Couple technical questions about DSLR cameras.

I have a few questions about DSLR cameras that I couldn't really find the answer to. Most in particular canon DSLRs (since some of these questions could potentially have different answers on different brands).

1. Are you able to have full manual control of the pop up flash? Like firing at 1/2 power 1/128 power, etc. Or are you going to need to spend another $300 for a external flash to have any control?

2. People say you can achieve better DOF, and isolating subjects from backgrounds, with DSLR's. But is that only because your able to get lenses with larger apertures than what P&S cameras come with, or do they behave like that at all apertures. For example, if you take a photo identical settings of f4.0, 1/250, iso 100, of an identical scene, with both a dslr ad a P&S. Will the DOF be identical since those are supposedly standardized measurements (from what I understand), or will the DOF be different?

3. People also say dslr's have better performance with available light, or also low light. Is that simply because your able to use higher iso's without noise, or is there more to it than that? For example, say you shoot an identical sunny scene, no flash, f2.8, 1/2000, iso 400, with both a P&S and a DSLR. Will both cameras produce the exact same brightness or level of exposure, since they are using the same standardized measurements, or would the DSLR actually produce a brighter image?

4. People say DSLR's have no shutter lag, but is it really no lag, or just no perceivable lag to a human? I've used P&S cameras that once prefocused, had absolutely no percieved amount of lag at all, but when I put them to a scientific test with a laser, grid, and moving object, I found that they actually did have about a .07 second lag, or 7/100 of a second. So are dslr's faster than that, or are they similar?

Thanks.

carl1864 said:

I have a few questions about DSLR cameras that I couldn't really find the answer to. Most in particular canon DSLRs (since some of these questions could potentially have different answers on different brands).

1. Are you able to have full manual control of the pop up flash? Like firing at 1/2 power 1/128 power, etc. Or are you going to need to spend another $300 for a external flash to have any control?

Click to expand...

With my Canon 7D you certainly have full control over the internal flash including manual settings.

Note that results will be much superior with an external flash which you can bounce off the ceiling.

carl1864 said:

2. People say you can achieve better DOF, and isolating subjects from backgrounds, with DSLR's. But is that only because your able to get lenses with larger apertures than what P&S cameras come with, or do they behave like that at all apertures. For example, if you take a photo identical settings of f4.0, 1/250, iso 100, of an identical scene, with both a dslr ad a P&S. Will the DOF be identical since those are supposedly standardized measurements (from what I understand), or will the DOF be different?

Click to expand...

The DSLR will have a smaller depth of field - check here:
http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html

Note that you have to use the actual focal length for the P&S, not the 35mm equivalent focal length.

carl1864 said:

3. People also say dslr's have better performance with available light, or also low light. Is that simply because your able to use higher iso's without noise, or is there more to it than that? For example, say you shoot an identical sunny scene, no flash, f2.8, 1/2000, iso 400, with both a P&S and a DSLR. Will both cameras produce the exact same brightness or level of exposure, since they are using the same standardized measurements, or would the DSLR actually produce a brighter image?

Click to expand...

In principle if the exposure settings are the same they should produce images with the same brightness. DSLRs have much better dynamic range than P&S and often much better quality lenses will will affect image quality.

However, DSLRs really excel compared with P&S in low light at high ISO settings.

carl1864 said:

4. People say DSLR's have no shutter lag, but is it really no lag, or just no perceivable lag to a human? I've used P&S cameras that once prefocused, had absolutely no percieved amount of lag at all, but when I put them to a scientific test with a laser, grid, and moving object, I found that they actually did have about a .07 second lag, or 7/100 of a second. So are dslr's faster than that, or are they similar?

Click to expand...

Seriously, who cares?

DSLRs have post focusing shutter lag just like P&S but it is pretty well undetectable without scientific instruments. The big advantage of DSLRs is much faster focusing, although all operations are generally faster.

carl1864 said:

Thanks.

Click to expand...

--
Chris R

carl1864 said:

1. Are you able to have full manual control of the pop up flash? Like firing at 1/2 power 1/128 power, etc.

Click to expand...

It depends on the model. Entry level Canons won't while the intermediate bodies will.

carl1864 said:

2. People say you can achieve better DOF, and isolating subjects from backgrounds, with DSLR's. But is that only because your able to get lenses with larger apertures than what P&S cameras come with, or do they behave like that at all apertures.

Click to expand...

