ok anything wrong with a p/s?

[gokenin]

:surfweb: I love my camera a casio exilim its a point and shoot but i have to say that reading this board i get the feeling that if you dont have a DSLR then you are really a novice. like i said i love my camera but its just how it feels on this board

[Miller1412]

I am definitely in the "novice" category too. And I own a DSLR...but that's why I post (and lurk) so that I can learn something. There are a bunch of point and shoot experts on here too that work just as much magic with their cameras as any photos I've seen. Hope you don't feel too frustrated by the DSLR thing...there are lots of great folks on here who give good advice no matter what you're shooting with :thumbsup2

[DueyDooDah]

:surfweb: I love my camera a casio exilim its a point and shoot but i have to say that reading this board i get the feeling that if you dont have a DSLR then you are really a novice. like i said i love my camera but its just how it feels on this board

No, no, no! If you love your camera and you are happy with the photos you get, then you are missing nothing. A novice is someone that is just starting to use their equipment. If you've mastered your p&s, then you are where you want to be. And, you're saving big bucks in the mean time.

If your happy, don't change a thing.

[mikamah]

I love my point and shoot sony cybershot, and I think I take some pretty good pictures with it. It's so convenient and I carry it in my purse all the time. I am new to this section of the disboards and have found bunches of great information and tips here. I am researching buying a new camera, primarily want something with a longer zoom lens now that my son is starting sports. I go back and forth with getting another point and shoot with a 12-15X zoom, or venturing into the dslr world. If I do go with a dslr, I'd like one that has many auto options until I learn how to use it. I don't think I'm a photography novice, but I am a dslr novice. I just started posting pics from my p+s on some of the threads here, and it's fun and addicting.

[Master Mason]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a P&S camera if it is providing you with what you need in your camera, then it is perfect. Lots and Lots of people would have no need or desire for a SLR camera.

In the end, it is the pictures that matter, not the equipment used to take them. And I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the people frequenting this board use a P&S camera, it is just a few of us that own dSLR's that like to talk about them....

[Ducky4Disney]

Nothing at all wrong with a P&S! And it does not make you a novice! I loved my Canon G2. It had a reliable auto mode but I could venture into program, TV, AP, and even full manual if I wanted. I got a speedlite for it, a wide angle, and telephoto lens for it. I mastered it and took great shots with it - but it's old and breaking down. Not focusing like it should and I think the flash is off a bit. So we moved up to DSLR - Nikon D200. Now I'm below novice. I can't take pics with the D200 like I could with my G2. There's a big learning curve.

D4D

[GrumpyOne]

There's definitely nothing wrong with a point & shoot. I'm of the opinion that in most cases, a good photographer will often take a more pleasing picture with a P&S than a novice will with a DSLR. And in many cases, a DSLR is either inconvenient, unwarranted or just plain not allowed, making the P&S the superior choice.

While there are certain shots that a DSLR will do better at, they tend to be at the extremes. Low-light and fast action, for instance. IMO, the key is knowing what you want to do and ensuring that you have the equipment to do it.

I've decided to make the switch this summer after pushing what I had as far as I was able to, upgrading and still being dissatisfied in some areas and learning more (this board helped) why. The right tool for the job. While a mallet and hammer are both whacking tools, each whacks certain things better than others.

You'll always have camera envy, whether it's "I wish I could take low-light shots like that" or "I wish my gear didn't weigh so much". Knowing what you want to do and having a realistic understanding of your camera's limitations will help a lot.

[MarkBarbieri]

While there are certain shots that a DSLR will do better at, they tend to be at the extremes. Low-light and fast action, for instance. IMO, the key is knowing what you want to do and ensuring that you have the equipment to do it.

This is very true. If you spent a few hundred bucks on a decent P&S, you'll get very comparable photos under good conditions. It's when it comes time to take pictures under difficult conditions that the extra capabilities of a more expensive camera come into play.

Remember that a DSLR has plenty of drawbacks as well. They cost more (sometimes much, much more). They are bulkier. They are heavier. They are harder to use well. They often require that you change lenses. They also don't have all of the same capabilities like letting you see what you are going to get a picture of on an LCD before you shoot or recording movies.

You'll also find that DSLR owners tend to talk more about their gear, so you hear more about that stuff. Part of that is because they are complicated and people often have more questions about how to work them. Part of that is also because people interested in talking about camera equipment tend to buy equipment that has lots of features and complexity.

Another cause of perceived bias is that the regulars on this board tend to have a passion for photography. Passionate photographers tend to spend more money on their equipment and they are willing to invest the time and energy into using a DSLR. As a consequence, a lot of the regulars here are most familiar with DSLRs.

