I'd love to play with a DSLR, but I just can't justify it... I know how to set the manual settings, but for the cost of the cheapest one here, I could get a Sony DSC-WX1 that does great night shots, automatic panoramas, and most importantly, it's small enough I could have it on me when I need to take a picture.
I'm not coming out against DSLR or anything, but for my uses... they're just so huge I'd never have it with me, and the price is so high I couldn't buy one for non-professional use.
@fuchikoma: Heh, I've noticed that too about cameras. I can never be arsed to bring it with me. (I have a Panasonic-something-or-the-other better than your average compact camera but not as good as a DSLR making it pretty big, but not too big)
@fuchikoma: most of us DSLR users have a P&S to go along. I take both on vacations, and the PS still gets plenty of use. But when you start looking at pictures from your trip when you get home, the DSLR advantages are quite clear and makes me wonder why I didnt lug the better camera around that day.
But yes, the new Sony WX1 is quite amazing in low light and panoramics... havent seen 100% crops side by side tho, I just toyed with one at a friends house.
@irfan: That would be ideal... but I'm not a photographer, so I'm afraid I can only drop $400 on a camera every 5 years or so.
To me, I'd get a DSLR for more artistic effects like depth of field, very long exposures, bokeh, or HDR, but a while back a friend and I were comparing our cameras - he had some kind of 7MP Olympus DSLR and I had a 7MP Sony DSC-P150. In extreme darkness you could see the sensor noise on my camera, and he could just set a very long exposure, so that was a clear win for him if we were printing hi-res posters or competing in a photo competition.
But ultimately, while he's very happy with it because he does make use of all the features, when we compare ordinary shots, his camera's pics look 3-5% better, but his camera cost about 220% as much before lenses. I'd love to have all the manual features he does, but I just can't pay that when I take about 50 shots a year and keep about half that many...
@fuchikoma: plain and simple, if youre only taking 50 shots a year then a DSLR makes no sense... neither does a $400 point and shoot. Id just get a year old model of a Canon PowerShot SDXXX for maybe $200 and call it a day.
@Theimbellis: Probably because a good part of what this site is, is design concepts and rumors. Maybe you should seek out another site if it bugs you so much.
@Theimbellis: It's not that we chase after the rumors, Theimbellis, it's just that they plop themselves down in front of us so conveniently.
Take, for instance, that rumor currently circulating involving you, the plumber and the donkey. Now, I didn't go looking for it, didn't really even want to know about it--I mean, fergawdzsake, with the pipe wrench?--but there it is, not to be ignored.
I think that the higher ISO on the Nikon looks better and will be more manageable in PP. Lack of noise means nothing if you lose all your detail with it.
Also you will see loss of detail on the Canon on those shots of the cats. Look in the lower left hand corner.
In the end I agree with you overall assessment, although for photos I would prefer the Nikon and the Canon for video.
...and at 3200 they are both noisier still. But the Canon is less noisy in this case.
The Canon is less noisy because of the MASSIVE amount of detail-obliterating noise reduction it has applied. Just look at how soft and seemingly out-of-focus the door edges are in the Canon shot compared to the Nikon shot. I strongly disagree with your call on this one factor, Wilson.
@bosskev: With the slightly higher resolution, it can afford it. If you look at the image itself, it looks more "zoomed in". Scale them together, and you'll get the same detail but the noise will be reduced on the Canon.
@ripfire: I know what you are talking about and respect your thoughts, but I am FAR from convinced that the small difference in apparent scale accounts for this HUGE difference in contrast and sharpness.
I feel like there's a problem with your ISO comparison. Shouldn't the two images be scaled the same? I mean, if you're looking at the Canon image it's like zooming into the image and saying "Oh there, I see the noise". I say this because when it comes to crop/resize/print, those tiny dots will be reduced more so than the other.
Is it me or does the Nikon images seem to have less noise at 3200? Im not hugely knowledgeable in photography but from what I'm seeing the Nikon is a ton sharper than the Canon...
@soopafly: Both were 1/8 at 800, 1/20 at 1600 and 1/40 at 3200, with f3.2 and white balance set at "incandescent". Not works of art, these test shots, but they were consistent across the two cameras.
11/26/09
I'm not coming out against DSLR or anything, but for my uses... they're just so huge I'd never have it with me, and the price is so high I couldn't buy one for non-professional use.
11/26/09
11/26/09
11/26/09
But yes, the new Sony WX1 is quite amazing in low light and panoramics... havent seen 100% crops side by side tho, I just toyed with one at a friends house.
11/26/09
To me, I'd get a DSLR for more artistic effects like depth of field, very long exposures, bokeh, or HDR, but a while back a friend and I were comparing our cameras - he had some kind of 7MP Olympus DSLR and I had a 7MP Sony DSC-P150. In extreme darkness you could see the sensor noise on my camera, and he could just set a very long exposure, so that was a clear win for him if we were printing hi-res posters or competing in a photo competition.
But ultimately, while he's very happy with it because he does make use of all the features, when we compare ordinary shots, his camera's pics look 3-5% better, but his camera cost about 220% as much before lenses. I'd love to have all the manual features he does, but I just can't pay that when I take about 50 shots a year and keep about half that many...
11/28/09
11/26/09
11/26/09
11/26/09
11/26/09
But the best entry-level DSLR is a used one Craigslist, because you can get a body and lens for under $300.
Of course, if someone wants to buy me a T1i to replace my XT, I won't complain.
05/03/09
05/03/09
05/03/09
Take, for instance, that rumor currently circulating involving you, the plumber and the donkey. Now, I didn't go looking for it, didn't really even want to know about it--I mean, fergawdzsake, with the pipe wrench?--but there it is, not to be ignored.
04/30/09
Kidding aside,
I think that the higher ISO on the Nikon looks better and will be more manageable in PP. Lack of noise means nothing if you lose all your detail with it.
Also you will see loss of detail on the Canon on those shots of the cats. Look in the lower left hand corner.
In the end I agree with you overall assessment, although for photos I would prefer the Nikon and the Canon for video.
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
Mehbeh I'm wrong, please explain.
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
Mind you, where I live, full frame rate is a leisurely 25 fps. Or 50 fields, if we're going to get picky about it.
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
04/30/09
I guess the review is thorough, too. But back to the granite, what sealer do you use?
04/30/09
04/29/09