Why do DSLR's initially take worse photos than P&S's?

I don't understand this.

I used to own a Canon SLR (pre-digital), and was able to take very pleasing photos with it before it was stolen.

I replaced the SLR with a Canon S400 P&S - my first digital. Quite pleased with the photos despite the limitations (speed, control). Excellent portability.

I currently use a Canon SD870is.

I've considered purchasing an XSi, but am put off by the frequent comments about how photos will initially be worse with the DSLR than with a P&S.

Why would they be worse? If the camera autofocuses properly, if the white balance is correct, why shouldn't the photos be at least as good as with a P&S???

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/thermal/

The simplest explanation is that P&S essentially take a negative of an image and fully develop it into a final product, where SLR's take a negative and then leave the post-production enhancements to you.

P&S are meant to deliver a picture that you just hit print on where SLR's are meant mainly for those willing to learn how to take pictures and "develop" them on their own.

Also SLR's have a much steeper learning curve since you have much more control on the outcome. If you have existing SLR experience it should be an easier change for you.

Maybe people think this because they don't know that a dslr's settings are customizable and the images are initially blah, but if you customize your settings the preview images on the camera are very pleasing and if you shoot jpeg, come out very pleasing on your computer. If you shoot raw, your images look good in preview, but you have to make them look good in post-processing.

I shoot raw. My images look good in preview and when I process my raw images they start out blah, but after I'm done with the conversion & open them in photoshop, they don't need much more editing.

most P&S cameras don't have many custom options so the images already have sharpness, saturated colors and so forth. while with dslr's, almost eveything can be customized...color saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc. so the default is linear contrast, no extra color boosting, minimal sharpness added (if any). They leave it all up to you.
--
Shannon Beauford
http://sbphotog.redbubble.com/

Stock portfolio
http://www.dreamstime.com/momentsintime_info

I dunno. I can put my Canon Rebel XS in auto mode and take better pics than I could with the compact. So can my wife and she has NO photography experience other than point and click.

You do have more settings, so more ways to mess up the shot, that is for sure! But Auto mode spanks the auto mode on my compact any day.

To make the image more like P&S with XSI just bump up Sharpness to 4, Contrast to 1 and saturation to 1 and shoot JPEG.

It depends on the person. I myself saw a Huge Jump in my photography going from a 5mp Sony W5 point & shoot to my first SLR: 6mp konica minolta 5D.

These are my very first photo. I just happen to came across a Fire after I bought my very first dslr.











Comparing against my Point & Shoot shot, my dslr shots have more "FEEL" to them, where as my P/S shots are much more generic.

But I can also relate to the typical complain. While my Km5D is superior in daylight shot, it was inferior to my Sony W5 P/S indoor. My sony has better AWB indoor, and much faster focusing. My KM5D really struggle badly in AWB. The photo indoor is always too pink, or too yellow, or too green. The AF speed was so slow that I give up an shot manual.

So I saw an huge improvement in my outdoor photography, a huge improvement in my portraits via bounce flash, but a decrease in my general indoor photography.

thermal1 said:

I used to own a Canon SLR (pre-digital), and was able to take very
pleasing photos with it before it was stolen.

I replaced the SLR with a Canon S400 P&S - my first digital.
(...)
I've considered purchasing an XSi, but am put off by the frequent
comments about how photos will initially be worse with the DSLR than
with a P&S.

Click to expand...

I've heard this said too. But I disagree.

I've had some film SLR's too, bought a 'superzoom' some 5 years ago. managed to get okay photo's, but not as perfect as I used to have shooting slide film on my SLR's.

Ok, as most startercamera's (including some cellphones) the pictures are quite good on a sunny day, with the sun in your back.

Last april I bought me a DSLR (Canon 400D) and I am back where I was. The control in focus and zoom and exposure is so much more to my liking that my pictures are better all the way (from picture one).

BUT, I must admit that this canon tends to deliver quite 'flat' colorwise. More like a Agfa slide film than Kodak or Fuji. This is especially true for shooting RAW.
Then again, I do like photo's not to look too colorfull.

But no matter what I like, there's soo much to do in PP! And even better: just like shooting slides: it's all in MY hands (have been so tired/disappointed delivering perfect exposed backlit negatives to the shop and getting wrong prints back!).

WhiteBalance after the fact is great. With RAW even exposure can be corrected after the fact (to some extend).
With these two you can get quite a way.

If not, use curves/ levels/ fill_light/ blacks/ saturation/ sharpening/ noise_reduction/ flarecorrection or even brightness/contrast (those I never use).

