Canon P&S VS a $40,000 medium format digital system

Can a digital Point & Shoot camera compare to a $40,000 medium format digital system?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

You only start to notice the difference as you get larger and larger pictures. Extreme cropping will also show the difference.

The Canon G series truly rocks. I've got the G7 and am looking forward to upgrading to the G11. I simply cannot justify carrying a heavy DSLR when a high end compact performs just as well in almost every situation I encounter.

Same website (don't know if it's the same guy or not), comparing the Canon G9 to the Leica M8 ($500 versus $5,000 cameras):

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/G9-Japan.shtml

The guy liked the Canon G9 better in the end, and that's why I bought one.

I've really got the hots for the Canon T2i.

For now, I love the SX120.

Oh man, I could seriously tear that article/webpage apart. Comparing a point and shoot- any point and shoot- with a medium format camera is slightly akin to comparing a bus with a motorcycle because they both have wheels. Anyone who has looked through the viewfinder of a medium format camera and adjusted for focus can tell you that. You can simply not get as shallow a depth of field on a small sensor camera as you can with a larger sensor. It's apples to oranges. I use a G9 and also have a Canon 7D and a Rebel. The G9 is awesome and I love it, but it doesn't compare to my 7D. And a medium format? Forget about it.

The G series of cameras are nice and they seem to have pretty good lenses. I'm sure they would be much easier to carry than an SLR and equivalent lens/es.

Jethro said:

Oh man, I could seriously tear that article/webpage apart. Comparing a point and shoot- any point and shoot- with a medium format camera is slightly akin to comparing a bus with a motorcycle because they both have wheels. Anyone who has looked through the viewfinder of a medium format camera and adjusted for focus can tell you that. You can simply not get as shallow a depth of field on a small sensor camera as you can with a larger sensor. It's apples to oranges. I use a G9 and also have a Canon 7D and a Rebel. The G9 is awesome and I love it, but it doesn't compare to my 7D. And a medium format? Forget about it.

Click to expand...

As far as viewing on a computer moniter I think the G10 compares pretty well to the MF camera, especially considering that the G10 cost about $500 and the Hasselblad cost about $40.000.

Also, it's Michael Reichmann.

He is... an interesting character. Always has a lot of opinions.

I have a Canon G9 and love it. Although its a little different from the G10 and G11, nothing in the newer cameras made me want to upgrade.

Still looking for a faster lens and HD video. Come on G12!!! :naughty:

There are more that a few issues comparing P&S and DSLR. The greater the number of pixels, the larger the image can be enlarged or viewed on a bigger screen.

My opinion - you can't beat a DSLR for taking pictures, The viewfinder is bright and clear, the image is taken as soon as you press the shutter.

I have an Olympus SW1030 that I use on the beach here. It is great in that I can take it into the water. However, even with the screen set to the highest brightness, there are times when you can not see the picture you are taking - this is on bright sunny days. This is what they mean by Point and Shoot.

There are a lot of things you can do with a DSLR that P&S cameras can't, change lenses, external flash, cable release, depth of field preview, the infamous BULB setting - great for lightning pictures. and so on

Both types have their place in the picture taking world, depends on what you want....

Composition is definatly easier with a SLR and the shutter lag of most P&S is annoying too.

will said:

There are a lot of things you can do with a DSLR that P&S cameras can't, change lenses, external flash, cable release, depth of field preview, the infamous BULB setting - great for lightning pictures. and so on

Click to expand...

Cameras like the Canon G9/G10/G11 is a totally different animal as a normal P&S and shouldn't be put in the same category; it's more or a hybrid. This Canon series of glorified P&S cameras can use an external flash, cable release, depth of field preview (press button half-way). ...it's digital screen even has over twice the pixels of the $7,000 Canon EOS 1DS Mark III (230K vs. 461K pixels), or if you like a manual viewfinder it has one which even has diopter adjustment.

Yes, they don't have a bulb setting, but if 15 seconds isn't enough you might just be doing something wrong (or taking pictures of stars under a cloudy sky or something).

Changing lenses also isn't a problem for 99% of people since they want to lug a single camera around, and not a camera bag. The zoom of 28-210mm (if my memory serves), and with a great macro mode, will serve most people very well. There are collars to attach various macro, zoom, and fish-eye lenses which actually do a decent job, but the trade off is it makes the camera nearly the same size as a SLR, and just isn't worth it to me.

Shutter lag is still something I don't like with a little over a third of a second, but if you're pre-focused (shutter button held half way), it's extremely fast at 0.072 seconds says one review of the G11 (I know my G9 is a bit slower).

To end my little Canon "G" series rant, I just wanted to say that I started off with a very nice SLR back in the day (and before that an ancient, all manual Exacta), and even borrowed a nice $3K DSLR for a couple week vacation, and it's just not worth the hassle to carry around a huge camera bag with multiple lenses when I want to enjoy my vacation with the camera simply fitting in my pocket. If you're a pro doing photoshoots then sure, you would use a proper DSLR/medium format/whatever, but P&S's have come a huge way recently and for my casual (and a little bit of use for shoots for my graphic design business), this is all I really need.

