SLR to P&S have you done it?

TordFuglstad said:
The essentials of the photograph is one thing the essentials of a camera is another thing.
For me, raw and manual settings is a must for buying a camera.
But I don't doubt I could get good images without both manual and raw.
Click to expand...

At the end of the day the camera is a tool and some will always chase the latest tech, biggest sensor, etc forgetting that at one point a 3mp camera was a pro digital that some photographers made work!

Found this link to what someone has achieved/created with the x10 - *warning* it is fashion/model related link, no nudity - I was thinking of his x100 video! but be warned! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xSGIe53Esdg
 
Last edited:
TordFuglstad said:
Selling your DSLR and only have a P&S is stupid.

But if you keep your DSLR and have a P&S to use in the situations you say, it's a lovely idea. :clap: But a must then should be fully manual settings, raw and good ISO.
Click to expand...

All IYVHO of course :D

Manual settings are all well and good but (I wonder if Aperture counts as manual? I use Aperture a good % of the time) there's nothing wrong with automated settings as such, as long as they're sensible automatic settings. Manual is fine... if you have time to set everything, if you're willing to accept a little help Aperture, Shutter or Program are great and much faster than "Manual."

Back onto quality... One big eye opener for me was taking the same shot seconds apart firstly with a DSLR+quality 50mm f1.4 and then with a MFT. There really wasn't a lot in it at all and nothing that you could spot in an A3 print if you didn't know which was which.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
All IYVHO of course :D

Manual settings are all well and good but (I wonder if Aperture counts as manual? I use Aperture a good % of the time) there's nothing wrong with automated settings as such, as long as they're sensible automatic settings. Manual is fine... if you have time to set everything, if you're willing to accept a little help Aperture, Shutter or Program are great and much faster than "Manual."

Back onto quality... One big eye opener for me was taking the same shot seconds apart firstly with a DSLR+quality 50mm f1.4 and then with a MFT. There really wasn't a lot in it at all and nothing that you could spot in an A3 print if you didn't know which was which.
Click to expand...

I think aperture and shutter priority goes under manual, at least that is what i was thinking.

Yes of course the PS can be equally good to a DSLR in one given situation. But a DSLR enables you to do a lot, lot more. :thumbs:
 
I owned a D700 with 14-24, 24-70, 70-200, 50mm, 85mm, 120-300mm, 400mm and all manner of other expensive stuff. I sold up and moved to micro four-thirds, currently a Panasonic GX1 with about 6 lenses (mostly primes). I love the weight/size (and cost) savings and find myself taking a lot more photos than I ever did before simply because I take the camera with us 95% of the time rather than about 50% at a push when I was using the Nikon setup.

We also have a 16 month old so lugging SLR gear around just isn't practical and most of our trips can't be based around photography to the same extent as before. I do sometimes miss the low-light/high-ISO performance but much more often I love being able to have everything in one small shoulder bag and as long as you invest a bit of money there are some very very good lenses available.

With the advances on sensors I can't see myself ever going back to an SLR, perhaps if I took more wildlife or sports photography but for me at least, the benefit of a compact system far outweigh the drawbacks.

Oh and just realised this thread might specifically mean fixed lens P&S rather than just non-SLRs. In which case, ignore all of the above as I couldn't ever go to a single lens setup, I like my LX3 as a P&S but could never have it as my only camera.
 
Alastair said:
High enough quality for what? It is all down to purpose..
Click to expand...

As the thread is about moving from DSLR to small camera, then high enough IQ to match the DSLR.

None of the small cameras have got it and I have tried quite a few. In isolation they seem okay but then when comparing they really are missing that final touch that makes the photo.

I haven't tried 4/3 but it is clear you can get equal to DSLR image quality from a smaller camera with an APS-C sensor in it. I have had a Sigma DP and now have an NX100 which both do. The DP was smaller due to lens approach but the camera was just too slow. The NX100 is far better and comes close to DSLR speed but still not really there.

You may need to try a few for extended tests and see what you can live with as that is the only route that led me to what camera would make in place of a DSLR for my criteria.
 
Last edited:
woof woof said:
All IYVHO of course :D

Manual settings are all well and good but (I wonder if Aperture counts as manual? I use Aperture a good % of the time)....
Click to expand...

"Aperture Priority" mode is still an "auto" mode in so much as the exposure is governed by the camera rather than the photographer.

The only way to eliminate the camera meter's idea of the correct exposure for a scene is to use manual mode.
 
boliston said:
The only way to eliminate the camera meter's idea of the correct exposure for a scene is to use manual mode.
Click to expand...

