The image quality at higher ISO will be much better.  At 100, perhaps not.  The huge difference is the view finder and the way you can use the camera.  Even the best electronic view finders are terrible compared to a DSLR.  You cannot see what you are doing, you are never quite in real time if you or the subject is moving, and there is not enough contrast and resolution to really tell what you are seeing.  The 300D does not have the best viewfinder, but it is much much better than an electronic viewfinder.

What you cannot duplicate with a digicam is the experience of shooting with a fast prime on an SLR.  Put the 35 F2 or the 50 1.4 (or the 35 1.4 if you have the money) on and pretend you are shooting film without the hassle of film.

I have the 10D and the A2.  I have done a few comparison pictures at each cameras lowest ISO (10D ISO 100; A2 ISO 64) and the resolution of the A2 rivals that of the 10D with my 28-135 Is and 17-40 L lens.  However, there is a little noise in the A2 pictures when compared to the 10D.  I have not compared them for other things such as CA, barrel distortion etc.  Of course, as soon as you go to higher ISOs the 10D/300D wins.

The 300D with all its system options is clearly more flexible than the A2 and better for action photography.  Also, the viewfinder will be better.  However, the A2 has the first EVF viewfinder that I can live with and I believe it is better than any of the other prosumer EVFs.

The reason I bought the A2 is that I got tired of carrying my 10D and lenses around when I go walking.  Most of my pictures are taken on walks.  The A2 is light and has a 28-200 (35mm equivalent) lens that is quite fast.  The 300D offers no lens with this focal range.  When you add in AS the A2 is wonderfully complete in a relatively small light weight package.  I expect it will become my main camera as most of my photography is outdoors at lower ISOs.

One thing I do like about the EVF is that to some extent I can actually see exposure changes as I make them.

Anyway, those are my thoughts.  Enjoy your camera whichever one you get.

I'm currently writing an article on this very topic (DSLRs vs. digicams).

Some good points have been raised here. The topic is not as simple as one would at first think.

It should be online before the end of the month.

Michael

Michael,

Looking forward to your article.

Another reason I like the A2 is the greater DOF at the same aperture.  The AS will help further here by allowing me to take handheld shots at smaller apertures with less camera shake resulting from the slower shutter speeds.  I can reduce depth of filed in Photoshop, but I can't create it.

I have both the A2 and the D300 and I enjoy both very much. (I still have the original D7 too)

The D300 offers more BUT the A2 is turning out to be a great travel camera - especially plane where space and weight is an issue.

I only shoot RAW on both and find that my prints are more than good enough for me.

The EVF on the A2 is much improved over the original D7 and I suspect the A1. I can use the EVF to focus now and, once I adjsted for my vision defects, it gives a very nice view especially using it for manual focus where the exposure is shown in the EVF as I change speed or lens stop.

I was fortunatle to be able to afford both. Try both. I think the learning curve for the A2 (with DOF preview!) is steeper but I am not sure.

I wouldn't mind having a smaller SLR than my 10D. Canon could do this while maintaining the 10D's build quality, which I find to be satisfactory for my needs.

Besides the 10D I also have a Panasonic Lumix FZ10 compact. (Well, relatively compact.) This camera has a quirky EVF that rates just short of outright annoying. But it handles well otherwise, and image quality at ISOs 50 & 100 is very good. Really the main thing that prevents me from using it, or any similar compact, as my primary camera is the lack of control over DOF.

I don't like the "fix it later in Photoshop" approach to DOF. I enjoy using shallow DOF in many situations, and I like getting it right in the camera. This is a large part of the fun in photography for me, and with the compacts it's rarely possible. So the FZ10 is mostly relegated to situations where deep DOF is desired...and in those situations it does a great job.

I travel pretty light when it comes to photo gear. 10D plus three lenses, maybe four, all stuffed into a Domke 803 satchel. When I'm actually walking around & shooting (cities are my prefered stomping ground) I rarely carry more than two lenses, often just one. When I shot film my prefered cameras were Leica & Contax (the 1950s models) rangefinders along with a Contax Aria. All smaller than the 10D, but I'm managing okay with the 10D's extra bulk.

-Dave-

OK... with the recent decline in prices (relatively speaking) I am considering taking the digital plunge. And besides, I'm getting a bit tired of scanning film. With what I'm willing to spend, the choices come down to the Minolta A2 or the Canon Digital Rebel 300D.

