[Brewmaster]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif The picture quality between digital cameras really doesn't vary that much, even between DSLRs and little cameras. The real advantage of a DSLR is being able to use normal lenses to get things like real DOF control.

The picture quality does vary greatly, especially if you look at noise. Not as much of a problem for very bright shots, but shooting indoors or in lower light environments really amplifies this problem.

Things do get a bit blurry with digital cameras becuase the technology is still evolving so fast, so a little camera with a really good sensor today may be better than a DSLR of a few years ago for some image quality parameters.

 

[Mrvile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brewmaster /img/forum/go_quote.gif Things do get a bit blurry with digital cameras becuase the technology is still evolving so fast, so a little camera with a really good sensor today may be better than a DSLR of a few years ago for some image quality parameters.

This is very true. It's a lot more difficult and thus requires a lot more R&D to develop sensors for DSLR's than it is for regular P&S cameras. That's why Canon has been able to easily squeeze their latest and densest sensors on cameras such as the G7 and the SD900, but have delayed real sensor improvements with cameras like the 30D. Even on the newest 1DmkIII, the sensor is only a 10MP 1.3x crop, not much denser than the mkII model. A big part of this is also because many of the consumer cameras, like P&S models, are geared toward the whole "megapixel war" thing and higher megapixels inevitably translates to more sales. With DSLR's ranging from the Rebel series to the 1D series, users tend to already know that 8-10MP is more than enough for whatever they need to do, which is why the slower MP growth rates for DSLR's isn't much of a problem for Canon. However, with DSLR's seeping into the prosumer/consumer field, Canon knows that the "megapixel war" will reign in the near future, and cameras like the 400D have already been displaying this new push for megapixels.

 

[vagarach]

I used to use a Kodak dx4350 (iirc), and the D50 I now use outclasses it in every respect.

For example, at ISO1600 on the D50 you start to see noise similar to the Kodak at ISO400. Shutter lag: I press the button and the D50 takes the picture, and I hear a nice mechanical sound, whereas with the kodak, one waits for 3 seconds, hears an annoying 'peep' sound, and then after another second for processing, image is displayed on screen.

Things like that are improvements that one expects given the fact that the D50 costs 2.5x as much as the small, pocket-able Kodak. I think comparing the DSLR with that huge zoom lens equipped F717 isn't entirely fair, and looking at some test pics on dpreview, the F717 takes some *really* good shots.

The main advantage with an SLR is the ability to swap lenses, to get full manual control, RAW image capture, near-instant on, fast shutter speeds, and so on. I know that after a few minutes of fiddling I was taking pictures with the D50 that with the old p&s would have taken some real skill and planning. So, relax and as recommended, learn about this art, and starting posting your pictures on flickr (and the ol' thread)!

Happy (picture)shooting!

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Brewmaster /img/forum/go_quote.gif The picture quality does vary greatly, especially if you look at noise. Not as much of a problem for very bright shots, but shooting indoors or in lower light environments really amplifies this problem.

Also, digital cameras have very little latitude towards the overexposure side. With many point-and-shoot cameras, the potential of severe overexposure of pictures taken on a bright sunny day is for real: Their lenses cannot stop down beyond f/8 or even f/5.6 without introducing serious diffraction-induced sharpness degradation, and their shutter speeds don't go any faster than 1/2000 second. This puts a typical sunny-day scene very close to causing an overexposure warning to be shown on the LCD screen of many P&S cameras.

 

[raymondlin]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hudsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're using a ****** lens, that's why your pictures aren't sharp, or contrasty. The sensor on the Sony DSLR isn't a big winner in resolution tests either... If you want sharp, beautiful images straight from a cam, stick with P&S.

Rubbish, i can get good pics with the kit lens.

 

[shigzeo]

if there were close-ups, we could tell you in a second which is the dslr and which is the f717... (quite jealous as i have the f505 from 1999 which i love, but... the f717 was pretty much the poster boy of sony - have seen it brand new around some seedier sides of town for 450$ usd or 400$).

the f717 will never touch any dslr for compression or clarity once zoomed in. from afar, it may take similar looking photographs, but you use it correctly and there is no comparison.

you lucky man... though my 8 year old is still holding out fine!

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hudsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're using a ****** lens, that's why your pictures aren't sharp, or contrasty. The sensor on the Sony DSLR isn't a big winner in resolution tests either... If you want sharp, beautiful images straight from a cam, stick with P&S.

Huh?

Not all kit lenses are equally crappy. In fact, some are first-rate (picture-quality-wise), but are crappy only in their build quality.

