[Mayavi]

Originally Posted by Samurai

No offense, but you have it reverse. Equipment/technology can only take you some distance, after that it is up to the individual's talent. Even if you have the finest camera money can buy, a better composer can out do you with a P&S.

We are talking about two different things here. I am not talking about user skills or great equipment as two independent things that produce great pictures. You need a combination of the two. No matter how good a photographer is, he cannot produce great images with cheap equipment. Imagine Schumacher in a Ferrari and in a Kia Rio doing laps around F1 track. Would the results be the same?

Similarly, great piece of equipment in the hands of ordinary photographer cannot produce great pictures. You still need to understand lighting, composition, timing etc. Again Imagine Schumacher in a Ferrari chasing you driving the same Ferrari around an F1 track. Would the results be the same?

All said and done, a P&S is more forgiving than a D/SLR camera and allows you to take decent pictures even if you do not know much about photography. Their DOF is so much more than SLR due to their sensor size, that even if you focus on wrong things, you still get acceptable focus on your subject. In some instances a layman can take better pictures with P&S than an SLR. Hence my comment that pictures with camera phone are as good as DSLR.

Here is one I took with 350D@ 300 mm in macro mode. Not great but my first attempt at macro.

[Samurai]

Well, I pulled out my old Sony P&S camera (released in 2002) today to shoot some quick macro shots in the garden. All these are handheld, under not so ideal conditions.









The above ones are not so great, so let me show you some superb macros done by a young lady (with her permission) using her Olympus P&S.







More stuff by her.

Still think point and shoot cameras can't hack it?

[kpzen]

Samurai san.!! Why do u need a DSLR when u can click such photos with P&S..?

[HellwratH]

Awesome pics there Samurai! I loved the last one in your series. I clicked a few yesterday, will try n upload them as soon as possible. []

And ye, Lakshmi's pics are outta this world. She knows her stuff! []

[Mayavi]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Still think point and shoot cameras can't hack it?

Great pictures!

Here are properties of one of her images

Exposure: 0.003 sec (1/400) Aperture: f/5 Focal Length: 6.3 mm ISO Speed: 50

Now, go back and read my post again. You are actually proving my point.

The minimum ISO on my DSLR is 100.
The minimum focal length on my kit lens 18mm.
I have some good pictures with P&S too, better than DSLR pics.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Mayavi

Now, go back and read my post again. You are actually proving my point.

The minimum ISO on my DSLR is 100.
The minimum focal length on my kit lens 18mm.

Not sure how I am proving your point. How is this exif data proving your point?

[tsk1979]

Unless you are shooting in adverse conditions for example
1. Extremely narrow DOF potraits
2.. High ISO handheld
3. Long exposure night shots
A P&S can and will take pictures as good as a DSLR. A DSLR enables you go beyond the limits imposed by small sensor and long DOF. In normal daylight etc., a P&S is as good as a DSLR.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

A P&S can and will take pictures as good as a DSLR. A DSLR enables you go beyond the limits imposed by small sensor and long DOF. In normal daylight etc., a P&S is as good as a DSLR.

I am sure you have seen the full crop of an image out of a DLSR and a P&S.... there's hell lot of difference in my opinion. May be I care a lot even for the minor details but a P&S is NO match for DSLR whatever the shooting conditions.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

I am sure you have seen the full crop of an image out of a DLSR and a P&S.... there's hell lot of difference in my opinion. May be I care a lot even for the minor details but a P&S is NO match for DSLR whatever the shooting conditions.

Same photographer may produce better photograph with a dSLR than P&S, but not always.

There are P&S cameras that can produce 8-10MP images and support raw mode too. Then what difference can you spot between the full crop images?

The advantage of dSLR over P&S is the sensor size and the ability to switch lenses. If the type of photography you do doesn't benefit from this difference, then all bets are off.

Without a good macro lens, no dSLR can compete with the super macro mode of most prosumer P&S cameras. Shooting nature macros using dSLR is an extremely frustrating experience, you are always fighting shallow DOF and wind. While P&S users can easily out-shoot you thanks to their smaller sensor (hence deep DOF).

A dSLR can use specialised lens for each application like photomacrography, portrait, landscape, birds (super telephoto), etc. But if you are just using basic kit lens, then that advantage is also lost.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

I am sure you have seen the full crop of an image out of a DLSR and a P&S.... there's hell lot of difference in my opinion. May be I care a lot even for the minor details but a P&S is NO match for DSLR whatever the shooting conditions.