And an independent meter..

After all, 99% of the time when shooting on manual you are still using the camera meters reading of the scene.

There's very little difference between Av with exposure compensation, the option to use exposure lock and/or focus lock, and using Manual mode and manual focus. It's horses for courses, and how you work best (not anyone else).

The success of an image is in how it looks, not the means it came to being. The end does justify the means.
 
Alastair said:
And an independent meter..

After all, 99% of the time when shooting on manual you are still using the camera meters reading of the scene....
Click to expand...

Surely your own eyes are capable of seeing how bright it is?

For example I can see that it's overcast yet still bright so I would go with iso200, 1/250s and f/8 or f/11.

Before buying my D700 I only had a Holga and seemed to get by fine with no meter and no means of adjusting shutter speed or aperture. The only thing I could choose was the iso of the film.
 
boliston said:
Surely your own eyes are capable of seeing how bright it is?

For example I can see that it's overcast yet still bright so I would go with iso200, 1/250s and f/8 or f/11.

Before buying my D700 I only had a Holga and seemed to get by fine with no meter and no means of adjusting shutter speed or aperture. The only thing I could choose was the iso of the film.
Click to expand...

Not to divert the thread any further but have you used a lightmeter and seen the effect it can have on your exposures? You are seeing reflected light the same as your camera! I could hazard a guess at my settings too, however a lightmeter is very specific and I think even if I sold my Dslr I would keep my Sekonic L358, its a fab bit of kit!
 
Mirus Lux said:
Not to divert the thread any further but have you used a lightmeter and seen the effect it can have on your exposures? You are seeing reflected light the same as your camera! I could hazard a guess at my settings too, however a lightmeter is very specific and I think even if I sold my Dslr I would keep my Sekonic L358, its a fab bit of kit!
Click to expand...

I have thought about getting a lightmeter as I would imagine that it's more intuitive than fiddling around getting readings from a camera's built in meter.
 
Boliston. I can strongly recommend it, it saves loads of time chimping and in PP. Check out the lighting section there's quite a few threads!
 
On manual + raw, the better compacts like S95 have both and while a bit cumbersome to use it's not impossible at all. I always have a S95 in my pocket even when carrying a full DSLR system.
 
Currently considering this myself as I no longer use my 7d. I'm leaning towards something more portable like the new crop of mirrorless cameras coming out, really like the looks of the Fuji X10.
 
I personally couldn't do it. I bought a Pen E-P1 recently and couldn't get used to the fact I had to hold the camera at near arms length to take a photo, it doesn't feel natural like holding the viewfinder up to my eye.

So instead I sold it on and replaced my 40D with a 5Dc.

Let's be honest here, just because you have a DSLR doesn't mean you have to lug everything around with you all the time. This was my problem at first thinking I always needed a tripod, all my lenses and accessories etc.

A small shoulder bag, ungripped body and one lens (preferably a prime) can be a liberating experience. I often carry my 5D + 50L around these days and love it.
 
I think the idea of ditching a DSLR for a small camera is quite reasonable...
I've proven my X10 is capable of producing exhibition quality A3 prints.
I rarely need better IQ than that.
I'm currently thinking about an ARPS panel and one of the strong contenders for the centre image is from my X10; the quality is very acceptable.

The one caveat is that you need to work with small camera limitations rather than fight them.
For example, if you want to print to A3 then use base ISO; whereas my 5DII will happily produce A3 prints from ISO 3200 with no noise reduction.
The viewfinder isn't as good as a DSLR, but it still works when precise shutter timing is needed...
And just like a DSLR, you still need a tripod; but you get very strange looks!

Yesterday, two of us were out shooting landscapes in Mid Wales. Both of us had 5DIIs, a selection of excellent glass - and a pocket camera.
My how we laughed when we realised we were both shooting waterfalls with our pocket cameras leaving our big cameras in their bags.
This is happening to me more and more frequently.

I reckon it won't be long before pocket cameras match the current crop of DSLRs for versatility and IQ; we already aren't that far away.
When that happens, using a DSLR will become the equivalent to currently using an MF Digital Back.
For most people most of the time, a DSLR will simply not be necessary.
 
Last edited:
DuncanDisorderly said:
I'm currently thinking about an ARPS panel and one of the strong contenders for the centre image is from my X10; the quality is very acceptable.
Click to expand...

Duncan, both my (different) Associate panels contained images shot with low end cameras, I think one was a Lumix. Don't worry about it, as you say get the technicalities right and there's no problem. In fact last week I got a BPPA award for one of my X10 shots. Go for it.
 
