Which camera to take

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by DSLRuser

Bottom line, a picture taken with an ipad and printed at 8x12 will be noticably inferior to a dedicated camera. you can onld get some much info out of a 1/4 inch lens with a 1/4 in fixed focal lenght.

Depends on the dedicated camera. But the question wasn't, iPad versus dedicated camera. The question was iPad camera versus iPhone camera. And technically, they are the same camera, except that the iPhone camera sensor has more megapixels.

[Patrick in Oregon]

Originally Posted by DSLRuser

The difference between a 4mp and say an 7mp camera in a phone or handheld device would be meaningless.

Now take a 4mp P&S and try an compare it against a 17mp DSLR, yes there are differences.

Your comparison is a little off.

4 vs 7mp in similar devices is meaningless - true.

Your 4 vs 17 compares PnS and DSLR not MP vs MP. So of course the DSLR will have better quality.

I imagine that wasn't your intent and I don't believe there are any 17mp PnS out there so the ideal comparison for this situation wouldn't exist.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by Patrick in Oregon

I imagine that wasn't your intent and I don't believe there are any 17mp PnS out there so the ideal comparison for this situation wouldn't exist.

The Sony RX100 is 20mp. (And image quality is quite comparable to a dSLR in most cases)

[photo_chick]

Originally Posted by DSLRuser

As most camera people will tell you. Mega Pixals are next to meaningless. It's more of a marketing play. Especially on a P&S. a 2.4 aperture is great, but it is worthless becuase I cant tell it when i want ti to be wide open vs closed.

I stand by what I said. the ipad camera is a face time camera. trying to use it for more is moronic.

yes, I can take an old vespa scooter on the freeway, but its not really sometihng a smart person would want to do.

Moronic? I wouldn't go that far. While it's certainly not my first choice, and I do think the sensor is inferior to the iPhone for reasons beyond megapixels, I wouldn't go as far as blatantly insulting anyone who wanted to use an iPad as their camera. In fact your statement makes me want to grab my husband's iPad and see what I can do with it and how far I can push it. I've managed to get shots with my smartphone that are indistinguishable from a DSLR, why not with an iPad?

[Gianna'sPapa]

I believe the best camera is the one you have with you when you need to take an image!!!!

Saying that, I've seen some Ipad users attempting to use one in some really ridiculous places, ie, trying to photograph 200-300 mph racecars in lowlight when I'm struggling with a semi-professional DSLR body with professional lenses! I've seen them in crowds being held over head which because of their size do have a reach advantage and the screen can be used like an articulating DSLR screen. Would an Ipad be my first choice? Absolutely not, but with their growing popularity and instant access to the internet, they will be used. For the not so discerning photographer, its better than nothing.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by Gianna'sPapa

I believe the best camera is the one you have with you when you need to take an image!!!!

Saying that, I've seen some Ipad users attempting to use one in some really ridiculous places, ie, trying to photograph 200-300 mph racecars in lowlight when I'm struggling with a semi-professional DSLR body with professional lenses! I've seen them in crowds being held over head which because of their size do have a reach advantage and the screen can be used like an articulating DSLR screen. Would an Ipad be my first choice? Absolutely not, but with their growing popularity and instant access to the internet, they will be used. For the not so discerning photographer, its better than nothing.

Neither an iPhone nor iPad would ever be my first choice, except when I want to instantly upload something to the Internet. And my iPhone would still be preferred over my ipad, because I think the ipad size makes it awkward for photography. But speaking purely in terms of IQ, the new ipad uses the iPhone 4 sensor, and the iPhone 4S lens. It uses a processor superior to other cameras.
So the ipad is indeed capable of decent pictures. Certainly not comparable to a mirrorless or dSLR, but certainly on the level of a budget p&s.
And for the challenging situations you mention, a budget p&s will be as useless as an ipad/iPhone.

[cmwade77]

I would not recommend using an iPhone for in park photography. It doesn't do very well with low light.

My P&S cameras do a very good job, but I have an annual pass to Disneyland, so I specifically purchase ones that will work well and are waterproof. Mine was around $250 when I bought it a year and a half ago or so, now it sells for much less of course.

There are also now even better P&S cameras and plenty of them for the parks, that can rival DSLR quality and are around the $200 mark.

That being said, there are things that you can do with a DSLR that you can't do with a P&S, but if all you care about is picture quality and not fancy features, there are plenty if P&S cameras that will work well.

[Gianna'sPapa]

Originally Posted by havoc315

Neither an iPhone nor iPad would ever be my first choice, except when I want to instantly upload something to the Internet. And my iPhone would still be preferred over my ipad, because I think the ipad size makes it awkward for photography. But speaking purely in terms of IQ, the new ipad uses the iPhone 4 sensor, and the iPhone 4S lens. It uses a processor superior to other cameras.
So the ipad is indeed capable of decent pictures. Certainly not comparable to a mirrorless or dSLR, but certainly on the level of a budget p&s.
And for the challenging situations you mention, a budget p&s will be as useless as an ipad/iPhone.

You would be surprised at what I see people attempting to use at race tracks! But they are happy with whatever they get because its only a remembrance that they were there. Because the dotcom internet websites do not require the quality of images that advertising/magazine clients do, again you would be surpised at what is being used compared to the professionals.

[photo_chick]

Originally Posted by havoc315

Neither an iPhone nor iPad would ever be my first choice, except when I want to instantly upload something to the Internet. And my iPhone would still be preferred over my ipad, because I think the ipad size makes it awkward for photography. But speaking purely in terms of IQ, the new ipad uses the iPhone 4 sensor, and the iPhone 4S lens. It uses a processor superior to other cameras.
So the ipad is indeed capable of decent pictures. Certainly not comparable to a mirrorless or dSLR, but certainly on the level of a budget p&s.
And for the challenging situations you mention, a budget p&s will be as useless as an ipad/iPhone.