I know that Michael has stated that a DSLR delivers higher image quality than any of the new 8mp digicams. I have no doubt this is true when one of Michael's favorite "L" lenses is mounted on the DSLR. But what about the sort of lesser lenses that I can afford? I currently have a 28-105 "mark II" and a 1989-vintage 70-210 f/4, which I use on an Elan II. For the 300D I would supplement these first with the 18-55 kit lens, and eventually replace that with a Sigma 15-30 or 12-24 (although I have had nothing but trouble from previous Sigma lenses, nobody else has anything comparable yet).

With those lenses, would the 300D still provide significantly better quality than the A2? Since I haven't seen that sort of comparison anywhere, I thought someone here might offer a helpful opinion. As for what I plan to do with it, there are numerous examples on my Web site (all scanned from film, of course).

Edward,

Have you actually used the A2?  And I don't mean peeked at it for a few minutes in a store, but actually used the camera?

Frank wrote:

"The reason I bought the A2 is that I got tired of carrying my 10D and lenses around when I go walking.  Most of my pictures are taken on walks. "


How telling.  The 10D sits at home and the A2 gets the call, at least for "informal" picture-taking.  The Canon might enable slightly better images, or obtain images that for the digicam are out of reach, but day-to-day, the A2 (or similar) is out working while the larger, heavier 10D outfit sits at home.  

The camera that gets *used* is the good camera, whether it's a Sinar or a Hawkeye.

On the EVF: Tens of thousands of television cameramen worldwide obtain excellent imagery with monochrome video viewfinders every day.  The EVF can show the photographer things that an optical one can only dream of.  Exposure, for one.  Even without a live histogram.

Peter

One thing I am figuring out about viewfinders as I get older - it depends a lot on the individual's eyes.  When I was 20 I could read the compact edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica without the magnifier.  Now I need reading glasses to read the computer screen.  One's ability to use or like veiwfinders probably depends a lot on how your eyes work, plus what you are accustomed to.  I shot film for a lot of years with manual cameras - I do not even like autofocus that much.  But manual focusing demands both very sharp eyes and lenses with shallow depth of field wide open. (Or rangefinders.) I use my 10D with the 35 F2 like I used by old pentax spotmatic with the 1.4. (I would go for the 35 f1.4 in a second if it was not so expensive.)  If you have sharper eyes and/or really like to use zoom lenses and/or really like autofocus, I expect the A2 would be great.

The fact that TV camera operators do fine with monochrome video monitors is not really the same issue - they generally use the most dof they can get, and they do not have to pick out the decisive moment or the perfect frame.  TV video takes great skill, but it is a very different skill.  

Bottom line, however, is what will you use to take pictures?  I really like 4 x 5, but found that I was not taking pictures because it was too much trouble to set up the camera and then to handle the film.  I moved from 35mm film because the hassle of getting good processing kept me from shooting as much as I wanted.  (I live in an area with no good local lab, so I have to do mail order.)  The 10D gets used, which is my test. I do not need something more convenient, but if I did, I would go for something like the A2 because my issues with the viewfinder are not as important as whether I take pictures.  (The raw file buffer would probably be a bigger issue for me - I am often doing several shots in quick succession, even for landscapes. if I am doing a panorama I need to move fast if there is any wind and clouds or the images will not register.)

Actually, I welcome that. This is a perplexing situation. Have both and these two animals are very different.

High-end digicams: Smaller, lighter, unobtrusive, attached WA-tele lens, great image at low EIs, full time histogram.

dSLR: Easier to grasp, huge variety of "standard" high-end glass available, great image at ALL EIs, better RAW tools, many system accessories, built to last, easy to focus/use optical viewfinder.

I'm sure you will find much more to contrast these. I'm looking forward to it.

My conclusion - I want both. If I had to have only one, I'd pick the dSLR because it has the most utility and expansion.

