Nikon D90 Review

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by TIGGER

Heck, I can get that from my Sony P&S... Seriously, this is a genuine question, other lense choices, more zoom, etc, what does a DSLR-always used on "auto", bring to the table vs a higher end P&S? I mean especially for the "casual" photographer, considering the truly awesome P&S cameras that have come out, does it really make sense to buy a DSLR? Honest opinions. I keep looking at them and then I remember that small piece of luggage sitting on a shelf in the closet....

Definitely not. A quality P&S camera is a much, much better option for the "casual" photographer that you're referring to. If you're not going to manipulate the camera, use different lenses and etc then don't blow $1,500 for a DSLR for sure. I've got hundreds of great pics I took with my Fuji S5000 P&S. A DSLR used on auto is a waste of money IMO.

UNLESS you want a decent flash, then you have to step up to DSLR...otherwise no. For example, the pic of the boy and the dog wouldn't have been possible with a P&S camera.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by TIGGER

Heck, I can get that from my Sony P&S... Seriously, this is a genuine question, other lense choices, more zoom, etc, what does a DSLR-always used on "auto", bring to the table vs a higher end P&S? I mean especially for the "casual" photographer, considering the truly awesome P&S cameras that have come out, does it really make sense to buy a DSLR? Honest opinions. I keep looking at them and then I remember that small piece of luggage sitting on a shelf in the closet....

The main thing I notice vs. a 2 year old P&S is the speed. With the P&S there is a noticeable delay between pressing the shutter release and the picture actually being taken. The delay isn't there on a DSLR. For stationary pictures it isn't a problem, but it makes a big difference when shooting animals and kids.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by goof2

The main thing I notice vs. a 2 year old P&S is the speed. With the P&S there is a noticeable delay between pressing the shutter release and the picture actually being taken. The delay isn't there on a DSLR. For stationary pictures it isn't a problem, but it makes a big difference when shooting animals and kids.

Yea exactly. You can shoot action shots with a P&S but it takes a lot of practice and a lil' luck. I took this shot with a Kodak P&S...not even a very good one. It came out ok, but it took me about 5 tries whereas it would've taken one with my DSLR.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

I haven't noticed anything like that....you?

I haven't seen any full-sized samples, only resized ones. That's why I was hoping that you could give some insight. My E-3 and E-30 may not be noise champs, but the level of detail that I can get in a static shot is sometimes mind blowing.

If I was to move from Olympus it would be to Nikon.

Originally Posted by TIGGER

Heck, I can get that from my Sony P&S... Seriously, this is a genuine question, other lense choices, more zoom, etc, what does a DSLR-always used on "auto", bring to the table vs a higher end P&S? I mean especially for the "casual" photographer, considering the truly awesome P&S cameras that have come out, does it really make sense to buy a DSLR? Honest opinions. I keep looking at them and then I remember that small piece of luggage sitting on a shelf in the closet....

Point and shoot cameras are better for 90%+ of casual shooters. They tends to over saturate and over sharpen images though, have sensors that frequently out resolve their lenses these days, and give minimal depth of field control.

The sort of person who would benefit from a DSLR is someone who is shooting a subject that doesn't wait for shutter lag, is willing to spend a few minutes working on each shot in order to get the best out of it, and wants the best representation of the subject with the least amount of lens distortion.

[Kaneman]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

I haven't seen any full-sized samples, only resized ones. That's why I was hoping that you could give some insight.
.

I'll get some good sample shots and post up 100% crops later on.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by Kaneman

I'll get some good sample shots and post up 100% crops later on.

Thanks. It's sorta funny that so many people ask for full sized shots so that they can pick apart the noise, while I want to pick apart the lack of it

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by goof2

The main thing I notice vs. a 2 year old P&S is the speed. With the P&S there is a noticeable delay between pressing the shutter release and the picture actually being taken. The delay isn't there on a DSLR. For stationary pictures it isn't a problem, but it makes a big difference when shooting animals and kids.

I think that this is true for some P&S rigs but some of the new generation units are truly amazing IMHO. Oh and I believe some of them provide a hot shoe for a flash.

[Papa_Complex]

Originally Posted by TIGGER

I think that this is true for some P&S rigs but some of the new generation units are truly amazing IMHO. Oh and I believe some of them provide a hot shoe for a flash.

Some 'bridge' cameras are pretty good, but they still have appreciable shutter lag. Things are improving somewhat now that several manufacturers have brought out EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras but they might as well be DSLRs, considering how much of that technology they contain.

[goof2]

Originally Posted by TIGGER

I think that this is true for some P&S rigs but some of the new generation units are truly amazing IMHO. Oh and I believe some of them provide a hot shoe for a flash.

I understand that some have gotten better, but they are still relatively slow compared to a modern DSLR which might as well be instant. I thought of a few other benefits as well. I know some of the new P&S can (usually bridge cameras like PC mentioned), most cannot shoot in an uncompressed format. If you like editing, retouching, or noise reduction shooting in RAW is a huge benefit. Another issue is typically an inability to manually focus with a P&S. If you shoot in low light the larger apertures available can also make things easier. This is usually not a big deal but in those same low light, or even no light situations (fireworks with a slow shutter speed is where it helped me) a DSLR is irreplaceable.

As was said earlier probably 90% of people don't need one. The P&S cameras available today are more than capable of meeting most people's needs. The reality is if you are not sure you need a DSLR go get a quality P&S for $200. If, after using it, you decide you really want a DSLR that $200 will have just been a drop in the bucket.

One other thing, I have never used them myself but I have heard nightmare after nightmare about buying those combo deals on ebay. From everything I have heard avoid going that route like the plague.

[Amber Lamps]

Originally Posted by Papa_Complex

Some 'bridge' cameras are pretty good, but they still have appreciable shutter lag. Things are improving somewhat now that several manufacturers have brought out EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens) cameras but they might as well be DSLRs, considering how much of that technology they contain.

That's true! My last GF had the Minolta "bridge" camera and my current has the Sony "bridge" camera. Either model would be more than enough for me.