Alternatives to an SLR?

[Zorba]

My thinking is if the camera is too big to fit in your pocket, then you might as well use a DSLR. I find it humorous how some people put up with a superzoom hanging around their neck, which offers no advantage over a pocketable compact in terms of speed and image quality.

Not all DSLR's are heavy and bulky, and you don't have to drag around your entire lens collection. For most users, I would say the kit 18-55mm lens is plenty, and if I'm bringing a second lens, it's usually the compact and brilliant 35mm f1.8 prime, not a telephoto zoom. Unless you know you'll need an extreme telephoto zoom ability, I would not prioritize that feature when choosing a camera.

I have a feeling you have never actually used a superzoom before. Go hike Upper Yosemite Falls or Half Dome with your DSLR, plus a telephoto and wide angle lens and then tell me there is no benefit of a superzoom. Go try to take a picture of a grizzly bear in Denali across a meadow with a compact P&S that might have 5x zoom.

I think people forget that everyone has different goals for their cameras. I want a camera that is lightweight and versatile, because I like to hike and take wildlife and landscape pictures. If all you want to do is take snapshots of friends up close and tall buildings as you walk around NYC, then any P&S camera would be fine. If you want to do the same with better IQ, then buy a DSLR with the stock zoom lens. If you want to photograph the national parks in all their glory, though, a superzoom (IMHO) is your best bet, because most people don't want to hike with 20 pounds of camera gear and a 3x zoom ain't going to cut it in a lot of situations. When I don't need the power of the zoom or the features of the SX10, though, I do just carry a small pocket P&S, like at work or when I am looking at houses, or just hanging out with friends.

Again everyone is different so you have to look at how you want to use the camera and weight the benefits and cons of each.

 

[corkyg]

"Listen to Zorba. He knows what he's talking about."

 

[yhelothar]

I have a feeling you have never actually used a superzoom before. Go hike Upper Yosemite Falls or Half Dome with your DSLR, plus a telephoto and wide angle lens and then tell me there is no benefit of a superzoom. Go try to take a picture of a grizzly bear in Denali across a meadow with a compact P&S that might have 5x zoom.

I think people forget that everyone has different goals for their cameras. I want a camera that is lightweight and versatile, because I like to hike and take wildlife and landscape pictures. If all you want to do is take snapshots of friends up close and tall buildings as you walk around NYC, then any P&S camera would be fine. If you want to do the same with better IQ, then buy a DSLR with the stock zoom lens. If you want to photograph the national parks in all their glory, though, a superzoom (IMHO) is your best bet, because most people don't want to hike with 20 pounds of camera gear and a 3x zoom ain't going to cut it in a lot of situations. When I don't need the power of the zoom or the features of the SX10, though, I do just carry a small pocket P&S, like at work when I am looking at houses, or just hanging out with friends.

Again everyone is different so you have to look at how you want to use the camera and weight the benefits and cons of each.

Only except you can get a DSLR with a 10x superzoom lens that will cost the same and won't even be much larger than a superzoom, but at the same time, it'll blow it out of the water in image quality.

 

[alkemyst]

You can get an ultra-compact super zoom and be pocketable and probably carry 4 of them in that dSLR's 10x's case.

This thread is about alternatives to one.

IMHO if one has a dSLR, it makes no sense to pick up something like a SX series or 4:3.

 

[Munky]

I have a feeling you have never actually used a superzoom before. Go hike Upper Yosemite Falls or Half Dome with your DSLR, plus a telephoto and wide angle lens and then tell me there is no benefit of a superzoom. Go try to take a picture of a grizzly bear in Denali across a meadow with a compact P&S that might have 5x zoom.

I think people forget that everyone has different goals for their cameras. I want a camera that is lightweight and versatile, because I like to hike and take wildlife and landscape pictures. If all you want to do is take snapshots of friends up close and tall buildings as you walk around NYC, then any P&S camera would be fine. If you want to do the same with better IQ, then buy a DSLR with the stock zoom lens. If you want to photograph the national parks in all their glory, though, a superzoom (IMHO) is your best bet, because most people don't want to hike with 20 pounds of camera gear and a 3x zoom ain't going to cut it in a lot of situations. When I don't need the power of the zoom or the features of the SX10, though, I do just carry a small pocket P&S, like at work when I am looking at houses, or just hanging out with friends.

Again everyone is different so you have to look at how you want to use the camera and weight the benefits and cons of each.

Actually, if I wanted to photograph national parks in all their glory, I'd take the widest angle lens I have. If you want to take pictures of wildlife, bring a superzoom or a tele lens, but in my photos I find the wide angle much more useful, and I don't mean for casual snapshots and tall buildings.

 

[corkyg]

"IMHO if one has a dSLR, it makes no sense to pick up something like a SX series or 4:3."

