Philosophy/Utility question: DSLR vs P&S

<p>Sorry if this is the wrong forum to ask this, but couldn't find one more appropriate?? <br>

A friend is asking for a recommendation for a camera.<br>

A pro photog recommended to him both the Nikon D5200 and the Canon T5i. From what i see the Nikon is better regarded and I've told him so. However, I am questioning whether a dslr is better for his purposes than a good P&S. He has a tripod.<br>

He is a collector of antiques and lives in a bucolic setting outside of Baton Rouge, La. His home is a restored plantation home and it houses the antiques. In addition he has extensive gardens with over 150 varieties of blooming plants. He is entering his retirement years and will begin to lecture nationally on his restoration projects as well as his gardens. He does not know, nor will he likely learn how to post process (I offered to do it for him). Portability and cost are both somewhat important, probably in equal measure. As I was talking to him I realized that the choice in this case was maybe not so clear of dslr vs P&S. He is going to shoot the antiques proper including detail close-ups, as well as interior room shots. He will also shoot the flowers as they bloom. PLuses and minuses for both formats, and I am not sure what is "better." Things like interchangeable lenses, viewfinder presence, cost, obsolescence are all in the gumbo of choice. It seems to me to be a philosophical and utilitarian question that may in the end have a very fuzzy answer?<br>

I shoot with both a dslr and a P&S and I like both, same subjects, but different shooting environments. I use my cell phone also.<br>

Could the answer be something as simple as which has the better/bigger sensor. For sake of discussion let's say his budget is $750-1000.<br>

I appreciate any advice and thanks in advance</p>

<p>You may be right about a DSLR not being the only answer. My wife shoots with a Sony RX100ii (20mp) and I am always amazed at the quality of the JPEGs right out of the camera, even in fairly low light. They now have a version iii (3) out. She has a light tripod, too, for any specific studio-type work (maybe like your friend's antique close-ups or flowers). Just something to think about. Seems to me it has the advantages of light weight, ease of use, versatility, and good out-of-camera image quality. As to Nikon v. Canon DSLR, I think it's more a matter of how well your friend learns to use the camera than one being better than the other.</p>

<p>If your friend doesn't enjoy tweaking photos on the computer he might enjoy one of the Fuji X-system cameras. These offer excellent in-camera raw conversion that's very quick, easy and versatile. It works so well I hardly ever edit the Fuji RAF raw files on the computer - I shoot raw and JPEG simultaneously, and just archive the RAFs after using the camera itself to tweak the photos to my satisfaction. </p>

<p>I have the X-A1 and while I like the tilting rear screen I do sometimes miss having an eye level finder. I'd consider a tilting rear screen a must, and preferably a fully articulating rear screen. Saves having to crane my neck into uncomfortable positions with a low tripod to peer through the viewfinder. From that perspective the Nikon D5200 may be a good choice as well for the fully articulating rear screen and Live View.</p>

<p>There are a few Fuji models well within your friend's budget (XE-1, others), including the cost of lenses - other than the least expensive 16-50 kit zoom, which suffers from fishbowl distortion at 16mm. With internal correction to rectilinear the edges and corners become very soft, but it's a pretty good lens otherwise. He might also enjoy a close focusing or macro lens - the 16-50 lacks this.</p>

<p>I only wish my Nikons offered this. Or better in-camera JPEGs. I'm seldom really satisfied with Nikon's in-camera JPEGs. So editing NEFs is practically unavoidable.</p>

As a newbie to DSLR cameras, I can say that I am enjoying learning about the manual selection of shutter speed and

aperture. And even ISO, since I'm no longer tied to film.

 

Lens choices add to the fun.

 

I don't expect to get deeply into post production, although I will learn enough to get by.

 

I wouldn't discourage him from a DSLR

 

Besides, if he's into vintage things, he is likely into vintage methods, as well, which (to me) includes manual settings on

my camera, a process a P&S camera won't let me do.