The 4 does use the same sensor now? I didn't know that. We have a 2 and it's camera is a bit lacking, especially when compared to the iPhone of that generation. So it would seem that the iPad image quality could be greatly dependent upon which gen you have.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by photo_chick

The 4 does use the same sensor now? I didn't know that. We have a 2 and it's camera is a bit lacking, especially when compared to the iPhone of that generation. So it would seem that the iPad image quality could be greatly dependent upon which gen you have.

Yes, that's correct to my understanding. The iPad 2 had a very low quality camera. With the "New iPad" or iPad 3, my understanding is that they used the iphone 4 sensor (which is so-so), and they used the iphone 4s lens (which is quite good). I don't use my ipad for many photographs, but the fews times I have used it, I've been satisfied with the results in good light. In low light, not so much. On cnet and other sites, you can see side by side comparisons.
Apple seems to prefer to put their flagship technology into the newest iphone, and leave the ipad about 1/2 generation behind. I'd bet that the next iPad incorporates the iphone 5 camera.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by cmwade77

That being said, there are things that you can do with a DSLR that you can't do with a P&S, but if all you care about is picture quality and not fancy features, there are plenty if P&S cameras that will work well.

My experience is a bit of the opposite. There are many mid-priced P&S cameras that are all about the bells and whistles. Lots of fancy features, like panorama modes, gps tagging, etc. But for strict image quality, you generally can't beat a dSLR. According to the DXOmark analysis, there are only a handful of P&S cameras that can come close to dSLRs.
It's the simple physics of sensor size -- the tiny sensors in P&S can't produce the same image quality of the larger sensors found in dSLRs.

Now, it depends on how challenging the situation is. Still images, in good light -- there are plenty of mid range P&S cameras that can do quite well. But say, capturing images on Disney's Peter Pan ride? Not many P&S cameras can do that.

[traylorc]

Originally Posted by cmwade77

There are also now even better P&S cameras and plenty of them for the parks, that can rival DSLR quality and are around the $200 mark.

That being said, there are things that you can do with a DSLR that you can't do with a P&S, but if all you care about is picture quality and not fancy features, there are plenty if P&S cameras that will work well.

No disrespect intended...but it has not been my experience that a $200 P&S is going to rival a DSLR in regards to quality. Don't get me wrong, there are some P&S cameras out there they do a great job in perfectly lit situations. But, there are numerous instances where you are not going to have an ideal amount of lighting and that's where the P&S struggle.

It's not so much the "fancy features" that separate a P&S from a DSLR. As Havok mentioned it really comes down the camera's sensor...and most sensors in a$200 P&S are not going to rival a DSLR. In fact, the only P&S that in my opinion really rivals some of dSLRs on the market is the Sony RX100, and that is a $650 camera.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by traylorc

It's not so much the "fancy features" that separate a P&S from a DSLR. As Havok mentioned it really comes down the camera's sensor...and most sensors in a$200 P&S are not going to rival a DSLR. In fact, the only P&S that in my opinion really rivals some of dSLRs on the market is the Sony RX100, and that is a $650 camera.

As a user of the RX100 and of a dSLR, I can agree that the RX100 can rival a dSLR in *some* situations. This is a combination of a decent sensor (better than other P&S cameras, but still inferior to current model dSLRs), and an excellent lens (better than dSLR kit lenses).
Take these factors, and I've gotten some very good low light shots with the RX100, some great landscapes, etc. But even this top of the line, $650 point and shoot, still has some weaknesses compared to a dSLR. (poorer Bokeh, mediocre noise levels, slightly slower focus making a dSLR preferable for action shots).

[traylorc]

Originally Posted by havoc315

As a user of the RX100 and of a dSLR, I can agree that the RX100 can rival a dSLR in *some* situations. This is a combination of a decent sensor (better than other P&S cameras, but still inferior to current model dSLRs), and an excellent lens (better than dSLR kit lenses).
Take these factors, and I've gotten some very good low light shots with the RX100, some great landscapes, etc. But even this top of the line, $650 point and shoot, still has some weaknesses compared to a dSLR. (poorer Bokeh, mediocre noise levels, slightly slower focus making a dSLR preferable for action shots).

I have the RX100 as well....and I would agree with you. The RX100 is not going to cause me to leave my two dSLRs at home on a regular basis. But....it does a pretty job for a p&s.

[havoc315]

Originally Posted by traylorc

I have the RX100 as well....and I would agree with you. The RX100 is not going to cause me to leave my two dSLRs at home on a regular basis. But....it does a pretty job for a p&s.

With the CZ lens, when I'm looking for a razor sharp image of a still subject within its focal range, I actually sometimes prefer the RX100. But that's partially because I don't have top-grade lenses for my dSLR.

And for the mantra "the best camera is the one you have with you" -- I love the RX100, because I carry it everywhere outside of my employment. So there certainly are times it allows me to leave the dSLR at home.

Really, with improvement in sensor quality, the ability to put bigger sensors in smaller bodies, etc... we are seeing the lines in camera classes really start to get blurred. (Have you seen the Sony RX1?) But at least right now, you pay a premium price for the cameras that can blur those lines.

I suspect with the progress of technology -- Within 3-5 years, dSLR-quality-compacts will be available for under $200. And mid-sized mirrorless cameras will fully match the advantages of dSLRs, at very affordable prices. Really bringing the highest quality photography potential to the masses. (emphasis on potential).