Which P&S comes closest to DSLR in image quality?

[bwbrock]

I'll always put my Pro1 pictures like this up against anything,
anytime:

Nice pic. I don't think any of my prints would last for more than 2 seconds against that little fellow, heh heh. The Pro-1 takes very nice images and if only it could fit into a pocket I would have kept it in my equipment inventory.

 

[bwbrock]

I must
admit that although I like the idea of Consumers Reports, in the
areas that I know something about (audio and photography) they have
little credibility.

Totally agree. They know even less about automobiles.

 

[mac west]

the only thing they do well is reliabilty based on 7 million subscribers they do get large data feedback from them.
--
SHOOT TO THRILL: MAC WEST NYC

 

[NIK11]

Consumers Reports does have some findings that make me question
their methodology.

In the UK you can be confident that Consumer Magazine reports are honest and objective. However, where they sometimes fall down is that they target the uninformed with simplistic testing and summary's.

In the case of Cameras, it seems they test only on auto/default settings and compare output on standard size prints. Consequently you can have an IXUS/ELPH awarded more marks than any A series or the S80. It is not wrong, but they fail to explore the full potential.

Nick

 

[Erik Stiegler]

admit that although I like the idea of Consumers Reports, in the
areas that I know something about (audio and photography) they have
little credibility.

In their defense, they're geared towards consumers, not enthusiasts. Enthusiasts are probably better served by a more specialized publication. Their recommendations are probably good overall for casual hobbyists, but if you get much deeper, you're probably beyond CR's recommendations.

Even so, I believe the claim those compacts can match DSLR quality is indefensible on almost any level. For small prints under ideal conditions, there probably isn't enough difference worth mentioning. Turn down the lights a little, and you'll start seeing the difference showing up fast.

On a tangent, it looks like almost every camera on that list was discontinued, or close to it when the article was published. In the S70's case, its replacement was being closed out.

 

[fbx]

I think this is generally true, i.e., when you know something about the area being tested CR almost never gets it right. In fact, it is usually so far from on the mark as to be silly.

I'm just sayin'

I like the idea of Consumers Reports, in the
areas that I know something about (audio and photography) they have
little credibility.

Bob

 

[alcanoe]

I knew when I mentioned Consumer reports I would get the CR bashers out of the woodwork. I find CR a valuable source of information which I use in conjunction with other sources. Yes, they do review for the general public, but since I don't have disdain for the photography proletariat, that doesn't bother me at all.

The CR perspective has to be more general since they are not a photo magazine and it often is more useful than the biased, narrow-minded perspective of some that post in forums.

Al

 

[ZeroTX]

My Minolta A200 has a superb lense and produces near-dSLR images at ISO50 to ISO100. At 800, images are only useful for 4x6 prints after processing them in a noise reduction software. In other words, they're bad. That's where the dSLR comes into play. I'm about to go for a Canon Rebel XTi, but I'm keeping the Minolta A200 as a carry-around cam, because it's light, easy to use, fully adjustable, takes sharp pictures (with good lighting), and will blow the doors off most point-and-shoots. IMO, it makes better images than the Coolpix 8800 or the Canon Pro1, which is why I picked it.

Here's a full resolution sample out of the A200 from the Texas Renaissance Festival 2 weekends ago:

http://www.networkit.org/grendal/livejournal/renfair_masks.jpg

--
Konica Minolta DiMage A200

 

[Ominous]

My Minolta A200 has a superb lense and produces near-dSLR images at
ISO50 to ISO100.

Can not be true.

--
http://www.whalenphotography.net
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

 

[Robert Deutsch]

Consumers Reports does have some findings that make me question
their methodology. For example, they rate the S2IS ahead of the
S3IS on picture (print) quality. This contradicts every review in
the specialist magazines. (The S3 may not have significantly
better image quality than the S2, but it's not worse .)

Well, I have to take that comment back. I was browsing the reviews on http://www.lesnumeriques.com/ , which seems like a fairly critical review site, and they rate the S3IS lower than the S2IS (three stars vs. two) "Il est plus cher que le S2-IS et pas meilleur"--more expensive than the S2IS, but not better. Noise worse than the S2IS.

