Can Consumer/Prosumer digital camera produce result as a DSLR?

Can a consumer/prosumer digital camera produce result as a DSLR?


Results are only viewable after voting.

Status
Not open for further replies.

kevyan

New Member
Jan 5, 2005
550
0
0
42
PR
#1
Hi, was just wondering whether a consumer/ prosumer digital camera can produce quality picture as one taken from a DSLR?

I know some will say it depends on the person who take the picture. But for people who take photography as a hobby, why do they need to buy a DSLR?
 

zcf

Senior Member
Apr 10, 2005
6,741
0
0
270 degree of Singapore
#2
Prosumer like Sony's DSC-R1 can produce image quality similar to DSLR, but it just short of some versability of DSLR, like changing lens for different usage, but it got other advantage.
 

Astin

Senior Member
Mar 2, 2002
4,736
0
36
Astin Studio
astin.clubsnap.org
#3
Some of the distinctive advantage of DSLR over prosumer digicam:
1. faster start-up time
2. faster write speed
3. can shoot RAW file, no JPEG distortion
4. less noise when shooting long exposure or high ISO
 

fWord

Senior Member
Jun 23, 2005
3,350
0
0
35
Melbourne, Australia
#4
Astin said:
4. less noise when shooting long exposure or high ISO
This, to me, is one of the most important advantages of having a DSLR over a consumer or prosumer fixed-lens camera, and it is partly related to DSLRs having a larger sensor.

There are cameras on the market now such as Sony's offering which also features an APS-C sized sensor, but based on the photographic tests, I can't say that I am impressed by its high ISO performance.

But going back to your question, my answer it, as usual, 'Yes and No'.

In general, consumer and prosumer cams seem to apply more heavy image processing to their images, and sometimes these can look oversharp or even blotchy. It's hardly fair to compare the image quality to that of DSLRs (which produce silky smooth images) because of the difference in price, but this is something I have noted when looking at images from both types of cameras.

These days, a superzoom prosumer camera will be suitable for almost all kinds of shots, except perhaps action and low-light photography. An example is the Canon S2 IS, which has an incredible reach with 420mm at the tele end. This is even longer than a 70-200mm zoom on a 1.6X crop DSLR like the 350D.

Put simply, a superzoom can get similar if not better 'reach' than a DSLR, but it probably won't be fast or responsive enough to nab the shot when the moment comes. Photography is sometimes about what the pros term 'the decisive moment'. If your camera lags after you've hit the shutter button, the you might very well miss the shot.

There is certainly no need to get a DSLR or even a prosumer camera if photography is just a small hobby or pastime that's only given minimal attention. This is why I feel that, when a person is thinking about buying a camera, a new lens, or anything for that matter, important questions are:

1. How much money am I able to spend on a new toy?
2. How serious am I going to be? Casual? Serious hobbyist? Professional? Insane?

Just my personal thoughts...the hell with the '2 cents' stuff. :bsmilie:
 

danster

New Member
Oct 12, 2003
608
0
0
#6
Astin said:
Some of the distinctive advantage of DSLR over prosumer digicam:
1. faster start-up time
2. faster write speed
3. can shoot RAW file, no JPEG distortion
4. less noise when shooting long exposure or high ISO
Another impt advantage (to me at least) is control over DOF - it's very hard to achieve shallow DOF on prosumer digicam...
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#7
jeffhiew said:
DSLR= BMW
DC = Mini

Which is better?
Mini.

COE cheaper, less fuel, smaller (no need to give people lift), cheaper maintenance, easier to park.
 

#8
Depends on what you mean by quality - ie DOF, Sharpness, Bokeh, etc. Also depends on whether you can actually compare at all, ie do the prosumer have enough preset settings to cater to the various situations, lens aperture and shutter speed range?

The point is, both have got advantages, and you cannot really compare an apple with an orange. bottom line, like you say, is still the photographer.

As a person interested in photography, I would very much like more control over the functions, than let the camera do the settings. Of course, when I want something portable to carry around in my pocket, I would get a compact.
 

danster

New Member
Oct 12, 2003
608
0
0
#9
espn said:
Mini.

