wrote:
I am in the category of having changed from film slr to consumer
digital for the last 3 years. I am dithering over purchasing a dslr,
because image quality is my thing. However, I have been pretty pleased
with Nikon and Panasonic Lumix FZ consumer cameras, especially the
latter.
Considering only image quality, up to A4 prints. DSLR users talk about
their superior image quality, but when I go to say, Steves Digicams,
and compare on-screen a 200% enlargement of the same image, far greater
than real life, I see very little difference in quality between a D70
and a FZ20.
Giving up the portability of a consumer camera for a far more expensive
DSLR system (my film lenses are Olympus and I'm not impressed with the
E300).......is the image quality worth the difference? Or better to
wait a year or two yet?
DonB


IMO, the main thing that distinguishes
digicams these days (both point 'n shoot and
DSLRs) is the sensor size. Not surprisingly,
manufacturers go out of their way to hide and
obfuscate that particular statistic. Given
good optics, the sensor size will be the main
determinant of image quality.

There are certainly good things to be said
for the portability and compactness of non-SLR
cameras (both film and digital.)

If I were taking photos mostly of people and
wanting mostly "candid" photos (as opposed to
formal portraits) I'd work with a nice light
point and shoot camera.

I particularly like the tilt/swivel LCDs on
some of the consumer digicams (eg. my Canon
G2.) It lets me get some interesting angles
and perspectives that I can't capture from a
conventional viewfinder.

When I'm hiking deep in the backcountry (where
weight counts) I take my Canon G2.

If image quality is the main thing, you want
the largest possible sensor size, and these are
mostly found in DSLRs. Taken a couple of steps
farther, if image quality were the MAIN thing,
you'd shoot MF or LF film...


rafe b.
http://www.terrapinphoto.com