It’s true that this example is darker than typical situations, but I think the point still stands. My wife prefers the simplicity of the point-and-shoot and almost every single picture she takes indoors ends up requiring the flash. The same photos taken with the DSLR look a million times better simply because for the same photo, it requires the flash a whole lot less often. And this is true regardless of what resolution you need.
I cant see how it stands when you compare it with one of the actual cameras in question, rather than your own older compact. The review of that camera concluded that 4*6 prints were usable at 1600 and even 3200 ISO.
I didnt even get into the obvious point that your DSLR picture was blurry due to the lack of non IS for a 1.4 lens, even with a stationary object.
The cost of a 1.4 lens with IS is well, unmeasurable given they dont even really exist unless you get a camera with it built in. A 1.4 lens also has no zoom capability. And its not an entry level DSLR camera zoom lens which generally starts at more like 3.5 max aperture, which would have meant you needed more like 3200 ISO for a comparable exposure.
Apples to apples is important when making comparisons.
Otara
Has there ever been a more comprehensive comparison of point&shoot vs. SLR? I think not. Awesome info guys, especially the beer pictures! I’m still a little overwhelmed but I feel it starting to fall into place.
I absolutely prefer the hefty-ness of larger cameras. Pocket cameras get forgotten, left behind and sat on. And half the time it just doesn’t even seem worth it, because the pictures are so… boring. Or at least they have been with the ones I’ve used.
My budget is around $400. I’m only looking at used/refurbished/demos.
I think the easiest way for me to demonstrate what I’m looking for is:
This is what I have, with an 8 year old Olympus C4000.
And this is what I want, she uses a Canon 50D, but without the price tag.
Ok, look, you obviously disagree, but I happen to enjoy the results I can get by using a massive aperture and think the increased flexibility is a big win. Even if conditions sometimes prevent me from opening it up that wide, the fact that I have that option for many circumstances is very useful to me.
You’re right that the point-and-shoot samples I gave are not representative of the quality of images you’re going to get from the P90, but they still illustrate what happens with pretty much any camera when you are forced to use the on-camera flash, which happens more often if you don’t have the luxury of using a fast lens. I personally agree with the sentiment that the built-in flash ruins most pictures by making the lighting harsh and unnatural. But the P90 is definitely going to be a lot less flash-happy than the pocket camera I used, so I concede that it’s a slanted comparison.
This is peanuts actually, camera arguments can run to pages.
The person in question is using a Canon 50D with a 1.4 lens, as well as flash in some situations, although I think its only the camera flash. Firstly what parts of the picture appeal to you most, is it the low noise, the background blur effects, the sharpness of whats in focus, etc?
To me the thing that sticks out most is simply the amount of saturation being used and the picture settings.
They also seem to be using some fairly good judgement about the settings they use, ie they’re not just ‘full auto’ happy snaps, but are using ISO and aperture priority, and possibly doing some processing afterwards to improve the results.
To be blunt that lens alone will be about your budget or more. You could probably get close if you’re willing to get an older Canon DSLR and a much cheaper 1.8 lens, eg a Canon 350D (Rebel) with a Canon 1.8 lens. Realise with many of these pictures the person taking them is very close, and that getting good focus with a 1.8 lens and a 350D/Rebel may be more difficult, particularly when its darker (I used to own this camera).
And/or you could get the 18-55mm IS (NOT the non-IS version) kit lens which is quite cheap but lose some of the low light advantages you can get with a 1.4 lens, but gain the ability to zoom, and have Image Stabilisation.
This will not be much use for sports however, which needs longer lenses, and with the 1.8 you will have no zoom capability at all. Overall Id have to say your budget is probably slightly unrealistic and you’ll either have to consider a superzoom, or increase your budget by at least some amount. You’re trying to compete with someone who has invested a great deal more money in their hobby.
