Chucking my Nikon SLR for a point and shoot

[wheezy]

I've been meaning to buy a PnS for awhile now because of the convenience for the fun shots, but I haven't. I manage with my 20D+Grip just fine. I bought a hand strap so I don't have that long annoying neck strap, and it doesn't give me a back ache anymore. It's very easy to walk around with, the camera just hangs with your arm nice and easy, and doesn't require you to grip it tight the whole time - the strap rests against the back of your hand.

Now, as for Everest Base Camp, my sister hiked to there a few years ago and I've wanted to go since. But, unlike you, screw the macho image and hire porters for your stuff. They love the income, it's easier work for them than what they'll usually be carrying, and then it's just you and your camera - You won't miss those shots if all you have to worry about is your camera. Make it as painless as possible to pull it out, or have it out at all times!

Sadly, I think your neglect to hire a sherpa is the root cause to the lack of all your pictures.

 

[heynsmd2]

SLR vs. P&S

When I trekked to basecamp in 2007, I carried my trusty Nikon film SLR, lots of Velvia film, 2 lenses and a Sony Handycam. http://www.flickr.com/photos/27925489@N06/sets/72157605759018157/

I found that I spent most time using the Handycam filming interesting things along the way and take snapshot of friends. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtOD0ldiEYE

Every so often I would see something amazing (as you would agree - the Himalayas are spectacular to say the least!) - and go to the trouble of getting out the SLR. I will gladly carry an SLR all the way, for the extra control it offers in those special circumstances. Most P&S controls are simply too frustrating and limited...

I've also modified my camera bag to hang on my hip from the backpack, making it reasonably accessible - that helps alot.

Quality-wise I have to admit to have been impressed by some P&S cameras recently, though the pictures from a dSLR/good lens/good monitor remains a cut above in my opinion.

 

[DoNoHarm]

Also I don't get what you mean by dSLR lens elements are made from mass produced molded elements? Are you talking bout the optics or the casing? Cause the last I check, dSLR lenses is made from glass unless you are referring to some lens that I never check before.

The elements are made of glass, but the manufacturing process used involves molding the glass into the lens elements. This is the only way they can get the lens assembly cheap enough for you and I to buy it. Regardless of whether or not you buy a lecia, nikon, or tamron lens, the elements themselves are all made in China using a molded glass manufacturing process. This manufacturing process involves inherent sacrifices in terms of optical quality of the elements produced. The best and older way to make a lens is to actually take some glass and grind it into the shape you want, then polish it. Unfortunately this method is only used for military grade optics these days. Actually, i think it would be a good test to see how the latest point and shoot cameras compare to the stock lens on a digital slr from today and one from the 6mp era....

EDIT:

Actually, just for argument's sake, i've gone and looked at some online reviews of a d40 (that's actually the camera I had) vs. a panasonic tz7 with similar sample images:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_TZ7_ZS3/outdoor_resolution.shtml

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/NikonD40/page4.shtml

Now, I'll be the first to say that the slr has slightly better quality, but is it really the enormous quality we would think it to be?

 

[anubis]

if you have point and shoot cameras these days like the panasonic tz7 with 25-300mm zoom lenses, hd video capabilities in stereo, that fit in your shirt pocket, and are capable of taking a very wide range of photos, the point and shoot becomes a much more viable option. Who cares if there is a little chromatic aberration when you blow it up all the way or some slight distortion? It's 12 megapixels! Furthermore, the DSLR's lens elements are made from mass produced molded elements (consumer level quality). The difference is not as large as it used to be.

Hmmm, thanks for informing me that my Canon L-series DSLR lens elements are molded plastic, because I was pretty sure they were diamond-turned calcium flourite and BK7 aspheres mounted in magnesium alloy metal. It's a good thing that that PnS 25-300mm superzoom has the same image quality. Also, thanks for informing me that megapixels are the number one indicator of image quality in a camera; I've been laboring under the impression this whole time that noise is inversely proportional to pixel area and that all the megapixels in the world don't matter if the pixels are microscopic because of the poor noise performance. Also, the fact that that plastic superzoom's point spread function is significantly larger than a pixel anyway must be incorrect.

Your lack of the most basic, rudimentary understanding of dSLRs further proves my point

 

[wheelhot]

The elements are made of glass, but the manufacturing process used involves molding the glass into the lens elements. This is the only way they can get the lens assembly cheap enough for you and I to buy it. Regardless of whether or not you buy a lecia, nikon, or tamron lens, the elements themselves are all made in China using a molded glass manufacturing process. This manufacturing process involves inherent sacrifices in terms of optical quality of the elements produced. The best and older way to make a lens is to actually take some glass and grind it into the shape you want, then polish it. Unfortunately this method is only used for military grade optics these days. Actually, i think it would be a good test to see how the latest point and shoot cameras compare to the stock lens on a digital slr from today and one from the 6mp era....

