There was a discussion over this no so longe ago so I thought I would share my simple observation. Both of these pictures were taken under similar condition/lightings, they both have similar number in MP.


A friend's Canon SD900 (my gf's holding his baby which was born couple day ago)


My Rebel XT (company xmas party preparation)

Both pictures were taken at full revolution and I use the same post processing for both of them. The picture from the SD900 leave a lot to be desired with so much noise and the lack of details. I'm a newbies at this so I'm hoping the gurus out there can chime in on this.

 

So, whats your question?

 

Somebody mentioned that the only advantage the DSLR have is the DOF, I don't think that's the only advantage since you can clearly tell the differences in quality between the two posted pictures. I guess my question is what other factors that could have cause such differences when the settings/conditions/settings were similar.

 

A TON can be changed... shutter speed, aprature, focal length, exposure...

Check the Virtual Camera on the link to learn about all these features.

http://www.camerasinteractive.com/index.php#

 

Not talking features (dslr has a lot more), the DSLR will have a better/bigger optical sensor, so pictures, even at the same resolution will come out clearer with less artifacts.

 

First off, you got two pictures with completely different color properties, you can hardly compare.

I could easily make a dSLR look like crap when I put in a tough situation and the PnS in a basic setup.

Anyways the first picture is exposing the white shirt on the guy and being even more highlighted from the light entering the window. The guy is dark, as well as the girl is dark and with her bright shirt again being highlight from the window, that alone is a problem.

the camera is exposing the bright colors, likely causing the noise on the dark areas, and low detail where the girls white shirt meets the orange shirt.


Ever try to make a black guy look proper next to a white guy, a its a similar problem, based on the first picture you did calculate for this issue above I stated, shoot the same on the dSLR and similar problems would occur

dSLR have many advantages but in normal correctly used situations the differences are small and not noticeable at normal printed and display resolution.



Also the MP has nothing to do with how it will look, or which one is better

 

Thank you, well made point. However, I always feel like I have a lot more control with the the DSLR, and that goes along way for a noob!

 

I got nothing against dSLR especially when people use the manual setting.

just some people think they need a $1000 camera because there PnS picture look bad. When its usually lack of skill that the problem and its not the PnS thats holding them back. Skill then equipment, but its not to say you shouldnt consider a dSLR as your first camera if your a starting hobbyist or future pro

The casual shooter that doesnt know or care about DOF, really has no business with a dSLR and a PnS will do exactly the same thing. What gets me mad though is when a person like described above asks for a camera, and people try to convince them to take a loan out to be the best dSLR.

BTW the lack of skill comment wasnt referring to you, am hardly one to talk about skill, plus the first picture is just something you cant really get perfect, and yes a dSLR in that situation would of been helpful.

Your second picture I think is really good, its making me hungry, which I would guess means its a perfect picture

 

Out of respect for the new mother I ain't touching that line ... but just know that it's there.

I've been a pretty avid photographer for the last 27 years and have three 35mm camera bodies and now I'm on like my 10th digital camera. It takes skill, talent, experence, and time to get the best results from any camera. Just as I'm sure I couldn't hold my own against a NASCAR driver even if I held the better car and couldn't beat a professional poker player with the better hand ... a skilled experence photographer will be able to see things before the picture which will make all the difference. Often those things require a DSLR to do or do fast enough.

As an example white balance is normally only automatic or a few selections - "sunny" "indoors" etc. on a point-n-shoot. With my DSLR I can do a manual white balance finding the guy with white shirt and forcing the camera to balance on that. Or if the lighting conditions are radical and changing I just shoot raw and fit it in post production using PhotoShop CS3.

Most p-n-s cameras don't allow you to change the exposure meter's pattern. My DSLR has several including an adjustable size spot meter. I love the spot meter because I know better than the camera what my picture's focus is and simply spot meter on that point before taking the picture.

And last. Cameras aren't about mega pixels they're about light and capturing it and that means glass. As good as the little teeny tiny 3/4" across lens are they're not going to capture light like four pounds of glass 3" across. I've got an "old" Olympus E-10 which is a sort of between camera - big SLR features in a fixed lens. That lens is one of the first designed for digital use and does a wonderful job and despite the camera 4 Mp sensor I have in the past used it as a back-up camera to my primary one (a now aging Nikon D-70s) on shoots.

It's the skill of the shooter not the size of the gun that gets the job done!

 

Very informative.

btw, the girl in the picture is not the mother...fortunately.

 

I had a point and shoot camera, but after only like 5 months I quickly out grew it and I got a rebel XT. the actual image sensor is much larger, allowing it to actually capture more light and a wider spectrum of light as compared to the very small sensors that are on Point and shoot cameras. the image preccessing capability of the CMOS sensor in larger DLSR's is far superior to the much smaller sensor in the Point and shoot cameras.

however in my oppinion the largest advantage of DSLR cameras is there ability to change Camera lenses at will. not to mention the fact that I can put a 250 dollar lense on my SLR when I buy it and slowly build up to better and better lenses until I have a collection of 1000 dollar lenses; where as witha point and shoot camera you are stuck with the factory lense for the remainder of the life of the camera. also on this note, generally the objective lens of most point and shoot cameras is relatively small because it is designed for compactness and ease of carrying. the objective lenses of most DSLR lense systems are generally much larger which also helps to gather more light.

DSLRs as you know generally have more features then comparable Point and Shoot Cameras.

so basically DSLR's even though that are not quite as automated as Point and Shoot Cameras offer more flexibility to the shooter.

 

If your applying what I think your applying--thats just wrong, funny and very true

 

Omg, I had scroll up, look the pictures again...then I was like OMG and started cracking up!! lol

 

It's pretty common knowledge that a point & shoot camera has more noise due to the smaller sensor. In addition to the extra noise, P&S have more shutter lag, inferior autofocus system, limited by fix focal range, image sharpness isn't great, excessive chromatic aberration, limited dynamic range, and a bunch of other things.