<p>I might recommend both a point and shoot and a D5300 to your friend. He can buy either the D5200 or D5300 as Nikon factory refurbished for under $500.00 now direct from Nikon. I have a Sony RX100 first version and it is easy to use for the most part. There are some days that I wish that it had a viewfinder in addition to the screen on the back. As far as the DSLR, the D5000 series are light enough to take anywhere, not one you would want to leave at home. The difference in handling and weight between the D5000 series compared to the D7000 series, well I leave the D7000 at home a lot. D5000 is just much nicer to carry. Another point and shoot to consider might be the Panasonic LX7, nice images, with a fairly low price now that the LX100 has replaced it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He is a collector of antiques and lives in a bucolic setting outside of Baton Rouge, La. His home is a restored plantation home and it houses the antiques. In addition he has extensive gardens with over 150 varieties of blooming plants.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Looks as if he'll be shooting in low light conditions and if detail is important to him especially on those antiques a DSLR's larger sensor will be the best choice over a P&S.</p>

<p>I wish I could've gotten the Nikon P900 P&S after I saw a video in my Yahoo email newsfeed today demonstrating its 2000mm optical zoom of the moon during the day and showing outstanding moon crater detail I could never get with my DSLR and my 70-300mm. I even checked out dpreview's image gallery of a full size shot of a duck taken during the day and was dropped jawed from all the feather detail at that distance. Downloaded the white owl shot in low light shade shot at around 180mm and all I saw was mush in the feathers.</p>

<p>I'm sticking with my DSLR, but I urge you to see this video of the P900's capture of a daylight moon. http://finance.yahoo.com/news/zoom-camera-powerful-see-details-200100730.html</p>

<p>It will be hard to make a choice for him without him having a chance to use a camera - does he have any experience with photography at all?<br>

He may wish to consider an m4/3 series camera. For example, the Olympus E-M10 is small, quite light, and has a usable viewfinder, generally cheaper than the comparable DSLRs. So savings can be used for an extra lens later if needed. I don't find the size increase from a P&S a problem, but to a full DSLR it is a very noticeable size increase.<br>

Looks and to some extent feels like a classic camera, but in full-auto mode, can be used like a P&S (although with option to change lens). If he has some experience with cameras (e.g. film cameras), again it won't be so alien to him that he'll be starting from scratch. Personally I find the electronic viewfinder useful in low light, whereas for most (all?) DSLRs, live view is only from the back panel. <br>

With kit lens can do reasonable close-ups for flowers and detail, although of course not 'macro.' DSLR advantages tend to be better focus for action, some edge in quality at high ISOs, and the optical viewfinder of course (but a matter of preference).<br>

Frankly it doesn't sound like his primary 'need' will be for absolute top quality, so (apart from the cheaper point and shoots), I would be less concerned about sensor size, and more about what size he is comfortable handling and carrying.<br>

These comments contain a lot of generalizations and just plain personal opinion, no intent to quibble over details or other views - just throwing some thoughts into the mix.</p>

<p>If he plans on using a tripod, the camera (P&S or DSLR) will not matter as much. Print size, on the other hand, may be more of a determining factor of what type of camera to get IF poster size prints are a possibility.</p>

<p>thanks for all the feedback. Yes, everything y'all are saying is true, and just as true is that the lines are very blurred in choosing between the two.<br>

I gave him a long response, with no clear answer, but he came up with a solution to his situation, though not to the question asked. He said, "maybe I'll get both." That is a good choice because then he could get something with a larger sensor, and go frugal, but good, on a P&S, and have the advantages of both. He knows to use a tripod. I have a d700 and the sony rx100mk2. The d700 "takes better pictures" right out of the camera, but after post it's hard (impossible) to tell the difference. Which one I "like" more? Maybe the d700, but which one would suffice for more circumstances? The Sony. And I use my Note 4 cell phone a fair amount.<br>

Again, thanks. As I suspected there is no clear answer, and if he wants to go with both, that is the best way to go. He then can learn from practice which to use when. I'll look at the d5300.</p>

<p>Personally, to me sounds like a very sound candidate for mirrorless - I'd choose Fuji, like Lex, but for sure the other options are worth checking out too (Olympus, Sony, Panasonic). The most important advantage of the DSLR - larger sensor with less noise at higher ISOs - but smaller, and indeed I think Olympus and Fuji probably have the nicest JPEGs that don't need much brushing up.<br>

To me, the biggest advantage to a DSLR is still the optical viewfinder, but many people starting now (having used digital P&S and/or smartphone) seem to prefer to using the rearscreen, and used to seeing changes in settings reflected - mirrorless works better that way than DSLRs do (liveview on DSLRs got better, but it's still a patch). I'd try the various brands with your friend in a camera store to see what resonates best with him.</p>

<p>He would probably love my 1928 Voigtlander Bergheil, but that would introduce post processing and 120 film costs (which aren't cheap if doing color.) I'm thinking of a high level P&S, with a hot shoe for flash, and maybe a small flash.</p>

<p>Kent in SD</p>

<p>Fuji X and Olympus µ43 are really good options, too. I moved from Nikon to Olympus last year and am happy.<br /><br />If he's printing pretty big, I'd stick with DSLR, and imho, Canon and Nikon are neck and neck. He should buy the one that fits in his hand best.</p>

