[dj_mocok]

Quote:

Originally Posted by majid As the other posters have noted, DSLRs have larger (i.e. lower noise) sensors, better optics and faster response times. None of these has anything to do with the fact they are DSLRs. The sensors could be fitted in almost any form factor that can take 35mm film. In fact, digital rangefinders or compact leaf-shutter cameras similar in design to a Contax T3 could spank them for shutter lag because there is no reflex mirror to clear prior to exposure. The only reason why DSLRs rule the roost is that for whatever reason, digicam manufacturers refuse to put quality sensors and fast electronics anywhere else. The only exception to the rule is the Epson R-D1, but it is too expensive to have a significant impact. There is no reason why a high-quality pocket camera couldn't be made using the same basic design as an Olympus Stylus Epic, Yashica T4, Contax T3, Nikon 35Ti, Ricoh GR1v or one of the many high-quality fixed-focal 28 or 35mm f/2.8 models. I guess the manufacturers did some hasty market research and concluded there was no market, or that people who buy compact digicams are too clueless to notice they are incapable of decent results past sundown. Based on your post, you should look at the Fuji F30 (relatively high sensitivity for a compact) or the new Panasonic DMC-L1.

I'm not sure what sensor does the Leica Digilux 2 have, but the picture quality is seriously great - their outdoor picture quality is rivaling (or dare I say better than) some of those taken with DSLRs. I mentioned on the other thread, Digilux 2 might be the perfect alternative for DSLR if you happen to suit what it's best for and don't mind some of the weaknesses.

 

[Whorehay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok I'm not sure what sensor does the Leica Digilux 2 have, but the picture quality is seriously great - their outdoor picture quality is rivaling (or dare I say better than) some of those taken with DSLRs. I mentioned on the other thread, Digilux 2 might be the perfect alternative for DSLR if you happen to suit what it's best for and don't mind some of the weaknesses.

Great street camera with a superb lens.

I think it has a 2/3" sensor.

 

[dj_mocok]

It's really one of the most vibrant, life-like colours I've seen in pictures.
Over-saturated pictures sometime look nice, but different and you know it, not so life like. But Digilux 2 straight from camera, viewing the colours are close to like viewing in real life.

 

[lan]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok But Digilux 2 straight from camera, viewing the colours are close to like viewing in real life.

You mean once printed with no editing? That's nice to have. Certainly on screen everybody's monitor looks different. This camera is pretty expensive and is now discontinued no?

 

[dj_mocok]

I am not sure whether the Digilux 2 is discontinued yet or not - It's around 2 years old already, I had a look at Leica's website, but it doesn't say discontinued.

But considering it's been around since early 2004 I think it's quite hard to find one now?
I wish they will come up with a Digilux 3 with much improved speed , then it would really be the ultimate P&S.

I haven't tried printing them yet, but printing result can depend on many factors, and one of the most important is the printing studio itself (or if you do it yourself, your printer), so it really depends.

But straight from camera and viewed from PC, the outdoor results are amazing.

Last weekend we actually uploaded the pictures from 2 cameras, one from Nikon D200 and one from Digilux 2 (they are all my bro's cams by the way, I am not that fortunate

).

The D200 was with 1.8 50mm lens (not new, but very old 1.8 50mm - much more solid & great performer).

No post processing whatsoever, then we compared the two results. To my surprise, the colour, contrast, tone, the blackness of Digilux 2 actually beat the D200 + 50mm lens! (and no, it's not operator's fault, hehe..) To answer your question, yes I can confidently say you don't need to post process pictures from Digilux 2 (outdoor), they are great as how they are already.

But indoor, they struggle a lot. The auto focus was slow (well, it's from 2004 technology anyway), but if you use bounce flash, the skin tone is beautiful, not like direct flash from usual camera's built-in flash.
With bounce, the skin tone is more warm and natural, not cold and stiff like when you use direct flash. So you can say that the bounce flash is not a gimmick, but it does what bounce flash supposed to do.

Too bad I don't have the samples from the Digilux 2 at the moment (it's at my brother's place), or else I'd let you see and decide.

But still, night indoor, the D200+1.8 performs much better than Digilux 2.
I think I have the sample pics of night indoor from D200, I'll upload it if you want to.

 

[Illah]

Girls don't like DSLRs or large format cams, they like tiny, stylish cams. Slip one out of your pocket at a party and it becomes like a piece of jewelery.

This is one case, strangely enough, where smaller is better

--Illah

 

[Pepsione1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illah Girls don't like DSLRs or large format cams, they like tiny, stylish cams. This is one case, strangely enough, where smaller is better --Illah

But the saying still holds true, it's not the size, it's how you use it.

Anyway I am still undecided on whether I want a SLR or something like S3. But I guess I am willing to bear the inconvenience of the S3 then I should be fine with SLR too.

I really like the advantages of SLR over P&S and price isn't so much of an issue since the body of a SLR is close to a good P&S camera. Lense retain their value so that's good.

 

[Pepsione1]

How do SLR perform in low light and high ISO? I recall reading a review about the Rebel XT. They mentioned anything higher then ISO400 isn't very useable.

Is this only true for Canon only or it's true for most entry level SLR?


I know I never shoot at ISO400 with my Canon A520 because it looks terrible.