COE cheaper, less fuel, smaller (no need to give people lift), cheaper maintenance, easier to park.
I think now COE of the BMW is cheaper...S$9,000+ only....
 

espn

Deregistered
Dec 20, 2002
21,905
0
0
Planet Nikon
#11
zaren said:
yes, if you know how to work within its capabilities and limitations.

if i showed you two digital photographs side by side, would you be able to tell me with absolute certainty which was taken with a DC and which was taken with a DSLR?

i bet you can't.

that's because there are many other factors that go into making good photographs besides just having great sharpness, bokeh or DOF, or low noise at high iso.
Wah... then I better start buying PnS :bsmilie: It will win a D2X liao.
 

zaren

Moderator
Staff member
Oct 27, 2003
10,960
27
48
#12
espn said:
Wah... then I better start buying PnS :bsmilie: It will win a D2X liao.
important caveat.

it also depends on the photographer. :bsmilie:
 

Jan 23, 2005
1,095
0
0
Singapore
#13
kevyan said:
Hi, was just wondering whether a consumer/ prosumer digital camera can produce quality picture as one taken from a DSLR?
Aren't some DSLR models clearly aimed at the consumer/prosumer market?

And isn't the only defining difference between a DSLR and a D-nonSLR the principle of the viewfinder?

If you have doubts, I'll be glad to show you an autofocus, autoexposure-only true DSLR with noninterchangeable lens and a glorious 1280x1024 pixel resolution from a tiny sensor with lousy dynamic range. It is even from one of the big brands :).
 

Maltese

New Member
Mar 21, 2005
250
0
0
Singapore
#17
A digital camera is a technology product and technical features equals money. Unlike last time when camera makers can only try to manipulate simple features like mirror lock-up, 100% viewfinder, better battery power etc, an expensive digital camera will definitely produce more features to help the person behind.

Putting aside all those technical aspects of what a pro digital camera can offer, what I can say from the point of an old film user is that the features that money can buy will and should help the user if they make wise application out of it.

For eg, the commonest feature and most debatable issue of DSLR - resolution. Paying a 10k camera body with higher megapixel will make your images stand longer into the future. We are now at the age where 4R size photos are siginificantly cheaper than 5R but 10 years back the 3R is the most economical. As time passes, your photographs at 100 MP today printed on a 50R will definitely look sharper and more brilliant as compared to a 2 MP taken today.

Another eg, Higher FOV. A Canon 350D 1.6x vs a Canon 5D 1.0x does not means that 350D is more telephotic, it merely states that the image captured is smaller, losing details which may make a difference in photo composition. Of course you can agrue that you can take in RAW format and then edit later. And again that is a feature that money can buy on a better camera in the early days of DSLR.

Back in film camera time, if you use a viewfinder with only 70% i.e a cheaper camera body, you will be actually getting a lot of unnecessary subjects captured into a photograph while a pro camera with a 100% viewfinder will get WYSIWYG results especially if you use slides a lot.

Hence my POV would be unless you are from our time where you use manual film camera alot and have vast experience and knowledge in light, composition and the necessary photographic basics, investing more money on a better feature DSLR body is much more worth as compared to our time when we spend 5-6 times more on a pro body only to be marginally better. For eg. EOS 50 and 1V. The difference is very subjective and generally 7you will see more people investing on a 50 instead of spending 5 - 7 times more on a 1V.
 

S11loop

Senior Member
Feb 11, 2005
3,530
3
0
Pasir Ris
#18
espn said:
Mini.

COE cheaper, less fuel, smaller (no need to give people lift), cheaper maintenance, easier to park.
Drive mini not that stress .. drive a bigger cc people ask u give lift and all sort of nonsense come in . People usually will be expecting impressive result if u are holding on to a "bigger" camera ;p
 

Wai

Senior Member
Jan 17, 2002
5,270
0
36
39
South Pole with Penguin
singastro.org
#19
espn said:
Mini.

COE cheaper, less fuel, smaller (no need to give people lift), cheaper maintenance, easier to park.
not really, it is even more expensive if u buy the mini, then sell it away after a year to buy BMW :bsmilie: :bsmilie:
 

Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom