P&S camera and SLR

[Alan Johnson]

I compared my P&S Samsung 290 W (28-90 zoom, believed similar to Rollei Prego 90 AF) with my Praktica SLR and Prakticar prime lens, both cameras with lens = 28mm.
The full image width is about 10x the width of the crops.
An SLR body and 3 lenses gives a similar coverage to the 28-90 zoom of the P&S
Pics show full 35 mm frame, P&S crop and SLR crop.

.
The SLR viewfinder is much better but of course the outfit weighs a lot more.
I just put this up because there is not much info on the comparative performance of P&S and SLR lenses if anyone has any comments.

 

[Les Sarile]

What is your conclusion - when you don't want to carry heavier gear, don't want to manually set the camera or want to use autofocus that a p&s zoom will do?

 

[George Mann]

Small camera's, that you can always take with you means that you can take pictures that you would otherwise miss out on.

 

[Les Sarile]

Of course the Praktica - and it's lenses, can be on the larger side while the Pentax MX may be more suitable.

 

[Alan Johnson]

What is your conclusion - when you don't want to carry heavier gear, don't want to manually set the camera or want to use autofocus that a p&s zoom will do?

I think it is determined by the amount of spare weight that is available for camera equipment , which may be less on holiday for example, but one needs to choose a good P&S camera and there is not too much info on this.

 

[George Mann]

Don't you find the thin focusing grip to be a challenge?

 

[Les Sarile]

I think it is determined by the amount of spare weight that is available for camera equipment , which may be less on holiday for example, but one needs to choose a good P&S camera and there is not too much info on this.

Along with quality, weight and size, probably the biggest hindrance with p&s are their automatic parameters. Depending on your style, this may be a non-starter such as in the case of night shooting below.

The camera phone is very portable but my not so smartphone can only take this . . .

Good thing I brought my Pentax LX with Portra 800 that took this . . .

Of course as photographers we are very familiar with compromise and learn to work with what we have. I believe Stephen Stills said it best, "If you can't be with the one you love, love the one your with."

 

[Craig75]

Very impressive performance from the compact. I wouldnt be able to tell difference between that and the slr from those crops.

 

[Les Sarile]

Don't you find the thin focusing grip to be a challenge?

It takes a little getting used to but we can learn to work with it. The MX has the biggest brightest full info viewfinder in the smallest full frame manual SLR body so it does have an upside.

 

[George Mann]

It takes a little getting used to but we can learn to work with it.

Have you used it with a hood?

 

[Les Sarile]

Have you used it with a hood?

Fortunately the Pentax M 40mm f2.8 pancake lens has the best flare resistance - which I understand in the scientific testing conducted was due to it's simple design and great multi-coating, so a hood is not needed.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

I just can't convince myself to use zoom for film photography. I prefer prime. On SLR, P&S and RF.

Where are terribly overpriced P&S with nothing really special primes but on-line glory and where are simple and cheap P&S worth of 5$, zoom or prime. I see no use for any of them due to electronics which are getting in the way I photograph on film.

I admire OM, F like SLRs for something sufficient and reasonably priced or RF with regular prime for fancy status in the crowd . SLR with the prime seems to be optimum in price, performance. As long as it is 50mm prime . But even if it is 28mm, I used for short time Canon FTb (it was gift I have to fix), camera is self was OK, more on the tank size, but Vivitar 28 2.8 was astonishing lines for 50$. It was killing 700$ Leitz 28 2.8 (which I used to have as well) in IQ department.

 

[Les Sarile]

I just can't convince myself to use zoom for film photography. I prefer prime. On SLR, P&S and RF.

The Canon "L" f2.8 zooms are very good performers but come at a price - as well as size and weight consideration.

 

[Alan Johnson]

To be fair, my computer generated comparisons above are biased in favor of the P&S camera as the fine detail that could be resolved from the SLR negative from a print with a good enlarger lens cannot be shown.
Still I have found differences between P&S cameras, my Rollei Giro 70 WA is sharp at the center but unlike the P&S Samsung tested above, the resolution falls off noticeably towards the edge.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

The Canon "L" f2.8 zooms are very good performers but come at a price - as well as size and weight consideration.

I used to have banch of L zooms and primes. They became too heavy to enjoy. My daughter gave me her 2.8 L zoom recently. I put in on the camera and same workout is required. Not worth it, IMO.

 

[Cholentpot]

I used to have banch of L zooms and primes. They became too heavy to enjoy. My daughter gave me her 2.8 L zoom recently. I put in on the camera and same workout is required. Not worth it, IMO.

I'll take it then...