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

[Anbesol]

Whats up guys!? Sony gets no loving! I am surprised this far into the thread nobody mentioned the Sony DSC-R1, the one camera that had the DSLR benefit of APS sized imaging sensors, and the counterpart - Zeiss top quality lens. Best yet, it even had an advantage in many ways with its incredibly short backfocus, in some areas such as distortion and aberration it outperformed SLRs with even mid to top range lens even. The R1, manufactured in 2006, is the closest a point and shoot has ever gotten to SLR. and it still holds that crown.

There are a handful of people that think that Canon and Nikon are the only Camera companies in hte industry, namely the only ones that produce anything good. But really, there are plenty of other manufacturers. Neither Canon nor Nikon has produced a prosumer that can even come close to the performance levels of the Sony DSC-R1...

Anybody that is wanting the image quality and slr performance in a non-SLR, you can't do better than the R1....

[Sushigaijin]

I am surprised this far into the thread nobody mentioned the Sony DSC-R1,

Uh, I mentioned the R1 in my first post.

It all comes back to sensor size - once point and shoots get larger sensors, the quality gap will be closed. Of course, an interchangeable lens system will always have a flexibility advantage over a fixed-lens system.

[Dylan8i]

as i said above when i say more control i ment on things such as DOF. with p&s (i still use the term :-P) you basically have very large and super large. which sometimes is nice, but even with my macros i like to have a nice blurr, it adds depth to the photo and isolates the subject better.

you also have more control over (due to interchangable lenses) not just the length of the lens (mm) but the inherited changes that come with it (minimum focus distance, which also adds compression to the photo- telephoto reduces distances between subject and background etc) which you can't get with a p&s.

also as was brought up control over where the camera auto focuses, and being able to manually focus ( my old p&s HAD manual focus, but i couldn't tell a single difference as i moved about the range)

and while many p&s cameras do offer shutter, apature, iso controls, its almost like they are to blunt (but granted i haven't used any of the newer ones, just a canon s1 is) to effectively obtain the correct exposure via very small changes (or you can't tell in camera any differences are made). kind of like using a sledge hammer to put a tack in.



oh and i don't think i could live with out movable focus points ( i still use af 90+% of the time), but being able to choose where it focuses, and on what exactly makes all the difference.

[Dylan8i]

as i said above when i say more control i ment on things such as DOF. with p&s (i still use the term :-P) you basically have very large and super large. which sometimes is nice, but even with my macros i like to have a nice blurr, it adds depth to the photo and isolates the subject better.

my point is point and shoots have TO MUCH dof that you can't get rid of when you want to.



your also looking at these photos online, so i wouldn't expect to see much difference quality wise.

heres a comparison (shots are not the best composition wise etc, but show quality very well)
first shot is to show the size of the subject, in relation to my hand.



second shot is the full frame(3872X2592 pixels) shot taken with my d200 and 60mm af macro lense ( not even at minimum focusing distance)





here is a 1:1 crop (cropped to 800X600) from the above shot. even a 10.2 mp (compact... is that a better term than p&s?) camera would not have that much detail at that amount of a crop.



oh yeah and no pp at all of these except the crop.

[SWriverstone]

Those are great pics Dylan...but (like some of the pics I posted) they're fairly "extreme" examples.

I don't want to sound as if I'm beating the drum too loudly for non-DSLRs (because I may be about to "convert" and buy a DSLR!)...but I think "versatility" in a camera means many things to many people—there is no universal standard.

For example, people often point to the versatility of being able to switch lenses on a DSLR. This is fine if you're a dedicated photographer on a dedicated photography "mission." I'm a long-distance motorcycle rider...and space is at a premium on my motorcycle. So the last thing I want is to be lugging around extra lenses. I'm far happier with a single lens that encompasses a very wide range—even if it's not as sharp at either end of that range. The Canon SX10 has an 18-560mm equivalent...which is AWESOME for my needs.

I also love to get shots in situations where it would be difficult to compose the shot on a DSLR because it doesn't have the flip-out LCD—for example, getting a shot of a stream by holding the camera a centimeter above the surface of the water. The would be a tough shot to get with a DSLR, but with a flip-out LCD, it's a snap. (Likewise with holding the camer high overhead for a shot.)

I suppose my point is that people in general (myself included) have a tendency to want to rank everything on some sort of universal "scale of goodness"...and that's simply not a wise approach where photography is concerned (in my opinion).

If someone asked me what the "best" camera for them would be, I would *not* automatically say "A DSLR, of course!" I'd say "What do you want to use the camera for, and will you ever need to print an image?" If they say "I want to take photos while rock climbing, and all my pics will end up on the web" I'd *never* recommend a DSLR.

Scott

[Dylan8i]

If someone asked me what the "best" camera for them would be, I would *not* automatically say "A DSLR, of course!" I'd say "What do you want to use the camera for, and will you ever need to print an image?" If they say "I want to take photos while rock climbing, and all my pics will end up on the web" I'd *never* recommend a DSLR.

