Top deals on CNET here
Digital cameras: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera?
- 4/10/09 2:35 PM
Stay within budget to enjoy photography
by hjfok - 6/1/09 8:46 PM In reply to: This is comparing apples to peanuts - you missed the point by Ancient-OneI will assume most people frequenting this forum have a love and passion for photography and/or digital gadgets. And most are hobbyist, the Joe Blow like myself, rather than a pro. But hobbies can get out of hand pretty quickly if one does not carefully stick with a budget. Overspending can bring buyer's remorse and spoil the fun of the hobby. One should remember that most cameras are poor investments, they depreciate quickly, especially when the market is saturating constantly with newer and better models. The exceptions are the pros, who can write them off and use them to make income. In these economic tough times, one should spend the money wisely. In general one should buy a camera that one can easily replace without too much second thoughts (in case they get damaged or stolen). If you need to count on the warranty to replace your equipment, you have already spent too much.
So budget generally will determine what kind of equipment one should get. I have both D-SLR and PS compacts, and the D-SLR definitely has made my life much easier and enjoyable in many low light situations. But I have taken similar shots with my compacts, though with more frustrations. You do get what you pay for, but getting a D-SLR is not necessary to enjoy photography or be serious about it. Being serious is an attitude, not how much you can afford. I can fly to a destination by business class or economy class, it does makes a difference in comfort but not how much you will enjoy the great trip ahead of you.
I was amazed by many Photoshop miracles in some of the fabulous pro-quality photo web sites, but the photo that put tears in my eyes comes from a church member who dedicated his life to missions in impoverished communities and took a series of powerful shots of humanity with his PS camera. Sometimes a powerful photo lies in its content/story rather than how many pixels and dynamic range it has.
Amen
by snapshot2 - 6/2/09 7:54 AM
In reply to: Stay within budget to enjoy photography by hjfok
A picture that tells a story will be adored by all, and no one will even care what kind of camera was used.
Some examples - (I did not take any of these pictures - But I like them very much):
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v159/randol9p9/DogTub.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v159/randol9p9/CheeeeeeesE.jpg
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v159/randol9p9/bigload.jpg
..
.
Compact or DSLR? How about in-between?
by bill Kline - 4/11/09 2:13 PM In reply to: The laws of physics haven't changed by Sugith1The discussion so far has been good, and informative. I would like to add a bit to it. I am not trained in photography, though I did develop film in 7th grade science class about 49 yrs ago. I started taking digital photos on my job in 1999. After a couple Sonys, a couple Nikons, I settled on Canon point and shoots. We wear them out fairly quickly exposing them to dust and dirt the way we do. About 2 or 3 years ago I bought for my lead tech a Canon S3-IS, but it was too bulky for his pleasure. So, I have been using it for the time. I absolutely love that camera! It has a 12x optical zoom, a decent 1.5" macro, and a screen that flips out and swivels. And also an eye-level viewer for when you need it.It takes absolutely fantastic photos, We shoot mostly in 1600x1200, but can go to 6 MP if needed. I was really pleased at the quality of 640x480 30fps movies it makes, better than my Elura 70 miniDV camcorder. If I were going to buy a camera to replace it today, it would undoubtably be a Canon SX1-IS, which is the 4th improvement since my S3-IS. 20x Optical Zoom, 12MP, 1080P 30fps movies. Bigger than a point & shoot, smaller and more user-friendly than a DSLR. About $699, I think
A few weeks ago, my lead tech downloaded a Canon Hack Kit that let him install an intervalometer on my S3-IS, so it will take a shot every 15 seconds till it runs out of disk space or juice. I think it has always run out of space before it ran out of juice. He sets it up on his big jobs and makes a time-lapse movie for our customers.
Bill Kline
www.chimcheree.com
SLR for real photography!
by pokm4147 - 3/20/09 6:40 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
From what you describe, including macro, it appears that you will be much better served by a digital SLR. I have experience with Canon, Minolta, and Nikon and feel that the Nikon is far superior to the other two. It is possible to get good close-up shots with the 28-70 lens, but if you want real macro, there's no alternative. Remember that the lens ultimately determine the quality of the shot (assuming that the photographer is elimated from the question!)
Happy shooting!
Nikon vs Canon
by jet37 - 4/11/09 3:12 AM In reply to: SLR for real photography! by pokm4147pokm4147,
Can you describe what makes nikon "far superior" to canon? I know Nikon historically had a very good lens reputation, but is there something else you've observed?
I'm personally looking to make the move towards a DSLR from 35mm, and have a couple of (mid quality) EF lenses. That has me leaning towards Canon (D40 or D50) so I can reuse the lenses. But if the benefit of the Nikon system significantly outweighs my lense issue, I would consider the change towards a Nikon D90.
Digital SLR vs "something else"
by Watzman - 3/20/09 6:42 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I'm not sure that the alternative to a digital SLR is a compact camera, so I'll address the question from a different perspective. In fact, the alternative to a DSLR is usually considered to be what the camera makers call a "Super Zoom" camera and not a compact camera.