I also have been looking for a digicam as a travel camera because I am also pretty sick and tired of dragging and carrying my normal gears ( a D1x and Contax 645 with Kodak Proback )around, but to no avail.
I got an A1 just before the A2 is announced. At first I was pretty excited by this camera because of its features (as mentioned by the previous posters, albeit about A2 but nevertheless similar) but after a few trips, I find that the quality of image fall short of my expectation (although it is really not bad) and the limitation brought by the slowness ( relatively) in response and (absolutely) in ISO - anything over 200 is vertually useless - makes me miss a great number of shots. I think these comments is applicable to all the 8 Mp digicam currently available especially if you shoot nothing but RAW like me ( in this regard only the A1 or A2 is really usable).
So I have to go back to a DSLR and bought a D70. This with the 18-70 DX lens weights only about 400 gm more than the A1 (or A2) but gives far superior image quality - in real usage and not just comparing shots at lowest ISO and I am not just talking about resolution but also color tone and saturation, and dynamic range, and much much greater versatily and flexibilty. And you may ask what about anything over 70 mm. I have got the 70-300 ED which is pretty cheap and weights only 500 gm. So with a total weight penalty of about 2 lb - as compared to A2 ( total weight of set about 1.5 kg or 3.3 lb - just slightly heavier the the weight of a D1x body alone) I got a set that I can carry around whole day and yet give me shots of reasonable quality whenever I want( some claims that D70 gives better image than D1x but then this is another story). I have tried the D70 and Tamron 28-300RX and the weight penality is less than 300 gm but the image quality is not good  enough for me. But this is a possibilty if you want the absolute minimal weight and it still works miles better than any digicam.
The only link missing now is a decent RAW converting software for this little gem and I can hardly wait for Phaseone
to include the support for this camera in their excellent C1, which they say will happen in May.
I think if you prefer Canon then the 300D is also a great choice but I would strongly advise you to really test out the two cameras before making the jump because to me although you have already got some Canon lenses, to really make full use of this modern DSLR you would need modern lenses and so you need to buy fresh lenses anyway. My humble opinion is that the D70 is a better camera ( build, design and features) than 300D.( I say so and bought it not because I am a D1x user and like I said I bought new lenses to go with it to make full advantage of its low weight. And my next camera will most likely be a Canon 1D mkll. I am telling this because I don't want to start another silly Nikon vs Canon war - all these are just tools and we just pick the one that suits our need most!)

Michael, I certainly look forward to reading your article. At the "prosumer" level, the latest crop of digicams and DSLRs seem to be converging toward direct competition. The DSLR certainly provides more flexibility, as well as the opportunity for higher image quality because of their quieter sensors and (potentially) better lenses. The digicam is more convenient, although with some sacrifice of image quality, but it's difficult to determine just how much sacrifice that might be. It's more than a bit confusing, as confirmed by the diversity of replies to my post.

Regardless, every choice involves tradeoffs. As cmma says, it looks like the D70 may well be a better DSLR than the 300D. Nikon seems ahead of Canon in offering a range of reduced-circle lenses for these cameras, and their sensor is slightly larger. But the higher cost of the body and the need to buy all new lenses would make it more expensive than I'm willing to pay. And Nikon lacks the depth-of-field mode that is unique to Canon. That may be overrated, and dumbed down to A-DEP, but I find DEP mode very helpful and use it often on my Elan II (and on the EOS 650 it replaced). The A2 lacks that feature as well, but the greater depth of field of its very short lens may compensate for it.

The 300D has the advantage of letting me use my current lenses (and also to carry the Elan II as a backup camera), as well as its version of DEP. But, as in my original post, I have no idea whether its image quality with my lenses would be significantly better than an A2.

The A2 is compact and convenient, includes a good lens with a 28mm wide end, and and avoids any worries about sensor dust. There is also supposed to be an 0.8x wide angle adapter available. Since it's apparently not yet shipping and nobody has tested it, I have no idea how much image quality it sacrifices to get the equivalent of 22.4mm. The real disadvantage is the sensor noise that effectively limits the ISO equivalent to 100 (or 200 in an emergency). I'm used to the convenience and high quality of ISO 400 negative film, so being stuck with ISO 64 or 100 might be a problem. I'm assuming that the "anti-shake" feature mitigates some of the inconvenience, increasing the effective ISO by allowing longer hand-held exposures. But I don't know how effective it actually is. I just bought NeatImage to help me deal with grain in scans of older color negatives, so I already have an essential tool for an 8MP digicam. (By the way, the new NeatImage version 4 is not only very effective on film grain, but it's actually quite fast.)

I'm in no hurry to buy a new camera (although I'm more likely to think about it whenever I'm waiting for my Canon FS4000US to finish scanning a negative). I have no doubt the technology will continually improve to bring better cameras at affordable prices. But the new digicams and DSLRs are certainly headed in the right direction.

DaveLom,
I envy you a lot for having both! I know not only you, but also others hesitate which to buy - the A2 of the D300. I am one of those who would like the A2 as it is but are concerned with the image quality. I am used to film and big prints without much noise and shooting indoors, so I feel I would be disappointed if the A2 turned out to be bad in that respect.
I have been searching for A2 - D300 RAW comparison shots, but I could not find such. What I would like to do is take them, do some 48bit editing to my taste, take them to the printer and see the results.
So I would like to ask you a favour. Could you do some test shots and post them? I would most interested in RAW+Jpeg pairs of low(er) light situations and cases where shallow DOF would be nice, where the D300 should have a clear edge. I understand this took your time only, but also think it would be an extremely popular set of pictures helping many out there ...
Thanks in advance,
Zsombor