Why no P&S setting in DSLR?

[robert_lauder]

The main reason I'm shying away from buying my first DSLR is that I keep

hearing how many people are dissapointed with their first experiences with a

DSLR, even with "auto-everything setting". They actually prefer the images from

a P&S.

 

The standard response in most discussion boards is:

 

"don't expect good quality right off the camera, you need to post-process!"

 

Why can't manufacturers just include a P&S setting in the camera?

 

For example why can't a Canon Digital rebel record an image just like their

A640 or G7 cameras.

 

If I'm spending the extra $$$ to jump from a P&S to an DSLR, I should be able

to have a fairly decent picture right off the camera.

 

Best Regards,

 

Rob

[ralph_jensen]

Um, they do.

 

The Rebel, for example, has both an "Auto" and a "P" (basically auto, but lets you change things you might care about like white balance and ISO).

 

"Discussion boards" are generally frequented by people who want to discuss getting more out of their cameras than the typical P&S shooter does. Naturally the talk revolves around things you CAN do in-camera and in post-processing -- but they aren't things you HAVE to do to get photos that are well-exposed and at least as good of quality as P&S photos.

[phule]

<<Why can't manufacturers just include a P&S setting in the camera?>>

 

Why doesn't Porsche provide a button that lets the car drive like a 1980 Ford Escort with a bad cylinder?

 

Rob,

 

A DSLR is a toolbox. It's nearly infinitively customizable. What you put into it (or on it) determines what you get out of it. It's about a level of control you do not get with an auto-everything point and shoot.

 

Your belief that more money must mean better image quality is a common one, but is completely erroneous. More money means a better tool. Spending more money on expensive tools at Home Depot does not mean you can build a better house.

 

In addition, you have some very fundamental differences between point and shoots and DSLRs in terms of depth of field, sensitivity, focus, etc. People that complain about their DSLR not giving them what their P&S did are very often doing so out of ignorance of what they bought. This cannot be solved by yet another "scene" mode.

 

Lastly, you fail to describe a "standard" to which camera manufactures can apply this "make it look like a P&S" setting. Where is the baseline? How many different point and shoots are? Who's output are you basing your model on?

 

If you want high-contrast, high-saturation JPGs, a DSLR will give you just that, provided that you tell it to. You don't need to do any post-processing. You just have to change the in-camera settings.

[szrimaging]

Rob, I think you greatly miss the point of a D-SLR. And in such, from the way you talk, the P&S route is probably just fine for you.

 

That said, if you shoot the highest quality Jpeg setting on the D-SLR, it should be ready to go, just like the P&S, assuming you set the camera up correctly. RAW, although needing more processing, gives a much better image, IMO. And it allows for a greater amount of control.

 

The points of the D-SLR are numerous with far more advantages than you make it out to be. Interchangeable optics has to be one of the largest. Being able to put on a lens that is exactly suited to the subject/conditions you are shooting greatly improves the final output quality. Next, the shear amount of control afforded to you is a huge selling point. But, to gain that control, you must be willing to work at it.

 

And I am sure others will be able to chime in with their advantages to P&S or D-SLR. In the end, it is what advantages, disadvantages work, don't work for you. Its all a personal thing. Just like the choice to go up to MF or LF is a personal choice.

[richsimmons]

You can, but you wouldn't drive a Maserati the same way you would drive a Yugo either.

 

A DSLR brings you to the next level. P&S's are basically about "snapshots" whereas SLR's are more programable, have interchangable lenses and are geared for the craft of photography. Yes, you can set a DSLR for automatic and take great shots, but what for. You might as well buy the P&S.

 

Do you always have to post process. No. But there are photos that will benefit for it. just as someone in a darkroom will process their negatives.

 

It is more work, if you want it to be. But it also opens up a variety of opportunity to take your work to a higher level. It does take getting used to, my first shots were terrible, but the more I practiced, the more I read, the more I shared, the more learned. Now I can't ever see going back to a P&S.

