[Mayavi]

Originally Posted by HellwratH

In a few pics, the DOF is so shallow that part of your subject's body goes OOF.

I have ruined so many images by shooting wide and getting everything OOF.
Here is an useful tool to find DOF Online Depth of Field Calculator

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Try birding or even low light photography and you will come to know. I have a canon S3 IS and it struggles to focus in low light conditions where a DSLR would lock focus instantly without any lag and would be through with the shot... and I am still struggling for the focus.

P.S. I absolutely hate the MF (Manual Focus) in S3 IS, it should have a ring like the panasonic FZ series, not those fiddely buttons.

Thats nothing to do with a P&S vs DSLR!!
Thats a S3 IS problem.
There are P&S cams available which can do good Autofocus.
In extreme conditions(High ISO for example) a DSLR will trump the P&S, but when shooting in broad daylight, for example sunsets and sunrises, a DSLR won't give you any advantage.
For example if you are shooting a sunset, a P&S will give you as good a picture as a DSLR, unless you want 10mm wide angle.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Thats nothing to do with a P&S vs DSLR!!
Thats a S3 IS problem.
There are P&S cams available which can do good Autofocus.
In extreme conditions(High ISO for example) a DSLR will trump the P&S, but when shooting in broad daylight, for example sunsets and sunrises, a DSLR won't give you any advantage.
For example if you are shooting a sunset, a P&S will give you as good a picture as a DSLR, unless you want 10mm wide angle.

Tell me a P&S which I can use for birding and has focus which is as fast of not faster than a DSLR.
A P&S is Compromise.... Jack of all master at none.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Mayavi

No offense Samurai but it seems you weren't really reading my posts before trying to disprove me.

Mayavi, I am trying to understand your point by reading it again, but I don't understand.

Originally Posted by Mayavi

Now how does EXIF data prove my point?
The lens on the P&S is wider than that I have on my 350D.

Since the photo in question is a macro, how is wider lens helping in closer and cleaner macro? Doesn't wider lens push the object away? Shouldn't 18mm provide better macro than 6.3mm?

Originally Posted by Mayavi

Second, the ISO on P&S is 50 while the lowest I on 350D is 199. You tell me which is better?

Canon has very low ISO noise, it is quite possible that the ISO50 on a small sensor P&S has more noise than ISO200 on Canon. Tanveer would love to comment on these things.

Originally Posted by Mayavi

Third, if I put a 50 mm f1.4 USM Prime lens on SLR I can take great portraits with amazing bokeh, can you do that with the C750?

I don't deny that, that's one of the strengths of dSLR over P&S. Even birding is a major strength of dSLRs, never heard of using P&S for birding.

Listen, both P&S and dSLR have their strengths. P&S are cheaper, more portable, more versatile and can be used with less skill. But dSLRs are much more expensive, less portable, need different lenses for each application and need lot more skill to operate let alone take good photograph. In the hands of an expert, dSLR (with the right lens) will consistently give better results. But in the hands of a not-so-expert photographer, P&S might give better results.

I am not trying to argue P&S is superior to dSLR, I am only saying a good P&S can take extremely good photographs if the photographer is up to it. The real tragedy is that people ignore composition and blame/credit the camera for the photograph. Composition is way more important than the equipment or exif data. Upgrading to dSLR won't make my pictures better if my compositions suck, instead I'll end up with bad photos that are sharper.

When I see a great picture, I never ask which camera thereby insulting the photographer. Instead, I applaud the composition.

[Mayavi]

Sigh! I give up :( I don't even know what exactly you are trying to prove to me.

The comment which started the whole discussion was that cell phone cameras these days are amazingly good, so good that you do not need SLR's anymore. You are trying to prove that it is not the camera that takes good pics but it is photographer alone and to support your claim you are posting macro shots!! Pictures taken from a P&S which is so close in functionality to an SLR... macro, wide angle, telephoto, different ISO levels, Manual settings, extension tubes and what not. In other words you are proving that takes good equipment and a good photographer to take great pictures consistently. Just photographer or the equipment alone would not do the job.

[Mayavi]

In the end if you are trying to tell me that all you need is a cell phone camera or P&S to take great pictures, then more power to you.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by Mayavi

Sigh! I give up :( I don't even know what exactly you are trying to prove to me.

Well, you beat me to it. I wanted to give up yesterday, but tried making one more attempt. Now I too give up.

Let's call a truce with a nice image...

[Rudra Sen]

Construction work next to my office. I found this composition interesting.
60% crop from 24/36 frame.

[Rehaan]

Originally Posted by tsk1979

Thats nothing to do with a P&S vs DSLR!!
Thats a S3 IS problem.
There are P&S cams available which can do good Autofocus.

Surely different P&S cams have different AF speeds and accuracy, but they still have a LONG way to go before they can focus anywhere near as fast, accurately or in low light conditions like a DSLR.

Originally Posted by Mayavi

The lens on the P&S is wider than that I have on my 350D.

Since the photo in question is a macro, how is wider lens helping in closer and cleaner macro? Doesn't wider lens push the object away? Shouldn't 18mm provide better macro than 6.3mm?

Guys !

