Whats the difference?

great question, katie.

an SLR (single lens camera) uses a system of mirror and prisms to project the image from the front of the lens to the viewfinder, so what you are seeing in the viewfinder represents what you are actually seeing through the front of the lens. SLR camera systems also accommodate and require add-on lenses, as opposed to point and shoots which have a fixed, non-removable lens. a point and shoots uses a fixed lens and a system of electronics to show the image as seen through the lens on a screen or viewfinder... you are not "actually seeing" a true representation of what the lens is seeing.

SLR's are considered 'better' because they accept a huge variety of lenses from basic wide angle lenses to huge superzooms and everything in between. generally, digital SLR (d/slr) camera can cover a wider range of ISO and have more sophisticated electronics in their imaging sensors. they carrier higher megapixel sensors in most cases.

the tradeoff is they can be MUCH larger than smaller point and shoots and most times cost more at the start and once you add on additional lenses and other gadgets ALWAYS cost more.

most of the more hardcore members here prefer and use d/slr's because of the capabilities of the camera vs. a point and shoot but most beginners and novices prefer point and shoots.

 

Ahh but most P&S have eliminated the viewfinder, so you are seeing live view on the LCD, so the optical viewfinder/mirror system argument doesn't work like it used to, especially in the Dark Ages of Photography (film).

Digital SLRs carry a larger digital sensor than 99.9% of the P&S digital cameras on the market today, and a larger sensor usually means that it will have less noise and/or be more sensitive (higher ISO for low light) than a P&S.

The autofocus system is much better in an SLR using a phase-based system rather than contrast-detecting. (which is why the new Sony Live-view is the best because it allows you to use the phase-based AF) (Another thing is that it should be mirrors and/or prisms since the new Sony A3XX series only has mirrors.)

But....the new crop of digital SLRs are using the same microprocessors as their P&S brothers & sisters, a la the DiGic!III chips in modern Canons, or the Bionz processors in Sonys. While the SLR models generally use the processor power to reduce noise in higher ISO, or for faster AF, the P&S are using the processor to run things like face-detection AF.

Other than that I think Tim covered it.

 

Yep...that covers both ends of the argument pretty well! I'll just add to Roger's point that with P&S cameras, you are viewing the electronic image direct from the sensor, transmitted to either the electronic viewfinder or LCD screen - so though you are not actually looking through the lens glass at the scene, you are looking at what the sensor is seeing. What are the plusses and minuses of that?

Well, looking through the lens itself, as with an SLR, you have much better optical clarity, can see in low light situations as well as you could with the naked eye, and can more easily track or follow a moving object as you are not subject to slow refresh rates of an electronic screen, display lag, overexposure whiting out the screen temporarily, etc. It's just your eye, through glass, to the object. Better, right?

Well, the argument for the P&S method is that by viewing what the sensor sees right on the LCD screen, you can actually see the output of your photo, the way it will look when viewing on your computer, before you even snap the picture. Adjustments to shutter speed, aperture, white balance, ISO, or EV are all made right on the live view. If your shot is going to be underexposed two stops, you'll see the darker image on screen. If your white balance is too cool, you'll see the blueish tint on screen. ISO too high? You'll see the overexposure right on screen. Since the sensor is the device capturing the digital image, seeing what it sees will help you get the settings right up front.

The argument can run in favor of both methods - and indeed neither is 'right' or 'wrong'. But much depends on your skill, knowledge, style of shooting, and personal preference. A person intimately familiar with their camera and how it responds at various aperture/shutter combinations can nail the exposure without having to see it on a screen - so they would rather have the big, bright, accurate viewfinder looking through the lens for clear focus and low light capability. A person not as instinctual with the settings, who tinkers alot to get it right, might actually be better served with a live-view camera that allows the sensor's image to be seen after all the processing and camera setting parameters have been applied.

And sometimes, it's just simply more convenient to have that P&S style live view! For example, taking a slow shutter night shot on a tripod...especially when the tripod isn't sitting straight at eye level. Having to bend over, looking through a little window, choosing all your settings, then firing off some slow shutter shots isn't as convenient as standing comfortably looking at a big 3" LCD, tilted up to point at your face, and seeing when you've got the exposure nailed at the right aperture for the shutter you want to use.

