Standard quality DSLR versus "high end" bridge and / or compact cameras

[2310 Return]

Genuine question here – I’ve been pondering this for several weeks….

I have a couple of DSLRs which I enjoy using. The best is a Canon 7D with a couple of reasonable quality (though not “L”) lenses. Additionally I have a Sony A65 which carries an 18 – 250mm lens – which is fine for everyday use but lacks a little sharpness at times.

Relatively recently I have bought a couple of non DSLR cameras. The Sony RX100 (with Carl Zeiss lens) has a larger than usual compact camera sensor size at 1” and the Panasonic Lumix FZ200 with a 28 – 600 equivalent lens (Leica badged) with a constant f2.8 throughout its length. (Widely – though not universally acknowledged as the best “super zoom” camera around - certainly before the Sony RX10 came along very recently.) Despite its great lens – its got a very small sensor.

Here’s the thing – the general convention is that picture quality on DSLRs is always better than compact or bridge cameras but I’m just not convinced. The 7D has great image quality to be fair – but is heavy to carry for longish walks and I’m not a fan of swapping lenses “in the field” for fear of getting a shed load of dust on the sensor.

The A65 picture quality is just okay – however the lenses on the Sony RX100 and the Panasonic are just superb – and the image quality in terms of my every day use suggests that they are as good as, if not better than, the A65 outfit and actually very close in quality to the 7D.

The Panasonic isn’t so good in low light (high ISO) – but the RX100 is terrific in these light conditions up to and including very low light (very useable ISO3200.)

Anyone else have any thoughts with regards to the relative merits of “top end” smaller sensor cameras compared with entry level (to semi professional) quality DSLRs?

I’ve been looking at my own images – and also those used in the online reviews of each of them online and I’m convinced that with at least the “top end” small crop cameras – the old convention about picture quality is now out of date.

Would be very interested in others’ experiences.

Cheers...Joe

 

[Ulfric M Douglas]

– the old convention about picture quality is now out of date.

Its been out of date for ages, and plenty of folk never believed it or repeated it. Was it ever true? Nope, just simple.
There are good tools for every job, a DSLR isn't always going to be that tool.

 

[LCPete]

Very interesting especially about the Sony
I've had a compact in the past and to be honest was very disappointed with image quality
It sounds now that there's not much in it now
I use the 7D but it does sound like the sony would be able to do at least some of the things that use the 7D for

 

[Carlo]

before my first DSLR, i had (and still have!) a lumix FZ45 which in auto mode took exceptional pictures.
What i didn't like about it was the time it took to set it up in manual mode, and it's small size ( i have big hands!!)
A work colleague also showed me a pic taken from his Olympus bridge camera, it was a landscape of a harbour in Croatia.
What amazed me was the quality even after he'd zoomed in.
You couldn't make out any people in the uncropped original, just small buildings, but after he'd zoomed in, you could see what drinks the waiter had on his tray in one of the cafe's with almost no loss in quality, truly stunning.

 

[Phil Young]

I think the problem is...

We're all just a bit too anal about IQ. We want every shot to have the best possible image quality when in reality...it's the 'image' that counts, not necessarily the 'quality' (most of the time).

 

[ernesto]

A larger sensor found in a DSLR will give better IQ than a smaller sensor in a compact (with all else being equal, or as equal as it can be) so I think it is still true.

Doesn't have to be a DSLR though as could be an X100 for example. How big the difference is and whether it matters it up to personal requirements. I take photographs purely for fun but I am never quite happy with a compact (also much prefer the handling of a DSLR but that is another debate)

Another topic but that 18-250 may not be getting the best out of your A65....

 

[simonkit]

Its been out of date for ages, and plenty of folk never believed it or repeated it. Was it ever true? Nope, just simple.
There are good tools for every job, a DSLR isn't always going to be that tool.

