Leandro DUTRA wrote:
> Digital point and shoot and quality is a contradiction in terms.
>
I must disagree. I dot agree that P&Ss can't compete with DSLRs for
absolute IQ.
But in context of the question asked, it's a perfectly sensible thing to
talk about.
"I have been looking around for a basic (but good quality) P&S for
SWMBO. She likes the quality from the Oly E330, but doesn't want the
size/weight and doesn't want to learn how to use it. She keeps returning
to the old disposable film cameras and being disappointed with the results."
When the choice is between no shot and a disposable film camera with one
lens element and one shutter speed, a P&S looks pretty good, with better
IQ than either of the two other alternatives, none, or crap.
And I disagree in another, more philosophical sense. There is
considerable IQ difference over the range of P&Ss. Therefore, discussion
of IQ in the context of P&Ss is meaningful.
In yet a third, practical sense, I disagree further. I have done
considerable research, much of it practical, hands on work, on P&S IQ.
For web images and prints up to at least 8x10, the better P&Ss, with
proper technique, give nothing away to DSLRs in IQ.
Are my A650 or F30 as good cameras as the 5D? Of course not. Nor are
they as flexible in some technical areas. So I might have to shoot at
ISO 100 to get the same noise as 800 on the 5D. On the other hand, a P&S
in the pocket beats a DSLR in the house, car, etc. Their modest size and
weight gives them flexibility in other ways.
The A650 does excellent macro with far less fuss than the 5D, which
requires switching lenses. With the flip and tilt screen, it will also
do it from angles that would require a contortionist, or even not be
possible, with the large, viewfinder only camera. It also has very
effective built-in IS.
A camera is a tool. You can be a snob about them - or choose the best
tools for each use. On vacation couple of weeks ago, I took hundreds of
shots with the 5D and only a few with the A650. But I never would have
gotten most of the A650 shots with the 5D. It is particularly good for
candids.
> But people have been going to Canon A9, Ricoh Caplio GR100 or something the
> like or the new, expensive Sigma DP1. Some have even ventured the E-420 with
> pancake lens as a good quality digital point and shoot.
>
The A9 and A650 IS are IQ twins, with the same imaging lens, sensor and
processor. The cost and flip & twist screen make the A650 my choice. For
external flash, I'd need the A9. RAW for the A650 is also more trouble
to process. Both are very capable cameras.
Their trickiest IQ flaw is not noise, oddly enough, but little artifacts
at the pixel level at anything over ISO 100. Remember, they are 12mp
cameras, so the artifacts are tiny relative to any normal print size.
And they may be minimized in RAW processing relative to JPEGs.
The Ricoh and Sigma are both deeply flawed cameras. One DP-1 reviewer
managed to find a convoluted niche for it. But really, they are
seriously overpriced toys. The better P&Ss will deliver many more decent
shots in normal use.
A. Contentious Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|