They behave like that at all apertures. This is why P&S cameras usually don't go beyond f/8. f/8 on a P&S is like f/44 on a full-frame DSLR.

carl1864 said:

3. People also say dslr's have better performance with available light, or also low light. Is that simply because your able to use higher iso's without noise, or is there more to it than that?

Click to expand...

Not much more than that...better noise performance and also greater dynamic range. Both are a result of a larger sensor. It's simply the advantage of collecting more light.

carl1864 said:

4. People say DSLR's have no shutter lag, but is it really no lag, or just no perceivable lag to a human? I've used P&S cameras that once prefocused, had absolutely no percieved amount of lag at all, but when I put them to a scientific test with a laser, grid, and moving object, I found that they actually did have about a .07 second lag, or 7/100 of a second. So are dslr's faster than that, or are they similar?

Click to expand...

Don't know what the numbers are, but my take is, if you can't perceive it, then it's fast enough.

.

carl1864 said:

1. Are you able to have full manual control of the pop up flash? Like firing at 1/2 power 1/128 power, etc. Or are you going to need to spend another $300 for a external flash to have any control?

Click to expand...

I believe the only Canon model that offers full manual control of the built-in flash is the 7D.

carl1864 said:

2. People say you can achieve better DOF, and isolating subjects from backgrounds, with DSLR's. But is that only because your able to get lenses with larger apertures than what P&S cameras come with, or do they behave like that at all apertures. For example, if you take a photo identical settings of f4.0, 1/250, iso 100, of an identical scene, with both a dslr ad a P&S. Will the DOF be identical since those are supposedly standardized measurements (from what I understand), or will the DOF be different?

Click to expand...

It will be different, because the actual focal length vs. the 35mm equivalent focal length is not the same. At any given aperture, the shorter the actual focal length is, the more depth of field there will be.

carl1864 said:

3. People also say dslr's have better performance with available light, or also low light. Is that simply because your able to use higher iso's without noise, or is there more to it than that? For example, say you shoot an identical sunny scene, no flash, f2.8, 1/2000, iso 400, with both a P&S and a DSLR. Will both cameras produce the exact same brightness or level of exposure, since they are using the same standardized measurements, or would the DSLR actually produce a brighter image?

Click to expand...

With identical settings, they will have identical exposures.

carl1864 said:

4. People say DSLR's have no shutter lag, but is it really no lag, or just no perceivable lag to a human? I've used P&S cameras that once prefocused, had absolutely no percieved amount of lag at all, but when I put them to a scientific test with a laser, grid, and moving object, I found that they actually did have about a .07 second lag, or 7/100 of a second. So are dslr's faster than that, or are they similar?

Click to expand...

Perceivable. All cameras have lag, and good review sites like dpreview and imaging-resource.com post the timings. P&S cameras are as fast as DSLR's in pre-focused lag, but are generally slower to much slower in full auto-focus lag. P&S's are also much slower in shot-to-shot performance.

Thanks for those replies. I have another question about the lenses. Why is it that dslr lenses seem to have soooo much less range and capability. I know they like to have specialized lenses that do one thing well, but there must be a lot of consumers out there who want the quality of a DSLR but don't want to have to change lenses.

For example, my Nikon P100 has a 4.6-120mm lens F2.8-5.0. The stock lens on a canon rebel xsi is 18-55mm f3.5-5.6. So much, much lower focal range on both the low and the high end, and smaller aperture. It seems like you'd be forced to buy 3-4 lenses just to get similar range, unless i'm missing something.

My situation right now is I am very very interested in a DSLR for better quality images, with lower noise, yet its feeling to me like unless I want to spend $2000 for a high end setup with extra lenses, external flash, etc that it will almost be a step backwards from my $300 nikon p100. I'd want to spend twice that much and get a $600 DSLR, however its feeling to me like I would be actually giving up more than I gain.

Compared to my nikon p100 if I bought say a rebel xsi or T3, I will be limited to a lens with smaller aperture and less range, still won't have any manual flash control (other than flash exposure comp which I already have). I'll be stepping down to having to only use flash with 1/200 exposures due to x sync issues, unlike my nikon that takes 1/2000 with flash sync. I'll loose movie ability, my nikon can take a full range, from 1080P, or high speed 120fps 640x480 movies, whereas the canon may or may not do 720P. I'll be carrying a bigger camera, loosing flip out screen.

