Pro 1 vs. 300D

MBlackburn · Mar 21, 2004

I do not think it is a huge gap in capabilities, rather in application - thats why I have both. Also I detect a hint of fundamentalism in some of the arguments against a camera which quite obviously has not been tried out by its detractor
Mike

Mike Hunt said:
Galay said:

but then again, there's no questioning that a prosumer cam cannot
outperform a DSLR in those departments. but mypoint has all along
been that the 'gap' between DSLR and prosumer cams is often times
not as wide as it seems,

Click to expand...

In evryday situations, that is true, which is why so many serious
photographers use compact cameras. But when speed and low light
matter, there's a huge gap in capabilities between these cameras. A
compact camera is almost useless for indoor sports and will require
much more effort than an SLR to get remotely similar results in
outdoor sports.

--
http://www.mikeblackburn.com

Galay · Mar 21, 2004

agreed, especially sports action shots. however i do find it easier to handle slower moving subjects such as those in concerts etc. these were all taken with my prosumer cams with just a monopod at different concerts at some distance away...

actually i'm not very concerned about images being tact sharp mainly because i think the output file size is big enough and i very rarely make prints bigger than 8R...and this is part of why i like the bigger sensors as i can effectively use a shorter range thus bigger aperture thus faster shutter speed while maintaining good resolution...

Doug D. said:
Member said:

but then again, there's no questioning that a prosumer cam cannot
outperform a DSLR in those departments. but mypoint has all along
been that the 'gap' between DSLR and prosumer cams is often times
not as wide as it seems, when one actually tries to compare both by
using them for a while, which i have done.

Click to expand...

I believe you. It's just that every sports or low light picture
I've seen form the new crop of 8 mp cams, has awful noise or motion
blur, due top the camera limits.
People are doing all kinds of crazy things with neat image and the
like to get them cleaned up, but the cameras just don't shoot in
these conditions very well.
I shoot a lot of hockey and symphony concerts without flash. I have
a hard enough time with my 10D using a 135 F/2L at iso800.

--
Doug D.
'Promise a rainbow, and someone will look to the sky.'
Equipment in profile.
http://public.fotki.com/DougD/
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumList?u=1681338
http://www.imagestation.com/member/
index.html?name=diamondspoint&c=201
http://www.pbase.com/doug_d

Mike Hunt · Mar 21, 2004

Galay said:
Galay said:

For the most part, yes. But even at ISO50 you may sometimes see
some noise in shadow areas with compact cameras like the Pro1.
Also, limiting yourself to ISO50 can be very restrictive indeed.

Click to expand...

then that is besides the point. it just shows that the the Pro1
can achieve the same level of image quality as the 300D. just that
the 300D can do it in a wider variety of lighting conditions.

And that is a very big deal indeed. I myself do not own a digital SLR, because I am unwilliing to lug one around everywhere. But I lament the limitations of compact cameras every time I use them.

Galay said:
Galay said:

Galay said:

i also do not find teh 300D's autofocus
vastly (if at all) superior to the Pro1, both in terms of speed
and ability to focus in low light.

Click to expand...

There I believe you are mistaken. Any SLR will kick the living you
know what out of any compact camera in autofocus performance under
any conditions - especially in low light, with telephoto, and with
fast moving subjects.

Click to expand...

with fast moving subjects under low light, no doubt. but not for
stationary objects under low light.
mike, i HAVE both of these
cameras and i'm telling you that i do not notice significant
difference. but you are making your points based on your belief
and theory.

For stationary objects when one has all the time in the world, autofocus itself is hardly an essential feature. The whole point of autofocus is speed - the speed of focusing on something quickly before it goes away.

To someone working with landscapes and tripods, autofocus is not a key feature at all. But for anyone wanting to capture fleeting moments, it is essential.

Galay said:
Galay said:

Galay said:

manual focus...i'm not sure how
the 300D is also better in this regard, as i can just as easily
focus manually with my pro1 as i can with the 300D.

Click to expand...

No you can't. The Pro1 has an electronic manual focus control which
is neither as responsive nor as precise as an SLR's manual focus
ring. And it is far easier to observe differences in focus through
a big and bright SLR viewfinder than through an EVF or LCD.

Click to expand...

Again, Mike, YES I can. To me, the EVF makes it easier to
approximate distance AND easier to see if the object is in focus
under low light. It may be different for you or others, but for
me, after trying to manually focus the same object under the same
lighting condition, with both the 300D and the Pro1, that is my
conclusion.

