4 ms·

Also not to pick a fight, especially since your post has a lot of merit if this were 2009, but point and shoots and bridge cameras have come a long way. You ca

Also not to pick a fight, especially since your post has a lot of merit if this were 2009, but point and shoots and bridge cameras have come a long way. You can essentially get all the benefits of an SLR in the higher end point and shoots for several hundred dollars less than even entry level SLR kits. There are a number of point and shoots with the same size sensors as entry level DSLRs, same instant on, equivalent lack of shutter lag, equivalent metering, etc. etc. For most people, the upsell to the DSLR probably isn't worth it at this point.

barrkel 15y ago
There's a tradeoff between the physical size of your lens, the physical size of your sensor, and your maximum optical zoom. The way you put it, you make it sound like you can have it all in a compact, but that's just not the case. A bridge camera with a substantial zoom and large sensor size will be as about as big as a DSLR with a lens of similar capability. A compact point and shoot will either have a smaller sensor or a less capable optical zoom, and probably both. I have a fairly high end compact, albeit one from late 2009 (Canon S90), and it is nowhere near as capable as an entry-level DSLR in terms of focus speed, continuous shot rate, instant on etc.; and the S95 from late 2010 isn't much more capable (720 HD video, stereo mics and firmware update).
- mtw 15y ago
  imho the 2 biggest differences between a DSLR and a compact is the focus speed and the dynamic range. DLSRs have larger sensors, so by laws of physics, they gather more light and will always have more dynamic range than compacts or smartphones
  - ajkessler 15y ago
    Mostly yes, but there are a number of compact cameras that now have aps-c sized sensors; the same ones used in entry level dslrs.
    - dagw 15y ago
      I can think of four off the top of my head. Sigma DP1, sigma DP2, Leica X1, and the Fuji X100. The first two will cost you as much as an entry level DSLR, the latter two a lot more. Non of them can be considered a reasonable equivalent or replacement for an entry level dslr. What cameras where you thinking about?
      - mtw 15y ago
        I think he refers to the new mirrorless cameras, such as panasonic gf1 or sony NEX system. but they do have interchangeable lenses
- ajkessler 15y ago
  Well of course not. You also don't get interchangeable lenses. I never said you could get it all in a compact. My point was, for most people (particularly those who this neat little program was made for), the quality in the high end point and shoots is there. The G12 I used late last year performed very well in all of the categories you mentioned. And for nearly half the price of a basic dslr kit, by the time you're all done with it.
  - barrkel 15y ago
    http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G12/G12A6.HTM http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G12/G12A6.HTM indicates that G12 power on to first shot is in the region of 2.7 seconds. I can turn on my D90 and take a shot in a single continuous move of picking it up and aiming it - http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/nikon-d90-with-18/4505-6501_7-33232672.html#reviewPage1 http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/nikon-d90-with-18/45... says it's 0.2 seconds, though with AF added in, I'd say it feels more like 0.9. Somewhere between 15x and 3x faster makes a huge difference in reacting quickly in e.g. a party, or sport. The D90 gets over 4 shots per second continuously, but it seems that the G12 has a hard time getting 2. The sensor is also pretty small (AFAIK it's the same as the one in G11 and S90); that lets it get higher zoom levels at the cost of quality in low light. All that in a pretty bulky package (IMO - it's bigger than the S90, nearly twice the weight, and the S90 isn't exactly small). What I'm getting at here is that if you're walking about on holiday in a city, something like the S90, or maybe the G11, would make sense (though I think the G11 might be a little too big for comfort, the S90 is already quite a bit). If you're specifically trying to take photos, rather than just bringing a camera along, then you have a lot more freedom with a DSLR.
    - ajkessler 15y ago
      My point is that, for people who don't know how aperture, ss, and iso affect exposure, the 2.5 second difference in startup time and the 2 fps difference in burst probably isn't going to make a big difference in their user experience. Of course you're going to have more freedom with a DSLR. That's the whole point. But, if you can't figure out what the aperture dial does, the freedom is probably going to be lost on you, along with the extra $400 you're going to spend. I'm not anti-DSLR or anything. I've probably bought and sold $50k worth of gear in the last 5 years. DSLRs are awesome and they keep getting better. But, compact cameras have gotten pretty damn good in the last couple of years. For many people, and many different applications, they will fit the bill. If you're a sports shooter, they certainly won't.