Apparently you don't travel much to far off places such as South Africa, the Amazon, Alaska, China, etc. You have to assume you are already carrying a laptop. What you don't need is another camera bag, etc. Airport security really becomes an adventure in some places. The fewer external items you have to deal with, the better.

 

[alkemyst]

How is something like an SX vs DSLR going to save you much if anything....and seriously if one was indeed travelling to a special place, out of all their luggage would they leave behind their camera?

Like I said and most pros have recommended this: dSLR and ultra compact....done and done.

 

[corkyg]

How is something like an SX vs DSLR going to save you much if anything....and seriously if one was indeed travelling to a special place, out of all their luggage would they leave behind their camera?

That's very simple. The SX fits right into the center compartment of the laptop case. One carry on bag. Checked luggage is one piece. I regularly leave behind my EOS 5D and the two additional lenses needed to get the job done. The camera is never left behind.

As for picture quality - that depends on the use and purpose of the photos. Mine all go on photo CD/DVDs.

Your points are all valid, however, they don't apply to my world. There is an old saying . . . all generalizations are false, including this one.

 

[sixone]

Actually, if I wanted to photograph national parks in all their glory, I'd take the widest angle lens I have. If you want to take pictures of wildlife, bring a superzoom or a tele lens, but in my photos I find the wide angle much more useful, and I don't mean for casual snapshots and tall buildings.

If you've bothered to go to a national park, hopefully you understand that wildlife is part of their glory. See if that wildlife will stand still long enough for you to yank the wide angle lens, stow it safely, dig up the tele lens, attach it, and turn the cam back on.

The shot you just missed doesn't have ANY image quality.

As Zorba said, it all depends on what your goals are.

 

[yhelothar]

If you've bothered to go to a national park, hopefully you understand that wildlife is part of their glory. See if that wildlife will stand still long enough for you to yank the wide angle lens, stow it safely, dig up the tele lens, attach it, and turn the cam back on.

The shot you just missed doesn't have ANY image quality.

As Zorba said, it all depends on what your goals are.

I think that's where the 10x superzoom lens would come in handy

 

[sixone]

I think that's where the 10x superzoom lens would come in handy

If it's not already on the cam, it ain't so handy.

 

[yhelothar]

If it's not already on the cam, it ain't so handy.

But that's the point of the superzoom lens is that it's gonna be the only lens on the cam

There's no need to switch lenses between a wide angle and telephoto if one decides to use the superzoom.

 

[sixone]

But that's the point of the superzoom lens is that it's gonna be the only lens on the cam

There's no need to switch lenses between a wide angle and telephoto if one decides to use the superzoom.

I'll put my 35x up against your 10x anytime.

 

[yhelothar]

I'll put my 35x up against your 10x anytime.

Only except if you want to compare it like that, you'd have to factor in the 15x larger area sensor of the APS DSLR compared to the 1/2.3" of the SX30

And that means if you cropped the DSLR photo so that you'd have the same resolution, and that's not even factoring the numerous other benefits of larger sensors, you'd get an equivalent of 42x

So it's really 35x vs 42x.

 

[tommo123]

wait a min, what?

 

[Zorba]

Only except you can get a DSLR with a 10x superzoom lens that will cost the same and won't even be much larger than a superzoom, but at the same time, it'll blow it out of the water in image quality.

10x isn't much for taking pictures of wildlife at a national park. 20x isn't enough a lot of the time.

Actually, if I wanted to photograph national parks in all their glory, I'd take the widest angle lens I have. If you want to take pictures of wildlife, bring a superzoom or a tele lens, but in my photos I find the wide angle much more useful, and I don't mean for casual snapshots and tall buildings.

Wildlife, at least for me, it a big part of the glory of national parks. But you did just agree with what I said, with DSLR you'd have to carry at least two lens, which is not very friendly on long hard hikes. Also, to get anywhere near the same zoom ability you are looking at a very big and heavy lens.

Only except if you want to compare it like that, you'd have to factor in the 15x larger area sensor of the APS DSLR compared to the 1/2.3" of the SX30

And that means if you cropped the DSLR photo so that you'd have the same resolution, and that's not even factoring the numerous other benefits of larger sensors, you'd get an equivalent of 42x

So it's really 35x vs 42x.

That is only true if the pixel density is the same between the two sensors, which it isn't. The SX30 and NX10 actually have pretty much the same number of total pixels, therefore if you start cropping your NX10 photos to make up the zoom difference, you are loosing resolution. If they had the same pixel density, there would be no IQ improvement from the larger sensor.

 

[ElFenix]

If they had the same pixel density, there would be no IQ improvement from the larger sensor.

at the same print size the larger sensor would still offer improved IQ in relation to number of times larger the sensor.

 

[yhelothar]

That is only true if the pixel density is the same between the two sensors, which it isn't. The SX30 and NX10 actually have pretty much the same number of total pixels, therefore if you start cropping your NX10 photos to make up the zoom difference, you are loosing resolution. If they had the same pixel density, there would be no IQ improvement from the larger sensor.