Hmm, not actually unless you consider a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 200 f/2.0 IS cheap then erm I got nothing else to say about lens assembly cheap enough to buy. Also when there is a mark states Made In Japan or Made In Germany it means it is made in that country, unless its say assembled or designed then that gives a whole different meaning, but I heard before of companies lie about this. Also you made a mistake by saying Leica made in China, cause Leica first of all will never allow their lens optical quality to reduce just to save cost, look at the price of their equipments, its even much more expensive then Canon or Nikons and I bet Leica users will be very pissed at your statement.

Hmm, I own a 10mp PnS and a 10mp DSLR, my DSLR produces much better images then it by any margin, and I used kit lens to make the comparison fair, in terms of ISO, dynamic range, DSLR will forever beat PnS unless there is some sudden advancement in sensor development.

 

[Saladinos]

The elements are made of glass, but the manufacturing process used involves molding the glass into the lens elements. This is the only way they can get the lens assembly cheap enough for you and I to buy it. Regardless of whether or not you buy a lecia, nikon, or tamron lens, the elements themselves are all made in China using a molded glass manufacturing process. This manufacturing process involves inherent sacrifices in terms of optical quality of the elements produced. The best and older way to make a lens is to actually take some glass and grind it into the shape you want, then polish it. Unfortunately this method is only used for military grade optics these days. Actually, i think it would be a good test to see how the latest point and shoot cameras compare to the stock lens on a digital slr from today and one from the 6mp era....

EDIT:

Actually, just for argument's sake, i've gone and looked at some online reviews of a d40 (that's actually the camera I had) vs. a panasonic tz7 with similar sample images:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_TZ7_ZS3/outdoor_resolution.shtml

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/NikonD40/page4.shtml

Now, I'll be the first to say that the slr has slightly better quality, but is it really the enormous quality we would think it to be?

It's not the better quality that makes a DSLR all that great (although the picture quality is much better due to the larger sensor), but the increased creative control that comes from interchangeable lenses with varying optical properties.

 

[mrbash]

Now, I'll be the first to say that the slr has slightly better quality, but is it really the enormous quality we would think it to be?

I agree totally. dSLRs can allow you to take pictures not possible with P&S. But they seem to be all on the periphery of what someone would want to photograph. E.g Macro/Telephoto. For the majority of pictures you would want to take (as a casual photographer) a P&S is more than adequate.

I have a 5D, and a bunch of L series Wide Angle and Telephoto lenses. But for most things, I take my old Canon Powershot s50. On a recent trip to India, most of my pictures were taken with the S50 simply because there was no point in taking the 5D. A boat ride on the Varanasi, yes, I took the 5D because I needed the Telephoto (100-400mm F4-5.6 L IS). But I took more that 10x as many pictures with the S50. It simply was more practical.

If someone invented a better P&S that had the Wide angle and Telephoto I wanted, I'd sell my 5D. I simply don't need the marginally extra quality. And most people looking at my photos can't tell the difference.

http://picasaweb.google.com/atreya.basu

 

[DoNoHarm]

Hmmm, thanks for informing me that my Canon L-series DSLR lens elements are molded plastic, because I was pretty sure they were diamond-turned calcium flourite and BK7 aspheres mounted in magnesium alloy metal. It's a good thing that that PnS 25-300mm superzoom has the same image quality. Also, thanks for informing me that megapixels are the number one indicator of image quality in a camera; I've been laboring under the impression this whole time that noise is inversely proportional to pixel area and that all the megapixels in the world don't matter if the pixels are microscopic because of the poor noise performance. Also, the fact that that plastic superzoom's point spread function is significantly larger than a pixel anyway must be incorrect.

Your lack of the most basic, rudimentary understanding of dSLRs further proves my point

You're distorting what I'm saying. I agree that sensor size does play a role in image quality. Why are you getting so upset? I didn't say the lens elements were plastic, I didn't say they were the same quality. Calm down.....

Hmm, not actually unless you consider a 70-200 f/2.8 IS, 200 f/2.0 IS cheap then erm I got nothing else to say about lens assembly cheap enough to buy. Also when there is a mark states Made In Japan or Made In Germany it means it is made in that country, unless its say assembled or designed then that gives a whole different meaning, but I heard before of companies lie about this. Also you made a mistake by saying Leica made in China, cause Leica first of all will never allow their lens optical quality to reduce just to save cost, look at the price of their equipments, its even much more expensive then Canon or Nikons and I bet Leica users will be very pissed at your statement.

Hmm, I own a 10mp PnS and a 10mp DSLR, my DSLR produces much better images then it by any margin, and I used kit lens to make the comparison fair, in terms of ISO, dynamic range, DSLR will forever beat PnS unless there is some sudden advancement in sensor development.

