$499 versus $15,000 camera

[webshark3]

Disclaimer: I usually HATE these comparisons, because (as many of you know), choose the right tool for the right job. There are REASONS why people spend money on higher end gear, and NO ONE sample photo should convince people otherwise.

That being said, I AM posting this because many Dis Travelers may be debating a smaller P&S versus bringing a DSLR. This article may help convince you that a Canon G10 may be plenty for a vacation (don't know about low-light though).

http://luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Again, it can be debated till the cows come home, but it's still an interesting read.

 

[drcandon]

Yep, this is a hotly debated topic in the small photography group I shoot with. I am wondering if these guys were at Algonquin the same time. In the one I am talking about (photography group), there was a older gentleman that had a Sony "point and shoot" and he was taking ( in some cases) better photographs then the fellow with the d700's. Yes, it is all in the eye of the shooter as we all know, but when everyone basically takes the same subject from the same angle- same lighting etc etc then you stuff them into CS3 ( no not lightwave - the camera did not do RAW) and then compare them and too some surprise at 8x10 size they looked almost the same..

Okay when you zoomed in or did some major cropping etc etc then the differeneces came out...and yes the RAW images could be more easily manipulated to come out "better" ...

But as average jpg's for the average 4x5 or 8x10,it was a hurting realization for us who have spent a bunch of money on DSLR's.........

And yes we all know it is not the amount of megapixels but the quality of lens and sensor..but still...

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Interesting read. There's no doubt in my mind that a smaller P&S can take better shots, or shots just as good as a DSLR. Under most conditions. Where I think the DSLR has the advantage is in those tough to shoot situations - low light, fast action, no flash, etc. For example, it's awfully hard to get good photos of Festival of the Lion King with a P&S, but slap a 50mm f/1.4 on a DSLR and away you go! That said, though, a good photographer with a good subject and good lighting could take a great photo with a cameraphone. Like Ansel Adams said, "The single most important component of the camera is the twelve inches behind it."

 

[webshark3]

Of course, the one major area I don't think the P&S can address properly is Dynamic Range. For many, that's enough to go with a DSLR by itself.

 

[Anewman]

Interesting read. There's no doubt in my mind that a smaller P&S can take better shots, or shots just as good as a DSLR. Under most conditions. Where I think the DSLR has the advantage is in those tough to shoot situations - low light, fast action, no flash, etc. For example, it's awfully hard to get good photos of Festival of the Lion King with a P&S, but slap a 50mm f/1.4 on a DSLR and away you go! That said, though, a good photographer with a good subject and good lighting could take a great photo with a cameraphone. Like Ansel Adams said, "The single most important component of the camera is the twelve inches behind it."

I do not agree that a smaller P&S camera can EVER take better photos than a DSLR.

Some might be able to yield prints that are just as good, in some conditions and at some print sizes... But IMO the smaller sensors and lenses WILL NOT produce better images, if both are shot under exactly the same conditons.

Sure the Photographer is always the most important variable, but in a camera comparison we assume that this part of the equation is equal.

 

[handicap18]

There's no doubt in my mind that a smaller P&S can take better shots, or shots just as good as a DSLR. Under most conditions.

This I don't agree with. There is no doubt that many of the newer PnS camera's can take outstanding images. We see it all the time on this board. In many conditions they will be as good as a dSLR, but certainly not in most.

The photographer definitely has a lot to do with it and with that in mind an person with a lot of experience with camera's and photography will probably take better pictures with a PnS than someone new to photography will with a dSLR.

 

[boBQuincy]

A very interesting article! I bought my first dSLR, a Canon D30 based on a glowing review by Michael Reichmann. I also bought a Rebel Xsi based on his review that the Rebel was now a serious camera. Michael has never steered me wrong and I have no reason to doubt what he writes.

The Rebel series has benefited from trickle-down features from higher end models and it appears this has worked for the G10 as well. It makes sense, once the technology is developed the manufacturer can spread it around their lower cost, higher volume products to more quickly recoup their investment in new technology.