The only things I'll gain speed of taking single shots without switching to burst mode, however the nikon can be set to burst mode and take 2.8 shots per second, which almost matches the rebels 3.0 shots. And I will gain better manual focus, and lower noise which are the big issues.

Perhaps you guys can express your opinions on this, but although I really do want to upgrade to a dslr, it just feels like any entry level dslr, although having some advantages, will be more of a step backwards. It feels like to truly get something I could consider an upgrade, it would cost about $2000 (too much for me) and have to be carried in a backpack.

I believe the highest ratio zoom lens for a DSLR camera is the Tamron 18-270mm lens. That works out to a 15x lens, and in comparison to your P100's 26-678mm equivalent range, works out to 29-432mm (on a Canon DSLR). Not as wide or long as the P100, but at least for telephoto, you could crop the image from the DSLR and it will be of higher quality than the P100's. The Tamron lens is more than your entire budget, however.

Still, you could buy an entry level DSLR with a two lens kit that would be within your budget, and it will take much better quality photos, and have better performance than your Nikon. An important thing to remember is to pay more attention to actual performance than to specifications. Just because a camera (or TV, stereo, car) has "better" specs like more megapixels, 35x lens, 1080 vs. 720, 10fps, etc. doesn't mean it actually works better. Put another way, there is no free lunch. If cheap cameras really did work as well as more expensive ones, no one would buy expensive cameras.

Yes, DSLRs are so much worse than P&S cameras that you wonder how the camera companies are able to con so many professional and serious amateur photographers into using them.

Same for video - professional movie makers are clearly using DSLRs because they don't know that your Nikon P100 is better.

I don't think that a DSLR is for you.
--
Chris R

Are you really interested in buying a DSLR?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=38268787
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1002&message=38260403
or are you just on a mission to attack DSLRs?
--
Chris R

Interested in buying one, just worried that what I gain vs what I loose won't justify the cost. For me personally $600 is a very large investment. I'm just worried that I might spend that much money, and feel like although I gained manual focus and lower noise and a couple other minor things, that I might be disappointed overall. And might find myself still turning to the P100 more often for many of the things it does that the dslr doesn't.

Not trying to attack DSLR's, just trying to fully understand everything about them ad what the pros/cons are. I've read many many comparisons on the web, but few go into anywhere near as technical of details as I look for.

One other thing, does anyone have a link to a good explanation of exactly what makes the DSLR have a shorter depth of field than a P&S at the same apeture. I tried searching but didn't find a good explanation. This is another thing that kind of worries me. I know many like to isolate their subject, but I don't. In the majority of my photos, I like the depth of field to be as wide as possible. Because usually I want the subject and background. So I'm a little worried about how much effect the lower depth of field will have on the DSLR, If I'm going to have to constantly be fighting to keep backgrounds clear.

carl1864 said:

I'm a little worried about how much effect the lower depth of field will have on the DSLR, If I'm going to have to constantly be fighting to keep backgrounds clear.

Click to expand...

You are worrying needlessly (about this and everything else). A DSLR can give you as much DoF as you want...just don't shoot wide open. Simple as that.

carl1864 said:

Thanks for those replies. I have another question about the lenses. Why is it that dslr lenses seem to have soooo much less range and capability. I know they like to have specialized lenses that do one thing well, but there must be a lot of consumers out there who want the quality of a DSLR but don't want to have to change lenses.

For example, my Nikon P100 has a 4.6-120mm lens F2.8-5.0. The stock lens on a canon rebel xsi is 18-55mm f3.5-5.6. So much, much lower focal range on both the low and the high end, and smaller aperture. It seems like you'd be forced to buy 3-4 lenses just to get similar range, unless i'm missing something.

Click to expand...

There are large range lenses that go from 18-200mm to 18-270mm. They tend to be slow and image quality is usually not as good as a several narrower range lenses. They also tend to be expensive. Their popularity tends to be with those that want a simple and compact travel kit.

It is a huge mistake to only evaluate a lens in terms of its breadth of range. The DSLR holds the advantage in matching the right lens to the subject - a one lens fits all might be cheaper and more convenient, but then you get cheaper results. And broad-range superzooms are an inherent compromise in image quality, including that one on your P&S. The only difference is that you are stuck with it no matter what, beyond swapping out the entire camera.

carl1864 said:

My situation right now is I am very very interested in a DSLR for better quality images, with lower noise, yet its feeling to me like unless I want to spend $2000 for a high end setup with extra lenses, external flash, etc that it will almost be a step backwards from my $300 nikon p100. I'd want to spend twice that much and get a $600 DSLR, however its feeling to me like I would be actually giving up more than I gain.

