (yes, that's ISO 100), so that doesn't
sound like a very good low light performer to me.

Click to expand...

Until you read that their ISO 50 tested at an actual ISO 100. Canon tends to be conservative with their ISO ratings. The G3 uses the common 4Mp 1/1.8" sensor and isn't significantly better or worse than other sensors using the same sensor.

Effzeeone said:

So, before this gets off-topic any further into a G3 versus FZ1
debate, my point is that the FZ1 is a very difficult P&S camera to
beat, primarily because of the lens -- the reach and the speed.

Click to expand...

And my point is that it isn't primarily because of the sensor that give up far too much photosensitve real estate and compensate with a fast enough lens. That was my original point about bringing up the G3 vs. an E-500. The E-500 has superior sensor real estate. But if you use it with a slow lense (f/4 or so), then you give up a lot of that advantage. The E-500 has a 2.5 stop sensor area advantage over the G3, but it seems likely that both the 7Mp G6 sensor is more efficient with its area than the E-500's sensor. That's why I suggested the G3 (and especialy the G6) might not be so bad compared to an E-500 with a kit lens. The FZ1 has the fast lens (not as fast as the G3), but does have the sensor to back it up.

Effzeeone said:

....and this is why people who would normally get P&S cameras are
turning to dSLR, because the P&S cameras simply can't cut it at
these types of events.

Click to expand...

Some can do better than others. And even getting the DSLR is no cure-all unless you get the right lens also.

--
Jay Turberville
http://www.jayandwanda.com

With the masses becoming interested in dslrs the more units will be sold.

More lenses, flashes and other accessorys will be sold, requiring larger production runs and possibly lower cost to the consumers. As long as the camera makers don't use bad business sense, more units makes for a healthier company.

As I said before, all the concepts we desire are the same needed to produce a P&S. Allthough live veiw is wonderful for manual focusing I think it was developed to attract people from the compact crowd. I agree that compact is a better term. I would think almost all cameras have some things designed into them attempting to automate the proccess.
Increased demand can lead to more R&D leading to more equipment.

If the masses find that just owning a dslr doesn't guarrenty great pictures then prosumers digicams may find their way back to the market. A more advanced 8080 with high iso, IS and a better buffer ect. could fill a nich of customers that want the abilitys but dont want to own a dslr or have the bulk to carry. I still think a upgraded package dslr will do this first.

A few disadvantages, untill production runs increase there may be a shortage of some equipment as more buyers enter the market.

For those that feel a true point and shoot has no place in the dslr world or that the people that use Program mode are some how undeservant of owning a dslr simply because they can afford it and should buy a compact instead have a rough road ahead.

The forums will become more crowded with posts needing the most basic info listed in the first page of the manual, not knowing to up the iso, or thinking the onboard flash will illuminate the Grand Canyon.

I remember when the 300 was released and the Oly Dslr forum was inundated with new users there were calls to split the forum. I got the impression that some of the E-10/20 and E-1 users felt insulted to share this forum with the likes of the owners of 300's and 500's. Those were not considered PRO models, they cost much less, and it was assumed the only newbys with them could not be pros or even know how to use them. The cry was for a non pro dslr forum so the pro forum wouldn't be bothered with stupid people and post would stay on the front page longer. Any more I hardly ever see a post about a E-10/20 and some that own those non pro dslrs have become the most respected posters here.

Camera makers see the value in attracting the compact market. If they want people to spend hundreds more on a dslr instead of a compact they will need a idiot proof camera or as close as they can come to it. They also know that many more entry level bodys will be sold every year than pro bodys.

Olympus has been a leading force in the devolopment of the entry level market from the 300, offering a 2 lens kit comparably priced to single lens kits with less MPs. The 500 with its autoflash and vivid modes, the 330 with live veiw to ease the transition from compacts and the 400 with its diminished size both in body and lenses developed for it. All this shows Olys comment in being a innovator in developing the ultimate P&S dslr.
Whoever makes it will sell alot of cameras.
JimB

--
It all started long ago and far away with a lowly OM-G

The OM of Getto cams

Jay Turberville said:

Some can do better than others. And even getting the DSLR is no
cure-all unless you get the right lens also.

Click to expand...

I'm not going to split hairs any further, which is pretty much what is going on here. I will suggest that you Google "Figure of Merit" to get a good comparison on two different digital cameras that have different zoom ranges and different megapixels. It's not a perfect method of comparison, but it will address the points you raised about sensor, megapixels, zoom, and cropping, and pretty much allows for the best way to compare two very different digital cameras. The Figure of Merit would be higher for the FZ1 than the G3, and would probably be close to the G6 with the only thing saving the G6 being the 7 megapixels that they stretched out of that sensor.

Anyway...my main point is that getting a dSLR for indoor sports shots is much more of a cure-all than getting a P&S -- and that includes ANY P&S. That's what people are finding out, even when they just use the kit lenses. You have to understand that people are getting NO shots with their P&S. Even if they only can get mediocre shots with an entry level dSLR and kit lens, it's better than no shots.

--

You have a point Effzeone, but then again a lot of us start that way. I personally started with a Sony V1 proconsumer pocket cam. I worked it to the max of what it could do for me and I was thirsty for more control.

My goal was to be able to take pictures just as good as the guy who gets paid. Part of it was it drove me nuts that my wife would take my kids to a photographer and couple of hundreds of dollars and couple of pictures later it became a challenge for me to be able to do the same thing.

After hanging around with my V1 a stack of books from the library and dpreview I realized that in order for me to grow and to have more control (especially indoors) I needed a DSLR.

It took me about a year and a half with a V1 before I got my E-500. It has been one year for me with my E-500 and I am starting to get the complements and offers to do it for cash.

Anyway, my point is that most of the people who are switching from PS to DSLR are not willing to dedicate the time, money to grow and most of them would end up just as disappointed with their DSLR as with PS. At the end they will probably pay someone to do it for them

-J