Digital SLR versus Ultra Zoom / POS

rpm said:
From the feedback I assume one can use the low end DSLR cameras in auto-mode?
Click to expand...

DSLRs all have a "greenbox" mode, i.e. fully auto. All but the pro models also have an array of preset modes, i.e. portrait, landscape, sport, etc. One feature of Canon DSLRs specifically is another mode called A-DEP. What this does is it tries to ensure that all subjects that are under the focus points are in focus, so it adjusts everything accordingly. I find this useful when handing my camera to someone who doesn't know how to use it.

rpm said:
I have previously been advised to also look at the Canon S90, the G11 or the PowerShot SX1 IS.
Click to expand...

I have tried the S90 and it's definitely on my shopping list for events where I can't take my DSLR. A colleague also just got one and I'm very impressed with the results he gets. Our company end-year party was at Madam Tussauds this year, and of course, everyone has pictures of themselves with various wax celebs. His pictures are the only ones (except for the official photographer who used a DSLR) who's wax sculptures look like real people.

froot said:
An ultra zoom will definitely serve your purpose. I'm not too familiar with the S90 (it's the digital that looks like the DSLR) but know it's a good one.
Click to expand...

It's output comes (a little) closer to DSLR output than any previous P&S, particularly in the high ISO/low light stakes. The camera itself looks nothing like a DSLR. It's small, about the same size as my CyberShot T-100.

rurapente said:
My next cam will be a Sony mainly cause of the built-in stabilization, but i've used Canon and Nikon and all 3 are way up there.
Click to expand...

Actually, Sony is the only one that consistently lags behind. Pentax is the one that's right up there with Canon/Nikon and the one you want to look at if you want in-body stabilisation. The K-x in particular is superb (and cheap).
 
koffiejunkie said:
It's output comes (a little) closer to DSLR output than any previous P&S, particularly in the high ISO/low light stakes. The camera itself looks nothing like a DSLR. It's small, about the same size as my CyberShot T-100.
Click to expand...

See post to and from bwana (I was thinking about another Canon camera) ;)
 
my 2c...(mostly echo-ing what others said) get a entry level DSLR!!! For events you want something responsive, that can autofocus easily without using annoying pre-flashes, that gives low noise at high ISO. You would also want to try and get an external flash. For indoor photography I find adding an external flash gives the best improvement for your images over buying more expensive lenses.

All cams have an 'Auto' (newby level) and they are then essentially mik-and-druk, but you will get a better image quality especially in low light. You will also get more mileage with a DSLR in the long run. Build quality is solid and they do maintain their usefullness for a longer.

The only time I would recommend something like the Canon S90 or G11 over a DSLR is if you want something compact and not too noticeable. But for the price, rather get the entry level DSLR.
 
Great feedback on which camera to get - thanks a bunch. Looks like a low end DSLR is superior to ultra zoom cameras and the autofocus will make it easy for noobs like me. Will wait for an after-christmas special :D

A quick question: I see most members mention Canon and Nikon, but not the Sony Alpha range which is quite cheap. Is there a reason for that?
 
I think Alphas have slightly smaller image sensors. Have a look at dpreview.com to see which models have what sensor sizes. Larger is better.

Also avoid Sony/Fuji/Olympus models that use MemoryStick or xD picture card. Try sticking to ones that use affordable formats like Secure Digital and Compact Flash.
 
Most of the members here use Canon and Nikon...

Only a select few of us were wise enough to buy Sony Alpha's :p....

The sensor size on the bottom of the range Alpha is actually bigger than its Canon counterparts, but ultimately in this range of camera's its all about how it feels in your hand in my opinion.
 
On thing the Canon Powershot Sxx range has going for it is the flip out and twist LCD - very nice for taking shots in crowds cause you can hold it as high is you can and still see what is being captured.
 
With regards to the sensor size - the Canon ones are fractionally smaller than the other brands. They use a 1.6 crop factor (i.e. film frame size / 1.6), while everybody else uses 1.5. Except for the 4/3s bodies (Olympus, Panasonic) who use a crop factor of 2.

That said, the Canon ones don't lag behind the other brands in any way.
 
Wrong approach.

A camera does not a good picture make. A photographer does.

Spending the money on a few lessons from a seasoned professional, or getting some books on photography will be of far more use to you than trying to bump up the quality of your pictures by spending more on a camera.

Crap photos don't suddenly become great photos simply because they are sharper. A good photographer will produce great pictures regardless of the camera they use.
 
