Originally Posted by
Loren Pechtel
Even then the DSLR is going to do a better shot than the P&S.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "better". A poorly composed shot is crap whether it was made on a fisher price or a hasselblad, and the best camera is the one you have with you (which is rarely a large SLR)
Originally Posted by
Loren Pechtel
Having a DSLR and not using anything but auto should be a crime.
Not as big a crime as close minded lack of realization of the forward march of technology. Auto mode is appropriate for the vast majority of photos taken. Make that P mode and throw in exposure compensation and program shift and you're up to 99%, the only real exception being off camera flash.
Originally Posted by
Loren Pechtel
through-the-viewfinder means you'll never get glared out trying to see. It also means you can compose a shot that's below what the sensor can handle and then open the shutter for long enough
Actually an EVF is superior to OVF in all those situations.
Originally Posted by
Loren Pechtel
question: One feature I routinely use with my DSLR is to take the exposure (and focus) off a more suitable nearby surface (very often I aim at the ground by my target) and then shift my aim with the trigger at the first detent--a lot easier than trying to correct the exposure for a backdrop that's going to confuse the camera. Have P&Ss caught up with this?
Actually, I would venture to say more compacts have this than SLR. It is interesting to see the half-press vs AF lock button debates - they almost 100% tie to peoples previous experience. Compact users half press, SLR use AF lock
Originally Posted by
Loren Pechtel
the superzooms (my only DSLR lens is a 18-200) do far better than any P&S I've ever used.
In what scenario? How are you viewing the images? Yes, in poor light at 100% crop or blown up to a billboard, the DSLR has an advantage. In normal situations, though, you will be hard pressed to reliably identify which camera took which picture in a blind test.