There are still plenty of reasons to carry a SLR, and I still plan to most of the time, but image quality (in good light) may not be one of them any longer. Ya' gotta' love Moore's Law!

 

[AbsolutLaney]

It is interesting..

 

[Groucho]

An exceptionally silly comparison, like saying that a Saturn is as good as a Ferrari because it gets better mileage when puttering around town. You're really talking apples and oranges...

And I'd have to agree with Anewman and handicap18, the PnS will never beat a DSLR and only in very limited situations be able to come close to matching it. A brightly lit shot with large DoF is pretty much it...

 

[webshark3]

An exceptionally silly comparison, like saying that a Saturn is as good as a Ferrari

But it is as good... if both are limited to 20mph.

 

[MICKEY88]

this part is very impportant,,, larger prints or more detailed subject matter, do reveal the difference between cameras..


Be aware as well that these comparisons fall down when prints over about 13X19" are made. Once the output resolution drops below 200PPI the advantages of a 39 Megapixel sensor over a 15 Megapixels sensor become evident. And, even when smaller prints are made, cropping becomes an issue.

Also, though on prints up to 13X19" differences are almost impossible to see, on-screen at 100% one can fairly easily tell which files are from the G10. There are artifacts visible at the micro detail level and one can easily see other hints of what one is paying for.


One final comment. Landscape and nature shots are one thing – models in a studio with fabrics, delicate skin tones and other challenging subjects are likely to be quite another. Also, I have no idea how well these files might hold up to CMYK conversion. We therefore need to keep expectations within reasons.

 

[alan]

The Canon Pro1 was a point-and-shoot "companion" camera to the 20D. It was much smaller and lighter, but used Canon L glass, had a decent-sized sensor and produced images that were absolutely first-class for a P+S. In good light, you really did ned to look hard to see a difference in the picture quality.

From what I read, the G10 is the closest there has been to a replacement for the Pro1. Same wide-angle (not quite as much zoom, but more pixels to allow cropping).

Of course it's not AS good as a US$15k camera. But within the confines of the way that most people would use it, and in the conditions where it works well, it probably is nearly as good. The point is that the US$15k camera is dramatically more flexible and can get great pictures in a wide variety of circumstances.

To continue the car analogy, my car may be able to accelerate from 0-60 in the same time as a Porsche. But the Porsche can keep accelerating to 150 where my car's acceleration rate slows dramatically after 70mph. Since I cannot legally drive over 70mph in the UK, by one reckoning my car's as good as a Porsche. But it only cost £15k rather than £50k

regards,
/alan

PS Just for the record, my car is a diesel VW Passat. It cannot accelerate as fast as a Porsche. I was talking hypothetically!

 

[jfinke]

Well, as someone who works in the technology field, there is always going to be a trickle down effect across product lines.

As technology becomes cheaper and more reliable, items that were once considered only high end are now in low end devices.

One thing that can stop this is marketing. Companies have a need to differentiate between their product lines. A lot of times, they may reserve high end features or actually just cripple the low end ones to maintain that separation.

This is where competition comes into play!

I doubt that if the writer of the article had done the same comparison of shooting scenes at a car race vs. a static scene in the woods, he would have had the same conclusion.

 

[handicap18]

Well, as someone who works in the technology field, there is always going to be a trickle down effect across product lines.

As technology becomes cheaper and more reliable, items that were once considered only high end are now in low end devices.

One thing that can stop this is marketing. Companies have a need to differentiate between their product lines. A lot of times, they may reserve high end features or actually just cripple the low end ones to maintain that separation.

This is where competition comes into play!

I doubt that if the writer of the article had done the same comparison of shooting scenes at a car race vs. a static scene in the woods, he would have had the same conclusion.

