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

I'm a new member here (hi!). I joined because I've been pondering (and discussing) a question I'd like to pose to the community.

Before the question, it's important to frame the context of the question in this way (so please take note): I fully recognize and understand that strictly in terms of image quality, there is little (or no) doubt that DSLRs are superior to non-DSLRs.

Okay. Now that I got that rather obvious statement out of the way, my question is this:

The latest generation of "Almost DSLR" cameras---specifically, cameras such as Canon's new SX10 IS, which are sometimes classified as "prosumer" cameras---show continued evolution and improvement in quality and features.

I'd like to know whether people think that, in general, the quality/feature gap between DSLRs and prosumer cameras like the SX10 is getting smaller? If so, why? If not, why not?

Do you think that advances in lens technology result in non-removable lenses that are increasingly closer in quality to removable DSLR lenses? Or do you think that there is a permanent quality gap between the two that will simply never be bridged? (Are the manufacturers even interested in a non-DSLR camera that seriously competes with a DSLR? Or would that be shooting themselves in the foot?)

Do you think that the multiple-lens paradigm will be with us for the next 100 years? Or do you think that it's only a matter of time before technology advances to the point where a single lens truly can do it all?

I've been pondering this question because I'm in the market for a new camera to replace my aging (but still great) Canon S2 IS. I'm extremely impressed by the SX10 (the latest in the same line of cameras).

Several people have argued that I'm a fool for not considering a DSLR like the Nikon D40 as the obvious choice (because it's not much more money than the SX10). They say that there is an enormous quality difference between a D40 and the SX10.

But considering my needs, which are not professional and almost entirely web-based (e.g. 95% of my photography ends up at 72dpi and 800x600 pixels)...the SX10 is very attractive. And the SX10's 20x optical zoom (an 18-560mm equivalent) may be as close to the "ultimate do-it-all lens" as humans have ever created. (Note I didn't say it was the best *quality* lens...just that it may be the best quality lens with such an enormous range.)

So what do you think? Is the SX10 merely a point-and-shoot, barely better than the cheapest, pocket point-and-shoot?

Or is the SX10 inching ever closer in quality to a low-end DSLR like the D40?

Again, I'm not looking for justification to buy the SX10. In fact, I'm also looking seriously at the D40...and the more I learn about both, the tougher the choice is...hence my question. Am I an idiot for thinking it's a tough choice? Or is it really a tough choice?

Scott

the main reason i upgraded from the canon s1 is, to a dslr (besides more creative control over depth of field, etc) was shutter lag. dslrs have no shutter lag compared to point and shoots. they may be able to correct this in point and shoots, but they haven't. and unless your shooting static objects, shutter lag is something everyone wants to avoid at one time or another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan8i

the main reason i upgraded from the canon s1 is, to a dslr (besides more creative control over depth of field, etc) was shutter lag. dslrs have no shutter lag compared to point and shoots. they may be able to correct this in point and shoots, but they haven't. and unless your shooting static objects, shutter lag is something everyone wants to avoid at one time or another.

---

So Dylan, when you went to a DSLR, did you suddenly feel like the quality of your images took a quantum leap? Or was it more just an appreciation of no shutter lag and nice features?

Many I've spoken with have mentioned shutter lag and startup time as big negatives for a camera like the SX10...though in years shooting with a non-DSLR and 30,000 photos, I've never once been bothered by either. But I don't shoot fast-moving targets either...it's pretty much all still lifes, architectural details, and landscapes (none of which run around, LOL).

Scott

i shoot pretty much all nature and landscapes.

my macro quality went way up, with more control over depth of field etc. ability to print large images was also a plus (i needed a dslr when i lived in utah, id have fantastic, large, prints from out there)

image quality for web stuff, id say you would see more difference from using great techniques.

Even if the image quality of a non-dslr was on par with a dslr, I would never give up my dslr. I love being able to change lenses when necessary. Sometimes I want a very wide angle shot (10-20mm lens) and sometimes I want a zoomed image (200mm).

Point and shoot cameras offer lenses that try to be good at everything, but not amazing at any one thing.

I could never do my macros and shoot sports at night with a p&s among other things.

I don't notice a difference at forum resolution, 800x800.
Even going back to my Sony Mavica floppy disk camera.
Or the Casio QV2800UX which was only 2MP.

But for printing, I have very few non DSLR images that are worthwhile.
Even the Canon G9 with 15MP.
It's got 15million pixels, but they're not stonking GOOD pixels.
I have hopes for the micro 4/3 G1 and whatever Olympus produce.

Point and shoots are DSLRs by definition. I know that's splitting hairs, but if we are comparing things it is important to agree on terms.

I shot for a long time with a non-interchangeable lens DSLR (p&s within), and it took really nice pictures. I'd say the lens was exceptional, even by interchangeable lens DSLR (DSLR within) standards.

When I switched to a DSLR, I noticed a big difference in per-pixel quality. The difference wasn't so much the lens as it was the pixel size. (bigger sensor generally equals bigger pixels) The sony R1 really hammers this home with it's APS sized sensor but fixed lens.

I'm pretty excited about m4/3 also since it uses the 4/3 sensor rather than the diminutive p&s sensor - even if the lenses are only average (with Ziuko and leica branding them, they won't just be average) it will sport better image quality than most p&s. The olympus version looks like it will be a p&s, and therefor will probably come in pink and fit in a $300 purse.

Is the gap narrowing? I'd say it's a hair's breadth apart.

Not really. Not until they start putting larger dSLR imaging sensors in the P&S's and they can make one Lens-That-Can-Do-All-For-All-Times lens.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JETA

I could never do my macros and shoot sports at night with a p&s among other things.

