Canon DSLR camera

Sncjw

Hi all

I am. Able to get a DSLR Camera from my work place salary sacrifice scheme. I currently have a bridge and I do like it but sometimes I don't get the shots I want.  The bridge camera is a Canon powershot.

I've see this kit. Does anyone else have it and is it a good buy.

CANON EOS 2000D DSLR Camera with EF-S 18-55 mm f/3.5-5.6 III & EF 75-300 mm f/4-5.6 III lens

Also could. Someone explain the major differences in a bridge and DSLR Camera please. 

daveyjp

Depending which Powershot you have if it has full controls for aperture, shutter speed, iso etc I would learn how to use that first.

If not and you want to move up to dSLR used equipment can be very cheap.

BooJewels

I've been a long term member of a photography forum and an issue that crops up regularly arises when photographers step up their gear to something higher up the camera tree, without necessarily understanding the implications.  As a generalisation, the 'better' the camera, the harder you need to work them to get good results - the more thinking you have to do for yourself.

As a simple, often encountered, example; DSLRs have larger sensors, that's why you can get an improvement in image quality - but that comes at a cost - as a larger sensor, generally achieves a shallower Depth of Field (amount of the scene from front to back that has acceptable sharpness) for the same scene/field of view.  So this often gives rise to new photographers thinking they have focus issues, as a lot of the scene can seem to not be in focus, where in reality, much less of it will be sharp and if this isn't in just the right place, can lead to thinking that there's something wrong with the camera.  This is also a powerful, creative tool, but it needs to be understood and addressed.

If you want to increase the DoF/amount of the scene in focus, you might need to stop down the lens, to a smaller aperture - this lets less light in, thereby necessitating a slower shutter speed (i.e shutter open for longer), which can result in camera shake and another easily explainable reason for seemingly out of focus/blurry images.  So DSLRs need a bit more careful thought when composing shots, choosing where to focus, setting exposure etc.  Smaller sensor cameras like bridges are much more forgiving in this respect.  

I've often advised people when contemplating a new camera, not to upgrade until or unless you know exactly where your current camera is falling short and how it is limiting what you want to achieve and exactly what feature of a new camera will address those issues.  What exactly is it that stops you from getting the shots you want?

There are ticks in the plus column for both types of cameras - I have some of both and have had several in each category over the years.  And I still use them side by side - it's down to the best tool for the job.  It also depends on what you like to photograph and whether you're prepared to tinker with the images after you've taken them etc etc.   Do you want out of camera JPEGs or would you like to develop RAW images?

For example, I tend (as a very broad generalisation) to use a removable lens camera (I've changed from DSLR to a micro 4/3, as I prefer the smaller body form and reduced weight these days) for landscapes and general scenics and have an add on close up lens for macro (i.e. screws on to the front of other lenses like a filter).  But I use a bridge and compact cameras for other purposes.   I have a Panasonic bridge camera that I still enjoy as it has a huge zoom range without changing lenses, coupled with a fabulous fixed f/2.8 maximum aperture throughout the zoom range - which just doesn't happen with changeable lenses without dropping a lot of coin.  This allows long range shots with an acceptable shutter speed, where the same focal length on a DSLR might not even be possible, if light is low etc.   I also use that for macro focus stacks (using the same screw on close up lens), as it has a feature that allows you to take a set of images of the same scene, using each of the focus points, in the format of still frames in a video, which can then be stacked in software.  So each of my cameras has different features that scratch different itches.  You need to decide what your itch is first - and exactly where your current camera is falling short.

Farway

I have recently moved to micro four thirds as well, size & weight being one reason

OP, unless you are locked into DSLR by the scheme also consider "mirrorless" cameras, similar to DSLR but without the mirror, using electronics to look through the lens

The big advantage is by using adaptors you can use all lenses from any manufacturer, including so called "vintage" from way back last century  and you are not locked into one system

Some of the older lenses are cheap compared to modern, but it is a learning curve, not point & shoot

The correct choice of mirror less camera will allow "focus peaking" and "focus stacking" to ensure sharp focusing

chrisbur

Sncjw said:

Hi all

. I currently have a bridge and I do like it but sometimes I don't get the shots I want.  