[sam_thompson2]

The low end cameras P&S do not have a raw function so they have to get their jpgs correct out of the camera. More advanced users like to pictures little bit under exposed to save the highlights. In practice this means pictures are less saturated and not as colorful as point and shoot cameras.

 

The low end Nikons and Rebels have a tendency to over expose to cater to this market. But then the internet forums are full of whiners complaining that their D80s are over exposing.

 

So camera makers can't really win on this one. If they make DSLRs really easy to use like a P&S advanced users will whine and if it takes some effort to get good images then newbs will whine about paying more and their pictures looking worse.

 

People already whine about special scene modes on the D80 because it doesn't look pro.

[SCL]

The camera is a tool, that's all. Some tools are designed for beginners, some are designed for craftsmen and masters. Beginner tools have many of the decisions pre-selected so that optimum results are obtained for the level of the user with minimal alternative decision making. More advanced tools leave the selections to the choice of more knowledgable users...including the more extensive post-processing. Having said that, many DSLRs can, after careful readings of the manuals, be set up to preselect almost everything. It seems a waste to me, but it can be done....you just need to thoroughly read the manuals to know how to do it. You don't buy a full chef range, when you just need a microwave oven.

[robert_lauder]

Thank you all for your replies but I've read similar responses before. BTW, I do understand the concept of a DSLR and it's possibilities.

 

My point is that I don't see any technological barrier in making a Digital Rebel shoot like a Canon A640 for instance. I should be able to hand over the camera to my kid or mom and have them click away.

 

Yet retaining the option of manual controls when I shoot and post-process myself.

[robert_lauder]

Thank you all for your replies but I've read similar responses before. BTW, I do understand the concept of a DSLR and it's possibilities.

 

My point is that I don't see any technological barrier in making a Digital Rebel shoot like a Canon A640 for instance. I should be able to hand over the camera to my kid or mom and have them click away.

 

Yet retaining the option of manual controls when I shoot and post-process myself.

[phule]

As Ralph pointed out, all entry-level DSLR's have scene modes just like point and shoots. But that doesn't mean you're going to get the same results, nor should you. The DSLR has a larger sensor and, for equivalent fields of view, lenses that provide the user with control over depth of field. That difference alone prevents the results from being the same.

 

All this boils down to is that a point and shoot and DSLR are different tools. To expect the /same/ results from either is a bit like expecting the same results from a hand saw as a compound miter saw.

[robert_lauder]

Thanks Rob,

I guess it is a technical/mechanical limitation (for now at least).

Looks like Mom would just have to use the P&S.

[phule]

Well, the Depth of Field issue is physics. The color/contrast is really in-camera settings. You could hand your mother a Canon 400D/XTi in "P" mode with settings that would output images with similar characteristics to your A640 (high contrast, high saturation, and strong sharpening) but I suspect she would see the more shallow depth of field as an issue.

 

Maybe what you really are going after is a point and shoot with the response time of a DSLR? (low shutter lag, faster auto-focus, lower noise at high ISO). And I'm sure everyone would agree that's something camera companies should be working harder towards...

[ronald_moravec1]

I left the store with my Nikon D200 not knowing much more than it fit my hand well and I liked the 18/70 lens.

 

I said I wanted to use it that day and was told to put it on P for perfect or P&S. Set the thing for JPEGs normal color. Worked like a charm.

 

Rotate the command dial on the back and it moves the shutter/f stop combination in unison so you can get a high shutter speed or large debth of field and maintain the correct exposure.

 

I want to post process, so the contrast is turned down now. I use manual exposure and few other strange things, but you can make it do whatever you want.

[robert_lauder]

"...P for perfect or P&S", that's funny and encouraging, right off the camera huh.

[jcuknz]

The trouble is that quite a lot of so-called P&S cameras also have manual over-ride just like the DSLRs .. it just ought to be stamped out so that DSLRs have a monopoly on taking good photos.

[phule]

Aww, come on JC...The thread was going so well, don't flame-bait.

[sam_thompson2]

Alright I'll bite.

