Is the quality gap between DSLRs and non-DSLRs narrowing?

[Jenn_B]

I hate the term "point & shoot". It's not really accurate in describing higher end fixed lens cameras.

I'm not sure how much the gap is really narrowing, as high end compact cameras have been able to produce outstanding images for years. Honestly, if you're shooting 800x600 for the web, just about any decent camera made in the 21st century will do that.

As far as advantages the SLR still has, noise. It's not just at high ISOs. An SLR like the D40 has less noise at ISO 400 than a compact like the SX10 has at ISO 80. The noise reduction needed by small sensors to get noise down to that level can smear fine detail.
Very few compact cameras can output RAW files that let you bypass in-camera processing for the best image quality. That is one are where SLRs definitely provide more control.

I have no problem shooting at ISO 400 with a DSLR all the time. Would you try that with an SX10? No way.

Speed is another area where SLRs are still vastly superior. Even a low end SLR like the D40 is much faster than a compact camera. The autofocus and continuous shooting are both much faster.

[SWriverstone]

I hate the term "point & shoot". It's not really accurate in describing higher end fixed lens cameras.

THANK YOU Jenn! I agree 100%. In my opinion, "point and shoot" refers to a tiny camera that will fit in your shirt pocket.

Cameras like the Sony R1 and Canon SX10 are best (and should be) described as "prosumer non-DSLR" cameras.

I think more and more, the choice of DSLR or fixed-lens camera comes down to your desired end media. If you plan to print (at least larger than 4x6") then absolutely, you need a DSLR.

But I think it's safe to say that the majority of photography today ends up *not* in print but on the web, which is the "great equalizer" (or perhaps the "great quality crusher," LOL).

I've taken almost 20,000 shots over the past couple years, and never once printed anything. Frankly, unless I'm a gallery photographer, I'm opposed to print for environmental reasons...I don't want to give anyone an excuse to have to make more paper.

I think some folks are obsessed with quality for no reason---particularly if their work is going online.

Scott

[SWriverstone]

BTW...I'm still waiting for anyone to explain exactly what is meant by the notion that a DSLR gives you "more control" than cameras like the Canon SX10 or the Sony DSC-R1? (See my post above...)

This isn't trolling...far from it. My goal all along has been to have an intelligent conversation about the real-world differences between high-end, fixed-lens prosumer cameras and low-end DSLRs. So far the conversation has been good! Thanks!

Scott

[Loupey]

I tend to use the term Point-and-Shoot (P&S) to mean anything that isn't an SLR or dSLR. It is an old habit and one I should break.

The dSLR's and non-dSLR's have been morphing into a different class of cameras (like the Sony referenced earlier). But what class that is I have no idea nor any reason to think about it.

Seems we are talking about semantics here. To me, an SLR has to have an optical viewfinder, a reflexing mirror, and interchangeable lens capability. Any camera that does not have all three of those features are not SLRs in my book.

As for more control with dSLRs, I agree with what others have mentioned. I have used several digital non-SLRs that were advertised to have full manual controls. Sure they have them, but using them when you need to use them is a completely different matter. I want 4 controls immediately at my disposal without taking my eye out of the viewfinder: 1) shutter speed control, 2) aperture control, 3) ISO control, and 4) focus control.

The Canon G9 was supposed to be my street camera. But the lack of "more control" in terms of ease/speed at which I can control the camera have made this camera no more than a P&S (whoops I said it again ).

[SWriverstone]

Thanks for the good comments Loupey.

Seems we are talking about semantics here.

I think it goes beyond semantics to image quality: in good light and at relatively low ISOs...and especially when the final images will be reduced to 72dpi, 800x600 for the web...many admit the image quality differences between a high-end prosumer and low-end DSLR are ridiculously small.

So in other words, it's not always accurate to assume a DSLR always provides better IQ than some high-end prosumer cameras.

To me, an SLR has to have an optical viewfinder, a reflexing mirror, and interchangeable lens capability. Any camera that does not have all three of those features are not SLRs in my book.

