DSLR quality on a compact?

dory

Am I asking the impossible? With all the technological advances is there any small camera that can take photos one could mistake for DSLR photos?

I ask because I'm often asked to take indoor photos of someone giving a speech on my Panasonic Lumix (not sure type exactly but it's three years old, big, 18x zoom). Great camera normally, and outside especially but not really up to the task indoors.

So today I was out about town and found somewhere (I'm not in Ireland btw) that has Nikon D3100 for €500. But they say that's not a good lens (the basic one) and I should get one for €540 with more panoramic abilities.

My only concern is that I travel around India a lot so the bulky one is not ideal. Can any smaller one take good photos indoors? I'd also like nice photos around town, and one with a certain something in focus, something many compacts can't do.

Any advice would be appreciated!!

magicbastarder

there are good quality compacts - the canon G12 being one - but it's more expensive than most entry level DSLRs.
you could look for secondhand models; i was in conn's earlier, and they had a G10 and a G11 in the secondhand cabinet, but you're still looking at around €400.

if you're interested in taking photos indoors, and want to avoid using flash, you could ask how much the D3100 is with the 35mm f1.8 lens instead of the kit lens - if they're willing to sell that combination. it has no zoom functionality, though. it also does what i think you're asking - can give a shallow depth of field at max aperture.

bullpost

One of these (Micro 4/3rds, and its on sale at the moment):

http://www.pixmania.ie/ie/uk/3297259/art/olympus/pen-e-p1-white-14-42mm-f.html

pjproby

plenty on ebay for €299 approx.

http://cgi.ebay.ie/OLYMPUS-PEN-E-PL1-DIGITAL-CAMERA-14-42mm-LENS-KIT-EPL1-/380287222413?pt

Zillah

The D3100 is a DSLR. It may be in the more affordable and beginner orientated branch of Nikon DSLRs, but it is definitely a DSLR.

For travelling around India it would be fine. Criticisms about lenses are not very relevant for beginners, you'll be practicing for months before you start even noticing the downsides to a kit lens.

As for getting nice photos with a small lens: Yes, absolutely. If you get a 50mm or 35mm (aperture 1.8 - probably about 150ish quid) lens you get all of the following: Small size, lightweight, sharp image quality, great low light capability. Only downside is that it doesn't have a zoom, so you have to use your feet to recompose, which is a downside I (and pretty much everyone who has a 50mm [which is everyone, really]) am happy to live with.

EDIT: And, of course, later on you can get more and different lenses. Which really is what makes DSLRs so great.

Dades

OP, I wanted exactly what you did as I never got the use out of my Canon 400D + misc lenses due to it's size. I settled on a micro 4/3rds in the same category as the PENs above, but I got a Panasonic Lumix GF2 and now I carry it everywhere.

Clearly nobody is going to tell you that you'll get as good shots with a non-DSLR - but you'll get close enough as to not matter unless your standards are particularly high.

Regarding indoors (or kids!), get the f1.7 20mm lens (to fit any M4/3) and you will be sorted - and will probably also never want to put the kit lens back on either it's that versatile. And with that lens it will literally fit in a coat pocket.

slimboyfat

If yoU want really compact, have a look at the Canon s95 or the Panasonic LX5.

CabanSail

If I were travelling light then my G9 would do quite well for that. It does OK indoors up to ISO400 without too much noise. I think the later one's are a bit better there too. It does not do shallow DoF very well due to the sensor size.

I did see some shots from a Leica M9 the other night. Nice images and noise was fine up to 1000 ISO and does the shallow DoF well being Full Frame. There is no zoom and may be a bit out of budget too.

magicbastarder

just a bit out!

SetOverSet

I've an LX5 - virtually the same camera as Leica D-Lux 5 - and shooting RAW at base ISO, the files are nearly as good as I'd get from my D90. Your not going to have a whole lot of control over DoF with any compact really, due to the wee sensor. Anyway for decent image quality in a small camera, you have compact compacts - LX5/D-Lux 5 (24-90mm f/2.0-3.3) and Olympus XZ-1 (28-112mm f/1.8-2.5) and Samsung EX1 (24-72mm f/1.8-2.4), then slightly bigger compacts Canon G12 and Nikon P7000. Bigger again, you have the mirrorless bunch - Olympus Pen, Sony Nex and Panasonic GF series...

