Shop RadioShack for Great Gifts
Digital cameras: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera?
- 4/10/09 2:35 PM
Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera?
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) - 4/10/09 2:35 PM
Questions: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera?
Dear CNET friends, you've shared so much valuable info with us over time that I feel you are really good friends. Thank you! My question is in regards to choosing a digital compact or a digital SLR camera. Finance is an issue though I am willing to save up till I can get what I want. I love taking macro shots but also like using zoom for better bird shots. My present camera is a compact Canon Powershot A620, 7.1 megapixels and 4x zoom. It's been a great camera for me but now that I've learnt more about photography it's time to move on.
I had almost decided to get the best Canon compact with 18x zoom, but a camera salesman told me if I want good (sharp) macro shots I'd be better with a lower price range SLR body and pay extra for a reasonably good macro lens. His opinion is that Canon had added more zoom etc. to their compacts but that the lens was still the same quality. Could someone please advise me for what I need? Many thanks in advance.
--Submitted by Cecilia P.
Here are some featured member answers to get you started, but please read all the advice and suggestions that our
members have contributed to this member's question.
If you're serious then go for it --Submitted by kalel33
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7593_102-0.html?messageID=3007240#3007240
Differences between point-and-shoot and DSLR... --Submitted by kLevkoff
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7593_102-0.html?messageID=3007327#3007327
The camera is just a function of what you want to achieve --Submitted by fschoonbaert
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7593_102-0.html?messageID=3007511#3007511
Compact vs. DSLR --Submitted by hjfok
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7593_102-0.html?messageID=3008031#3008031
Digital SLR vs "something else" --Submitted by Watzman
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-7593_102-0.html?messageID=3007248#3007248
If you have any additional advice or recommendations, or example photos to compare against dSLR and compact digital cameras for Cecilia, please click on the reply link below and post your answer. Please be specific as you can in your submission. Thanks!
If you're serious then go for it
by kalel33 - 3/20/09 6:29 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
You just have to weigh out the positives and negatives
Superzoom camera
Pros
-small
-good photos straight out of the camera in auto modes
-very flexible zoom range
Cons
-slow
-not very good with high ISOs or indoors without a flash
-You won't get that separation of the subject from the background
-does macro, but not 1:1 macro
DSLR
Pros
-much faster
-can choose lens that are better designed for different types of photography
-viewfinder is great
-the glass you buy can be used on all the later body purchases
-shallow depth of field gives you that separation of the subject from the background
-great high ISO and indoor shots without flash(with the necessary lens)
Cons
-much larger(especially with added lens)
-the equivalent focal range of a superzoom camera means buying more lens
-expensive hobby(you can easily spend more on one decent lens than the body)
-photos are dull and not sharp straight out of the box(this can be fixed in post production or setting up the camera to your preferences)
-There is a definite learning curve to getting very good/great shots. Using a DSLR as a point and shoot turns out photos that aren't that much different than a point and shoot(stay away from the green box)
-higher dynamic range
The Canon system is a great choice and so is Nikon. If you go with Canon and want to do macros, then look at the 60mm macro prime lens(if you're on a budget), and it can be used as a very nice portrait lens. There are some great macro lens out there.
The biggest question you have to ask is whether you will use it enough. There are some that have bought a DSLR, but leave it at home because of the size, or because of the learning curve(it's not rocket science...just takes practice and studying). I probably missed some pros and cons, so others will help out.
Outstanding answer!
by Tech Boy Stevo - 3/20/09 7:06 PM In reply to: If you're serious then go for it by kalel33That helped me too!
I Agree!
by Hforman - 3/21/09 1:57 PM In reply to: If you're serious then go for it by kalel33I'm going on safari in Africa in a few months and I was pondering the same question. (I have a very old digiatal camera with no optical zoom). From what I read, the best thing is something small as any good guide will get you pretty close to the wildlife and expensive big cameras are more likely to get stolen. I think I'm going to go with a point-and-shoot that has superzoom. The new Nikon Coolpix P90 sounds OK, but, from the pictures I've seen looks a bit bulky to me. I need to make my way to a camera store.
Zoom is important for Aftrica Wildlife
by t1motheus - 4/10/09 8:57 PM In reply to: I Agree! by HformanI went with several others on an Africa Safari. My recommendation is that you have at least a 200mm lens. Most of the great wildlife pictures were required closeups and animals are usually 50 feet away from the vehicle, especially the rare ones like rhinos. friends with low/no zoom had dots for animals. As for bulkiness, most of your time is spent in jeeps or vans with pop ups; so there's little carrying around of equipment. I took both a SLR and point n shoot. Enjoy!
I disagree (sort of)
by bobborn - 4/11/09 6:50 AM In reply to: Zoom is important for Aftrica Wildlife by t1motheusI have a Canon 40D with the standard 28-135mm lens and it was more than adequate for safari, with the possible exception of a few opportunities for birds where 200mm would have been better. More important is where you go on safari. Some game parks (especially, in South Africa)restrict the vehicles to paved trails. Look instead at private game reserves like Nkorho Bush Lodge that border the Kruger National Park in S. Africa but are more liberal in going off-trail when tracking leopard and such.
