jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

No question, just a comment.

Some people seem to think that there are two kinds of still cameras: DLSR and point and shoot. The Micro 4/3, Sony NEX, Olympus mirrorless, etc., are not P&S. Sure, they can be used that way, but so can most DSLRs. P&S seems to be a "put-down" term for lesser cameras that don't rely on mirror technology.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

Some of the remarks seem to be related to the price of the put-downer's DSLR :)

Cdouthitt Loc: Traverse City, MI

I love my epm2. I take it more places that I normally wouldn't consider bringing my dslr. The major advantages of mirrorless have to do with size/weight. It's very inconspicous. I'm actually considering switching fully over to mirrorless...but I'm waiting for a pro-body featured OMD.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You're probably right. How can anything be better than a $6,000 camera?

Wahawk Loc: NE IA

To me, P&S dictates that it has NON interchangeable lens and very few controls. And then the 'serious' P&S and bridge cameras.

Then IMHO, the "mirrorless" and dSLR categories are really in the same class!! One has the 'pentaprism' or 'viewfinder' and the other usually doesn't, but has INTERCHANGEABLE lenses, which definitely takes both out of the P&S category!!

Bill Houghton Loc: New York area

I have always seen a P&S as a camera that would fit in my pocket, and fall out and be lost for months in a car seat or couch. Where a DSLR is a camera that is worn around the neck or shoulder till the right moment happens. The Owners of DSLR can be easily picked out in a crowd do to a noticeable slosh to the left right side from the weight of his camera bag. Just my two cents.

Ched49 Loc: Pittsburgh, Pa.

I think it's the manufacturer's never ending quest to produce camera's that are all things to all people. No longer can the pocket camera be considered a lesser camera. Nikon and other companies are making large sensor pocket cameras that cost upwards of $1000.00 and a good bridge camera cost's as much as a entry level dslr.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Personally, I prefer the term, "compact" to point & shoot, especially cameras that include advanced functions and flexibility.

Back in the film days, there were excellent rangefinder cameras that were just as venerated by hobbyists and professionals as the SLR and TLR's.

JPL

As I see it there are many more than 2 categories of cameras today. I like to think of those categories:

1. Medium format, Hasselblad, Leaf and all those big sensor cameras that most people can not afford, have no use for and will never buy. But those are good equipment for some of the pros.

2. Dslr. Digital single reflex cameras. Those are divided in 2 sub categories, full frame and crop sensor cameras.

3. Hybrid cameras and similar, the new rangefinder cameras, some without the rangefinder. Those have big sensors from the Nikon CX sensor to full frame to ensure good pic quality. Nikon, Canon, Fuji and many others offer those. They are much more compact than Dslr, many have interchangable lenses.

4. Point and shoot. Those are divided in 2 subcategories. The compact that fits in your pocket and the bridge cameras (or superzoom as they are also called) that do not fit in your pocket. Almost all of those have very small sensors and so and so pic quality. They are not usable for enlargement much above the basic pic size.

5. Smartphone cameras. There we have again 2 sub categories, the Nokia Pureview 808 and Nokia Lumia 1020 in one category. Those 2 smartphones have big sensors, almost as big as Nikon CX sensor and pic quality comparable with the pic quality of many cameras in #3 above (Hybrid and similar) Those are the first 2 smartphones with really serious attempt to integrate smartphones and quality cameras.
Then we have the other category of cameraphones which includes the rest of them, with basic low quality cameras without any zoom and pic quality compareble to low end cameras in category #4 above.

n3eg Loc: West coast USA

As an E-PL5 user for almost two weeks, I agree. I wouldn't use a DSLR if someone gave it to me (well, maybe the 5DMKIII for the video!) I've been waiting for a good quality camera in this exact size format since digital started.

I hear the replacement for the OM-D is coming soon.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

As an RX1 user I've had at least one friend say "you sold your 5DIII for that point and shoot??? :(

The sensor it has is better than the 5DIII, the low light capabilities are better, it has more MP's, the image quality is better, and the lens is better than any L lens I ever bought...

But it's a "point and shoot"... :(

rebride

I agree, except for the word 'lesser'.
I have a hard time with any 'vs' DSLR comparison.
A DSLR has no inherent image quality advantage over any other digital camera.

emmons267 Loc: Arizona, Valley of the Sun

Point-and-Shoot/Compact for $2,500.00 - Oxymoron...chkl.

profpb Loc: Venice, Florida

I have a five camera bodies. 50% of my images are using my Panasonic ZS20 (even when traveling to nice places), 0% my 6006 film body, 2% with my D70 (IR converted), 20% on my D7000, and the rest ~28%)on my D800e.

I could live with only my Panasonic and Adobe CC at $19.99/mo. I'd be rich. I should break down my lens usage too and have a sale on those as well.

wolfd Loc: Vancouver, Canada

I see a lot of folks out there toting dslr's because someone told them dslr's get the best images. They have no idea of the features / options afforded them by a dslr.