Digital cameras: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera?
- 4/10/09 2:35 PM
Try an FZS28
by davmax - 3/21/09 4:21 AM In reply to: Digital SLR by dhbaileyI feeling pretty sure that dh bailey has not experienced the current high quality super zoom cameras. Applying the words "mock macro" is not correct at all. It is interesting to note that for those wishing to obtain incredible ultra super macro shots an addon lens is available for the FZ28 that takes this shooting well beyond the norm of a DSLR to a specialist level.
dSLR vs. Point-and-Shoot
by Larry Launstein Jr - 4/11/09 7:01 AM In reply to: Digital SLR by dhbaileyI would like to point out that there are some very good point and shoot digital cameras that are just a notch below a SLR. And Canon makes one of the very best ones.
I have a Rebel XS dSLR myself, and I love it!. It is more expensive than a point and shoot, but the results have been spectacular.
If you are looking for a great point and shoot digital camera that is just below that of a SLR, but has much of the same qualities (And I have had lots of people tell me they were very satisfied with them-The University of Michigan-Flint was even using them for their photography classes), check out the PowerShot family, at Canon's website.
The prices on their website range from $249 to $499, and I have seen them for much less in the stores. That's the closest I have seen to a dSLR camera quality without having to pay a dSLR price.
re: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera
by dmoffatt - 3/21/09 3:16 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I struggled with this same question a while ago. Ultimately I ended up getting both (!) but I started with a "prosumer" digital camera with very good optics (a Konica/Minolta that is sadly no longer made). It had a great optical zoom of 12x but it also allowed for lens-end filter attachments (like you used to see on film slrs). So, I then purchased a set of "close up focus rings" which screwed onto the lens and allowed some superb macro capability for a relatively low price. The only catch is you need to make sure, if you go this route, that your digital camera can accept lens-end attachments. Often manufacturers offer adapters for this purpose. I don't know about Canon products on this point though. So if you have a high-res digital camera with superior optics, this could be a good satisfying start for more involved macro photog.
Then I bit the bullet and bought a Nikon D-40x ditigal SLR. I got a good price right after Nikon introduced a new model (I think it was the D-90). I did this in order to get into RAW photog, and also because I wanted to be able to use interchangeable lenses, including a really cool tele lens. BUT all of the lenses I have bought also accept the close-up rings I bought for the lower end digital camera above. And this combination also results in superb macro photos.
Also, the combination of optical quality and native resolution of the camera is key. If you get a relatively low-priced digital compact or prosumer with superior optics and a 10 mb or so file size, and can locate a high quality close=up ring set, it might be all you really need.
Hope this helps!
Dave Moffatt
Advantages of a D-SLR
by catastrophy.ruub - 3/21/09 3:19 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hello Cecilia!
Your question is an interesting one. Especially since I'm also in the market for a camera upgrade and I've just decided to go for a D-SLR and I thought I tell you my reasoning behind my choice and maybe this will help you choose.
I'm also into macro photography and night photography. When you shoot macro you want to get the object in focus and often you want to get a nice blurred background, which makes the object stand out. For this you need a wide aparture (as you might know the aparture indicates how wide the entrance pupil is) but you also need a large focal length. Compacts are, as their name suggests, small and therefore have small focal lenghts. The blurred effect will therefore be less pronounced on a compact. Also there's less likelihood for an A or Av (aperture priority) mode on a compact while you always will find this mode on any D-SLR. This will enable you to set the aperture to the setting you like, as long as the lens supports it.
The second reason I'm going for a D-SLR is the unavoidable noise problem with compacts. The sensor in a D-SLR has 4 to 10 times larger area but still as many pixels as a corresponding compact. This means each pixel on the D-SLR can get more light and thus less noise in the final image.
The final reason I'm going for a D-SLR is the ability to change lenses. This way you don't need to buy a new camera if you're interested in a long zoom range etc.
I don't know if the above helped at all but if you decide to go for a D-SLR I got a tip from a freelance photographer I know: there're really good secondhand camerabodies and lenses out there. Good luck with your choice and photography!