Scott

first off, look at the many "what camera should i get " threads and you will see that is the first things asked. non dslrs certainly have many many uses. size, is usually the biggest advantage. photography is a discipline of comprimise, get a small camera, but don't get certain features. have a fast shutter speed, but not a fast apature. etc etc.

this thread was about quality differences between dslr and non, not about what camera was best for you. based on your circumstances, you may want a non dslr. i however don't want to make the sacrafice, and carry all my camera gear... even when backpacking, with limited space and WEIGHT.

which like you said there is no perfect camera for any person, but i think a said person needs to experiment on their own and find a way that works for them.

[SWriverstone]

first off, look at the many "what camera should i get " threads and you will see that is the first things asked.

True, good point.

this thread was about quality differences between dslr and non, not about what camera was best for you.

Yes, and I did wander a bit from the thread's original focus. But the wandering resulted, in part, from a lingering question over what the definition of "quality" is. (See "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance." LOL)

It's important to at least attempt to define "quality" before trying to determine if the "quality gap" between prosumer non-DSLRs and low-end DSLRs has narrowed.

I think some folks automatically assume that DSLRs are light-years better than all non-DSLRs...and I've been suggesting that this isn't true. If you believe it is true, then you'd probably say the "quality gap" is still huge.

I happen to believe the gap is pretty small...but I realize it's subjective. I look at the shots above taken with "point-and-shoots" and they look awesome...which blurs the lines a bit.



Scott

[Frog]

I'm certainly not spending 2 grand for an R1.
Maybe its great and has a great lens but I can get any lens I may 'have to have' as my photography grows with a dslr.
The gap probably is shrinking in image quality but I don't think so in versatility.

[drg]

The quality gap, as it is being called, I feel has gotten worse for a while instead of better. There are some exceptions such as the new Panasonic Lumix DMC LX-3 to name one, but for some time the compact/point-n-shots/whatever have been targeted at the snapshot/travel/pocketable market.

Olympus made several entries in this market of cameras a few years ago that were excellent image producers. Whether the c-5xxx series, the c-8xxx series or even the early c-4xxx series, these cameras were serious competion with features such as live histograms, RAW/TIFF/LOSSLESS files, external flash compatible and great glass including some that started at f/1.8 and delivered! They were not easily pocketable. They had a tendency in a couple of cases to be prone to lens damage and accessories beyond a few basics were non-existent.

Then camera after camera started appearing from every manufacturer and brand names nobody has heard of,before or since, in small, smaller, and unusable size classes. Olympus sold a camera so small that it was better as a key chain than anything else. It took O.K. pics, but after about 500-1000 images it just didn't seem reliable any longer.

After all of this, photographers started asking for a better compact camera. Olympus (I'm picking on them as they are my favorite quirky small camera) started to sell much better and tougher units if not always producers of the best image quality. With fits and starts, and partially as a result of Canon almost losing a whole sector of this market as a result of removing RAW capability from their Powershot G-series, small cameras from several companies have started a turn around.

It's interesting that Fuji is promising in early spring a large size, or at least high count (10+) mega pixel camera that delivers the quality of images that ONLY the Fuji F30/F31d did at high ISO. It was a small, unhandy, marginal control camera that took killer 6 MP photos.

I've seen some very good images from the newer cameras. A Canon Powershot G-9 I used for several months before turning it into one of the 'shop' cameras, was capable of making large (13-15" long edge) prints that from normal viewing distance and angles were top notch.

Yes, I like my big heavy monster DSLR's. I've been known to fuss if what I am using is too small. Would not want to be without one or more of them (until I see much better), but I still want that great small camera.

There is a difference in who is going to use different types of cameras. Just because they are in a particular market segment designation doesn't mean they are inherently better or worse. Every DSLR manufactuer has made less that stellar performers in one or more DSLR class cameras. Some even just didn't produce, even by then current standards/expectations, reliably usable or good photos.

I'm going to link to a photo I posted over 4 years ago that you can see (by clicking on the image to jump to the gallery for details) was taken with an older generation of non-DSLR cameras (Canon Powershot G-5). It has controlled DOF, out of focus background (even bokeh perhaps?), good color, well I'll let you judge. It can be done with a moderately good camera.



(you may click on the image for a large version)

[Sushigaijin]

nothing wrong with the DoF here...

Sony DSC-H5 point and shoot.





The real image quality issue I started to butt up against was jpg. If this camera offered RAW recording, I would have kept it just to shoot insects. The detail is good, it was plenty fast with good dynamic range, contrast and color, and it was super versatile for macros...but I just couldn't get past the jpg jaggies. Now I shoot RAW and only convert to jpg for web posting.

[Dylan8i]

those photos have alot better dof than my s1 is had, and look great. theres still a few times you want even narrower dof, and at f5.6 i doubt you can get much narrower with it. but i am def surprised to see those from a non dslr.