Pixual said:
A good photographer will produce great pictures regardless of the camera they use.
Click to expand...
Will a good photographer produce better images with a gen 1 iphone or a 5DMkII?

There is a strong and valid argument for having the right tool for the job.
 
I'm with bwana on this one...

Getting the right tools will make getting decent photos easier.
 
Pixual said:
Wrong approach.

A camera does not a good picture make. A photographer does.

Spending the money on a few lessons from a seasoned professional, or getting some books on photography will be of far more use to you than trying to bump up the quality of your pictures by spending more on a camera.

Crap photos don't suddenly become great photos simply because they are sharper. A good photographer will produce great pictures regardless of the camera they use.
Click to expand...

I was looking through someones photos on Flicker a while ago and in his profile he had this piece.

I once met with a author and he told me how beautiful my pictures are. He said: "You must have a very expensive camera."
I replied: "I have read your books and they are very good, you must have a very expensive typewriter"
Click to expand...

It is true to a degree but I have a P&S and also a DSLR. You just can not compare the quality of the two.
 
Last edited:
Taking photos indoors usually qualifies as "low light".

  1. dSLRs take better photos than point and shoot cameras in low light.
    They have much larger sensors: bigger sensor = more light = better signal-noise ratio. Point and shoot cameras will succumb to noise/grain at lower ISO settings than dSLRs.

  2. Using an external flash on a dSLR, you can tilt and rotate the flash.
    This lets you bounce the light off the ceiling, walls, or other surfaces so that your subject is lit by softened, diffused flash light, instead of directly from the flash. Subjects in the photo won't look as washed out, will be less likely to suffer from red eye, and won't have "deer in headlights" look commonly associated with built in pop up flashes.

  3. dSLRs will autofocus faster in low lit conditions.
    If you're using (certain) external Canon flashes, you can use the infrared AF assist on them to focus even faster.

I second brawler's idea to ask one of the forumites to visit and give a demonstration :D
 
bwana said:
Will a good photographer produce better images with a gen 1 iphone or a 5DMkII?

There is a strong and valid argument for having the right tool for the job.
Click to expand...

That's not the point. If you gave an amateur who knows nothing about photography a 5D and a pro who has been selling pictures for years a P&S, I will bet money that the pro takes better pics than the amateur who probably wouldn't even know how to switch on the 5D.

What is image quality? Is it razor sharpness and perfect exposure, or is it the ability to communicate visually?

Boring photos that are perfectly sharp and exposed are still boring photos, regardless of how you cut it.
 
Pixual said:
Boring photos that are perfectly sharp and exposed are still boring photos, regardless of how you cut it.
Click to expand...
Yes but they're still usable images and he needs to produce usable images for a specific reason . . . publication. He's not a hobbyist (yet).

I'm not saying he shouldn't read up on photography - or even better still look at other people's work and learn that way but the basics are going to be the basics regardless of if he's using a P&S or a dslr in full auto.

Advanced techniques can come later (provided he has the camera).
 
Perhaps not with an iPhone but I have seen (and captured) some pretty awesome stuff with a N-series.

Personally I like the old saying that states the best camera is the one you have with you. If you are a pro then you will want to take something powerful with you, like a dSLR. If you are just a regular Joe that walks past something interesting I suppose your phone camera will have to do the job.

I have heard that some movies are now being shot using Canon 1Ds that can shoot at 24fps FullHD - not exactly a Red One but still pretty sweet :p
 
The camera here in question is for a particular purpose. Event coverage. So its not the average regular Joe that walks past something interesting. This is a purposeful action of packing a camera for use at an event. I don't think the compactness and pocketability is an issue.

And again my 2c: I had a bridge cameras for about 3 years. Once I got an SLR my photography improved ALOT. Why? Because manual control on an SLR is more user friendly. That said, bridge cams have come a ways in manual control. But SLRs still lead. You can shoot amazing shots with point and shoots, bridge cams or SLRs and I don't think anyone can dispute that. The question should however be, what will be the easiest to use for the person using it and will that person have the chance to improve their photography.
 
I've always said I need a better/more expensive driver (golf) so I can hit the ball further into the bush. :p

Same with cameras. A pro with a good POS will thump me with a top DSLR any time. BUT. <--- It's a big but. Make sure any camera you do get wont be a limiting factor on your creativity/ability to take photos. If you want to improve buy a camera that you can "grow" into. If you know what I mean. If you don't plan on getting better then just buy whatever is cheapest and settle for mediocrity.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X