A346Dude From Canada, joined Nov 2004, 1283 posts, RR: 7 Posted (9 years 9 months 2 days 22 hours ago) and read 3043 times:
I have the chance to buy a used Canon D30, but before I do I want to ask a.net members a question.
Currently, I use a 2MP Canon A60 (P&S). What kind of difference in photo quality should I expect going from the A60 to the D30? Please keep in mind I will be using fairly cheap lenses with the D30, at least for a while.
[Edited 2004-12-17 21:06:34]
You know the gear is up and locked when it takes full throttle to taxi to the terminal.
Mikec From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 247 posts, RR: 13
Reply 1, posted (9 years 9 months 2 days 20 hours ago) and read 3022 times:
Interchangeable lenses - so a big choice of focal lengths and the opportunity to keep buying new higher quality ones as you can afford them.
Larger sensor, so less image noise (I think you'll be genuinely surprised if you open up a 3MP P&S digicam image to 100% versus one from the 3MP D30). A lot of people think that megapixels = quality, and while for digicams for general use, it's often a good indicator, it's not the whole story. The type and size of sensor and processing chip play a big part as well as how the pixels are arranged on the sensor
There's often a lot more functionality on a DSLR - such as being able to shoot in a continuous focusing mode (AI Servo on Canon DSLRs) which will keep refocusing while you have the shutter button half pressed, or being able to select your metering mode. These are justa few examples (there are more) and while they aren't specific to quality, they all combine to make a better photo - eg some digicam users will complain of shutter lag when taking action photos. On a DSLR in AI Servo, you are following the moving subject and refocusing all the time and can just let the shutter go at the right moment and you have a very very small lag time. Can mean the difference between an out of focus shot and a crisp sharp one.
You will also be able to shoot in RAW format, which gives you more control of your images after you have taken them. It can sometimes mean the difference between salvaging a photo that wasn't taken correctly. In RAW, the camera records the settings that you had on the camera, but doesn't apply them to the image and compress and save as JPEG. You can go in afterwards and change settings and then convert the photo to TIFF or JPEG to edit in Photoshop.
Not to take anything away from some high end prosumer digicams, which often have lots of the same features of DSLRs, but with a fixed lens.
Hope that helps a bit - I'm no expert....though I'm sure a few might come along and reply!
Wagz From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 516 posts, RR: 16
Reply 2, posted (9 years 9 months 2 days 13 hours ago) and read 3006 times:
I thought I'd offer some input. I recently upgraded to the canon 300D with a mere $200 75-300 lens, so there's obviosuly much greater room for improvement there.
My last camera was a Fuji S7000. Its a high end P&S, but still P&S none the less. The Fuji was 6.1 Megapixels and the 300D is 6.3 megapixels, so essentially no increase there. The differance in image quality was mind boggling.
With the 300D, everything was so clear. Tiny printing on the fuselage is now legible. There is practically no noise in the image. Since you have no basis for comparison (yet), you may not notice image noise now, but once you shoot on a DSLR you'll see what I mean. And keep in mind, this is with a $200 lens. I can't imagine what things would look like if I were to go slap all $1600 of a 70-200 f/2.8 L on there.
Not to mention what MikeC touched on about lag. With P&S cameras there is noticable lag when you press the shutter button. With a DSLR, opening the shutter is a more mechanical process, so just about instantaneous. Focusing is fast (although this depends on the lens) and you have complete control of zoom since it is manual. How I ever got along using those screwy electronic zooms on P&S cameras I'll never know.
I'd say don't even hesitate at the oppurtunity. I was blown away by the differance in image quality. I think in your case you'll see a much greater improvement than I did.
I think Big Foot is blurry, Its not the photographers fault. Theres a large out of focus monster roaming the countryside