Digital cameras: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera?
- 4/10/09 2:35 PM
DSLR vs P&S
by jer878 - 4/11/09 10:55 AM In reply to: dslr by steve.cI read the "picked" responses and didn't see any mention of the AF features. It has been my experence with the P&S that the AF is very slow. I own or have owned a Sony, Olympus, Fuji and Nikon P&S. I also have a Canon D20 DSLR. There is no comparison between them when it coms to focus eithe AF or manual. The Canon is alomost "instant" while the P&S's are slow. If you've "lost" grat shots because of the slow focus on your "compact" you will not be disappointed in the same way with a DSLR.
Jim
A few more important details worthy of note
by kLevkoff - 4/11/09 10:51 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Video:
Most of the newer cameras can take video (both DSLRs and compacts) - and most current ones can take video clips of almost unlimited lengths (a few years ago most DSLRs were limited to thirty or 45 second clips). Some DSLRs, like the Nikon D90, take very high quality video, but all still lack a lot of the video features you find on a "real video camera" - and don't really replace one for more than occasional use.
Speed:
Shooting speed is really a combination of several things.
Startup time is how long it takes the camera to "warm up" when you turn it on. Most DSLRs are well under a second for this (some under 0.1 second), but most compacts are slow, often up to several seconds. Some compacts, notably some Nikons, however, are much better than others - read the specs.
AutoFocus time is how long it takes for the lens to focus when you don't do it manually. (You have the choice of using auto, pushing the button halfway ahead of time, or doing it manually.) Different cameras, and even different lenses on DSLRs, are faster or slower. Some also take a lot longer to focus in dim light, or don't do it reliably at all. Manual focus is the fastest, since you don't have to wait for the camera to do it, and it always does what you want (which the camera sometimes does not), but it is more work and one more thing to think about.
Repeat-rate or burst-rate is how fast the camera can take multiple shots. There's a limit to how many shots you can take in a row and the time between them. For something like moving birds, you might want to hold the button down and shoot a whole series of shots, then pick out the good ones later (it's nice when you don't have to buy the film). DSLRs tend to be much better at this. A mid-speed DSLR can usually take three pictures a second or so, while most compacts are well below one a second. You can get much higher speeds than that, but you pay a lot for that (and you can usually take more pix in a row with JPGs).
Anti-shake:
Anti shake is cool, but it is limited. It is designed to compensate for your hand being unsteady, and so doesn't help when the target moves. Some cameras also do it better than others. Incidentally, with some DSLRs, the anti-shake is in the camera, so all lenses become anti-shake when you plug them in. With others, like Nikons, it's in the LENS instead. Both options have their pros and cons.
Battery life:
Some cameras use custom rechargeable batteries, while others use plain old penlite AA cells (which can also be rechargeables), but that isn't the whole story. Battery life for cameras varies wildly. Some cameras average less than 100 shots out of a set of batteries, while others can get up to a thousand shots from a single set or charge. DSLRs tend to the higher numbers. Needing a hard-to-find custom battery isn't that much of an issue when one charge lasts for
days of shooting. (You should, of course, buy and carry one spare battery anyway.) Another advantage of a single "battery module" is convenience; you entirely avoid the "which batteries go with which sets of rechargeables" game and needing little baggies or boxes to keep the sets together. Obviously, using the internal flash uses up batteries more quickly for both types of camera, so batteries last longer for outdoor shooting .
Low light and picture noise:
The smaller sensors and lenses in compacts tend to lead to noise problems relative to DSLRs. This tends to be noticeable mostly with low light non-flash shots. You don't "hit the wall" like in the old days, because most cameras automatically raises the "ISO speed equivalent" to compensate, but when you shoot in low light, the noise gets worse (just like using 800 film in the old days). You will see this in outdoor evening shots or indoor ones without a flash - which is where the DSLR will show a better result.) Even though most software like Photoshop offers "noise reduction", as do most cameras internally, there's no substitute for a good picture to begin with.
Mechanical noise:
Some cameras and lenses are physically noisy, which might scare the birds or other animals if they're close. SLRs tend to be noisier because they have actual moving parts (the "reflex" part), and some make quite a thwack when the shutter clicks. (Some pros say that they use this... the first shot startles the birds to fly and be in the air for that second shot, so they just shoot a burst and get the birds taking off.)
