Currently I am using a Pentax s5i for my digital photography. From nature to family events, this camera performs alright. The pictures aren't as clear as a picture taken with a DSLR camera. I was wondering whether I should upgrade to DSLR or should I get a new point and shoot camera? Also, are there any point and shoot cameras that take clear pictures like a DSLR would?


Thanks,
Mason

[peeb]

A lot of higher end point and shoots will take decently clear pictures, what you are buying with a DSLR is control over all the factors that go into a great photograph, not really lense quality (usually you buy the lenses separately anyway).

Which point and shoot cameras would you recommend?

[richwig83]

Id recommend the canon ixus 65 or whatever the powershot name is for that model!!!!

I think thats probably the best camera without going for a DSLR

Thanks for your help. I will do some research and see what I like.

[mfbernstein]

The big advantage of the DSLR is features and sensor size, which mean you _can_ get better pictures.

The big disadvantage of the DSLR is features and overall size, which means it can some getting used to, and you may not always take it with you.

For a good general all-round point-and-shoot, the Canon Powershot A630 is one of my favorites. For low-light, you can't beat the Fuji F31 though. It's really best to try them out in a store though and compare: ergonomics are almost as important as image quality, in their own way.

I've heard the A630 doesn't do red-eye correction very well and it's too bulky for me to carry around. I appreciate your inputs, please feel free to mention some cameras that you recommend.

[OreoCookie]

If you think in terms of `this point-n-click is too bulky', then a dslr is probably not the right thing for you. The advantage of a dslr is not necessarily image quality, but the way you take pictures. It's more demanding and often more rewarding IMHO.

Thanks for that little tip. Which point and shoot camera would you recommend for taking really good pics?

[OreoCookie]

It depends on what you mean by `really good pics' … 
Usually pictures of `larger cameras' are better since the sensor is larger. However, if you want a `less bulky' camera, portability is more important since you don't miss `the moment' which still is the ultimate ingredient in a camera. Personally, I don't mind (or rather: I prefer) lugging around a big camera. From this perspective, it's not really important whether camera A has 10 % more noise than camera B -- if you prefer camera A for other reasons (portability, user interface), you should get camera A.

Hence, you should find out what size you prefer first and then we can give you specific advice on the model.

[peeb]

Yep - once you get into high level cameras, the difference in quality of photographs will have less to do with the camera quality, and more to do with how you use it. As Oreo says, the best DSLR in the world is not as good as a cheap point and shoot if you fail to bring it into play in time and miss the shot!

Thank you for explaining the difference between the two. I've decided that I'll be fine using my Pentax digital.

[mkerr64]

if you are willing to pay go with it because there is a significant difference

[riley46]

How about film camera? Can they still compare with today's DSLR? I am a newbie and I have recently purchased a slightly used Rebel T2 which I discovered take great pictures in my own opinion. I only have consumed two rolls of 36 shots film yet and all were in full automatic mode. I planned to tinker on the creative zone on my third roll.

[tavin64]

My wife and I have a canon Powershot S45, an IS450 Elph, and a Rebel XT DSLR. We basically use the 3 cameras for different things. For normal on the go shotting we carry the IS450 because of its size. If we have to do some special closeup shots we use the S45 as it comes with a wide angle lens and it has better quality than the elph in macro mode plus it can also take pictures in RAW mode if need be. Now if we go on vacation and just look to take the best pictures possible or we need to take some fast action shots we need the SLR. For fast paced shots nothing beats an SLR as it has no shutter lag which point and shoots suffer from. Right now we are deciding on getting a good macro lens to replace the S45. Honestly if you want a camera that can do it all no matter the conditions you should invest in an SLR. A very nice beginner DSLR is the Nikon D40. You can also get the original Rebel XT for around $600 at amazon with an 80mm lens. Honestly nothing beats the versatility of DSLR for the reason that you can extend its functionality by getting different lenses. A DSLR including a beginner one will last you a lot longer than another point and shoot.

If you are looking for some good lenses at somewhat affordable prices Sigma has some nice EF-S lenses for Canon DSLRs. I would recommend checking out some digital camera sites like:
Digital Camera Reviews and News: Digital Photography Review: Forums, Glossary, FAQ
Digital Camera Reviews at the Digital Camera Resource Page
Digital cameras, digital camera reviews, photography views and news - DCVIEWS

They have a ton of information about every single digital camera out there as well as lenses.

[mfbernstein]

Originally Posted by riley46 

How about film camera? Can they still compare with today's DSLR? I am a newbie and I have recently purchased a slightly used Rebel T2 which I discovered take great pictures in my own opinion. I only have consumed two rolls of 36 shots film yet and all were in full automatic mode. I planned to tinker on the creative zone on my third roll.