Can you give details of the problems you are having with the bridge camera, what sort of shots do not come out right?  Whatever the camera  sometimes the shots do not come out as hoped for and sometimes a bit of practise and study is all you need to correct them not a new camera.

Sandtree

BooJewels said:

but that comes at a cost - as a larger sensor, generally achieves a shallower Depth of Field (amount of the scene from front to back that has acceptable sharpness) for the same scene/field of view.

Never seen the ability to have a smaller depth of field be described as a negative!

Also, its technically wrong, a 50mm lens with f2.8 and 3m from the subject will have the same DoP if you take the photo on a pocket point & shoot, DSLR or medium format camera. The larger the sensor however the wider the picture will look or to use modern terminology it will appear more "zoomed in".

The problem is that people tend to talk of lenses in their 35mm/full frame equivalent and so the telephoto lens on a iPhone X gets talked of as a 52mm lens but its not, its a 6mm. Same happens with bridge cameras and anything else where lenses cannot be changed. This then gives the illusion of a shallower depth of field if you compare an iPhone X with a 50mm on a DSLR but your actually comparing a 6mm lens to a 50mm lens and so it will have a shallower DoF as the longer the lens the shorter the DoF. 

Generally speaking the larger the sensor the less issue it has with noise and so the higher the ISO you can use... obviously this has also improved with time too. My Canon 350D had a range of 100-1,600 and once you went north of 800 noise became an issue. With my current Canon 5D has a range of 50-32,000 and with its full 35mm sensor (and newer tech) an ISO of 16,000 has less noise than 1,200 did on my 350D. You can therefore afford to increase ISO to maintain faster shutter speeds and maintain low noise on larger sensors. 

Heedtheadvice

Whatever you argue it is a fact that having a bigger sensor requires a longer lens to give the same narrow Field of View compared to a small sensor.... and results in shorter Depth of Field? Is that not just physics?

BooJewels

Sandtree said:

BooJewels said:

but that comes at a cost - as a larger sensor, generally achieves a shallower Depth of Field (amount of the scene from front to back that has acceptable sharpness) for the same scene/field of view.

Never seen the ability to have a smaller depth of field be described as a negative!

Also, its technically wrong, [...]

What an odd comment - it depends entirely what you want to photograph and the effect that you're after.  A shallow DOF might be very desirable for some subjects (portraits, subject isolation), but for others, it's a deal breaker (macros, landscapes).  The rather simplified point I was illustrating (and I did specify for the same field of view) - is that it makes where you focus more critical.  If you don't have much in the way of DOF, you need to choose where you focus more carefully, or if it's in the wrong place, it can give rise to an image that appears out of focus, because there either isn't much of it, or sharpness is in the wrong place.  It's an issue I've seen posted about dozens of times in forums from new DSLR owners - especially with wide views and landscapes where there seems to be a tendency to focus at infinity - giving rise to an image that appears to have unsatisfactory focus, because foreground detail is not fully sharp. 

With the shorter of the lenses specified above, on that camera, at 18mm and wide open, a landscape focused in the distance, might leave something like 6 feet of foreground out of focus, making the image look less satisfactory if there is detail there.  If the owner then zoomed in a little for framing towards say 30mm, whilst the aperture may stop down a little, you might now have 10 or 15 feet of foreground that's less than sharp.  Even if the distant mountains are nice and sharp, the perception will be that the image is less satisfactory, on the whole, to view.  The longer the focal length, the more it happens - zoom to the 55mm end of the lens and it now becomes 80 feet (if you focus at distance, instead of closer) even at f/5.6 that it's now stopped to.  Clearly there are ways to mitigate this, but you have to understand it, to do so - stopping down, focusing closer (which is often counter-intuitive, to increase DoF, or at least the the satisfaction of results).   It's complex geometry between sensor size, aperture, focal length and focus distance.  So getting the best from a larger sensor camera requires a bit of learning and understanding, after the more forgiving geometry of a bridge or compact camera.

But as the OP hasn't returned, we don't know how much they understand already, or what it is they're finding unsatisfactory in the results of their current camera.  It might well be noise at low light, which as you say, would certainly be an improvement in a modern DSLR.