There is one more small advantage to P&S cameras that can occasionally come in handy - they can perform in absolute silence. A through-the-lens DSLR will always take a picture with a big, fat noise - as the mirror slaps up when the shutter triggers. Usually, that won't matter - but occasionally, a person snapping a pic at a golf tourney or in a classical music performance may get in some trouble with that noise. A P&S camera is all electronic - it imitates a shutter-like noise digitally...but an option in the menu can turn it off, and you can fire off all the shots you want in complete silence.

I've been a long-time P&S user (an ultra-zoom camera), and have had wonderful experience with it. I recently bought a DSLR specifically because I wanted the advantages that it can deliver in focus speed, burst speed, tracking focus accuracy, and high-ISO performance. But I did choose a hybrid DSLR which also has a live view ability. I use it with the viewfinder in the traditional manner probably 90% of the time - but having a big, tiltable LCD and the live view ability has allowed me to take some slow shutter shots, some above-the-head shots, and some on-the-ground shots that would have required me to perform an acrobatics routine to get without live view. Even if it's only 10% of the time...those few times it came in very handy - and I'm happy to see the line blurring between P&S and DSLR cameras! I love my DSLR, and still have love for my P&S cams.

 

you COULD always get an entry level d/slr such as a rebel XT or nikon d40 and use it in point and shoot (the dreaded green box) mode until you become more comfortable with it then once you want to go a bit further you already have a d/slr to graduate to. the lenses generally carry from body to body within the same family, with a few exceptions, so the nice thing there is once you build a lens library you'll almost always have it.

nice thing here is that an entry level d/slr is about the same price as a higher end point and shoot and can deliver more.

 

some nice additions, justin. well put.

i forgot to mention shutter lag and wake up time... with a point and shoot there are most times a lag from when you press the shutter until the camera takes the photo. it can cause you to miss a photo if you're not ready and paying attention.

d/slr's are usually instant. you press, it fires. same thing with wake-up (turn-on) time... point and shoots tend to take a few moments to wake up and get ready to go. d/slr is about .2 secs and ready to fire.

 

I agree about the sunset!!

 

Wow...if 'P' mode is for Professional, then 'M' mode must be for Master and Commander!

Tim...the latest batch of entry-levels are finally blurring the line enough where I'd almost be willing to recommend them to a complete amateur (who I'd normally steer to a good P&S). With good auto modes, alot of DSLR advanced features either removed or hidden further down in the menus where they won't 'scare' a new user, and with even live view becoming somewhat common...someone could get along in Auto or P mode for a while and still get good results. And as you mentioned, there's more camera there for them to use as they get better.

I think the big thing to figure out is how much a person wants to be a "photographer"...versus just wanting a camera to document their vacations and family. I see so many people getting far too much camera for their skill, knowing they'll never use it beyond green mode and never take advantage of what the camera can do. I can't help but imagine how much better off they'd be if they just got a good P&S that would work just as well while being much lighter, smaller, cheaper, and easier to shoot with. Sort of like the guy with the Porsche 911 Turbo who commutes to work with the Automatic transmission at 40MPH in the right lane, who would be better off and more comfortable with a smoother ride and better gas mileage in a nice Corolla or something!

 

I agree Justin, except that when you get to a certain point, the sensor size is going to come into play. P&S depth of field is always going to be larger than its' equivalent at 35mm, just like a full-frame v. APS-C dSLR. This means using Av mode to its' fullest is a lot harder.

That and the minimum aperture of these P&S are usually very "large" as well (like f/11).

 

I smell the distinct scent of a possible article for the new website

 

you may be right...

 

katie, there is an axiom in photography that you were just introduced to: CHECK YOUR SETTINGS, CHECK YOUR SETTINGS, CHECK YOUR SETTINGS.

 

You're right Tim. Nothing is better than checking it later and noticing that you forgot to lower the ISO from 3200 while inside and took a bunch of pics outside.....during the day.