Whether Lecia buys it's glass from Schott or Ohara or whatever, they are all global companies that source their glass production wherever is cheapest. This is usually china at these huge glass factories like Unique, etc. that specialize in these consumer type applications. The final lens system assembly may be made in Germany.

 

[Phrasikleia]

Sometimes the point of being someplace is "photography". Other times the primary purpose is something else but you take a camera along in case an image comes up.

Point and shoots are good for the second case. But if the primary purpose of being out is photography then take the largest camera you can.

This summary is exactly right. If all you need are snapshots, then a DSLR is of course overkill.

 

[Potus]

Everyday

I use my dSLRs (Oly E500 and E510) every day. I have a variety of bags and cases for different types of activity(ok. I do need a camera bag anonymous group). I have never regretted taking my camera's, despite their extra weight. I have regretted not taking them, however. I've kept my early (now primitive) pns cameras, as well. I still enjoy them when I use them and have no problem dropping them in a waist pack or pocket if I think of them. That said, my dSLRs are the best investment as far as my photos are concerned and for quick-on-the-fly I'm enjoying using the fairly lame camera on my iPhone, particularly for sending a photo/postcard immediately.

I enjoy learning to use the tools I have to greater effect. Your mileage may vary.

 

[toxic]

Actually, just for argument's sake, i've gone and looked at some online reviews of a d40 (that's actually the camera I had) vs. a panasonic tz7 with similar sample images:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Panasonic_Lumix_DMC_TZ7_ZS3/outdoor_resolution.shtml

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/NikonD40/page4.shtml

Now, I'll be the first to say that the slr has slightly better quality, but is it really the enormous quality we would think it to be?

first, comparing pictures taken from a mile away is a next to useless indicator of what a camera/lens combination can or cannot do. i've no idea why cameralabs decided to do that. second, jpeg images will never reproduce what the camera/lens can actually do.

look at imaging resource and dpreview...they aren't perfect either, but much closer than the above.

and yes, there is a marked difference between point-&-shoots and SLRs. i've been searching for one for when i don't want to lug a 5D around, but the only thing remotely close is the Sigma DP1/DP2, which, incidently, have SLR sensors.

as for all the elements being manufactured in the same place, that may be so, but the coatings and designs are still all different. and i highly doubt companies like Leica mass-produce their SLR/rangefinder lenses.

 

[apearlman]

P&S cameras can do many things well.

I think some of this discussion has digressed far from the OP's original question.

There are some P&S cameras that have very good sensors, optics and electronics these days. They are capable of fantastic images, in the right hands.

The OP seems happy with the quality of his photos, but wishes he had taken more. So let's assume he's got the skills to get good images from any camera. In that case,

1. maybe a P&S would have been a good idea on this trip. Or,
2. maybe he should have decided to pull out his camera more often, even if it's a hassle, or
3. Maybe a better carrying system could have reduced the hassle.

Personally, I've been in plenty of situations where a P&S made my life easier without significantly reducing the quality of my photos. In particular, if the light is good, and I don't need shallow DOF, then the small sensor and noise aren't likely to be a problem.

 

[DoNoHarm]

I pulled the trigger on a Panasonic ZS3 (TZ7 outside the USA). After doing some more research, I must admit, there is a substantial noise difference at high ISO's between even this best-of-the-best $400 point and shoot and the cheapest DSLR due to design comprimises in small cameras. I'll post some shots directly comparing the image quality at low ISO and high ISO between the panasonic and a Digital Rebel Xsi to compare directly, but especially night shots should show some significant differences.

 

[DoNoHarm]

Guys, I don't know what I was smoking - I take back all I said. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON. I just got a Panasonic ZS3 for ~400 dollars. The noise seen in the images in ALL conditions is simply too obvious. When you use a DSLR, you get this lifelike image that looks amazing on my MBP screen. The P&S produces cooked images that look like paintings. To anyone else considering going for the P&S, I advise against it! I care too much about my photos to have them all look like this.

 

[winninganthem]

Guys, I don't know what I was smoking - I take back all I said. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON. I just got a Panasonic ZS3 for ~400 dollars. The noise seen in the images in ALL conditions is simply too obvious. When you use a DSLR, you get this lifelike image that looks amazing on my MBP screen. The P&S produces cooked images that look like paintings. To anyone else considering going for the P&S, I advise against it! I care too much about my photos to have them all look like this.

Wow, that's a pretty big mind change haha.

