srtiwari
Daktari
Bought and returned an Oly E500, when E-510 annnounced. While waiting for the release date, have "discovered" DP1 and the Ricoh GX100. Now I wonder about it all. Any advantage (other than longer focal lengths) to the dSlrs ? Most of what people shoot is within the 24-72mm range anyway. And GX100 is small and convenient. I like street shooting and some landscapy, carefully shot, on tripod pics, for large prints after careful post processing. Are the new compacts causing anyone else this confusion ?
Subhash
Subhash
K
Kin Lau
Guest
The DP1 & GX100 are in completely different classes.
The GX100 is a small sensor compact with some inovative features, especially the 24mm equiv wide angle. The small sensor will still have it's issues with noise and lack of selectable DOF.
The DP1 is a APS-C sized sensor compact - compact for a large sensor camera with a 28mm equiv wide angle.
The GX100 is a small sensor compact with some inovative features, especially the 24mm equiv wide angle. The small sensor will still have it's issues with noise and lack of selectable DOF.
The DP1 is a APS-C sized sensor compact - compact for a large sensor camera with a 28mm equiv wide angle.
jtzordon
clicking away
Yes. If you want large prints, then I would go with a DSLR or the DP1 if it's limitations are not an issue for your.
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Tucked away in what Kin Lau said is the crucial matter of sensor size.
VinceC
Veteran
Sensor size is critical, which also affects ability to selectively focus. Also, smaller sensors require very complex lenses that, while sharp, may be challenged in situations involving backlight or very bright point sources of light.
I gave in, don't need large prints, don't want the GAS getting a DSLR system would lead to...... I bought a Canon G7. Keeping the ISO at 200 or lower, with external flash shoe, and image stabilization, it can do what I want it to. If it can't, I have film.
N
Nick R.
Guest
But dude, there's no raw. For all its positives, I think that's a fatal flaw.
rover said:
photogdave
Shops local
It's the same as film SLR vs. compact. If you want critical manual focus, through-the-lens optical viewing, complete control over your settings and the best quality optics, then go SLR.
It's that simple!
It's that simple!
srtiwari
Daktari
Now given the "Sensor size" differences, dSlrs are probably likely to produce better images (everything else being equal). In that regard (only) how does the 4/3rds system compare with others ?
Nick R. said:
Yeah, I will get over it. It is a great little camera for what it is, I am not that much of a digital person to worry about what it isn't.
Finder
Veteran
photogdave said:
That is why I never use rangefinders! And that Hexar AF was a bust!!
aad
Not so new now.
Nick R. said:
You really think you need raw?
jobo
Established
Middle of the road, as expected. Less DOF and noise, and more dynamic range than compacts; more DOF and noise, and less dynamic range than other DSLRs (especially full-frame ones).srtiwari said:
OTOH, where else can you get a f/2 lens with 70-200mm FOV, a (portable) f/2.8 180-500mm FOV or a f/2 300mm FOV lens? The professional lenses are prizewinning, and for a reason...
2c, /J
Last edited:
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
In absolute terms, for the same megapixel count a 36 by 24 mm sensor ("full frame") will be better than an APS-C sensor, which in turn will be better than a four thirds sensor. We must remember, though, that here all is relative, since "full frame 35 mm" became a standard only because of a series of historical accidents. That the likes of Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, Sigma (and Kodak, indirectly) are committed to the four thirds standard shows that the "compromise" is not considered unacceptably damaging to picture quality, and it means that interchangeable lenses at least will be available for the foreseeable future.
pvdhaar
Peter
payasam said:
This may be true when it comes to noise levels, but there are other factors to take into consideration as well. One is the tendency of larger sensors to be hit more severely by light fall-off at the edges, especially with wide angle lenses designed for film. Evening this requires additional image processing which goes at the expense of dynamic range. In the end it's probably a toss-up..
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
jtzordon said:
Just remember that the Foveon sensor is a very different beast compared to a similar bayer sensor, at low ISO it seems to outperform the bayer for sharpness and detail captured, however high iso performance is not as good, (but definitely much better than a tiny sensor digital compacy) also if your photography is mainly done in low light, f4 is probably going to be a deal breaker.
The DP1 is by no means a general purpose camera, it is probably going to be a superb landscape camera (immagine the quality of a $1500 DSLR in your shirt pocket) and an excellent street shooter, being able to scale focus, and being so small that no one will take any notice of it (f8 1/125 and be there), but I wouldn't use it for available light photography (My R-D1 + Nokton or Summilux will continue to take care of this) of for any other purpose.
So you need to ask yourself what you want to use your compact digital for, and then you can choose the most appropriate tool.
Last edited:
payasam
a.k.a. Mukul Dube
Peter, the issue of light fall-off at sharper angles seems to have been tackled in the four thirds system, where lenses are designed for the sensor size used.
fgianni
Trainee Amateur
payasam said:
I think Peter was referring to full frame sensors like the one in the 5D.
The Foveon sensor as well seem to behave very badly with light at an angle, hopefully the f4 lens in the DP1 has been designed with the limitations of the sensor in mind, but I am not sure I would want a foveon sensor on a general purpose DSLR.