Exactly this... a similiar thread is ongoing about crop DSLRs vs Full frame. The larger sensors will capture more detail and handle noise better but much depends how you use the images.. web posting or small prints will produce no real noticeable differences so if this is your main output it's questionable whether a DSLR is for you, it probably relates more to the added flexibility, lens choice etc that you have with a DSLR over a fixed lens camera.

I own the Sony RX100 as well as my D800 and actually used it more when on a trip to Iceland last year, mainly due to convenience as I just didn't have the time to be setting up the D800.. it produces images I was very pleased with which stand up well at smaller print sizes.

Simon

 

[BMD]

I use a 1Dx and 6D together with a Lumix TZ40. The adaptability of the DSLR/SLR system offers much more especially flexibility, which you can't get with a bridge/compact. Sensor size does make a difference to IQ but its not the be all and end all.

To me, capturing the image is the most important thing followed by IQ. Nowadays with all the Adobe stuff etc on the market the qualities can be altered, added, deleted post shot. You can do the same with a bridge/compact. The beauty of the compact for me is for those occasions when you can't or don't want to lug all your gear with you & it fits in your pocket.

Also, as a specs user for reading, I find the screen of compacts harder to use whereas with the DSLR apart from Live Screen it's up at my eye and for me that's better for composition.

 

[chris-red]

I have a 50D and a Fuji X100, optically I think the X100 is better than my 50D with a 35 f2 on. It definitely is better at higher ISO. Both of those I put down to the X100 being a newer camera.

The area the Fuji is weak is the general usability and Auto focus. The AF is shockingly bad compared to the 50D, and the Continuous/Manual Focus options are borderline useless. The menu system is also much harder to use. Although it isn't easier to use I do prefer using the clunky aperture/shutter controls on the X100.

At the end of the day the biggest difference is the size, both cameras have their place, if I'm a photographer for the day I'll take my SLR, if I'm going out and want to take a camera it is the X100.

 

[2310 Return]

Thanks very much for the replies. They're very interesting and actually quite contradictory - which in itself is interesting.

Is that because some are holding on to previously secure "photographic views" around this concept whilst others have moved on - or is it that some of us are too inexperienced to see the true quality of the dslr? I'm open minded to my own naivety with regards to this - however after watching for a while I'm genuinely not sure whether or not the top end bridges and top end compacts (ie with larger sensors) are catching up.

I'm aware of the potential for "gear snobbery" too (not that I'm accusing anyone who has already replied of that - just trying to be completely objective here.)

I feel a scientific photographic test in similar conditions coming on.

Any further views appreciated. Cheers. Joe

 

[Alastair]

The camera in your hand always beats the one at home, and with the lens cap still on the technical superiority of a DSLR is a moot point. It's very easy to fall into the Top Trumps view of photography - focussing on the line pairs of resolution, decimal places of stops of dynamic range, and wondering whether to buy the two year-old model you can afford or wait for the mk.ii you can't.

But.. people that appreciate images generally don't give a f**k what camera was used. They just know what they like when they see it (and sometimes know why).

And the converse is true, an awful lot of people that get hung up on whether their camera could win tomorrows hand of top trumps against the latest camera on the block generally don't give a f**k about whether the image is any good. But they do get all Daily Mail p**sed off when someone younger and more carefree gets more likes/favourites/explores applying imagination and creativity with a ten year old entry-level compact.

So please, no "scientific photographic test in similar conditions".. just enjoy the images and make your images enjoyable to others

 

[simonkit]

Thanks very much for the replies. They're very interesting and actually quite contradictory - which in itself is interesting.

Hi Joe, looking through the replies they're really quite conclusive, with the exception of one reply. The consensus is that we pretty much all agree DSLRs, or cameras with a DSLR sized sensor, will produce higher IQ (mainly more detail and less image noise) and that cameras with interchangeable lenses offer greater flexibility, we also appear to agree that this higher IQ isn't always evident and that compacts offer plenty good enough IQ in certain usage and have the added convenience factor of being able to take them pretty much everywhere without any hassle

Simon

 

[Pookeyhead]

Its been out of date for ages, and plenty of folk never believed it or repeated it. Was it ever true? Nope, just simple.
There are good tools for every job, a DSLR isn't always going to be that tool.

Exactly. I'm still after a decent compact because sometimes, the DSLR is just not an appropriate tool.

 

[2310 Return]

The camera in your hand always beats the one at home, and with the lens cap still on the technical superiority of a DSLR is a moot point. It's very easy to fall into the Top Trumps view of photography - focussing on the line pairs of resolution, decimal places of stops of dynamic range, and wondering whether to buy the two year-old model you can afford or wait for the mk.ii you can't.

But.. people that appreciate images generally don't give a f**k what camera was used. They just know what they like when they see it (and sometimes know why).

And the converse is true, an awful lot of people that get hung up on whether their camera could win tomorrows hand of top trumps against the latest camera on the block generally don't give a f**k about whether the image is any good. But they do get all Daily Mail p**sed off when someone younger and more carefree gets more likes/favourites/explores applying imagination and creativity with a ten year old entry-level compact.

So please, no "scientific photographic test in similar conditions".. just enjoy the images and make your images enjoyable to others

Put a smile on my face that... Thank you!

and correct - of course!

 

[Phil V]

The camera in your hand always beats the one at home, and with the lens cap still on the technical superiority of a DSLR is a moot point. It's very easy to fall into the Top Trumps view of photography - focussing on the line pairs of resolution, decimal places of stops of dynamic range, and wondering whether to buy the two year-old model you can afford or wait for the mk.ii you can't.

But.. people that appreciate images generally don't give a f**k what camera was used. They just know what they like when they see it (and sometimes know why).

And the converse is true, an awful lot of people that get hung up on whether their camera could win tomorrows hand of top trumps against the latest camera on the block generally don't give a f**k about whether the image is any good. But they do get all Daily Mail p**sed off when someone younger and more carefree gets more likes/favourites/explores applying imagination and creativity with a ten year old entry-level compact.

So please, no "scientific photographic test in similar conditions".. just enjoy the images and make your images enjoyable to others

Pretty much.
My favourites are the keyboard warriors who tell people my gear isn't capable of producing 'professional images' whilst my business is doing fine and they're unable to show any evidence stronger than an assertion that they're correct. (probably because they read it on the internet).

 

[Stu Blackpool]

Exactly. I'm still after a decent compact because sometimes, the DSLR is just not an appropriate tool.

Me too, usually when out with the missus as she hates me lugging all my gear about and it puts her off coming with me.
keep us informed on your research so I can just copy you. Lol

 

[RedRobin]

I use a Canon 70D DSLR (only with Canon telephoto and macro L lenses, nothing shorter than 70mm) but constantly have a Sony RX100 II on my trousers belt. I now only shoot RAW on both cameras.

The RX100's image quality, having a Zeiss lens and very big sensor, is excellent but it's painfully slow to both start up and focus when compared with my DSLR 70D. And its zoom (optical) is useless if you need to shoot quickly. Its low light capability is outstanding! Tilt screen and tiltable flash are extremely useful and not just gimmicks.

I find that the compact RX100 II is excellent for snaps and means that I always have a camera available but it's very lacking for wildlife photography. Bridge cameras seem to me to be a compromise between true compact (pocketable in the real world) and DSLR. Having the option of lens changeability is everything as far as I'm concerned.

It's Horses-for-Courses.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I have been pushing the "Good enough" belief for some time.
My fuji X20 has a fairly small sensor when compared to even a 1" sensor and much smaller than a APS one. however it is huge compared to some other compacts and bridge cameras.
When Looked at on a computer screen or as a 5x7 photo print, it is hard to distinguish between the results of any of these sensor sizes.
In real world situations we do not pixel peep.

Cameras have a tendency to grow in size every decade or so, and continue to do so until some one comes up with a new concept and miniaturises every thing again.
I think for many of us the size and weight of lenses and cameras has got somewhat out of hand and we have been looking for alternatives.
We have seen that it is not impossible to greatly reduce the size of bodies even full frame ones. However when you compare the size of a 7 element 50 mm F2 lens of the 50's with the same thing today, the differential is staggering. Even moderate zooms that can cover an APS sensor are enormous (say a canon f2.8 17-55).

