Comparing a Prosumer Digital Camera and a Digital SLR

For those with an interest in film photography and film SLR cameras, most will consider a digital SLR as a replacement. After all, in the film world there's really only two popular types of camera: compact point-n-shoot and big SLR.

Digital photography and digital cameras are quite a bit different, though, offering other interesting options. A prosumer-grade digital camera can provide many traditional SLR advantages (several exposure, focus and drive modes; external flash; and medium-to-large aperture lenses, to name a few) which can be combined with smaller digital camera advantages (smaller size, lighter weight, LCD screen for shooting, etc).

What follows is a comparative look at the usability and image quality of a Nikon Coolpix 5700 prosumer digital camera and a Canon EOS 20D digital SLR. Being significantly different, each has many advantages and drawbacks--many of which are not obvious at first look. Many of the differences and similarities apply to other cameras, too.

I should also note that this isn't a comprehensive review of the 20D, such as I wrote for the 5700.

Usability Differences

In many ways, a camera is a camera. Being comfortable with it can make a difference, though.

Size and Weight

In contemplating the move back to an SLR (I used film SLRs before the Coolpix 5700), size and weight were a big concern for me. My film camera kit weighed in at nearly 8 pounds (admittedly, with superior [and heavier] f2.8 lenses). I was tempted towards the 5700 because of the big weight difference, which I've come to appreciate. Carrying the equipment for a full day doesn't leave my neck or shoulder sore! Moving back to an SLR-style camera, weight--and, to some extent, size--were a big concern.

To best compare cameras--and to meet the same needs--a similar focal range is used: 35-420 mm with the Coolpix 5700 (35-280mm built in lens, and TC-E15ED extends the range to 420 mm) and 28-480 mm with the 20D (with Canon 17-85 mm and 75-300 mm lenses). Comparing the photos above and at the right, it's easy to see that the 20D package is quite a bit larger. That's not entirely bad, though, as the 20D does feel a little better in my hands. It's also worth noting that the 20D fits just fine in my current bag, a Domke Bug Bag 20; so, from that perspective, it's not too big. Below is a table comparing weights of each camera and it's required parts (excluding external flash).

	Nikon Coolpix 5700	Canon EOS 20D
Body, lens and battery	32.1 ounces, including MB-E5700 vertical grip/battery pack. Lens covers 35-280 mm range.	47.2 ounces, lens covers 28-136 mm range.
Telephoto lens	10.5 ounces, Nikon TC-15ED and UR-E8 adaptor ring. Extends range to 420 mm; the 240-420 range is fully zoomable without vignetting. An extra 0.8 ounces could be included for the leather bag, which I often use as a rear "lens cap," but I didn't include it in this measurement.	24.5 ounces, Canon 75-300 IS, has a range of 120-480 mm, which is obviously fully zoomable without vignetting.
Extra batteries (enough for a full weekend of shooting)	13 ounces, 2 extra sets of six AA-sized NiMH cells	0.0 ounces Not needed; one battery lasts more than long enough.
Totals	55.6 ounces, or almost 3.5 pounds.	71.7 ounces, or almost 4.5 pounds.

One pound total difference isn't much, but individually, the 5700 is much more flexible: the 5700 is a little lighter and offers a much larger focal range. Since my most-used range is probably around 35-150 mm, though, that's not always a big deal.

I'm generally happy with the larger size of the 20D and lenses. In particular, I find it easier to hand-hold the 20D with 75-300 mm lens at full-zoom than the 5700 with teleconverter.

Battery Power

With the 5700, I found the small EN-EL1 battery insufficient; I quickly began using the MB-E5700 vertical grip which is powered by six AA-sized batteries. The AA's often weren't enough, though--I'd carry an extra set most anywhere. When going out for the weekend, I'd take two sets (and sometimes that wasn't enough). For longer, I'd take the charger along.

The 20D, though, tells an entirely different story: one battery lasts... well, practically forever. It makes sense, though: the 5700 had to power the CCD/imaging circuits (including exposure, white balance and autofocus), zoom, electronic viewfinder, and LCD (and sometimes flash). The 20D, however, only powers the CCD/imaging circuits, and LCD (and sometimes flash)--of course the battery lasts much longer.

Powering Up

Ok, this is probably more of a Canon/Nikon or "just get used to it" difference, but I have trouble with the 20D's power switch position. On the 5700, where the power switch is located around the shutter button, powering on and off is a simple one-handed motion. I could pick up the camera with my right hand and flip the power switch while raising the camera to my eye--very convenient! On the 20D, however, the power switch is on the back of the body, outside of reach for a single-handed operation.

Powering the cameras on--either from off to on, or standby to on--can be summed up easily: 20D = fast; 5700 = slow. I often set the 5700 to go into standby after 5 minutes because that was likely enough time for me to get to another shot, though not so short as to power-down before I wanted. (In other words, this issue returns to the battery-draining I've referred to before.)

Taking Photos

Manual focus and zoom rings are natural, fast, and precise. I don't know who came up with this concept, but it's the best. In fact, it's one of--maybe the--chief reason I wanted a new camera. The power zoom on the 5700 is good for one-handed operation, but there are a limited number of steps to it and the zooming action happens slowly. Manual focus with the 5700 is almost painful.

Something I came to love about the 5700 was its flexible one-handed operation. One-handed, almost everything can be controlled: focus, zoom, exposure mode, exposure, white balance, playback (and all of its functions) and menu options. It was very easy to be out with the camera around my neck, grab the camera, and shoot--and get the photo I wanted. The 20D is a two-handed camera: to adjust zoom, change exposure mode, start playback or change menu options, I need to use two hands. In that way, the 20D is much more restrictive.