 

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/150-vs-5000-dollar-camera.htm

 

An adjustable point and shoot will beat a point and shoot DSLR in many situations where you have a lot of available light at web resolutions.

 

A bad flash photo from a P&S will look equally bad as a bad flash photo from a DSLR.

 

P&S have certain advantages that DSLRs generally don't,live view, near silent operation, flash sync at all speeds, ISO starts lower than many DSLRs, close focusing, 3x-18x zooms with IS certain cameras, smaller size, less expense, and mentioned earlier a greater depth of field.

 

All this means is that when taking pictures of flowers or insects outside you will get really good results on a point and shoot. Even if you would put a Perfect mode on the DSLR there are inherent limitations to the DSLR design. Whereas point and shoot cameras were designed from the ground up. DSLRs have to get by with their 1950s reflex technology and mounts.

 

A perfect consumer DSLR would have a 1.8 sensor, live view, electronic shutter like the D40/50/70, built in wireless flash support like Nikon's CLS, unlimited flash sync, a fast 50mm equiv 1.0 prime lens, 2.8-4 28-200 equivalent zoom lens. 300mm equiv 2.8, 500mm equiv 3.1, 10 fps, 720p video.

 

The perfect soccer mom camera.

 

Problem is people will still buy the big Canon White lenses because they think it will make them look pro.

 

 

 

Basically a D40 in the

[craig_gillette]

One doesn't need to process everything from a dslr or a P&S. Some of the digicams are more attuned to being "done" out of the camera, others aren't. A dslr on Auto or P will do fine. You can simply view everything you've got as it and take some time to tweak them up if you want a better screen display or print but most of the simple editors have auto setings which will poke up the contrast and sharpness just fine.

 

If one wants or needs to use the speed and higher iso features, they can add a dslr. Some folks aren't interested in being gearheads or pixel peepers, they just want to have fun.

[jobo1]

I didn't see it above, so here goes: You can always change the processing parameters in the camera menus to get closer to a ready-to-print JPEG (sharpening, saturation, color rendition etc.) DPReview always tests what these settings actually do, so if you don't want to experiment yourself (?) they have already taken the test shots.

 

As to why the default settings are not ready-to-print, IMO (and that of many others) DSLR pictures are expected to be edited after capture.

[robert_lauder]

Sam,

"...point and shoot cameras were designed from the ground up"

I think this is a most compelling reason to stay with a with a P&S.

 

My DSLR-like Minolta A1 comes very close to your "Perfect Consumer DSLR", I think I will hold on to it for a couple more years. Too bad Sony is not following up with an A3.

 

You started commenting on the D40 but it was cutoff, can you elaborate?

[sam_thompson2]

I was going to write basically a smaller Nikon D40 with a smaller lens mount would be ideal for most consumer zoom people.

[colinsouthern]

Canon's new 1D Mk3 is very P & S compatible - you can look at the image on the screen before you take it ...

 

... and it even shoots movies, although only at a max of 10 frames per second :)

[jb17kx]

I must also come out saying that a DSLR will function as a point and shoot ? as much as I don?t want it to.

 

I bought a Nikon D40 earlier this year as a step up from a film SLR (a Canon AL-1), and a small Fuji P&S. I would have gone for a D80, but in the end I decided that I could cope with the D40 and the significant cost saving. Now, if I take a look on the top dial, I see the following choices:

 

"M" for full-manual mode.

 

"A" for aperture-priority autoexposure.

 

"S" for shutter--priority autoexposure.

 

"P" for Programmed Automatic (namely, complete autoexposure but with user control over sensitivity, flash mode, AF-area selection, etc).

 

"Auto" for camera-does-everything.

 

"No-flash Auto" for camera-does-everything without the flash.

Along with a host of what Nikon calls "Digital Vari-programmes", which are similar to Auto mode but geared to various shooting scenarios, i.e., the Sport Vari-Programme is biased toward a fast shutter.

 

I mainly use P and M modes, and when I hand the camera over to non-photog family members I simply knock it into P mode, set the sensitivity and such as I see fit, and let them shoot away.