So maybe CR is not out to lunch on this point after all...

Bob

 

[Stephen Kovac Jr]

Some people are saying that the DP1 will be very close to DSLR images as it will be using the same sensor as their DSLR camera. No one knows when the DP1 will be release, maybe within the next six months to a year.

 

[alcanoe]

From the NY Times:

Like many recent digital single-lens-reflex cameras, the new Nikon D40 is considerably smaller than its corporate siblings. At $600 with a zoom lens, it is also substantially less expensive. In an attempt to distinguish itself from competitors, however, the 6.1-megapixel D40 takes a novel approach to giving photographers advice on how to use it.

Users of the D40, which Nikon is unveiling today and will start selling next month, can preview the effects of different settings by viewing sample photos on the camera’s screen. For those who are unsure if a higher f-stop number means that more or less light is reaching the camera, an animation shows the size of the lens opening. (A bigger number means a smaller opening.)

In order to shrink the camera, Nikon has eliminated the smaller black-and-white display that its other digital S.L.R.’s use to show camera settings. A small motor was also eliminated, so the camera does not autofocus when used with lenses that require the motor to turn their focusing rings.

The D40 does work with Nikon’s AF-S lenses that have built-in focusing motors and with the electronic system in some lenses for preventing blurry photos caused by unsteady hands. IAN AUSTEN

 

[Ominous]

There are many factors that go into what makes up the final image quality. You say that G7 pics compare well to slr pics...but there are many factors used here.

Pictures down sampled for the web wont give you the whole story, but some key factors are noise, sharpness, DoF, contrast, and dynamic range.

Resolution aside, P&S cameras have big problems with noise, DoF control, and dynamic range. Often their images have too much contrast, or too much saturation. Often times there is too much of an image in focus.

There are some shots you simply can not take with a P&S, or most of them, due to physical limitations.

Bluring the background is VERY hard with a P&S, unless you are VERY CLOSE to something rather small.



But it is not to say you can not have large DoF on a slr, as that is easy to do also.







low light, no flash, is also another area that a P&S has yet to be able to do well.



Or if you want to use a flash, and don't want ugly shadows...you better not use on board flash...but it is sad that most P&S don't have a hot shoe.

Even when usinig the flash, it is common to still use 800+ ISO settings, and a low F stop to let in more ambiet light.



So yes, you can say daylight shots at 50 ISO look somewhat comparable to dslr shots...but that is a rare exception. For a large majority of shots, the difference is very large.

I was wondering about the Sony F717 and F828 which have 2/3"
sensors. Are there other P&S cameras that have these larger
sensors, or that get closer to DSLR image quality? I note that
someone compared (very casually) the G7 to one of the Canon DSLRs
and the pix didn't look that far off. What other cameras?

--
http://www.whalenphotography.net
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

 

[ZeroTX]

Pictures down sampled for the web wont give you the whole story,
but some key factors are noise, sharpness, DoF, contrast, and
dynamic range.

Ominous, did you actually look at the pic I posted? That was an off-hand, quick-shot, and that's a straight-out-of-the-camera JPG, full 8megapixel resolution, not reduced for web from my Minolta A200.

Resolution aside, P&S cameras have big problems with noise, DoF
control, and dynamic range. Often their images have too much
contrast, or too much saturation. Often times there is too much of
an image in focus.

The issue of noise is only at higher ISOs on the nice P&S cameras, e.g. Canon Pro1, Minolta A2/A200, Nikon Coolpix 8800. Hence my original post which indicated near-dSLR (not equal, but NEAR) quality at ISO 50 and 100. Yes, you get more noise starting at 200 and up. You really see the difference on 400 and 800 pics. You would NOT mistake an ISO 800 pic from a P&S for a dSLR.

As for the DOF issue, that's simply a matter of what lense is on the camera. I can get pretty good DOF at the right telephoto range and aperature with my A200, but definitely nothing as good as with a dSLR and a prime lense, etc. At the same time, with my A200 I have 28mm-200mm full manual, high quality lense in very small, very light package. I would need to carry double the weight and size to get that in a dSLR and to get a lense that is as-good as the A200, I will have to spend $500-1000 for lense alone, due to the larger size required for a dSLR.