barrkel 15y ago

There's a tradeoff between the physical size of your lens, the physical size of your sensor, and your maximum optical zoom. The way you put it, you make it sound like you can have it all in a compact, but that's just not the case. A bridge camera with a substantial zoom and large sensor size will be as about as big as a DSLR with a lens of similar capability. A compact point and shoot will either have a smaller sensor or a less capable optical zoom, and probably both. I have a fairly high end compact, albeit one from late 2009 (Canon S90), and it is nowhere near as capable as an entry-level DSLR in terms of focus speed, continuous shot rate, instant on etc.; and the S95 from late 2010 isn't much more capable (720 HD video, stereo mics and firmware update).

mtw 15y ago
imho the 2 biggest differences between a DSLR and a compact is the focus speed and the dynamic range. DLSRs have larger sensors, so by laws of physics, they gather more light and will always have more dynamic range than compacts or smartphones
- ajkessler 15y ago
  Mostly yes, but there are a number of compact cameras that now have aps-c sized sensors; the same ones used in entry level dslrs.
  - dagw 15y ago
    I can think of four off the top of my head. Sigma DP1, sigma DP2, Leica X1, and the Fuji X100. The first two will cost you as much as an entry level DSLR, the latter two a lot more. Non of them can be considered a reasonable equivalent or replacement for an entry level dslr. What cameras where you thinking about?
    - mtw 15y ago
      I think he refers to the new mirrorless cameras, such as panasonic gf1 or sony NEX system. but they do have interchangeable lenses
ajkessler 15y ago
Well of course not. You also don't get interchangeable lenses. I never said you could get it all in a compact. My point was, for most people (particularly those who this neat little program was made for), the quality in the high end point and shoots is there. The G12 I used late last year performed very well in all of the categories you mentioned. And for nearly half the price of a basic dslr kit, by the time you're all done with it.
- barrkel 15y ago
  http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G12/G12A6.HTM http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/G12/G12A6.HTM indicates that G12 power on to first shot is in the region of 2.7 seconds. I can turn on my D90 and take a shot in a single continuous move of picking it up and aiming it - http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/nikon-d90-with-18/4505-6501_7-33232672.html#reviewPage1 http://reviews.cnet.com/digital-cameras/nikon-d90-with-18/45... says it's 0.2 seconds, though with AF added in, I'd say it feels more like 0.9. Somewhere between 15x and 3x faster makes a huge difference in reacting quickly in e.g. a party, or sport. The D90 gets over 4 shots per second continuously, but it seems that the G12 has a hard time getting 2. The sensor is also pretty small (AFAIK it's the same as the one in G11 and S90); that lets it get higher zoom levels at the cost of quality in low light. All that in a pretty bulky package (IMO - it's bigger than the S90, nearly twice the weight, and the S90 isn't exactly small). What I'm getting at here is that if you're walking about on holiday in a city, something like the S90, or maybe the G11, would make sense (though I think the G11 might be a little too big for comfort, the S90 is already quite a bit). If you're specifically trying to take photos, rather than just bringing a camera along, then you have a lot more freedom with a DSLR.
  - ajkessler 15y ago
    My point is that, for people who don't know how aperture, ss, and iso affect exposure, the 2.5 second difference in startup time and the 2 fps difference in burst probably isn't going to make a big difference in their user experience. Of course you're going to have more freedom with a DSLR. That's the whole point. But, if you can't figure out what the aperture dial does, the freedom is probably going to be lost on you, along with the extra $400 you're going to spend. I'm not anti-DSLR or anything. I've probably bought and sold $50k worth of gear in the last 5 years. DSLRs are awesome and they keep getting better. But, compact cameras have gotten pretty damn good in the last couple of years. For many people, and many different applications, they will fit the bill. If you're a sports shooter, they certainly won't.