Phil's comparison to high-end digicams

I'm a bit surprised or even disappointed at how Phil compares the 300D to equally priced high-end digicams and assumes that the 300D will eat out a huge chunk of that market. He is making a common mistake : not everything is perfect in the (D)SLR world. It seems to be commonly kept silent that there are some important drawbacks to SLRs too :

• they're chunky and/or heavy, especially with the lenses you need/have.
• to have a comparable optical range as a compact digicam, you typically need 2 or 3 lenses (one or two zooms, plus macro) adding up to the price again.
• switching lenses all the time is cumbersome.
• not everyone is comfortable with sensor cleaning.
• there is no LCD preview that allows you to take pictures from the weirdest angles or positions.
• they look more expensive, hence more attractive to thiefs.

Although Canon surely wants us to believe otherwise, I'm convinced that for a lot of people an all-in-one digicam is a better choice than a DSLR. The advantages and disadvantages of both models (compacts vs SLR) IMHO makes that the way both are best/typically used is different. I'm therefore a bit disappointed that Phil seems to further feed the common misconception that a DSLR is always superior to a compact digicam.

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

So you'd rather I wouldn't compare the 300D to a similarly priced prosumer camera? I think you're very shortsighted.

Henk Van Wulpen said:

I'm a bit surprised or even disappointed at how Phil compares the
300D to equally priced high-end digicams and assumes that the 300D
will eat out a huge chunk of that market. He is making a common
mistake : not everything is perfect in the (D)SLR world. It seems
to be commonly kept silent that there are some important drawbacks
to SLRs too :

• they're chunky and/or heavy, especially with the lenses you

need/have.

• to have a comparable optical range as a compact digicam, you

typically need 2 or 3 lenses (one or two zooms, plus macro) adding
up to the price again.

• switching lenses all the time is cumbersome.
• not everyone is comfortable with sensor cleaning.
• there is no LCD preview that allows you to take pictures from the

weirdest angles or positions.

• they look more expensive, hence more attractive to thiefs.

Although Canon surely wants us to believe otherwise, I'm convinced
that for a lot of people an all-in-one digicam is a better choice
than a DSLR. The advantages and disadvantages of both models
(compacts vs SLR) IMHO makes that the way both are best/typically
used is different. I'm therefore a bit disappointed that Phil seems
to further feed the common misconception that a DSLR is always
superior to a compact digicam.

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

Click to expand...

--
Phil Askey
Editor / Owner, dpreview.com

Henk -

I'm sure that most would share your view that there are some disadvantages to the dSLR format, particularly if you come from a background of prosumer camera use.

However, this wasn't a prosumer camera review. It's a review of the Canon Digital Rebel. That means that you get a look at the new things that this affordable offering (affordable for those that can afford its expense) brings to the table that were relatively inaccessible before now.

Phil also acknowledges throughout both the review AND the conclusion that there is still a very important role for cameras like the Minolta A1 and the Sony F828 soon to come.

He's not talking Digital Doomsday here. So let's not take it all out of context.

At the same time, a camera like the Digital Rebel is only the first strike in a new breed of cameras. It won't be the last.

--

Ulysses

Yes and no.

Henk made a good point, but (imo) not when both are in the same price range. And that is exactly Phil's point.

Phil Askey said:

So you'd rather I wouldn't compare the 300D to a similarly priced
prosumer camera? I think you're very shortsighted.

Click to expand...

I don't think I said that anywhere, did I ?

I say that I feel that in general (D)SLRs often seem to be positioned as the holy grail, while for a lot of people it is not the best choice at all (even if it would be even cheaper than an all-in-one). I know at least two people who were wildly enthusiastic about planning a DSLR move until I pointed them to the disadvantages they were not thinking of.

Admittedly however, a camera review is maybe not the place to point to these differences. And on second read, the review is not as much trying to send digicam users towards DSLR as I first thought it was.

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

Henk Van Wulpen said:

• they're chunky and/or heavy, especially with the lenses you

need/have.

Click to expand...

That's true and there also much more things to care about. DSLR ist more than just an even bigger Prosumer P&S...

Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:

• to have a comparable optical range as a compact digicam, you

typically need 2 or 3 lenses (one or two zooms, plus macro) adding

Click to expand...

One 24-85 is almost the same as a G5.

Henk Van Wulpen58869 said:

• there is no LCD preview that allows you to take pictures from the

weirdest angles or positions.

Click to expand...

This is something I am missing. On the other side a DSLR viewfinder ist good, the viewinder of a G5 is a joke.

