Whats the point in buying DSLR

<p>I am reading too many forums and reviews and internet stuff.. and Its looking to me like Canon G10, G11 are also capable of producing excellent images if you are not worried for more than 8x6 or 8x10 prints.<br>

I am beginning to think, then whats the point of buying DSLR? Obviously more manual controls and interchangeable lens could be the strongest reason?</p>

<p>Yeah, G10 and 1 series camera, no difference.</p>

<p>Low light noise, no shutter delay, quick servo AF, high fps, among others,<br>

But yeah, if you're shooting landscape with tripod and occasional snapshots, not kids skating around in a dark ice rink or kids performance on stage or any other sports activities for example, then the G series is perfect.</p>

<p>A DSLR is much better at higher ISO. A DSLR has much faster autofocus. A DSLR is much better at blurring a background than a P&S is.</p>

<p>In good light, shooting casual shots where you don't need background blur, the G10 or G11 are excellent cameras.</p>

<p>I use an S90, and I only shoot snapshots and casual shots, and of course, only in good light...<br>

Yeah, right!</p>

<p>If you ever try to capture the "decisive moment" or moving subjects with a G11 you'll greatly appreciate the near lack of shutter lag in even the most humble DSLR. The G11 zooms so slow you can see grass grow a little before it's finished. And, like others have mentioned, the DSLR does much better in low light and has truly useable high ISO 800 and above. Personally I find the optical VF of the G11 really poor and find it a little heavy to use at arm's length.</p>

<p>Now I have a lot of lenses so I wouldn't ever consider a G11 as my main camera. However I do appreciate a pocket camera for causal snaps and to sneak into places DSLR aren't allowed. Love the little S90 but ISO above 400 is pretty gritty (& it whips any P&S I've owned in this regard) and it's hard too hold (small bar of soap).</p>

<p>If you'll never buy more than one lens and like the built-in zoom range, don't shoot above ISO400, mainly do static snaps and don't print large, the G11 or S90 are may be the ticket.</p>

<p>The G10 doesn't have the high-iso noise characteristics of the G11 or a DSLR, so I would struggle with only that camera in low light situations. It's a useful little camera and I'm still learning to use it, but it has nothing like the capabilities of a DSLR, and of course, you can't hang a long lens on it.<br>

Where compacts like the G10 do win out, is in their anonymity. You could use a G10 unobtrusively under conditions where a DSLR would start making people feel self conscious. I carry the G10 with me pretty much all the time, but wouldn't be without a "real" camera<br /><a title="Champagne by Peter Meade, on Flickr" href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/pjmeade/4672776426/"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4002/4672776426_03ae7c76c8.jpg" alt="Champagne" width="375" height="500" /></a></p>

<p>There is a very wide range of photographers who differ greatly in what they need from a camera. Thus, there is a very wide range of cameras that differ in their features and capabilities. You just have to know where you are along the continuum and the hopefully pick the right camera that corresponds to and fulfills your needs. </p>

<p>I understand what your saying and a G11 would be enough for me about half the time but there is really no comparison when it comes to low light ( especially on a 5d2 ) action shooting etc. I don't think it just applies to print size, many times I simply would not get the shot without a DSLR but a good p/s like a G11 can produce good results. </p>

<p>The guy with the champagne glass either has a terrible sunburn or is 3 sheets to the wind. Or maybe he's trying to color coordinate with his bow tie...</p>

<p>I use both a point and shoot and a DSLR, if the light is good and the subjects are static both can get very good looking photos. But is the subject is moving then the faster focus and lower shutter lag of the DSLR makes it much more fun to shoot with, and gives me better photos. When the light level get low then the DSLR wins by a lot.</p>

<p>On the other had my P&S has a much larger zoom range and if I am limiting myself to one lens on the DSLR often the P&S can get the shot that the DSLR can't, simply because it has more range. </p>

<p>For me I wan't to have both a P&S and a DLSR, there are uses for both, but I must say when I have my P&S with me it just feels sluggish when I am shooting with it.</p>

Buy both. I have a G9. very comfortable for business travel. not as fun as dslr.

<p>Sanjeet,</p>

<p>They all have their place, I have a G10 and a DSLR, for some jobs the G10 just works better, but it can't do many of the jobs that the DSLR can.</p>

<p>Don't think the G10 can only print to 8x10, the 3 image stitch (done totally automatically in PS) below prints out perfectly to 36"x13.5", but it isn't a sports camera :-). Good P&S's with exposure controls do have a place for photographers and they are a great place to start out getting into photography, they can do way more than many people give them credit for too, but they have their limitations.</p><div></div>

No pun intended, but it would be hard to be taken seriously with a G10 at a wedding, Sporting event, or fashion shoot. Not to say that it can't be done, but it would be very limiting and somewaht awkward. The G10 and cameras like it are 'Fun" cameras, they are convenient and take some pretty good pictures, but when it comes to difficult lighting situations, they often fall short of the DSLR series of lenses. Especially the 'L' series lenses.

