What's the point of a DSLR?

Question

I've been looking at reviews online for Canon DSLR's ranging from the older cheaper models (550d, 450d, 1100d, 650d, 60d. Even the most expensive models 5d and 7d. And looking at the sample images I gotta say there's not that much of a difference in terms of picture quality compared to the IXUS line which cost around 200 $/euros.
I understand DSLR's offer the possibility of changing lens and shooting at higher ISO settings but when it comes down to taking pictures during day time do I really need a DSLR?

Answer 1

There is a vast difference between ixus point and shoot cameras and canon DSLRs.



DSLRs have much larger sensors, and the lenses have better quality optics, plus the cameras are fully adjustable, and they have an optical view finder, and they can also shoot RAW.



A Canon 5D does have amazing picture quality - BUT (and it's a very big BUT) only in the hands of a photographer who knows how to take quality pictures. A Canon 5D will display noise like any other if the ISO is set too high - and the photos will look not that different from those taken on a point and shoot if the photographer is clueless and shoots in auto all the time.



The fact that you need to ask this shows that you do not need a DSLR. They are for people who want to take their photography further than a point and shoot allows. If you have no interest in that, stick with the point and shoot.

Answer 2

Early film cameras were difficult to aim and focus. Old time photographers had to disappear under a black cloth to compose and focus their giant cameras. As technology advanced, the camera shrank and became hand held. Primitive aiming methods were mounted on the camera body. These were wire frame sights and optical viewfinders. None allowed accurate composing and focusing.



The first good method was to mount two cameras, one atop the other. The bottom held the film; the top displayed a near duplicate of the vista to the photographer. This design was called a twin lens reflex. Next came a camera with a moveable mirror (reflex). The mirror diverted the image to a viewing and composing screen convenient for the photographer. When focusing and composition is complete, the photographer presses the shutter release. The action moves the reflex mirror out of the optical path. The shutter briefly opens allowing the image forming rays play on film or digital chip. The shutter closes and the reflex mirror returns to the viewing position. This is the SLR (single lens reflex).



The SLR (singe lens reflex) camera is neat and perhaps the best design of the last century. This design has prevailed for many years. The modern digital camera can electronically divert the image to a viewing screen. These designs have not arrived at a point where the photographer is able to preview, compose and focus exactly what the film or digital chip see however they are super close. Likely with modern auto focus they are good enough for 99% of picture taking saturation. Meanwhile the SLR and DSLR (digital single lens reflex) prevails. Me, I would buy a compact mirrorless

Answer 3

You've probably been comparing teeny internet-sized images, and not full-size images.



The difference in image quality between an IXUS and even Canon's cheapest DSLR is *huge.* Color quality, sharpness, and noise are all leaps and bounds better on DSLR images, at any comparable ISO. And if you think "...all of the cameras I mentioned show noise is pretty much every picture," then you're either not comparing the right pictures, or you don't know what noise is. From ISO 50 to about ISO 400, all of the DSLR images are essentially noiseless -- the IXUS images show noise at the lowest ISOs and even in daylight shots.



I don't know what images you're using for comparison, but the difference in image quality is huge, and glaringly obvious.

Answer 4

I don't know what photos you are looking at, but no P&S is going to produce as good an image as a dSLR with a good lens under the same circumstances.



Small cameras have small sensors, so even if they have lots of pixels (and sometimes because of it), they generate noise. These little cameras have basic lenses as well, with slow autofocus and poor ability to shoot in low light.



If you are looking at a photo on a web site that has been reduced to a few 100 pixels across, then you are going to see very little differences.

Here are two pages of samples from a ELPH 520 and a 60D

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/canon/powershot-elph-520-hs/sample-photos-184.html

http://www.steves-digicams.com/camera-reviews/canon/eos-60d-slr/steves-conclusion-113.html



The reviewer tries to go and reshoot very similar things with all the cameras so you can get an idea of an apples to apples comparison. Even in the most favorable conditions, the 60D produces better images. If you can't see it, then you should be just fine with the IXUS.

Answer 5

1- Larger sensor

DSLR's have MUCH larger sensors than point and shoot camera. A larger sensor means that the receptor density (the amount of receptors per area) is much lower ... this results in images with less digital noise and a greater dynamic range (better colors). It also typically results in much better low light performance (higher iso with much less noise).



2- Egronomics

Controls on a DSLR are usually in more convient places to reach allowing you to quickly sewitch settings. I tried changing the white balance on my friends sister in laws camera last night and it was a 6 click affair while on my DSLRs it a one click process.



3- Lenses

with a DSLR you have access to different lenses for different situations. when I shoot a wedding, I typically use 2 lenses ... a 24-70 f2.8 for group shots and portraits and a 70-200 f2.8 for portraits and to shoot from a distance without being obtrusive. If I then needed to shoot sports, I could swap that ot for a 400mm f4 or a 200-500 f2.8, if I needed to do macro shots for a jewelry catalogue, I could switch to a nice dedicated macro lens ...



The lenses are also normally far superior in term,s of optics than the built in, does it all lesnes on a point and shoot. also, the point and shoot zoom is only partially optical ... once you pass a certain point the zoom is DIGITAL meaning that it would be like zooming in in photoshop ...



4- Peripherals

Cable releases, flashes, radio triggers ... DSLrs have a whole slew of accessories giving you far more options to work with.



5- MANUAL MODE!

Most point and shoot cameras don;t let YOU decide how to take the shot. The camera makes practically all the decision in terms of exposure, focus, shutter speed, ISO, aperture ... you have limited access to these controls and so you are cut out of like half of what being a photographer means and even if your P&S is actually half decent and give you full manuall access, the controls are not designed for this and it's a pain to make the nedded changes (see ergonomics above).



6- RAW mode.

DSLRs can save ALL the sensor data ... this gives you far more control over the image in post processing.



That should be enough to start.

Answer 6

For the vast majority of people, a standard digital point-and-shoot is fine for taking pictures during the day and a lot of indoor photography. It's difficult to justify spending the extra money for a DSLR unless you're really into photography. I can see someone with kids getting a DSLR so they can put on telephoto lenses and get those "up-close" shots for school/sports events, and I can also see it for people who are into nature or night photography, but other than that a DSLR is largely a waste of money -- you're better off getting a digital point-and-shoot rated for at least 8 megapixels with a standard zoom.