The camera is just a function of what you want to achieve
by fschoonbaert - 3/21/09 3:41 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I enjoy photography and I own a range of cameras mostly from Canon and I can tell you that there is no such thing as the perfect camera out there, because it really depends on what you want to achieve. E.g. I have a Canon EOS 5D mark II with a set of L Class lenses. It is (at least until recently) probably the best digital camera out there. However I tend to make my best shots with a digital compact (Panasonic LX3). The reason is that since it is small I can carry it with me all the time. The whole SLR kit is just really heavy.
TO help you let me give you a few tips:
1. An SLR (even a cheap one) will beat any compact for image quality because the sensor is a bigger size, so the pixels are bigger and catch more light. The difference is really noticeable !
2. An SLR will always be a lot more expensive than a compact because you will (need) buy accessories such as lenses, flashes, adapters, filters etc. for it.
3. The quality of the lens needs to match the quality of the sensor. So a good sensor needs a good quality lens. Canon, Panasonic, Nikon etc all offer good lenses, but some are better than others.The most important aspects of the lens for a compact cameraare:
- The wide range.I would not want anything over 28mm wide angle (35 mm equivalent) so you can get landscapes etc in the picture.
- The tele range. I generally found a 4 or 5 time zoom (up to 140 mm) sufficient as I can always crop on my computer. However since you like birdshots something more powerful would definitely be advised. I would think a 200 to 300 mm (35mm equivalent) would suit you best
- The aperture. Particularly for Macro shots a wide aperture F2.8 or lower is very important. It allows you to focus on the object, get the background blurred out. It is of course also ideal for low light shots.
- A compact camera lens should preferably have the option of mounting adapters, so you can use filters etc. in the future.
NOTE: Image quality of lenses from digital compacts will decrease as bigger tele ranges are packed in smaller bodies. There are physical constraints that you just can't get around. If you always take pictures in good lighting conditions that probably won't be to much of an issue for you.
4. Number Megapixels is irrelevant if you never blow up your shots over A3 size (about 14*18 inches). Anything with a resolution over 6MP will be able to handle this. In todays cameras a 10 MP sensor is probably a good guess.
5. Shape, size and weight. A small pocketable camera is always available when you need it, while a big SLR will often be left at home or in the car and you will miss that unique bird that just suddenly appeared before you.
6. Image stabilization is definitely a feature you need for animal shots and outdoor or sports based shooting.
I don't think budget should be an issue. Whatever your budget there is a good camera out there. Brand is probably a personal choice, so I won't try to steer you in any direction here.
Let me give you a few cameras to consider (from cheaper to more expensive):
Panasonic DMC-TZ7 (Not the best image performer, but very versatile and at a good price). The 25mm to 300m zoom is unbeatable on such a small camera.
Sony Cybershot DMC-HX1 (28mm to 560 mm zoom) an all in one SLR style compact.
Canon Powershot SX1-IS (similar to Sony above)
With regards to a budget SLR Canon or Nikon are the preferred brands by photographers due to the wide range in accessories that are available and the proven image quality. I would also advise you to have a look at the Sony Alpha range (digital image stabilization built-in) as it has a great Price-quality performance. I have no experience with the Panasonic Micro Four-thirds range, but it offers a more compact option to a full size SLR
I hope this was helpful.
COMPACT or DSLR
by alandelph - 3/21/09 3:59 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Compact cameras have come a long way and are great at all sorts of picture styles (landscapes to macro) and are at good prices for all there features, as are the DSLR. The entry leval of the DSLR will set you back say $500 or £400 here in the UK. with a kit lens. You then find that you then need to buy lenses for you perticular field that you want (landscape, Portrait, Macro, Wildlife) then thats where the cost starts to add up, as genrally the better quality the glass the sharper the picture the bigger price. As a genral rule your kit lens and body cost, the lens for your field alone can be 2,3 or 4 times that price to get the results. The lower the F number in a lens, equates to a faster lens. The learning curve is steep with all the settings that can be done and the over all price should not put you off.