You are welcome to express your opinion but I suspect most knowledgeable and experienced photogrpahers would disagree with you.

Galay said:
One has to experience it to believe.
Do not make highly subjective comments based on theory and/or
common perception WITHOUT having actual experience, especially when
those who have actual hands on experience (not just one, but many)
tell you so. Of course you are entitled to your own opinions, but
I think you need admit that people who are using/have used the
cameras are in a better position to judge than those who have not.

I have been using a wide variety of cameras for the last 20 years, and while I'm far from an expert or a pro, I think I know what I'm talking about inthis regard. Clearly, you and I have very different standards and expectations from our cameras. I demand speed and performance under all conditions, not just nice quality images under carefully controlled and prepared conditions.

If you were correct, don't you think we'd see more professional sports photographers and photojournalists using compact cameras vs. the big, heavy, and expensive SLRs...

Leaf through a few pages of Sport Illustrated and tellme how many of those jaw dropping basketball and football photos could havebeen captured with a compact camera (even assuming focal length wasn't an issue.) With an SLR, continuous AF mode actually means something.

Galay said:
Galay said:

There's no telling what's over the horizon, but I haven't heard of
any imminent technologies that are expected to close the gap
betweeen SLRs and compacts in the areas we've discussed...

Click to expand...

this is probably out of the realm of our original discussion, but
if you consider it from the angle of product positioning and
cannibalization, it may shed some light on why manufacturers would
liek to maintain a perceived gap between DSLRs and prosumer cams.

If so, why not limit this gap to obvious things like resolution? If I were a major camera manufacturer and wanted to distinguish high end SLRs from compact cameras, the first thing I'd use would be resolution. An amateur doesn't need super high resolution, but a pro does. Most everyone wants fast autofocus, regardless of their aspirations.

And if the major OEMs were really holding back on this, it would be too easy for a smaller company like Sigma to step up to the plate and spoil the deal for the big boys. But there is not one single example of this. There are no research papers or technical discussions I've seen or heard of discussing the availability of superior AF technology that could be used in compact cameras.

Galay said:
who would buy their lenses if prosumer cams can do everything a
DSLR can?

Because the SLRs are still faster, more rugged, and more versatile, and can use hunderds of lenses, ideally suited to the task at hand. THings that are important to pros, and not as important to amateurs.

Galay · Mar 21, 2004

mike, yes, for indoor sports photog you're probably right on. but for outdoor sports, with the right practice, u can still get very good results with a prosumer cam. it's like riding a bicycle, it becomes second nature and your reflex adapts to compensate for the camera's slower response in comparison to the DSLR.

Mike Hunt said:
Galay said:

but then again, there's no questioning that a prosumer cam cannot
outperform a DSLR in those departments. but mypoint has all along
been that the 'gap' between DSLR and prosumer cams is often times
not as wide as it seems,

Click to expand...

In evryday situations, that is true, which is why so many serious
photographers use compact cameras. But when speed and low light
matter, there's a huge gap in capabilities between these cameras. A
compact camera is almost useless for indoor sports and will require
much more effort than an SLR to get remotely similar results in
outdoor sports.

Mike Hunt · Mar 21, 2004

Low light? Sort of.

Challenging? Not particularly. Focus distance is fixed. Lighting of the subjects themselves is relatively bright, considering there is little or no action or motion involved. You can set focus and exposure manually, lock the camera on a tripod, and trip the shutter as desired.

Try it in a hockey game.

Galay said:
actually i'm not very concerned about images being tact sharp
mainly because i think the output file size is big enough and i
very rarely make prints bigger than 8R...and this is part of why i
like the bigger sensors as i can effectively use a shorter range
thus bigger aperture thus faster shutter speed while maintaining
good resolution...

Doug D. said:

Galay said:

but then again, there's no questioning that a prosumer cam cannot
outperform a DSLR in those departments. but mypoint has all along
been that the 'gap' between DSLR and prosumer cams is often times
not as wide as it seems, when one actually tries to compare both by
using them for a while, which i have done.

Click to expand...

I believe you. It's just that every sports or low light picture
I've seen form the new crop of 8 mp cams, has awful noise or motion
blur, due top the camera limits.
People are doing all kinds of crazy things with neat image and the
like to get them cleaned up, but the cameras just don't shoot in
these conditions very well.
I shoot a lot of hockey and symphony concerts without flash. I have
a hard enough time with my 10D using a 135 F/2L at iso800.

