Image quality of DSLRs compared with a Canon S3IS

i am recently thinking to switch over to DSLR(like canon 350d/nikon d 40x

etc.) form my SLR like CANON POWERSHOT S3IS. all my friends are suggesting me

to to switch over . but can anybody tell me ...is there really a big

difference of image quality between low end DSLR'S and canon S3IS ? if

really differs ...why and how much? the question " how much?" is much more

inportant to me because my pocket in not giving me the green signal

This will probably make you more confused but here goes.

 

Consider that, with a DSLR, if you want to get a lens that will give you the same focal length as you are used to with your Powershot S3 IS, you will need to spend thousands of dollars.

 

Now maybe you don't use the extreme end of your zoom on your S3 very much but if you do, you should add that to your costs of switching to a DSLR.

 

A DSLR, as has been mentioned elsewhere, is like a toolbox. What you attached to it is determined by what you want to shoot. A camera like an S3 IS is like a Swiss Army Knife. It can do a LOT (and for some is more than enough camera for their needs) but you can't add anything and you're limited by the design.

 

There's no right answer here.

thanks rob

...but please discuss more about the difference of image quality

If you shoot at higher ISO's (400 and above) you will notice a big diiference (improvement) with either of the DSLRs you mention. Also, if you print larger than 8X10" you will see a definite improvement with the DSLRs. However, if you use low ISO (100) on the S3IS and print small to medium, there will not be a drastic difference. I like to print large, so I got a DSLR...

My 2 cents, In short (you should read some book(s) for the longer version), the differnces are in the almost 4X sensor size format changes and feel/controls. aka: You get both better film and body.

 

Should you want them, with a DSLR you gain:

 

a. One extra dimension of control for non-macro subject called Depth of Field (DOF).

 

b. More dynamic range in lighting control.

 

c. Less noise and better looking noise.

 

d. In most cases, you get to do JPEG conversion instead of the camera do it for you. Note: This may not be better in the beginning.

 

e. Better manual and auto focus controls

 

f. You can use better flash system easier.

 

g. You get to use other lens then the one which came with the camera.

 

There properly are more just as valid reasons. Now the down side, the cost of the DSLR is only a down payment. You can (a lot of people do) spend 5 to 10X+ the cost of the body for stuff that go with the body.

<<but please discuss more about the difference of image quality>>

 

Well, in a way I was. If you can't afford to outfit your DSLR with a 400mm IS zoom and you miss a shot, then clearly the image quality is zero! :)

As far as the question of "Why" the image quality is better with an SLR, in part it's due to the sensor size.

 

In the S3IS the sensor is 5.7 x 7mm (around 40 square mm, I suppose), while in the Rebel it's 14.8 x 22mm (around 330 square mm).

 

That said, if you're happy with your S3 and don't understand why one would switch (and don't have excessive funds to buy a new camera), then don't switch.

Try googling on "your camera doesn't matter".

 

I have a Canon A540 which can take phenomenally good pictures. The only drawbacks are the size (I'm ham-handed), the shutter lag, and I can't convince it to turn off the @#$%^ flash and LEAVE it off. I actually built a custom battery-grip for it, makes it about the size of a "real" camera, but I can't get past the flash thing. Apparently that's not a problem, it's a standard feature. Since I shoot people, including a lot of squirmy kids, I couldn't live with the shutter lag, and there are far too few P/S models which would be acceptable. So that's basically why I now have 2 DSLRs and a lot of expensive glass and accessories, and it has nothing to do with the image quality.

 

If you like your S3IS and have no issues with it, there's no real reason to pour money into a DSLR system.

How are you viewing and/or using the images? On screen? Print sizes? If you aren't going real big in prints or are predominantly using informal on-screen sharing, and the lighting condition when you take the images isn't too bad, it may be kind of hard to see a lot of difference.

 

OTOH, the more you have to deal with less optimal lighting, the more you can gain by dealing with the larger sensors. That will help you see if the noise is a big deal for you or not.

 

As some have pointed out, matching a digicam zoom effective range can be quite costly with a dslr lens kit. The other area that can make a difference is responsiveness. Do you find yourself having trouble with moving subjects, sports and action type shots? Dslrs tend to be faster and more responsive in use and finder refresh can make predicting/reacting to shots harder.

 

You might want to visit some of the sites with reviews with sample images, many will have the same or similar test image set-ups and also show the changes as different iso/sensitivities are used.

If you don't need to shoot at higher ISO and don't have the cash for either the camera or a collection of expensive lens you should consider upgrading to a newer model of your camera ... checking www.dpreview.com review of the S5 IS to see if they think such an upgrade is worthwhile. Certainly with my make, Panasonic, the difference between this years and last years model is not that great:-) ... so probably the answer is to stick with what you have until you need to get, not an entry level DSLR, but one of the intermediate models.