The difference between film SLR and DSLR is ultimately flexibility, not quality. Indeed, film SLRs can still often do things that DSLRs can't, particularly in the area of B&W and very long-exposures.

On the other hand, being able to take lots of shots, delete the ones you don't like right off the bat, and digitally post-process them, simply changes the way you take pictures. For experimentation and casual use, a DSLR really can't be beat. Out-of-the-box results are also, at this point, usually far better than what utomated film-developing machines can produce.

(All that said, I'll never give up my Nikon FM2 - 5 years on, it's still on its first battery!).

[ph0ust]

point and shoots are great for convenience. nothing else. their image quality and function can not be fairly compared to a slr. not trying to say that p&s are not worth having... they are. convenience is important since if you don't have a camera you can't get the picture. that said, if you are seeking to change your photography from snapshots to compositions then you are best served by getting a slr.

p&s features can not be fairly compared to slr: shutter lag, sensor construction, control, autofocus, image processing, output options, flash, lens options, lens quality, build quality, handling, and the list can go on and on and on.

that said, if you know what you want to do with your photos you should have a clear cut decision- get a new p&s if your is outdated. if you want to really change your photography though, you are best served with a slr.

and before anyone says it is the photographer not the camera... i agree. but you don't see the worlds best photographers (or even the world's mediocre photographers) using p&s for their work other than the occasional shot of opportunity or project to see what they can do. there is a reason for that.

[Veltliner]

As a passionate photographer I have a DSLR.

But you don't need one to make great photos. The technical quality of certain point-and-shoots is amazing.

Visit the great site kenrockwell.com for all kind of hands-on photography information.

Especially - for you - the following article about how great a quality you can get out of point-and-shoots.

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

Ken Rockwell shows, that a knowledgeable photographer gets a technically better photo out of a 150$ point-and-shoot than a unexperienced photographer (using just the exposure automatic) out of a 5000$ Canon.

But still: and experienced photographer will be able to do much more with a DSLR. And it is much more fun.

Advantages of a DSLR: bigger sensors, can shoot in higher sensitivities with little or no noise, because of bigger sensors depth of field can be creatively used, colors are better, and you have an prims viewfinder and do not have to rely on the LCD for shooting (this alone is a great thing).

[tavin64]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

As a passionate photographer I have a DSLR.

But you don't need one to make great photos. The technical quality of certain point-and-shoots is amazing.

Visit the great site kenrockwell.com for all kind of hands-on photography information.

Especially - for you - the following article about how great a quality you can get out of point-and-shoots.

Your Camera Does Not Matter

Ken Rockwell shows, that a knowledgeable photographer gets a technically better photo out of a 150$ point-and-shoot than a unexperienced photographer (using just the exposure automatic) out of a 5000$ Canon.

But still: and experienced photographer will be able to do much more with a DSLR. And it is much more fun.

Advantages of a DSLR: bigger sensors, can shoot in higher sensitivities with little or no noise, because of bigger sensors depth of field can be creatively used, colors are better, and you have an prims viewfinder and do not have to rely on the LCD for shooting (this alone is a great thing).

I find it funny how he compared 2 shots of a still tree in broad daylight. Of course they are going to look similar given the lighting conditions and the fact that there is absolutely no action going on. While this is fine if you are going to be shooting pictures of trees all day, i highly doubt this is what the OP wants the camera for. Now lets put the 2 cameras together using a real world comparison which contains moving objects, conditions that dont contain the most perfect lighting, and the option of not using a flash in low light. I can guarantee you the picture output of the point and shoot will pale horribly in comparison to the DSLR. The truth of the matter is even the cheapest DSLR you can buy will always take better pictures compared to a point and shoot. Since you are looking at top of the line point and shoots I am guessing you are looking to spend in the $500 range. That price point will get you a Rebel XT or a Nikon D40 which even though are considered entry level DSLRs, they will take better pictures and last you so much longer than another point and shoot. Plus there are some very good beginner books out there on DSLRs that will help you start off in exploring the many functions you can do with them.

[Veltliner]

Even in pictures of trees a DSLR will beat a point-and-shoot through sheer sensor size/lower noise and its surely superior image converter.

A bigger sensor will always deliver better images, especially in low light. Regarding moving targets the advantage is not that great. Those small sensors have such a large depth of field you don't need a fast autofocus - except at the long end of the lens. A sports photographer with a point-and-shoot would be lost. (But the original question comes from somebody who wants to take photos, and you can get very good pictures out of point-and-shoots).

