For me, I went with the DSLR to be able to play and experiment. Using the tripod and remote I have some awesome sunset pictures. I have way too many filters that I pop on and off just to play with. I like the ability to go from a 15mm Fisheye lens to a 60mm Macro lens. I think what I'm trying to say is that it goes beyond just the zoom capability (which you have a lot more than I do) and into the types of lenses, the filters to add different effects, the ability to use remote controls and flashes, and the tripod.

1. speed: push the button, and the picture is already taken. Zero perceptible delay. Sure, the best P&S cameras are quicker than they used to be, but nowhere near as quick as a run of the mill DSLR.

2. depth-of-field: P&S always have loads of depth of field, which can be very useful for landscapes and architecture. And very hindering for people photos, or anything else where the subject needs to be more isolated from its background.

3. Ease of operation: just peer through the large viewfinder, and press the button. No trying to hold (and see!) a shaky screen at arms length in bright sunlight.

4. It works in the dark: or nearly so. Natural light photos are possible just about anywhere, under just about any conditions.

Cheers

I'm with Tanstaafl on this, for my needs anyway.

I have an FZ10 which I use for taking landscape photos and also zoom photos of birds / wildlife and I find it a pleasure to be able to do both without having to carry around and change another lens. Admittedly, most lighting conditions under which I am taking these photos are bright enough not to need the better low-light capability of a DSLR. I am also not turning my photos into poster sized prints, where the better picture quality of a DSLR would be required.

Also, given the mainly dry, dusty conditions here, it is a plus to me not having to worry about dust on the sensor when changing lenses.

I must say that I would like a faster autofocus though. The FZ50 (and any later models) would probably have this feature. Perhaps in the future I will upgrade to a newer super-zoom.

Re the viewfinder, the Panasonic super-zooms have one, albeit electronic.

Actually 7D comes with a built-in flash, and is not full-frame. In current Canon line-up, 7D is actually the successor of the 50D, while 60D has been repositioned below to fit between 7D and 550D.

But I see what you're saying. 7D looks very tempting now. I just wish it had a flip LCD screen.

I'm with everyone -- I use both.

I carry a small P&S for those times when I prefer to be unobtrusive, or don't want to carry a big SLR (such as when photography isn't the main purpose of going out). My P&S is waterproof, too, without the need to spend a thousand bucks or so on a housing. But the lens is crap, and there are few manual controls.

On the other hand, my SLR is more versatile in low light situations, has a greater degree of variability with regards to lens choices (I've rented lenses in the past), has manual controls, is faster, and takes better pictures in general. But it's bigger, more obvious, and not appropriate to carry everywhere.

Since I got my iPhone 4 I find myself taking more and more photos on the phone and less on my DSLR. I'm less inclined to take my full camera gear when I go away for a weekend nowadays.

I'm still amazed how well the iPhone camera performs in good to middling lighting.


All my photossnapshots in August were taken with my phone:

http://norman.cx/photos/201008

But of course I could never have taken this shot with my phone:


(Vimy Ridge Canadian memorial, very moving place)

I think I will briefly jump to the defense of my FZ50. At the time (it is no longer in production) it was the top of the Panasonic line, and has aimed at the "prosumer" user.

From a review published on Amazon.com: With its multi-task image processing capability, the Venus Engine III also boasts outstanding response time with an industry-leading level of shutter release time lag of as short as 0.009 seconds.

The camera is fully manually controllable: shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus, and I control depth of field by appropriate aperture selection.

The FZ50 has a large high-resolution dedicated viewfinder in addition to the viewing screen (I would never have a camera without) and if necessary it can be digitally adjusted for enhanced brightness in low-light situations.

You got me there. The low-light performance of the FZ50 is barely adequate, and certainly not comparable to the capabilities of a good DSLR. Trying to compensate by cranking the ISO up beyond 800 (400, really, if you are picky) just makes a low-contrast, noisy picture.

As I said before, there are tradeoffs in image quality, but the differences are hardly noticeable under normal circumstances and the versatility is more than enough compensation for me. YMMV.

Attached are two pictures extolling both the versatility and the limitations of the camera. These are full-frame pictures, unedited or modified in any way. What kind of DSLR kit would have been needed to take these two shots? My apologies for not re-sizing them, I wanted to show as much detail as I could, so they are each nearly 4 MB.

tanstaafl.

edit: The descriptions on the pictures didn't work right - the only description that made it is for the first picture. The second description should have said something about full zoom including digital, and lost contrast and sharpness.

Oh, well.. I'm way behind things!
Also, given that info, the 7D should be a simple no-brainer. Worth every penny over the 60D.