Digital Compact
by ethanw - 4/11/09 12:03 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I have been involved in nature photography for 50+ years. I have had four SLRs with every imaginable lens from fisheye and macro to 300mm (which weighed 5 pounds). In 2001, I went digital, and though I've stuck to the Canon Powershot series, I've used digital SLRs as well. If cost is an issue, I would go to the Canon S10 IS or something comparable. It's macro capabilities are good; it's 20x stabilized zoom is fantastic and can actually be used for closeups that you wouldn't believe. You should also take a look at the Olympus SP-565UZ, but I can only couch for the Canon S3 and S5 IS, and have posted about 50 macros and zoom pictures at www.ethanwinning.wordpress.com. Though I have done this professionally, nature photography is strictly a hobby: I say this because I want you to know that I have no financial or other interest in Canon, Olympus, Kodak etc., and I think you'll be very pleasantly surprised at what you can do with a digital "compact" at under $400.
Either way take some courses
by ppsm - 4/11/09 1:50 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I started out with a Canon Power Shot point and shoot because I was switching from film to digital and I wanted to get a feel for digital photography. This was a very smart choice. It had a great zoom lens on it, some limited video capabilities, and was a great entry into the world of digital photography. After using it for a year I moved up to the Canon dSLR Rebel xsi. I am quite happy with it altho it has taken some getting used to. I took some inexpensive classes offered by the place where I bought the camera and found these invaluable. I suggest whichever route you go to take some courses. It will greatly add to your experience and knowledge. The big difference between point and shoot and dSLR by the way is the size of the sensor in the camera which means a great deal when looking for a qulity print
a short answer for a massive question
by ldsaint - 4/12/09 5:09 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Money and use are the only real issues here. Money no object; buy an SLR. Compacts are lovely in that they have nice features and small in size, perfect for happy snapping.
With money an issue I would advise buying a bridge camera - looks like an SLR, has most of the features but partly function like a compact.
Nikon, Fuji, panasonic, Canon they all do good bridge cameras. Nikon would be where I look forst at the moment.
I bought a Samsung pro815. It does everything I want really well. I wouldn't recommend it if you use a camera in low light situations or use the RAW file format. There are some great deals on Fuji's that I have seen on amazon but a friend bought a Nikon and it is really superb (cant remember the model though....sorry.
Why DSLR at all?
by dilipkps - 4/12/09 8:17 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I read the question and the answers with interest. I am one of those who's used film cameras for over 25 years. Film cameras needed to have 'through the lens' (TTL) in order to produce a faithful image of the subject in the view-finder. 'Point and shoot' cameras or fixed lens cameras using films for recording, had a slight parallax error due to the position of the viewing window: away from the axis of the lens. To obviate this parallax, TTL viewing and shooting was introduced. This took the form of a 'reflex' camera where a mirror reflected the light into a view-finder and a light meter. At the instant the shutter opened, the mirror was thrown up, to get out of the way of the light rays travelling to the film.
With this arrangement, what you saw in the view-finder is what the film sees and is what you get!
When you have a digital image sensor, you do not need a mirror, nor a mechanism to get it out of the way when the 'shutter' is opened.
This is not to say that you do not need lenses of different focal lengths. As some readers have pointed out, you need a variety of lenses for the whole range of photography. What one needs is a digital camera with a facility to use lenses of different focal length.
Another point where one can compare a film camera with a digital, is in the size of the image sensor. A CCD image sensor is much smaller in area than a 35 mm film, and so a digital camera requires a lens of smaller diameter than does a film camera. This calls for a whole new range of optics for varied applications.
It is not a coincidence that leading camera makers of film camera era, like Nikon, Canon, Asahi, Fuji, etc. have designed DSLRs which can take the lenses of the earlier genre. Thank God for that, as there is a wide range of very expensive optics out there, which would otherwise become obsolete. (I can use the lenses I used with my film camera, if I buy a DSLR body of the same brand). It is for this reason that a DSLR is bulkier than a 'Point and shoot' digital. But manufacturers like Kodak, Panasonic and Sony, who entered the camera business with the digital era, and who do not have any 'baggage', can make compact DSLRs.
I hope this slightly long winded posting adds to the knowledge already available with our friends.
More compact D-SLR
by hjfok - 4/12/09 1:40 PM In reply to: Why DSLR at all? by dilipkpsThat is what Olympus, Panasonic, Leica, etc have done, redesigned to the 4/3 system, more compact with smaller size sensor (2x crop factor) and matching lenses. Sony bought Minolta, so it makes more sense for Sony to stay in the same track as Minolta, Nikon and Canon.