There are really three advantages of a DSLR. The first two are inherint to the DSLR design, the third is coincidental (e.g. a non DSLR COULD have this same advantage, but none do at this time that I am aware of).
The first advantage is interchangeable lenses. If you want that, you NEED a DSLR. Period. But the fact is, most people DO NOT want that, although true professional photographers do. For myself, I want a good quality, high ratio zoom (at least 10:1; roughly at least 30mm to 300mm (these are 35mm equivalents and not necessarily actual focal lengths). The truth is that the quality of any such lens will not be as good as two or three separate, interchangeable lenses covering that range, which is why a true professional would select a DSLR. In fact, it is incredibly difficult to make just a good to very good lens like that, but a few firms do it (Tamron probably makes the best such lenses for DSLRs, but they are not cheap ... $400 to $600 just for the lens (the camera is additional), and even at that, again, they are not as good as several separate lenes covering the same range). However, for even a serious amateur, this is probalby a better solution than multiple lenses. I mean, when you are on vacation with your family, do you want to be a photographer of the vacation (as you futz with a 20 pound camera bag and changing lenses) or do you want to be a participant in the vacation who happens to be taking some pictures?
The second advantage of a DSLR camera is that it has an optical viewfinder instead of electronic viewfinder. To be honest, the fact that people consider this to be important seems to me to be an indication of their lack of understanding of what is going on inside the camera. In my view, an electronic viewfinder SHOULD be PREFERABLE, for a number of reasons. But the fact is that the electronic viewfinder is an area where the camera makers cut cost, so SOME (ok, perhaps many, perhaps even most) electronic viewfinders have low resolution and low refresh rates. And on COMPACT cameras, there isn't even an electronic viewfinder, in most cases, there is only an LCD screen, which may be useless in outdoor sunlight, and objectionably bright (particularly to other people) in a dark theatre. But most "super zooms" have both an LCD screen and an electronic viewfinder, and SOME of the electronic viewfinders are even pretty good.
The third advantage of DSLRs, which is NOT inherint to the DSLR type camera (but I don't know of a non-DSLR currently in production that offers this) is a very large image sensor: on the best DSLRs, an Image sensor the size of a full 35mm film frame, or, on many others, one slightly smaller, but still approximately the size of APS film frame. Compare that to the typical non DSLR camera, whose image sensor is the size of the eraser on a #2 lead pencil (but not round, obviously). For a variety of reasons, the bigger the image sensor, the better the picture quality, especially as regards low light levels and ability to give you high sensitivity (high ISO equivalent ratings) with low noise levels.
Note, however, that the larger the image sensor, the more difficult it is to make a good qualtiy, fast, high-ratio zoom. Again, Tamron seems to be best at this, because they started making 10:1 zooms back in the 1990 for SLR ***FILM*** cameras, and they know how to do it about as well as anyone. BUT, again, these are expensive lenses which are still not as good as multiple lenses covering the same range.
You mentioned as the alternative to a DSLR a "compact" camera, but there is another choice, as I mentioned, a "Super Zoom", which is a MUCH larger non DSLR camera that looks like a DSLR, has most of the features of a DSLR and is the size, weight and complexity (in manual or semi-automatic mode) of a DSLR but it's not an SLR and it has a single fixed high-ratio zoom lens. But the downside of this is that these are still using "small" image sensors, and, consequently, they don't have the quality of a true DSLR.
The downsides to a DSLR are this:
1. Cost (camera AND lens)
2. Opportunity for contamination of the sensor, which is exposed while changing lenses
3. MANY DSLRs can't shoot video (but some can)
4. Size, weight and complexity (compared to a compact camera, but not necessarily compared to a "super zoom")
This is a very personal decision, and I'm not going to recommend which way is right for you. But I hope that this has given you some background information with which to make a better decision.
Action photos of birds in flight
by singhlin - 4/10/09 10:29 PM In reply to: Digital SLR vs "something else" by WatzmanThe optimum camera depends heavily on the application. I use my camera mainly to take action photos of wildlife, especially birds, in action such as flying. These flying birds come and go very fast. The camera and the photograher have to be ready and fast to catch the opportunity with very short duration. There is no time for me to change lens on my camera. By the time, I finished changing the lens, it is too late and the flying bird is gone already. Therefore, I prefer to use compact super-zoom digital camera.
Sing Lin
The same...
by DamageIncM - 4/10/09 10:55 PM In reply to: Action photos of birds in flight by singhlinI basically do the same, more because I'm always on a budget.
IF I'd have to shoot like wildlife and such, I would probably do that with and SLR.
Because those things also shoot continuously very fast.
And to shoot continuously smoothly with compacts, you usually have to lower qualities and such things a bit.
Which doesn't help.
However, the very best compact cameras, which cost quite a sum, are probably capable of it better.
Besides, you don't HAVE to change your SLR-lens every time.
You could just use one average lens used for most things.
