High spec compact or entry-level DSLR....?
Discussion
I'm a complete n00b to photography. I do have an old Canon IXUS 3 compact, but latterly have tended to resort just to pulling out my mobile and using the built in camera when I want to take a picture. You will appreciate that I have therefore historically been very much in the point-and-click brigade.....
However, a friend demo-ing his Canon EOS 400D a couple of weeks ago showed me just how much better even casual snaps were with that than anything I had been used to. He was using a 50mm EF 1.8 II lens, so nothing particularly expensive, but the portrait snaps he took of my little girl were so much better than anything I'd ever been able to manage with a compact. The way the picture focused on the subject and blurred all the background around it was a nice touch (probably very basic when you know how, but it was new to me...)
So, it got me thinking. If I want to keep a halfway decent photographic record of my daughter as she grows up, and maybe develop photography into a bit more of a hobby, maybe I should dip a toe into the world of "proper" photography and try out an entry-level DSLR.
But as I thought about, I started to wonder it would be overkill for the casual use I have in mind - would I ever get beyond taking it out of full auto mode and learning how to use it properly? Would I actually use it if it meant carting a camera bag around rather than just being able to stick it in my pocket? Would I ever find the time and/or inclination to learn more about how to take a decent picture - how to compose and frame it, how to set the camera up to improve the picture and so forth?
I'd like to think that the answer to all of those would be yes, but I can't honestly be sure. Which brings me (eventually!) to my question - would I be better spending the money on a high end compact (the sort I've seen referred to as a "bridge" camera - something like a Canon Powershot S5, perhaps) which is a compromise and obviously lacks the ultimate performance and flexibility of a DSLR but is perhaps more useable, and a better stepping stone, for a lazy n00b like me?
I'm unlikely to ever metamorphose into the next David Bailey, so extracting every last ounce of performance is unlikely to be a major issue for me. I suppose I'm wondering whether there is still a gulf between bridge cameras and entry level DSLRs, or whether I'd see markedly better casual portrait and general usage pictures with a DSLR (and yes, I know that depends largely on the lens...) compared with anything of the compact variety, even the higher end.
Over to you good folks with much more experience than me!
However, a friend demo-ing his Canon EOS 400D a couple of weeks ago showed me just how much better even casual snaps were with that than anything I had been used to. He was using a 50mm EF 1.8 II lens, so nothing particularly expensive, but the portrait snaps he took of my little girl were so much better than anything I'd ever been able to manage with a compact. The way the picture focused on the subject and blurred all the background around it was a nice touch (probably very basic when you know how, but it was new to me...)
So, it got me thinking. If I want to keep a halfway decent photographic record of my daughter as she grows up, and maybe develop photography into a bit more of a hobby, maybe I should dip a toe into the world of "proper" photography and try out an entry-level DSLR.
But as I thought about, I started to wonder it would be overkill for the casual use I have in mind - would I ever get beyond taking it out of full auto mode and learning how to use it properly? Would I actually use it if it meant carting a camera bag around rather than just being able to stick it in my pocket? Would I ever find the time and/or inclination to learn more about how to take a decent picture - how to compose and frame it, how to set the camera up to improve the picture and so forth?
I'd like to think that the answer to all of those would be yes, but I can't honestly be sure. Which brings me (eventually!) to my question - would I be better spending the money on a high end compact (the sort I've seen referred to as a "bridge" camera - something like a Canon Powershot S5, perhaps) which is a compromise and obviously lacks the ultimate performance and flexibility of a DSLR but is perhaps more useable, and a better stepping stone, for a lazy n00b like me?
I'm unlikely to ever metamorphose into the next David Bailey, so extracting every last ounce of performance is unlikely to be a major issue for me. I suppose I'm wondering whether there is still a gulf between bridge cameras and entry level DSLRs, or whether I'd see markedly better casual portrait and general usage pictures with a DSLR (and yes, I know that depends largely on the lens...) compared with anything of the compact variety, even the higher end.
Over to you good folks with much more experience than me!
If you want decent snaps with little effort, go for the compact.
If you want better than that, and think you want to take photography seriously, and that you want to take the first step on a road that goes somewhere, then the DSLR will offer better quality, better flexibility, better control and limitless upgrade otions. But you'll also need a wilingness to learn about digital imaging - and a bag!
I wouldn't bother with a bridge camera.
If you want better than that, and think you want to take photography seriously, and that you want to take the first step on a road that goes somewhere, then the DSLR will offer better quality, better flexibility, better control and limitless upgrade otions. But you'll also need a wilingness to learn about digital imaging - and a bag!
I wouldn't bother with a bridge camera.
If there are any specific effects you're after like background blur for portraits, first thing to do is find out how they're done!
Most good P&S cameras could do that.
I wanted to improve my photography so started using manual mode on my (very decent) Canon A640. Got good shots, but the first time I had a play with a DSLR I had to have one. So much better to hold, more configurable, and just plain fun. The much bigger image sensor helps a lot with image quality too.
One thing to note though - a basic DSLR with kit lens is not as versatile as a good inexpensive P&S. It won't focus close enough, won't zoom far enough, can't be carried around as easily, image sensor gets dusty, etc.
