Digital SLRs - What's the big deal?

thor

Thanks for the responses everyone. It seems that DSLRs are superior but I tend to agree with networkguy that you have to work at it if you want to get a superb shot and as I only take family snaps I find I am more than happy with my canon a610. Or at least I was until I lost it at Alton Towers yesterday.
This was the reason why I posed the question because I am in the market again to find a replacement. I can't justify laying out the extra cash for a DSLR as I won't have the time to use it properly so I am going to stick the successors to my old camera and that is canon's a720is or even the older a710is. I gather there is not much difference between the two and the price is similar at around the £120 mark.

Poppycat

Looks nice camera the a720is

Maybe not your camera but these Sanyo xacti camera's are very good we got the HD1a does HD video and 5mb camera they do one higher spec than that now. Very easy to use and pocket size, believe me ist better than carrying my large camera about with us and has a docking station battery is always charged and can use as a web camera too

http://us.sanyo.com/entertainment/cameracorder/

S0litaire

Of you get any of the Canon "Shore Shot??" range, there is a program you can use on the camera to turn it from a Compact point 'n' Shoot to a semi-pro camera (gives you most of the bells and whistles of a DSLR without the cost or changing of lenses) it's not perfect but it turns the Basic cameras in to something you can get arty with if you ever decide to get more into photograhy .

unrich

ManAtHome wrote: »

No it isn't - that massive thing on the tripod had super lenses which cost arms+legs (the body was just there to keep the film flat) - your standard DSLR kit lenses won't get anywhere close. As I said earlier DSLR-land is the start of an expensive hobby.

The massive thing on the tripod also gains quality by having a large negative. e.g. 60mm by 70mm giving 4 times the amount of negative for the image. The lens doesn't need to be that great as the negative is more forgiving as it captures more detail.

As for DSLRs they allow control as per other posts. And ease of control. I set mine in a certain programme mode and with one hand I twiddle a couple of wheels to change aperture and shutter speed, with the other I change focus and zoom.

With a little compact/bridge camera even if you have manual control you will be fiddling through menu settings on the screen, even prosumer cameras will only allow direct manual control of one setting at a time.

Also have a look at the smallest F stop. You may find on a compact bridge camera you get F7 or F8 min. My cheapish DSLR will do F32 allowing superb depth of field.

If you think you might want to do more than just snap then consider a bridge camera. If you might want to do more than occasionally set it to manual then consider a DSLR.

moonrakerz

I used to do a lot of photography both 35mm and medium format, but "gave it up" for many years due to work. I started again with a digital "point and shoot" camera (Nikon), after having two of these I moved up to a DSLR (Nikon again). The DSLR was 6mp, as was its predescessor.

I was astounded at the difference in the picture quality between two cameras, nominally "the same". The lens is undoubtedly of a better quality, the sensor and the processing electronics are much superior. It certainly made the point that "the more megapixels, the better", just isn't true ! Spend the extra money on another lens.

As others have pointed out, with a DSLR you get all the other advantages of a "professional" camera:- auto, aperture priority, shutter priority, interchangeable lenses AND decent rechargeable batteries !

Another often missed point:- if you intend "improving" (even just cropping) your photos in a PC use a decent photo editing software package and don't save your photos in jpeg format.

Finally, buy a camera from a "camera" manufacturer:- Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Olympus, etc, etc. Photography needn't be an expensive hobby, just don't get swept along with having to buy the next "biggest, better" camera to hit the streets !

isofa

Completely echo what moonrakerz says, although there are some decent compacts that are as good as entry level DSLRs (I especially like the Canon Powershot range of digi-cams, I was using these many years ago before DSLRs came on the scene), move up a gear to a semi-pro DSLR and nothing comes close. Depends if you are a casual photographer, or into it as a hobby, or profession.

Providing you are using good optics (I have Canon L series lenses that cost 2 to 3 times more than the body of my SLR), then the gulf between compacts and DSLRs is immense. Once you've used one and learned techniques, I doubt you'd ever go back. But to get the best out of the you must be prepared to learn, often a good "bridge" camera of compact is setup in auto mode to take a very good saturated shot, which is pleasing to the eye of a standard viewer!

The reasons I use DSLRs are: quality, flexibility, speed, optics, ability to change lenses, sensor, focusing, handling, creativity, battery life, etc.

My camera is ready in under half a second, I can take many shots a second if I need to, I can shoot in RAW to allow full lossless editing, even changing white balance and exposure after the shot is taken (impossible with JPEG), I can auto-focus instantly but at the same time override with manual focus with my pro lenses, without switching focusing mode or damaging the lens. On a full charge, I can get 500ish shots with ease, how many compacts can achieve that?

Lenses are much more important than the camera body IMO. Camera body technology changes every 6-12 months, larger sensors, faster processors etc. But a good top notch lens can last a lifetime.

Finally, as moonrakerz says, stick to quality brands, Canon, Nikon etc - you'll get better optics than with cheap non-camera manufacturers. And complete ignore mega-pixels anything 6 or above for a standard camera is fine, and 8 is ample unless you plan to blow your shots up over A4, lens and optics should take priority over mega-pixels.

Try www.camerapricebuster.co.uk to see the best UK prices on a range of cameras.

BillScarab

Although interchangeable lenses, more manual controls and potentially better optics are important factors. One of the biggest differences is the sensor size. As an example the latest budget DLSR from Canon the 1000D has a sensor that is 22.2 x 14.8 mm, the Canon G9 which is a top end compact has a sensor that is 7.6 x 5.7 mm. So the the DLSR sensor can capture far more light and for the same number of megapixels will be less subject to noise. The high end DSLRs have even bigger sensors, usually the same size as 35mm film (36 x24 mm).

Cloudane

Airplanepics wrote: »

I do a lot of photography using my Canon 30D, and yes you can notice the difference. The overall quality of a DSLR image over a Point and Shoot image is so much better, the colours and pictures are much more vivid.

Same camera here, and same conclusion I have a bunch of friends with point-and-shoot cameras who like to take piccies when out hiking etc, and everyone notices the difference in quality and detail with mine - not just me.

One relatively unimportant but still worthy note about DSLRs (well, the 30D at least) is the speed at which they get into focus (when using auto) and take the shot. It drives me nuts nowadays using a compact camera, where you press the button half way... and wait... and wait... and then take the shot.

Learn to use it properly, though. Having a DSLR and only ever using it as point-and-shoot would give you great results, but it'd be as wasteful as having a Ferrari and only ever driving it at 30MPH - sure it'd get you to 30 quickly, but you're only experiencing a tiny fraction of what it's capable of.

I agree with what others have said, that basically it's the way to go if photography is (or is to become) a hobby in itself, for if you see photography as an art form. For general snaps of the family on holiday or whatever a compact camera is more than adequate, especially if it's a decent one.

Marty_J

I recently upgraded form a Fujifilm s6500fd bridge camera to a Nikon D40. Even though the D40 wasn't really much more expensive, it is light years ahead as far as image quality is concerned, especially in low light situations, where any camera other than a dSLR is noise city (and the Fujifilm's were some of the best in their class!). It comes with a nice kit lens, it's small, light and inexpensive. It's a great upgrade into the world of dSLRs.

vyseyboy

moonrakerz wrote: »

It certainly made the point that "the more megapixels, the better", just isn't true ! Spend the extra money on another lens.

That is so very true. The big numbers are often just a marketing device, I've found.