Digital SLR vs "something else"
by n2u4good - 4/11/09 2:13 PM In reply to: Digital SLR vs "something else" by WatzmanI agree almost totally with Watzman's post, especially what he has written about interchangeable lenses. Caution should be taken, however, about getting sucked into an overpriced DSLR camera, simply because you already own lenses that will work with it. Point in fact: I own many super quality, super overpriced Leica R lenses. When the Leica R8 digital and/or film SLR camera was introduced, I felt it appropriate to pay the high price ($6000.00 for the digital back and $2000.00 for the camera), so I could use my assortment of Leica R lenses. The camera has about every bell and whistle on it, the folks at Leica could think of, and included a hefty, very heavy brass body. I was third in line to receive the digital back, and was impressed when it finally arrived. The units were so expensive, however, only 3000 of them were sold. If I do enough push-ups to strengthen my upper body and biceps, I still use the thing, with my collection of Leica lenses.
Since then, Canon and others have come out with DSLR's that, in my opinion, are much easier to use, and produce similar, if not better results... at a fraction of the cost. Matter of fact, independent lens makers like Spirotone made 500mm lenses that can be used with my Leica via an adapter, and can be purchased on eBay for around a hundred dollars vs. several thousand dollars for a 500mm Leica R lens. Is the 500mm Leica lens better that the hundred dollar Spirotone? Yes, but certainly not several thousand dollars better.
In fact, some of the best film and digital photographs have been taken with inexpensive cameras. The finished product (photo) has much less to do with dollars, than it has to do with subject matter, timing, and the photographer.
If I were to give advice, it would be to buy what you can afford, have fun using it, and chances are, you'll be more than happy with the results.
Try renting
by tismeinaz - 3/20/09 6:46 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
If you are not sure about the DSLR (they are not cheap) - try renting one for the day with the type of lens you think you would use the most and take some pics. You could try out your top three choices of brands and/or models to see what you are comfortable with. See how easy it is to use, if the weight is good, the lenses do what you want/expect etc. If you decide that a particular dslr is what you really want - see if you can get a used one. A lot of camera stores take trade ins from their regular clientele when they upgrade. Or they may have a display model on sale. You could save a few bucks that way.
G10 is not a DSLR replacement, so perhaps it's time for...
by jigmeg - 3/20/09 6:55 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Well, for most folks I would recommend the G10, as it's one of my all time favorite Canon cameras, and people would call me a Canon fanboy 'cause I am always writing about them. But I have a large collection of prime lens from back in the day where you had to develop your own film in the bathroom-converted-darkroom.
The G10 is a fantastic compact camera that works well in low-light situations (see this set on Flick - http://www.flickr.com/photos/coocooforcocoapuffs/sets/72157610676290351/ - ) BUT the zoom capabilities for nature photography may disappoint on the G10 (it's probally the only thing that will). For shooting birds and critters from a distance you would be better off with any of the Canon DLSRs and a nice 300f lens, or if you want to save for a very long time, the Canon 400f5.6 Ultrasonic, or any of the many other super telephotos out there.
But the point here is that investment in a DLSR for both macro and birding is not trivial, and you may find yourself buying at least 3 different lens in addition to the DSLR body to do what you describe. Canon primes are wonderful chunks of glass, but often cost more then the camera itself.
I bought the CanonG10 - So far so good!
by jorge8850 - 3/24/09 9:09 AM In reply to: G10 is not a DSLR replacement, so perhaps it's time for... by jigmegJust want to confirm what most of the readers are saying in this forum. If you get an SLR, you are talking complexity and bulk. The G10, has most of the advantages of the SLR without the complexity or weight or bulkiness. It gets great shots, almost as good as an SLR. Certainly worthy of my albums. I paid $400 and change on Amazon.
Which Camera?
by davmax - 3/20/09 6:56 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
The 18 x compact has the advantage you do not need to carry around a number of lenses. You only mention Canon. The Panasonic FZ28 is an excellent compact with a 18 x lens plus 4x digital zoom = 72x. Macros are excellent getting down to 1cm from the lens. Panasonic use Lieca lenses and reviews indicate that this is a better lens than in the Canon camera. Additionally if you want to make a movie te FZ28 takes 16 x 9 high definition movies that are playable on the new large screen LCD TV sets. The FZ28 has an aclaimed intelligent auto mode that covers operation from macro to telephoto and includes face detection with red eye removal (all auto selected for the press and shoot person). Manual selection of all features is part of the package. All for a very competitive price. I suggest you Google a few reviews, salesmen are not usually the best source of advice.
Digital Zoom
by onemoremile - 3/20/09 8:18 PM In reply to: Which Camera? by davmaxJust remember that a "digital zoom" is really just a crop inside the camera. When the digital zoom engages, the camera simply crops the image that the sensor has captured, reducing the resolution of the picture that the camera records. You could accomplish exactly the same effect by shooting the photo without the digital zoom and cropping the photo in the computer. This is why serious photographers often turn off the digital zoom function, if the camera has it.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