I've often wished I had the DSLR when I've been out (when I've had a compact camera). Rarely have I wished I'd left it at home.

Sometimes I know that I'll be doing something and/or be in company that not only makes photography a 'secondary' activity but also a competing or distracting one and in those situations I carry a compact.

I use and carry most of the time, a very low-end compact (Canon SX120) which replaced a broken Canon S60. Both have manual mode. The S60 whilst not having the high pixel-count or the bigger optical zoom range as the newer SX120 still had the better IQ (imho), could save in raw and had a viewfinder - three qualities which I still yearn for when using the SX120.

There are some things for which I think a DSLR is the only practical solution - ultra-wide or ultra-long requirements and low-light conditions spring to mind. A DSLR with a reasonable kit bag is a lot more versatile than any compact camera too.

The MTF route might be the best of both worlds but could also be the worst of both (half-empty or half-full ;))

I wouldn't downgrade from a DSLR but I would (and do) supplement one with a P&S - and I would (and do) leave the DSLR at home.

Maybe it would be worth having a look at a few carrying options for a DSLR with a single large-range zoom or a couple of lenses instead? I almost always carry a 'man-bag' and so carrying a bag doesn't bother me. A small sling-shot side-access or (e.g. crumpler) shoulder bag with an 18-200mm might give you the convenient portability that tempts you whilst still using the DSLR.
 
weybourne said:
There are some things for which I think a DSLR is the only practical solution - ultra-wide or ultra-long requirements and low-light conditions spring to mind. A DSLR with a reasonable kit bag is a lot more versatile than any compact camera too.
Click to expand...

That's getting less and less true !

With my X10 I've taken shots:
- in low light social situations I couldn't have taken with a DSLR + kit lens.
- How about light painting a ruined priory.
- I've produced exhibition quality A3 prints.
- Created ultra-wide field of view landscapes by stiching in-camera (and here's another one taken in low light).
- And my X10 has coped with such high contrast that the DSLR users around me were seriously struggling. Here's another example taken next to a 5DII shot used in a Tim Parkin exercise on coping with horrendous lighting (link is at the bottom of that post).

In summary - the new generation of little cameras are fast catching up with last season's batch of DSLRs.
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
That's getting less and less true !

With my X10 I've taken shots:
- in low light social situations I couldn't have taken with a DSLR + kit lens.
- How about light painting a ruined priory.
- I've produced exhibition quality A3 prints.
- Created ultra-wide field of view landscapes by stiching in-camera (and here's another one taken in low light).
- And my X10 has coped with such high contrast that the DSLR users around me were seriously struggling. Here's another example taken next to a 5DII shot used in a Tim Parkin exercise on coping with horrendous lighting (link is at the bottom of that post).

In summary - the new generation of little cameras are fast catching up with last season's batch of DSLRs.
Click to expand...

I take your point about how capable the X10 is, and I'm not disagreeing with you on that (and your illustrations of its ability to cope with low-light and high-contrast situations are a revelation), but back to my point of ultra-wide, ultra-long requirements and versatility, taking multiple exposures and stitching them together (in or out of camera) is not a demonstation of a camera's utra-wide capability (especially if there is action within the shot - people in a shopping centre, traffic on a road or trains on a track, for example). You didn't address the ultra-long requirement either (in-camera cropping, perhaps? ;)). In my bag, after crop-factor adjustment, I cover most of the 'equivalent' focal length range from 16mm to 800mm. A single lens (18-200mm) on my camera would equate to approx. 29-320mm. The X10 equates to 28-112mm.

The DSLR has wide and long lens options that are just not there with one P&S camera. Albeit not as good as some prime lenses, a single lens with a big range on a DSLR should still provide a reasonable image.

The new generation of little cameras may well be 'catching up' with last season's DSLRs but they're still not there - especially when it comes to versatility - and DSLR performance is not standing still either.

Lindsay D said:
+1

I only take an SLR on personal outings now if I need to use a long lens, or if I need very high ISO capability in which case I'll use a 5D MkII (the X10 is no slouch though, given its size).
Click to expand...

This is my point - we do still take our SLRs out - to trade an SLR for a P&S is a no-no for me; to leave the SLR at home and use a P&S instead is an option I am glad of. To have no option other than to take a P&S out, for me, would be worse than to have no option other than to take the SLR out. If a P&S does everything one wants, then why keep the SLR?
 
DuncanDisorderly said:
With my X10 I've taken shots:
- in low light social situations I couldn't have taken with a DSLR + kit lens.
Click to expand...