--
Doug D.
'Promise a rainbow, and someone will look to the sky.'
Equipment in profile.
http://public.fotki.com/DougD/
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumList?u=1681338
http://www.imagestation.com/member/
index.html?name=diamondspoint&c=201
http://www.pbase.com/doug_d

Click to expand...

PhotoTom · Mar 21, 2004

Olga Johnson said:
webdivauk said:

Can someone give me some brief advantages of a 300D over a Pro1 and
vice versa, in plain speak

Click to expand...

The Pro 1 has a fixed lens. The 300D has an interchangeable lens
system (it's a digital SLR) where the possibilities are numerous.
Price wise they are not equal as the 300D needs at least one more
lens (in addition to the kit lens) to cover the range that the Pro
1 fixed lens covers.

In my view, the 300D sacrifices features for image quality. The Pro
1 sacrifices image quality for features.

The 300D has less difficulty in low light situations and is much
better for action shots. It can handle all other shots admirably as
the Pro 1 can.

What you choose has to be based on what your wants and needs are.
If you are adverse to hauling at least a couple of lenses plus the
camera with you, then you should be looking at a fixed lens system.
If image quality and less noisy pictures or if you take a lot of
low light pictures, then you would be better off with a dSLR.

It's all up to you, not others.

Olga

I like the way you put that.

They're both good cameras, but their purposes diverge. One must look at what their intended use is for a camera, before venturing out and spending a grand US.

I always kind-of thought of it this way - if you follow events in life and want to capture those moments in time from growing kids to vacations to the occasional spectacle, then the Pro-1 will give you great pictures. On the other hand, if you purposely and frequently venture out to events and spectacles for the sole purpose of taking pictures, then you are an SLR person.

--
Tom

Mike Hunt · Mar 21, 2004

I am not attacking the Pro1. I am merely pointing out the differences between SLRs and non-SLRs.

You should be a little more selective about your sources when forming such inflexible opinions. Just because the brochure boasts fast autofocus doesn't mean it will be fast by everyone's standards.

There's nothing I'd like more than to learn the Pro1 has SLR-like AF performance. I'd be the first to rush out and buy one.

But some people aren't looking for facts... they're just looking for others to vindicate their purchase decision adn don't want to hear anything that might question it...

Self delusion is a b* .

MBlackburn said:
Mike Hunt said:

Galay said:

but then again, there's no questioning that a prosumer cam cannot
outperform a DSLR in those departments. but mypoint has all along
been that the 'gap' between DSLR and prosumer cams is often times
not as wide as it seems,

Click to expand...

In evryday situations, that is true, which is why so many serious
photographers use compact cameras. But when speed and low light
matter, there's a huge gap in capabilities between these cameras. A
compact camera is almost useless for indoor sports and will require
much more effort than an SLR to get remotely similar results in
outdoor sports.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.mikeblackburn.com

Mike Hunt · Mar 21, 2004

Galay said:
mike, yes, for indoor sports photog you're probably right on. but
for outdoor sports, with the right practice, u can still get very
good results with a prosumer cam.

With the right practice.
With the right equipment.
With the right preparation.
With sufficient effort and patience and perserverance.

With all of the above and more, you will still come up short.

Personally, I don't like going through 10 times the trouble to achieve 80% of the results.

Mike Hunt · Mar 21, 2004

I could fill my car's gas tank with a spoon, but I choose not to.

Galay · Mar 21, 2004

Mike Hunt said:
For stationary objects when one has all the time in the world,
autofocus itself is hardly an essential feature. The whole point of
autofocus is speed - the speed of focusing on something quickly
before it goes away.

To someone working with landscapes and tripods, autofocus is not a
key feature at all. But for anyone wanting to capture fleeting
moments, it is essential.

two aspects mike. ability to focus and speed of focussing. the 300D does focus faster in many occasions than the Pro1, yes. but there is no noticeable difference in their ability to focus in low light ie in most situations where the Pro1 cannot get a nice focus neither can the 300D.

Mike Hunt said:
Mike Hunt said:

One has to experience it to believe.
Do not make highly subjective comments based on theory and/or
common perception WITHOUT having actual experience, especially when
those who have actual hands on experience (not just one, but many)
tell you so. Of course you are entitled to your own opinions, but
I think you need admit that people who are using/have used the
cameras are in a better position to judge than those who have not.

Click to expand...