Click to expand...

It's like racing: speed costs money. How fast do you wanna go? You are giving up convenience and money for quality and adaptability. It's that simple.

carl1864 said:

Compared to my nikon p100 if I bought say a rebel xsi or T3, I will be limited to a lens with smaller aperture and less range, still won't have any manual flash control (other than flash exposure comp which I already have). I'll be stepping down to having to only use flash with 1/200 exposures due to x sync issues, unlike my nikon that takes 1/2000 with flash sync. I'll loose movie ability, my nikon can take a full range, from 1080P, or high speed 120fps 640x480 movies, whereas the canon may or may not do 720P. I'll be carrying a bigger camera, loosing flip out screen.

The only things I'll gain speed of taking single shots without switching to burst mode, however the nikon can be set to burst mode and take 2.8 shots per second, which almost matches the rebels 3.0 shots. And I will gain better manual focus, and lower noise which are the big issues.

Perhaps you guys can express your opinions on this, but although I really do want to upgrade to a dslr, it just feels like any entry level dslr, although having some advantages, will be more of a step backwards. It feels like to truly get something I could consider an upgrade, it would cost about $2000 (too much for me) and have to be carried in a backpack.

Click to expand...

Nikon D5100. Has a flip out lcd, movie mode, and blows away you P&S for image quality. Powers on faster, focuses faster, tracks better, shoots better in lower light, better dynamic range, 4 fps, hell, just about everything better. If larger bugs you, you need to ask yourself if smaller sensors and less control are getting what you want out of photography. If not, that's the price to pay and you either accept it or get by with what you have. All cameras are just a set of compromises, be it size, bulk, adaptability, convenience, quality, or price.

--

carl1864 said:

3. People also say dslr's have better performance with available light, or also low light. Is that simply because your able to use higher iso's without noise, or is there more to it than that?

Click to expand...

• You can get DSLR lenses that are "faster" (i.e., that have wider aperture settings) than just about any fixed lens that you'll find on a point-and-shoot camera. The very best compacts might have f/2.0 (Canon S95) or f/2.8 (Canon G12) at the widest ends of their zoom ranges. DSLR kit lenses are slower than that, but just about every DSLR vendor offers 50mm f/1.8 and/or 50mm f/1.4 lenses. A f/1.4 lens gathers twice as much light as a f/2.0 one, four times as much light as a f/2.8 one, and sixteen times as much light as a typical compact lens or DSLR kit lens at the telephoto end of its zoom range. More light gives you more flexibility to set good tradeoffs for shutter speed and ISO.

• DSLR sensors are much larger than point-and-shoot sensors. The size gives them low-light advantages in terms of the amount of noise in properly-exposed high-ISO pictures.

• Because DSLRs are more expensive (and profitable) than point-and-shoot cameras, the manufacturers may deploy their latest sensor and noise reduction technology in their DSLRs before rolling it out to their point-and-shoots. This is just a guess, though – and in any case a DSLR's main advantage would come from the previous items.

carl1864 said:

For example, say you shoot an identical sunny scene, no flash, f2.8, 1/2000, iso 400, with both a P&S and a DSLR. Will both cameras produce the exact same brightness or level of exposure, since they are using the same standardized measurements, or would the DSLR actually produce a brighter image?

Click to expand...

They should produce the same level of exposure. In practice, they won't produce exactly the same level, as there may be differences in metering algorithms; there may be sample variations; or there may be outright bugs in conformance to the standards.

However, if you get correct exposure from both cameras, that doesn't imply that pictures will look exactly the same. A large sensor produces more shallow depth of field (which may be pleasing for portraits; less so for pictures where you want everything in focus). Large sensors are also better with respect to high-ISO noise - an ISO 800 picture taken with a DSLR may have a level of noise that is unobjectionable, whereas an ISO 800 picture taken with a small-sensor compact may be loaded with visible noise.

I think you are trying to dissect this too much.

The things you are worried about are the things that give a photographer more control.

I would put it this way : if you have used a P&S a lot and wished it offered more control then a DSLR is probably for you. If you have not wanted control then you should not bother with a DSLR.