Yup.

I've found that although my 5D performs better than MFT at higher ISO's that's only half the story as with MFT I can take hand held shots at slower shutter speeds and thus lower ISO's. With my 5D+50mm I'd want to keep the shutter speed quite a bit faster than 1/50 sec, probably 1/80 or even faster but I can hand hold MFT at 1/20 sec or a little slower, I recently took one acceptable shot at 1/15.
 
2Thumbs said:
I personally couldn't do it. I bought a Pen E-P1 recently and couldn't get used to the fact I had to hold the camera at near arms length to take a photo, it doesn't feel natural like holding the viewfinder up to my eye.
Click to expand...

I bought a GF1 and I initially loved it but decided that I didn't like using the rear screen so I bought a G1 and use the VF, and the screen folded to the body.
 
Here's a little tale from earlier -

A Long Tailed Tit appeared on the bird feeders out front. First time I've ever seen one, didn't even know they were in the area. Wasn't sure what it was at first (having never seen one before!) So eureka! grab the camera! Now the dilemma - lens on LX5 far too short and nasty at long end, managed one shot that's unrecogniseable. Other option would have been to find some fast film and fart about with a 70-210mm which quite simply wasn't going to happen. Had I had my GH1 still with the 70-210 on that would have been an easy shot in the bag.

What does this prove? Sometimes you'll just never be happy with what equipment you've got, regardless of how goo it is at certain things, it'll never be good at everything.
 
weybourne said:
I take your point about how capable the X10 is, and I'm not disagreeing with you on that (and your illustrations of its ability to cope with low-light and high-contrast situations are a revelation), but back to my point of ultra-wide, ultra-long requirements and versatility, taking multiple exposures and stitching them together (in or out of camera) is not a demonstation of a camera's utra-wide capability (especially if there is action within the shot - people in a shopping centre, traffic on a road or trains on a track, for example). You didn't address the ultra-long requirement either (in-camera cropping, perhaps? ;)). In my bag, after crop-factor adjustment, I cover most of the 'equivalent' focal length range from 16mm to 800mm. A single lens (18-200mm) on my camera would equate to approx. 29-320mm. The X10 equates to 28-112mm.

The DSLR has wide and long lens options that are just not there with one P&S camera. Albeit not as good as some prime lenses, a single lens with a big range on a DSLR should still provide a reasonable image.

The new generation of little cameras may well be 'catching up' with last season's DSLRs but they're still not there - especially when it comes to versatility - and DSLR performance is not standing still either.
Click to expand...

Strikes me you aren't ready to ditch the DSLR :)

As it happens - I'm not ready to ditch my DSLR either.....
However, if I'm out in the car and something magical happens with the landscape, I won't be regretting that I've 'only' got the X10 with me.
I know it will do me proud. :cool:
 
I picked up a Fuji X100 last year, not as a replacement for my DSLR, but as an alternative option for when I'm going somewhere where the DSLR may be a problem or a pain to lug around. While it's not the cheapest piece of gear (although it's come down significantly in price since I got it), I've found it a worthy investment, as the X100, while in a compact body, behaves like a DSLR in terms of functionality behind the lens (so it feels familiar) and obviously comes with an APS-C sensor. The IQ is very high as well. What I also enjoy about the X100 is that because it's a prime lens, it forces me to shoot in a different way to how I generally use my DSLR; because I can't hide behind a long lens, I'm forced to get up close to my subjects - and I actually really enjoy this, as it ultimately gives me a very different experience.

As such, I'd recommend picking up something compact as a companion to your DSLR in your camera bag. Not only does it provide a compact solution for situations impractical for the DSLR, but also broadens your scope as a photographer if you end up getting something like the X100 which makes you shoot differently.

Of course, having both comes with a pricetag but ultimately I think it's well worth it.
 
I've actually done what the OP asked about. Last year I sold my 40D, several lenses, 2 flashes, filters, extra batteries etc and replaced the whole lot with a d-lux 5.

At first it was great and I do love the d-lux 5 and the images it produces but I missed the DSLR. There were numerous reasons why. I felt the 40D gave me the flexibility to produce some creative shots, such as water droplet shots for example, which I really enjoyed. I can't get used to holding the camera at arms length and missed having a proper viewfinder.

End result I now have a Nikon D90. and feel so much happier. :)

I notice most of the posters praising owning a 'point and shoot' also own a DSLR and most of those that don't own a m4/3 system camera. My suggestion would be save some money, buy a P&S as a companion to your DSLR and see how you get on. Restrict yourself to only using the P&S for a few months. If you find you don't miss using your DSLR any more then that's the time to sell it.
 