There are some shots you simply can not take with a P&S, or most of
them, due to physical limitations.

Agreed. That's why I'm buying a Canon Rebel XTi, for the high-speed, high ISO situations that I can't do with my Minolta A200. It's too slow and the sensor is too noisy at those high ISO settings.

Bluring the background is VERY hard with a P&S, unless you are VERY
CLOSE to something rather small.

Depends on the lense on the camera. I can get some degree of "background blurring" on my A200. Look at the pic I posted above. I can post more examples of that if you like. Indeed, though, it is usually more incidental and not very easy to intentionally replicate, unless I can choose my distance from the subject (and use a bit of telephoto).

low light, no flash, is also another area that a P&S has yet to be
able to do well.

Agreed, hence above statement regarding high ISO. That is, however, only in reference to moving targets. For stationary objects, I can take pictures in near-darkness with my A200 and see detail impossible to see with the naked eye in crystal clarity with low noise (ISO50-100). Just look at the sample images on dcresource.com in the church in very low light. Sharp as a tack and virtually no noise.

Or if you want to use a flash, and don't want ugly shadows...you
better not use on board flash...but it is sad that most P&S don't
have a hot shoe.

You sure about that? I guess you're referring to the pocket cameras, but any good camera has one. I use an external bounce flash on mine.

So yes, you can say daylight shots at 50 ISO look somewhat
comparable to dslr shots...but that is a rare exception. For a
large majority of shots, the difference is very large.

Well, that would work well for lots of things and lots of shots, even landscapes.

I'm going to a dSLR, but there's some incredible shots I've taken with my A200 as have others with their A2/A200's and similar higher end P&S cameras. For many shooters, you can get better results with them than a dSLR in many situations. For those where you can't, I am ready to own both a dSLR and my trusty A200, interchangeable depending on what I need and where I'll be, etc.

-Michael

 

[Ominous]

Pictures down sampled for the web wont give you the whole story,
but some key factors are noise, sharpness, DoF, contrast, and
dynamic range.

Ominous, did you actually look at the pic I posted? That was an
off-hand, quick-shot, and that's a straight-out-of-the-camera JPG,
full 8megapixel resolution, not reduced for web from my Minolta
A200.

I didn't realize I was replying to you...so no...I did not see your picture.

Resolution aside, P&S cameras have big problems with noise, DoF
control, and dynamic range. Often their images have too much
contrast, or too much saturation. Often times there is too much of
an image in focus.

The issue of noise is only at higher ISOs on the nice P&S cameras,
e.g. Canon Pro1, Minolta A2/A200, Nikon Coolpix 8800. Hence my
original post which indicated near-dSLR (not equal, but NEAR)
quality at ISO 50 and 100. Yes, you get more noise starting at 200
and up. You really see the difference on 400 and 800 pics. You
would NOT mistake an ISO 800 pic from a P&S for a dSLR.

ISO 50/100 is rather useless for anything that moves though...which is very little of what most people photograph.

As for the DOF issue, that's simply a matter of what lense is on
the camera. I can get pretty good DOF at the right telephoto range
and aperature with my A200, but definitely nothing as good as with
a dSLR and a prime lense, etc. At the same time, with my A200 I
have 28mm-200mm full manual, high quality lense in very small, very
light package. I would need to carry double the weight and size to
get that in a dSLR and to get a lense that is as-good as the A200,
I will have to spend $500-1000 for lense alone, due to the larger
size required for a dSLR.

You get what you pay for

There are some shots you simply can not take with a P&S, or most of
them, due to physical limitations.

Agreed. That's why I'm buying a Canon Rebel XTi, for the
high-speed, high ISO situations that I can't do with my Minolta
A200. It's too slow and the sensor is too noisy at those high ISO
settings.

Bluring the background is VERY hard with a P&S, unless you are VERY
CLOSE to something rather small.

Depends on the lense on the camera. I can get some degree of
"background blurring" on my A200. Look at the pic I posted above.
I can post more examples of that if you like. Indeed, though, it
is usually more incidental and not very easy to intentionally
replicate, unless I can choose my distance from the subject (and
use a bit of telephoto).