I have been using a wide variety of cameras for the last 20 years,
and while I'm far from an expert or a pro, I think I know what I'm
talking about inthis regard. Clearly, you and I have very different
standards and expectations from our cameras. I demand speed and
performance under all conditions, not just nice quality images
under carefully controlled and prepared conditions.

If you were correct, don't you think we'd see more professional
sports photographers and photojournalists using compact cameras vs.
the big, heavy, and expensive SLRs...

Leaf through a few pages of Sport Illustrated and tellme how many
of those jaw dropping basketball and football photos could havebeen
captured with a compact camera (even assuming focal length wasn't
an issue.) With an SLR, continuous AF mode actually means something.

nobody has ever said that a DSLR is not superior to prosumer cams. all i'm saying is that the gap between the two, on many occasions, is not as big as some may believe. how many professional reporters do you see using prosumer cams rather than DSLRs nowadays? personally i know lots. Prosumer cams may not live up to the expectations of sports photographers, but prosumer cams are being used in a wider variety of proefessional work when compared to a few years ago, precisely because of the fact tha it can offer something that is good enough for these work.

Mike Hunt said:
Mike Hunt said:

Mike Hunt said:

There's no telling what's over the horizon, but I haven't heard of
any imminent technologies that are expected to close the gap
betweeen SLRs and compacts in the areas we've discussed...

Click to expand...

this is probably out of the realm of our original discussion, but
if you consider it from the angle of product positioning and
cannibalization, it may shed some light on why manufacturers would
liek to maintain a perceived gap between DSLRs and prosumer cams.

Click to expand...

If so, why not limit this gap to obvious things like resolution? If
I were a major camera manufacturer and wanted to distinguish high
end SLRs from compact cameras, the first thing I'd use would be
resolution. An amateur doesn't need super high resolution, but a
pro does. Most everyone wants fast autofocus, regardless of their
aspirations.

it is precisely because amateurs seem to care more about resolution while the pros seem to care more about what they had in their traditional SLRs. ur comment has just proved that the camara manufacturers have not wasted their marketing research money...

Mike Hunt said:
And if the major OEMs were really holding back on this, it would be
too easy for a smaller company like Sigma to step up to the plate
and spoil the deal for the big boys. But there is not one single
example of this. There are no research papers or technical
discussions I've seen or heard of discussing the availability of
superior AF technology that could be used in compact cameras.

good point. ever thought about why Sigma is the ONLY camera manufacturer bold enough to use Feveon X3, which is clearly a better sensor BY FAR on a pixel to pixel basis to the traditional Bayer type sensor? Do you not think that Feveon has already got a better chip than than the X3? It is precisely because of the stranglehold the Bayer camp has on the market that nobody is ready to embrace X3 except for the little guy Sigma...

Mike Hunt said:
Mike Hunt said:

who would buy their lenses if prosumer cams can do everything a
DSLR can?

Click to expand...

Because the SLRs are still faster, more rugged, and more versatile,
and can use hunderds of lenses, ideally suited to the task at hand.
THings that are important to pros, and not as important to amateurs.

Kudos to the marketing geniuses of the major camera manufacturers...

Galay · Mar 21, 2004

it's interesting to see how you perceive things.

mike, i was at the concert so i think i'm in a better position to tell you whether or not it was a low lighting situation.

i've never ever questioned the superior ability of the DSLR in sports photography. again, i just said that the gap is not that big ie anything less than sports photography, even sports photography in bright sunlight outdoors, prosumers can handle just fine.

Mike Hunt said:
Challenging? Not particularly. Focus distance is fixed. Lighting of
the subjects themselves is relatively bright, considering there is
little or no action or motion involved. You can set focus and
exposure manually, lock the camera on a tripod, and trip the
shutter as desired.

Try it in a hockey game.

Galay said:

actually i'm not very concerned about images being tact sharp
mainly because i think the output file size is big enough and i
very rarely make prints bigger than 8R...and this is part of why i
like the bigger sensors as i can effectively use a shorter range
thus bigger aperture thus faster shutter speed while maintaining
good resolution...

Doug D. said:

Mike Hunt said:

but then again, there's no questioning that a prosumer cam cannot
outperform a DSLR in those departments. but mypoint has all along
been that the 'gap' between DSLR and prosumer cams is often times
not as wide as it seems, when one actually tries to compare both by
using them for a while, which i have done.

Click to expand...

