Digital cameras: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera?
- 4/10/09 2:35 PM
I agree with Ancient-One
by soundmill - 4/11/09 6:22 AM In reply to: Digital - vs - Dsl by Ancient-OneI too wanted to purchase a D-SLR but my wife wanted nothing to do with it so I purchased (4 years ago) a Panasonic DMC-FZ20 witch gives me the feel and options of a D-SLR and my wife the simplicity of a point and shoot. The camera still amazes me every time I use it.
what is th3e "barndoor" like?
by nlior - 4/11/09 6:40 AM In reply to: Digital - vs - Dsl by Ancient-Onethanks.
A barndoore is simply a shadowbox
by Cadillac84 - 4/12/09 12:58 PM In reply to: what is th3e "barndoor" like? by nliorwhich fits around the "display" to create a dark area around it. You've probably done this with your hand cupping it around the camera display to block out light and make it easier to see the image.
You can make one that will not stand the test of time, or you can buy one that might.
Look at this picture -- rather an extreme example, but once you know what the thing does, you can figure out some different ways of building one.
http://www.hoodmanusa.com/prodinfo.asp?number=HVF-46
All of the old 4 x 5 press cameras had barndoors around the viewing screen.
Hope that helps.
Barndoor
by nlior - 4/12/09 1:24 PM In reply to: A barndoore is simply a shadowbox by Cadillac84thank you, I still wouldn't any longer buy a camera of which the viewfinder washes out in the sun. I had two P&S Lumix-es like that.
Digital - vs - Dsl
by Abb_N - 4/11/09 1:53 PM In reply to: Digital - vs - Dsl by Ancient-OneI agree. Having had medium format cameras and 35mm cameras (one that used Zeiss lenses) I too did my homework. I ended up with the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50. It has all the features of a good DSLR except for the ability to changes lenses. But who needs to change lenses when you have the Leica Zeiss lens that comes with this camera. The pictures out of this camera are fabulous - I've never regretted it. I'm sure I'll end up with a DSLR some day - perhaps when one can buy a full frame one for $500 
I agree Whole Heartedly
by Gcmartt - 4/12/09 7:14 AM In reply to: Digital - vs - Dsl by Ancient-OneI have a Nikon D-70 (about 6yrs old.) Ipaid in the area of $800.00 for the body and more then twice that much for my various lenses. Then about 3 yrs ago I bought a Panasonic DMC-LZ5. It's also a 6M and it takes as good a photo as the Nikon except when I'm shooting most wildlife then the 400mm lense comes in handy. I'll be upgrading to a new Lumix in the near future instead of buying a newer DSLR. The Lumix would be a hard act to beat as an all around great camera.
Ancient-one is right on
by dueserdo - 4/12/09 5:22 PM In reply to: Digital - vs - Dsl by Ancient-OneI am a photo amature but know a little about cameras. I purchased the Panasonc FZ-28. Its the most for the money and has more features for a camera under $395. I also like to see live music at some of the clubs I go to. When I switch to the movie mode, I can take HD movies at 720P resolution and play them back on my plasma TV. I can take 1 hour of video with my 16 gig SDHC memory card. Any camera that can do this with high quality video and audio, and also give you 18X zoom and 10 Mega pixel, is the camera to get. If there is another camera out there that can do all this for under $400. I would like to what it is.
Any news about a successor to the Panasaonic FZ28?
by nlior - 5/25/09 6:18 AM In reply to: Digital - vs - Dsl by Ancient-OneThere are some rumors about a forthcoming model with more zoom and pixels, any facts?
Thanks
N
Achieving Shallow Depth of Field by using compact super-zoom
by singhlin - 4/10/09 10:11 PM In reply to: If you're serious then go for it by kalel33Shallow Depth of Field (separation of the subject from the background) can be achieved by either maximizing the aperture size or maximizing the focal length or both. Compact super-zoom digital camera can achieve Shallow Depth of Field by maximizing the focal length, i.e., zooming all the way out to such as 20X optical zoom. In other words, I stand pretty far (e.g., 15 feet) from a beautiful flower to take a close up picture of the flower by zooming all the way out to the maximum focal length. In this way, the flower is well focused and clear, but all other things in the background behind the flower or in front of the flower are out of focus and are blurred.
Sing Lin
what is a green box?
by s. - 4/13/09 1:08 PM In reply to: If you're serious then go for it by kalel33re: 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
What is a green box?
Thanks
The laws of physics haven't changed
by Sugith1 - 3/20/09 6:30 PM In reply to: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Your salesman is right.
The laws of physics haven't changed. The smaller (and obviously cheaper) lens of a digital compact camera can't work with light as well as the larger and more expensive, probably more complex, lens of a digital SLR size camera. Consequently the image quality possible is greater than with the digital compact camera. (Not to mention the other image enhancing qualities of a digital SLR like the size of the image sensor itself.)