Some recent compacts have ameliorated the problem by greatly limiting the aperture of their lenses and limiting the size of the sensor to 1". Others have reduced the size of the sensor much further to say 2/3" and kept a more generous maximum aperture.

When it comes down to it, it is all about the compromises, you personally, are prepared to accept.
Small sensors can capture great detail, but are less good at brightness range and noise at high ISO
The other major factor is at what stage these compromises become a visible problem.
Which takes me back to my opening "Good enough"

 

[RedRobin]

Cameras have a tendency to grow in size every decade or so, and continue to do so until some one comes up with a new concept and miniaturises every thing again.
I think for many of us the size and weight of lenses and cameras has got somewhat out of hand and we have been looking for alternatives.

We have seen that it is not impossible to greatly reduce the size of bodies even full frame ones.

When it comes down to it, it is all about the compromises, you personally, are prepared to accept.

....I agree about it all being down to individual compromises. It's all a compromise because there's no such thing as one perfect camera or one perfect lens.

Smaller isn't always better in DSLR. My daughter uses a Canon 100D which is a DSLR about the size of a bridge camera but I found it far too small to physically handle and so got the 70D. Full-frame DSLRs with grips/battery packs feel too big and cumbersome - It's all down to personal preference again and what you feel most comfortable using.

 

[ernesto]

I have been pushing the "Good enough" belief for some time.

And what is good enough for you may not be good enough for me and vice versa, which is why there is no real conclusion. As I said up there^, good enough for me and my uses is an APS-C camera. I don't have to use one and have owned compacts such as X10 but I just enjoy the images from my DSLR more and as I am only doing it for my own enjoyment that is what I use.

 

[simonkit]

Exactly. I'm still after a decent compact because sometimes, the DSLR is just not an appropriate tool.

Sony RX100 is great.. obviously zoom range is limited by apart from that I find it's a good substitute when I can't be bothered to carry the D800 around.. infact I found myself using it most of the time when I visited Iceland last year and I'm very happy with the results

Simon

 

[2310 Return]

I use a Canon 70D DSLR (only with Canon telephoto and macro L lenses, nothing shorter than 70mm) but constantly have a Sony RX100 II on my trousers belt. I now only shoot RAW on both cameras.

The RX100's image quality, having a Zeiss lens and very big sensor, is excellent but it's painfully slow to both start up and focus when compared with my DSLR 70D. And its zoom (optical) is useless if you need to shoot quickly. Its low light capability is outstanding! Tilt screen and tiltable flash are extremely useful and not just gimmicks.

I find that the compact RX100 II is excellent for snaps and means that I always have a camera available but it's very lacking for wildlife photography. Bridge cameras seem to me to be a compromise between true compact (pocketable in the real world) and DSLR. Having the option of lens changeability is everything as far as I'm concerned.

It's Horses-for-Courses.

Thanks again to everyone for the further contributions - I've found this thread both interesting and very useful - so - very much appreciated!

I've used Robin's quote above - since that is very much the stance that I have most recently found myself taking. I have a 70 - 300 lens for the Canon 7D - and everything close up or indoors I use the RX100 - which even on this thread is somewhat coming out "smelling of roses!"

My other option is to use the Lumix FZ200 for the long distance or close zoom shots - and I've really struggled to shake off that sense of a Bridge camera not being good enough. I was looking at some long distance shots from the Sony A65 (250 long end of the lens) and the Panasonic just last night. I intensely dislike pixel peeping - though I must confess (Bless me father....!) to indulging in a little then. I've come to the conclusion that there are (for me) two limiting factors to the image quality of distant shots:

1. The haze that is present on "less than perfect visibility" days that we seem to get so many off in the UK and
2. When I shoot distant with too narrow an f stop trying to maintain DOF - thus resulting in too long a shutter speed for the 250mm length of the lens.

The size of the sensor in these shots seems to have massively less impact on picture quality.

Although the Sony has got built in Image stabilisation - the IS in the Lumix seems to work better - and therefore I have been getting better long distance shots from the Panasonic.

I think the suggestion from one or two people in this thread that I stop worrying about the image quality and concentrate more on the image is pretty well spot on - and I think I need to stop indulging in what would appear to be trivial technicalities.

The other thing I did was to have a read of the National Geographic book with "The Afghan Girl" on the front (I forget its title - but you may know the book by this reference.) I was interested in seeing the picture quality of the shots that National Geographic celebrates as amongst their best - and it was very interesting to look at them from the perspective of Image Quality.

Where they truly outstanding pictures? - Emphatically yes!
Was the picture quality in each shot always technically brilliant? - Arguably not always - though nevertheless always brilliant images because of their specific context.

I think I need to be less geeky about it and get on with improving my creativity (reference other thread - which is a wonderful thread by the way) and composition!!

Thanks again guys!

 

[Alastair]

1. The haze that is present on "less than perfect visibility" days that we seem to get so many off in the UK and
2. When I shoot distant with too narrow an f stop trying to maintain DOF - thus resulting in too long a shutter speed for the 250mm length of the lens.

With regard to number 2.. aperture and depth of field are always widely underestimated or misunderstood..

@250mm on an APS-C sensor, with a focus target 1km from you and an aperture of f/4 your depth of field starts at c.450m and stretches all the way to infinity.

With the focus target at 250m, f/4 gives you focus between c.190-360m.

Don't stop down unless you need to.

 

[simonblue]

Me too, usually when out with the missus as she hates me lugging all my gear about and it puts her off coming with me.
keep us informed on your research so I can just copy you. Lol

Is that a bad thing

 

[2310 Return]

With regard to number 2.. aperture and depth of field are always widely underestimated or misunderstood..

@250mm on an APS-C sensor, with a focus target 1km from you and an aperture of f/4 your depth of field starts at c.450m and stretches all the way to infinity.

With the focus target at 250m, f/4 gives you focus between c.190-360m.

Don't stop down unless you need to.

Thanks very much indeed for that. I really should have known it - but I do know that I won't make that mistake again!

Appreciate it!

 

[Pookeyhead]

Sony RX100 is great.. obviously zoom range is limited by apart from that I find it's a good substitute when I can't be bothered to carry the D800 around.. infact I found myself using it most of the time when I visited Iceland last year and I'm very happy with the results

Simon

I'm trying to get my hand on a RX1r to play with.. see if I like it. The thought of a full frame compact appeals greatly.

 

[Pookeyhead]

Me too, usually when out with the missus as she hates me lugging all my gear about and it puts her off coming with me.
keep us informed on your research so I can just copy you. Lol

So far my shortlist is the Sony RX1r (expensive, but full frame)
Fuji X100s
Nikon Coolpix A

Not managed to get my hands on any of them yet except the Fuji X100... which has a very slow start up which would annoy me... still trying to work out how much it woudl annoy me.

 

[simon ess]

My Fuji X100s start up is almost instant - certainly within 1/2 second.

I wonder if you tried one before a firmware update. (I don't even know if there has been an update on the s, just trying to figure out why the one you tried was slow.)

 

[magicaxeman]

The thing is that with all the advances that have been made over recent years its no longer about the format of the camera ie compact, compact system, DSLR etc its about sensor size and the lens, these combined with the processing engine of the camera are the main contributors to iQ.

For instance where once full frame & APSC sensors were the domain of DSLR's we can now find them in both compact cameras and compact system camera's, and some of these compact and compact system camera's can give even the upper range prosumer DSLR's a run for their money when it comes to iQ.
the same can be said for good sharp fast lenses, we are seeing more of them compacts and some of the compact system camera lenses are up there with lenses such as canon L glass and Leica lenses that cost thousands more.