As for the sensor in that Sony DSLR, resolution isn't the problem - low-light capability/high-ISO performance is. That Sony DSLR takes relatively grainy (noisy) pictures at ISOs above 400; in fact, some other DSLRs take less grainy pictures at ISO 3200 than the Sony does at ISO 800.

 

[shigzeo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrvile /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is very true. It's a lot more difficult and thus requires a lot more R&D to develop sensors for DSLR's than it is for regular P&S cameras. That's why Canon has been able to easily squeeze their latest and densest sensors on cameras such as the G7 and the SD900, but have delayed real sensor improvements with cameras like the 30D. Even on the newest 1DmkIII, the sensor is only a 10MP 1.3x crop, not much denser than the mkII model. A big part of this is also because many of the consumer cameras, like P&S models, are geared toward the whole "megapixel war" thing and higher megapixels inevitably translates to more sales. With DSLR's ranging from the Rebel series to the 1D series, users tend to already know that 8-10MP is more than enough for whatever they need to do, which is why the slower MP growth rates for DSLR's isn't much of a problem for Canon. However, with DSLR's seeping into the prosumer/consumer field, Canon knows that the "megapixel war" will reign in the near future, and cameras like the 400D have already been displaying this new push for megapixels.

except that the dslr have a huge sensor and for noise, no normal digital can compete for clean images perchance maybe for the sony r10 or whatever it is called that uses a regular size sensor, not a digicam size which produce noise where noise was not meant to be. i think that the only time a new digital cam might beat a dslr for noise is if comparing the very first dslr from 10 years ago with the absolute best of the best of digcams like the f717.

no comparison at all, resolution is one thing, but comparing the resolution from a digicam to a dslr is like comparing the resolutions from a monitor at 72pix to print quality at 300pix. even the same dimention of 28cm X 22 cm, the later will look much nicer, no comparison at all. digicams and their megapixel race are dooming the whole quality portion.

it is like the race for more video, fm etc etc in a small player and suddenly you have noise and inconsistencies. damn digicams... yay for a proper one like the 717 and of course dslr

 

[dj_mocok]

If you are perfectly happy with 717, then just return or sell the Sony Alpha, you'll have more money in your pocket and don't have to have the headache of thinking about this lens and that lens.

Don't worry that you won't "improve" only with your current 717. Even if you only have some simple camera, you can take amazing pictures if you know what to do with it.
Don't believe me? Look at this guy's portfolio. I know he also have DSLR, but lots of his stunning pictures (and published ones) were taken with a POS, whops, I mean PaS camera.

 

[Jussei]

Wow, thanks for all of the great input to those that have posted here. This is precisely why I decided to come to Head-Fi first. If I posted on a camera only site, I'd likely get replies that went on about my incompetence, lack of skill/knowledge or what have you.
I wish I could respond to all as everyone has given me much insight. What I may end up doing is keeping ahold of both cameras for awhile. I intended on selling the F717 to invest in a lens for the Alpha, but I'm not so sure now. I guess this will just give me two entirely different beasts to play around with.

 

[Jussei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by shigzeo /img/forum/go_quote.gif if there were close-ups, we could tell you in a second which is the dslr and which is the f717... (quite jealous as i have the f505 from 1999 which i love, but... the f717 was pretty much the poster boy of sony - have seen it brand new around some seedier sides of town for 450$ usd or 400$). the f717 will never touch any dslr for compression or clarity once zoomed in. from afar, it may take similar looking photographs, but you use it correctly and there is no comparison. you lucky man... though my 8 year old is still holding out fine!

I sold my F505 to partially fund my F717. I was amazed by that camera and knew that the 717 could only offer me more of the same. Some of my favorite pictures that I have ever taken were with my F505 and it'll always have a place in my heart as the first great digital camera I've owned.

 

[dj_mocok]

Just curious, may I know why you chose Sony Alpha among other competitors (brands)?

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Perhaps the megapixel hype got to him?

You see, with the recent price reductions, the Sony Alpha is now the least-expensive 10-megapixel DSLR on the market. (The Sony Alpha kit and the Nikon D40x kit are priced equally to each other - but the Nikon comes with only an 18-55mm zoom instead of the Alpha's 18-70mm zoom.)

 

[GTRacer]

Brand loyalty? Since he's moving up from the F717...

 

[Mrvile]

I dunno, the Alpha is a pretty impressive little camera for what it is. It has great image quality (take a look at the comparisons over at DPR), body IS, and a special HDR mode to squeeze in just a bit more dynamic range than normal. If it weren't for the crummy lens lineup, I would definitely consider the Alpha as a good alternative to, say, the Rebel XTi or the D80.