I hope this answers some questions you have
Both!
by WGPhaneuf - 3/21/09 5:19 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I have a Nikon D80, it's fast and takes great photos, however, it won't fit in my pocket. Out of self defense, I bought a top rated Canon A630 which is smaller and also takes great photos, but it's not the same as my D80 "paparazzo".
We have both
by Irelands child - 3/21/09 5:34 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
We have a Nikon D70S and a Canon 590IS plus an ancient Nikon 3200. My wife talked me into leaving the SLR home when we took a trip to Florida a month ago. What a mistake. The P&S cameras are fine for stationary shots, but the shutter lag plus the fact that I really didn't have interchangeable lens capability made for some dissatisfying shots - and the fact that I only took about a quarter as many photos as I would normally. I guess what I'm saying, both have their place and are both well worth having. Nikon makes some fine cameras with lens interchangeability thst dates back to the late '50s. Canon, while they don't have quite as many lens choices, are a little bit cheaper and are an excellent choice as well.
DEFINITELY GO WITH A DSLR
by zonebubba - 3/21/09 5:43 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
You said it yourself in your question- you're ready to move beyond a compact to a digital SLR camera. Here are just two advantages of the DSLR:
1. As your finances permit, you can add lenses, a higher-power flash, a right-angle viewer, cable release, etc. to permit a broader range of photography.
2. The single biggest difference in functionality is the lag time between pressing the shutter button and actually taking the picture. Compacts have a longer time lag because they have to perform a number of calculations in switching from the LCD viewer's presentation and preparing for the actual shot. DSLRs are virtually instantaneous. This is particularly important when taking photos of birds in flight or other moving objects, children (whose facial expression can change faster than greased lightning!), and sports.
I think the salesman's answer was a good one. Spend your money with an emphasis first on the quality of the lens and secondarily the body. Bodies are temporary- you'll want to upgrade in the future anyway, but lenses are permanent. One detail- if you think you'll likely want to get a full-frame sensor body in the future don't buy "DX" lenses, which are only compatible with the smaller-size DX sensors of most current DSLR bodies. The other obvious choice is the brand- lenses are not interchangeable between body manufacturers. While there are a number of good DSLRs out there from several suppliers, Canon and Nikon are the two leading brands. Go to a photo-store and try several bodies from both manufacturers- you can't go wrong with either, and there's not much difference in the capability of their lenses. Read as many reviews on this site, photo.net, and dpreview.com.
You'll have fun doing this, and the more you learn before the buy the happier you'll be afterwards!
Digital Compact vs Digital SLR Camera for Macro Work
by lewisedge - 3/21/09 6:02 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
For many of us, cost is always a factor in making purchases. It is for me. That was one of the reasons that I waited until last year to buy my first digital SLR after owning several SLR film cameras. I've used various digital point-and-shoot cameras for years with some good results but have been frustrated with their limitations.
There are several reasons that I would recommend that you "save up" to buy a digital SLR...especially if you wish to do macro photography. Fortunately, with some careful shopping, you don't need to spend a huge amount of money to buy one.
My choice was the Olympus E-510 with its two-lens kit. Those lenses give me the 35mm "film" equivalent focal range of from 28mm to 300mm but the camera and lenses are much smaller and lighter than comparable film cameras and other digital SLR cameras.
There is a newer version of that camera, the E-520, which has a slightly larger LCD, face-recognition technology and a somewhat higher price. Both of those Olympus cameras are compatible with a vast array of digital lenses including a superb Olympus 50mm macro lens that has received rave reviews. However the standard lens that comes with those cameras will focus on objects as near as two inches and is also very sharp.
A digital SLR will allow you to focus on close-up objects with an eye-level viewfinder. Holding a camera at arms-length to compose your photo an LCD screen is not only awkward at times, it also introduces camera shake. In bright sunlight, seeing the image on a screen may be difficult or impossible.
The Olympus cameras that I've mentioned are among the few digital SLRs that allow you to either "live view" your image on the camera's LCD screen or use the eye-level viewfinder to compose your photograph. These cameras have image stabilization built into the bodies of those cameras, which greatly improves sharpness especially in low light when slow shutter speeds are necessary.