---

I hate to say that my old Olympus C-3030 could do Micros easier and faster than my D70. At 6mm Focal length for an equivalent of 32mm in 35mm film, there is an order of magnitude difference in the DOF with the lens wide open!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by freygr

I hate to say that my old Olympus C-3030 could do Micros easier and faster than my D70. At 6mm Focal length for an equivalent of 32mm in 35mm film, there is an order of magnitude difference in the DOF with the lens wide open!

---

that is true about the DOF, but when you want to blurr the background its basically impossible with a small lens.

The definition of an slr, be it film or digital, is that it has a movable mirror which allows the photographer to see in the viewfinder what will be on the film or sensor.
P&s does not have this feature no matter how good the lenses or sensors are.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frog

The definition of an slr,

---

Strictly, perhaps, but an EVF or LCD is essentially the same thing. The important part of SLR technology is word "single." We aren't focusing by-proxy (rangefinder) or through a parallel lens. There is nothing specific about mirror/focusing screen SLR technology that means it has better image quality than point and shoot's sensor/EVF technology.

And I think digital point and shoots take easy macros too, and it is very easy to get good bokeh - but the DoF is very large on non-macro shots, and it is tough to get narrow DoF in normal shooting conditions. That all relates back to sensor size; more magnification = less depth of field. Bigger sensor, less DoF is possible. There really isn't any reason why larger sensors can't be put in P&S bodies - micro 4/3 uses a standard dSLR sensor in a point and shoot (sensor/EVF) body and has interchangeable lenses like a mirror/optical viewfinder camera.

The small sensor in a compact camera will produce horrible noise at high ISOs. I have a G9 and a few DSLRs and the DSLRs blow the G9 away when it comes to natural light photography in low lighting conditions. The G9's photos are hardly useable above ISO 400 whether printed or displayed on the web. As long as you have good light the G9 will produce decent photos, but take away the light and you are done.

I would probably consider an SX10(If I was going to go that route, I'd probably find a grey market SX1 for the HD movie mode)as a companion to a DSLR but never as my do all camera. A few years ago, I was working in Redmond, OR and got a weekend off there. I decided a trip to Crater Lake would be cool, all I had was my S2. I got some decent photos, but they hardly stand up to the quality I would have gotten with my SLR. Boy was I wishing for my SLR.

I went from a Kodak P880 8mp that listed for $800.00 when I bought it to the Nikon D80 DSLR. The difference was like night and day. Shutter lag was one of the big items along with the improved quality of pictures. Having MUCH MORE control was also a big improvement. You know the DSLR cameras are not setting still waiting for the P&S cameras to catch up, they are improving at a fast pace also. To me the better camera is the DSLR hands down. A lot of what makes one a better choice is determined by what the use you have for it will be, Jeff

Interesting comments from everyone, thanks!

Grandpaw, I'd like to delve a bit deeper into a comment you made which I've heard echoed by others, and this is the notion that a DSLR offers more control than a midrange non-DSLR like the SX10.

Exactly what do you mean by "more control?" I've heard many people say this, but not a single person has been able to quantify it...which suggests to me it's a bit of fantasy.

Do you mean fully manual control of shutter and aperture? The SX10 offers that. Do you mean custom white balance settings? The SX10 offers that. Do you mean shutter-priority mode or aprerture-priority mode? The SX10 offers that. Do you mean manual focus? The SX10 offers that (although it obviously isn't the same as a DSLR). Do you mean aperture bracketing? White balance bracketing? The SX10 offers both of those. Do you mean bulb exposures? The SX10 does that.

So...(and I say this not in a mean-spirited way, but because I'm really curious!)...what specifically is all this "control" you get with a DSLR that the SX10 doesn't offer? (Seems like it might only really come down to DoF control, which is admittedly superior in a DSLR.)

It's my opinion that a large number of photographers still perceive "P&S" as analogous to "cheapo teeny pocket camera with a dime-sized lens." While those cameras are still there, the range of what is meant by "P&S" is FAR wider now than it once was.

I believe that many good photographers frankly don't have a clue what the very latest generation of midrange prosumer P&S cameras are capable of.

None of this is to suggest that non-DSLR cameras are better than DSLRs...but rather (as someone stated above) the difference between the two is becoming less noticeable.

Right now, I think about the only area where DSLRs are still far ahead is (as EOSThree mentioned) in low light at high ISOs. But on a sunny day, shooting landscapes? The difference is less.

Scott

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....

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Anbesol

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

---

Uh, I mentioned the R1 in my first post. :D

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jenn_B

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

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

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 :p ).

Thanks for the good comments Loupey.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

Quote:

---

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.)

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loupey

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.

<<snip>>

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. :p 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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWriverstone

... 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.

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.

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.

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

http://swriverstone.smugmug.com/phot...98_EMKao-L.jpg

http://swriverstone.smugmug.com/phot...49_MYHtB-L.jpg

http://swriverstone.smugmug.com/phot...69_4qwsj-L.jpg

http://swriverstone.smugmug.com/phot...06_A88X9-L.jpg

http://swriverstone.smugmug.com/phot...89_sJxYk-L.jpg

http://swriverstone.smugmug.com/phot...16_qJ2Ex-L.jpg

http://swriverstone.smugmug.com/phot...09_vhuye-L.jpg

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...y/DSC_9261.jpg


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

http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...alamander2.jpg



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.
http://i31.photobucket.com/albums/c3...alamander1.jpg


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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SWriverstone

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.

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.


http://gallery.photographyreview.com...239453BFS2.jpg
(you may click on the image for a large version)

nothing wrong with the DoF here...

Sony DSC-H5 point and shoot.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2315/...7bbb6798_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3058/...eba37027_o.jpg

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dylan8i

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.

Quote:

---

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

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.