You are right, in many cases full crop images out of P&S are better than DSLR. Reason?
To get a decent sharp picture out of the box from a DSLR you need an expensive lens.
Also DSLR cams do very little in camera processing.
If you take a good P&S with a decent lens, you will get pictures which are better than DSLRs on a kit lens.
These P&S cams are not really P&S in the strict sense, but Prosumer range.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Samurai

There are P&S cameras that can produce 8-10MP images and support raw mode too. Then what difference can you spot between the full crop images?

I didnt get you, what has RAW image support got to do with differences in full crop images.... whatever the case maybe a DSLR would be a hell lot better. The sensor size isnt even 1/4th of a DSLR... cramming in 8 megapixel in a small sensor would result in noise. And RAW image support in a P&S doesnt mean that it will be like DSLR. The noise and compromises would still be there and the only difference is "you" will decide how to process and to what extent you should process it.

Originally Posted by Samurai

The advantage of dSLR over P&S is the sensor size and the ability to switch lenses. If the type of photography you do doesn't benefit from this difference, then all bets are off.

You forgot the most important.... FOCUS. There are other differences too which I wont even delve into. We are talking about better pics not about the type of photography. In anycase when you say photograhy you dont just mean macro's or landscpes... one might have preference for macro's but doesnt mean he/she will shoot "only" macro's.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Without a good macro lens, no dSLR can compete with the super macro mode of most prosumer P&S cameras. Shooting nature macros using dSLR is an extremely frustrating experience, you are always fighting shallow DOF and wind. While P&S users can easily out-shoot you thanks to their smaller sensor (hence deep DOF).

Whats with the condition "without a good macro lens"? By DSLR I dont mean the camera body only. Have you seen shots outta good 1:1 macro lens.... no P&S can come even close to that. Heck why am I even compairing the two.
Why would you want deep DOF in a macro shot?????

Originally Posted by Samurai

A dSLR can use specialised lens for each application like photomacrography, portrait, landscape, birds (super telephoto), etc. But if you are just using basic kit lens, then that advantage is also lost.

Again by DSLR I dont mean just the camera body.

[HellwratH]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Why would you want deep DOF in a macro shot?????

In a few pics, the DOF is so shallow that part of your subject's body goes OOF. So, a slightly deeper DOF is required (which is so in P & S) or you will have to use focus stacking technique of taking multiple pics and stack them to have the complete subject in focus.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

You forgot the most important.... FOCUS. There are other differences too which I wont even delve into. We are talking about better pics not about the type of photography.

Ok, let's focus on FOCUS. What about it?

Bigger sensor size becomes useful if you are printing large size prints or heavily cropping the original image. For most purposes (like 5x7 prints), just 3.2MP would do fine.

HellwratH already answered the DOF question. Anybody who has used a macro lens with dSLR would know the importance of deeper DOF. It is rare that the plane of focus stays parallel to the lens.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Ok, let's focus on FOCUS. What about it?

Try birding or even low light photography and you will come to know. I have a canon S3 IS and it struggles to focus in low light conditions where a DSLR would lock focus instantly without any lag and would be through with the shot... and I am still struggling for the focus.

P.S. I absolutely hate the MF (Manual Focus) in S3 IS, it should have a ring like the panasonic FZ series, not those fiddely buttons.

[Mayavi]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Not sure how I am proving your point. How is this exif data proving your point?

No offense Samurai but it seems you weren't really reading my posts before trying to disprove me.

My whole point is that to produce good pictures you need good equipment in addition to a good photographer. Without good equipment, even the best photographer can only do so much. As an example I asked if Ansel Adams or Callahan could have produced color images with black and white film. I never argued that good equipmment is the same as a DSLR. The latest P&S are as good if not better than DSLR's (in hands of newbie's) in some situations.

Now how does EXIF data prove my point?
The lens on the P&S is wider than that I have on my 350D. An entry level DSLR may be inherently better than the P&S, but the P&S lens is an alrounder while DSLR Kit lens is not so. As you know, a camera is nothing without a proper lens so the P&S wins here. The P&S is better equipment (feature wise, though quality of glass may be different) than the Kit lens that 350D comes with.
Second, the ISO on P&S is 50 while the lowest I on 350D is 199. You tell me which is better?
Third, if I put a 50 mm f1.4 USM Prime lens on SLR I can take great potraits with amazing bokeh, can you do that with the C750?

I think I made myself very clear now. If you still do not understand what I am getting at, read the following quote from your post.

Without a good macro lens, no dSLR can compete with the super macro mode of most prosumer P&S cameras