The best camera is the one that you are most comfortable with, that you'll actually carry and use, and that you understand.

[DueyDooDah]

...The best camera is...
...a Canon.

Just saying what Mark really meant.

[ukcatfan]

I believe that there have already been some nice responses, but I would like to add one thing. From what I can tell, most DSLR users also carry a p&s about everywhere they go.

Kevin

[jann1033]

i think due to some are more fanatical about photos ( raising my hand here) it might seem like "dslrs are the way to go for everyone" mentality is the rule here. however i really feel most would agree that you should use whatever makes you happy and what ever you want to use.

i've seen great photos from point and shoots and lousy photos from dslrs( again for some reason my hand just won't stay down ;) ) so who really cares what you use? and i really think p&s have gotten to the point where they can do so much more than they used to the normal casual shooter is not really as limited as they once were. naturally you can't do everything a dslr can do but my dslr doesn't do everything Mark's dslr does and you don't hear me crying about it ;) ( well not all the time:rotfl2: )

[Gdad]

most DSLR users also carry a p&s about everywhere they go.

::yes:: I keep mine right in my pocket where my money use to be. :rotfl:

[gokenin]

Thanks for the encouragement I will continue to use my casio as said I enjoy it and I do think its a good camera but have to admit I dont know if at some point I may upgrade but for now I will stick with my point and shoot:cool1: :surfweb:

[YEKCIM]

::yes:: I keep mine right in my pocket where my money use to be. :rotfl:

Lots more room in there, post-dSLR gear, right?

~YEKCIM

[Dan Murphy]

.....The best camera is the one that you are most comfortable with, that you'll actually carry and use, and that you understand.So very true words. :thumbsup2

P&S'er here.

[MICKEY88]

So very true words. :thumbsup2

P&S'er here.


and a darn good P&S'er at that...one of the best..

[Pea-n-Me]

I think I understand what you mean - I started a similar thread when I first started hanging out here. But I've come to think it's a kind of self-imposed thing, because nobody here looks down on anyone who doesn't own a DSLR - we can all post here together and share the fun that comes with taking good pictures - especially of Disney ;) - regardless of the type of camera we own. (There are some who also rejoice in having a point and shoot and taking great pictures - like Dan and 2angelsinheaven, makinorlando, and many others.)

I do think there are some here who are "masters" and as said above, are so passionate about photography they've probably forgotten more about it than many of us will ever know. :teeth: I feel like we're kind of lucky to have them here on our little Disney board because we can learn so much from them and enjoy seeing all their beautiful photos. They've started some interesting threads which pique our curiosity and get us out using our own cameras so we can learn and enjoy as well. My whole family enjoys looking at everyone's weekly contest photos and Picture a Day threads on the other boards. Fun for everyone!

With that said, my own interest in photography as a hobby is growing now that I have time in my life to work at it more than I ever did previously. I've "moved up" from a point and shoot (which I was very happy with for many years) to a "bridge" camera, and I do have my eye on a DSLR which I will probably purchase once we get through some home renovations. But that's an indication of where I'm going as a photographer and how much of a hobby it's become for me, not that I see a pns as less - just what's right for me now.

[YEKCIM]

I've "moved up" from a point and shoot (which I was very happy with for many years) to a "bridge" camera, and I do have my eye on a DSLR...

Same for me. I started out with (please don't laugh, guys) the 2MP still imager on my Canon camcorder and was surprised at how good some of the pix were, *if* the lighting conditions were right. When I made the move from film SLR to digital, I knew I eventually wanted to go dSLR, but was not financially able to do so at the time, so "settled for" the Fuji S5200, which proved to be a wonderful camera, and a good tool for learning digital photography. At $225, it was a bargain, if only for the pix I took at WDW last July. As I said, I wanted to move up to a dSLR all along, and finally was able to do so early this year. I have great hopes that the D50 will allow me to capture some images in difficult lighting situations that were just not possible with the Fuji and also believe that the overall image quality will be superior. That said, though, I don't expect to see much, if any difference between 4X6's of comparable well lit scenes taken with both cameras. 8X10's and beyond should be a different story; we'll see. I do know that after a few hours in the Central FL July heat, I will definitely miss the size and weight factor of the Fuji, and the 38-380mm equivalent "all in one" zoom lens is great for most outdoor (and some indoor) WDW photo ops.

The great thing about digital cameras is that there is a diversity of models so that each of us can choose the camera that best suits our needs. And, as others have said, it's not the camera that makes good pictures, it is the person using the camera that does so. There are plenty of examples on these boards and elsewhere that prove that a good eye combined with a good quality PnS can produce *outstanding* photographs (as opposed to "snapshots"). Give me a good photographer with a good PnS over a mediocre photographer with a $$$$ dSLR anytime.

