Sony v DSLR Lunar shots

Nice bright moon this evening, though not the best for picking out detail due to lack of contrast. However I thought I'd take some shots with our new point and shoot Sony and my Canon DSLR and see how they compared.
The results were interesting!
The Sony was set on full auto and zoomed to it's maximum of 500m
The Canon was on manual with a 70-300mm Canon lens zoomed to 300mm.
Both shots hand held. I found my first shots with the Canon were over exposed so stopped down 2 stops which seemed to solve that problem.
Both images were processed on PS though I only sharpened them slightly and then cropped to about the same size.
Normally using the DSLR I'd have used a tripod, cable release and lower ISO (I had it set to 1600 to reduce shake as it's a heavy bit of kit with the long lens attached).
Here's the results, but bear in mind this was a quick experiment!

The Sony image -

​

​

The Canon image -​

​

 

I was very surprised too Woo at the detail the Sony produced. The most recent 'point & shoots', and certainly the Sony are capable of excellent results on full auto. The quality of their lenses and the camera software have improved a lot over the last couple of years.
The shot I took with the Canon isn't really representative of what it can produce if I take my time setting up the camera. If I'd lowered the ISO, used a tripod and cable and bracketed the exposure I'd have ended up with a much crisper shot.

From the 'bangs per buck' aspect the Sony and other good point & shoot cameras' win hands down. The Canon lens I was using cost roughly three times what the Sony cost and one could buy two Sony's for the price of just the Canon body.

 

To have captured these shots with my DSLR I'd have had to carry two lenses and the weight of camera gear would have been several kilos. The Sony weighs next to nowt and hangs from a snap link on my rucksack or belt.

All taken from the same spot, wide angle to max zoom >

​

​

​

 

I've not tried it Woo, but at a guess I'd say it wouldn't be as easy as it is with a DSLR with a viewfinder. In fact the thing I dislike most about the Sony is that there is no viewfinder it's much easier to keep track of a subject with the camera held uo to your eye - at least it is for me.

 

I still find panning birds difficult even though mine has a viewfinder, particularly while using the zoom.

 

Interesting shots Dave, I keep toying with the idea of saving up for a DSLR but then as is becoming apparent the quality of the point and shoot cameras is getting so much better. Browsing Ebay I came across this; http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/SONY-ALPH...Cameras_DigitalCameras_JN&hash=item4ab83493ef

Like the look of this, spare lens available and 7 fps is possible in speed priority mode which would be great for trying to catch moving objects such as birds..

What do you think????

 

Sorry for delay in reply Bilbo but just home from holiday.
My thoughts _
The Sony Nex3 isn't all that 'pocketable' due to the lens, though performance looks pretty reasonable.
See >
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/SonyNex5Nex3/17

If you are not too bothered about 'pocketablity' you might be better looking at a 'bridge camera'. There's plenty to choose from, they are not a lot larger and you'll get more bangs per buck for not much more in price and you don't need extra lenses.
If you go the DSLR route you'll end up wanting to add extra lenses and good ones are not cheap and a full set plus camera weighs a ton and costs a lot.

My experience -
Had a Fuji 'bridge' camera and got great results and moved on to Canon 450d DSLR then to Canon 50d both very good though a set of lenses cost very much more than the cameras.
Bought a Sony HX20V which fits in a shirt pocket and I've been astounded by the quality of photos (and HD video). While it doesn't give me the same manual control over exposure as my DSLR it does very well in full auto and scene selection modes. I'm just home from a holiday in Greece and took about 350 photos and 20 mins video with one battery recharge. I do though miss a viewfinder as the screen is hard to see in bright light.

Bottom line for me -
For any real serious photography I'd use my DSLR but it plus lenses is too heavy and bulky for travel or other expeditions. The Sony however is a mini marvel, light and portable and delivers great photos.

 

Thanks Dave , I currently have an Olympus sp350, I've had it for about 7 or 8 years now; its a cracking camera with 8mp, manual settings, auto settings galore, RAW files as well as JPEG, a viewfinder, 3" screen etc....

I've recently discovered that additional lenses and filters are still available through ebay for less than £20 each so I may go that way; it would be cheaper.

I'm not bothered about being able to pop the camera in a pocket so size isn't an issue, ultimately my dream has and perhaps always will be the DSLR with a decent zoom lense for wildlife photography but until that dream becomes financially possible I may stick with what I've got with the addition of the available accessories or stretch to a 'bridge' model.

 

If you can get additional lenses etc at prices like that I'd be very tempted to stick with the Olympus for a while and start putting the pennies away for a used DSLR in the future. You'll get a used DSLR two or three years old for a fraction of the price of a new model.