Digital cameras forum: Should I go with digital compact or a digital SLR camera?

You just have to weigh out the positives and negatives

Superzoom camera

Pros
-small
-good photos straight out of the camera in auto modes
-very flexible zoom range

Cons
-slow
-not very good with high ISOs or indoors without a flash
-You won't get that separation of the subject from the background
-does macro, but not 1:1 macro

DSLR

Pros
-much faster
-can choose lens that are better designed for different types of photography
-viewfinder is great
-the glass you buy can be used on all the later body purchases
-shallow depth of field gives you that separation of the subject from the background
-great high ISO and indoor shots without flash(with the necessary lens)

Cons
-much larger(especially with added lens)
-the equivalent focal range of a superzoom camera means buying more lens
-expensive hobby(you can easily spend more on one decent lens than the body)
-photos are dull and not sharp straight out of the box(this can be fixed in post production or setting up the camera to your preferences)
-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

The Canon system is a great choice and so is Nikon. If you go with Canon and want to do macros, then look at the 60mm macro prime lens(if you're on a budget), and it can be used as a very nice portrait lens. There are some great macro lens out there.

The biggest question you have to ask is whether you will use it enough. There are some that have bought a DSLR, but leave it at home because of the size, or because of the learning curve(it's not rocket science...just takes practice and studying). I probably missed some pros and cons, so others will help out.

I'm going on safari in Africa in a few months and I was pondering the same question. (I have a very old digiatal camera with no optical zoom). From what I read, the best thing is something small as any good guide will get you pretty close to the wildlife and expensive big cameras are more likely to get stolen. I think I'm going to go with a point-and-shoot that has superzoom. The new Nikon Coolpix P90 sounds OK, but, from the pictures I've seen looks a bit bulky to me. I need to make my way to a camera store.

I went with several others on an Africa Safari. My recommendation is that you have at least a 200mm lens. Most of the great wildlife pictures were required closeups and animals are usually 50 feet away from the vehicle, especially the rare ones like rhinos. friends with low/no zoom had dots for animals. As for bulkiness, most of your time is spent in jeeps or vans with pop ups; so there's little carrying around of equipment. I took both a SLR and point n shoot. Enjoy!

I have been on four safaris, two in South Africa and two in Kenya and I have found that each time the visits have exposed the inadequacies of my digital cameras. Originaly I took a Fuji 4x optical zoom, point and shoot (6Million pixels) and a camcorder with a big zoom. This I found next to useless so being a point and shoot photographer I thought I'd bought the ideal camera, a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30 with 12x optical zoom and left the camcorder at home. Once again I found the limitations of the camera, taking mutiple shots of moving birds or animals was a hit or miss affair and on return I enlarged a 12x zoom shot of a leopard coming down a tree and was not happy with the quality. This is a picture I will probable never be able to capture again no matter how many times I visit Africa.
Since my last visit I have now bought a Canon EOS 450D with a couple of lenses which I have yet to use in Africa. So far the picture quality is great but there is the handicap of having to change lenses or having the wrong lenses in when a picture presents itself, i.e. a fiend fell in a canal and I had the camera on me but not the zoom lense, resulting a distant image.
The message is: for decent animal shots an inbetween camera like the Panasonic get you in close to the animals but if you want to do anything with pictures afterwards then I think aDSLR with the expenses of a couple of lens is the way to go.
Griff

i just bought a nikon coolpix for my 85 year old uncle. this is his first digital camera.. it certainly is not bulky. it is a very tiny little thing.. he just sent me copies of his very first photos and it seems to do an extremely good job. uncle was a topographer in WWII. he and his team mapped and photographed the islands of the south pacific(some held by the enemy) in advance of our troops. so, photography is no stranger to him.. he is a total novice to digital.. he found the nikon coolpix easy to learn, easy to carry and it took beautiful pictures. i am an olympus person myself.. i do not like tiny cameras. i have an olympus sp570uz. i can zoom out 25x and my macro is perfect. i have two settings for macro. it also gives you a choice of taking pics from 3mp to 10mp. i find it perfect in every way. so, we have a tiny camera and what some might consider a bulky camera. both outstanding and each suits its owner.