I'm interested by how people place such a high premium on a TTL viewfinder, especially because I'd be willing to bet a large number of DSLR users always use autofocus. So if you're using autofocus, what is the inherent advantage of a TTL viewfinder? (Besides just looking nice.) High-end prosumer cameras use autofocus too. (Though I admit most don't have controllable focus points.)

As for more control with dSLRs, I agree with what others have mentioned. I have used several digital non-SLRs that were advertised to have full manual controls. Sure they have them, but using them when you need to use them is a completely different matter. I want 4 controls immediately at my disposal without taking my eye out of the viewfinder: 1) shutter speed control, 2) aperture control, 3) ISO control, and 4) focus control.

I think historically this has been true...but the designers of non-DSLRs have made some pretty big leaps in those cameras' interface designs. you should try the Canon SX10. I was impressed at how easy it is to access each of the controls you mentioned...without ever taking my eye away from the viewfinder. Canon accomplished this by adding a smoothly-turning rotary dial around the 4-way button that falls comfortably right underneath your thumb. (Just 4-way "up" and use the dial to adjust shutter...and 4-way "down" and use the dial to adjust aperture...piece of cake!)

Another advantage offered by an electronic viewfinder is that improvements in interface design can make adjusting these controls easier. On the SX10, for example, when you adjust either shutter or aperture, a beautifully-designed horizontally-sliding scale suddenly appears across the lower-third of the viewfinder---it's actually superior to squinting at the tiny LCD digits across the bottom of most DSLR viewfinders.

Scott

[Loupey]

... in good light and at relatively low ISOs...and especially when the final images will be reduced to 72dpi, 800x600 for the web...many admit the image quality differences between a high-end prosumer and low-end DSLR are ridiculously small...

I agree with this comment, but...

You've picked an extremely narrow and low-end part of the spectrum here - a part that can easily be handled by most, if not all, cameras being sold today (possibly even by some cell phone/cameras).

I think it would be erroneous to take this specific scenario and scale it up beyond the special set of circumstances that you have stated.


Like saying that because any car can take me down to the market and back, there is no difference between cars.

[Loupey]

Ultimately, the only person who can answer your question adequately is you.

Because we are of all different skill levels drawing on different shooting experiences and using different equipment, the only way to remove the differences is by trying it yourself.

I have tried and I cannot get a non-dSLR to perform at the level of quality and performance that I can from a dSLR.

So for me, the answer to your question is: no.

[SWriverstone]

Just for reference, here are some shots taken with my (now ancient) Canon S2-IS:















Now, someone might be able to pick these part at the pixel level, but you'd have to be pretty absurdly picky to say these aren't great photos (I credit the camera, not myself!). And you can also see there is plenty of DoF in these photos.

So again...I don't question that DSLRs are better than the camera that took these pics...but frankly, I don't see a lot of pics from DSLRs that leave these shots in the dust!

Scott

[Sushigaijin]

The dSLR's and non-dSLR's have been morphing into a different class of cameras (like the Sony referenced earlier). But what class that is I have no idea nor any reason to think about it.

<>

I want 4 controls immediately at my disposal without taking my eye out of the viewfinder: 1) shutter speed control, 2) aperture control, 3) ISO control, and 4) focus control.

This is a good point. Obviously we are looking at a new class of cameras, and new developments like EVIL (electronic viewfinder/interchangeable lenses) are complicating things more. EVIL seems a good enough acronym for m4/3, but fixed lens/electronic viewfinder stumbles with EVFL. I can't pronounce it. I suppose you could make it FLEV, but that sounds gross.

I left the second part of the quote because my old Sony H5 pretty much fit the description - except for the manual focus. I routinely changed items 1,2 and 3 without moving my eye from the viewfinder. Focus was a totally different beast though. A mechanical focus ring would have made that a very flexible camera. In fact, the controls were virtually the same as my DSLR, which is one reason I chose my brand.