Why the need for a telephoto lens? I can blur the background with my 24 MM lens if I wanted to....though the distortions would not make for a flattering image if I was taking a picture of a person.

low light, no flash, is also another area that a P&S has yet to be
able to do well.

Agreed, hence above statement regarding high ISO. That is,
however, only in reference to moving targets. For stationary
objects, I can take pictures in near-darkness with my A200 and see
detail impossible to see with the naked eye in crystal clarity with
low noise (ISO50-100). Just look at the sample images on
dcresource.com in the church in very low light. Sharp as a tack
and virtually no noise.

This is true, but most people wont be taking picture like this very often. But this is something a dslr can do also.

Or if you want to use a flash, and don't want ugly shadows...you
better not use on board flash...but it is sad that most P&S don't
have a hot shoe.

You sure about that? I guess you're referring to the pocket
cameras, but any good camera has one. I use an external bounce
flash on mine.

The small ones don't have them, correct. Though the thought of using a large flash on a P&S camera makes me wonder about how to hold the thing. I feel like my external flash on a 400D makes it an offballance mess.

So yes, you can say daylight shots at 50 ISO look somewhat
comparable to dslr shots...but that is a rare exception. For a
large majority of shots, the difference is very large.

Well, that would work well for lots of things and lots of shots,
even landscapes.

Landscapes and still life...but anytime you are taking a picture of people, odds are you can't get away with 50 or 100 ISO.

I'm going to a dSLR, but there's some incredible shots I've taken
with my A200 as have others with their A2/A200's and similar higher
end P&S cameras. For many shooters, you can get better results
with them than a dSLR in many situations.

????

What situations?

--
http://www.whalenphotography.net
http://www.pbase.com/ewhalen

 

[Brian Thomas]

I just got back from a trip to Europe with my Canon a620 and I just posted a fun thread in response to this one entitleds:

my a620 takes on any DSLR! - pics

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1010&message=20911245

Basically, I had a Sony 717 that I loved and I sold it and purchased a Canon a620 because it was smaller. Unfortunately, I didn't sell the extra lens attachment or the six inch plastic tripod. So it wasn't all that small except that I could leave that stuff in my room if I chose.

The thread referenced above has a lot in it about tricks I used to stabilize images. I don't know all the latest Canon cameras because I've been away. However, an image stabilized camera with a wide angle built in lens (28mm) and image quality as good as the a620 would be an unbeatable Euro vacation camera. In other words. In other words a PowerShot S3 that went wide instead of long and had an a620 sized sensor.

--
Brian

http://rivertext.com/

 

[ZeroTX]

ISO 50/100 is rather useless for anything that moves though...which
is very little of what most people photograph.

People don't move (much) for posed photographs. I've taken many pics with the ISO manually set to 50 to keep it as clear as possible and had no problems doing so.

You get what you pay for

I never suggested otherwise. Though, to some extent, if your limit is under $1,000, you get MORE with a high-end P&S. For instance, the new Sony R1, which would cost $1500+ to duplicate in a dSLR body+lense package.

Why the need for a telephoto lens? I can blur the background with
my 24 MM lens if I wanted to....though the distortions would not
make for a flattering image if I was taking a picture of a person.

Telephoto is about the only way to get a blurred background on a P&S. That was what I was saying. It's possible, but you have to back up from the person and zoom in.

Agreed, hence above statement regarding high ISO. That is,
however, only in reference to moving targets. For stationary
objects, I can take pictures in near-darkness with my A200 and see
detail impossible to see with the naked eye in crystal clarity with
low noise (ISO50-100). Just look at the sample images on
dcresource.com in the church in very low light. Sharp as a tack
and virtually no noise.

This is true, but most people wont be taking picture like this very
often. But this is something a dslr can do also.

On the contrary, I love natural light interior shots of dark spaces. Churches, specifically. I've also taken night-time shots of a friend's historic home and the results are very cool.

The small ones don't have them, correct. Though the thought of
using a large flash on a P&S camera makes me wonder about how to
hold the thing. I feel like my external flash on a 400D makes it
an offballance mess.