I have an older Kodak DX7590 digital camera. This looks like an SLR, but the lens is not interchangeable. It is 10 to 1 optical zoom, 3 to 1 digital on top of that. And it has a threaded front that will accept filters ( with an adapter ). I can use an external flash with the camera. It has a screen and a digital viewfinder, with a diopter adjustment. This is a camera that is between a DSLR and a P&S .

I still use this camera, in addition to my Olympus P&S, and a Nikon DSLR.

I like to take pictures, sometimes all I have is a he P&S, When I want to get a little creative – the DSLR fits the bill.

Cameras and picture taking is and individual undertaking. What works for some, does not work for everyone. Certainly P&S cameras have come a long way. If you want a camera that fits in your pocket, P&S is the way to go. That probably covers most of the picture taking opportunities that most of us encounter.

I have some pictures that I could only have taken with a DSLR. My underwater pictures were taken with a P&S, great beach camera.

I bought a used TLR ( twin lens reflex ) a few years back. This takes 120 film and every thing is manual on the camera. I took it to the beach on Long Island, set it up on a tripod, used a light meter for the settings. Yep – lots of work for just a few pictures, but, to date some of my best sunset pictures.

The same beach a few days later – the DSLR with a 600mm mirror lens ( 900mm in the digital world ) all manual and some really great nature pictures..

So – I guess – different cameras for different situations.
************************************************
The newer Canon G series are similar to the Kodak that I have, but just similar. They have many more features and look to be a nice camera. ( I suspect you need big pockets for this one )

LightWalker said:

Can a digital Point & Shoot camera compare to a $40,000 medium format digital system?
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

Click to expand...

Only on paper.....

will said:

The newer Canon G series are similar to the Kodak that I have, but just similar. They have many more features and look to be a nice camera. ( I suspect you need big pockets for this one )

Click to expand...

If you mean physical size, the G9 is decent in size and can easily fit into jean pockets without a huge bulge. The G10 and G11 keep on getting bigger and will probably be a bit more of a hassle to lug around.

If you mean price, they're all well under $500.

TriChrome said:

If you mean physical size, the G9 is decent in size and can easily fit into jean pockets without a huge bulge. The G10 and G11 keep on getting bigger and will probably be a bit more of a hassle to lug around.

If you mean price, they're all well under $500.

Click to expand...

I just meant physical size. The Olympus I have will fit in a shirt pocket, the Kodak will fit in a Cargo Pants pocket.

Like I said earlier, the Canon G series looks like a nice all around camera.

Jethro said:

Oh man, I could seriously tear that article/webpage apart. Comparing a point and shoot- any point and shoot- with a medium format camera is slightly akin to comparing a bus with a motorcycle because they both have wheels. Anyone who has looked through the viewfinder of a medium format camera and adjusted for focus can tell you that. You can simply not get as shallow a depth of field on a small sensor camera as you can with a larger sensor. It's apples to oranges. I use a G9 and also have a Canon 7D and a Rebel. The G9 is awesome and I love it, but it doesn't compare to my 7D. And a medium format? Forget about it.

Click to expand...

"You can simply not get as shallow a depth of field on a small sensor camera as you can with a larger sensor."
True and though I like selective focus (AKA Bokeh), sometimes the advantage of a very deep DOF is handy.
You can also fake bokeh with PS filters and the money saved is worth it.

The luminous-landscape comparison was picked apart pretty badly on dpreview, but the results are the same.

What the comparison shows is that:

-The G10 is one helluva little camera.

-Baryta surface papers are rather soft and tend to hide details. Big reason I didn't buy into this fad. They all look like 150dpi interpolated light-jet prints to me.

-A picture of leaves under an overcast sky has virtually no gamut and dynamic range to test the camera's capability. The MF digital system is designed for mostly studio work where high print DPI standards apply, and not shooting leaves under an over-cast sky to be printed on 13x19 Baryta paper. Basically it would be hard to pick circumstances more in favor of the G10.

Try shooting some models in a studio with strobes and professional print standards and contrast ranges. This is where small sensors really show their limits.

I own and use many cameras.

- Sinar P w/Betterlight Back
- Hasselblad H1 w/Leaf Aptus 75
- Canon 1DsMklll
- Canon 5D
- Canon G9
- Canon S90

First off most people don't buy a medium format setup to shoot trees and leaves.

The main difference between the formats is "Field of View" not to be confused with "Angle of View"

That said.... I totally love some of these pocket cameras! What a joy! They are VERY GOOD in the right situation. And very poor in the wrong situation. The same can be said for larger format cameras.

The files from my Leaf back are amazing!!! Makes the hair on your neck stand up !!!

frisco