Digital cameras: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera?
- 4/10/09 2:35 PM
your salesman is correct
by joelbaby - 4/10/09 8:56 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Hi,
your salesman is right. If you've outgrown the compact camera, then its time to move up.
Get a cheaper body, and one or two good lenses.
Spend money on lenses - not the camera.
Go for Canon or Nikon as they have the best lens range.
I think you'll be wasting your money going for another compact which will be worthless in a couple of years. Good lenses are always worth good money.
Joel
lolwut?
by DamageIncM - 4/10/09 9:04 PM In reply to: your salesman is correct by joelbaby"I think you'll be wasting your money going for another compact which will be worthless in a couple of years."
That makes no sense at all.
If a camera would be worthless in a couple of years, it wouldn't be good enough today.
It's not like computer-hardware you know, which can't run software of years from now.
A camera is either of good quality and will make photos that last forever or just make bad photos that you can't do anything with.
The point is actually for how many situations you can use a camera.
It's also not like there will be more situations added in the future that a camera of today is not compatible with.
Unless we'd have some major shift in atmosphere or something and we'd need some type of specialized equipment.
But you get the point...
For example, my compact camera will still be as good in years as it is today.
Sure, maybe not compared to newer cameras, but it won't function any worse, the photos won't change because of time.
The only thing is that today it might lack some features and capabilities.
That's all...
Size and Quality of Chip very important.
by fergusbp - 4/10/09 9:05 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Most cameras will talk about 6, 8, 10, 12, 15, or 24 plus Mega Pixels.
There is some dslr's with full 35 mm chips. Most dslr's are 3/4 of a 35 mm chip. Most point and shoots are even smaller. The issue is, putting allot of mega pixels in a small space then blowing them up to a poster size is useless and causes for allot of grain.
Most point and shoots are good for pictures up to 8x10 pictures. If you want larger then that go dslr for sure.
Point and shoots just do not give the quality of shots that dslr's do. A $500 dslr's will give you much better performance over any point and shoot.
On the other hand, point and shoots are better for auto picture taking. Many will automatically take micro shots where a dslr will need a micro lens.
Basically a point and shoot will give you convience and a dslr will give you better quality with the room to expand your picture taking skills over time with the ablity to add more lens to you package.
With the point and shoot you have what the camera is, with dslr you can grow your photo experience.
I shot on a D70 Nikon for 6 years, doing sports, racing, gardens and weddings. I just bought a D300 and all the Nikon lens works on the new camera. Now I can buy even more lens and expand my photo experiences. BTW I did start out with a Nikon F65 film camera with a couple of lens. These lens work on the D300. What I do is look for used Nikon lens to keep do the price. Personally I would go dslr but point and shoot is great for many. It depends if you want your photo experience to grow as you learn photography. There is more room for growth with a dslr and most have lots of auto modes just like the point and shoots.
DSLR vs. Point-and-Shoot
by jayesrose - 4/10/09 9:43 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
My fishing buddy and I are both professional photographers (started out with newspapers and moved on to commercial freelancers) For 20 years, he has always shot Canon, and I've always shot Nikon. It's a Ford/Chevrolet, Mac/PC kind of debate, but that's another story.
A couple of years ago, his girlfriend called me asking what kind of point-and-shoot camera to get him for Christmas. I recommended one, she gave it to him, he looked down his nose at it, and she returned it (another other story).
Anyway, the following summer, he and I went fishing for a couple of weeks in Canada. He brought his DSLR and I brought my point-and-shoot.
Now, three years later, I have about a hundred or so photos from the trip and he has maybe a dozen.
And yes, I understand the difference between quality and quantity, but the thing is, you can stick that point and shoot in your shirt pocket and take it everywhere, but you've got to schlep all kinds of weight around with a DSLR. And that doesn't get into tripods and the all-around hassle and intrusion factor of a DSLR.
Sure, it has it's place, but that's in about a tenth of a percent of all photos taken
Also, I used to teach photojournalism at the college level (back in the days of film) and I always taught my students that it's the photographer not the camera that makes the picture.
And if you're not planning on printing your photos, but just looking at them on a computer monitor or TV screen, you don't need much in the way of megapixels, either.