At this point you will be FAR beyond what any P&S can do. (all can be done with a raw-converter like DPP (free with canon DSLR), ACR (free with PS/PSE), LightRoom or Aperture)

Still not satisfied? go on and launch PS, PSE or PSP (or the like). Make (pseudo) HDR images to recover the previously blown skies, treat greens different from reds, cut in a new mother-in-law, blut the background after the fact, ... and so on. It's endless.

So, in short, I don't think you'll find the DSLR-photo's being 'worse' than the ones you took on a P&S. Besides, with a DSRL you can make photo's which you couldn't with your P&S.
--
All in my humble opionion of course!

(I might get a preposition wrong -or any other word for that matter-. English is a nice language, but it's not mine)

I agree. and I too shoot with a Canon (XTI)...very flat images in raw, but I can really make 'em pop in post.
--
Shannon Beauford
http://sbphotog.redbubble.com/

Stock portfolio
http://www.dreamstime.com/momentsintime_info

So far it seems that every response has emphasized the issue of in camera processing. I think there is little doubt that P&S camera process with a much higher level of sharpening, contrast and saturation. I suspect the standard settings for my A95 are more processed than even the max settings for my 450D. I think in camera processing differences are important but there is an even bigger factor involving depth of field. With a P&S camera, virtually everything in the picture will be in focus. With a DSLR, focusing is critical. If the shot is not properly focused it will not look good. It can be very difficult to achieve the correct focus and to control DOF.

thermal1 said:

I don't understand this.

I used to own a Canon SLR (pre-digital), and was able to take very
pleasing photos with it before it was stolen.

I replaced the SLR with a Canon S400 P&S - my first digital. Quite
pleased with the photos despite the limitations (speed, control).
Excellent portability.

I currently use a Canon SD870is.

I've considered purchasing an XSi, but am put off by the frequent
comments about how photos will initially be worse with the DSLR than
with a P&S.

Why would they be worse? If the camera autofocuses properly, if the
white balance is correct, why shouldn't the photos be at least as
good as with a P&S???

Click to expand...

I think the pics can be better, at least with the Canon XSi and using Av or Tv mode with jpeg. I immediately noticed a difference but I was also aware of the "depth of field" differences between a DSLR and P&S.

--
http://www.flickr.com/photos/w-photos/

--
gail ~ http://www.pbase.com/gailb
My digital camera BLOGs: Canon XSi, SD890; Pany FZ18 & more:
http://www.digicamhelp.com/camera-logs/index.php

... using IE8 Beta some of the text is not readable, particularly the clickbox below the top right photobox, the text there is all jumbled. I tried changing font size with no success.

Thought you might want to know

regards

jp

thermal1 said:

I've considered purchasing an XSi, but am put off by the frequent
comments about how photos will initially be worse with the DSLR than
with a P&S.

Click to expand...

I think this reflects two things. The first is post processing which has been described already in this thread. The other is that the DSLR is a high performance machine compared to a P&S.

Think of a standard automatic transmission passenger car compared to a high performance racing car. You can't hardly go wrong with a passenger car with the automatic transmission, seatbelts, and limited speed. This is a P&S. Now think of the racing car with a manual transmission and overpowered engine. Do you think you could get into trouble trying to drive the race car? Same with the DSLR.

Many of the limiting "governors" are not present on a DSLR. It will let you take a picture however you try and often if you make the mistake the picture will not turn out well. On the flip side, the DLSR lets you make the choices and the performance can be as spectacular as the race car.

Now you say, what about green box, automatic mode on the DSLR? Shouldn't that make it the same as a P&S? If you put an automatic transmission in a race car would that make it manageable? Perhaps, but you still have the potential to get out of control.

If you want safe, get the P&S. If you want performance, get the DSLR.

--
CityLights
http://www.pbase.com/citylights
.

P&S pictures are sharp all around and its very difficult to duplicate that with a DSLR even at F8+ aperture. P&S shooters are used to this kind of images. SLR shooters will tell you to post process or increase sharpness settings in camera, but this doesn't always work specially when taking group pictures where there are people all over the place (front,side,back). This is where the frustration starts. To be happy, having both type of cameras is the only way to go and there's no other alternative.

...and what about the picture style that aproach more to p&s?

I was thinking to put sharpeness +6
contrast +1
saturation +1

And the picture style?

For me the most important reason at first: DOF. Aim a P&S in a direction, and the picture will look like you want it to look. Everything sharp and in focus. With a DSLR it actually makes a difference here your focuspoint is. The DOF is so much smaller, that even a close-up portrait (which is a piece of cake with a P&S) becomes harder.