As a minimum, on top of the kit lens you'll probably want to budget for a longer zoom lens, some sort of macro option (extension tubes or diopters), sensor cleaning blower, decent bag, etc.
I really, really had to stretch my budget to get a DSLR. Since then I've spent as much as the camera cost on lenses/accessories - no idea where the money came from... So watch out
Most good P&S cameras could do that.
I wanted to improve my photography so started using manual mode on my (very decent) Canon A640. Got good shots, but the first time I had a play with a DSLR I had to have one. So much better to hold, more configurable, and just plain fun. The much bigger image sensor helps a lot with image quality too.
One thing to note though - a basic DSLR with kit lens is not as versatile as a good inexpensive P&S. It won't focus close enough, won't zoom far enough, can't be carried around as easily, image sensor gets dusty, etc.
As a minimum, on top of the kit lens you'll probably want to budget for a longer zoom lens, some sort of macro option (extension tubes or diopters), sensor cleaning blower, decent bag, etc.
I really, really had to stretch my budget to get a DSLR. Since then I've spent as much as the camera cost on lenses/accessories - no idea where the money came from... So watch out
^^^^ What they said x2, as a suggestion have a look at something like a s/h Canon G9, I bought one recently mint for £150, absolutely cracking camera, almost all the features of a DSLR and almost pocket size. Gives you all the flexibilty to go manual once you are a little braver, or just go auto as and when you want to.
Just moved down from DSLR,There is no argument in that if you want to take photography serious then this is the way to go,however,the weight of all the tackle is seriously a chore.
So,just got rid of Canon 5D 1D along with six lenses etc etc and to be honest it was a relief,plus of course everytime you go on holiday on a flight you have to compromise it impossibe to carry what you need.
I have just purchased a Sony HX1,fantastic,Macro,zoom.panorama,video,what more could you want,point and shoot to your hearts content and all in a little package.
I love it,check it out,got it on E**y and saved nearly £200.
So,just got rid of Canon 5D 1D along with six lenses etc etc and to be honest it was a relief,plus of course everytime you go on holiday on a flight you have to compromise it impossibe to carry what you need.
I have just purchased a Sony HX1,fantastic,Macro,zoom.panorama,video,what more could you want,point and shoot to your hearts content and all in a little package.
I love it,check it out,got it on E**y and saved nearly £200.
sidaorb said:
^^^^ What they said x2, as a suggestion have a look at something like a s/h Canon G9, I bought one recently mint for £150, absolutely cracking camera, almost all the features of a DSLR and almost pocket size. Gives you all the flexibilty to go manual once you are a little braver, or just go auto as and when you want to.
The G9 is excellent, as is the older G7. It's a very, very capable camera. I also have an SLR and a Medium format, but it has never ceased to amaze me for both usability and image quality.plg101 said:
The G9 is excellent, as is the older G7. It's a very, very capable camera. I also have an SLR and a Medium format, but it has never ceased to amaze me for both usability and image quality.
The difference is that if you want to get more serious, you have the tools to do so - probably using the G9 for the simple stuff and parties. The OP is looking for just one camera. Perhaps the G9 is the one for him (although it's hardly shirt-pocket size), but it's got to fill all roles not just one.For me, ever since 1984, I've always found 1x compact and 1x SLR the perfect combination. If I want to take photos seriously I take a DSLR, and if I want snap capability that fits in a pocket, I take the compact.
But everybody is different and what is the best answer for you or me may not be the best answer for him
Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 24th July 09:42
Simpo Two said:
plg101 said:
The G9 is excellent, as is the older G7. It's a very, very capable camera. I also have an SLR and a Medium format, but it has never ceased to amaze me for both usability and image quality.
The difference is that if you want to get more serious, you have the tools to do so - probably using the G9 for the simple stuff and parties. The OP is looking for just one camera. Perhaps the G9 is the one for him (although it's hardly shirt-pocket size), but it's got to fill all roles not just one.For me, ever since 1984, I've always found 1x compact and 1x SLR the perfect combination. If I want to take photos seriously I take a DSLR, and if I want snap capability that fits in a pocket, I take the compact.
But everybody is different and what is the best answer for you or me may not be the best answer for him
Edited by Simpo Two on Friday 24th July 09:42
That said, the quality and control available on a G9/G10, etc is excellent for learning and adapting to the bounds of full camera capabilities, and is a low risk entry; by buying an SLR you start to commit to a system.
Take a look at: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding....
You are quite right - everyone is different... there is no right answer
^^ Brilliant!
theabove said:
In every case no one could reliably tell the difference between 13X19" prints shot with the $40,000 Hasselblad and Phase One 39 Megapixel back, and the new $500 Canon G10. In the end no one got more than 60% right, and overall the split was about 50 / 50, with no clear differentiator. In other words, no better than chance.
In fact it was the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format, while other photographers chose the G10 images because with its wider depth of field it created an overall impression of greater sharpness.
In fact it was the H2 system's narrower depth of field that occasionally was the only clear give-away. Some viewers eventually figured out that the prints with the narrower depth of field were from medium format, while other photographers chose the G10 images because with its wider depth of field it created an overall impression of greater sharpness.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff