Sell All DSLRs!

Just received my LX3, it's my first compact, the output is nowhere, I mean nowhere near the output of my S5 or my S3 fuji dSLRs

Iso 80 from the compact is worse then iso 800 from my dSLRs

I guess it's still a very good compact, maybe the best one out there, but as someone used to dSLR quality, I'm quite disappointed, I'll keep it for some strolls when I don't want to carry big stuff, but that's it, I won't expect much from a compact

--
Mohammed
http://www.naturelight.org

dw1337 said:

I can't believe how many are saying they could replace an SLR by an
LX3/DLUX4. It's just ludicrous. Stop the hype...

Unless you're talking studio shots at ISO 80?

quercus said:

I recently bought the Leica D-lux 4 and am totally astonished by it's
output quality. I have a lot of expensive DSLR glass and am
contemplating on selling them all. Seeing what Leica/Panasonic can do
with a P&S I'm genuinely concerned the DSLR is becoming obsolete. I
know there has been speculation over this for years but now we have
some serious proof. Any views?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

There are a handful of really good P&S cameras with the larger sensors. I have one and in good light, the output is close to that of a good DSLR and good glass. However, when the size of the photo gets above 4X6 or the light gets a little more difficult, it is all DSLR. For me, that is most of the time.
--
Variance is Evil!

They are a lot better, but still nowhere near the dSLR quality over a wide enough range of picture taking conditions. They are better, but still not good enough.

Sorry.

I still enjoy shooting with my F100. Recently tried the new Kodak 100 Ektar and was very pleased by the colors and sharpness. Just got a roll of 120 for my Hasselblad and am looking forward to the results. I've always shot slides, but this new Ektar has me rethinking. What film and lenses do you use with your F100?

Have a look at how small those are and they use the bigger than4/3 sensor size as well. So I think micro APS-C is more of a threat than micro 4/3.

Why well it has all the advantages of APS-C cameras over 4/3 cameras, greater range of lenses, lower noise performance, higher resolution capability. The problem 4/3 has had is it has been a minority sensor size and so suffered both from the physical constraints of sensor size and also lack of development. And sadly the cameras are not that significantly smaller lighter or lower in cost. This has frequently left the Olympus cameras trailing along last in less than perfect lighting etc.

So is the dSLR under threat? I think it will just evolve. Just as 35mm rangefinders evolved into 35mm SLRS, then to digital to a crop factor, and now at last we are getting more SLRs with 35mm size sensors. Next stage, the entry cameras will loose their mirror mech, just like the G1 has, and entry cameras will have EVF

But the technical advantages of the modern SLR will make it live on in the high end cameras for some time I think. There focusing speed will remain an issue.

I use the same lens I use on my D3, 14-24 24-70 80-200. Film generally print film using Fuji Reala. I have access to a film based mini lab so its nice just to stick few negs through the F100 once in a while and print them 8x10. I actually enjoy the wait to see if I got it right rather than peeking at the screen to see what I got
--
http://www.jasonrow.co.uk
http://www.jasonrow.wordpress.com
'Travel is the antidote to racism, bigotry and prejudice' Mark Twain

I've fanticized having an F100 (or 6) body with a preview sensor that would let me see if I got the exposure, focus and composition correct. I have access to a lab near my work where I can get both 35mm and 120 films processed and get a photo CD at the same time. I'm anxious to have some Hassie images with the new Ektar 100 drum scaned; unfortunately that lab doesn't do drum scanning. Also would love to see a comparison of drum scanned images with those from a Nikon 8000ED scanner--ever notice you never see one of those 8000EDs going for less than $2000 dollars?

The LX3 and Leica cousin have a 24mp per sq cm sensor which is better than some of the cheap point and shoots pushing over 40mp per sq cm. However SLRs have from 1 to 5mp per sq cm. The LX3 may have a sensor who's cell area is not quite twice the size of some P&S cameras, but the SLR has a sensing cell that is several times the the size of the LX3's. This shows you turn up the ISO.

The above three miss my point. Obviously DSLRs are better overall than P&S cameras, but are they still so much better that their future is secured amongst prosumers? The DLUX4/LX3 is to me breaking some barriers.

--
This space left intentionally blank

can also be applied on a larger sensor. What I mean is that even if they get noise levels to great levels on a small sensor, it will always be better on a larger one. The improvements to small sensor design can always be applied to a larger sensor in addition to its inherit benefits.
--
http://www.pbase.com/shhe

strawman_John said:

Have a look at how small those are and they use the bigger than4/3
sensor size as well. So I think micro APS-C is more of a threat than
micro 4/3.

Click to expand...

The DP1 and DP2 are good camera, and offer IQ that's a definite cut above the average compact - or even the above-average compact come to that.

But, both have a fixed prime lens, and suffer limitations as a result. Ultimately, they're niche cameras - very good in certain situations, but less versatile than a proper SLR with interchangeable lenses.
That's where Micro 4/3rds scores over cameras like the DP1/2.

J M Hughes

Why do you think DLSRs have lenses that are usually larger than 1.5" across whereas P&Ss are usually about .3"" ?
Perhaps one lets in much more light/information.
Think about it.
Then there's the sesor size, think about that too.
But maybe you are right and millions of us are wrong, who knows.

lol

Jules

--
Crickets have ears on their legs.

APS-C is not one specific size of sensor. It varies by the manufacturer. And Sigma's definition of APS-C really isn't that much larger than a 4:3 sensor.

strawman_John said:

Have a look at how small those are and they use the bigger than4/3
sensor size as well. So I think micro APS-C is more of a threat than
micro 4/3.

Click to expand...

...can deliver an image quality, and a flexibility of use, and a portability, far superior to most photographic tools, ever.

Barring today's DSLR's - which are much more expensive, and much less portable. And barring the better film SLR's of yesterday (though there was way less flexibility and a lot of limitations). And barring the higher-end stuff of course.

SLR's of yesterday were necessary for advanced users, because this was the only way to see what the film would expose. But today any compact can do this, which limits the market.

Personally I cannot take the bulk and weight of these things (DSLR's), I just cannot. But other people can, and probably still will for quite some time.

a good tradesman never blames his tools

too bulky dslr????

I’m an avid DL4 user and, like others here, am often amazed what good images that little camera can produce. I use the DL4 as my primary field camera because the subjects I shoot and the conditions I shoot under generally make it impossible to use a DSLR, with all of its size and weight. Plus the need to keep a DSLR protected from weather and other forms of harm slows my ability to get it into action and pointing dogs and wild upland birds do not wait for you to dig out a big, awkward camera and get it working.

That said, I carry a DSLR any time I can because it is far easier to capture good images with even my oldest DSLR body than with the DL4; especially under marginal or difficult conditions.

By way of just one example, good as the DL4 is, it cannot do things like shoot 6 or 7 fps in burst mode for as long as I hold down the shutter button as a bird flushes. With the DL4’s very limited and slow burst mode, I have to time things just right and even then I need some luck to get a decent capture of a wild bird’s flush in front of a dog. With the DSLR, the worst that will happen is that I will need to discard a lot of frames to find the perfect shot.

I bought a G1 when they first came out thinking I’d get the capabilities of a DSLR in a camera more or less as portable as a P&S. Wrong. After struggling with it for a few months, I realized that had the worst of both worlds – a camera nearly as difficult to carry as a DSLR and with no where near the capabilities of a DSRL for action-type shooting.

The G1’s poor execution of the concept notwithstanding, I think EVIL’s are the future direction of digital cameras. Picture a camera about the size of a DL4, with an EVF and no mirror box, sealed and ruggedized body, crop-size sensor with no more than 10 MP, a burst rate like today’s DSLR’s and a, f2.8 kit lens with a 28-90mm (equivalent) zoom range. Add the ability to mount other, specialized lenses, like a 50mm (equivalent) f1.4, a super-wide and a few long tele’s. I’d buy one of those in a heartbeat. Then, I might junk the DSLR’s.

Birddogman said:

I bought a G1 when they first came out thinking I’d get the
capabilities of a DSLR in a camera more or less as portable as a P&S.
Wrong. After struggling with it for a few months, I realized that
had the worst of both worlds – a camera nearly as difficult to carry
as a DSLR and with no where near the capabilities of a DSRL for
action-type shooting.

Click to expand...

Funny, that was just my experience too

The image quality of the G1 was amazing and under good circumstances rivaled the images from my full frame DSLR. Nevertheless, the handling and behavior under more challenging situations was no match at all compared to the full frame.

And for studio work the A900 with some sweet Zeiss glass is on a whole other level -- perhaps I am spoiled by now

I have to say though that a current FF camera with good glass is fairly heavy. In my dreams, i can buy a compact camera with a full frame sensor, ie. a sigma DP form factor but with FF sensor and with interchangable lenses. There is really no reason why it can't be done. For now, I am quite interested to see how the new olympus micro 4/3 camera will do.

I am not certain what a prosumer is. A professional consumer unit?? The sort of camera that used to be labelled prosumer is dying out fast, mainly at the expense of SLRs.

For photographic enthusiasts, the SLR is still far ahead in terms of quality, response time, flexibility and handling. And for professionals the same is true.

If you want snap shots in good light of up to A4 quality then the compact is there.

But for the rest, the gap is growing in my eyes.

Pretty well my thoughts too.

I look at my old rangefinder and think, why can I not have a modern version. I guess the M8 exists, but at a price.

My thought was your logic in reverse. if you remove the mirror, you could have a camera using the Sony or Canon CMOS APS sensor that might make an interesting compact camera.

I picked the DP series as they show the size reduction that could be achieved. If only sigma had made a changeable lens, not fixed lens camera.