You need, above all, to try a DSLR. Any DSLR. See how they feel. If all you see is a big awkward camera then pick a P&S. If it feels like this is the way a camera should be then a P&S is possibly for you.

You can learn the rest if/when you have one, and there is no other way to learn the rest.

--
StephenG

carl1864 said:

Thanks for those replies. I have another question about the lenses. Why is it that dslr lenses seem to have soooo much less range and capability.

Click to expand...

Because DSLR lenses are designed to work with much larger sensors (APS-size and/or full-frame sensors), they must have longer focal lengths for a given field of view. The need to project a large enough image to cover the sensor also affects size.

E.g., the lens on a Canon S2 IS has a "35mm-equivalent" range of 36 to 432 mm, for field of view comparison purposes. But the actual focal length range of the lens is only 6 to 72 mm, and it only has to project an image large enough to cover a tiny sensor.

To cover the same range of fields of view in one lens, an APS-C DSLR like the Nikon D90 would need a zoom with a range of 24 to 288 mm that was capable of projecting an image large enough to cover an APS-C sensor. (I am deliberately ignoring the difference in aspect ratio between the S2 and most DSLRs.) And a full-frame DSLR would need a zoom with a range of 36 to 432 mm that could project an image large enough to cover a 35mm frame.

Now throw in the fact that the Canon S2 IS has a pretty "bright" lens over its entire focal length range, and "matching" DSLR lenses will be even bigger, heavier, and more costly. The S2 IS had an maximum aperture range of f/2.7 to f/3.5. So at the telephoto ends of their ranges, the S2 lens, the APS lens, and the full-frame lens would require effective entrance pupils of (72mm/3.5), (288mm/3.5), and (432mm/3.5), respectively. That is, a "fast" superzoom lens can get away with an effective entrance pupil of just slightly over 0.8 inches, where an equivalent lens for a full-frame DSLR would need an effective entrance pupil of nearly 5 inches (with a corresponding increase in the amount of glass).

carl1864 said:

For example, my Nikon P100 has a 4.6-120mm lens F2.8-5.0. The stock lens on a canon rebel xsi is 18-55mm f3.5-5.6. So much, much lower focal range on both the low and the high end, and smaller aperture. It seems like you'd be forced to buy 3-4 lenses just to get similar range, unless i'm missing something.

Click to expand...

Field of view does not depend only on focal length. You must also take the size of the sensor into account. When you do that, you'll find that the 18mm starting point on most DSLR kit lenses (14mm on Four-Thirds systems, which use smaller sensors) is roughly equivalent to 28mm or 29mm on a full-frame DSLR. There are one or two compacts that claim 24-mm-equivalent starting points, but for the most part, specs like "4.6mm" are what a compact needs to get 28mm (or higher) equivalent field of view. It doesn't mean that you're getting an ultra-wide angle lens and fisheye if you buy the compact.

Does anyone know of a good link that explains exactly what causes the DOF to be different on a P&S vs DSLR at the same aperture. I've tried searching, without much luck. I'm trying to understand exactly why that is?

Does that mean that for a dslr to match the same DOF as for example a P&S shooting at say F 4.0, with the DSLR you might have to reduce the aperture to something like 8.0 just to match the DOF, and then have to use a higher iso, or slower shutter speed to make up for it?

Let's apply the age old adage of a picture is worth a thousand years. I just blundered across some test photos I took with a borrowed Canon S3 IS from 2006. It was a superzoom with extreme broad range lens, had a flip out LCD, and image stabilization. I was literally testing it to see if a superzoom could really meet my demands on a camera, or if I would only be happy with a DSLR.



I'll note that this took a specific noise reduction program on top of photoshop to improve the image. I passed on getting the then new Canon 5is (upgrade from the 3is I used) in favor of a Nikon D40x, which took the following. Keep in mind exact same event, location and lighting, and even the same car, with kit level Nikon 18-105vr lens.



Contrast, sharpness and dynamic range were improved, and I had a lot more control over the image. Now, P&S and DSLRs have improved from either of these cameras, but the sensors and level of image control are still just plain superior on DSLRs. The P&S are cheaper and more convenient. If you are happy with the quality of the P&S image, then by all means, stay with them. But the more you shoot in challenging light, they more you shoot action, the more you make demands on versatility of lens, the more you'll find a DSLR the better option that will answer to your needs.

