Explain to me the advantages of a DSLR to a P/S

[2angelsinheaven]

Latley I've become really interested in photography and although my camera is decent and I get pretty good results for a P/S I'd like someone to explain the advantages of a DSLR to me. I think I get the jist of it but any help I can get before spending $$$ would be wonderful. THANKS!

 

[allyn]

in general, a dslr is faster, more controllable, has better (more realistic) image quality especially in low light (less grainy), and has replaceable lenses to allow for all sorts of creative control.

 

[mabas9395]

To get the most out of a P&S, all you have to do is Point and Shoot.

To get the most out of a dSLR, you have to learn about how shutter speed, aperture, & ISO all work together to produce a picture (and which combination of those 3 will give the results you want). Then you should learn about depth of field and color temperture. And those are just the general photography concepts. They you will need to crack open the manual and learn about all the many new buttons and switches and dials a dSLR has that your old P&S didn't. And while it is not required, it can be very helpful to have a rich uncle or a winning lottery ticket for all of the "extras" that boards like this (and others) have a way of convincing you that you need (like an external flash, tripod, monopod, bags, cards, filters, etc) and of course all of the specialty lenses (wide angle, zoom, macro, portriat, etc, etc).

Bottom line (IMO), a P&S is for people who like taking pictures, a dSLR is for people who like the "process" of taking pictures and want more control over that process.

 

[0bli0]

the points raised by previous posters are very appropriate. there are other factors as well.

the biggest factor over most of the P&S compared to DSLR is the size of the sensor. most P&S have very small sensors compared to a traditional 35mm negative so it affects things like depth of field and sharpness (due to the anti-alias filter's relative size compared to the sensor). lens materials on a typical P&S are not usually the same quality as even a low-end slr lens, so things that suffer are colour (saturation and representation) and contrast. additionally, P&S tend to only support lossy files. to help compensate for sharpness, saturation, and contrast, most P&S institute 'processing' to make the images look 'better' out of the camera. but the images often have a characteristic look to them.

another problem is the ratio of the sensor. the resulting images are usually around 3x4, which works perfectly for computers but it's not very good for printing. when people have images printed they are cropped (usually without any manual intervention) so often subjects have parts of heads chopped off or other important things missing.

P&S typically have shutter lag due to both focussing and CCD charge-up. dslrs often give you much better control over focus type/modes (and it's often much faster AF). dslrs are a much better choice for sports.

some advantages of a P&S are around their size. they are easy to fit in a pocket and take with you wherever you go. also people tend to notice them less so it's often easier to take candids. i suppose there are also potentially lower theft concerns.

in addition to a dslr, i also have a digital rangefinder (and film ones) which give me a good combination of high quality lenses, large sensor, a relatively small size, 2x3 ratio, mechanical shutter, and pretty inconspicous (for great street photography & candids). the downside is it's pretty much completely manual - focus, aperture (it will do auto-exposure, but it's much better to manually set the shutter speed). but it's not a camera i'd recommend to anyone who isn't used to using a rangefinder.

have you gone to look at any of the dslrs yet? do you have a budget? what things do you like to shoot? the reason i ask is i have known several people who have ponied up for a dslr but then find they're big and somewhat troublesome to carry around. to be fair, i know far more people who are completely happy with their purchases.

 

[jann1033]

only thing i can think of to add to all of the above is you can use a dslr like a point and shoot due to the auto settings but you'd never be able to use a point and shoot like a dslr( even with the manual type settings) due to the limitations you have with the fixed lens. the p& s have come a long way due to the large zooms etc but you still can't change the lens so you are limited by what the manufacturer put on there. most times this may not matter if you are shooting in normal light and want a"normal" photo ,( ie the great examples posted here with p&s cameras) it's the "abnormal" conditions( like mentioned low light, dof etc) where i think you really need a dslr and the lens that allows you to get that particular shot.... which is why you end up buying more than one ( ok many more than one) lens with a dslr. i think eventually (unless you want to just take snapshot types photos which is fine if that's what your interest is) you'd want the control you can get only with a dslr cause you won't be able to get all the shots you see in your head

 

[boBQuincy]

The first advantage of course, is the size and weight, so you get a better workout and build more muscles.


Larger sensor - for less noise and greater control over depth of field

Manual zoom lenses - for precise zoom control

Minimal shutter delay - as little as 50 mS from pressing the button to taking the photo

Interchangeable lenses - one size does not fit all, allows choosing the best lens for the subject

Viewing through the lens - for precisely lining up the subject & background

RAW - up to 4096 times as much information in the image, greater color depth, greater image control

External flash capability - more range, bounce flash


You don't *have to* learn all about ISO, aperture and shutter speed to use the SLR but to get the greatest benefit it is well worthwhile (as it is on a P&S also).
I like P&S (have 2 of them) but to me, the P&S are like an electronic thingy that takes pictures, the dSLR is more like a camera that doesn't use film.

 

[ukcatfan]

I think everyone covered most of the reasons. I will tell you which ones are the reasons I upgraded.

1. Ability to have cleaner high ISO/low light shots
2. Much more control over the DOF
3. Faster and more accurate auto focusing
4. The standard DSLR lenses are wider than a p&s with the option to buy ones even wider.

Using the manual modes on my p&s cameras helped me learn a lot and made me start wanting more.

Kevin

 

[alan]

Another thing to be aware of is that to get the best out of a dSLR you will porbably need to buy additional lenses. And to get results as good as a good P&S (eg the Canon Powershot Pro1 or an Olympus C8080) you may need to buy very expensive lenses...

I'm currently trying to justify £700 to my wife for a lens for my Canon 350D; it will mean that the pictures will be as bright and sharp as those from my Pro1, but I shall have less of a zoom range than the Pro1 had.

On the other hand, the Pro1 in low light conditions isabout as useful as an average boat anchor...

regards,
/alan

 

[Groucho]

The sensor size is the big, immediate difference - if you do the math, the usual DSLR sensor is just under ten times the area of the usual PnS sensor. That's like the difference between a two megapixel camera and somewhere around a 19 megapixel one. The vastly larger sensor means sharper photos and the ability to go to higher ISOs without the horrendous noise problems that plague nearly all PnS cameras (with 5+ megapixels) to some level.

Lenses are the other big advantage - not only superior quality than nearly any PnS camera, but that you can choose. You can put on a fisheye lens, or a 500mm telephoto, or a superfast (fast = can take very low-light photos) 50mm, or any flavor of zoom.

One of the most important things to me, though, is actual, physical rings to adjust focus and zoom, if you're using a zoom lens. Pressing little buttons to zoom in and out just doesn't feel right to me.