Canon 10D vs high end 8meg digicams

[dean_g]

I'm an amateur photographer. For this question I want to establish

that. I'm not trying to meet any commercial standards.

 

I have a Canon 10D, a Bessa R that I shoots mostly slides with, and a

small pocket digicam, a 5meg Ricoh GX. I really love the 10D image

quality, and I frequently do 13x19 prints, and the low light

capability is great. But I also have gotten very pleasing 12X16s

from the 5meg GX, and the sad fact is I leave the 10D at home most of

the time and usually have the Ricoh GX in my pocket. I'm thinking I

either better start using the 10D more, or replace it with, if not a

pocketable camera, a more handy one, and I'm wondering if any of the

newer 8meg digicams might offer me something smaller but with imaging

that isn't too far out of the DSLR ballpark. Still, I realize that

I'm thinking about sacrificing some ultimate image quality for

useability, it's a question of how much I have to give up. Recently

played around with a Konica-Minolta A200, and have read good things

about the K-M A2, as well as the Oly C-8080. Could any of these

cameras be a satisfying substitute for the 10D? I know it's my call

ultimately, but I'm interested in other's opinions on this.

[craig_gillette]

It's going to be really dependent on your shooting styles and preferences, etc. Certainly they will reduce the size of your kit (but some of the high end digicams aren't that small). The digicams tend to come up short in things like low light performance and keeping up with action. If you don't do a lot in those areas, you may be pleasantly surprised. Sports and action? Iffy. Low light? Iffy. For example, if you live and die high school basketball, you'll probably die with a digicam. If you seldom shoot things that make you begin to think you might need a tripod, you may be very happy.

[peter_foiles2]

You are getting sucked into the megapixels = quality mindset. Wrong, wrong, wrong. What is better abou the 6 mp 10D vs the 8mp A2 etc. is the the 10D has a big sensor that gives high quality low noise pixels and the A2 or whatever has a small sensor that gives low quality high noise pixels. The physical size of a sensor is much more important than the number of megapixels.

 

So, IMHO an A2 or 8080 or whatever is not a substitute for a dSLR but does make a nice companion for those times when convenience takes priority over quality.

[jkantor]

Not to mention more depth of field control, more lens options, faster lenses, faster autofocus...

[scott_eaton]

I just had a bunch of 3'x 5' lightjet banners made from my 10D. If you really think the digi-toys with smaller sensors are going to match the clean images from a larger sensor, you're dreaming.

 

The 3/4 oddball olympus sensor isn't bad, but all the smaller sensor cameras are grease off the same meatball. Tolerable at low ISO, but that's it.

[digitmstr]

If your goal is to have camera in your pocket VS having quality the choice is clear, no?

[dean_g]

Yeah, I guess I am dreaming, and really, I'm not unaware of the difference between the aps sized cmos and a smaller densly packed 8meg CCD.. bigger pixels, less noise etc etc. Where I am getting sucked in I think is actually believing I'll get more from one of the 8meg digicams than I'm getting out of my little Ricoh 5meg (ie something that will cover that AND the 10D..and for that purpose (very small, pocketable) I doubt it). Thanks, you're all pointing out what should go without saying. It's a good reality check anyway. I guess it's just that same old dream of a little camera that meets the quality of the DSLR. But I suppose there's a reason some photographers haul around LF viewcameras and pay $15.00 or more a frame, right? As pointed out by the last reply, I sort of answer my own question in the question, which is that it comes down to trading quality for size and convenience. But if I go toward the latter I guess I'm falling into the consumer marketing ploy. The solution is to just start using the best camera I have now, which is my 10D. Thanks for you consideration of my "dilema".

[moophoto]

I have both the K-M A2 and the Canon 20D (8 meg. vs. the 6 meg. of the 10D). If you are shooting flash or in low light, there is no comparison: the 20D is far better at high ISO and much better with flash (though that is undoubtedly partly due to the external flash required on the 20D). But I have taken identical shots with the K-M at ISO 60 and the 20D at ISO 100, processed them to the best of my ability and printed them at 18x12 on an Epson 2200. It is very difficult to tell any difference between them: only with a 10x loupe could I detect possible superiority in the 20D prints. So, as is usually the case, it gets down to what kind of shooting you want to do. I love the K-M because I can take it on trips that are not primarily photographic when I don't have the luggage room for my 20D outfit and still get some reasonable images. On the other hand, it is not compact enough to be a "carry everywhere" camera. So I am now trying to decide whether I should trade in the K-M for a smaller 5-6 meg. digital camera.