The flip out screen is only really useful for two things:

1. When using the camera as a camcorder. But really?

2. For macro (extreme close-up) photography.

Beyond that, it should not be a consideration. Remember, with a DSLR, the real optical viewfinder is generally way superior for framing photos.

Cheers

They're just quoting the unreal manufacturer's propaganda. See here for some measured real numbers, or measure your own.


Irrelevant. The camera itself, due to the geometry of the dinky sensor, is incapable of reduced depth-of-field. Even most DSLRs aren't as good at this as full 35mm format cameras, again because of the size of the sensor.


I prefer to see the subject, not a delayed digital copy of it. But that camera is apparently MUCH better than most P&S.



For me, it's not image quality -- my 3mp P&S has GREAT image quality. It's much more in the operational issues, and the total lack of control over depth of field.

EDIT: This thread isn't so much about P&S being inferior to DSLR, though, but rather the tradeoffs involved to get a camera that fits in a pocket.

Cheers

Along these lines, I'm quite disappointed in my Droid X. It's eight megapixels of mush, with washed out colors and fuzzy edges. I have to give Apple credit for managing to build a very reasonable camera into the iPhone line. My original iPhone 3G was a far better camera than my shiny new Droid X.

It certainly does show the flexibility, but it also shows the massive cost in image quality that you get with a flexible P&S. The image quality on that second shot is just plain lousy I'm afraid. Never mind your post sized prints is is blurry and lacking in detail even when zoomed right out on screen.

Here is a comparison from my DSLR, at a similar zoom level to that photo (equivalent to a 480mm on a 35mm camera). I've just picked a random shot from my photos that was taken with my 300mm lens:



I don't claim to be a great photographer, there is nothing that special about the photo. But just look at the comparison of detail and crispness (and non crispness where I wanted non crispness) to your shot.

P.S. that shot is shrunk down to 33% of the actual size, there is much more detail to see zoomed in

And remember, this is a 7 year old camera, with "only" 6 mega pixels.

That is why I use an DSLR and an iPhone, rather that a P&S.

Edit:

Hmmm, seems like the BBS is setting a small size on the image, see it here

The downside of course is that my camera, lenses and bag weigh 4 times what Doug's camera weighs

(or though often I just take my 17-40mm or 50mm and dump my battery grip, which more cuts the weight in half)

My camera and the tiny 50mm still weigh 50% more than Doug's FZ50.

Sheesh.. and just when I thought I'd finally cured the urge to go climbing, you go and post a photo like that! Where is that cliff? MUST .. GO .. THERE .. SOON!!!!!!

There isn't a P&S around that rivals an SLR for image quality. It's not even close.

Unless you're resizing images down for posting in web forums. Then even images from a 10 year old P&S can look amazing. The iPhone takes great images, but they certainly don't have anywhere near the detail of an image from an APS-C sized sensor on a typical SLR, never mind that of a FF SLR.

I'm with Mark though, there's a tremendous amount of significance to operational aspects, well beyond image quality. Any camera is better than no camera, but you can easily find yourself in a situation where the best P&S just won't get you the shot you want/need for whatever reason (slow lens, slow CPU, lack of manual overrides, etc.)

And to actually answer your question...

Looking at the EXIF data on your photos, the 35mm equivalent of those shots was 168mm and 508mm. So my DSLR and my 75-300mm lens would match that range (mine is 120mm to 480mm equivalent). So a total weight of 1.5kg, about twice what your camera weighs.

What about the Panasonic GH1 and other EVF cameras? There are a lot of Electronic Viewfinder cameras out now that don't have to deal with the clunky mirror box of a DSLR but have all the manual controls of a DSLR. These cameras are proving an optical viewfinder really isn't necessary anymore. What is necessary is good operations and sensor size. Too small of a sensor size equals bad quality and too much depth of field. Depth of field is good to have somethings but too much of it just makes all your shots look flat.

To quote from the DPReview in depth review:

"Electronic viewfinder difficult to use in low light (noisy image and greatly reduced refresh rate)"

I don't ever want to go back to an EVF again. Had one on my Nikon E570 and hated it.

When I look through the viewfinder I want to see a real and crystal clear image.

Now, if I could get an optical viewfinder with on-demand EVF (projection) that would be sublime. But only if it allowed cool stuff like manual signal boosting and perhaps was also equipped with an IR emitter and night-vision capabilities.

And even with that mirror in the way, SLRs are still significantly faster than P&S. That GH1 can only do 3fps JPG.

I own a Canon P&S, the SD960IS from last year, which both my wife and I use quite a bit. The Nikon D300 stays at home much of the time, but the Canon always comes with just in case. I'm a big fan of having a small and decently capable P&S device on top of an SLR. I've ben considering a G11 or similar for a long time as well.

Well, to be fair to Doug, that second shot is taken with digital zoom.

He added that after I replied. And to be honest the non digital zoom shot is also very much lacking in detail and sharpness as compared to any DSLR using just about any lens, as we expect.

Didn't finish my thought, there...

For digital zoom, that's not too bad. I've seen much worse, and I'd certainly consider it an acceptable quality for the trade-off of not having to carry a large camera and zoom lens on a potentially long hike. Is it a shot I'd blow up and hang as a poster on my wall? Of course not -- but it would hold up just fine as a 4x6, sitting on my desk at work.

To answer Doug's question of what kind of DSLR kit would it require? Well, if I were shooting for a magazine, I'd want something equivalent to Canon's 100-400mm zoom lens ($1600 USD from Newegg), on a 1D body ($5000 USD from Newegg). If it's just for myself, I don't need such a fancy body -- a prosumer, or even a consumer-level body would be just fine, with a 200mm zoom lens (and maybe an extender) for a package (probably) coming in under $2K.

Were really insane, I'd get a 800mm prime ($11K) with a 1D body mounted on a motion-control head (custom $$$), and shoot a series of shots (starting with the areas most likely to move, i.e. the people) and stitching them together after the fact.

Or I could get a medium-format Hasselblad DSLR (their H4D is $26K) and their 300mm lens ($4K), and blow the snot out of your puny 35mm DSLR quality.

Yosemite National Park, California.

For some undefinable reason, I myself have no desire whatsoever to try scaling vertical faces of rock. Obviously some basic character flaw...

tanstaafl.

Mmm.. it does look rather familiar for some reason. Perhaps I've already climbed it in my former life?

Cheers!

Andy, the DSLR picture you posted is superb, as far as I can tell. I am impressed.

Speaking of DOF, here are some tests I made last summer with my G11. None of the pics is taken using a tripod.
Click for full size image.

Ah! I see where you're coming from. The lag you're referring to comes from a shooting style that I never use, and is indeed unacceptable at nearly half a second. That style is looking through the viewfinder, saying "Oh, yeah, that's a nice picture", and pressing the shutter button, waiting for it to auto-focus, set the exposure, and finally take the picture. I always compose my picture using the half-press on the shutter button to do all the pre-exposure setup, and when I press the rest of the way the exposure is virtually instantaneous. But, your point is well taken, Mark, I suspect most people don't shoot the way I do, and a half-second pause before exposure would be unsettling. I had actually never noticed it until now, when I tested the camera to see the effect of non-preset lag.

Yeah, I'll give you that. Mostly. I do get some control over depth of field, but you're right, not like a full-frame 35mm camera, or even a DSLR. So far it has been manageable for me, but perhaps that's just a function of the type of pictures I normally take.

There's no delay, or at least not one that is perceivable by human eyes. And there are advantages to an electronic viewfinder. I can crank up the gain on my viewfinder and see things that would be difficult to see optically. Of course the quality of what I see will be pretty bad, but then so will the picture itself if I've had to raise the ISO to get the picture in the first place. The FZ50 is not a pocketable little point and shoot. It has the size and shape and the adjustability of a DSLR, but without the necessity of hauling around a wheelbarrow full of lenses and accessories. With the manual zoom control and no need to swap lenses it is operationally superior (IMHO) to most DSLRs. But as I (and many others on this thread) have agreed, the tradeoff is image quality. To me it's worth it, but YMMV.

tanstaafl.

You do know that a 300mm lens in medium format is equivalent to something like 180mm in 35mm (assuming 6 x 4.5 medium format). I could get out my 5 x 7 inch view camera with a 1000mm convertible lens (~250mm equivalent) and take a picture that could scan to over 100 megapixels- sometimes that's not practical though..

Taym, those are close focus shots and will appear with out of focus backgrounds on pretty much any small camera. It's the easiest way to isolate DOF on any camera. Likewise for macro-style close-focus.

With a big lens on a big sensor, you could obtain a relative sliver of focus when focusing much farther away.

Yes, which still leaves you a photo of such high resolution that you can crop to an equivalent framing without the need for crappy digital zoom.

But that's beside the point, which is that there are really multiple answers to Doug's question, and the "right" answer depends on who you are, what you want to do with your image, and what your budget is.


I wasn't going to bring up drum-scanning large- (or even medium-) format film, since he specifically asked about DSLR.

It seems to me, then, that you've traded quality for nothing, then. Much of my shooting is done with a single zoom lens (35-200mm, I think it is).
The only accessories I generally take are something to clean the lens, and sometimes a small tripod.