 

[euclid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepsione1 How do SLR perform in low light and high ISO? I recall reading a review about the Rebel XT. They mentioned anything higher then ISO400 isn't very useable. Is this only true for Canon only or it's true for most entry level SLR?

youve just touched one of the MAJOR benefits. all modern DSLR will perform adequately at iso400, the newest consumer models XT/20d/30d will push iso800 with acceptable noise and 1600 is for emergency but probibly still usable with noise software. couple that with a fast wide angle prime <35mm <f2.8 and youre in good shape for low light or even borderline darkness handheld without the need for a flash. this scenario is simply impossible with a P&S

with fast high quality glass also comes very shallow depth of field and amazing bokeh(background blur)

the other MAJOR benefit is focus speed and accuracy which i wont get into b/c its very application specific (if you are shooting alot of kids, sports, animals ect the consumer model DSLR cameras even with a fast USM lens will still miss alot of your shots. but im not sure a P&S is even usable, especially considering the shutter delay.)

it basically comes down to this: if you want to casually point and shoot in auto, without have to compose a shot, change alot of camera settings, or account for envirnmental factors, and only plan on using the pics on the internet or small prints, get a 5mp point and shoot, put it in your pocket, and enjoy the convience, ignorance is literally bliss.

if you want to make photography a hobby and art then you need to buy a DSLR, an external flash, and an array of lenses which generally run from $500-1200 each, there are a few good values in the <$300 range but not many. you will truely get what you pay for with SLR technology, especially digital. a CF tripod, high quality ballhead, a shoulder bag or backpack, at least 2g of storage, and at least one extra battery are all requirements as well
you will also have to spend considerable time learning the technology and post production or you will not be producing better pictures than a consumer point and shoot, especially if youre using inexpensive zoom lenses, im serious.

 

[Arainach]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepsione1 How do SLR perform in low light and high ISO? I recall reading a review about the Rebel XT. They mentioned anything higher then ISO400 isn't very useable. Is this only true for Canon only or it's true for most entry level SLR? I know I never shoot at ISO400 with my Canon A520 because it looks terrible.

Whoever told you that is flat-out wrong. The Nikon D50 is fantastic at ISO 1600 and the Rebel XT is quite satisfactory. For example shots see:

http://www.digitalreview.ca/cams/Nik...T_images.shtml

Quote:

Excerpt: With respect to the 1600 ISO noise comparison, it can be seen that the Nikon D50 image is cleaner compared to the Canon Rebel XT depending on the colour channel. The Nikon D70s images at 1600 ISO are noisier than both the other models. We feel that this is as a result of less in camera high ISO noise reduction being applied in the Nikon D70s, as well as the fact that both the Nikon D50 and the Canon Rebel XT feature a different sensor design compared to the Nikon D70s. If you are going to cover indoor events and rock concerts, at higher ISO settings the Nikon D50 might just be the answer. http://www.digitalreview.ca/D50test/...0s_1600ISO.jpg

 

[Whorehay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepsione1 How do SLR perform in low light and high ISO? I recall reading a review about the Rebel XT. They mentioned anything higher then ISO400 isn't very useable. Is this only true for Canon only or it's true for most entry level SLR? I know I never shoot at ISO400 with my Canon A520 because it looks terrible.

I think you were reading a review on my Oly E-300

But even then, ISO 400 on my E-300 (one of the worse high ISO performers, straight out of the camera at least) perfectly exposed is just as good as my Canon P+S at ISO 100.

 

[majid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepsione1 How do SLR perform in low light and high ISO? I recall reading a review about the Rebel XT. They mentioned anything higher then ISO400 isn't very useable.

That's nonsense. Canon's CMOS sensors are among the best in the industry. ISO1600 on a Rebel XT is not going to be as smooth as ISO100 or 400, but it is still acceptable, and better than ISO 400 on a compact digicam. The pixels on the Rebel XT (or the 10/20/30D, or the D50/D70/D70s/D200, or the R-D1) are about 16 times larger than those of a pocket digicam. Since they collect 16 times more light, the result is that ISO1600 on a DSLR is roughly as sensitive as ISO 100 on a small-sensor camera.

 

[euclid]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Arainach Megapixels don't mean anything. Quality does. A large 4.5MP sensor will produce far better shots with more dynamic resolution than a small 10MP sensor. The Nikon D2Hs runs at about $3,000 and is only 4.1MP, yet it's amazingly popular with newspaper photographers because its photo quality is stunning, it's blazing fast, and it's built like a tank.

actually resolution becomes a factor as prints enlarge. newspaper printing quality is horrible in the first place.

Majid: my 10d and 1d both struggle at ISO800, my uncles 20d is not accpetable at ISO1600 without generous post processing. for internet uploading it doesnt really matter either way, nor will you be able to spot major differences in comparison shots on these internet reviews.

 

[JahJahBinks]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Illah Girls don't like DSLRs or large format cams, they like tiny, stylish cams.

They also like tiny speakers that you can hold in your hand.

 

[flecom]

Quote:

Originally Posted by euclid actually resolution becomes a factor as prints enlarge. newspaper printing quality is horrible in the first place. Majid: my 10d and 1d both struggle at ISO800, my uncles 20d is not accpetable at ISO1600 without generous post processing. for internet uploading it doesnt really matter either way, nor will you be able to spot major differences in comparison shots on these internet reviews.

and then they made neat image