Also: except the Leica d-lux 3 = Panasonic lx-2 there is no point-and-shoot that can shoot RAW (uncompressed photo). RAW gives you the best possible image quality, not dependent of the usually limited in-camera image processing and compression in JPEG.

The point Mr. Rockwell is making ( and I think it is a good point) is: a good photographer with a cheap point-and-shoot will beat any inexperienced photographer with a 5000$ camera.

The point is well made by Mr. Rockwell, as in photography there is a lot of equipment bragging going on, and it takes many a person's mind off the essentials, and makes them spend much more than necessary. And often not even learning the basics of photography.

DSLR's to watch are the PENTAX K10 (best semi-pro camera deal at this time) for about 900, the Pentax k100D for about 550$(excellent and solid build, best color performance - beats even the Nikon D80), the Nikon D40 for about the same, and the Canon Rebels (which I don't like with their poor ergonomics and cheap plastic feel. They also haven't been updated seriously in a while).

The Nikon D40x is the same camera as the D40, except with 10 instead of 6 megapixels. If you want to print larger than 8x10, it could be interesting.

There is another good page at kenrockwell.com about the megapixel myth, which deals with the (mostly unnecessary) megapixel race of the camera manufacturers and their marketing departments.

The Megapixel Myth

Consider: Ken Rockwell is a big Nikon fan, and also likes Canon, but doesn't even mention the new Pentax DSLRs, which will bring Pentax a lot of success.

Then consider, that APX sized sensors (Nikon, Pentax, Canon, Sony) are bigger than the four thirds system of Olympus, Panasonic, and Leica.

Consider also different viewfinder types. Four thirds DSLRs usually have narrow and not so bright viewfinders.

Bottom line: never buy a DSLR (or any camera) without having held it in your hand. (The Nikon D40 proved too small for my hand and ergonomically awkward, but still better than Canon).

[Veltliner]

Another hint: for sheer image quality you can buy the cheapest DSLRs, and you'll be fine. More money will get you more hard buttons, more functionality (but the so-called entry-level DSLRs can do it all), more megapixels, and a better lightmeter and an even faster autofocus. The D2x or D2xs and the Mark III will be a true step up in image quality, but they cost eight to ten times as much.

Only in the realm of high-end professional cameras there will be a true

It is incredible, how much camera and how much quality you get for 550$. No need to overspend.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by mfbernstein 

The difference between film SLR and DSLR is ultimately flexibility, not quality. Indeed, film SLRs can still often do things that DSLRs can't, particularly in the area of B&W and very long-exposures.
.

Yes. You can beat the most expensive DSLR with a used film SLR - if you use professional quality slide film and know how to deal with it.

The tonal range and contrast range of slide film is far beyond what any DSLR could do at this time. Also: a 35mm slide has much more information than a 10 megabyte DSLR shot.

I will definitely not give up film completely, but use it where it works best.

DSLRs have one great advantage: you can shoot as many pictures you like without worrying about enough film, and shoot until you reach what you imagined and aimed for. You see it right away. This is so much fun. And creative freedom.

[tavin64]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

Also: except the Leica d-lux 3 = Panasonic lx-2 there is no point-and-shoot that can shoot RAW (uncompressed photo). RAW gives you the best possible image quality, not dependent of the usually limited in-camera image processing and compression in JPEG.

The Canon Powershot S series point and shoots can also do RAW. I have a 4 megapixel S45 that can shoot RAW. The latest S series from Canon I think is the S80.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Veltliner 

The tonal range and contrast range of slide film is far beyond what any DSLR could do at this time. Also: a 35mm slide has much more information than a 10 megabyte DSLR shot.

In 99 % of the cases, that's just a theoretical argument. Regular photo prints (with 200 or 300 dpi) use about 2-3 MP of information, not more. Even if you use a high-end scanner (for film, of course), it'll take a lot of time and you can only achieve high quality if all the components are up to it. It's the same phenomenon you see with cheap point 'n' click: most people don't realize that in most cases, the optics can't resolve 8 or 10 MP properly.

So you would need to compare a high-end film slr to a high-end dslr, and even in that case, it's not clear that the film slr wins in all departments, take a look here, here or here for instance. It seems that high-end dslrs can and do outperform many slrs (I'm surprised that a zoom outperforms a fixed-focal length lens even).

[tavin64]

I read a couple of reviews about the Pentax K100D and it looks like a great camera for the price. I preferred the pictures it took over the Nikon D40 but not over the Rebel XT. I prefer the warmer colors of the Canon. But from i have read the lens that come with the Pentax are very subpar at best so that has a lot to do with it as well. But for a price of $500 or $399 for the model without anti-shake, the K100D or K110D is a great bargain.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by tavin64 

I read a couple of reviews about the Pentax K100D and it looks like a great camera for the price. I preferred the pictures it took over the Nikon D40 but not over the Rebel XT. I prefer the warmer colors of the Canon. But from i have read the lens that come with the Pentax are very subpar at best so that has a lot to do with it as well. But for a price of $500 or $399 for the model without anti-shake, the K100D or K110D is a great bargain.

