Certainly in absolute terms the DSLR will show image quality benefits over the Compact as well as have some other advantages. The obvious advantages a DSLR has are things like
But there are some drawbacks to the DSLR too ...
There is an excellent technical explanation of why sensors make such an important difference this site. After reading this, I thought "hmm ... my Coolpix does better than that compact camera did ... " I know that he's making a point, but he compares a multi thousand dollar full frame DSLR with a much lower cost and much smaller sensor compact camera. I think that its hardly fair to compare them. Since most of us can't afford such a camera I thought that it would be more interesting to compare with a more affordable DSLR like the 10D.
In my page on the image size vs size of the sensor I mention that the 5 Megapixel cameras with the larger 2/3 format image sensors perform better than 7 Megapixel camera with the smaller 1/1.8 sensor.
Since there isn't much difference in printable size from 5 and 7 megapixel images I decided to make that a criteria for a compact camera. Sadly they just don't make them anymore, but that's good in another way, as eBay is a great source of older digital cameras at low prices.
So dollar for dollar just how much is in it for the 'ordinary photographer'. To compare the results of the older Nikon Coolpix 5000 and the Canon 10D DSLR. I had felt from using them that they were pretty close, and so rather than just speculate, I put it to the test.
I took a picture of high contrast to push things to the limit. The white cloud is in full sunshine, and the buildings here are in shadow. The unmodified camera generated JPG shows just how contrasty it was. The whites of the cloud were totally blown out and almost no detail remained in the cloud. Some extreme work with curves was not really able bring any extra detail to the shadows, and introduced some colour shifts in the red with it.
So, both these images look a little flat (sorry it might look better or worse on your monitor it will all depend on the colour profiles). If you hover your mouse over the image below, you can see the images that I got from the RAW files of both the 5000 and the 10D. They look fairly similar at this size.
Now lets look at the details. Ignoring the slight contrast differences, the 5000 image has a little more noise, but considering this is a 100% crop from the image that will disappear in the printing. Resolution is similar, and ,when using RAW, so to is the ability to get into the shadows and hold the highlights.
| Camera | print view | 100% pixel view |
|---|---|---|
| Coolpix 5000 segment |  |
|
| EOS 10D segment |  |
|
Not bad for a camera that costs less than half the price of a DSLR. Back when my Coolpix 5000 was new, its images were considered comparable with those produced by the Nikon D1H (a DSLR).With Moose Peterson saying:
I found the image quality of the Coolpix 5000 blows away the quality of any other pocket digital I've ever shot. I've already submitted images taken with the Coolpix 5000 for publication, did so without any hesitation! But many really wonder if the 5MP delivers more than the 2.66MP? There is no way you're going to see a difference in quality on your monitor or even the printed page between these. I made 8x & 11x prints taken by the CP5000 and D1H.
And he wasn't even using RAW as the NEF firmware upgrade wasn't released at that time. Definitely, comparing my images, I've been seeing the same as Moose claims.
Given that:
I feel more comfortable about leaving my DSLR back at home and taking just the compact with me on my hikes.
To me at least, the compact camera holds many advantages in size weight and handling. This point alone makes it more likely to actually have it with me than my DSLR. It may seem silly to say this, but its true that the camera that takes the best pictures is the one you have with you! So if you (like me) aren't using your DSLR because its bulky and not convenient then it can hardly be taking better pictures than the compact you have with you now, can it :-)
Lastly, I would like to leave you with an image made with my 5000, as an example of the sorts of noise free images that can be produced with a compact camera using RAW. I've linked this image to a full size image, which has the colour profile embedded in it, that will look better if you open it with software that supports ICC profiles. I've tried to match the two as much as possible, but I'm still sorting out how to tune an image for every ones monitor.
You might find some 'grain' if you go looking around in the full size image, but I'm sure you won't see it in a 150 or 300 DPI print. Not bad for a compact, almost as good as from my 20D and really quite nothing like what you would get from using a JPG produced by this camera.
Click on the image below to download a
full sized image.
Considering that cameras such as the 990 offer
| Nikon 990 | 20D |
|---|---|
| Looking at the image from the 990 and comparing it to the 20D, the immediate observation is that they are reasonably similar. | Careful observation will show up that the larger capture format of the 20D gives slightly better background separation, as can be seen in the out of focus bricks. |
 |
 |
| Taking a segment of the image to view at 100% shows the relative size difference between the two images | Clearly the 20D has a size advantage when printing, allowing much larger prints |
 |
 |
 |
 |
While DSLR's such as the 20D offer better outright image production, if size is not important compact cameras offer other advantages, such as very good Macro work. If you do product photography for Web or small catalog, the lack of super image size might not be a problem. For the product photographer shooting small items such as parts or jewelry, the ability to work with macro is a distinct advantage, and something you'll have to pay dearly for to obtain on the SLR.
To capture an image like the above with a DSLR, the photographer would need to invest in expensive specialist macro lenses, and then lighting equipment to get sufficient lighting to get this Depth of Focus.
Lastly, not all photography makes looking through the back of the camera preferable. When taking macro pictures in the field, or when working with product photography being able to reference the screen easily is a distinct advantage to having to put your head behind the camera.
So, depending on what your needs are for image making, some of the 2/3 format compact cameras make quite powerful image making tools.
Lastly, image quality is not so far behind when using 100 ISO. Given that macro and product photography both require still subjects and often tripods working with higher ISO settings has reduced importance. If the compact camera can record RAW images, then there is a distinct advantage in that. Have a look at this page on that topic.
I hope that I've been able to provide you with some helpful information.
If you are interested in making any comments or providing any feedback on
this article, then you can e-mail me at
I'd be glad to have a chat ...