~YEKCIM

[Amy]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a P&S camera if it is providing you with what you need in your camera, then it is perfect. Lots and Lots of people would have no need or desire for a SLR camera.

In the end, it is the pictures that matter, not the equipment used to take them. And I would be willing to bet that the vast majority of the people frequenting this board use a P&S camera, it is just a few of us that own dSLR's that like to talk about them....

I totally agree! I'm on my 2nd P&S camera, first a Canon A70 and now the Canon S3 IS.

There's definitely nothing wrong with a point & shoot. I'm of the opinion that in most cases, a good photographer will often take a more pleasing picture with a P&S than a novice will with a DSLR. And in many cases, a DSLR is either inconvenient, unwarranted or just plain not allowed, making the P&S the superior choice.

While there are certain shots that a DSLR will do better at, they tend to be at the extremes. Low-light and fast action, for instance. IMO, the key is knowing what you want to do and ensuring that you have the equipment to do it.

Yep! And while I love some of the shots that the dSLR users post here, I just don't do much of that kind of photography to justify (to myself) the cost of the equipment and lugging all that equipment around.

The great thing about digital cameras is that there is a diversity of models so that each of us can choose the camera that best suits our needs. And, as others have said, it's not the camera that makes good pictures, it is the person using the camera that does so. There are plenty of examples on these boards and elsewhere that prove that a good eye combined with a good quality PnS can produce *outstanding* photographs (as opposed to "snapshots"). Give me a good photographer with a good PnS over a mediocre photographer with a $$$$ dSLR anytime.

::yes:: ::yes::

[PoohJen]

I loved the pictures I got with my first P&S; it was a cheapo ($150 at the time, probably $25 now!) THREE MP Kodak!!! Great color!

I really needed to upgrade though to get the sports shots I wanted; the Kodak couldn't meet my particular needs there.

Unfortunately, DS lost my Kodak, so I am in the market for another P&S! The dSLR gets certain shots that I can't get with my P&S, it gives me a chance to learn more about photography (read: lots of opportunities for mistakes and bad shots!), and it helps me to part with my money on endless accessories. Apart from those things, my P&S beautifully fit most of my needs, and I have many great memories preserved on my P&S photos!:cloud9:

[Groucho]

Well, I think there's a few things here... like someone said, us DSLR users certainly don't look down on PnS users, most of us were PnS users until fairly recently. :teeth:

I don't agree that DSLRs only show improvement at "extreme" situations (especially as these situations are common at Disney parks, and this is a Disney board after all). What's more, not only can a DSLR produce a better photo nearly all the time, this gap is only increasing, not decreasing. My old 2mp Fuji PnS took very nice 2mp (1600x1200) photos - sharp, good color, etc. Yes, it choked at low light and such, but outdoor photos were generally very nice.

My replacement, a 5mp Minolta Z5 (12x zoom, IS), always frustrated me. Mainly it was the noise levels at even modest ISO levels, but it was also rarely very sharp. Now, I'm an admitted "pixel peeper" and I look at my photos at 100% and am disappointed when I see softness there. Worse, even when resized to 2mp levels, it generally took less pleasing photos than my Fuji - even though it was much faster, had more zoom, a good IS system, etc. (The movie mode was also generally terrific and much better than the Fuji's one.) Note that it generally got very good reviews for image quality at the time, it's not like it was a junky camera by any means, but that the whole crop of cameras were producing such photos.

Currently, both my wife and I had a 6mp digital camera - me, a 6mp DSLR and her a 6mp Canon SD600 (which is a 1/2.5" sensor - probably the same sensor as in the S3, but I'm not sure.) The SD600 generally produces decent photos, especially outdoors, but rarely do they look anywhere close to a good as the photos from the DSLR, no matter the conditions. (I have been toying with the idea of seeing what the SD600 will fetch on eBay and going with a Fuji F31fd for its superior image quality - if it took SD memory, I think I definitely would.)

Manufacturers are continuing to cram more megapixels into their compact digital cameras while sticking with woefully undersized sensors. 10mp compacts are becoming quite common. Now, if a sensor has a difficult time delivering sharp photos and respectable low-light performance with 6mp, how can we expect them to perform with 67% more pixels being squeezed out?

What I'd really like to see is more effort being put into the sensor - as far as I can see, Fuji is the only one that even makes an effort to market their sensor technology in the PnS arena. Let's see some real work being put into this. You don't need a full DSLR-size sensor (which is almost 15x bigger than most PnS sensors), let's see a PnS sensor that's, say, 2-3x larger than a 1/2.5" one. (Even the "big" 1/1.8" sensor is only about 50% bigger.) Fuji's cramming a 1/1.6" sensor into compact cameras. How about even bigger? Let the pocket cameras grow a few millimeters in exchange for image quality.