I saw people with mounted cameras that looked like telescopes, but that's extreme. Who wants to carry that gear around unless you're a working pro.
compact v's dSLR and safaris
by clifferd9 - 4/13/09 6:57 AM In reply to: I Agree! by HformanI have been on four safaris, two in South Africa and two in Kenya and I have found that each time the visits have exposed the inadequacies of my digital cameras. Originaly I took a Fuji 4x optical zoom, point and shoot (6Million pixels) and a camcorder with a big zoom. This I found next to useless so being a point and shoot photographer I thought I'd bought the ideal camera, a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30 with 12x optical zoom and left the camcorder at home. Once again I found the limitations of the camera, taking mutiple shots of moving birds or animals was a hit or miss affair and on return I enlarged a 12x zoom shot of a leopard coming down a tree and was not happy with the quality. This is a picture I will probable never be able to capture again no matter how many times I visit Africa.
Since my last visit I have now bought a Canon EOS 450D with a couple of lenses which I have yet to use in Africa. So far the picture quality is great but there is the handicap of having to change lenses or having the wrong lenses in when a picture presents itself, i.e. a fiend fell in a canal and I had the camera on me but not the zoom lense, resulting a distant image.
The message is: for decent animal shots an inbetween camera like the Panasonic get you in close to the animals but if you want to do anything with pictures afterwards then I think aDSLR with the expenses of a couple of lens is the way to go.
Griff
settings on your panasonic
by Symransdad1 - 4/26/09 10:39 AM In reply to: compact v's dSLR and safaris by clifferd9Personally use an Olympus sp500uz 6.1MP 10X opt zoom. Used it in the bright lights of Mauritius and have excellent quality A3 photo of an emus head taken from 50 mtrs, it all depends on whether you use the cameras automatic settings or use manual settings as with a dslr. website I belong to are shocked by quality of shots I get, but again its how you set up your equipment.
Agree DSLR is the best but the super zooms if used properly can be just as effective. Personally don't have the budget for dslr at present and am upgrading my Olympus.
If had the budget would definitely take the step to DSLR.
nikon coolpix/olympus sp 570uz
by maggiedev - 5/25/09 5:10 AM In reply to: I Agree! by Hformani just bought a nikon coolpix for my 85 year old uncle. this is his first digital camera.. it certainly is not bulky. it is a very tiny little thing.. he just sent me copies of his very first photos and it seems to do an extremely good job. uncle was a topographer in WWII. he and his team mapped and photographed the islands of the south pacific(some held by the enemy) in advance of our troops. so, photography is no stranger to him.. he is a total novice to digital.. he found the nikon coolpix easy to learn, easy to carry and it took beautiful pictures. i am an olympus person myself.. i do not like tiny cameras. i have an olympus sp570uz. i can zoom out 25x and my macro is perfect. i have two settings for macro. it also gives you a choice of taking pics from 3mp to 10mp. i find it perfect in every way. so, we have a tiny camera and what some might consider a bulky camera. both outstanding and each suits its owner.
that's easy: size or quality?
by luminova - 4/10/09 8:57 PM In reply to: If you're serious then go for it by kalel33what's your need? do you have this NEED to have NEAR PERFECT extremely high quality photos? or do you want a camera that's cheaper and smaller, has more automatic settings, and easier to carry around.
remember this advice: ALWAYS test the camera out before buying it!!!! just because it takes 8 Megapixels doesn't mean it takes very good quality at the 1:1 zoom level. This goes for the dSLR or the regular camera.
remember, a regular camera (a good one) will take good quality JPEG photos, and videos on top of that. and if you get enough MP it will make up for quality loss at the 1:1 level. I recommend the compact consumer camera, but if you're into photography, go with the dSLR.
Digital - vs - Dsl
by Ancient-One - 4/10/09 9:44 PM In reply to: If you're serious then go for it by kalel33As a retired Commercial Photographer - I'll put my two cents in.
Obviously - all those who advocated how much better a DSL is are users of such. However, they apparently do not know much about those digital cameras that offer "almost" the same quality shooting, with only one lense -- without having to spend a small fortune on lenses. So I say to all those who are neophyte beginning photographers . . . DO YOUR HOMEWORK - and don't be fooled into believing you cannot get great shots without spending a fortune for all the different lenses you need -- to get great shots. When I retired I sold off all of by equipment and did not touch a camera for several years. Then, when I decided to do some shooting, I spent over 6 weeks of every evening - checking out all digital cameras features - including DSLs - I mainly compared the features, THEN I compared the cost. I finally decided on a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30. It has more features of any of the others and the total cost was 699.00 (That was 3-4 years ago - they are even cheaper now) Why Lumix? 12X OPTICAL - crisp "Leica lens" - which I never have to change - which goes from (35mm equivilent) 28mm to 480mm - has auto focus - on demand or full time -- and HAS MACRO close-up to 1.5" (think it is) and the menu gives you a ton of easy settings -- for all types of shooting -- Manual -- Automatic - and Programed - (like most) And the thing that really impressed me was the huge viewing screen that folds out and also swivels. - Those people who said you can't use it in bright light, well, guess they never heard of building a small "barndoor" that fits over it for use in bright sun - blocking out most of the glare.
