DSLRs with fold-out displays?

[SDK^]

To me the true slr camera will be film, not digital.
Id love to see the difference visually between a photo taken with say, my 9500 and a top of the range dslr both using 9 megapixels and running raw. I doubt there woud e anything in it except the extra couple hundred on the price tag.

A troll or a n00b - either way you're way off the mark

Canon 30D DSLR (8mp) - ISO 1600

Point and shoot cams

Canon PowerShot G7 (10MP) - ISO 1600

Panasonic LX2 (8MP) - ISO 1600

 

[SDK^]

Alex - check out the Zigview. It attaches to the viewfinder and outputs onto a live swivel display.

It meets your requirements and retails around £150.

 

[brendy]

A troll or a n00b - either way you're way off the mark

Canon 30D DSLR (8mp) - ISO 1600

Point and shoot cams

Canon PowerShot G7 (10MP) - ISO 1600

Panasonic LX2 (8MP) - ISO 1600

Neither troll nor noob, im not starting or feeding any fires but why would you use iso 1600 for close up shots of baileys bottles, I dont get it.
Im talking about properly lit photos via natural light or flash printed on 6x4, 7x5 or larger, even a3.
Obviously the final product may be better but my original post mentioned the raw format which is there to be processed manually.

 

[L0rdMike]

I dont see many pros using S9600's.

I mean who needs over £4ks worth of 400mm 2.8 L glass when a under £300 camera is just as good.

 

[brendy]

I dont see many pros using S9600's.

I mean who needs over £4ks worth of 400mm 2.8 L glass when a under £300 camera is just as good.

Everyone a winner eh lordmike!
I was only suggesting that RAW between cameras isnt as big a gap as night and day, im not a professional photographer so dont need a 2k camera that utilises different lenses etc. My £300 quid camera does pretty well and having seen nikon/canon dsr results on dpreview I wouldnt say they were 7-10 times better.
I agree that a totr dslr in the right hands is going to give excellent results, not doubting that, again, I was only querying the difference in RAW format.

 

[DizMatt]

for the purposes of the argument I used to have a panasonic FZ20
awesome little camera for what I wanted
but moving to a DSLR I could rarely go back for speed of use, image quality and majorly for me, speed of focusing, low light photography for gigs, depth of field control (which links to interchangable lenses)
still it all depends what you want out of a camera and what you require versus expense.

 

[^^Gord^^]

Neither troll nor noob, im not starting or feeding any fires but why would you use iso 1600 for close up shots of baileys bottles, I dont get it.

It's an example used to highlight what differences in ISO and sensor size makes. No special reason for them. He could have used any object.

Maybe you should read the full article:

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/compactcamerahighiso/

Im talking about properly lit photos via natural light or flash printed on 6x4, 7x5 or larger, even a3.

Even in the most perfect light the larger sensor and the larger diameter lenses found on DSLR will produce a much better image than a compact could. As for flash on a compact, don't make me laugh. Onboard flash (inc DSLRs) are near useless, you need a proper flashgun to produce a decent image.

Obviously the final product may be better but my original post mentioned the raw format which is there to be processed manually.

Errr? What? So now you are saying the picture maybe better out of a DSLR but since you have to manually process the RAW file you will not get a picture as good as a JPEG out of a compact? Did I get that right?

 

[^^Gord^^]

Everyone a winner eh lordmike!
I was only suggesting that RAW between cameras isnt as big a gap as night and day, im not a professional photographer so dont need a 2k camera that utilises different lenses etc. My £300 quid camera does pretty well and having seen nikon/canon dsr results on dpreview I wouldnt say they were 7-10 times better.
I agree that a totr dslr in the right hands is going to give excellent results, not doubting that, again, I was only querying the difference in RAW format.

Ok, so I'm now even more confused. You are now saying that a RAW image from a compact versus a RAW image from a DSLR processed by the same person would give near indentical results?

 

[glitch]

He's talking about a Fuji 9500. I guess certain subjects at smaller resolutions would be hard to distinguish between that and some DSLRs - all down to the photographer and PP really.

