Is a high end digital camera(prosumer) as good as a digital slr~in terms of image quality?

Question

I know the advantages of the slr system~but like the convenience of high end compacts.

Answer 1

I used a high-end Nikon Coolpix 8700 for two years and the image quality was fantastic.
It wasn't so hot in low light conditions, however. Higher ISO settings resulted in considerable image noise and the AF would hunt for a while before locking on.
I also found it difficult to time my shots. Due to the electronic viewfinder, the image was transmitted to the eyepiece (and screen) with a 1/10th second delay. In addition to this, it had roughly 1/10th second shutter lag. The combined effect was that I missed the moment on quite a few candids and action shots.
The Coolpix 8700 is 3 years old and things have improved since. But these two drawbacks still hold. You know the advantages of dSLR cameras vs. prosumer models, so I don't have to tell you this. I just want to remind you to consider more than the image quality: also consider all the shots you simply won't get with a prosumer camera.
For me, this tipped the scales in the other direction - I upgraded to a dSLR.

Answer 2

I asked myself the same question when in the market for a better digital camera. I concluded that unless you want or need to lock yourself into a big, expensive system, a high-end compact is the better option. DSLR's are a little faster in capturing images but I didn't rate that as a big plus. One thing that did need watching, however, was that the resolution of the electronic viewfinders in some of the compacts I looked at was suspect.

To an old prime lens man like me, the zoom range of the high-end compact is phenomenal and provided you do not try to enlarge the image beyond the camera's megapixel capability, the quality is stunning.

Answer 3

Technically...it really depends on what you want to do with your photos. Most digital SLRs are currently in the 8-10 mp range. A good non-SLR in the 8mp camera is going to get you as good of pictures then a digital SLR if you dont want to invest the time learning the diffrent lenses and filters and everything else good. If you just want a point and shoot...basically your going to be more satisfied with a higher end Digital rather then an SLR and your gonna save a nice piece of change. Without your lenses and everything the SLR is basically a really nice camera that has way more manual features but if you just plan on setting it on auto its really not worth the money.

Answer 4

I think for today's high end non-dSLR digital cameras you'd be hard pushed to notice the difference until you start doing huge blow-ups or night-time / time-lapse photography etc. If your demands are only average, then it's probably best to save a huge amount of money and go for the non-dSLR option. Also saves on a lot of weight and insurance! Thinking along these lines, if you needed to change a lens quickly the moment could have passed, whereas on a compact it's all there at the touch of a button; sometimes simple is best.

Answer 5

At low ISO, they are quite close. So close that you really need to look at the photos at 100% resolution to tell the difference. That like looking at the photo blown up to 2 feet.

At higher sensitivities (ISO 400 and ISO 800), DSLRs have much lower noise, and noticeably better image quality.

And, of course, it all depends on the specific digicam. But- you'll find the image quality of the better digicams is surprisingly good for such small packages. The Canon SD700IS as an example.

Answer 6

technically speaking, the image quality of a prosumer digital camera is very good but in comparison to the performance and flexibility as well as the versatility of the dslr, prosumer digicam does not make to the standard. of cos you still can buy prosumer digicam as something that you can rely on when you are out for leisure shooting. but for work, dslr is the way to go.

Answer 7

I'd have to say no, but for everyday use, holiday snaps etc high end digital compacts are more than capable of producing top quality snaps, they just lack the flexability of SLR for more creative photography

Answer 8

No, they are not. On the plus side, the DSLR will always have significantly lower noise levels (because of its larger sensor), almost always faster operation (AF not based on the CCD capture and bigger buffer). On the minus side, however, a DSLR won't have a proper live preview (you cannot use the LCD to frame the picture, a big turndown to me), only few of them will have cheap image stabilizer that does not require expensive lenses (the new Sony DSLR and the new Pentax), and the lenses will always be bulkier and more limited (because of the DSLR larger sensor). It is really convenience against top quality. I personally chose for convenience.