From the start I said I would focus this blog primarily on DSLRs and would only occasionally touch on ILCs and point and shoot cameras. However, similar to last week’s post being tied to my 365 challenge, I also decided to make this week’s post about what I did the following week in my challenge: put down the DSLR and pick up a point and shoot (P/S). In doing so I learned a lot about how to manipulate the settings on the camera, but also a lot about the advantages and disadvantages of this type of camera and some features you may want to look out for if you are in the market for one. So this post will be focused on “small” world of compact P/S cameras.
First off, some may argue that the type of camera I am talking about is probably more appropriately named as a compact digital camera rather than point-and-shoot for two reasons. The first reason is that, if you really think about it, all cameras work by aiming the lens at a subject (point) and actuating the shutter release (shoot), particularly so as most cameras have a full automatic mode regardless of the type. However, I believe the name came about as a way to market the cameras as being simple to use, and that they are based around their automatic functionality, whereas DSLRs, and somewhat ILCs, are based around ability to control the camera and allow the photographer to customize the shot. The second reason is because compact digital camera better describes one of the biggest advantages of the class of cameras, which is their size. DSLRs and ILCs require more space to carry and to store, making them less easy to use quickly particularly when traveling, or just want to bring the camera along just in case a photo op should arise. Compact digital cameras can be carried in a purse or a pocket for quick access and little effort to transport. The term point-and-shoot may have been a better term for this class of cameras if we were talking about the film days as they were not really all that compact due to the film itself and the film advance mechanisms, although they were smaller than the their DSLR counterparts. Now with that being said, it is true today that there are some “compact digital cameras” that are not all that compact as they try to bridge the marketing space between the small pocket cameras and the bulkier DSLR, which is why I will now define what class of camera I am talking about, and for the purposes of this blog, refer to them all as “point-and-shoot,” or P/S for short.
So what is a P/S camera? In general terms, a P/S camera is one that is designed to be used primarily in automatic mode to properly expose the photos. It also contains the camera body, flash and lens all in one, often compact, package. In addition most point-and-shoot cameras rely on the LCD screen to allow the photographer to visualize and frame the subject matter. There may be a better definition out there, but as I am writing this post, this is the description that I have devised for this class of camera.
Now to get beyond the general and to get into the specifics of the camera, I will touch on both functionality (both how it works, and features you may want) and also practical usage of this type of camera. In my past post I have touched on a few of these items very briefly, so I apologize if I am repeating anything here, but I think it is best to capture all of this discussion in this post.
Before I get into specifics on features, let’s take a minute here and discuss good brands for P/S cameras. The major players in the DSLR market are also the major players for P/S. However, while I acknowledged back on my post at the end of April that Nikon and Canon are really a toss-up when it comes to DSLRs, Canon actually takes the edge when it comes to point and shoot cameras. This discrepancy between the two brands is narrowing as the most recent offers from Nikon have caught up a bit, but the usability and the image quality from Canon P/S is still superior to Nikon. That being said, there are also great cameras from Olympus, Sony, Sanyo, Samsung, Kodak, Fuji, Panasonic, etc which all can produce great photos. Actually there are more good options for P/S than there are for DSLR. And as they are all in one packages, you do not need to worry about expandability and compatibility when choosing one. Do your research on the brand and model and you will be happy with the camera you get.
With that out of the way let’s talk more about the features of a P/S camera that you should look out for when selecting a camera. The two biggest are the image sensor and the lens, both of which you don’t have much option on as the camera maker has picked the lens and sensor that work best with the size camera they are making. In general, but always, the larger P/S will have a better lens and a better sensor than the very small compact models. This is all due to space considerations. The smaller cameras need to sue a smaller sensor (which tend to have more noise especially in low light) and also have a shorter zoom range as the larger zoom lens requires more room for the zoom mechanism and actual glass size. You should also test out the quality of the glass, you don’t have much choice, but most camera makers use a decent lens with Nikon and Canon using their own lenses and many others using lenses from excellent 3rd party makers like Carl Zeiss. Now as I said the size of the camera does not always dictate quality. For example many people swear by the camera in the Apple iPhone 4, and I have seen some great photos shot with them that rival the quality of the mid-size compact digitals even though it has a tiny sensor and a tiny lens. But this is the exception rather than the rule. So when picking a point and shoot, if you want better image quality at the sacrifice of size, you should aim for the larger P/S, but if you are after size, you should look at the compact models. It all depends on what you put your emphasis on when looking at cameras.