So its no longer the comfy and familiar world were we could readily say yes, this is better than that with the same confidence we used to be able to.

 

[PJ S]

So far my shortlist is the Sony RX1r (expensive, but full frame)
Fuji X100s
Nikon Coolpix A

If you're seriously contemplating the Sony, would you also not give the Fuji X-T1 a shot, with the 23mm prime to give the same 35mm effective as the X100S?
Of course it's not FF, but would that really matter?

 

[woof woof]

Anyone else have any thoughts with regards to the relative merits of “top end” smaller sensor cameras compared with entry level (to semi professional) quality DSLRs?

Cheers...Joe

"DSLR" is just a type and other formats can give equal or indeed better image quality

If only producing small prints or whole images (or reasonable, as in sensible size crops) for screen viewing I think that any digital camera I've owned so far would be good enough and even my phones too although dynamic range and higher ISO noise may be an issue with some older kit and phones.

These days I'm happy to use my MFT camera at low to medium ISO without worry and even at the highest ISO's for small whole images and at low ISO my LX5 is I'm sure good enough for an A4 print and probably A3 too. I'm sure that dynamic range and noise at high ISO will be improved with newer smaller sensor kit and of course my A7 although not being a DSLR is capable of producing very good image quality.

I'm sure that a modern top end compact or bridge would be a very good choice for all but the most demanding conditions and expectations.

For me DSLR's only lead in focus tracking... and after that I'm struggling to think of anything else.

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

"DSLR" is just a type and other formats can give equal or indeed better image quality

For me DSLR's only lead in focus tracking... and after that I'm struggling to think of anything else.

Focus tracking is largely a software issue related to the available computing power , and now that the AF speed in most DSLR's is matched by the better high end compacts,
It is no wonder that cameras like the Fuji XT1 have largely caught up with all but the very top end of DSLR's in this respect.

There is no inherent reason for a mirror system to have any advantage at all in follow focusing.l.

 

[woof woof]

Focus tracking is largely a software issue related to the available computing power , and now that the AF speed in most DSLR's is matched by the better high end compacts,
It is no wonder that cameras like the Fuji XT1 have largely caught up with all but the very top end of DSLR's in this respect.

There is no inherent reason for a mirror system to have any advantage at all in follow focusing.l.

Yeah, but... here and now... today... not at some point in the future... although several CSC and lens combinations have very quick and accurate focus I think I'm right in saying that... today and not at some point in the future the DSLR form is still faster for focus tracking. Which is what I said.

 

[JYC]

For me the problem has always been that the pocketable compacts have always produced quite noisy images.

A larger compact isn't quite pocketable (I had a Panasonic LX5 for example) which means bringing a bag. If you;re taking a bag then might as well carry my DSLR

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

Yeah, but... here and now... today... not at some point in the future... although several CSC and lens combinations have very quick and accurate focus I think I'm right in saying that... today and not at some point in the future the DSLR form is still faster for focus tracking. Which is what I said.

Very few DSLR's can follow focus accurately. Even fewer can do it better than the Fuji XT1.

For me the problem has always been that the pocketable compacts have always produced quite noisy images.

A larger compact isn't quite pocketable (I had a Panasonic LX5 for example) which means bringing a bag. If you;re taking a bag then might as well carry my DSLR

That is all down to sensor size and the algorithms used for noise suppression. It is nothing to do with a DSLR or not.

 

[JYC]

I know that! My argument was that a compact with a larger sensor is (for me) too big to be pocketable anyway, so there isn't must difference from taking my DSLR out as I would end up having to bring a bag

 

[Terrywoodenpic]

I know that! My argument was that a compact with a larger sensor is (for me) too big to be pocketable anyway, so there isn't must difference from taking my DSLR out as I would end up having to bring a bag

Even my Fuji X20 would need a large pocket, but I tend to use a leather shoulder strap like days gone by.
I find that to be a perfect compromise.
I do have a pocket camera but that stays in the car most of its life.