Currently, the new hype is the full frame D-SLR, with the promise of even better low light performance and full use of the 35mm optics. Although you can use the old film lenses on the D-SLR, the new digital lenses will actually perform better. This is because the D-SLR sensors are highly reflective of light, a problem that the film SLR does not have. So the new digital lenses have multi-coatings to minimize ghosting and other optical abberations that the old film lenses lack.
As for PS cameras, the main problem is poor low light performance due to the tiny sized sensors. Fuji cameras have unique sensor design to improve this but largely still quite disappointing compared to even the entry level D-SLR. Kodak and others have been developing a new type of panchromatic sensors that can record the full spectrum of light, thus can increase the sensitivity and dynamic range of the sensor photodiodes. This may create a new generation of high performance PS cameras that can take decent low light photos.
But for now, D-SLR still rules the low light photography arena.
Camera choice not biggest problem
by Jephy - 4/12/09 9:00 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
"My question is in regards to choosing a digital compact or a digital SLR camera."
No. Your question is in REGARD to choosing................
The best employers don't hire the 'sleeping-in-third-grade-English-class' crowd.
Lighten up
by hjfok - 4/12/09 12:52 PM In reply to: Camera choice not biggest problem by JephySometimes the side-tracked questions/discussions can be more interesting than the original question. Intellectuals don't always stay in the same discussion, they move to something more interesting. While Roentgen was studying the original question of cathode rays, he got side-tracked and discovered X ray, which forever changed science and medicine. This type of forum discussions are not technical support or military platoon, sometimes people got side tracked and discussed something that has nothing to do with the original question, but sometimes you do learn something new and interesting.
Canon #1
by haf canadian - 4/12/09 6:17 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I've had a Canon F1 since 1980. It replaced a Canon EF which had been stolen in a break-in. Both cameras I outfitted with a Canon F1.2 main lens (55mm) and solar filter. I had a Soligor tele-lens on the EF, but had the cash and got a deal for a Canon 70-210 zoom/macro lens to replace the Soligor. I also added a Canon 28 mm wide angle and put it all in one bag with a strobe and collapsible tripod. I could do all kinds of nifty stuff with that gear, including many weddings, which I gained a reputation for, even though my "experience" at first came from a book.
In 2003 we got a Canon S50 digital. It hasn't the lens quality, zoom or macro capacity of the F-1. But working with digital images offers immediacy and creativity that film doesn't. I would expect a dSLR to be the best of both worlds, only sacrificing size/ease of use. Our little digital has some versatility and convenience. The F1 has versatility and quality. Which gets used 95% of the time? The digital, virtually all because of the convenience.
The lenses I use for the F1 could transfer to a Canon dSLR, but they'd still sacrifice convenience for quality. I'm satisfied with my 2 camera system as it is; carrying the S50 on my hip on outings and flyfishing. For special situations, like weddings or flowers or macros or birding, I'll think to haul along the F1 bag (hopefully). In my 30+ years of hobby photography, and both owning and gifting other brands, I've come to swear by Canon. I don't think you can go wrong with their stuff, and I'd bet the same is true with Nikon. Olympus, Sony, and the rest... I'll no longer consider; not such good experiences with them.
As others have said, if you want quality shots, that will withstand scrutiny, then you'll have to deal with hauling the gear to get it, including seperate bulky high end lenses made for specific jobs. That's just the facts of life.
Dslr vs Compact.
by buddhak0n - 4/13/09 7:39 AM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
For "YOUR" particular situation, I would follow the camera store man's advice and go with the DSLR.
You can get wonderful images with a compact and for taking run of the mill photographs ( Portraits, weddings, vacation photos, etc ) there's some really great inexpensive digital camera offerings.
But for what you said you were trying to get which is really detailed close up shots of birds and so on.
Well if you want the type of quality you're accustomed to seeing in magazines and paperbacks and so on then unfortunately you have to go with the SLR.
Yes they are expensive. But some of the Canon Bodies are pretty reasonable. Universally the Nikon seems to be the choice of the really hardcore but their equipment is a bit pricey although it is outstanding stuff.
Go look at a Rebel XTI or something in that vein and don't go nuts on the lenses because you can really spend a lot of money on all the add ons. You'll find yourself spending 300-500 dollars on a lense you hardly use. I basically get almost everything done with the short squat lens that came with the Canon and a 75-300 with image stabilization. If i let myself go I could really sink a lot of money into this , but those two pretty much handle it.
Good Luck.
DSLR VS COMPACT POINT & SHOOT
by bpacker1 - 4/13/09 4:22 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I was amazed at how the people replied, because they really like to brag about their wiz-bang $10000 cameras.
