Digital Vs SLR?

hertzyabazas

Seeing as this has probably been covered 100's of times, apologies in advance for posting!

My wife has suggested we buy a level entry SLR camera but I'm not 100% keen. I'd rather buy a new digital camera for slightly less money.
She claims that even if both camera's have 12 megapixel, the quality of the SLR pics will be better. Is this the case?

Pro's and con's of both type of camera's would be appreciated

Cheers

totalsolutions

>Seeing as this has probably been covered 100's of times

Have you searched yet?

>Is this the case?

Yes

>Pro's and con's of both type of camera's would be appreciate

Don't have the time ......... SLR is miles better, more lenses and creativity shots. Can be used in low lighting situations.
https://www.dpreview.com
PcPro mag have an article in January 2011 latest edition out 11/11/10 also have a glance at https://www.pcpro.co.uk

Esqui

In quick terms:

SLR: Far more control over your photos; interchangeable lenses; optical viewfinder (although a few compacts have them)
Compact digital camera: Smaller; easier-to-use; cheaper

Or, you could go for a bridge camera, such as this: http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/fujifilm_finepix_s1600_review/
which gives you a mix of both

gonzo127

very brief comparison in my mind

DSLR
pros - so many more options and much more control of your shots so you should end up getting much better pictures, usually the quality of the lens is much better than other types of camera
cons - generally more expensive as you need to buy all the extra lens's, more difficult to just pick up and shoot as you have to pick the right lens etc, more to carry around due to all the extra kit
my conclusion - the only choice if you are serious about photgraphy

digital compact
pros - very easy to use, point and click operation in most cases, can still get very good clear photos, can be very cheap (although the cheaper you go the harder it will be to get the best pictures), small so easy to take with you
cons - very little versatility so will hamper creativity, usually limited manual controls so you could struggle in difficult condidtions
conclusion - great for most people since most people in all reality just want to point and shoot, will limit you in future if you want to try new things or learn more about photography

bridge camera
pros - usually extra large zoom (can get upto 30x optical) so has much more versatility than a compact although once you have reached the limit of the lens thats it so less versatile than the DSLR, usually has many more manual controls than a compact so can allow you to play and learn more about photography, has no extra set up time since the lens is attached and 'all in one'
cons - not as versatile as a DSLR but much more so than a compact, usually much larger than a compact although needing less than a DSLR,
conclusion - the name sums them up really as they are a bridge between point and shoot simplcity and the more complex yet more capable DSLR, they try to capture some of the best of both worlds to get versatility with minimum hassle,

mr_fishbulb

hertzyabazas wrote: »

My wife has suggested we buy a level entry SLR camera but I'm not 100% keen. I'd rather buy a new digital camera for slightly less money.
She claims that even if both camera's have 12 megapixel, the quality of the SLR pics will be better. Is this the case?

What are you going to be using the camera for? How large do you want to print the photos? Is size and weight a deciding factor?

When you look at what goes into making a good photo, the camera is the smallest component. The majority of "quality" in a photo will come from the photographer, next the lens, and finally the camera itself.

If you are the type of person who keeps the camera in auto mode and wants to take photos to share with the family on facebook, then there is no point in getting a dSLR. Might as well have the convenience of a smaller-compact one. But if you want to learn more about photography then get a dSLR or a bridge one as suggested.

I've got a dSLR and a compact. I use them for different situations - the dSLR for when I am able to lug it around and the compact for when I can't. My compact actually cost slightly more than the dSLR.

[Deleted User]

I've got to say, the quality of photos i managed to produce of my little baby was way beyond what could be achieved with a 'regular' digicam, This was using my SLR (Panasonic L10)

I also invested in an external flashgun and a few other lenses (manual focus to save cash). Without a flash, i'd say you'd be better off with a compact camera sometimes - i don't rate the built in flash on the SLR at all.

Edit: You can turn an SLRs built in camera into a ceiling 'bounce' flash is you pop a fag packet over it and open both ends

We transformed our couch into a mini-baby photo studio with a big white sheet (and pillows underneath it). My sister-in-law is due in the next week, so i plan to do it again but make some makeshift reflectors using tin-foil and some cardboard.

I've kept the cost of my kit very low - dSLR for 300 quid, extra lenses are usually 30 quid from second hand camera shops (using a 10 pound adaptor from ebay), my flash cost 30 quid new from Jessops (no longer available, this is the more recent version of it - http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/67557/show.html)

However - it's my hobby, and i've got a patient wife who waits for me while i look in old camera shops looking for bits

hertzyabazas

Thanks for the advice
Although I always carry a compact on me (just incase!) can't really say either of us a keen photographers but wife fancied a SLR so we can take good pics of our baby daughter.
Wouldn't want to pay more than £350 but if it means having to fork out for bits and bobs along the way then probably won't bother.

Think I'll take a look at some bridge cameras

Cheers

gonzo127

well a good bridge camera to start your search with is the panisonic lumix FZ45 24x optical zoom and a very good auto function to start of with but also has good manual controls to allow you to start learning as you go, it should be well within your budget and still leave enough to buy a good sized memory card case and extra battery

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Panasonic-Lumix-14-1MP-Digital-Camera/dp/B003WOKU4W/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1289307015&sr=8-1

tronator

hertzyabazas wrote: »

Seeing as this has probably been covered 100's of times, apologies in advance for posting!

My wife has suggested we buy a level entry SLR camera but I'm not 100% keen. I'd rather buy a new digital camera for slightly less money.
She claims that even if both camera's have 12 megapixel, the quality of the SLR pics will be better. Is this the case?

Pro's and con's of both type of camera's would be appreciated

Cheers

Why not going for the best of both worlds and buying a DSLR?

[Deleted User]

Just to note, i really struggle to get nice photos of my little one now he's mobile (and very fast!).. We normally get the best shots from the compact camera as he goes a bit mental at the sight of a big camera.

On the megapixel issue... more does not mean a better camera. It's far more about the camera optics and the lighting.

Personally, i'd love one of these:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B003WOKUVK/ref=asc_df_B003WOKUVK1274347?smid=A3P5ROKL5A1OLE&!!!!!googlecouk06-21&linkCode=asn&creative=22206&creativeASIN=B003WOKUVK

It's near-SLR quality in a compact camera. shame its over 300 quid. It'd even use my SLR's flash.. oh, birthday time is months away

Freddie_Snowbits

I always tell people on my photo courses, get the best camera you can afford and make sure it has a full set of manual controls to give you greater creativity.

Though I have had people come with decent compact cameras, they soon upgrade to SLRs, so I suggest an SLR, something like a Canon EOS 550D is an ideal starter camera, with a decnt enough lens, to get you in the mood.


Oh, then it becomes expensive!