Just my 2p worth, I went from a 40D to a Fuji X10. I couldn't be happier now. DSLRs are very versatile pieces of equipment, there are lenses for all situations. If you were to go to a compact I would only do so if the zoom range was useful to you. If you needed versatility in a small package I would go for m4/3.... Me? The fast zoom on the X10 is perfect for what I want to shoot!
 
this subject seems to be coming up more and more now that MFT's and NEX's are about.

I myself am currently in the same situation although not going totally P&S and going to an MFT instead.

I currently have a Sony A200 with a small selection (3) of lenses and a flash and i find myself simply not taking it places due to the size.

ive decided that selling off my nifty fifty and flash and purchasing the GF3 (P&S size almost when coupled with the 14mm) is my way of testing the MFT waters. If all proves well then i would have no hesitation in selling off the DSLR.

reading this thread and especially the examples from Lindsay D has confirmed that small and light is the way forward.
 
Last edited:
Well I'm about to join this club :D

I have just sold my 40D, 24-105L & 50 1.8 , but I'm still not 100% sure what to replace it with. If the NEX-7 was readily available I'd probably have it now but there seems to be a shortage at the moment (& no jessops I'm not paying £1130 for the display model)

The main contenders for me are the NEX-7 & the Fuji's (xpro1 , x100 or x10)

I'd also love an iMac which I could afford if I purchased the x10 but I'm really not sure how the files from the x10 would look on a gorgeous 27inch screen?

Xpro1 looks like it will be a very expensive system to get into (especially if I end up not liking the fuji quirks)

X100 looks capable of producing stunning jpegs, but there's no future versatility with the fixed lens

The NEX-7 looks like a great all round camera & gets great reviews & iq ratings, again it is an expensive camera when you start adding lenses

Hmm, decisions decisions
 
hobodan said:
The NEX-7 looks like a great all round camera & gets great reviews & iq ratings, again it is an expensive camera when you start adding lenses
Click to expand...

I've been looking at the Nex 7. I can't see myself being happy with any of the Sony lenses as they all seem to be too big, the wrong focal length for me or the wrong aperture or any combination of, but, the new Sigma 19 and 30mm f2.8's seem to be getting rave reviews and are very reasonably priced. When these lenses were first announced I couldn't see the point of them for MFT but for Nex they make a lot of sense, especially considering the rave reviews + cheapo price.
 
woof woof said:
I've been looking at the Nex 7. I can't see myself being happy with any of the Sony lenses as they all seem to be too big, the wrong focal length for me or the wrong aperture or any combination of, but, the new Sigma 19 and 30mm f2.8's seem to be getting rave reviews and are very reasonably priced. When these lenses were first announced I couldn't see the point of them for MFT but for Nex they make a lot of sense, especially considering the rave reviews + cheapo price.
Click to expand...

That's the only problem I've found with the NEX system. The lenses are huge so it defeats the compact part of the setup that so many want.
 
Yeah, but the Sigma lenses are more compact.

You have to settle for f2.8 when many would like them to be f1.4 but I suppose using a higher ISO will help to reduce any shutter speed issues so that possibly only leaves the user to decide if f2.8 gives enough DoF control. They do look tempting and stocks seem to be running low quite quickly.
 
I recently picked up a Nex and 18-55, and there's no way I could live with it as my only camera.

When I'm out shooting the weight of my D700, 5 lenses, flashgun, filters and other misc equipment doesn't bother me. The Nex will come in handy when I'm travelling for work or pleasure when I'm not going out explicitly shooting, and want to travel light.
 
joelk2 said:
That's the only problem I've found with the NEX system. The lenses are huge so it defeats the compact part of the setup that so many want.
Click to expand...

I don't really see the argument in this; I have had a play with the nex7 & 18-55 & it is a much smaller & lighter package than my 40D & lens by a long way. Obviously some of the telephoto lenses will be reasonably big but the point of the nex is you can have a small zoom or prime attached & it will be nowhere near as in your face like a big DSLR would be & easier to carry all day.

However if you make a living from photography I don't think the nex will replace the options available from a DSLR system. I see it as a hobbyists camera for those who don't want to sacrifice iq but want a camera you can carry without the bulk of the DSLR.

I know the lens options aren't amazing at the moment for the nex but there are adaptors available to fit pretty much any lens. I have to admit I really like the look of the CZ 24mm on the nex7, although you could buy an x100 for the same price as the lens!
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top