Freddie59

slimboyfat wrote: »

If yoU want really compact, have a look at the Canon s95

+1 to that. My daughter got one late last year. Outstanding quality - and VERY portable.

Have a look at THIS.

dory

Zillah wrote: »

The D3100 is a DSLR. It may be in the more affordable and beginner orientated branch of Nikon DSLRs, but it is definitely a DSLR.

Sorry, didn't mean to suggest that it's not. Just meant I was going to buy that, a DSLR but was wondering if it's really necessary to take nice photos.

Maybe these PEN ones are the answer, or the Lumix. I did really like my last Lumix. Tonight for example we were at a badly lit party, all the people with DSLRs took great photos, people with compacts took terrible ones. I really want to take good ones at parties.

I guess in simple terms, I want the camera to be fast. So it takes a quick photo and is not blurry. Which indicator tells you that about a camera??

Pardon the ignorance and thank you all so much for the info!

cnocbui

You basically want a fast lens and good low light performance.

The Olympus XZ-1 is probably your best bet, check out this video for the low noise at high ISO settings compared to the Canon S95:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://youtu.be/TVZItn3y9SE

Freddie59

Try This link for YouTube.

And This link for a direct comparison of features.

woody_2000

cnocbui wrote: »

You basically want a fast lens and good low light performance.

The Olympus XZ-1 is probably your best bet, check out this video for the low noise at high ISO settings compared to the Canon S95:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=

http://youtu.be/TVZItn3y9SE

Here's a better link to the referenced video in question... This video, to me, however, appears to be more "consumer" oriented in nature (if that's your thing)...

The ISO/noise comparison may be a JPEG comparison, where the cameras apply their own particular processing and noise reduction. I'm mainly concerned with RAW image quality and, from what I've seen online, the Canon may perform a bit better than the Olympus at higher ISO settings when using RAW. Looking at the video, the Canon high ISO images (JPEG?) may appear noisier - but they appear a bit sharper and more detailed to me, maybe reflecting the manner in which the JPEG images are processed in-camera (i.e. the Olympus maybe employing more aggressive noise reduction, at the expense of detail). Indoors, the low light performance may not be much different between the two cameras - as you would probably be using a wider angle setting where the aperture differential isn't as great (the main benefit of the Olympus is its larger aperture capability at longer focal lengths)... Aside from the faster lens of the Olympus (at longer focal lengths), the Canon is quite a bit more compact and convenient - and weighs and costs less. The Canon also appears to be more technically featured, in general. Shooting in RAW (or RAW+JPEG), with a RAW capable camera, might also be an idea for low light situations - as you bypass the in-camera JPEG processing "engine", allowing for more flexibility/latitude in how your image is processed... Also, the Olympus has an OLED screen which, while very nice, may not be as easy to view in brighter lighting conditions as an LCD screen (this would potentially rule out this type of screen for me)...

The nearest thing to a DSLR in a more compact form is possibly the Sony NEX-3/NEX-5, with its large APS-C image sensor (just like an average DSLR)... This means similar lower light performance to an average DSLR... Next you have the 4/3 image sensors of cameras such as the Panasonic Lumix GF1/GF2, etc... These sensors are smaller (about 1/3 smaller), and feature in Olympus DSLRs... What these aforementioned cameras (APS-C and 4/3) have in common, apart from quite large sensors, is that their sensors are CMOS sensors rather than CCD sensors... CMOS sensors have inherently better high ISO performance, due to the more efficient/effective manner in how they implement ISO amplification... CMOS sensors are also, incidentally, inherently more power efficient than CCDs... CMOS sensors are the main sensors used in DSLRs, hence the rather good high ISO performance of the average DSLR...

Just some passing comments/points...

CabanSail

dory wrote: »

Tonight for example we were at a badly lit party, all the people with DSLRs took great photos, people with compacts took terrible ones. I really want to take good ones at parties.

The DSLR's also have better screens, though you cannot see the quality until you have the shots on a screen.