Pixel density has little to do with IQ, but if anything, higher pixel density only lowers IQ as it lowers the limits of diffraction.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

A 6MP DSLR is going to capture more detail than the 14MP SX30is. The fact that the SX30IS even set at 14MP is ludicrous and is purely for marketing reasons. There's no reason why a sensor that small could produce a usable 14MP image. At 100% crop, the image looks grainy and fuzzy.

And I haven't even began to brush across the vast improvements of a larger sensor in dynamic range, color accuracy, contrast, etc.

 

[Zorba]

Pixel density has little to do with IQ, but if anything, higher pixel density only lowers IQ as it lowers the limits of diffraction.
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm

A 6MP DSLR is going to capture more detail than the 14MP SX30is. The fact that the SX30IS even set at 14MP is ludicrous and is purely for marketing reasons. There's no reason why a sensor that small could produce a usable 14MP image. At 100% crop, the image looks grainy and fuzzy.

And I haven't even began to brush across the vast improvements of a larger sensor in dynamic range, color accuracy, contrast, etc.

From your link:

Larger sensors generally also have larger pixels (although this is not always the case), which give them the potential to produce lower image noise and have a higher dynamic range. Dynamic range describes the range of tones which a sensor can capture below when a pixel becomes completely white, but yet above when texture is indiscernible from background noise (near black). Since larger pixels have a greater volume -- and thus a greater range of photon capacity -- these generally have a higher dynamic range.

Further, larger pixels receive a greater flux of photons during a given exposure time (at the same f-stop), so their light signal is much stronger. For a given amount of background noise, this produces a higher signal to noise ratio -- and thus a smoother looking photo.

Diffraction is also dependent on pixel size (density): http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm

Seems to agree with what I said, since same pixel density equals same pixel size. There are some other advantages for a bigger sensor (so I shouldn't have said no improvement), but noise, diffraction and dynamic range are largely proportional to pixel size (density).

I agree that 14.1MP on the SX30 is stupid, but I was responding to your post about how you could crop way in on your APS sensor image and get the same resolution based on physical size of the sensor alone, which isn't true.

I don't know where you got the idea I was saying higher pixel density equals higher image quality, since I was saying if your APS sensor had the same density as the 1/2.3" sensor you wouldn't get the IQ improvements you're claiming. I personally wish my SX10 was 5 or 6MP, instead of 10 but marketing people screwed that up.

 

[ElFenix]

pixel noise is dependent on density but then you're losing the forest for the chlorophyll in the leaves. image noise is dependent on overall sensor size.

 

[Zorba]

pixel noise is dependent on density but then you're losing the forest for the chlorophyll in the leaves. image noise is dependent on overall sensor size.

Yeah, I really had no intention of going down these debate, and it is really moot anyways, since there are no 200+ MP APS cameras out there. What I was really trying to say was that you couldn't crop in on an image from a 15MP APS camera to make up the zoom difference between it and a SX30, without giving up resolution. What you give up in resolution may or may not matter, of course, depending on your final use of that image.

Back the OP's question. The G11/G12 are good cameras if you don't need/care about the superzoom capabilities. Many pros use them for underwater portraits because they are have a relatively cheap housing, have good IQ and have many of the same features/options as DSLRs. My father-in-law is a master craftsman photographer and uses a G11 as his fun camera when he doesn't want to carry around his Rebel (also a fun camera, he doesn't like using his work cameras for non-work).

 

[angry hampster]

pixel noise is dependent on density but then you're losing the forest for the chlorophyll in the leaves. image noise is dependent on overall sensor size.

Not necessarily. The 1DmkIV and 7D from Canon have better image noise properties, although their sensors are notably smaller than the 5D.

 

[ElFenix]

Not necessarily. The 1DmkIV and 7D from Canon have better image noise properties, although their sensors are notably smaller than the 5D.

and you're comparing cameras that are 3 years newer, why?

i didn't say 'image noise depends on sensor size and ONLY sensor size,' now did i?

as sensor size increases, image noise decreases
as sensor generations improve, image noise decreases


image noise seems to be almost, if not entirely, decoupled from pixel size. as it stands, the statement "image noise is dependent on overall sensor size" is a true statement.

 

[Zorba]

image noise seems to be almost, if not entirely, decoupled from pixel size. as it stands, the statement "image noise is dependent on overall sensor size" is a true statement.

I am not disagreeing with you, but do you have a link discussing that? Everything I remember reading says pixel size is a major contributor to noise.

 

[ElFenix]

I am not disagreeing with you, but do you have a link discussing that? Everything I remember reading says pixel size is a major contributor to noise.

at the pixel level, yes. at the image level, no. there are huge threads with examples at dpreview discussing it. there's usually one a week so it probably wouldn't be too difficult to find a thread with 100 replies.

other design considerations will predominate over pixel size for a given sensor size for noise.