 

[brendy]

He's talking about a Fuji 9500. I guess certain subjects at smaller resolutions would be hard to distinguish between that and some DSLRs - all down to the photographer and PP really.

Cheers glitch this is exactly what im trying to get across, unless you utilise the camera to professional proportions, I cant see the difference. A portrait shot or scenic shot will look just as well.
As for RAW, maybe i'm not explaining myself well enough, take a well known dslr and a bridge camera (in this case, i'll use my 9500 as an example, forget compacts as most do not support raw anyway) both taking a 9 megapixel shot, using something like therapee, by fixing wb deficiencies etc which would be more obvious on the bridge camera (its a given that dslrs will be better in this area) after touching both up (to a greater extent the fuji) would I be totally of the mark in saying that there would be very little difference seeing as both cameras are more than capable of taking sharp images and portraying dof to varying degrees.
As for flashes, Id be using the hotshoe, the standard flashes on all the cameras ive ever owned were pants.

 

[^^Gord^^]

You may not be able to see the difference but I can assure you there is always a difference. Post processing with something like Photoshop can correct a lot of evils I agree and pictures can be made to look a lot better but there is a limit. If you have a better starting point in your post processing then surely the end result will be better, would you not agree?

You are also assuming that you are taking photos under ideal conditions and you don't need all the advantages of a DSLR. These conditions rarely occur!

I'd suggest you search the forum and take a look at the portraits busterboy has done with his 85mm f/1.2 and then try to produce a similar result with your Fuji.

 

[brendy]

You may not be able to see the difference but I can assure you there is always a difference. Post processing with something like Photoshop can correct a lot of evils I agree and pictures can be made to look a lot better but there is a limit. If you have a better starting point in your post processing then surely the end result will be better, would you not agree?

You are also assuming that you are taking photos under ideal conditions and you don't need all the advantages of a DSLR. These conditions rarely occur!

I'd suggest you search the forum and take a look at the portraits busterboy has done with his 85mm f/1.2 and then try to produce a similar result with your Fuji.

You are right gord, perfect conditions rarely happen, Ive not seen busterboys pics. Can I reiterate I am by no means a capable photographer (this is 100% not a my camera is better than yours, its merely a 'if this camera can do this for a few hundred quid, why fork out multiples of that for a pic'). Photoshop and Paintshop pro has a lot to answer for, I'll freely admit to plenty of chuck away pics and usually a minority of keepers but i'm learning.

 

[King4aDay]

'if this camera can do this for a few hundred quid, why fork out multiples of that for a pic'

Stepping aside from the image quality argument for a second, there's also a lot of other advantages of a DSLR... usable viewfinders, build quality, weather sealing, fps, interchangable lenses, write times, better metering, faster AF, AF-S, startup times... the list goes on.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not an SLR snob, I used a Sony H1 for a year - but there are a whole lot of things than an SLR can do that most prosumer models struggle with. A lot of the time the limiting factor in someone's photography is themselves, but once you reach a decent level you find yourself running up against the limitations of a p&s/prosumer cam more and more.

 

[Johnny|lucidcomposure]

Neither troll nor noob, im not starting or feeding any fires but why would you use iso 1600 for close up shots of baileys bottles, I dont get it.

1. These are 100% crops of some still life products. It is not close up work (macro).
2. The subjects are chosen as a variety of different materials to which light will reflect on under controlled conditions.

It sounds to me like you are sticking up for your 9mp compact falling into the easy USP of todays camera market which is simply megapixels.

It has always and will always be down to the quality of the glass that the camera is generating its image from.

9mp fuji compact Vs a 8mp DSLR with say a 85mm F1.2 and the image will speak for its self. Don't fall into this mp = bigger prints also = better quality misconception.

Gord has tried to say several times now what I feel is being ignored.

 

[Aod]

1. These are 100% crops of some still life products. It is not close up work (macro).
2. The subjects are chosen as a variety of different materials to which light will reflect on under controlled conditions.