When flash becomes essential to capture macro photographs, there is a ring-flash and a two-headed macro flash available from Olympus. Other compatible less-expensive flash choices are available from third parties. Aside from their inferior images, most point-and-shoot cameras are not designed to accommodate external flash for macro work.
If you wish to do wildlife photography by setting up your camera on a tripod or in a blind, these Olympus cameras (and some other SLR cameras) can be triggered remotely via a built-in infrared sensor or with a wired remote shutter release. Most all digital SLR cameras avoid the shutter delays that plague many point-and-shoot cameras. SLRs allow you to set your shutter speed and aperture (f-stop) manually. Most digital SLRs can shoot several frames per second in rapid succession to catch action.
In my experience, a good digital SLR offers much greater versatility, sharper images, longer battery life but a somewhat greater learning curve because of all of its features and menu options. If you have sufficient commitment to making great photographs to learn how to use those features, the reward from better images is considerable.
The best camera to use to take a picture ...
by pwright2 - 3/21/09 6:06 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
is the one you have with you. The digital SLR offers the potential to take better pictures in every situation but are you willing to lug it and all its accessories with you? If you are talking about planned shoots, this may be the right answer. If, however, you take most pictures just during normal living because you have a camera with you, then a compact is the right answer. Since the 'pro-sumer' digital cameras are near the size of the digital SLRs, the only advantage to them is price, and not all that much these days.
Digital compact v DSLR
by gloria - 3/21/09 6:29 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
You need to decide what you will be doing with your photos and how much weight you want to carry. I have upgraded to a full frame DSLR and I love it, but the weight of the camera, many lenses, pro-tripod, tripod head, etc. is very significant - 15 to 20 lbs. And then I also have a compact camera for when I need point and shoot capacity without worrying about whether I need a flash, will it fit in a purse or pocket, etc. I'm a lady and the gym has helped with my ability to easily carry the weight over distances.
I am not a full time photographer. Just have had the bug since I was a kid.
If your photos are to look at on the computer I'd go with the upgrade digital compact. They do great macro shots. Bird shots are ok.
If you are willing to carry the lenses, camera bag, tripod, water bottle and not shoot automatic on everything, then go with the DSLR.
Get a camera, compact or DSLR, with a fast shoot speed, one that will shoot several photos a second with a very short recovery time. Purchase an extra battery or 2 along with high density and fast memory cards so you can shoot as much as you want during one outing without running out of battery or memory. Purchase the fastest memory cards that you can afford.
Purchase a camera with a large sensor because the larger the size of the pixals the more detail you have. If you have 12m pixal 0.87 x 0.58 in./22.2 x 14.8mm sensor your photos will NOT be as sharp as a 12m pixal 35mm Full-frame sensor. So it is not the number of pixals but the size of the pixals. Yes a 22.2 x 14.8 sensor with 7m pixals will be sharper than the 12m pixal 22.2x14.8 mm sensor. The pixals will each be larger and will hold more info. It is NOT like dots per inch (dpi) the more the better. It is opposite - the larger each individual pixal is the better the detail in the photo.
When shooting macros there is a skill involved such as - bracing yourself and holding still including holding your breath when taking a hand held macro. A sturdy and easily adjusted tripod will do wonders for the crispness of your macros as there will be a lot less camera shake when using a tripod. Your macros will be just that more sharp.
Purchase a good tripod because if you do decide to upgrade to a small DSLR you want to be able to use the tripod and not have to start totally all over with your equipment.
Be sure that your tripod will also be good for the bird shots. Again the less camera shake the crisper the detail.
Read up on how to take a good macro photo or how to take good bird photos. There are a lot of good photographer sites on the internet.
Check out for example http://www.smugmug.com/ for macro and bird photos similar to what you shoot and the equipment that you shoot or want to purchase. Put Canon Powershot A62, your current camera, in the search box and see what others are doing with this camera. Many of the photographers - some pro and many not - share their settings on each photo. Open the thumbnail, hover over the photo and click on the "Photo Info I' to see the settings.