I, too would like to buy a $2500 DSLR body, & several $600-$1600 lenses. However, the stock market dashed my wallet, so I settled for a Kodak Z712 superzoom (35-450mm (35mm)equiv). Its' 7MP takes pictures 90% of the quality of the big guns, and the camera, with a case ,2 rechargable batteries,charger, and memory card was $250.
The downside to this camera is:
1)the electronic viewfinder is dim & grainy. I don't use it.
2)the rear LCD screen is good in the dark, but washes out in the sun. The screen also has a .25-.50 sec time delay, so following action is tough,if not impossible.
3)high speed (iso sensor) settings for action or the dark produce grainy results.
If you like still life, architecture,going through the woods , or taking pictures of the relatives, this camera does great.
If you want 24MP murals,razor sharp pics in the dark, or taking pictures of air show acrobatics, car races , or fast action, then a DSLR is necessary. BUT the price goes up by exponentially.($1000 -Canon XSI w/ zooms) to ($3500-$5000 Canon 5D mk2 w/2-3 lenses).
Thanks, Bpcorv
If you're serious, get an SLR.......period
by ozarktroutfisher - 4/13/09 6:26 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I've read a lot, but not all of the replies, but frankly there is much more to an SLR than many people recommending a PS realize. Many tout the macro ability of a PS versus a typical lens on an SLR. This is because the apertures are so small on a PS that it renders a very large Depth Of Field, or DOF. Those of us that have the means and are serious about photography as a hobby, try to buy lenses that have large apertures (small f stop numbers) so we can isolate our subject against a creamy background.
You can certainly take "good" pictures with either, but an SLR gives you so much more control over the output and the quality is going to be better.........in the proper hands. There's the rub; you'll have to invest a little effort into learning how to use an SLR but it's worth the effort. Modern cameras are so good that you can gradually work your way into more manual type settings from the multitudes of auto settings available. Many never progress past auto and that's a shame because they have no control over the decisions that the camera makes for them.
Bottom line is that saying that you should buy an SLR over a PS is not being a snob as some have suggested; it's about quality and control of your pictures. Isn't that what you're really after?
Nikon vs Canon is basically Ford vs Chevy. They're both great and you need to try them to see which will work best for you. I'd recommend finding a very good friend that is willing to help and buy into whichever system that they use so they will be familiar with the gear to help you. I myself shoot Nikon and have probably 10 or more friends that I've recommended various Nikon systems for based on their specific needs. Again it's not that Nikon is better; it's that I know the systems very well and can help them much easier. All are very happy that they "made the jump".
Good luck deciding!
It is Your decision
by WAArnold - 4/13/09 8:28 PM In reply to: If you're serious, get an SLR.......period by ozarktroutfisherA very good answer "ozarktroutfisher". Being a former photog. starting with a Kodak Retina 1a, a Speedgraphic and many later types I will only say a couple things.
I wont say a Nikon is better than a Canon or any of the others. They are all good ones. However, given the choice as here, I definitely say go for the Nikon, somewhere in the D40 or later range.
I will assure you that in about 6 months you will be more than happy you chose the SLR. For one, the first time you take the perfect shot with that P&S and find out that by the time the shutter LAG of the P&S passed and the shutter actually fires, your perfect subject has practically vanished from the shot. At that point you will be so peeved you'll almost throw the P&S away. Sure, the P&S is good for still subjects but NOT for that spur of the moment shot you would love to have for posterity. Believe me, I know from experience.
If you are serious and want good pictures, want to have a little better control on your pics, get the SLR and be happy. If you want frustration, get the P&S.
Compact or dSLR?
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) - 4/14/09 9:23 AM
In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Here is some additional info from a member who emailed me the answer to Cecilia's question:
I have been an amateur photographer for many many years. Personally, I love the benefits of an SLR, and I absolutely love digital, assuming the number of megapixels is high enough to give the detail I want. I purchased a Canon Rebel Digital SLR several years ago that has been an absolute joy. Nikon had not released their line of dSLR’s as yet. I have been a Nikon user for years and really like the quality and range of lenses. Unfortunately the price of the Nikon I really want is a little out of reach.
My ex daughter-in-law worked for a professional photographer and is now married to one. Many Pro’s use top of the line digital SLR’s. Those cameras run $10K and up. I drool over those but they are just too far out of my amateur range.
One note about the memory stick. Spend the extra money to buy the largest FASTEST memory stick you possibly can. If you must sacrifice something, buy faster and smaller. You will REALLY get tired of waiting for the camera to copy the photo to the stick. You will miss out on a lot of shots your really want. FAST is much more important than size. Second note: keep a spare smaller memory stick handy just in case you fill one up.