--

carl1864 said:

Does anyone know of a good link that explains exactly what causes the DOF to be different on a P&S vs DSLR at the same aperture. I've tried searching, without much luck. I'm trying to understand exactly why that is?

Click to expand...

http://www.normankoren.com/Tutorials/MTF6.html

Now, this is somewhat full of equations, but that's really the only way to answer your question of "exactly why that is".

carl1864 said:

Does that mean that for a dslr to match the same DOF as for example a P&S shooting at say F 4.0, with the DSLR you might have to reduce the aperture to something like 8.0 just to match the DOF, and then have to use a higher iso, or slower shutter speed to make up for it?

Click to expand...

Yeah, except the f/stop is going to scale with the sensor size so you would be looking at something more like f/22. But you can bump up the ISO to compensate.
--
Leonard Migliore

carl1864 said:

I have a few questions about DSLR cameras that I couldn't really find the answer to. Most in particular canon DSLRs (since some of these questions could potentially have different answers on different brands).

Click to expand...

You seem passionate about the technical detail and obsessive in research. You also have very "get down and do it" approach. I would temper this with some amount of rationalisation and sanity check.

carl1864 said:

1. Are you able to have full manual control of the pop up flash? Like firing at 1/2 power 1/128 power, etc. Or are you going to need to spend another $300 for a external flash to have any control?

Click to expand...

Dunno about Canons. I abstain.

However, a sanity check - the pop up flash is generally meant for casual use.

• If you want manual control of an inexpensive flash, you could find something modern (low trigger voltage), cheap and has controllable power

• You CANNOT compare an Interchangeable Lens Camera (DSLR or MILC) category with a Nikon P100 category. The Nikon P100 category is an "all-in-one". You paid the money, just enjoy - all you see in $$$ is that lump sum. ILCs are priced and designed and system architectured for narrow function, higher control, higher POTENTIAL technical image quality - you ALWAYS spend more on an ILC if you want to get somewhere.

carl1864 said:

2. People say you can achieve better DOF, and isolating subjects from backgrounds, with DSLR's. But is that only because your able to get lenses with larger apertures than what P&S cameras come with, or do they behave like that at all apertures. For example, if you take a photo identical settings of f4.0, 1/250, iso 100, of an identical scene, with both a dslr ad a P&S. Will the DOF be identical since those are supposedly standardized measurements (from what I understand), or will the DOF be different?

Click to expand...

You CANNOT compare a P&S small sensor with a DSLR. Ok, go hold a Nikon D3S vs the Nikon P100 - do you feel that the two cameras are very different in size, weight and robustness amongst other things? It's like comparing an SUV with a Smart Car. Surely 100mph on a SUV vs a Smart Car is the same speed but something has got to give?

The P&S optical lens is 6mm focal length. The DSLR lens is say 20mm focal length. f/4 is a reference ratio, so that should be the same. 1/250th is a reference shutter speed so that should be the same. ISO 100 is a reference sensitivity to light so that should be the same.

BUT, the depth of field (take any calculator and equation or tables, you are more than capable of doing that) for a 6mm vs a 20mm MUST BE DIFFERENT, other factors in the equation being the same.

carl1864 said:

3. People also say dslr's have better performance with available light, or also low light. Is that simply because your able to use higher iso's without noise, or is there more to it than that? For example, say you shoot an identical sunny scene, no flash, f2.8, 1/2000, iso 400, with both a P&S and a DSLR. Will both cameras produce the exact same brightness or level of exposure, since they are using the same standardized measurements, or would the DSLR actually produce a brighter image?

Click to expand...

• The f/2.8, 1/2000th sec and ISO 400 are reference number so it does not matter which camera, they will give you the same brightness of image.

• The DSLR has a bigger sensor so potentially, the noise floor will be lower (amount of noise). However, since the day is sunny and bright, SANITY CHECK, there is enough light to go around so the visual, perceived noise IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE will be acceptable from both cameras.

• You already have shown in your demo experiment shots with the paintball that ISO 640 (if it can be believed) is pretty grainy on your Canon point and shoot. The DSLR will be better than that.

carl1864 said:

4. People say DSLR's have no shutter lag, but is it really no lag, or just no perceivable lag to a human?

Click to expand...

There is ALWAYS LAG. However, SANITY CHECK, the DSLR just clicks, many Point and Shoots hesitate. Those that don't hesitate use movie technology (high frame rate, liveview).

carl1864 said:

I've used P&S cameras that once prefocused, had absolutely no percieved amount of lag at all,

Click to expand...