<p>Another choice is iPhone or Galaxy S6. The cameras in these phones are very good. Certainly good enough to rival a P&S or low-end DSLR.</p>

<p>Hmm… Just thinking about the dimensions of choice here:<br>

- Sensor size. Small in most P&S, but some with larger sensors. Affects DOF, High ISO.<br>

- Prime vs. Zoom<br>

- Interchangeable lenses. Do you want to change lenses? <br>

- Viewfinder: Reflex vs. RF vs. EVF vs. screen. And, if screen, articulate?<br>

For serious photography, interchangeable lens or quality fixed lens compact. Mirrorless or SLR.<br>

For various special uses, right camera makes a big difference. e.g. DSLR for long tele shots. For ultimate DOF, small lens and small sensor. For bokeh, big lens and big sensor. For macro/micro, an articulating screen is fab. And so forth.<br>

For less serious shooting, the smaller camera the better.<br>

For ultimate convenience, can't beat the camera in the phone.</p>

 

<p>Suggest a <a href="http://www.four-thirds.org/en/microft/body.html">Micro Four Thirds camera (mirrorless)</a> with a regular zoom and the <a href="http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/olympus_m_zuiko_digital_60mm_f_28_macro_review/">Olympus 60mm f/2.8</a> macro lens.</p>

<p>I'm another RX100 shooter (original, in my case, for cost reasons). Like most P&S cameras, the frantic attempt to remove noise means that the in-camera JPEGs can be a bit dodgy in pixel-level detail - not that the lens quite holds up to the sensor anyway. Still, for something that fits in a trouser pocket, it's pretty impressive. To my mind, those cameras (or the G7x) are the sweet spot for something portable that's actually worth having over a phone. Mine is usually with me, although of course my phone camera gets a lot of use just for convenience.<br />

<br />

The dynamic range of the Nikons gives them the edge over the Canon sensors in post-processing; without that, DSLR use may be more a matter of preferred handling. IIRC, Pentax have the cheapest two-dial DSLRs, if that's of interest (with the usual proviso that their system is somewhat less complete than the Canikon duopoly). Otherwise, nothing much wrong with the mirrorless options either - though I notice Thom Hogan has just had another go at laying into the Olympus menu system, which might be an issue if technophobia is a concern.</p>

<p>"He is a collector of antiques and lives in a bucolic setting outside of Baton Rouge, La. His home is a restored plantation home and it houses the antiques."</p>

<p>Perhaps he would enjoy a Classic Manual Camera, something on the order of a Nikon FM with a 50mm 1.8 or a Rolleicord. Either can be had for around $100, with lots left over for processing.</p>

<p>It depends on whether he would like to add photography to the several ways in which he enjoys old stuff. :-)</p>

<p>JPEG output of Nikon DSLR is indeed not the best there, but you can create Picture Control presets to tweak the output to your needs. <br>

Shoot a couple of NEF's (different situations) and create a profile with Picture Control Utility. When satisfied, load the profile in the camera and make JPEGs that are as good as any. </p>

<p>Seems to me that this question is really too broad to be answered definitively. So much depends on your friend's willingness and ability to learn how to shoot. I would argue that the quality of the image is not the main concern here since he will not be selling his work. Rather, it seems that ease of use will be a big factor. What will allow him to do what he needs to do with the least amount of work and stress.<br /> Since he is apparently a total newbie to photography, a PS will probably have the easiest learning curve. Problem is that P&S's (most) do not have viewfinders, although most casual photographers I see seem to default back to the rear screen method of framing even in cases where a viewfinder is present.</p>

<p>The other side of the argument is that <strong>any</strong> DSLR can act like a point and shoot and allow a total novice to shoot useable images right out of the box. But - if your buddy developes photography skills of any sort, the DSLR is able to keep pace with the improved skills. So buying a DSLR will have the ability to act like a "dumb phd" camera today, yet still be able to handle any increases in the user's photgraphy skills tomorrow.<br /> Other than the cost and the weight of the DSLR, I see no benefit to the P&S. With just a little practice and study, the DSLR can do so much more.</p>

<p>As has been said before, the best camera is the one that you use. Ask your friend to visit local stores that sell cameras that are candidates, and handle them - he should get a feel for the size, weight, location of controls, etc. Chances are he'll find one that seems to appeal to him more than the others - that's the one.<br>