 

Rob Bernhardt put it best: having a DSLR imitate a P&S is like having a Porsche or a Mercedes imitate a Daewoo or Hyundai.

>>"My point is that I don't see any technological barrier in making a Digital Rebel shoot like a Canon A640 for instance. I should be able to hand over the camera to my kid or mom and have them click away, [while] retaining the option of manual controls when I shoot and post-process myself."

 

That?s because there is none. An EOS 400D can shoot just like a Powershot A640, just as a Nikon D40 can shoot just like a Coolpix 5700. Most people, particularly those here, don?t want that ? but simply by changing the mode. Naturally, however, the shooting process is what is changing to match the P&S. The output image will not look exactly the same because the cameras are vastly different. Don?t expect your 400D to like an A640 or G7 because it won?t ? it can, however, be made to work the same way if that is what you desire.

[aaron meyer]

<EM>"Even if you would put a Perfect mode on the DSLR there are inherent limitations to the DSLR design. Whereas point and shoot cameras were designed from the ground up. DSLRs have to get by with their 1950s reflex technology and mounts.<BR><BR>

 

A perfect consumer DSLR would have a 1.8 sensor, live view, electronic shutter like the D40/50/70, built in wireless flash support like Nikon's CLS, unlimited flash sync, a fast 50mm equiv 1.0 prime lens, 2.8-4 28-200 equivalent zoom lens. 300mm equiv 2.8, 500mm equiv 3.1, 10 fps, 720p video."</EM><BR><BR>

 

Great idea.<BR><BR>

 

We'll use a 1.8x crop sensor to increase the noise and limit us to shooting at ISO 400 or slower. Why would anyone want low-noise high ISO performance anyway. And who needs lenses that can provide a large field of view? <BR><BR>

 

We'll do away with the TTL optical viewfinder so you can have an electronic shutter and live view. Nevermind that this makes manual focusing damn near impossible, why would anyone want the option of manually focusing anyway? Besides, this would get rid of that annoyingly fast and precise phase difference detection autofocus that DSLRs use and substitute the slower and less reliable contrast detection autofocus used in P&S cameras. And nevermind the increased shutter lag from the time it takes to switch the sensor from live view mode to image recording mode. Plus the severe decrease in battery life from running the sensor all the time surely wouldn't bother anyone.<BR><BR>

 

Built-in wireless flash and unlimited flash sync are already implemented on the Minolta 5D, 7D, and the Sony A100 DSLRs.<BR><BR>

 

Let's see, with that 1.8x crop sensor you want, your "50mm equivalent f/1 prime" becomes a 28mm f/1.0. Great. You have a retrofocus lens that now also has to be corrected to avoid vignetting and distortion at f/1.0. Expect a lens like that to retail around the $2,000 to $2,500 price point in a best case scenario. The "28-200 equivalent f/2.8-4" lens would be a 15-111mm f/2.8-4. Reasonable on the long end, but not on the wide end. And it would still be a 7x zoom, so it will suffer optically. Street price for something like that would probably be around $750. The 300mm equivalent f/2.8 would be a 170mm f/2.8 lens, do-able, but big and expensive to build. Probably a $1,000 to $1,500 lens. The 500mm f/3.1 equivalent (where the hell did you pull f/3.1 anyway, it's not common at all, in fact, I've never seen it before, always either f/3.2 or f/3.5) would be a 280mm f/3.2 lens, big, heavy, and expensive, probably $1,500 to $2,000 market price.<BR><BR>

 

Your "perfect soccer mom camera":<BR><BR>

 

- Too noisy to take pictures indoors reliably without a tripod.<BR>

- Lacking any true "wide angle" lenses (<=24mm equivalent).<BR>

- Poorer AF performance than current cameras and have the bonus of shutter lag.<BR>

- Dismal battery life.<BR>

- A flash system that has been in use by Minolta for the last decade.<BR>

- $5,250 in lenses alone, not counting the cost of the body.<BR><BR>

 

I think that I'll pass.