6.3mm on this P&S is NOT equivalent to 6.3mm on a SLR (or full sensor DSLR)
EXIF data on anything other than a full-size sensor is written on a different scale.

Also, as Samurai mentioned ISO is just up in the air too. Its comparing apples to oranges if you stay within a brand, and maybe even apples to donuts otherwise.

In conclusion, its really no point debating this topic if you plan to convince each other, or convert each others point of view, simply because everything is subjective, starting with what a good picture is in the first place.
Maybe a monkey with a disposable camera can take a picture better than Ansel Adams with a top of the line DSLR.

Anyway, back to the picture posting! Some really good pics since the last time i commented on this thread! Keep em comming

cya
R

[HellwratH]

Wow, amazing pic Rudra Sir! The vertical iron bars give a 3-D feel to the picture. Great!

[Mayavi]

Originally Posted by Rehaan

6.3mm on this P&S is NOT equivalent to 6.3mm on a SLR (or full sensor DSLR)
EXIF data on anything other than a full-size sensor is written on a different scale.

Correct me if I am wrong, but why would a 6.3 mm on a P&S be any different from 6.3 mm on DSLR or a 6.3 mm on a 35 mm SLR? It is the focal length and should remain the same irrespective of the camera. The angle of view though would be different for each of the cameras for a given focal length. So when you say a 50 mm on DSLR is really a 80 mm on 35 mm SLR, you are talking about AOV, innit?

Rudra Sen:

That is nice composition. How about a tighter crop to get the vertical iron bars form an a diagonal?

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by Mayavi

Correct me if I am wrong, but why would a 6.3 mm on a P&S be any different from 6.3 mm on DSLR or a 6.3 mm on a 35 mm SLR?

The difference is in format size (of film/sensor).

Originally Posted by Mayavi

It is the focal length and should remain the same irrespective of the camera.

No, and the reason is the same as I mentioned above. However if it's not that, then..

Originally Posted by Mayavi

The angle of view though would be different for each of the cameras for a given focal length.

..how it's happening?

Originally Posted by Mayavi

So when you say a 50 mm on DSLR is really a 80 mm on 35 mm SLR,

It again depends on fromat/sensor sizes. You have full frame (24/36) DSLR also.

Originally Posted by Mayavi

you are talking about AOV, innit?

What is AOV?

Originally Posted by Mayavi

That is nice composition. How about a tighter crop to get the vertical iron bars form an a diagonal?

Could you please show me as exactly what mean? Use the same picture please.

[tsk1979]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Tell me a P&S which I can use for birding and has focus which is as fast of not faster than a DSLR.
A P&S is Compromise.... Jack of all master at none.

Oh my dear friend... You are repeating my points only
Shooting something 500 meters away is extreme conditions.
Birding, low light, high ISO photography are "Extreme conditions".
I never said P&S was better than DSLR for extreme conditions.
All I meant was that you want to take pictures of your kids playing in the park on a bright evening, a P&S will be as good as the DSLR.
Not birding and all.

[Rehaan]

Originally Posted by Mayavi

Correct me if I am wrong, but why would a 6.3 mm on a P&S be any different from 6.3 mm on DSLR or a 6.3 mm on a 35 mm SLR? It is the focal length and should remain the same irrespective of the camera. The angle of view though would be different for each of the cameras for a given focal length. So when you say a 50 mm on DSLR is really a 80 mm on 35 mm SLR, you are talking about AOV, innit?

It doesnt work the way you have mention Mayavi.

In the quoted EXIF focal length is 6.3mm, chances are that would be called as "~35mm equivalent (for a 35mm camera)" if you want to compare to a lens of a 35mm SLR.

The following link will give you a basic description and formula.

Focal length in relation to 35mm format

There are a lot more articles that go into this further, if you are interested to search for them.

cya
R

[Mayavi]

Rudra Sen and Rehan:

Here is my understanding of Focal length and Angle of View (AOV):
Focal length is a measure of how strongle a lens can converge light. It is the distance between principal plane of the lens and the point at which all light converges. In my understanding, and correct me if I am wrong, the shorter the focal length, the shorter is the minimum focal distance (MFD). These two values - Focal length and MFD - are optical principles and independant of the camera type, make and sensor size.
Following is an image from wikipedia.



Next we have Angle of view (AOV) and Field of View (FOV). Angle of view is the anglular extent of a scene captured by the image sensor (Wiki)



AOV and FOV are dependent on three factors:

1. The dimensions of the sensor
2. The focal length
3. Distortions from the lens

So for the same focal length, you get different angle or field of view with different camera/sensor size. This is the reason a film SLR produces different image from a DSLR for the same focal length.

Now assume you have a 10 mm lens on a DSLR whose MFD is 10 cm. This means you can focus on an object that is 10 cm away from the image sensor of the DSLR. Now using focal length converstion to film SLR, 10 mm of DSLR is 16 mm on film (to produce same field of view). But if you use a 16 mm on film SLR, the MFD may be different and you may not be able to focus on the same object, although you will get the same field of view.

Ofcourse, all this is assuming that MFD is dependant on focal length and not on any other factors. Please feel free to shoot holes through my theory.