Adjustability is the next on my list after image quality, but I also prefer a DSLR over a P/S for the same reason. Some point and shoot cameras, primarily the slightly larger ones, give you the ability to tweak settings such as aperture and shutter speed, exposure compensation, in addition to ISO, through the menu system rather than relying on the automatic mode. Now this is not as convenient as a DSLR’s buttons and dials, but at least you still have the option. Many cameras will not give you the option, except maybe for ISO settings, but default to “Auto.” If you want some control over your photos rather than relying on the camera, look for a model that lets you tweak the settings. If this is not important to you, then don’t worry about this. All P/S have automatic as their default operating mode.
If you want some control, but not the fine control of the settings mentioned above, many P/S come with scene modes. These modes tweak what settings the camera picks based on the type of scene you tell the camera you are shooting. Some examples of the scene modes are sports, night time, portrait, macro, etc. and each one adjusts the camera differently. For example a sports mode will likely use a faster shutter speed to stop motion, and turn on a continuous autofocus to be able to maintain focus on moving objects. On flip side, the portrait mode will likely use a larger aperture to soften the background and also will turn on the red-eye reduction if flash is required. Each of these scene modes can be helpful to adjust the camera enough to get a better photo than one with straight automatic mode. You should look to see if the camera has these options and how easy they are access.
Movie mode is being added to many cameras now a day and was in P/S long before they made it to DSLRs. I personally don’t ever use the movie mode, but if you foresee yourself wanting the option then you want to make sure that it has what you want. Many of the newest cameras today will shoot in 720p high definition. It should be noted though that the movies gathered using a compact P/S will likely be of lesser quality than those from a dedicated camcorder.
As the LCD is the main way that you can tell what you are shooting at and what your final photo looks like, you should make sure that it is a good quality. Test out some shot and check out the color reproduction and the size (this is largely dependent on the size of the camera you are looking to buy). Some cameras today are incorporating touch screens to allow you to adjust settings. I typically prefer physical buttons, but some of these touch screens work pretty well.
Another consideration is whether it uses digital or optical zoom. Digital zoom is a gimmick and I have never used it to take a quality photograph. Why is this? All digital zoom does it increase the size of the pixels in the output photograph to make it appear that you got a more zoomed in shot. This is at a great expense of image quality. All of the noise, mistakes, and flaws of your photo are also magnified electronically, and the images are not great. If you really want a closer shot, you should either move closer with you feet, or max out the optical zoom on your camera and crop the photo afterward using photo processing software. You will end up with a much better shot. Optical zoom works just like a zoom lens for a DSLR. It moves around the optical elements in the glass to focus a smaller angle of light onto the sensor. Back in the 1990s when the first regular available compact digital cameras were coming out, most of them would offer very short 2xoptical zoom and then use ridiculous 5x digital zooms and advertize the camera as having 10x zoom capability. While not wrong, the shots taken at 10x zoom were worthless. Now a day you can find much larger optical zooms on P/S cameras with actual optical 3-10x zooms, or on the larger P/S up to 30x or 40x optical zoom. In my mind, focus on the optical zoom range of the lens/camera and any digital zoom feature they advertise is a free extra feature if you want it.
