Originally Posted By: tanstaafl.
From a review published on Amazon.com:

They're just quoting the unreal manufacturer's propaganda. See here for some measured real numbers, or measure your own.

Quote:
The camera is fully manually controllable: shutter speed, aperture, ISO, focus, and I control depth of field by appropriate aperture selection.

Irrelevant. The camera itself, due to the geometry of the dinky sensor, is incapable of reduced depth-of-field. Even most DSLRs aren't as good at this as full 35mm format cameras, again because of the size of the sensor.

Originally Posted By: mlord
The FZ50 has a large high-resolution dedicated viewfinder

I prefer to see the subject, not a delayed digital copy of it. But that camera is apparently MUCH better than most P&S.

Quote:
there are tradeoffs in image quality


For me, it's not image quality -- my 3mp P&S has GREAT image quality. It's much more in the operational issues, and the total lack of control over depth of field.

EDIT: This thread isn't so much about P&S being inferior to DSLR, though, but rather the tradeoffs involved to get a camera that fits in a pocket. wink

Cheers