Ah yes. And this is where using the right tool for the right job comes into play as neither of these camera's would do as well as a dSLR. The Hassleblad is just WAY to big to be able to handle at a car race. You can probably get a long enough lens, though even then the way the camera is built you'd need a great tripod. Over all it is not the type of camera I would want to use at any type of sporting event.

The G10, while a much better fit in your hands and easier to handle at a fast paced sporting event wont have the aperture speed for indoor or night events.

Focusing might also be an issue at a sporting event. You need a very fast focus and virtually no shutter lag. I would guess that the G10 would be better than the Hasselblad, but how good would they be compared to a dSLR, especially the higher end pros like the D3, D300, 1Dx Mark III.

The G10 is still a 1/1.7" sensor. That is better than most PnS, but still on the small side. For a PnS camera you can't beat it. Technology has definitely come a long way. This can only benefit us as consumers. That is most definitely a plus!!

 

[webshark3]

Great discussions folks. I guess my main point is that Disney Vacationers who are debating whether or not they need a bulkier DSLR (mainly auto shooters), might be happier going the G10 (or other prosumer) route. It may be all the camera they "need".

Especially if you're just shooting Auto.

 

[alan]

That, webshark, is exactly where my mind is at just now.

Outdoors in the day time, I reckon you'd get the bulk of what you need. WDW is generally bright during the day, and the operational speeds of the G10 are not desperately far short of an SLR. And you probably would find it hard to make much use of a long zoom in the parks, since they are so darned crowded.

So far, so good. Then you wander into Epcot's China Pavilion and want to snap these incredibly flexible gymnasts. Or you want to shoot the Festival Of The Lion King. The best ISO you're going to get with the G10 is probably 400 (maybe 800 with noise-reduction software? Not sure). You're going to be toiling to get decent shots here, although the lens is fairly fast at f/2.8 at the wide end.

And then those night-time parades. 400ISO, f/2.8. Equates with an SLR at 800ISO and an f4.0 - so you're losing a stop. Hmmm....

Should be okay for fireworks, but lave it at home for Fantasmic.

I'm trying to decide if it's worth the money to me to buy a G10, and my impoending summer holiday at WDW is one of the main foci for that. So far, I just do not know...

I'd welcome anyone's input on this.

regards,
/alan

 

[bob100]

Yep, this is a hotly debated topic in the small photography group I shoot with. I am wondering if these guys were at Algonquin the same time. In the one I am talking about (photography group), there was a older gentleman that had a Sony "point and shoot" and he was taking ( in some cases) better photographs then the fellow with the d700's. Yes, it is all in the eye of the shooter as we all know, but when everyone basically takes the same subject from the same angle- same lighting etc etc then you stuff them into CS3 ( no not lightwave - the camera did not do RAW) and then compare them and too some surprise at 8x10 size they looked almost the same..
Okay when you zoomed in or did some major cropping etc etc then the differeneces came out...and yes the RAW images could be more easily manipulated to come out "better" ...
But as average jpg's for the average 4x5 or 8x10,it was a hurting realization for us who have spent a bunch of money on DSLR's.........
And yes we all know it is not the amount of megapixels but the quality of lens and sensor..but still...

This same type of discussion was on the Canon board (photography-on-the.net) and one of the S5 Flickr threads. For those who have both the Canon Rebel and other dSLR's and a Canon S5 you couldn't tell the difference with the same pics in daylight. For night time low light actions shots it's a different story (with larger lens).
maybe this is one reason I've held off upgrading

 

[jfinke]

Ah yes. And this is where using the right tool for the right job comes into play as neither of these camera's would do as well as a dSLR. The Hassleblad is just WAY to big to be able to handle at a car race. You can probably get a long enough lens, though even then the way the camera is built you'd need a great tripod. Over all it is not the type of camera I would want to use at any type of sporting event.

The G10, while a much better fit in your hands and easier to handle at a fast paced sporting event wont have the aperture speed for indoor or night events.