Exciting angles are much easier to achieve with the 5700's swivel LCD screen. Shooting overhead or from low angles, the swivel LCD allows for precise framing. With an SLR, the only way to precisely frame a shot is by looking through the viewfinder, which makes overhead and ground-level shots difficult.

Yes, the 20D is much faster. Clearing the buffer can be measured in seconds rather than minutes like on the 5700.

The 5700 will display the current ISO setting in the EVF or on the LCD. I love this feature. The 20D doesn't have it.

Image Quality Differences

Under ideal conditions, both cameras are extremely capable. If small prints or e-mail-quality photos is all you need, both cameras are extremely capable. For more demanding needs, the 5700 will do an admirable job, but the 20D edges ahead--in some cases substantially so.

ISO and Aperture Speed Differences

The literature says that the 5700 has an ISO range of 100 - 800 and the 20D has a range of 100 - 3200. Quickly comparing the two cameras makes you think the 20D offers an extra two steps range, offering the ability to shoot in lower light at a given shutter speed. That's not quite the case, though, for most people.

The 5700's 35-280 mm lens has a maximum aperture of f2.8-4.2. The 17-85 mm lens I'm using with the 20D has a maximum aperture of f4-5.6. At about 100 mm (in 35 mm-equivalent terms), the 5700's maximum aperture is about f3; the 17-85 mm's is nearly f5.6--roughly 1-1/2 steps slower. In other words, at 1/125 second shutter speed and maximum aperture, the 5700 could shoot at ISO 800, while the 20D might require ISO 1600-3200. The 20D "kit lens" (18-55 mm, f3.5-5.6) has the same caveat; to overcome this, you really need a big, heavy, expensive f2.8 constant aperture lens (which certainly offers significantly better image quality, but prevents the creation of a lightweight kit).

Minimum Shutter Speeds

Minimum hand-holdable shutter speed also needs to be considered. In 35 mm film photography, I often heard of the "1/(focal length)" rule for deriving a guideline of the minimum hand-holdable shutter speed. For example, when using a 50 mm lens, this expression dictates a minimum 1/50 second shutter speed for acceptably sharp hand-held photos. Similarly, a 300 mm lens requires a 1/300 second minimum shutter speed. I've found this rule to be fairly accurate and quite helpful.

This rule applies based on the imaging area and the lenses required. Medium format--with its significantly larger negative size--uses longer focal length lenses. While a "normal" view with 35 mm equipment is 50 mm, with medium format it's 80 mm. So, 1/80 second minimum applies here. Similarly, the small-sensored 5700's wide-angle measures about 9 mm. Shooting hand-held at 1/8 second sounds ludicrous but I often found it manageable, and 1/15 second always yields great results.

With that in mind, 1/15 second hand-held wide-angle shots with the 5700 aren't quite possible with the 20D and 17-85 mm lens, which seems to require 1/20 second minimum. A half- to one-stop difference can certainly force you into using a higher ISO setting which, in combination with the aperture difference noted above, can easily negate the 2-stop ISO benefit of the 20D. A little perspective is required, though: a 50 mm f1.8 at ISO 3200 will always trump anything the 5700 can offer!

I should also point out that the 17-85 mm lens uses Canon's Image Stabilization (IS) technology, which lets you hand-hold at lower shutter speeds. In this lens, it's supposed to offer up to 3 stops benefit over a "normal" hand-holdable shutter speed. (If a 50 mm lens is hand-holdable at 1/50 second, with this lens and IS 1/8 second should be possible.) I have had some trouble realizing excellent sharpness at the full 3 stops, but a two-stop benefit is always possible. IS can often make up for the above ISO difference, making similar shutter speeds possible at given apertures and ISO settings.

High ISO Quality

One of the oft-touted benefits of a digital SLR is it's low-noise high-ISO performance. Indeed, the results are stunningly different.

I've always found digital camera ISO tests a bit uninformative, or at least slightly misleading: on-screen is not the same as in print. At ISO 800, the 5700 has horrid on-screen results (such as in the unresized crop at the right). Even resampling the full-size five megapixel image to a web-friendly size results in a noisy image. A 4 × 6-inch print at ISO 800 is perfectly acceptable, though; a 5 × 7 looks pretty good, too. If making small prints is a primary goal, the 5700 (and any prosumer digital camera) will serve your needs well. Looking at the noise, it's easy to see that it's primarily red and green patterned and really does stand out from the picture.

The 20D's noise is quite different. I admit that my use of the 20D at higher ISO settings has been very limited, but so far, I'm quite amazed. As in the ISO 3200 example at the right, the unresized crop doesn't look noisy to me, so much as "crunchy" (a term used in the print-publishing world to denote an oversharpened image). Even looking at the individual color channels, digital noise isn't too obvious. Something like this is completely usable for the web and larger prints.

And of course, I do often make use of Neat Image Pro to reduce noise, though it's use is not reflected in the above comparison.

Conclusion

I've only touched on most of the differences between these cameras, and completely avoided some others: lens quality, low-ISO quality, ease of settings adjustment, autofocus speed, post-processing, and cost, to name just a few. Also keep in mind that the 5700 is--at the time of this writing--a 2-1/2 year-old camera and the 20D is a 6 month-old camera. The point of this article isn't to exhaust these topics, though, so much as point out that one isn't clearly better than the other for all scenarios.

While hiking, I've often enjoyed having such a flexible, small, and lightweight camera around my neck to capture a quick snapshot or carefully compose a photograph. On the other hand, manually zooming through an optical viewfinder is a pleasure of its own. Maybe getting the photograph is more important than what is used to do it.