DSLR vs P&S

[FMX]

Does anyone know of any side by side comparisons of a comparable P&S camera to a DSLR? I know the two technologies are not really comparable, but I have seen some damn good P&S shots, that seem to achieve some of the same results as DSLR's...

Does sharpness and PQ necessarily require a DSLR to be rendered?

I understand there is MUCH more control, but some pictures that I have seen taken with P&S's lately have really thrown my perspective.

Doesn't it somewhat boil down to the post processing? I am sure the best editor could take a mediocre photo and turn it great no matter the device that it came from, am I right?

Here is just a sample of some of the images that has inspired this post:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/timothybradbury/sets/72157618972066134/

 

[Menelmarar]

Most DSLR shooters I know don't use the camera for post processing, they shoot in RAW and use lightroom for processing.

It's largely glass options. Lots of quality options for field of view: macro, telephoto, etc.
Then ISO range, capture rate and general image quality.
Also weather sealing. High end DSLR's are sealed against dust and moisture for use in extreme environments.
Viewfinder showing what the image will be, SLR in general feature. Needed for manual focusing, an rear LCD is going to be grainy, and going to have motion blur that direct view of what your shooting will not have. P&S's that do have view finders are only approximate, they don't use the reflex lens to show exactly what your shooting.

A "best editor" could take "some" mediocre photos and apply some post processing that improves/masks the imperfections. However; I wouldn't rely on that as a general rule.

What it comes down to is your need and your budget. P&S's have some qualities such as size, fitting in your pocket, and low cost that are appealing. The image quality is also plenty for most consumers.

It's one of those things, if you don't already know what you'd gain from a DSLR, specifically what you need, then it's probably not worth spending the money on. My advice, pick up a $150-200 P&S, enjoy, if/when you see and understand the it's limitations, do the research and in a year or two upgrade to a DSLR with more advanced features.

Edit:
For me, currently, I'm sticking with my P&S until I can scrape together the funds for a full 35mm equivalent full frame like the Canon 5D. Though I have had some incredible fun and taken some nice shots with a 1.6frame 20D as well. *shrug* All depends on budget and where you finally decide to draw the line.

 

[madFive]

Those are some very cool shots in OP's links, but if you know what to look for, you can see plenty of imperfections - mostly the weird grainy look of the blurry areas (called bokeh) that means he was using a sub-par lens. Yes, you can fix just about anything in post-processing if you have enough time; but when you're shooting hundreds and hundreds of photos in each outing, there comes a point where post-processing every single shot just becomes too much of a chore. Ideally, you want your images to come out of the camera as close as possible to already perfect.

The two main reasons you'd want to switch to a DSLR over a compact camera are the sensor size/quality and lens options. The larger sensor in dslr cameras is able to delineate tone values a lot better than a smaller sensor, resulting in sharper images and much less noise in low-light scenes. The larger lenses used on dslr's have wider apertures, resulting in better low-light performance, better bokeh rendition, and much much sharper images in general.

There are plenty of other features that are helpful, like fast mechanical shutters that allow you to capture fast-moving subjects and shoot several frames per second, achieving perfect timing for portraits and candid shots; also most slr cameras have better lighting integration, allowing you to make better use of external flashes and studio lighting.

 

[lan]

If you play on the P&S's strengths (low ISO, high depth of field), then they can be comparable quality and sometimes it makes things a bit easier (e.g. macro). Some P&S have good lenses and some kit lenses of some DSLRs are not that great.

Some P&S do things no modern DSLR do. e.g. some have electronic electronic shutters.

A good photo is a good photo regardless of editing.

Take a look here for some 1DS3, G9, G10 photos in various links toward the middle and bottom.
http://www.stepheneastwood.com/tutorials/Tutorials_Exposure_Sharpness_Processing.htm

Now if you try the P&S out of it's boundary like ISO 1600, then it would be a disaster.

 

[gregnash]

Edit:
For me, currently, I'm sticking with my P&S until I can scrape together the funds for a full 35mm equivalent full frame like the Canon 5D. Though I have had some incredible fun and taken some nice shots with a 1.6frame 20D as well. *shrug* All depends on budget and where you finally decide to draw the line.

Any specific reason it HAS to be full frame DSLR? I have had a 20D for about 2yrs now and I love the thing. While full-frame is nice it will not have a full range of lens use like you would with something that take the EF/EF-S lenses. Just a thought.

 

[bexamous]

One nice thing about photography stuff is much if it holds value, lenses more than bodies but still. You can usually buy a used body, keep it for a year, then resell it with minimal loss. With lenses I just buy and resell and view it as I rented a lens for a year for $50. You could probably pick up a older crop and hold on to it till you get enough for a FF.

 

[madFive]

If you play on the P&S's strengths... *snip

Holy crap - I felt like a total noob looking at that page! (and my head kindof hurts from trying to decipher the horrible writing style.) I guess if you're that good at lighting and/or photoshop, you can use just about any camera you want. (wonder how much Canon paid him to take those demo shots w/ G9? )

Just goes to prove the camera doesn't take the photograph. But this also sort-of backs up what I said earlier - you can fix just about anything with post-processing given enough time. Having a killer lighting setup and a bunch of really gorgeous models on hand also doesn't hurt.

 

[lan]

Holy crap - I felt like a total noob looking at that page! (and my head kindof hurts from trying to decipher the horrible writing style.) I guess if you're that good at lighting and/or photoshop, you can use just about any camera you want. (wonder how much Canon paid him to take those demo shots w/ G9? )

Just goes to prove the camera doesn't take the photograph. But this also sort-of backs up what I said earlier - you can fix just about anything with post-processing given enough time. Having a killer lighting setup and a bunch of really gorgeous models on hand also doesn't hurt.

Well he is one of the Canon Explorer's of light http://www.usa.canon.com/dlc/controller?act=ArtistsListAct

If you see large prints from the P&S, they are not that bad. When I say large I mean like 6 feet tall. In NYC in Photo Plus Expo every year I see some nice prints from older cameras. If you know how to use your tools, it's never bad.

I took my LX3 for a spin in November and got results better than most people with DSLRs primarily because I knew how to use lights. If you know how to light and post process, yes you can achieve high end results.

 

[FMX]

I believe my perception was correct in that DSLRs just allow you more options so you can correct faults that a P&S is incapable of correcting. However, if the environment is perfect for the P&S, I assume you can get just as good of shots.