Do you use anything like Photoshop elements with your pictures or had any practise in trying to manipulate your camera settings? I suspect you could get some large improvements in what you’re achieving without having to go DSLR, as most of your pictures are in reasonable light, or taken where flash use isnt too tricky.
Otara
"You’re right that the point-and-shoot samples I gave are not representative of the quality of images you’re going to get from the P90, but they still illustrate what happens with pretty much any camera when you are forced to use the on-camera flash, "
I agree with you about the flash vs non flash use (with on camera anyhow), my point is that with the camera in question you could take a non flash picture as well at the ISO’s used, which would have looked much better than the example you gave, and that the lens in question is not inexpensive, as discussed above and given the budget hoped for.
A 50mm 1.4 lens is very useful for a more experienced user, and as it turns out is what the other person is using. But it has its downsides as well, sports photography being one obvious example, price being another, lack of IS being a third once you get down to those kinds of shutter speeds.
It all depends what your priorities are.
Otara
“To be blunt that lens alone will be about your budget or more.”
That’s a huge part of my initial question. Is it possible to get close to these kinds of images with a point&shoot or even a cheaper SLR like the D3000 (I can get one for $400)? And if it’s not, how close can I get for $400, is it worth it and which camera does it?
The only setting I mess with is the flash, which I turn off as much as possible. I’ve never had much luck messing with photoshops. I know next to nothing about all things camera.
The very cheapest dslrs have similar image quality to the best - they’re just lacking in things like autofocus sophistication, high frame rate, etc. Find a used D40, D40x, or D60 (the precursors to the D3000) and get a Nikkor AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 to go with the 18-55 kit lens, is my advice. The 18-55 (both the new VR version and the old non-VR) takes pretty good pictures, but like all kit lenses doesn’t have a very wide aperture. The 35 provides nearly the same “normal” field of vision that the ubiquitous 50mm lenses on film slrs had, and is pretty fast without breaking the bank. A similar Canon kit could be assembled, but you’d have to either go with the more expensive Sigma 30mm f/1.4 or the longer focal length Canon 50 f/1.8 for your fast lens. 50mm on a dslr makes a nice portrait focal length, though.
For numerous reasons I find point & shoots to be just frustrating. The autofocus is generally poor, and frequently doesn’t work at all in low light. And manual focus, if it’s supported at all, is impossible for lack of a decent viewfinder. Any dslr is miles ahead, with much faster AF, more reliable in low light, and generally pretty easy to manual focus with their optical viewfinders and focus rings on the lenses. Depth of field on the tiny point and shoot sensors is much deeper than on dslrs, robbing you of one of the principle tools of composition (go look at the backgrounds in those beer pictures - note how it’s distracting in the P&S version, and blurred out in the dslr shot). The superzooms like the P90 typically have pretty significant optical…err…compromises (was going to say flaws), like chromatic aberration (purple/red fringing) and linear distortion (everything goes all barrel-shaped). Shutter lag is ridiculous.
Bah. Don’t get me started.
Anyways, I’d also note that to get good results with any camera you need to learn about photography - relying on the automatic “scene modes” on the camera to set things is a recipe for getting mediocre shots. A couple beginning photography books will improve your pictures far more than a better camera will.
You can get more impressive shots with any camera if you know the camera well and whats possible with it. The person using the other one has a better camera but is also using it fairly well (well, sometimes). The reasons Im going through all this I guess is my sister in law bought my old DSLR and was quite disappointed that her pictures werent as good as mine. SOrry if this is being a bit patronising just hate to see you spend too much.
The D3000 wont work with the Nikon 1.8 lens I think, Nikon DSLR’s that cheap are usally only compatible with some Nikon lenses. So you’d probably either need to buy a more expensive lens or camera, or go with the kit lens. Edit: SOrry was going with 35mm, so there is a 35mm F1.8 but its over double the Canon 1.8 50mm from what I can see. 35mm is a better range for APS cameras though.