Then there's the price differential - which has been continuing to shrink. You can now pick up a very nice DSLR with lens for under $400. It is bigger and has less zoom than a "big zoom" PnS but the capabilities are much more, and for not much money over what you'll pay for some of these.

To sum up... we have that DSLRs will generally produce sharper, more pleasing photos across the board... they can take pictures in low light than the vast majority of PnS cameras can't even think about... PnS image quality is generallly getting worse, not better... and a DSLR doesn't cost much more than a high-end PnS any more.

For me, it's not a matter of "looking down" on PnS users, it's partially the urge to tell people about a good thing and demonstrate that for a little more money you get a lot more quality, and partially that I'm frustrated with the direction that the manufacturers have gone with compact digital cameras, with virtually no emphasis on image quality and nearly all on "tech specs" which are confusing and misleading to your average consumer who just wants to buy a nice small camera.

[boBQuincy]

I agree with Groucho, it's not any inherent characteristic of a P&S camera that I don't like, it's the tiny sensor size and the resultant noise in the image that keep me from using one much.
I use my SLR in "P" mode and with a zoom lens almost always, and at that point it's not much different from a big heavy P&S. But with a large sensor.

Walt Disney World presents some very difficult opportunities for photography and the small sensors make it difficult to get good images in those conditions. If someone (besides Leica at $$$$$) made a nice P&S with a large sensor and medium range zoom lens I would buy one and probably carry it most of the time at WDW.

[gokenin]

Ok so the jist that I am getting is that if you are looking for night photography or you are looking for something that requires a fast shutter speed then you want to look at a SLR but if you are are simply looking to take most of your pics in the daylight or inside with decent lighting then a P/S would be fine? :confused3 Like I said i love my camera but even I admit getting frustrated with night shots have not taken many so still learning my cameras abilities there but thanks for all the hints and advice :surfweb:

[handicap18]

The only thing wrong with a PnS camera is what you think is wrong with it. PnS camera's, especially the newer one's, do a great job taking pictures. Though reality is, they aren't true PnS camera's. Back in the film days is where you found PnS camera's. Put in the film, point the camera and press the shutter. There was NOTHING else to do. With todays "PnS" digital camera's there is a lot more to it when you think about it. They have zoom's, they focus on different spots, you can change the "film speed", you can control shutter and/or aperture. There are various modes that will allow you to have some creativity unlike the true PnS film camera's of the past.

You can do so much with a compact digital camera. Many people don't even know 1/2 of what they can do. While they wont give you the kind of control an SLR camera will give, you do have a lot of control.

I still have a compact digital (Canon S30) and after using a dSLR for 15 months and frequenting this board, I have learned just as much about using the S30 as I have using the dSLR. While I used film SLR's for 15+ years I didn't really do a lot with it. Mostly used it as a PnS. Now I do more creative things with my S30 than I did with my old film SLR.

Like others have said, so long as your happy with your camera, what else matters.

[Groucho]

Like I said i love my camera but even I admit getting frustrated with night shots have not taken many so still learning my cameras abilities there but thanks for all the hints and advice :surfweb:
If you're frustrated with your night shots at the moment, you may have no choice but to either go to a big-sensor Fuji PnS or to a DSLR.

I was in the same boat when I bought my DSLR; my new fancy 12x IS PnS was very nice in most respects but I just couldn't handle the image quality. Everything but the image quality was just dandy with it. I hadn't had it for too terribly long before realizing that I was probably never going to be really happy with it, and I got my DSLR less than a year later. At the time, I hadn't done any DSLR research (they were either out of my price range, or I assumed that they were, though I'd always wanted one after using my film SLR for years), and I didn't know anything about sensors, or noise levels, or any of that. In retrospect, I'd pretty happy with how things turned out since I got an incredible deal on my DSLR when I bought it, but I may have kept my 2mp Fuji PnS for a big longer rather than going with the 5mp one.

Then again, I might not have. Another one of my general complaints is that review sites seem to be very soft on PnS cameras. The one I bought generally got very good image quality scores. I think they were likely comparing it to similar cameras, at the time the Panasonic 12x zoom was the main competition. I'd rather have read some more honest appraisals including that there were serious noise levels even at moderate ISOs, even if all the competition had them as well. I'd also like to see more "realistic" test shots in reviews, instead of nearly all shots being bright outdoor photos at low ISOs.

[Pea-n-Me]

I didn't know anything about sensors
I'm shocked. ;)