It sounds to me like you are sticking up for your 9mp compact falling into the easy USP of todays camera market which is simply megapixels.

It has always and will always be down to the quality of the glass that the camera is generating its image from.

9mp fuji compact Vs a 8mp DSLR with say a 85mm F1.2 and the image will speak for its self. Don't fall into this mp = bigger prints also = better quality misconception.

Gord has tried to say several times now what I feel is being ignored.

YAY!

 

[SDK^]

Thanks F-Stop - you saved me some typing there

Neither troll nor noob, im not starting or feeding any fires but why would you use iso 1600 for close up shots of baileys bottles, I dont get it.
Im talking about properly lit photos via natural light or flash printed on 6x4, 7x5 or larger, even a3.
Obviously the final product may be better but my original post mentioned the raw format which is there to be processed manually.

The example I used above was to show the image quality difference between a high ISO setting on a Point & Shoot and DSLR. It's the same story across all of the other ISO settings as well; ISO 3200 on a DSLR is much the same as ISO 100 on a P&S, therefore making the DSLR a clear winner. The example is properly lit and is a very good real world comparison.

Your Landscape photo claim is also flawed.
Compared with a DSLR a landscape photo shot with any P&S (9600 included) will show a noisy blotchy sky, high amounts of CA (Purple fringing) on parts where bright white surrounds dark areas, the dynamic range will be less, the detail will much less and if you're processing it for HDR then the difference will be even greater.

I wouldnt say they were 7-10 times better.

Yeah, a DSLR is more like a 100 times better
Seriously though, use a DSLR and you'll see why.

As 'King4aDay' for a day said above, it's not just image quality.
In situations where I've been using my camera (Canon 20D) alongside people using P&S shoots the difference becomes very clear. I've usually grabbed a couple of shots and they are still struggling to focus, by which time the subject has moved on and they've missed the shot completely.

 

[brendy]

1. These are 100% crops of some still life products. It is not close up work (macro).
2. The subjects are chosen as a variety of different materials to which light will reflect on under controlled conditions.

It sounds to me like you are sticking up for your 9mp compact falling into the easy USP of todays camera market which is simply megapixels.

It has always and will always be down to the quality of the glass that the camera is generating its image from.

9mp fuji compact Vs a 8mp DSLR with say a 85mm F1.2 and the image will speak for its self. Don't fall into this mp = bigger prints also = better quality misconception.

Gord has tried to say several times now what I feel is being ignored.

Hell no the mp count isnt my be all and end all of cameras, the quality needs to be there, Im happy with my camera, as I said, I changed up from a konica minolta z3 which had a decent zoom and continuous drive but poor everything else, I bought this camera as I do more motorsport shots than any other single subject. I buy into the train of mind that theres always bigger and better things out there. The fuji s3pro,EOS350/400d, d50/d70 etc were all just a bit too expensive for me to justify as extra lenses etc are required to get the best out of them.

edit:
SDK these are all fair points, some id never even considered, as I said early on, this isnt a firestarter thread, simply a debate on merits.
From your experience would the likes of my 9500 or 9600 be classed as P&S or a dslr wannabe, I know fuji class it as a 'bridge' camera between compact and dslr.

 

[brendy]

Just read through one of busterboys threads, mighty impressive sharpness, Im no pro but unless the other fella was using a mobile phone id rather not post that pic anywhere public
Ill have to get a ic or two up some time for some serious critique.

LOL, his photos are awful but that website is even worse !!



You're joking right ?!?!?!
Just look at this

vs

 

[FreeStream]

I don't get why people are arguing about D-SLR Vs. Compacts.

D-SLRs are better in nearly every area, thats why we buy them!

Plus the fact you can now buy a 300/350D with 18-55 for £200/250 and that will kick the backside off any compact.

End.

 

[v0n]

Plus the fact you can now buy a 300/350D with 18-55 for £200/250 (...)

Well, to be precise no - you can't really - even on flebay UK based, existing and working second hand/refurbished 350D with kit lens will still set you back round £300. It's still great value though.