I believe you. It's just that every sports or low light picture
I've seen form the new crop of 8 mp cams, has awful noise or motion
blur, due top the camera limits.
People are doing all kinds of crazy things with neat image and the
like to get them cleaned up, but the cameras just don't shoot in
these conditions very well.
I shoot a lot of hockey and symphony concerts without flash. I have
a hard enough time with my 10D using a 135 F/2L at iso800.

--
Doug D.
'Promise a rainbow, and someone will look to the sky.'
Equipment in profile.
http://public.fotki.com/DougD/
http://albums.photo.epson.com/j/AlbumList?u=1681338
http://www.imagestation.com/member/
index.html?name=diamondspoint&c=201
http://www.pbase.com/doug_d

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Galay · Mar 21, 2004

look who's talking. who's forming their conclusions based on what they see on paper? we're basing our opinions on actual experience while you're making subjective claims by looking at the specs.

Mike Hunt said:
You should be a little more selective about your sources when
forming such inflexible opinions. Just because the brochure boasts
fast autofocus doesn't mean it will be fast by everyone's standards.

There's nothing I'd like more than to learn the Pro1 has SLR-like
AF performance. I'd be the first to rush out and buy one.

But some people aren't looking for facts... they're just looking
for others to vindicate their purchase decision adn don't want to
hear anything that might question it...

Self delusion is a b* .

MBlackburn said:

Mike Hunt said:

Galay said:

but then again, there's no questioning that a prosumer cam cannot
outperform a DSLR in those departments. but mypoint has all along
been that the 'gap' between DSLR and prosumer cams is often times
not as wide as it seems,

Click to expand...

In evryday situations, that is true, which is why so many serious
photographers use compact cameras. But when speed and low light
matter, there's a huge gap in capabilities between these cameras. A
compact camera is almost useless for indoor sports and will require
much more effort than an SLR to get remotely similar results in
outdoor sports.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.mikeblackburn.com

Click to expand...

sebastian99 · Mar 21, 2004

Hi, i´m in the same dilema that you are discousing (i´m also interested in buying one of those cameras), and after several minutes of reading your answers y have some questions:

1.what is the closest object that I can focus with the suplied lens in the 300d ? , and what is the most zoom that it can achive? (to make me some idea of how quickly I have to buy more lenses)

2.whitch has more purple fringing ? (that I think is the worst problem of analog vs. digital)

3 Of the people that posted their opinions, ho had realy use de pro1?

4 (comparing analog to digital), I ´ve eard that the film is equivalent to 7mp. Is that so?
in that case, Is the quality of the 300d comparable with an analog eos ?

(sorry of any wrong spelling, but I´m from Chile).

Galay · Mar 21, 2004

personally, i think you should quit arguing, go out and buy yourself a Pro1 (or any other recent prosumer cam for that matter), come back, and tell us what you think.

this is becoming quite ridiculous as i cannot comprehend why you can be so certain of your own opinion when you have not (i'm making an assumption based on your previous posts) even seen an Pro1 in person.

Mike Hunt said:
Galay said:

mike, yes, for indoor sports photog you're probably right on. but
for outdoor sports, with the right practice, u can still get very
good results with a prosumer cam.

Click to expand...

With the right practice.
With the right equipment.
With the right preparation.
With sufficient effort and patience and perserverance.

With all of the above and more, you will still come up short.

Personally, I don't like going through 10 times the trouble to
achieve 80% of the results.

Galay · Mar 21, 2004

i could hire a chaffeur to drive me, but i cannot afford to.

Mike Hunt said:
I could fill my car's gas tank with a spoon, but I choose not to.

Galay · Mar 21, 2004

sebastian99 said:
Hi, i´m in the same dilema that you are discousing (i´m also
interested in buying one of those cameras), and after several
minutes of reading your answers y have some questions:

1.what is the closest object that I can focus with the suplied lens
in the 300d ? , and what is the most zoom that it can achive? (to
make me some idea of how quickly I have to buy more lenses)

roughly 40cm without checking for sure. 18-55mm equi 28-90mm.

sebastian99 said:
2.whitch has more purple fringing ? (that I think is the worst
problem of analog vs. digital)

both quite low.

sebastian99 said:
3 Of the people that posted their opinions, ho had realy use de pro1?

i have. marco also has. am sure many more too by this time.

sebastian99 said:
4 (comparing analog to digital), I ´ve eard that the film is
equivalent to 7mp. Is that so?
in that case, Is the quality of the 300d comparable with an analog
eos ?

sorry do not know the answer to that. but at 6mp, i believe u should have no problem making prints up to A3 size.

sebastian99 said:
(sorry of any wrong spelling, but I´m from Chile).