[carl smith]

It's a tough thing to balance. The 20D will have more dynamic range than any P&S (meaning you'll have a better range of tones to work with), and of course it is more responsive and has vastly superior high ISO noise levels. The DOF control and other benefits go without saying.

 

However, a 20D and even a small lens is going to be bigger than most of the P&S cameras and some of the P&Ss can provide reasonable image quality if you understand and accept their limitations. The KM A2 isn't very large, but I like the Olympus 8mp camera better. In the end you may want to go to a store and play with the 8mp cameras and see if they suit your needs of a smaller carry-round camera. None of the 8mp cameras producing acceptable results are pocketable however, and if that is your demand you'll have trouble finding one.

 

I'd check out the KM A2 and the Oly C8080, and like I said of the two I like the Olympus a fair amount more.

[digitmstr]

Size does matter, same for speakers...until we discover another set of physics [laws] that would change the world as we know it :)

[cgo]

Why have a 10D or 20D if a Point 'n Shoot meets your needs?

 

Too many people make the choice between DSLR's and Point 'n Shoot's based on performance instead of needs. Buy a camera using similar criteria to buying a car ... Needs and afordability ...

[godfrey]

I have the A2 as well as the 10D. Both will make exceptional A3 Super sized prints. The

difference is that the A2 is relatively insensitive so you'll need a tripod and be working

with more static subjects in low available light, or you'll move to greater dependence on

flash.

 

The 10D's increased sensitivity allows working with more dynamic subjects in much lower

available light.

 

Godfrey

[peter_werner1]

I am in a similar dilemma like you. I have a Fuji S2 Pro DSLR and several Film SLRs (Leica, Nikon, Alpa). Problem: they are heavy and bulky and I do not often take them along. I am considering the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20 which has a wonderful 2.8 Leica 12x zoom with image stabilization. See the discussion on

 

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=00Adqp&unified_p=1

 

and the test on

 

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/

 

It is lighter than the DSLR but still bulky. At the other extreme I am considering the Canon Powershot S500 (IXUS 500). My sister in law used one last summer on a common trip. Her pictures were excellent and this little jewel is REALLY pocketable. See the test on

 

www.steves-digicams.com/2004_reviews/s500.html

[dean_g]

To this point in my hobby, I've found I'm primarily attracted to subjects like urban landscape, and traditional landscape as well as indoor color and structural things. Photogs like Eggleston, Shore etc are my favorites. Generally pretty static, although my circumstances often put me in low light during the time I've got to myself for photography, either indoors or night, or both. But not always.

 

The A2 with the image stabilization "seems" to offer a lot of potential for similarly static subject in low light at lower ISO's. I guess the question for me is whether I would regret trading the expandability and flexibility of the DSLR if my interests change in the future. It's that extensibility that attracted me to the 10D. The Lumix mentioned above is also interesting for the lens and optical stabilization.

 

The 10D is so far winning here, for me because it's the least likely camera that might paint me into a corner and really doesn't limit me for the size of prints I can do. But it still remains that the best camera you have is the one you use. I wonder if the perception of the DSLR being more to carry bulky etc isn't more exaggerated than the reality. Maybe it's just, to paraphrase Frank Zappa, a "shut up and take yer pictures" kind of thing!

[peter_werner1]

Dean,

 

--------------

I wonder if the perception of the DSLR being more to carry bulky etc isn't more exaggerated than the reality. Maybe it's just, to paraphrase Frank Zappa, a "shut up and take yer pictures" kind of thing!

--------------

 

For an amateur I think there are moments for a DSLR (or a medium format or LF view camera) when one has time and leisure to carry equipment. However, we lose a lot of occasions for interesting pictures by not having always on us a really pocketable camera.