I love this camera and have used it more than most people would, and have had no problems whsoever. Only changes I made was a 2 gig memory chip.
Like I said, before you go running out to buy a DSL and then spend 10 times what you spent for the camera -- for your bag of lenses, Try this camera -- if you like it fine, if not, you can always go to a DSL later. AGAIN - do your homework. Last -- I have seen the new Lumix DMC-FZ50 on sale --- for around 495.00 If I ever drop this one, I'll buy another and the later model.
Bunkamahajo
Digital SLR's
by GreeneBerry - 4/11/09 2:12 AM In reply to: Digital - vs - Dsl by Ancient-OneI very much appreciated your reply. I hope you won't mind if, as an old amateur (more video than stills), I ask you, as the ex pro. a couple or three banal questions.
1) When I used 35mm film and an SLR, I seem to recall that the advantages were that my viewfinder was almost WYSIWYG, particularly of the frame composition, and ...
2) I could attach alternative lenses very quickly with the bayonet type fitting.
3) None the less I would often take several shots of the same subject with slight alterations just to be more certain of a "result." That was a bit expensive on film, but the worst penalty was probably the need to load film more often. That led me to the need of a second cheaper camera that I used for "snapping" if necessary.
Here are my digital SLR questions: -
Surely nearly ALL digital cameras have a WYSIWYG viewfinder. The real need becomes an eye piece alternative so as to be able to see in the sun, or when in a situation where the picture viewer is obtrusive to others.
Lens swapping. It's not an operational advantage to be able to swap lenses unless they bring something that can't be had any other way. They are just more expensive bulk to carry around. Some of these cameras are so full of features that you hardly need another lens.
These modern cameras do a good job of automating the dynamics. Over-rides and partial o/rides aren't needed that much. I am used to video where one needs to have an eye on so much going on that any automated features are a definite boon. {e.g. Focus, colour temperature & exposure}. The same features in a stills camera do not offend me. Should they?
Automation takes the old fashioned fun out of things but removes it to a different place. I mean the modern "dark room" where the editing possibilities can be daunting, but very rewarding.
Therefore please tell me, what is the real advantage of a modern dSLR?
Berry
The most important difference
by nzav - 4/11/09 7:26 AM In reply to: Digital SLR's by GreeneBerryThe most important difference between compact P&S (Point & Shoot) and DSLR cameras is in the sensors. There is a huge size difference between the P&S sensor (often the size of a fingernail or smaller) and the DSLR sensor which can be the same size as a 35mm film frame (often called full-frame) or larger.
Regarding image quality, pixel size makes all the difference; the larger the pixel, the better its ability to capture light, and consequently, the less noise in the image. If you take a P&S and a DSLR sensor with the same number of pixels, i.e. 10mp, the DSLR will be capable of vastly superior image quality with less noise because those pixels will be much larger. This has nothing to do with camera brands or types.
As a commercial/advertising shooter for over 40 years, I started using digital in its early years. Today's sensor technology is amazing compared to the early versions, but you can't change the laws of physics, and pixel for pixel, larger ones still win hands down! These days I shoot digital exclusively, using numerous camera bodies from different makers. My favorite camera has interchangeable lenses but is neither a DSLR or P&S.
Another factor to consider is the image color quality of the the sensor. Here again, most DSLR sensors have an edge. Since each sensor photosite (that is what they are called before they become pixels) is covered by a red, green, or blue color filter, the quality of those filters also affects the final image quality. Once the raw capture data is converted into an image file, the photosites officially become pixels.
There are many pitfalls in the path to a final image and one of them is the conversion from captured data to an image file. Many DSLR cameras allow you to save the captured data as Raw files for later conversion on your computer as JPEG or TIFF files, or converted in the camera to JPEG files. Only a few P&S cameras allow saving in the Raw format.
A discussion about Raw vs. JPEG files is outside the scope of this thread, but without a doubt, a Raw conversion made on your computer has far more potential to make the best quality prints. I know this is an overload of info, and I am only scratching the surface, but this discussion could easily go for several pages.
One final note - if you are only interested in 3"x5" machine prints from a local drugstore or Costco, then all of this discussion is academic. On the other hand, if you make prints up to A1 size (23"x33"), then all of this is a valid concern.
D-SLR advantage
by hjfok - 4/12/09 5:46 PM In reply to: Digital SLR's by GreeneBerryThe main advantage that stands out is better low light performance, able to capture low light action that PS cameras often miss (an advantage due to large sensors). There is also the advantage of better bokeh with shallow depth of field (more difficult to get with a small pin-hole lens of PS cameras) and true 1:1 macros. Another advantage is better flash system, able to control multiple flash (but few non-pros really use this). RAW file is not a unique advantage, some prosumer models have RAW file capability.
No doubt, PS cameras are loaded with features, but D-SLR still rules in low light action photography.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