As a retired Commercial Photographer - I'll put my two cents in.
Obviously - all those who advocated how much better a DSL is are users of such. However, they apparently do not know much about those digital cameras that offer "almost" the same quality shooting, with only one lense -- without having to spend a small fortune on lenses. So I say to all those who are neophyte beginning photographers . . . DO YOUR HOMEWORK - and don't be fooled into believing you cannot get great shots without spending a fortune for all the different lenses you need -- to get great shots. When I retired I sold off all of by equipment and did not touch a camera for several years. Then, when I decided to do some shooting, I spent over 6 weeks of every evening - checking out all digital cameras features - including DSLs - I mainly compared the features, THEN I compared the cost. I finally decided on a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ30. It has more features of any of the others and the total cost was 699.00 (That was 3-4 years ago - they are even cheaper now) Why Lumix? 12X OPTICAL - crisp "Leica lens" - which I never have to change - which goes from (35mm equivilent) 28mm to 480mm - has auto focus - on demand or full time -- and HAS MACRO close-up to 1.5" (think it is) and the menu gives you a ton of easy settings -- for all types of shooting -- Manual -- Automatic - and Programed - (like most) And the thing that really impressed me was the huge viewing screen that folds out and also swivels. - Those people who said you can't use it in bright light, well, guess they never heard of building a small "barndoor" that fits over it for use in bright sun - blocking out most of the glare.
I love this camera and have used it more than most people would, and have had no problems whsoever. Only changes I made was a 2 gig memory chip.
Like I said, before you go running out to buy a DSL and then spend 10 times what you spent for the camera -- for your bag of lenses, Try this camera -- if you like it fine, if not, you can always go to a DSL later. AGAIN - do your homework. Last -- I have seen the new Lumix DMC-FZ50 on sale --- for around 495.00 If I ever drop this one, I'll buy another and the later model.
Bunkamahajo

The most important difference between compact P&S (Point & Shoot) and DSLR cameras is in the sensors. There is a huge size difference between the P&S sensor (often the size of a fingernail or smaller) and the DSLR sensor which can be the same size as a 35mm film frame (often called full-frame) or larger.

Regarding image quality, pixel size makes all the difference; the larger the pixel, the better its ability to capture light, and consequently, the less noise in the image. If you take a P&S and a DSLR sensor with the same number of pixels, i.e. 10mp, the DSLR will be capable of vastly superior image quality with less noise because those pixels will be much larger. This has nothing to do with camera brands or types.

As a commercial/advertising shooter for over 40 years, I started using digital in its early years. Today's sensor technology is amazing compared to the early versions, but you can't change the laws of physics, and pixel for pixel, larger ones still win hands down! These days I shoot digital exclusively, using numerous camera bodies from different makers. My favorite camera has interchangeable lenses but is neither a DSLR or P&S.

Another factor to consider is the image color quality of the the sensor. Here again, most DSLR sensors have an edge. Since each sensor photosite (that is what they are called before they become pixels) is covered by a red, green, or blue color filter, the quality of those filters also affects the final image quality. Once the raw capture data is converted into an image file, the photosites officially become pixels.

There are many pitfalls in the path to a final image and one of them is the conversion from captured data to an image file. Many DSLR cameras allow you to save the captured data as Raw files for later conversion on your computer as JPEG or TIFF files, or converted in the camera to JPEG files. Only a few P&S cameras allow saving in the Raw format.

A discussion about Raw vs. JPEG files is outside the scope of this thread, but without a doubt, a Raw conversion made on your computer has far more potential to make the best quality prints. I know this is an overload of info, and I am only scratching the surface, but this discussion could easily go for several pages.

One final note - if you are only interested in 3"x5" machine prints from a local drugstore or Costco, then all of this discussion is academic. On the other hand, if you make prints up to A1 size (23"x33"), then all of this is a valid concern.

I 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.

which 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.

I 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 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.

Shallow 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

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.

Quote "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.

Don'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)