If you read dpreview's review of the Canon kit lenses (those, who come with the rebels), they are considered the worst kit lenses on the market, and everbody recommends to buy the (much more expensive) better zooms.

The Pentax kit lens is actually reviewed better than the Nikon kit lens, except some darkening of the corners. It is very sharp. I don't know where you read the review about the bad pentax kit lens, but I'd recommend dcresource and dpreview, also image-resouce. There are many reviews on the web, and not all are good.

Don't forget, that Canon and Nikon have a much bigger marketing apparatus. They are everywhere. Pentax is a smaller company. You don't need a gigantic corporation to build a good dslr, but for the big advertisement attack. This said, I generally like Nikon.

But I preferred the image of the Pentax over the Nikon D40, and, as I mentioned, in one review (where they really went into detail) the K100D came out almost on par with the d80 in image quality.

If you like warmer colors you can produce them with any camera. It's a matter of the white balance setting. But how dark green branches play in front of a brighter background (eg: a wall or a house, how the needles are displayed), the way how objects appear I saw a lot of differences. One of those test shots I found on the internet could nail it down, why the D40 wasn't for me. The D40 just showed the details almost surgically clean, and with less athmospheric undertones. This is my personal taste, it's a great camera. Only: like in digital video, where I prefer Panasonic over Sony over Canon, every company choses a certain characteristic for the images its gear produces.

I still think Pentax (after the rather awful -ist cameras) is still underestimated.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In 99 % of the cases, that's just a theoretical argument. Regular photo prints (with 200 or 300 dpi) use about 2-3 MP of information, not more. Even if you use a high-end scanner (for film, of course), it'll take a lot of time and you can only achieve high quality if all the components are up to it. .

Great web adresses!

Yes, zooms have gotten so much better over time that you don't need to mess with a bunch of fix focus lenses any longer like a clown with oranges.

Even those kit lenses - and I am speaking of the Nikon and the Pentax kit lenses (don't know the Olympus) - are very, very good, even though they are cheap. Only the Canon kit lens has repeatedly been marked as bad and not useable for serious photography (source: dpreview, who are usually big Canon fans).

Regarding the slide colors: I don't print slides, I project them.

I am amazed what colors and athmosphe a DSLR can produce today. I guess the real limitation lies in our displays, who cannot shot the full resolution of 3000 x 2000 of a 6MP photo.

The newest generation of DSLRs definitely goes beyond print film. I wouldn't even think of buying one more roll of print film. Slide film is different. It just has so many stops as a tonal range. With a DSLR you still have to worry about your high lights burning out. But you can fix a lot in PhotoShop.

[Veltliner]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

So you would need to compare a high-end film slr to a high-end dslr, and even in that case, it's not clear that the film slr wins in all departments, take a look here, here or here for instance. It seems that high-end dslrs can and do outperform many slrs (I'm surprised that a zoom outperforms a fixed-focal length lens even).

I just looked at a few of your examples.

In matters of sharpness and detail accuracy: no question - digital has surpassed film.

I was more referring to color, athmosphere, contrast range (slide film has many more steps of brightness within a single photo that is not black or blown in the highlights).

amount of data: A 4x5 inch slide contains 500mb of information. I don't know the numbers for 6x6, 4.5 x6 or 35mm, but even 35mm has more than 12 megapixels.

I think the most limiting thing in digital photography is the contrast range. Photos with very contrasty content has to be reworked in PhotoShop to get everything in balance.

[tavin64]

I have reading up on lenses for my Rebel XT and now I am getting ready to purchase this Tamron lens:

AF18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF); Tamron USA, Inc.
Amazon: Amazon.com: Tamron Autofocus 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR Di II Macro Lens for Canon Digital SLR Cameras: Electronics

From what ive read its one of the best all around lenses for the price.

[cgc]

I think there are several factors DSLR has over a P&S camera. Although others have disputed it, the lenses available for a DSLR are typically much better (sharper, faster, better color, wider focal length, more powerful flashes, faster startup, faster shot burst speed, etc.) than a comparable P&S. Also, the flexibility of a DSLR is a huge bonus as is the larger sensor. Of course there are drawbacks to a DSLR such as size, weight, cost, and dust due to lens changes but if you want better quality a DSLR is the way to go so long as you understand and are willing to accept the cons.