So my recommendation, without knowing what kind of photos you're planning on taking or how you're planning to display them is that any of those Canon Powershots or Nikon Coolpixs that have a reasonable number of megapixels (6 or more) and that have a macro function will cover almost all bases, and make some wonderful photos.
And I'm betting if you display them side-by-side with the exact same photo that you took with a DSLR that almost no one but you would be able to tell the difference.
Either way, good luck.
In Between
by DamageIncM - 4/10/09 9:52 PM In reply to: DSLR vs. Point-and-Shoot by jayesroseThis post reminds me:
It still depends on what you want to achieve quality/ability-wise.
But you could also go "in-between".
Meaning there are also non-SLR SLR-type "compact"-cameras.
Those are usually modeled after SLR cameras, only not AS big and heavy.
And they might technically be more similar to the compact cameras than the SLR-cameras.
But they usually have more features and better qualities for less money too.
DSLR vs P&S or (better yet) SZC (Super Zoom Compact)!
by j5shock - 4/11/09 11:09 AM In reply to: DSLR vs. Point-and-Shoot by jayesroseHi Cecilia P,
I totally agree with jayesrose. 80-90% of the time, we need a camera that's accessible and of a fairly light weight(300-600g) so that it is not burdensome when we travel. Again, (going back to your post, you mentioned that you take birds and macro shots and may be financially tight) just to cover all the bases, I have suggested that you save to buy a Canon SX1 or 10 IS.
There maybe a few SZC camera that has slipped my mind. Chief among those is the Casio Exilim EX-FH20, a model that packs a 20X zoom(macro)with 720P(1280X720)HD video and 420/210 fps(frames per second)capture capabilities. It is quite a brilliant camera, do check it out!
Just at the end of last year, I went to U.K. and I choose to bring along a Minolta Dimage Z5(12X zoom), only 5 megapixel(over my Sony Alpha A300 or a Canon 450D). Got more 400 pictures that are quite presentable. Point is, a picture is worth more one that has yet to be taken or miss(because of deciding which lens to use).
Then, there is always the possibility that I might loose(due to theft or negligence)my DSLR which will be costlier to replace!
Still, after all considerations, should you want to save and buy a DSLR, you might want to wait till the second half of the year for Olympus' Micro 4/3 system (or Samsung's NX series)compact 'hybrid' DSLR. Sounds very interesting.
Different worlds in money, quality and capability!
by bghbryce - 4/10/09 10:56 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I have an antique Canon D10,6.3 mega pixels, with a 28 x 135 mm macro zoom, a 100 x 300 mm zoom (sits in my case most of the time) and a 17 x 40 mm. The macro works great and the 17 x 40 gets me back to 35mm capability with the 1.6 x factor for the sensor. But with the new 5D II that I will soon acquire gets me back to the 35mm format. I'm an old film buff that studied photography at a 2 year Tech school. I've owned 4 x 5 view cameras, a Hasselblad and numerious 35mm cameras and lenses. My D10 body was $1500, I waited until they were half price. the 28 x 135 was about $1400 and the 100 x 300 was $300. The 17 x 40 was $700. The new D5 II is $2700. By the way, I can take detailed 16 x 20 prints and larger that are terrific and that is with only 6.3 mp. Today to get into a Rebel with lense would start at $500 but no macro. The Rebel with an EOS lense mount would run another $300 and without the lense. Add on a good macro 100mm with $700 or so and you have $1500. Now get the telephoto you will need for birds shots at a distance.... priceless. You would need something over 500 mm unless you want to hide in a blind and sit all day. And don't forget to bring a good tripod and camera case to keep this expensive toy that will be old stuff like my D10 in a few years. Or you can pick up the latest digital Hasselblad for a cool $45,000 (I read somewhere that was the cost and Kodak makes the sensor for their 50 megapixel latest and with a lense!).
Okay I got carried away but, if I were you, I would really do some research on what you can fit into your budget. This hobby can get expensive and depending on what you really want and what you can afford, go to a good camera store that you can try out the equipment. See what it can do and decide before you spend your money. A good camera store can show you. On line I would recommend looking into Canoga Camera in Canoga Park, CA for an idea of a good start or find a quality camera store near you, no electronics store or mall store.
