We haven’t ran a poll in a few months but this month we want to know your opinion on the new wave of powerful high end compact cameras. Are cameras such as the X100 a valid alternative to a digital SLR camera? Are they good enough for professional photography or should be dismiss them as a fad in photography.
One fellow photographer thinks the new wave of compact camera should be the domain of the interested amateur and should be the first port of call rather than an entry level dSLR.
So what do you think?
Results:
- No, lack of lens systems means they are limited (53%)
- Yes, same power, smaller, more portable (29%)
- No, they are a gimmick that will pass (11%)
- Yes, I haven’t used my dSLR since I bought a compact (7%)
Not at all. There has always been the debate about “can p&s take photos that are better than dSLR”. The technical quality of the picture may be similar, but the abilities of the different types of cameras are completely different.
I think you might be missing a question on your poll. Some of us (i.e., me, but I’d hope I’m not the only one) don’t see this as a camera with the same power, but appreciate its portability; we know that the lack of interchangeable lenses is a limitation, but welcome the creative challenges posed as an acceptable tradeoff for the creative freedom otherwise offered by the camera; we don’t necessaily see this as a passing phase; and we view the camera as a supplement to, rather than a full-time substitute for, an SLR.
To my mind, this is a tool. A really neat tool, to be sure, and one I’d be glad to have, but I’m mindful that it’s just one solution among many. Some people won’t have the patience to work around the limitations, while others still (the same kind of people who insist on an SLR but use it with an 18-200 all the time) will be scared off by the pitfalls without realizing the potential. Of course, if you try to quantify and qualify all of that with a single poll, things are bound to get messy. 🙂
It’s not a replacement for a dslr in any way shape or form in the working world. but situations may dictate what i’d like to use. I’d certainly consider throwing one in my bag for a day trip over taking my dslr for leisure photos, as not to weigh myself down.
While they certainly have their place and can be much more convenient than a full on dSLR, they won’t be replacing them anytime soon. As stated above, it’s a tool for a certain situation and can solve a certain problem. But it won’t cover everything.
This is seriously one of the most retarded polls I’ve ever wasted my time reading.
A camera is a tool. If it does what you need it to do it can replace a DSLR.
I own a x100 and I love it. I bought for a specific purpose and that is to replace a Olympus C5050. I also am a newspaper photog for a daily news paper for over 35 years non-stop. At the paper I work at it’s always been Nikon gear. It doesn’t matter if it’s Nikon or Canon it’s the weight and the amount of gear you carry which is lots. I used the C5050 on holidays as I did not want to take my DSLR gear on holidays. I have taken just the Nikon DSLR once or twice with a 17-35mm lens on a short holiday but it’s very rare. The kicker with the C5050 is that it has a 1.8 lens and the X100 has a f2 lens. I was able to shoot available with both cameras at inn just about any situation. Both cameras have an excellent auto white balance as well.
Could I replace my work DSLR’s with the X100? The short answer is no but the X100 could easily pull off many a shot that you could use for the paper from a low light concert pic to Vancouver street riots at night.
The Nikon/Canon DSLR’s are work horses that let you shoot everything from pro hockey and football to election campaigns. The kicker is that a pro can get excited about the X100 and its capabilities and know that it will fit the bill and he or she will be able to come away from a vacation with the quality of pix that they are used to and not have there backs broken. You can also go to a U2 concert and pull off brilliant pix that no regular point and shoot could hope to do.
I love it when I hear photographers kvetching about small cameras, counting pixels as though they are the salvation, and putting the gear out front when talking about photography.
Yes I do.
That means fewer competitors down the road.
If you cannot make a good photograph on a P&S, you are equally incapable on a bigass DSLR. I don’t care how sharp it is or how big it can go or any of that crap.
An image can inspire at websize, and another can be totally banal at 20×30 – and I don’t care how ‘sharp’ and detailed it is. KNOWING what to shoot with what you have to shoot with is what separates the photographer from the camera owner.
@jeffrey: And yet, you still took the time to respond to it…
By miself i haven’t been able to use a DSRL lotta time i have Nikon D100, but it has several death pixels so i rather only use it for studio or still life kinda work, for going out there i used for 3 years and most of my masters a Canon G10, now i have a G12 and this cameras offer a less intusive fot documentary shootings.
Im still waiting to buy a mirrorless reflex that will be the next big thing for me, but before that x100 an x10 represent the next step, also ill buy a iphone 4-s if ipod4th generation allowed me to make the pictures for my fisrt solo expo i want to see what will happen with 8mp camera in my pocket.
i will never deny the great difference of having exchangeable lens, but in this cash less situation im in the x100 and those alike are the main choice and the raw allow to do things way more serious.
Dslr’s are the main work horses and they will still but if you do it fine almost any camra can do the job, the thing is to use the rigth camera and equuipment to the job.