Everything available today has enough pixels - it's no longer a consideration. The difference between a camera with a viewfinder and one that has to be held out to use the LCD are huge factors and he should try both ( if the LCD is uncomfortable to use in general, it gets really bad when zooming out to the telephoto range). The electric zoom control of a P&S versus a hand-controlled zoom on a DSLR can be another huge factor. The viewfinder and zoom control were reasons for 2 friends of mine to replace P&S cameras with DSLRs - again, the best camera is the one you actually use.<br>

For the antiques to a certain degree, and moreso for the flowers, a movable LCD screen that can be used to compose closer-to-ground shots can be very helpful, too.</p>

 

<p>Agreed with all of the handling comments - on which note, one further point: age does have an effect on fine motor skills. However portable a point and shoot may be, it's likely to be more "fiddly" than a DSLR - for example, while the RX100 is tiny, it's also harder to hold and control than a D810. Of Nikon's range, the D3x00 and D5x00 DSLRs are appreciably lighter than larger models, mostly because they have a pentamirror rather than a pentaprism (so there isn't a big lump of glass at the top). I've also noticed that drier skin on older people can work less well with capacitive touch-screens, which may be a concern if you're looking at a camera that has one.<br />

<br />

Just thought I'd mention that, in case size is given so much priority that it turns out to be a negative! There's no substitute for trying things, obviously.</p>

The best camera is not the one you use, but the one that suits the intended purpose best. That could be the one you use. But the occassions you are using a camera that isn't suited because you don't have the better suited one not with you are not that rare (usually it is the small P&S that has to do what the bigger DSLR, and thus left-at-home-DSLR, would do better.<br>A DSLR and a P&S serve different purposes. It is important to understand that the choice between the two is a choice between quality, versatility and relative discomfort (DSLR) and more comfort but less versatility and less quality (P&S). But both have their place. So the thing is to find out what place you want to be in.<br>"Everything [...] has enough pixels" is rather misleading. Pixels aren't created equal.

<blockquote>

<h1>DSLR vs P&S</h1>

</blockquote>

<p>I recommend that your friend try a true point & shoot camera for less than $100 until he has a good idea of what his photographic needs and preferences are.</p>

<p> </div>

<p>most DSLRs can be operated like a P&S, but for archive-quality photos, i dont see the point in using a sensor size under m4/3. the main selling point of the RX100 series is the compactness, but they lack dynamic range and have higher noise at high ISO, in addition to the underwhelming control layout/UI. if there's even a remote chance of printing at 16x20 or bigger, i would go with APS-C, minimum.</p>

<p>that said, if compactness is an issue, a fixed-focal, high-end compact like the Ricoh GR, Nikon Coolpix or Fuji X100 series could be a good compromise between size and image quality. the Coolpix and GR have native 28mm lenses, while the Fuji is a native 35. there are conversion lenses for the Fuji and GR which can go wider or in the Fuji's case longer. the great thing about the X100 is not only do you get the hybrid OVF, but it can essentially be operated like a P&S or allow for full manual controls.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Portability and cost are both somewhat important, probably in equal measure.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why is portability an issue - he is just shooting around the house, isn't he? And as soon as a tripod is involved, the size of the camera becomes a rather secondary consideration.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems to me to be a philosophical and utilitarian question...</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why bring philosophy into this? He asked for a camera recommendation - from all I can gather from your post, it's going to be used as a tool for the purpose of documenting antiques and flowers - with image quality "good enough" to be used in presentations. Why even bring DSLR vs P&S up to begin with? From the standpoint of utility, at least to me it is abundantly clear that a DSLR or mirrorless with a macro lens is the best tool for the job - so something like the D5200 with the 40/2.8 (or the Fuji equivalent). Maybe a P&S is going to be "good enough" - but I don't see where the small(er) size is of any advantage in the scenarios as they are described.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>He said, "maybe I'll get both." That is a good choice because then he could get something with a larger sensor, and go frugal, but good, on a P&S, and have the advantages of both.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That certainly is going to strain the budget - which isn't very large to begin with. Buying "one each" just kicks the can down the road - now he will have to determine when to use which.</p>

<p>Reading John's two posts, I actually begin to wonder who actually brought the P&S issue up to begin with?</p>

<p>FWIW, when I started with digital, I also got a small-sensor P&S - for "portability" reasons. Total waste of money - every time I look at the images taken with it, I could kick myself for not using "proper" equipment. Same some years later with an inherited Lumix - another small-sensor "wonder". Wonder indeed - because all I could do is wonder why I had even bothered. </p>

<p>For the sake of this post, I wouldn't recommend anything with a sensor smaller than 1" - and preferably not smaller than m4/3.</p>