My point in short.. good photography is expensive, but if you are talented and understand composition, cropping, lighting and have read and done your homework, save your money, toss the point and shoot and get some good equipment. But don't buy until you really understand what the equipment can do and if it does what you want it to do. Oh, and buy a "good" tripod, shutter release cable and a very sturdy case. Good luck!
Digital vers compact
by broncopeter - 4/11/09 12:53 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Digital Compact cameras are great, easy to use but not for serious photography. Look at the Nikon range of DSLR cameras, their lenses are just so good. Spend a few dollars more than you can afford as the cost will soon be forgotton over the results you will achieve. The Nikon D200 as an example will give you mind blowing results which could never be achieved with a normal SLR camera. Remember that for every 100 photos taken, you will be lucky to have 10 shots that you will feel realy happy with so digital is the only way to go.
Open up your photographic world!
by riverbrue - 4/11/09 2:07 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Absolutely go for the DSLR. Set it on manual and start learning. Read the manual and ask your mates for advice. You don't need a top range camera as second hand prices are ace at this time. Suggest the Fuji S5 Pro or Nikon D200 and if you can afford it fit the Nikkor 18-200 AFS VR EF ID lens.
Got my first one i year ago after 5 compacts and wow! now I know lots about taking pics.
Good luck; hope this helps.
riverbrue
Biggest Difference In DSLR versus Compact is Depth-Of-Field
by areohbee - 4/11/09 2:39 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Most people say that image quality is much better on a DSLR than a compact, but I disagree. At lower ISOs the image quality is quite comparable. I think the biggest difference between the two is in depth-of-field. If you want to capture images with selective focus, where the subject separates from the background, and even the subject has in-focus and out-of-focus parts playing together, you need a DSLR. This is the reason you cant just point it and shoot it, i.e. NOT because you wont get proper exposure / focus, but because a lot more of it will be out of focus, and these out-of-focus elements must be designed into the shot. My Canon S5-IS compact and Nikon D300 DSLR function very similarly. Both have extreme macro capability, both can zoom far. Both have manual modes, both have auto modes. Focus is much more critical, and can be achieved more precisely on the D300 using the viewfinder. Shots with more things in focus are achieved more easily on the Canon-S5. PS - Yes, I know you can stop down a DSLR to achieve the same depth-of-field as a compact, but this results in significant loss of sharpness and shutter speed. I have a much more detailed comparison on my website: http://www.robcole.com/Rob/Personal/Misc/Nikon_D300_Notes.cfm
Bridge Camera?
by sooty - 4/11/09 6:00 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Why not go for a bridge camera. I personally like and own a Fuji S100FX, it has most of the DLSR goodies but at a more affordable price. Macro down to 1 cm, a manual zoom lens equivalent to a 400mm (14.3X) on a 35mm slr, image stabilisation, excellent ISO range with little noise up to ISO 1600, 11 MP sensor. If you don't mind losing a few pixels it has a x2 digital facility, this increase the zoom (28.6X) but brings the pixel count down to 6MP. It may not be quite as good as the current crop of DLSR's available today, but it does a very good job with the one lens, bonus point's, if you don't want to lug a bag of lenses around or get dust into the body. One of the good things about Fuji is they make everything themselves unlike most of the other manufactures who will buy their sensors or lenses from a third party. You could also consider looking at the Panasonic Lumix range as they also do some very good bridge cameras.
Digital Point and shoot or digital SLR? How about this.....
by EnsignSuder - 4/11/09 8:08 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I have always aspired to becoming a world class photographer. But, the truth is, I'm never going to get there becasue I don't put the time, effort and money into it. Even so, I still wanted to have a digital camera that could at least do what my old 35mm SLR could do in terms of getting a half decent picture that doesn't look like a snapshot. I'd personally love to own a Canon Digital Rebel, but for what I want to do, I can't justify the cost. So if your like me, the point-and-shoot option doesn't have the range of capability, and the digital SLR's are too costly. What to do?