You may also want to consider whether or not the camera will output RAW files. Almost all P/S will output files as a JPEG which is a compressed image file. During compression there can be aritifacts or noise introduced into the image. For most photos this is not a problem, but for some they can ruin the photo particularly if you open it, edit and save it again and again as each time it will recompress the file. RAW files are exactly what they sound like. They are the raw image data that the image sensor collects. With RAW files and the appropriate software (please note this as your standard image viewers cannot open RAW files) you can adjust many of the features of the photograph. And as it has not already compressed the photo it will do so while preserving the image quality. When you are done you can then save it as a JPEG, meaning it is only compressed once. The other advantage is that most RAW files are non-destructive meaning that if you make changes and save the file, you can open it up and get back to the original file but just undoing the changes. If you edit in JPEG and save, the original file is overwritten with the changes. While you may be able to adjust some of the settings back, you will never get back the original shot in the same quality. Now I’ve made a huge case for wanting a camera that outputs in RAW in addition to JPEG. But, practically, you really only need or want a camera with RAW file output if you plan on doing editing, and even then, working with a good editor with JPEGs is fine for the majority of people. In fact many pros will shoot in JPEG as it saves them the steps of processing and converting the RAW file (but it should be noted they also have the skill to get photos just right straight out of the camera). My preference is RAW, but you will be fine with just JPEG output. Also, often times ,the cameras that offer RAW output are higher end P/S and cost more as well.
Lastly is the flash. On compact digital cameras you really do not have a whole lot of options. Every point and shoot will have a built in flash, it will not be fantastic, but will do the job, and it is highly unlikely there will be an option to use an external flash. So, the most important thing to consider here is the ergonomics of the location. The camera designers do a good job of placing the flash where it works and it out of your way, but as everyone holds a camera a little different, you should pick up the camera and hold it as if you were shooting just to make sure your hands, fingers, etc do not block the flash.
Now that I have gone through some of the common features, you may have noticed that the P/S cameras can do a lot that the DSLRs can, but why would you pick one over a DSLR and vice versa. Compared to a DSLR, the biggest advantage of a P/S camera is the size and portability followed by cost. Recently I went out for a walk decided to bring along the point and shoot camera rather than my DSLR. The first think I noticed was how easy it was to bring along. As everything is contained in a single compact package there is no need for accessories or bags. Additionally the ease of sliding it into your pocket and going on your way is a great advantage over a DSLR. With that said, the ability to put in your pocket it obviously based on the size of the camera. If you have a small compact point and shoot, as most people do, then this remain an advantage. However, if you have a larger point and shoot, such as the Nikon P series of cameras, this will not be possible, but a simple case is all that is needed as they are still smaller than your standard DSLR with a lens attached (and typically lighter too). Why is size and portability such an advantage? This may be obvious, but its because your can bring your camera with you wherever you go and never miss a great shot because you decided not to lug around your DSLR. In my mind this is a great reason to have one.
The second reason to opt for a P/S over a DSLR is cost. Because P/S cameras tend to be simpler and don’t have to accommodate different lens options and accessories, and because they often don’t need the same software power that DSLRs require, they tend to be much cheaper. If you are getting into photography or just wanting a camera to take some snap shots, a P/S is definitely the economical way to go. An entry level DSLR kit (includes a lens) from am major manufacturer easily starts between $500 and $600. On the other hand you can get a basic P/S for under $100 and even the top line ones are $300 or $400 dollars.
Now that I have just made a case for wanting a P/S camera over a DSLR, now I am going to highlight some of the disadvantages that should really be considered before deciding which path is right for you. The first plays off the last advantage around cost. Due to the goal to keep costs down for the P/S segment of the market, often the lens, image sensor, and processing power of the camera are inferior to that in a DSLR. While this may not be noticeable to the casual photographer just looking to capture some fun moments with friends, it becomes readily apparent if you have ever compared picture samples side-by-side. And before I continue on, I need to say that the lower quality camera does not mean it is not possible to grab some fantastic high quality photographs using a P/S. This is not the case at all, however there is a difference when you compare the shots you can get with good glass on a good DSLR compared to a good P/S.
