I disagree. When I bought my first DSLR, I was shooting mainly on Auto. My pictures were way better than anything I shot on P&S. You obviously won't get perfect and beautiful shots every time, but those easy shots (think outdoor cloudy) come out much nicer than P&S.
I'm sure it did. But the word you are missing here is
YOUR. Those easy shots came out better than
YOUR P&S. I won't argue that most P&S cameras take less pleasing looking pictures than a DSLR, but also understand that not all P&S are created equal. A cheap point and shoot will have a slow lens (f/3.5 or worse) and a teeny tiny sensor, and in the case of some of my older ones, combined with a subpar image processor that lags when you hit the shutter and makes poor decisions on exposure and focus.
But there are some really good point and shoots these days- many of them sharing the same image processor as modern DSLRs (in fact, the Canon's new DIGIC 6 was released first in point and shoots only). The really super good ones may cost more than an entry level DSLR, and they are VERY MUCH worth the money if the complication of a DSLR isn't your thing.
The S110 is not the highest end point and shoot, but it was considered a pretty advanced model when it came out. The S120 is even better and opens up to F/1.8, but even at the S110's F/2.0, it means you can shoot in darker environments than your kit lens on a DSLR before you need a flash or other supplemental light, and runs the same Digic 5 chip you'll find in Canon's latest crop of DSLRs.
Paying for a really expensive P&S nowadays is simply not worth it given current DSLR prices (unless of course compactness is a major factor).
I disagree extremely strongly with that statement. What is it, exactly, about the single lens reflex moniker that makes it able to take better pictures?
Do you understand the science behind it?
Because I do. And this is something I've actually wanted an excuse to explain for a long time, so thank you for the introduction! (my apologies to Fishy, I hope I'm not stepping on any toes by jumping in here).
WHAT MAKES A DSLR PICTURE "BETTER"?Is it the mirror? The actual mirror (which is what the term SLR is referring to) is there for ergonomics, it doesn't improve image quality in any way. It is what allows you to look through the optical viewfinder and snap pictures when it flips. If you take away the mirror, but keep the rest of the camera identical, your pictures will be identical. You'll just have to look at an LCD screen since the optical viewfinder won't exist to judge your frame anymore, and that's what a mirrorless camera is (also
known as EVIL, or Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens). Granted, most mirrorless cameras also have slightly smaller sensors to make the whole thing cheaper
and more compact (micro 4/3, EOS-M, etc), but not all of them are. Sony, for example, has done amazing things to get the same APS-C sized sensor as most DSLRs on their mirrorless cameras while keeping the NEX bodies pretty darned close to the size of a point and shoot.
Is it the lenses? Having a choice in lenses is a huge pro to the DSLR system. If you want something sharper and faster, you can spend money on a Zeiss lens that opens up nice and wide. But most amateurs and soccer moms are likely going to stick with the kit zoom for most of what they do, and to be honest they are pretty boring. I see them like the sample cartridge that comes with a printer- its there so you can get started out of the box, but they don't actually expect you to use it for long. In contrast, a point and shoot camera has a fixed lens that you can't remove. That means that they have to make it one heck of a lens though, because you are stuck with it. The cheap ones have lenses that are just as boring if not more so than a DSLR's kit, but the more expensive ones actually have some really decent glass that are sharper and faster than what you get with a DSLR's kit!
The Sony RX10, for example, has a constant aperture f/2.8 lens from Zeiss built into the body. Granted, this camera is not cheap, but equivalent coverage for a DSLR would cost over $2,000 in glass, likely spread between 2 lenses (since they don't make any single one with that kind of coverage). So far, all we've done is take away the mirror of an SLR and added an excellent lens. So far, if anything, we've actually IMPROVED upon the picture quality coming out of a cheap DSLR.
Is it the sensor? Ok, so here's a massive nugget of truth. DSLRs traditionally have larger sensors than your average point and shoot. This makes a difference because the larger the sensor, the more control you have over your depth of field. Also, the larger your photosites are, the more photons hit each one, making it brighter in low light and offering less noise in high ISO. But here's the tradeoff- when sensors are smaller, it is easier to have a wider aperture lens designed to hit it (this is the theory behind speedboosters for mirrorless cameras). A F/1.8 lens is going to project brighter light on that P&S sensor than a f/3.5 kit lens will on a DSLR, which in some small way tips the scales back the other direction.
But here's the real kicker: not all P&S cameras have smaller sensors. In fact, the Sony RX1 has a fixed lens and no mirror, and fits in a jacket pocket, but it has a FULL FRAME SENSOR. That means your cheap APS-C DSLR has a 1.6x crop smaller than this particular point and shoot.
So if it isn't the mirror, and it isn't the interchangeable lenses, and it isn't the sensor, what makes a DSLR magically better than a P&S?
The simple answer is, it doesn't. Because they there is no magic involved here, only science.
The quality of your picture is most directly affected by a combination of the last 2 things mentioned above. Sensor size and lens quality, both of which you can find really nice equivalents to on a P&S these days. Granted, you are going to pay through the nose for a high end P&S, but in some cases it still ends up being cheaper than an equivalently equipped DSLR.
There. I can't believe I actually wrote all that out- whew!
Don't get me wrong, I love my DSLR and mirrorless cameras, they are way more fun to tinker with and when used professionally take excellent quality pics. But if someone isn't going to move past the kit lens, there are some very compelling P&S models to consider. But as is to be expected, if you are comparing your entry level DSLR to an entry level P&S, there is nothing to talk about.