You already answered your own question - you have to pre-focus. DSLRs do not have to pre-focus to get the same result. Yes, pre-focussing is always good but in general use, you don't have to do that.

carl1864 said:

but when I put them to a scientific test with a laser, grid, and moving object, I found that they actually did have about a .07 second lag, or 7/100 of a second. So are dslr's faster than that, or are they similar?

Click to expand...

SANITY CHECK - WHO CARES. Except for cases like the Olympic Sports Photog trying to take wow shots of a runner or a swimmer crossing the finishing line, or a bat photog taking photos of a bat skimming the surface of a pond, we don't use a laser or a grid to trigger.

--



Ananda
http://anandasim.blogspot.com
https://sites.google.com/site/asphotokb

'Enjoy Diversity - Live a Little'

carl1864 said:

I have a few questions about DSLR cameras that I couldn't really find the answer to. Most in particular canon DSLRs (since some of these questions could potentially have different answers on different brands).

1. Are you able to have full manual control of the pop up flash? Like firing at 1/2 power 1/128 power, etc. Or are you going to need to spend another $300 for a external flash to have any control?

Click to expand...

Ii depends on the camera. Check the model you are thinking of purchasing. Generally though, you get much greater ability to adjust the settings of a Speedlite. You also get the ability to swivel and bounce, more power and faster recharging.

carl1864 said:

2. People say you can achieve better DOF, and isolating subjects from backgrounds, with DSLR's. But is that only because your able to get lenses with larger apertures than what P&S cameras come with, or do they behave like that at all apertures. For example, if you take a photo identical settings of f4.0, 1/250, iso 100, of an identical scene, with both a dslr ad a P&S. Will the DOF be identical since those are supposedly standardized measurements (from what I understand), or will the DOF be different?

Click to expand...

Depth of field is usually shallower with a DSLR because it is the actual focal length of the lens which determines how much depth of field you get at each particular aperture. Smaller sensors require shorter focal lengths for an equivalent field of view and therefore you get shallower depth of field for the equivalent field of view (not focal length) on a DSLR.

The corollary is that If you use the same focal length lens on different sized sensors you of course get exactly the same depth of field. However, with the smaller sensors, DOF will appear shallower because you have magnified the image more to get the same sized print and the out of focus parts will seem more out of focus because of this. The in focus part of the image will of course appear relatively unchanged.

The ability to use lenses with relatively larger apertures obviously helps with shallow depth of field too.

carl1864 said:

3. People also say dslr's have better performance with available light, or also low light. Is that simply because your able to use higher iso's without noise, or is there more to it than that? For example, say you shoot an identical sunny scene, no flash, f2.8, 1/2000, iso 400, with both a P&S and a DSLR. Will both cameras produce the exact same brightness or level of exposure, since they are using the same standardized measurements, or would the DSLR actually produce a brighter image?

Click to expand...

You are correct. It is the ability of the DSLR to use higher ISOs without much increase in noise that makes them better to use in low light. The same settings on any camera should equate to the same level of brightness although you will find, as you have already obviously deduced, differences in depth of field and noise performance.

carl1864 said:

4. People say DSLR's have no shutter lag, but is it really no lag, or just no perceivable lag to a human? I've used P&S cameras that once prefocused, had absolutely no percieved amount of lag at all, but when I put them to a scientific test with a laser, grid, and moving object, I found that they actually did have about a .07 second lag, or 7/100 of a second. So are dslr's faster than that, or are they similar?

Click to expand...

Although there are differences in shutter lag, the main difference between P&S cameras and DSLR's is that DSLR's focus much more quickly and therefore have minimal shutter lag when shooting "cold". There is very little difference when you pre focus but if you look at the literature, there is a difference even between DSLR's although the practical differences are insignificant.

carl1864 said:

Thanks.

Click to expand...

There's no reason why you need to know this DOF answer - it doesn't matter how that happens all that matters is that it does. If this interests you more than using a camera then do a course in undergraduate physics and forget photography.

More to the point the reduced DOF is not a problem, it's a solution . It expands the range of compositional possibilities. It is an element of the extra control a DSLR gives you in creating images.

If all you want to do is make a DSLR behave like a P&S then just get a P&S - you'd be wasting your time with a DSLR.

--
StephenG