The second disadvantage, which is also an obvious one, is that there us a lack of expandability when working with a P/S camera. By their nature, P/S is supposed to be a full camera system in one package. Because of this, there are not options to try out different lenses, add on a better flash (or remotely control an external flash), or even use a filter on the end of the lens (although some P/S cameras do have the option to use a bracket to be able to attach a standard round filter, but this is not common). If you want to upgrade anything, you need to buy a new camera. The catch is that even replacing the camera can be, and often is, much cheaper than upgrading your camera body, or getting a new lens for a DSLR.
The next, which I highlighted early on, is the lack of flexibility to adjust settings, focus points, etc while shooting. Some high end P/S will offer some of these adjustments, such as adjusting your exposure settings, or picking where to focus, but if they do exist, they are often buried in the menu system of the camera which is not very useful if you are trying to adjust on the fly as a great shot reveals itself. Again, while this is a disadvantage, it is one that is intended as these cameras are designed around letting the camera do the technical thinking and letting the person simply compose and decide when to take the shot.
There are also some technical hurdles which are not easily overcome in the world of point and shoot cameras and they all surround the image sensor. The first technical issue comes when trying to shoot in low light. Due to the very small size of the sensor and the desire by both consumers and manufacturers to pack in many megapixels on that small senor, you end up with poor low light shooting. This power performance is due to pixel crowding. Many times the sensor in a point and shoot can be as small as a few millimeters wide and a few millimeters tall. On this smaller area is packed millions of light sensing pixels. Because they are so tightly packed if one pixel is struck by a photon of light it can often cause a response in the surrounding pixels as well but at varying levels. This adjacent excitation results in digital noise and can ruin a picture if it is prevalent, and becomes even more evident in dark areas of a photo (usually a common occurrence in low light shots). This noise during bright day light is often not much of an issue as most of the pixels are being excited and the effect from adjacent pixels is not evident. However, in lower light, in order to get the proper exposure, the camera will open the aperture and lengthen the time the shutter stays open. But because the aperture can only open so wide, and the shutter speed can only be so long before shaking of the users hand cause blur, most cameras well then increase the ISO. Increasing ISO basically takes the signal from the sensor and increases the amplifications. This is fine for most signals, but as P/S already have noise present, the noise is also amplified making the situation even worse. Again, this is a function of the size of the senor, which is a function of the size of the camera. This is also happens to be an issue for DSLRs (see my post on cropped versus full-frame image sensors), but not nearly as much.
The second effect of a small image sensor is an impact of the depth of field. A camera when it focuses, only focuses on a single plane of light at a particular distance from the camera. Depth of field is the area in front of and in back of that plane where the subject matter is in acceptable focus. In the world of DSLRs photographers will use the aperture setting to either allow for a lot of depth of field (for such shots as landscapes) to capture all of the photo in focus, or purposely opening up the aperture to blur the foreground and background (such as for portraiture) to make the subject stand out from the surroundings. Typically on a DSLR if you use a larger aperture (small f-number) you get a shallow depth of field and if you use a small aperture (large f-number) you get a deeper depth of field. If you have ever used a P/S camera and are familiar with this effect of aperture on the depth of field, you will have noticed that even if the camera picks a small f-number, such as f/3, which would normally provide a shallow depth of field, the image actually has a large depth of field. In fact, unless using the close-up/macro mode and being very close to a subject (depth of field is also dependent on the distance between the camera and the subject), you will hardly ever see the blurring effect by using a large aperture (small f-number). Why is this? Wouldn’t the same aperture provide the same effect regardless of the camera? In short, no. Just like a smaller sensor means that the perceived focal length of a lens is longer (again see my post on cropped and full-frame image sensors) it can also have the same effect on the depth of field. For effect on focal length a crop factor must be applied. For example a point and shoot may have a crop factor of 8x or greater. Often the actual focal length of a lens on a small point and shoot would only be 6.25mm, but due to the crop factor, it would provide the same view as a 50mm lens on a full-frame DSLR. This 8x crop factor also works on the aperture and associated depth of field. In order to determine the effective aperture, you must also multiple by the crop factor of the sensor. For example, if shooting a picture of a person 10 feet away, and the camera selects f/3 for an aperture, the effective aperture size in terms of depth of field is f/24 which is very small and provides a long depth of field. It should be noted, that this has no effect on the amount of light let in by the aperture at f/3, but it does on the depth of field. This phenomenon is a product of the small sensor size on what is known as the “circle of confusion” which dictates the depth of field of a sensor and lens (aperture) set up. I will cover this more in the future, but for this post all that is needed to be known is the effect on images from a P/S camera. So why then is this a disadvantage? It is a disadvantage as you lose the creative control over adjusting this depth of field based on your subject matter. The camera will still produce a fine image, but everything will be in focus. Again, there are exceptions when shooting in “macro mode” but the effect on depth of field is small (only slight blurring at larger apertures).