Canon makes an in-betwen line that may do what you need. I did a lot of research and ended up with a Powershot G2. I think they are up to G10 now, but its a good camera with a lot of the features that a 35mm SLR would have, except that they are not SLR's. That aside, you have a lot of control over your exposures, much more than the normal point-and-shoot digitals. For the G2, there are even some aftermarket lenses that can be fitted to it. I don't know, but I imagine the same holds true for the later models.
As to macro shots, I've done a lot of them with mine, and they are very clear and sharp.
Another thing I like about the G series is that they have a hot shoe, and the Canon EX series Flash attachments will work beautifully with them.
Lastly, the G series will need more space than a point-and-shoot: you can't stuff a G in your shirt pocket. However, they don't take up anywhere near the room that an SLR would when traveling. I dragged mine all over Europe and everything except my tripods fits into one camera bag that is roughly 12"X6"X8". with room to spare. and I mean everything: my camera, filters, extra batteries for the camera and flash, flashes, batery chargers, software CD, and extra storage chips.
I've got two flash attachments, an adapter for other lenses, a few filters (the adapter tube lets me mount 49mm filters) the camera, and JASC (now Adobe) photo software, a camera bag, and two tripods, and I'm in for less than a grand. And, I get some pretty decent pictures.
The Powershot series has gotten some pretty good reviews, so it may be a series you want to look at.
Oh, and I don't work for Canon. I just think they've got great cameras.
The answer may not be digital compact or . . . DSLR but and
by jblair5 - 4/11/09 8:24 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Fifteen months ago I went through the decision process of DSLR or new fixed lens (compact) digital.
I purchased the DSLR and really like the camera (and yes, the expense of added lenses really adds up). But, I still used the fixed lens digital.
When the conditions do not require the capabilities of the DSLR it stays at home.
The compact digital takes good pictures in many situations. It is light, it is small, it doesn't attract attention. If it is stolen or broken, it is tolerable (not so with the DSLR).
So I still use the compact for casual situations and really have fun with the DSLR as I learn how to take some more complex pictures with it.
jblair
P&S vs. DSLR
by fergusbp - 4/11/09 9:16 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I must respond to the fisherman in Canada. He is not telling all the possible situations one can find themselves in. If you have friends or family in sports or want good quality Portraits, DSLR is the best, for christmas P&S or DSLR will work.
I paid 1900$ for a D70 with lens about 6 yrs. ago. Now any DSLR is better then a D70 starting at $300 plus. I have no clue why a person would want a P&S that costs more then $400. If I wanted connivence of size I would buy a good P&S that would fit in my pocket and use either of my 2 DSLR or the SLR 35 mm film for good pictures. Today you can have the best of both worlds for low bucks.
I photographed racing with a P&S track camera. I took my SLR Nikon 65 film to the track one day and used up a film. The problem with P&S was delay. Set up on a car and it was not in the frame or partially in the frame. With the SLR the cars was centered and I did not pan with the car. Even panning with the P&S was useless to make good clear focused shots with the whole car in the shot. The problem is when you press the button the P&S does all its auto work then takes the picture. With SLR film the camera does all the auto work pressing the button half way in fractions of a second then press full way and you have what you seen in the view finder.
So I went to a few camera stores and inquired about DSLR and I was told I would get the same results as with the SLR so I went to the Nikon D70. I have shot with the D70 for about 6 years and now bought a D300 and cannot wait for racing season. The problem with the D70 was noise at 1600 iso which is cured with the D300 for night time racing.
dslr
by steve.c - 4/11/09 10:15 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Without doubt DSLR is the way to go. However needing lots of lenses is not always the case. some great cameras with 35mm to 420mm Zoom in Digi talk x15. This is a great stepping stone to maybe changing later to one requiring different lenses. A camera to maybe look at is the Samsung Pro 815. Top Lens quality and x15 is pretty good for zoom for most peoples needs + on top of that is a x4 Digital zoom . This can save missing that opportunist shot that is a long way off and you have got the wide angle on. Have a good look before trying bodies that require different lenses it can get very serious in the money department. Of course there is then RAW AND TIFF ,Photo's to look at, let you find out about that story suffice to say you will be amazed at what you can do with your photo's. happy snapping and good luck.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