 

[melchior]

Guys, I don't know what I was smoking - I take back all I said. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO COMPARISON. I just got a Panasonic ZS3 for ~400 dollars. The noise seen in the images in ALL conditions is simply too obvious. When you use a DSLR, you get this lifelike image that looks amazing on my MBP screen. The P&S produces cooked images that look like paintings. To anyone else considering going for the P&S, I advise against it! I care too much about my photos to have them all look like this.

be interesting to see your examples. the zs3 shots taken in good light turn out well enough as far as i've seen, but as soon as you start getting shadows the noise appears this true. but this is also where the lx3 does better. the g10 is also better with shadows and noise.

 

[tbrinkma]

I'm with Potus on this one. The only time I regret anything regarding my Olympus E-520 is when I forget to bring it. (The in-body, optical image stabilization is a life-saver for someone with hand-shake like mine.)

 

[SimD]

Check out Leica's product line.

Their p+s D-LUX 4s are very nice. Then there's the M8 rangefinder which is amazing.

Also look at the new Olympus E-P1. Search it up on Google. Interesting option.

 

[LittleCanonKid]

I'm with Potus on this one. The only time I regret anything regarding my Olympus E-520 is when I forget to bring it. (The in-body, optical image stabilization is a life-saver for someone with hand-shake like mine.)

Doesn't "optical" image stabilization imply that it's in the lens? Olympus uses what they call sensor shake IS (if I recall correctly), since optical IS would mean it's within the lens.

 

[wheelhot]

Haha, well after using a DSLR for about a year now, I can never go back to a PnS, I just hate the details it produces even at ISO100

 

[toxic]

Check out Leica's product line.

Their p+s D-LUX 4s are very nice. Then there's the M8 rangefinder which is amazing.

Also look at the new Olympus E-P1. Search it up on Google. Interesting option.

The D-Lux 4 is an LX3 with a red dot. The M8 isn't a point-&-shoot, and costs a piddly $6000 for just the body.

 

[gkarris]

I pulled the trigger on a Panasonic ZS3 (TZ7 outside the USA). After doing some more research, I must admit, there is a substantial noise difference at high ISO's between even this best-of-the-best $400 point and shoot and the cheapest DSLR due to design comprimises in small cameras. I'll post some shots directly comparing the image quality at low ISO and high ISO between the panasonic and a Digital Rebel Xsi to compare directly, but especially night shots should show some significant differences.

Would be great to see your pics. Thanks.

Looking at dpreview.com's comparison:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/q209grouplongzoom/page14.asp

I still prefer the Canon P&S pics. Looking at the sample pages, the Panasonics look great at base ISO 80, but the Canon (I think) looks better across the board...

I wouldn't bother comparing it to a dSLR - you will be disappointed... I was when I had a Panasonic P&S.

 

[Obsidian6]

I could never sacrifice my DLSRs for just a point n shoot camera.

However, I do have one (had 3 but sold the others) it definitely comes in handy when I need to be low-profile, or if I'm just spending time with family or friends and there isn't a need for my SLR.

I have the D-Lux 4, yes it is identical to the Pansonic LX3, but when I tried to buy the LX3 it was impossible to find, and the only places that stocked it were charging over $700, so I bought the D-Lux4 through work for 25% off and I love the camera.

It's IQ is just great for Point n shoot. The only thing that delivers better quality was my DP1, but I just sold that to buy a 40D

 

[DoNoHarm]

OK, so I'll post comparisons up soon... Attached you'll see the photo that caused my initial objection to the point and shoot image quality, taken of a cat while I was on my jog. Note that due to the macrumors.com photo size limitation, I can't include the original image. one is a cropped segment of the original image and the other is a slightly cropped but heavily compressed version of the image. Look at how you can barely make out the wiskers of the cat on the cropped but full quality image! The sun was setting but this was definately not a low light situation. I had rested the camera on a wooden fence to take the photo too, so there is no chance that there is an issue with camera shake here. The point and shoot chose to take this shot at 400iso, the lowest iso I can select using the (only) automatic settings of the camera...

After using it for a few days, here's the bottom line: Even at the lowest ISO setting, there is an obvious difference in granularity of the photos. At a low ISO setting, like 200 or 400, the difference is astonishing... The point and shoot will jump through all these hoops to smudge out the noise here and there caused by the lower light it gets BY DESIGN.

However, I have noticed some benefits of having this camera. For example, most of the photos I'm shooting are at the maximum 300mm zoom. To go off the example I've included, yeah the wiskers are smudged, but this was a photo I was able to take while i was jogging. There is simply no way to lug around a DSLR while jogging. Let alone a 300mm zoom on a dslr. can you imagine how absurd that would be?

Also, the video capabilities of the panasonic zs3 are nothing short of spectacular. the sound is high quality without any mechanical noise like other point and shoots using a mono mike.

After using this point and shoot, I've come to the conclusion that DSLR's and Point and shoots by the very nature of their design occupy two different realms. I think the ideal solution for me will be to keep both.