Alley in Pisa, Italy

by Lars Kotthoff

submit your photo


Hall of Fame
View past winners from this year

Please participate in Meta
and help us grow.

Take the 2-minute tour ×
Photography Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for professional, enthusiast and amateur photographers. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am not an expert in photography, so please don't be too harsh on me if I am making absurd statements. My question is:

Is it really possible to combine compact camera portability with professional SLR quality? If so, what are these "species" called? A couple of keywords would suffice for me to continue my journey of finding high quality models of this kind.

Thanks in advance.

share|improve this question
    
1  
possible duplicate of How small can current SLRs get and still give comparable photo quality? –  Itai May 30 '13 at 17:22
    
my professional DSLR is quite portable, only weighing about 10 kilos with some lenses and other gear. The one compact I had weighed about half that with its gear, if I were to reduce my DSLR kit to the same functionality it'd weigh in at about the same... –  jwenting May 31 '13 at 10:38

6 Answers 6

up vote 7 down vote accepted

The main differences between compact cameras and DSLRs are mainly 3:

  1. Sensor size: compact cameras have small sensors, that give you little space to play with shallow depth of field, and give you a smaller dynamic (the ability to catch in the same shot bright and dark objects keeping details in both).
  2. Ability to use multiple, different, lenses: above a critical threshold, good lenses are more important than sensors. On compact cameras you can't change lens.
  3. Manual controls, ergonomics and speed: DSLRs let you control everything in a shot if you want, and are designed to let you do these changes fast, so you can take a shot in less time.

Usually high end "compact" cameras are called "bridge cameras", and while still having small sensors and fixed optics, they may have also manual controls, but they aren't as comfortable as those in DSLR.

Recently the place between these cameras and dslrs has been taken by a new category, of so called mirrorless cameras. Usually they have replaceable lenses and bigger sensors (some of them, like the Canon EOS-M, have exactly the same sensor of a dslr), so they may give you images similar to the ones taken with DSLRs, but still being a lot smaller than usual DSLRs. Still, their ergonomics will be more like a compact camera than a DSLR, that could be a good or bad thing, it depends on your tastes.

Anyway, if you can afford them, mirrorless are a lot smaller and more portable cameras than dslr, still giving you control and some of the advantages of DSLRs.

share|improve this answer
4  
Welcome to Photography on Stack Exchange. You look to be off to a great start here. Welcome to the community. Hope you stick around. –  AJ Henderson May 30 '13 at 16:49
1  
In addition to @gerlos's thorough answer I'd like to add that there are a few cameras out there, like Sony's RX100, that use a sensor that is much bigger that a typical compact cameras, but is still much smaller that a DLSR or even micro 4/3rds sensor. These cameras typically fall under the mirrorless category, but don't have removable lenses. Because of those trade offs you get a camera that has a nicer sensor, but will still fit in your pocket. –  CyberKnoy08 May 30 '13 at 18:44
    
thanks @AJHenderson! It's a great community, I've learnt a lot from it, and I love giving back a little to thanks everyone. –  gerlos May 31 '13 at 13:01
    
I bought a Sony RX100 at last. Thank you for your input. –  Anar Jul 30 '13 at 8:11

As answered before me, one of the differences between SLR cameras and compact cameras is the sensor size. Assuming we'll have a compact camera with a big sensor we'll encounter a problem.

Small sensor "creates" big crop factor: about 4-6, so a compact lens can give a nice range and acceptable focal length, but when you are up scaling the sensor size you also are down scaling the crop factor to ~1.5. In order to get a focal length of 200mm you'll need a ~130mm lens and this kind of lenses are hard to miniaturize. Try a bit longer focal length and it will be impossible to make the lens compact.

Moreover, a small camera body with big lens is not ergonomic and you'll find it hard to use the camera when the center of mass is in front of the camera body.

share|improve this answer

Yes it is. They key is that you said Quality and nothing else. There are several compact cameras which use the same sensors as DSLRs and they therefore output virtually the same quality.

These are known as large-sensor compacts which only a few exist at this time. This search gives you the complete list of current models. Recent models include the Fuji X100S, Nikon Coolpix A which I reviewed recently plus Pentax Ricoh GR and the full-frame Sony RX1.

The catch is that you lose versatility and performance. All these cameras have a fixed lens with a single focal-length, meaning they cannot zoom in or out. The angle you see from the camera is always fixed. With a DSLR you have more versatile lenses and a large number of them which you can interchange as you please.

In terms of speed, DSLRs are considerably faster at this time. There is good hope that the Fuji X100S is capable of focusing very fast but other models use Contrast-Detect autofocus which is currently slower than Phase-Detect autofocus used in DSLRs and a handfull of other cameras.

share|improve this answer

It's sort of possible, with a large enough sensor and good enough optics.

There are at least two compacts on the market that fit the bill:

  • Fuji X100S with an APS-C sensor. That's the same sensor size as low- to mid-end DSLRs.
  • Sony RX1 with a full frame sensor, same as high-end/pro DSLRs. (The price tag is also in the high-end DSLR region.)

Both of these have fixed lenses, no zoom. The problem with adding a fast, high-quality zoom to a large-sensor compact is that the lens will be so large that it's hardly "compact" anymore.

With a fixed lens, these compacts produce pictures with quality comparable to a DSRL, but only in a relatively narrow range of scenarios: They can compete with DSLRs for street photography, for instance, but can't compete for ultra-wide-angle shots or sports/birds/wildlife, where the DSLR user can switch lenses to adapt.

If you want zoom, I think a mirrorless is your best bet. The large-sensor mirrorless (APS-C, and micro-four-thirds isn't too far off) aren't as compact as the compacts, mostly because of the lenses. But they are still more compact than DSLRs, and offer interchangeable lenses.

For keywords, I would try "large sensor compact", just be aware that some of the hits will be for sensors that are large for a compact, but still small compared to a DSLR.

share|improve this answer

Large APS-C sensor mirrorless cameras very nearly offer compact camera portability and can produce the same image quality as APS-C DSLRs when using comparable quality lenses, of which there usually some available.

Look at the SONY NEX, Fuji XE interchangeable lens cameras, and fixed lens models from Fuji, Sigma and Nikon.

share|improve this answer

The main impacts on quality for an SLR are the sensor size and quality, the quality of the optics and the easy ability to adjust manual settings. Many of these features can be achieved in a compact camera. The Fuji X100s for example puts an APS-C sensor in a compact camera body and offers many of the typical manual controls.

Mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras allow for changing lenses and generally have higher quality lenses than most similar size cameras but may or may not have the ease of adjusting manual settings or the image sensor size of their DSLR big brothers.

Ultimately, lens quality is the hardest thing to get small. When you combine a large sensor and a small lens, the quality you can achieve is greatly challenged. You can get really good small optics for a small sensor, but then sensor size is the limiting factor. You can also get a big sensor size and a small lens, but then the optics quality is the limiting factor. Then you also have the cost factor. It is fairly routine to have a lens that costs more than any compact camera in existence when looking at the DSLR world.

There is simply no way to fit all the lens elements and lens size needed to resolve a high quality image on a high quality large sensor without large optics. That's the main limiting factor. Otherwise the camera only has to have a shutter, a processor and a sensor and that takes up very little space overall.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.