The photosensitive element area of an ordinary small camera may be only 10% or even smaller than that of a SLR. There are so many pixels in such a small place, and each pixel is much smaller than that in the SLR. As a result, the sensitivity of pixels to light is much worse, and the circuits are too dense and interfere with each other. Coupled with the small digital lens, in order to ensure high-pixel imaging on such a small lens area, the unit resolution requirement of lens lens is actually much higher than that of SLR. However, due to the cost of small digital, the installed lens quality may not be very good. This is why small cameras with low pixels tend to take clearer pictures than small cameras with high pixels.
So the same pixel SLR is much clearer than ordinary digital photography. Not because it is a SLR, but because the photosensitive element is large, the lens can be better matched. At present, several non-SLR cameras use the same CCD as SLR sensors, such as DP 1 and DP2 of Sigma, and Micro 4/3 system of Olympus and Panasonic. There is no essential difference between imaging and SLR. But these cameras are not cheap either.
About the same price, considering the picture quality, you must go to SLR, but I don't know how high your menu requirements are. This is just a small picture. If people can see what it is, an ordinary small camera is enough. If you want to shoot high-end big-format signs or something, I think it's better to ask professionals to shoot them. After all, it's not just the equipment.