My point is similar to Phils. The bottom line here is not so much camera features as the fact that you can get dSLR performance at such a relatively low price. And that's Phil's one of Phil's major points in the review.

fhoubi said:

Yes and no.

Henk made a good point, but (imo) not when both are in the same
price range. And that is exactly Phil's point.

Click to expand...

--

Ulysses

I for one thought Phils review was excellent. It was great to see the 300D pitted against the G5. I appreciate how long it must have toof Phil to do such a comprehensive review like that one. When he sees people criticing his reviews he must think why bother. Hell he gives them to us for free!
Stop whining and pre-order your 300D.
Steve

fhoubi said:

Yes and no.

Henk made a good point, but (imo) not when both are in the same
price range. And that is exactly Phil's point.

Click to expand...

fhoubi said:

Yes and no.

Henk made a good point, but (imo) not when both are in the same
price range. And that is exactly Phil's point.

Click to expand...

--
Hamdan Abdullah

In Malaysia Canon advertised the 300D as an 'affordable dSLR' for the amatuer and Phil, thanks for the review.

Henk Van Wulpen said:

I'm a bit surprised or even disappointed at how Phil compares the
300D to equally priced high-end digicams and assumes that the 300D
will eat out a huge chunk of that market.

Click to expand...

Ok, now I know where the misunderstanding of my post comes from. This phrase was a bit unfortunate.

I am disappointed at the assumption (2nd part of the sentence) and not at the comparison. I should have stated it as : 'When comparing the 300D to equally priced high-end digicams, I'm a bit surprised or even disappointed at how Phil assumes that the 300D will eat out a huge chunk of the market.'
(but as I said, on second read it's not as bad as I first thought).

I guess this makes more sense now .

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

Henk Van Wulpen said:

I'm a bit surprised or even disappointed at how Phil compares the
300D to equally priced high-end digicams and assumes that the 300D
will eat out a huge chunk of that market. He is making a common
mistake : not everything is perfect in the (D)SLR world. It seems
to be commonly kept silent that there are some important drawbacks
to SLRs too :

• they're chunky and/or heavy, especially with the lenses you

need/have.

• to have a comparable optical range as a compact digicam, you

typically need 2 or 3 lenses (one or two zooms, plus macro) adding
up to the price again.

• switching lenses all the time is cumbersome.
• not everyone is comfortable with sensor cleaning.
• there is no LCD preview that allows you to take pictures from the

weirdest angles or positions.

• they look more expensive, hence more attractive to thiefs.

Although Canon surely wants us to believe otherwise, I'm convinced
that for a lot of people an all-in-one digicam is a better choice
than a DSLR. The advantages and disadvantages of both models
(compacts vs SLR) IMHO makes that the way both are best/typically
used is different. I'm therefore a bit disappointed that Phil seems
to further feed the common misconception that a DSLR is always
superior to a compact digicam.

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

Click to expand...

Superiority is in the eye of the beholder when it comes to features/functionability (SLR vs. prosumer) at a comparable price point. I agree with you that prosumers have huge advantages over dSLR's, but the same is true the other way as well. That's what makes the decision fun and exciting.

I think Phil has done a good job to show the 300D up against both the 10D and (for now) the G5. I want to know the differences in photo quality, as do a plethora of others, for this "in between" 300D.

You can't take Phil's review as the be-all-end-all of reviews, even though his tests are the most comprehensive on the net.

The more info he gives, (questionable?) jargon aside, the better informed I am when I do decide to upgrade. ...and I think we're all better off because of that!

--
Ixus 330 in Korea @ http://www.pbase.com/stevenpa

Having said that, I think that the comparison with the G5 was appropriate. I certainly appreciated it.

--
Bob

And for all clarity, this isn't a critique on the review itself ! Some people already seem to assume that I think it's a stupid review.
If I was thinking that, I would not be reading the reviews here, would I ???

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

I indeed didn't mention that because for most people this soon becomes part of their normal camera maintenance.

I have previously compiled an article on the BelgiumDigital forum (www.belgiumdigital.com) comparing DSLRs to all-in-ones, hoping to help people decide on which type of camera is best for them. The article however was in Dutch...

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

Henk Van Wulpen said:

I am disappointed at the assumption (2nd part of the sentence) and
not at the comparison. I should have stated it as : 'When comparing
the 300D to equally priced high-end digicams, I'm a bit surprised
or even disappointed at how Phil assumes that the 300D will eat out
a huge chunk of the market.'

Click to expand...

And I bet it WILL do just that!

We'll see how it does after it's finally available....