Focusing might also be an issue at a sporting event. You need a very fast focus and virtually no shutter lag. I would guess that the G10 would be better than the Hasselblad, but how good would they be compared to a dSLR, especially the higher end pros like the D3, D300, 1Dx Mark III.

The G10 is still a 1/1.7" sensor. That is better than most PnS, but still on the small side. For a PnS camera you can't beat it. Technology has definitely come a long way. This can only benefit us as consumers. That is most definitely a plus!!

I don't know anything about the Hasslebad. But I do know that you can tell a difference in photos shot between a PnS and 1DsMIII. Especially if you need action photos and are taking multiples per second. Heck I am looking to upgrade my 350d to a 40d just to get the extra 3 shots/sec.

My point was it was a controlled enviornment.

 

[drcandon]

I like debates like this - as long as they don't get ugly..so lets assume that you will never change the mind of professional photographers - and that they will always think that P&S cameras are inferior in most ways...

So...now lets get to real world situations, like around Disney in 90 degree heat. So here you are wandering around the park(s) your DSLR hunkered down over hanging off your shoulder - you are trying to avoid wacking excited folk running around absent mindedly as you dodge in and out of them, getting in and out of rides, line ups, washrooms etc etc...Not only is your four pound (with lenses of course) swinging missle a hazard but you are also carrying a bulky aresenal of other attachments sequestered all over your or in my case DW's body in that heat, crowds, and rides. I know I usually curse at the backpackers swinging their load around narrowly missing me, well I am not much better...Now, contrast that to a P&S stuffed in my shirt pocket that takes almost as good pictures in the daylight (at 4x5 or 8 x10 sizes of course).

Let me take another case in point that actually happened to me a few year ago. The wife unit and I were at Canada's wonderland ( blunderland to some) - if you are not familiar with the park , it is devoted to stomach churning rides. The scenery and photo ops are very good there so I had my trusty SLR (an Olympus Om2n) with me - if you are familiar with that camera - even with 50 mm f.1.2 lens it is a diminuative camera compared to todays behemouths. Anyway, on several rides I was denied to ride unless I stored the camera before. Well, I did , because I had decent insurance on it, but back in those days the camera and that particualr Zuiko lens was as expensive as a D300 these days...So fast forward..imagine at Disney the CM's telling you that you have to leave your D700 and your Nikkor 70 - 300 VRII lens behind...hoping that someone who looks " just like me" does not appreciate my purchase ...get my drift - as far as I know Disney does not have such rules...yet...

See my point for a P&S???

Sure bring along your DLSR for the parades, fireworks, indoor shots etc etc..I do..and I lock it up for use..later...

I have a Sony DSC- W120...I carry it everywhere - never notice the weight and it takes good pictures - not photographs - pictures..sure the lens is not fast, the flash sucks, fireworks and nighttime photography are a joke... but I still get the picture...and I am getting really good at the exposure compensation feature so I can take 4 to five shots quickly at various stops over and under then sort them out later..and the anti-vibration - Sony's steady shot technology actually works semi decent on the Tower of Terror...try that with a four pound sledge hammer balanced on you hand..

Everything has its uses..

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Great discussions folks. I guess my main point is that Disney Vacationers who are debating whether or not they need a bulkier DSLR (mainly auto shooters), might be happier going the G10 (or other prosumer) route. It may be all the camera they "need".

Especially if you're just shooting Auto.

And that was the point of my post. If you want to make the "all things being equal" argument, obviously a bigger, faster lens coupled to a bigger sensor will technically produce a better image. The point I was trying to make is that a DSLR won't guarantee you better pictures. A lot of people think it will. I've shot a lot of crap with my DSLR, and shot some really good stuff with my P&S. Keeping in mind how most people will use their camera at Disney (and this is a Disney themed discussion board after all), I still say you can get just as good photos with a P&S as you can with a DSLR in typical vacation photo situations. There are plenty of excellent P&S photos posted here to prove that.