I have a 24 mpixel Canon 750D DSLR and a 10 mpixel Canon G12. I enter images in club competitions which must be compressed to a maximum of 1600 x 1200 pixels and 1 Mb. When I go on holiday it is quite a weight to carry the DSLR and three lenses, plus all required for a day out – assuming the lenses have similar definition would there be any difference between the heavily compressed images – the G12 has all the facilities, and more, of the DSLR, and I shoot in Raw with both. It would be much easier to just take the G12.
In theory no there wouldn't be a noticeable difference, you are compressing or resizing down to 2 megapixels and removing 75% of the information from even the 10mp file of the G12. Now both sensors may do slightly different things with colors, but you shoot raw and can edit to taste and know that already. The main difference is the capabilities the camera and lenses, your 750 is much newer and has a significantly better processor(much better iso performance), you have a few lenses you can swap out, so your ability to shoot 50mm 1.8 or slap the zoom on and get a shot at 300mm gives you flexibility you don't have with the point and shoot. So in the end you have to decide when to use the dslr for the additional abilities to get shots you want. I have nothing against that g12, it was a great high end point and shoot camera. Sadly I don't see the need for that market these days, modern phones have go so good you really don't need a compact P&S any more. So in other words, half the time on trips i only bring my iphone, depends on if I plan to actively spend time shooting, and then I pack the tripod, filters, lenses, etc.. the other half the time.
Thank you for your useful and considered reply. I think I will take both cameras, the DSLR to use at the holiday location when that will be all I need to carry, and the G12 when further afield. The G12 is quite discrete and much better for street photography - it was basically designed for professional photographers to use when it was unwise to use a DSLR.