But eventually, eventually a DSLR will blow your P&S away. That is, if you want to learn!

--
Still learning.....

Sony H2
Canon 450D 18-55 IS, 55-250 IS, 50mm 1.8

Some of my pictures here:
http://www.pbase.com/ed197907/

tkbslc said:

I dunno. I can put my Canon Rebel XS in auto mode and take better
pics than I could with the compact. So can my wife and she has NO
photography experience other than point and click.

You do have more settings, so more ways to mess up the shot, that is
for sure! But Auto mode spanks the auto mode on my compact any day.

Click to expand...

--

That's the complete opposite of my experience with my XSi (it's somebody else's now). Shooting with the 450D on Auto gave me much worse pics than any of my "compacts" (SD550/700/850/1000). Your experience as you describe it was what I THOUGHT it was going to be like.

The last thing I'd ever say to anyone contemplating the purchase of a dSLR would be "just leave it on Auto, you'll immediately be taking great shots." Hah!

A DSLR has a learning curve but if you take a little time to learn how to use the camera the pictures are clearly superior all the time, regardless of lighting or who is moving around. Take a close look at the detail you get with a DSLR vs a P&S - even a good one. The DSLR's are far superior. Look at some of the photos posted in the contests on this site. No P&S can get photos that good -EVER

Many P&S cameras do jack the sharpening and the color saturation way up. Not my style - but you can do the same thing with a DSLR if you want.

In addition, if you do post processing you end up being limited by the low res JPG's from the P&S. With RAW you can raise the bar much higher. However, post processing is not necessary to get a great shot from a DSLR.

When I got my EOS 450 I also bought Dave Busch's book on the Camera and read it cover to cover. It helped me tremendously I would recommend this to anyone who buys one of these cameras.

jrkliny said:

So far it seems that every response has emphasized the issue of in
camera processing. I think there is little doubt that P&S camera
process with a much higher level of sharpening, contrast and
saturation. I suspect the standard settings for my A95 are more
processed than even the max settings for my 450D. I think in camera
processing differences are important but there is an even bigger
factor involving depth of field. With a P&S camera, virtually
everything in the picture will be in focus. With a DSLR, focusing is
critical. If the shot is not properly focused it will not look good.
It can be very difficult to achieve the correct focus and to control
DOF.

Click to expand...

--

The fact that a dSLR expects the photographer to have either made in-camera adjustments (the kind a point and shoot takes care of naturally) or to shoot in RAW then fiddle like a sumb!tch in post processing presupposes a point and shoot owner knows this going in. Why they have an Auto setting is beyond me.

Shallow depth of field, focusing, proper exposure---it's a steep learning curve. I have a Nikon D40 now and, as I expected, it's a little easier to get decent shots for me. Maybe with time I'd have learned the ins and outs of my 450D but the entire time I had it I was frustrated and kept reaching for my point and shoots if I knew I had to get the shot.

oilman said:

A DSLR has a learning curve but if you take a little time to learn
how to use the camera the pictures are clearly superior all the time,
regardless of lighting or who is moving around. Take a close look at
the detail you get with a DSLR vs a P&S - even a good one. The DSLR's
are far superior. Look at some of the photos posted in the contests
on this site. No P&S can get photos that good -EVER

Many P&S cameras do jack the sharpening and the color saturation way
up. Not my style - but you can do the same thing with a DSLR if you
want.

In addition, if you do post processing you end up being limited by
the low res JPG's from the P&S. With RAW you can raise the bar much
higher. However, post processing is not necessary to get a great shot
from a DSLR.

When I got my EOS 450 I also bought Dave Busch's book on the Camera
and read it cover to cover. It helped me tremendously I would
recommend this to anyone who buys one of these cameras.

Click to expand...

--

"Clearly superior". "Far superior". "Post processing not necessary..." I'd read comments like this before I got my 450D and just assumed it was true. It still blows me away that dSLR owners can blithely say this without so much as blushing at the falsehood of such statements. There must be some cosmic coming together of many factors that allow some dSLR peeps to feel this way: their criiteria for what is a "clearly superior" pic, their innate ability to just make the dSLR work, their almost pathological need for shallow depth of field, their love for switching out lenses (with the fervent hope that if they just spend more money on some expensive glass Perfect Pic Nirvana will be theirs), their need to consider any point and shoot just a toy...the list is endless. I guess it works for them.

I know most of you have seen this thread before but here's a link to it again:

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1031&message=30556165