<p>When I was back in NYC for an exhibition of my prints at National Train Day, I ran into a guy who was covering the event. We got talking about the G camera series and he told me of another AP photographer who had gotten rid of his dSLR's and was only using the G9. So, I think maybe it is just a matter of what you want to do and how you want to work. I have a G10 but honestly don't use it much. I found that for the type of work I am doing, even portraits of strangers, that the larger professional dSLR is actually to my benefit, but I am not trying to be unobtrusive. Don't ask me how I did it, but I did find a setting where the delay was reduced to almost nothing on the G10--I think it had something to do with getting away from figuring out if it needed fill flash.....</p>

<p>John,</p>

<p>Put it in M mode and manual pre focus and it is as fast and unobtrusive as any Leica, shutter release is instant.</p>

<p>Cameras like the G10 and G11 are great for more casual shooters who won't print larger than the sizes you mention and who aren't concerned about some of the other features that are only available with DSLRs. They can also do a quite decent job while taking up less space and weighing less.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>Are you all deciding the limit of the prints you can do with a G10/G11 based on MP alone? I ask because I haven't tried anything big with either of these, but the files on the G10 would indicate that a nice 24x36 or even larger would be no problem. I have printed 12mp files 40x50 and they look great, so a 14mp camera should do fine that size as well.</p>

<p>I just ask since I haven't printed a G series camera file yet, but they seem to be very good when there is enough light and they are exposed right.</p>

<p>I have a G-10 and a D-700. For shooting, say a castle on a hill in bright sunlight, the G-10 is phenomenal and sometimes even outperforms the D-700. for instance, I have gotten some nice shots by cropping that big 14.7 MP image from the G-10.</p>

<p>That said, is can't compare to the D-700 in a lot of situations:</p>

<p>- shooting in the dark. The high ISO ratings of full-frame cameras are unbelievable. I don't use anything over 400 on the G-10 and even 400 is a bit noisy. With the D-700 on ISO 5000, I have handheld cityscapes at night.<br>

- Inside at parties, in churches, etc. For the same reasons, the increased ISO will allow you to get shots inside that are impossible with the G-10.<br>

- Depth of field. The reduced sensor size means it is much harder to get a blurry background or nice bokeh. This is important with portraits.<br>

- For the same reason, it is hard to get a small enough aperture for some shots. For instance, if you want to slow the motion of a water fall in bright sunlight, it's difficult. To slow it enough to show motion blur from people moving in a bright light is also very difficult.<br>

- Of course, the interchangeable lenses (you might want more reach than the G-10 will offer) and the ability to mount filters and the fast auto-focus, etc. are all important also. For instance, it can be difficult to tell where the G-10 is focused and focusing can be slow. Again, if you are shooting landscapes with it, you won't notice, but try to shot your kids playing soccer are you find a HUGE difference.</p>

<p>Good luck. Let us know how it goes.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>but it would be hard to be taken seriously with a G10 at a wedding</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>Absolutely! That's why I would rather hire a wedding photographer who uses a at least a couple of G11's.<strong><br /></strong></p>

<p>Apples and Oranges. Both are good cameras, but it depends upon what you shoot. Need to be quiet, light, unobtrusive? G10 rangefinder. Need high performance and interchangeable lenses? DSLR. In a perfect world you could own both. But if I could only have one I'd pick a DSLR for my shooting needs. Only you can decide what's best for you.</p>

<p>No doubt P&S cameras can also provide memorable images, but as already has been pointed out, they are not as versatile as DSLRs under many varying and demanding conditions. One thing I didn't see mentioned, the issue of DoF. It is much harder to throw the background out of focus and isolate the subject in a P&S, as compared to DSLRs. P&S mostly use comparatively very wide angle lenses compared to APS-C or full-frame DSLRs, since P&S sensors are much smaller in size compared to DSLRs. The crop area changes because of sensor size, looking apparently like a telephoto lens, but in reality the optical characteristics such us perspective and depth-of-field remain the same as an ultra-wide lens (compared to full-frame or APS-C DSLR).</p>

<p>The less you know about how to use a camera, the more digital horsepower you need to overcome that.<br>

Pros used to take their sports/action photos with manual focus 35mm SLRs, and before that, with big, 4x5 Crown Graphics. They pre-focussed, or they hyperfocaled... whatever worked for them. I can do that, and I have done that with my compact, because it can be focused manually and the next time it's turned on, it will still be focused there, ready to shoot. That way, I laugh at shutter lag. I get instant shutter response. I don't even have to meter, because that can be preset too. I don't always use my compact like this, but I guarantee you that when I do, I can whip it out of my pocket and take the picture quicker than you can even turn your DSLR on. And it's there in my pocket, not sitting at home.</p>

<p>Look, I'm not saying there aren't advantages to using a DSLR, but things progress, and compacts have come a long way... some of them are now virtually as good as even some DSRLs were just a few years ago. They are already better than film was, when you get right down to it, so what more do you need? There's no law that says you can't have a compact and then later buy a DSLR if you want one.</p>

<p>If you're a beginner, you're not missing out on anything by starting with a compact, but it should be a good one, with full manual and semi-automatic controls. There's nothing about photography you can't learn with one... because you have everything you need right there, straight out of the box... no need to buy anything else. The only real disadvantage is that because the sensor is smaller, the lenses are even more crop-factored than DSLR lenses are. This means that the equivalent to a 35mm camera's 28mm lens is a 6mm lens. You won't get much blurring of backgrounds with that, unless you are very close to the subject, and the background is very far away. Even then, it's only going to be very mild blurring at best. On the other hand, virtually infinite depth of field does have its uses too.</p>

<p>The big thing for me is shutter lag and all the other factors that come into play (too slowly) when using a compact camera.</p>

<p>In good light at base ISO a camera like the G10 has wonderful image quality that can give a DSLR a run for it's money when printing an 8x10. Like someone said above catching the decisive moment with one is another story.</p>

<p>I'm using a EPL1 for a compact right now and autofocus speed using the 17mm 2.8 is decent. Still it can't match a quality DSLR for reaction time.</p>

<p>For about 75% of the non-pro photogs I see out and about, a G11 would be just as good as a DSLR. However, if they figured this out, they might stop buying gear they don't need, leading to price increases for the rest of us.</p>