The cheapest DSLR combination I can see that will get you a 1.8 lens is a Canon Rebel series with a 1.8 lens, as they dont have the same lens motor problem. Alternatively you can go with the 18-55mm IS kit lens which is actually a very nice lens for the price.
Im not a Nikon user, so someone else may have an alternative. Theres also Olympus etc which can get you a very cheap entry DSLR with image stabilisation, and 2 nice lenses for closer and further shots, which could cover your sports and indoors option to some extent.
Otara
I know I’m repeating what others have already said, but this simply isn’t true across the board. This is a shot taken at ISO1600 (highest setting on my Canon 450D) using the standard 18-55mm IS kit lens. While I make no claims as to the merits of the overall photo, graininess certainly isn’t an issue.
Just to amplify this, a good photographer can take amazing photos with any camera. A bad photographer can take crappy shots with the worlds best camera. The most important piece of equipment is between your ears.
Don’t get hung up on equipment. Beyond a certain point you are getting increasingly diminishing returns. IMO, get any relatively current DSLR, the kit lens, and a good 50mm prime and start taking lots of photos. If you want to improve your photography after that, you’ll have a better idea of what you need.
As a Nikon D40 user, I’m pretty acutely aware of which lenses work on Nikon’s entry-level dslrs, and I’m not going to mislead the OP about it. Any lens designated AF-S has full functionality on the D3000 or its precursors. The AF-S DX 35mm f/1.8 is intended to be a “new 50 f/1.8” for crop-format sensors. The nearest Canon equivalent is their 35mm f/2, which is somewhat pricier.
For the record, any Nikon F-mount lens ever made will work on a D3000 - it just won’t autofocus if it’s pre-AF-S or meter if it’s pre-AF. But the old Nikkor you find on ebay for $20 will mount and take pictures.
never mind…
Gorsnak my original post wasnt directed at you at all, I hadnt even read your post at the time of my writing it, so please dont take it as suggesting you were giving incorrect information.
I was talking about 50mm lenses when I wrote that post, and your post appeared while I was still typing it, hence the fast edit to try and and clarify, where unfortunately I said 35mm instead of 50mm at the start of it making things less clear rather than more clear.
When I checked the Nikon 50mm 1.8 wont work on the D3000, but I realised there might be other options hence my request for input from Nikon users.
It is great theres a 35mm 1.8 AF-S , but do think its relevant that its significantly more expensive than the Canon 50mm 1.8, leaving you with a choice, ie 35mm 1.8 for more, or a 50mm 1.8 for less. One is cheaper, the other is a more useful size for APS/DX lenses.
Given the budget stated, I suggested the 50mm.
Edit: Sorry and yes it will ‘work’ but I seriously doubt that original person is after manual focus only lens.
Otara
If I can get much better pictures than this with the same camera I’m already using, I’d like to start there. Any book suggestions or personal tips?
Id suggest joining some of the camera forums, and asking for some advice about how to retake a particular shot, work on one at a time.
Eg DPreview has a beginners section as well as forums for various camera types. They could probably suggest other sites or options as well? There are various tutorial sites around, and you can shoose ones that focus on landscapes, children, pets or whatever.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1002
Some of your work just needs better exposure settings, others its about understanding lighting conditions, or trying different composition. Some of them its about you choosing the focus point as it looks like your camera might be picking the focus points automatically or cant focus close enough in the setting you’re using.
This wont get your compact to be a DSLR, but whatever improvements you do make in basic photography will stand you ii good stead if you do upgrade eventually. I cant be bothered looking up some amazing compact shots but rest assured you can achieve a lot with them. The other thing to remember of course is on the internet you can see anything from complete newbie to professional level work, so be careful when you compare your work to other peoples.
Using some of the basic programs for processing pictures like Picasa can help too and are free, although of course the better the picture you have to start with, the more they can help, they cant save anything too dodgy, especially with strong blur, and you can ruin a good picture by overdoing it with them as well. Many of the options they have are just sliders so you can just play with moving them up and down and seeing what they do.
Otara