Somewhat, yeah. The flash I have is roughly the same size as the camera itself. With the bounce, it's still well worth it for flattering indoor pics of family/friends.

Landscapes and still life...but anytime you are taking a picture of
people, odds are you can't get away with 50 or 100 ISO.

Indoors, no. Outdoors, all the time.

I'm going to a dSLR, but there's some incredible shots I've taken
with my A200 as have others with their A2/A200's and similar higher
end P&S cameras. For many shooters, you can get better results
with them than a dSLR in many situations.
????

What situations?

Other than size, weight, and having an all-purpose high quality wide-> telephoto lense built right into it, the main additional benefits I've found are related to the "swivel" LCD and the live preview. When I make adjustments to shutter and aperture, it gives a "preview" of what those changes will do the picture right on the screen (e.g. darkens or lightens based on what changes you make). Further, the "swivel" feature means I can take properly framed candids without anyone knowing I'm snapping pics, I can take pics around a corner, with the camera flat down on the ground, with the camera extended up as far over my head as I can hold it, etc, all perfectly framed pics. For instance, when visiting the zoo, I hold the camera way up over my head on my tip-toes and shoot without having a fence in my way. At a crowded venue, I hold the camera way up over my head and shoot properly framed pictures without people's heads/seats/hats in my way! This was the #1 reason I ruled out a bunch of other high-end P&S cameras back in '04... I wanted that swivel screen and it has been very useful. Even a non-swivel live preview would allow for taking pics off a tri-pod without having to put your head up to the viewfinder, which would be very convenient for taking pics at an event without having to sit in a weird position to get your face up there.

If they could integrate that feature (live preview w/ a swivel screen) into a SLR design, then the best of both worlds would be there... maybe even movie mode for those impromptu moments you want to capture. This is a feature loved by parents who can easily flip from making sharp 8.0megapixel snapshots to making a full motion video to burn on a DVD later.

As far as picture quality itself, there's not really any place a P&S beats a dSLR. But there are numerous convenience and practicality issues. For the really cool "candid" angle shots I've taken alone, the swivel has been worth it.

-Michael

 

[Armand Hirt]

However, an image stabilized camera with a
wide angle built in lens (28mm) and image quality as good as the
a620 would be an unbeatable Euro vacation camera.

Have you looked at Ricoh cameras?

• Armand

 

[Martyn Welch]

One thing I've never fathomed in any reviews, whether here or photo magazines is how any camera can qualify for a highly recommended if the picture quality is less then brilliant. Surely the whole point of taking photographs is to to record a high quality, sharp and clear, noise-free image with no blown highlights or murky shadows and yet some cameras whose image quality is quite frankly fairly dire at anything more than their lowest ISO settings still rate high praise from the reviewers.

It may be built well and have lots of 'features' but if the pictures aren't very good unless the light's exactly right, what's the point? Would you recommend a car that looks stunning with plush leather upholstery, amazing sound system, is economical and easy to park - but which only travels at 12mph as anything higher and the car starts to rattle and higher still will fall to bits? Hardly likely. So why rate highly a camera that has equally wonderful features but fails to do what it's supposed to, namely take great pictures?

One of the main selling points for me (of digital over film) was the ability to alter ISO settings to suit the occasion. With film, if you had 100 in the camera, tough - you couldn't photograph a moving subject in poor lighting, so had to change half way through a roll and load 400 or higher. Then when you needed clean shots in normal lighting you were stuffed again as the grainy results would be less than ideal. So many P&S cameras have pretty grim noise problems above the lowest ISO that one of the main selling points has just gone out the window and you're back to the equivalent of a film camera with only one speed film available.

I'd like a p&s with big zoom that can take great pictures in all lighting or situations but sadly only a DSLR will do all those things and you have to buy the extra glass to do so. If someone could come up with a p&s that did what my DSLR can, I'd be first in the queue and would pay whatever was asked. Which was why I was hoping for a Pro2 as that seemed the most likely candidate that could come close to the PICTURE QUALITY that should be every munfacturer's sole aim. Sorry to shout, but . . .