Miscellaneous A70 pics
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/bdolson/a70/a70.html
Sincerely, Bob the Printer

Henk Van Wulpen said:

• they're chunky and/or heavy, especially with the lenses you

need/have.

Click to expand...

The new Sony weighs 2 lbs. The 300D weighs 1.8 lbs with the standard lens. The 300D is slightly taller and wider. (Length of course depends on which lens you use.) Add another lens or a different lens and the 300D weight advantage might disappear, but the cameras are very similar in size. This means, whether you believe it or not, that many people who will be considering whether to get an F828 camera or other prosumer P&S will now at least consider whether to get a Canon DSLR instead.

Hi Henk,

I think Phil was done a good job.
From a camera review, there's no responsibility to pin point such things
you said like digicam was more handy, or even it should change lens for

more range shooting...etc, as soon as Phil was making a buying guideSLR or Prosumer likes stuff.

In my own opinion, camera review is mainly focusing on the camera itself,

of course, compare with similiar price range cameras are using for the reference, insteads of determine a decision between DSLR and Prosumer digicam.

I think most of ppl should know the benefit of normal digicam:handy, light, easy to use for a high quality photos. stylish. We all know not everyone wiould jump into DSLR platform. I think the one like to take photo is not = the one who like photography.

digicam??

Henk Van Wulpen said:

Phil Askey said:

So you'd rather I wouldn't compare the 300D to a similarly priced
prosumer camera? I think you're very shortsighted.

Click to expand...

I don't think I said that anywhere, did I ?

I say that I feel that in general (D)SLRs often seem to be
positioned as the holy grail, while for a lot of people it is not
the best choice at all (even if it would be even cheaper than an
all-in-one). I know at least two people who were wildly
enthusiastic about planning a DSLR move until I pointed them to the
disadvantages they were not thinking of.

Admittedly however, a camera review is maybe not the place to point
to these differences. And on second read, the review is not as much
trying to send digicam users towards DSLR as I first thought it was.

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

Click to expand...

that's why the DSLR's are there,people who have gone through the baptism of fixed to the body lens designs are moving on and looking for the next level.

Heavy? of course there heavy, quality glass lenses are heavy,built like a tank camera bodies are heavy,where talking about expanding ones horizons here, you just can't do that with a single lens for all occassions.
If I was worried about all the weight I carry around then I would go on a diet !

Henk Van Wulpen said:

And for all clarity, this isn't a critique on the review itself !
Some people already seem to assume that I think it's a stupid
review.
If I was thinking that, I would not be reading the reviews here,
would I ???

Henk

--
Henk Van Wulpen
Nikon D100

Click to expand...

--
http://www.fototime.com/inv/2DE8A73EF9811C6

I think Phil made exactly the comparisons that are most relevant, given the cameras that are available now. (He noted that the Sony 828 and the Minolta A1, which are of potential interest to people who might consider the 300D, are not available yet.)

As I see it, the 300D/Digital Rebel has two potential markets: (1) film SLR users who have held back on getting into digital because they felt it was too expensive (dSLRs like the 10D) or because they didn't feel it had the quality they wanted (prosumer digicams), (2) users of digicams, especially higher-end ones like the G5, who are experiencing the limitations of these cameras and are intrigued by what a dSLR would do for them for not very much more money. I predict that the 300D will be hugely successful, appealing to these markets. That's not to say that everyone interested in digital photograpy will--or should--buy a 300D. A small, keep-in-your pocket digital camera has much to recommend it. (I'm buying a 300D/Digital Rebel but keeping my S400, too.) The reasons for preferring a high-end all-in-one prosumer digital camera have been explored at length in this Forum and others (noteably the Sony Forum). Mike Johnston at http://www.steves-digicams.com/smp/08242003.html has done a good job with describing his reasons for preferring the new Sony. In his review, Phil has gone miles beyond just saying "It's a great camera"--instead, he's provided the sort of detailed, carefully considered and interpreted information that the potential buyer needs in order to make an informed judgment about whether this is the camera for them. And all this for free! How he did it in the relatively short time he had the camera I'll never understand. He must be one of those people who get no more than four hours of sleep per night.

Bob

But you don't REALLY get DSLR performance in the all-in-one cameras.

You may get comparable or even better image quality at low ISOs (as in the comparison to the G5) but you don't get the full package of performance pluses that a DSLR provides:

• lower noise throughout the ISO range

• faster focus

• faster capture, i.e., frame rate AND buffer performance

• wider variety of lenses that are tailored to the job at hand

• more capability to use in a studio situation.

• this is a personal one, but in my experience, DSLRs are easier to use. I don't like menu-driven little cameras with teeny-tiny multi-purpose buttons.