If you want to take your photography seriously, get a digital SLR.
If you want your photography compact and convenient and relatively idiot-proof, get a digital compact.
Be honest with yourself about your approach to photography because there's no right answer, just the right one for you.
I would add...
by mwooge - 3/27/09 6:49 AM In reply to: The laws of physics haven't changed by Sugith1I would add that if you get too much "into" photography, you won't enjoy the event you're attending.
A man got into video early on, and had a great event to tape: the birth of his daughter. After the birth, he realized he had no memory of her birth. He remembered taking pictures, that's it.
Never forget to have fun, but don't get wrapped up in taking pictures and forgetting why you're there.
very serious
by pjhansman - 4/10/09 7:46 PM In reply to: The laws of physics haven't changed by Sugith1Quote "If you want to take your photography seriously, get a digital SLR."
Complete nonsense. I own both a Nikon DSLR and a Canon G10. Both are great cameras and both have their uses. Doesn't mean I'm not serious about photography.
While the overall quality of the DSLR is better then the P&S, there are many times when it's not just more convenient, but more sociably acceptable to have a much smaller camera. I use the Canon in many places (snorkeling, diving, many social events) where having "serious" equipment hanging around your neck may not be the preferred choice.
Would you shoot a wedding with a p&s? Never! Seriously.
by bishopp14 - 4/11/09 6:53 PM In reply to: very serious by pjhansmanI believe what Sugith1 was saying was that serious photographers use digital SLRs, not that they would never use a p&s. I am a professional photographer and I would never dream of shooting a wedding with a p&s...EVER. However I also own a small p&s for times when having my giant camera (Nikon D3) hanging around my neck isn't a desirable option. Photography is a labor of love and if you are serious about your photography the weight and cost of an SLR are more that acceptable. If you love photography and you can't afford to invest in an SLR then by all means, get a p&s. Just don't cheep out on one. More often than not you're getting what you pay for. The truth is (and I've read this on here a few times already) there is no right or wrong "universal" answer. Also take into consideration how large you want to print your photographs. I'll give you an example: The Nikon D3 is a 12 megapixel pro-grade d-slr with a full format sensor. The new Nikon D3x is a 24 megapixel pro-grade d-slr with the same size sensor. Well logically the D3x can create prints 2wice the size of the D3 and that sounds great but there is a huge catch. To fit those 24 megapixel on the same sized image sensor the light sensitive pixels must be half the size of the d3's. That means that you greatly sacrifice your image quality when shooting in higher ISOs. Basically it becomes an $8000.00 full format D300 (a step down from the D3). Not that the D300 is a bad camera, but $8,000.00 really?? I got off on a tangent there but what I'm trying to say is yes if you want to (and can afford to) take your photography seriously then get a digital-SLR. Just be careful because while you do get what you pay for, all that glitters is not gold.
This is comparing apples to peanuts - you missed the point
by Ancient-One - 5/30/09 12:36 PM In reply to: Would you shoot a wedding with a p&s? Never! Seriously. by bishopp14Don't compare a 20 year veteran photographer's needs to an average Joe Blow who is shooting as a hobby or just starting photography on a limited budget.
In my original post, the thread was ONLY to explain the difference of the two systems - not to get into any ego trip with professional photographers. As we all well know, - it is common knowledge that "whatever someone uses-- is the best you can get." Back off and rethink what I said. "If - you want a camera that will take ALMOST as good (even under a loop) as the 8000.00 Nikon (meaning the average photograoher) - not the pro who is shooting for the White House or National Geographics -- you can get just as super great shots with the Lumix FZ-50 - and spend under 500.00 - 600.000 -- AND -- you don't have to spend four to five times what you spent for your camera body -- for your lenses. Obviously, if you are financially loaded and can afford to drop 10,000.00 just to get common shots of Aunt Minnie or Uncle George, an occasional trip to the cCribbean, or Australia, and come home with great shots, Go for it. (I also mention that any member of the family can pick up the Lumix and quickly take a great shot). Try THAT with your 10,000.00 Nikon!!! But if you want those same shots that you can't tell the difference in the two side by side, why would Joe Blow - want to spend 8 to 10,000.00 for something they could get as good for under 5-600.00? I'll take a dozen shots or more of an elusive subject with my 480mm non-changable Leica lens - - while Mr. Ego is changing his lens AND - I'm no longer having to carry a camera bag that weighs 20 lbs. as I did 25 years ago. Once average Joe Blow uses a Lumix FZ-50 -- he will stick with it. At least until he or she turns Pro. Guaranteed.
Ancient-One
80 years old -
Retired Business owner -
25 years in commercial photography.
and strictly Nikon user. (35mm)
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