Do the same for the cameras that you are considering purchasing. All of the photos will be equally effected by your computer screen quality, color settings, etc. so this is a reasonable comparison. The skill of the photographer will also be an issue but you should be able to decide the quality of the photographer from the photos.
And it is not always the camera, but the skill of the photographer. And that takes practice and more practice.
Should I go with a digital compact or a digital SLR
by nastynick46 - 3/21/09 7:01 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
From the perspective of an old retired Air Force photographer, I went with a digital SLR. At the time, I use my wife's digital compact regularly for quick shots. Her's is an Olympus 8.1mp that produces beautiful 8X10's. Mine is a Sony A100. If you are considering an SLR, there are a lot of things to keep in mind. The 1st is expense. You said you are willing to save to get what you want. Good move. The 2nd is to find a local camera store and get to know at least one of the sales folks. If you feel pressured, go find another store. Third, get touchy/feely with as many models as you can. I used a Minolta Maxxum 7000i for 20 years. When I bought it, I was working in a camera store and lined up the Nikon 8008, Canon EOS 620, and the Maxxum. The 7000i had all the features I was looking for and "felt right". When I decided to go digital, there wasn't much question as to which brand to go with. Sony bought Minolta's digital camera line and came out with the Alpha series several years ago. The body has the same lens mount as the Maxxums. It took very little time to get used to the feel.
If you don't have a good local camera store, ask your friends or check to see if there is a camera club in your area. You should be able to find plenty of advice there. Many happy pix.
Digital Compact vs SLR
by Boycie666 - 3/21/09 7:31 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hi Cecillia,
The advantages of a digital compact are that they are smaller, cheaper, simpler, and you only have one item to carry. That is pretty much where things stop. If you upgrade to a good DSLR you will have WAY more control and potential for expansion.
The megapixel question becomes irrelevant above about 8 unless you make 6ft prints, and an 18x zoom is most likely 'digital' too, where the camera creates its own pixels to blow up an image; very poor quality. Furthermore, when using a zoom that big you would need a tripod or everything would show camera-shake and be blurred. Tripods and compacts are fiddly.
With an SLR there is no more 1 sec delay when you press the 'shoot' button whilst the compact camera gets ready to take a picture, which is far better for capturing animals, motion and expressions on people.
Another key problem with compacts is the size of the lens. Something that small prevents you being able to blur the background on a shot in order to isolate the subject, which is about rule 3 for photographers after composition and lighting etc. And, you need more light to be able to take a photo because less can get into the camera through the small lens.
With an SLR you start with the basic camera you buy and have lots of photographic fun. Then, when you are feeling rich you can buy yourself something better to ADD to your camera kit, like a bigger lens a new flash, filters... the list goes on. The key is that everything you have STILL works and you are not having to REPLACE an older model. Unfortunately, you eventually end up with a rucksack full of stuff that you cannot stand to be without.
The downside of the SLR would therefore simply be price and size... but small handbags are SO last year 
I would look at a Canon EOS 350 D Rebel. They are great and have been replaced by the 450D so you can probably find one cheap (£250 ish).
Have fun, Mark (Amateur photographer, Canon D10, D50)
Digital SLR vs. compact
by timposter64 - 3/21/09 7:51 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
While there is nothing better than an slr, I have been using a Canon S2 since it was 1st released on the market almost 5 years ago. I have some amazing nature shots. I also extensively photograph high speed dog agility competitions. My outdoor photographs rival those taken by professionals with high-end slr cameras. For outdoor I've seen no need to upgrade. There is an issue of multiple frame photography with some of the newer models; so if you are taking birds in flight check on the frames per second capability at a given pixel rate.
If you are doing low light photography, your ability of taking pictures of moving objects will only be achieved with an slr. Believe me I researched this a lot. For this you will need a basic slr body and a lense with a 2.8 aperture rating for the focal length desires. In a telphoto lense this gets very expensive but there is no way around itthat I have found.
Check out the high end compact digitals like the Canon S5 or SX10. They have large optical zooom.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