 

The two concepts are not mutually exclusive. Perhaps let's use the (D)SLR when we are planning a photo day and always keep a pocketable camera on us for the rest of the time. To be always used it has to be small (S500, GX, Sony DSC-W1). If we choose a better (bigger) camera like the C-8080 or the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ20, will it not stay at home like the DSLR? I wonder, I have not made up my mind yet.

[dean_g]

Peter,

Well that's what I've been thinking too.. about the bigger digicam alternatives..why would I be more inclined to carry them? But the KM A200 I was playing around with is still tiny and light compared to the 10D, even with my short sigma dc lens or one of the primes. I understand the 8080 is a somewhat larger digicam, but I haven't really checked one out. I guess for the grab shot a real pocket camera can't be beat, but what I find myself doing (my problem I guess) is deferring to the pocket camera because it is so much more attractive a carry around prospect than the 10D, even when I'm purposefully going out to shoot photographs. My Bessa rangefinder is nice as an in-between size, but of course, not digital and not what we're talking about here.

 

I think you're right, it's a matter of using the appropriate tool for the circumstances. A little discipline wouldn't hurt.. but that's sort of the luxury of a hobby vs a livelihood.

[leonard_richmond7]

<i>"The 20D will have more dynamic range than any P&S (meaning you'll have a better range of tones to work with)" </i>- Carl Smith

<p>

Couldn't find color chart samples comparing your Ricoh with the 20D, but the tiny Canon S500 5 megapixel has the same size ccd (and an even smaller body) as your Ricoh. Comparing the color charts for the Canon S500 at<br>

<a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S500/FULLRES/S50DBMWB.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/S500/FULLRES/S50DBMWB.HTM</a><br>

and the Canon 20D at<br>

<a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E20D/FULLRES/E20DBWBA.HTM">http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E20D/FULLRES/E20DBWBA.HTM</a>,

I don't see ANY difference in dynamic range in a straight shot.

<p>

With the lower noise of the 20D, you could raise the levels more to bring out detail in the shadows because of the lower noise compared to a P&S. (That's true for my Canon 300D and Canon 3 megapixel S30), so you can salvage shadow detail better with postprocessing. Perhaps you could call that "usable dynamic range".

[dean_g]

Just was reading another post, unrelated issue, but concerning the Olympus E-300. Perhaps these cameras offer a decent compromise between a digicam and a DSLR? For a smaller and lighter form factor that retains high image quality? I can't say I know anything about them, ISO capability etc, and I haven't ever seen an E-300 or E1 in the flesh so I don't know, but the E-300 is fairly compact is it not? I'll have to do some research there.

 

Otherwise I am starting to believe that, at the current stage of digicam development, if one wants imaging approaching the DSLR in a very compact camera, we may as well forget it. It may be that a really acceptable compact camera still needs to be film based, and something like a Stylus Epic, or Ricoh GR1, combined with a decent film scanner, while not offering the convenience or features of digicams, is maybe a better quality imaging alternative for a pocketable camera? I routinely get images from my Bessa that compete for my attention with those from the 10D.

[digitmstr]

with current technology smaller pixels equal worse performance. To fit 8mp in a smaller sensor the trade is higher noise, usually worse dyn. range, color rendition, etc...

[ilkka]

Since you already have the 10D and a good small digicam, I would try to live with them. The 10D with a small light zoom lens is not that big and heavy. I have the A2 and a small digicam (Canon S500) and I also often carry just the small one. So the A2 could often be too big for you as well. I would certainly not consider another system camera like the Olympus 300.

[dean_g]

Indeed, as this discussion loses momentum, I've concluded that the grass isn't greener, or even as green on the other side (whatever that may be). I hope I'm not the only one who occasionally second guesses like this, hoping for one do-all be-all camera, because in retrospect it seems kind of silly. A bigger camera, and a smaller one for convenience and occasional use..as with the rest of photography, again it's not the equipment anyhow. I've got the tools, it's up to me to use them. Thinking through the alternatives and this discussion, I've actually renewed my appreciation for the 10D and it's sort of like going back to Kansas after Oz.. it's the right place to be for what I do. Anyway thanks everyone for your thoughts. Happy shooting.