Dave Knadler · Mar 21, 2004

.. that the beach shots are hardly representative of good DSLR bokeh. If that's the effect you want, you must open the aperture, whether a Pro 1 or a DSLR. Obviously, the 300D will deliver better results at the same focal length if both cameras are at f8...

Mike Hunt said:
No, given the same focal length, distance to subject, and distance
to background, an SLR could blur the background to a far, far
greater extent.

777 · Mar 21, 2004

webdivauk said:
Pro 1 body only:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0001JZRGM/qid=1079878774/sr=1-2/ref=sr_1_10_2/026-7831803-0975606

300D with lens kit:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000C9VZN/ref=sr_aps_electronics_1_1/026-7831803-0975606

300D without lens kit:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B0000C9VZL/ref=sr_aps_electronics_1_2/026-7831803-0975606

I'd talked myself out of considering a Pro1 due to the price - I
thought it would be over £1000 now that it's not I'm greatly
confused.

Can someone give me some brief advantages of a 300D over a Pro1 and
vice versa, in plain speak

Steve Norton said:

I have a s50 and it became so fustrating trying to control DOF that
I had to get a 300D to do it properly. If you want everything im
focus shots then the pro1 is your answer but if you want to control
that aspect totally then you must have DSLR.
I hope this helps
Steve

fiebl said:

wfjdi0r said:

I am planning to purchase a 6 or 8 mp digital. It seems that the
Pro 1 is close in price to the 300 D. Will the pro 1 replace the
300 D? Shouldn't the 8mp be a better buy than the 6 mp at almost
the same price?

Thanks.

Click to expand...

One shudders at the risk to answer the questions that you pose
because they verge on the brink of some fiendish jocularity of the
slap stick type .
But nevertheless to answer your question in all sincerity:

1. The PRO1 will definitely not replace the 300D, but it may
persuade some 300D owners to switch horses to the p&s PRO1.

2. Quite a few of the prospective buyers of the PRO1 may be
motivated by the erraneous illusion that 8 MP are better than 6 MP
'per se'. When the reality shock has got them back to earth they
will trade in their PRO1 to get the 300 D kit. Then they will
advance to L-Lenses, increasing the weight of their photo bag.
Fortunately this will be amply compensated by loss of weight in
purse. ('Law of constant weight'). The members of this species will
continue to buy into the Canon D-series ending up with loads of
equipment until common sense sets in and they will buy the PRO2
eventually.

Hope that helps,
Guenter

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
Kodak DX4900 Canon A80

If You Can Use The Optical View Finder to Compose Your Picture , Then There Is No Doubt The DSLR Is The Way To Go.Again No And No And No Doubt-.I Owend The 300d For One Day But Took It Back To The Store The Next Day Since I Could Not Stand Using The Optical Vtew Finder To Frame My Picture Because I Ware Bifocal Glasses And Now I Am Waiting To Find The Best P&S Camera . The Pro 1 Sounds Very Good To Me After Using The G1 For The Last Two Years.-
magdy f. khalil

Mikael Nordenberg · Mar 23, 2004

I haven't (yet) seen a portrait of a whole person (or half a person) where
the subject is nicely isolated from the background using a P&S.

Check out:
http://www.wlcastleman.com/equip/reviews/85_100_135/

and you'll see what I mean...

Mikael

Mike Hunt · Mar 23, 2004

Galay said:
mike, i was at the concert so i think i'm in a better position to
tell you whether or not it was a low lighting situation.

Did you have to constantly and quickly adjust focus for every shot? Was split-second timing cruicial to capturing each image?

Galay said:
i've never ever questioned the superior ability of the DSLR in
sports photography. again, i just said that the gap is not that
big ie anything less than sports photography,

The gap also extends to any situation where timing is important, as compact cameras have very poor autofocus, pespecially in low light and when using telephoto.

Galay said:
even sports
photography in bright sunlight outdoors, prosumers can handle just
fine.

Sure if you can preset focus and wait for the subject to enter the frame. But only an SLR can continuously focus a fast moving subject, and only an optical viewfinder allows you to track such a subject while using telephoto - even in the brightest sunlight.

Pro 1 vs. 300D

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Enthusiast

Dave Knadler

Guest

New member

Well-known member

Senior Member

Keyboard shortcuts