Just like there are advantages and disadvantages that should be considered around P/S cameras, there are also a couple of technique considerations as well. P/S cameras are designed to use the LCD to compose and frame the shot. However, in order to do this, you must hold the camera away from your body to allow you to see the screen. When using a DSLR, or a camera with a viewfinder, you should hold the camera up to your eye to see the image, and tuck in your elbows which makes for a more stable shooting position (or part of it). Since this is not possible when using a P/S, care should be taken particularly in low light, to hold the camera steady. In very low light, or macro situations, a tripod should be used similar to when a tripod should be used for a DSLR. This not only gives a stable platform for the shot, but also potentially restrict the camera to lower ISO setting (if an option on your camera) forcing the camera to use a longer exposure. This will result in lower noise (but beware of the subject as a moving subject will blue with longer exposures). All point and shoot cameras have a threaded slot in the bottom to allow it to be attached to a tripod. The good thing is that more portable (lighter) tripods can be used as they do not need to hold up a lot of weight. Without trying to sell any one product I do have to highlight the Joby Gorillapod as a great option for a portable, flexible tripod with options for point and shoots and even for DSLRs.
The next consideration has to do with the macro mode. Although not true macro functionality (see last week’s post), the macro mode will allow the photographer to get closer to the subject. It does this by restricting the zoom range of the lens and also changes the focus mechanism to get close to the subject using the same built in lens (a benefit of a small sensor). The change is focusing also puts the camera into a continuous focusing mode which will constantly hunt to maintain focus. Because of this second point, the big consideration here is battery life. This mode will definitely wear down your battery faster so care should be taken to turn it on and off when needed.
Everything else about shooting with a point and shoot is the same as shooting with any camera. It is all about light and composition.
Now that I have run through features, advantages, disadvantages and technique, what would I buy? A DSLR or a point and shoot? Well, as you already know, I do own a few DSLRs. And up until this point, I do not own a P/S camera of my own (I borrow my fiancé’s if I want to use one). You may then think the answer if obvious, but it is really not. I actually do want a point and shoot camera, but only to complement my DSLRs. It all depends on what, where and when you are shooting. If I want to ensure my pictures are of high quality, need the flexibility of the DSLR, and can bring it along easily, I will reach for my DSLR every time. However, there are times where wanting to bring a camera, but not wanting to lug around a DSLR, when a point and shoot is the perfect option. At some point I do plan on buying a point and shoot to have as a pocket camera to either bring by itself or in addition to my DSLR when I head out to shoot. And when I do, I will consider all I have presented above and more to make sure I pick the right one for me and my wants and needs. The bottom line is that DSLRs and P/S are different tools that perform the same function. Depending on what you want to shoot, your budget and your personal preferences, both types of cameras will do the job. Whatever you have in your camera gear, get out and capture the world.
No comments:
Post a Comment