I use a 120X 4 gig CF in my Canon Rebel EOS. I have NEVER filled it up completely, and I have taken hundreds and hundreds of shots without downloading.
The type of memory stick (compactflash, SD, micro SD, etc) is only important depending on how you are going to download the shots and use them. If you have a laptop, it probably has a SD port, compactflash is not as prevalent. Many digital photo frames support all the different types of memory. SD is generally supported in more different kinds of devices. For example, GPS units can be used to view photos on SD sticks, Some MP3 players support SD as well. Some Compact flash on the other hand have HUGE capacity. I have a CF micro hard drive that is 8 gig in size. Unfortunately, a micro HD is also SLOOOW. Looking back I would have been better served to buy
Pro’s of dSLR.
(1) Wider range of lenses available. You aren’t stuck with what the manufacturer installed on the camera. Telephoto, macro, whatever you want. Assuming you have the money to buy additional / better lenses. I love being able to use a lens that will REALLY reach out and put me in the middle of whatever I am shooting.
(2) Through the lens viewing. You see what you are going to get a shot of.
(3) Generally speaking (depending on the camera) more control over how the shot is taken.
(4) Depending on the speed of the camera (and the memory stick) you can take shots faster that with a compact.
(5) Better accessories like professional flash units, etc.
(6) Larger megapixels available. Get at least 6 megapixels. 8 -10 is better, but more expensive. 12-15 is fabulous but horribly expensive.
(7) Most usually have a sports mode where you can take many photos quickly without having to wait for the photos to save to the stick.
Con’s of dSLR.
(1) Larger size camera and camera bag. More weight and size to lug around and more weight
(2) More expensive, especially for the larger megapixel versions. I good dSLR like a Canon Rebel or Nikon D?? will run between $500 and $1000 depending on the lens you choose.
(3) Smaller LCD for reviewing shots.
(4) Mirror must still move out of the way.
(5) Movie mode generally not available
(6) LCD generally not available as a preview or viewfinder.
(7) Very limited time exposures. Can NOT do exposures longer than 30 seconds or so. Useless for astronomy photography.
(8) Some dSLR’s do not give you the ability to turn off the flash and use available light. This can prevent using the camera in a museum.
I also have several compact camera’s. One that was broken accidentally by my grandson was a Nikon 990 with the body that twists separate from the lens. This was fabulous for holding over my head and taking shots “above the crowd”. I also have a fairly decent camera in my cell phone which I have used in a pinch.
My wife carries a small Canon compact in her purse that she really loves. It is easy to use and small enough she carries it all the time. Price was right and the megapixels were high enough to get good shots. For her, this is all she needs.
Pro’s of Compact
(1) Lower price generally. You can still get plenty of megapixels without spending a fortune.
(2) Much smaller size. You can get one to put in your pocket of purse and not be concerning about size and weight.
(3) If the camera has a LCD on the back you can use this as your view finder.
(4) Larger LCD for reviewing shots. Some are QUITE large.
(5) Generally easier to use. Just turn it on and take pictures.
(6) Many can also take mini movies
Con’s of Compact
(1) No lens choice. You CAN pick a camera with a fairly long zoom. Make sure you get what you want like macro (if you need it) and telephoto. On telephoto, make sure you get at least 4x OPTICAL and whatever digital you want. The optical is important. Digital just doubles the pixel size which is useless unless you have a huge megapixel camera. You can still get a 6-10 megapixel compact for a decent (under $500) price.
(2) Bright daylight makes the LCD hard to see.
(3) Usually not as fast as a more expensive dSLR between shots. (Even with the fastest version of memory stick,
(4) No time exposures. I.E. NO astronomy photography period.
(5) Some compacts do not give the ability to turn off the flash.
(6) Some compacts do not have a timer so YOU can be in the shot.
Batteries? What kind of batteries do the camera’s use. Purchasing a lot of AA batteries can get expensive. However, a pair of AA’s in a compact camera can still take several hundred pictures (if you don’t use flash) Rechargeable aren’t as expensive, but you must charge them before you use them. Rechargeable’s have a limited life regardless of what people say
One last thought: Personally, If I was forced to choose, I would spend my money on a dSLR. I love the flexibility and quality of the shots. Get the biggest megapixels you possibly can even if you must save up. But why have only one camera. Get yourself a small inexpensive compact and carry that one ALL the time. If you get two that use the same type of memory, so much the better.
longeyes
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
