Do I really need an SLR camera?

[SubliminalThought]

I'd go the other way - get an inexpensive consumer DSLR - we know the interest is there but if circumstances change sell it and buy another compact.

Still stand by my advice. If you can see yourself overcoming the bulkiness of an SLR and changing lenses then do as most suggested and get an inexpensive consumer DSLR. If not, get a bridge camera.

It really is pointless having a camera that you feel is a burden to take with you. And as QT pointed out, you do not *NEED* an SLR to understand or be good at photography.

 

[MisterBigglesworth]

Ok kewl...think I need to test out a DSLR then. All my friends have a point and shoots...no one has moved to SLR. Recon I will need to check out a Camera shop. That being said...think my mother in law has an SLR. She bought a 12k camera a few months ago with some huge ass lens...but never really enquired. Gonna give her a call and check

Thanks for all the advice, Im starting to lean more to DSLR. Photography has always sparked my interest and I know my wife has always wanted to go on a photography course. She is quite artistic etc, so recon we should just take the leap

Many thanks, your replies have helped a huge bunch!

 

[Rouxenator]

There are more skilled photographers on here to answer you in detail and give better advice...but my suggestion - get a bridge camera like the Canon S5 (or the successor). Easier and less hassle.

I fully agree with you. No need to spend more on something to make you feel like you are a pro.

All four of your areas are better served by a dslr.
The only thing a p&s can do better is fit in your pocket.

Wrong. Even if I have to say so myself, I have taken some kickass pics, even with my phone.

Not true... These photos were taken with a 4MP Konica Minolta Z2.
You just have to learn how to use that P&S...

My point exactly - it is lot more how you use it than it is what you have.

but can it do 3fps at 3200 ISO at 270mm zoom?

Great - you are taking 3 photos a second - good luck picking a keeper.

For all those still not convinced that you can do A LOT without SLR - have a look here : http://www.flickr.com/photos/rouxenator

Oh - forgot to mention - SLR are not that great at taking videos - something bridge cameras do exceptionally well.

 

[bwana]

I fully agree with you. No need to spend more on something to make you feel like you are a pro.

Wrong. Even if I have to say so myself, I have taken some kickass pics, even with my phone.

My point exactly - it is lot more how you use it than it is what you have.

Great - you are taking 3 photos a second - good luck picking a keeper.

For all those still not convinced that you can do A LOT without SLR - have a look here : http://www.flickr.com/photos/rouxenator

Oh - forgot to mention - SLR are not that great at taking videos - something bridge cameras do exceptionally well.

Wrong.

 

[Rouxenator]

Wrong.

Really? What part ?

The part that you don't need an SLR ? Or that my photos kick ass? Or that they suck at taking videos (bar the D1 which they are modifying to use as movie cameras).

 

[BobJones]

Fancy seeing you here punting cellcam photos!
Some people actually benefit from entry level prosumer kit.
I'm not sure that my pics would be any better if I took them with a D3, but they have improved since moving from live view mik+druk to dSLR.

 

[Quantum Theory]

If you go DSLR, just don't become one of the "look what my camera can do" guys. You want to be a "look what I can do with my camera" guy... and you can do that with any camera, even a P&S.

 

[SubliminalThought]

If you go DSLR, just don't become one of the "look what my camera can do" guys. You want to be a "look what I can do with my camera" guy... and you can do that with any camera, even a P&S.

+1

I always get told that my camera takes nice pics. Its NOT the camera. The skill of photography is in the eye of the photographer, to visual what needs to be captured and then use whatever tool to capture it. Some tools are just easier to use to capture that vision.

 

[swift412]

I'd say go for an SLR You could get a 18-200mm lens that covers a nice wide range of "zoom", but that will be pricey. For most shots, a 18-55mm kit lens will be fine.

I'd say a kitlens plus a 50mm f1.8 (or 35mm f1.8 if you're going Nikon) because the kitlenses aren't very fast at 55mm

My wife and I like taking photos of wildlife etc. We find that with the P&S...close ups (this is what I was trying to mention about the zoom)...the pic becomes blurry. I have seen quite a few crisp closeups of leaves, insects etc...and cant produce anywhere near the same quality. Maybe its the camera or maybe its me that doesnt know enough, but was told a SLR can take detailed upclose pics.

Many point and shoots are good at macro (even compared to a dSLR without a dedicated macro lens). I can't recall the exact technical reasons, but they are It's important to set the mode of your camera to Macro mode, so that it knows it needs to focus close on something. Also, all cameras have what is called a Minimum Focus Distance. If your subject is closer than this, you won't be able to focus on it clearly.

If you go DSLR, just don't become one of the "look what my camera can do" guys. You want to be a "look what I can do with my camera" guy... and you can do that with any camera, even a P&S.

+1. I know many people who think that buying the most expensive dSLR body they can will make their pictures look better because professionals use it, because it has more megapixels and can shoot more photos per second, but they still use a kitlens on it and refuse to use a flash because they don't bother to spend less than an hour learning how to use a flash properly.

To CrazyFig (and all the rest considering what camera to buy), remember:

The best camera is the one you have on you.

There's no point spending R10k or R20k on a big heavy fancy camera set up if it sits in the cupboard 364 days a year because it's too cumbersome to carry around with you.

 

[SubliminalThought]

Many point and shoots are good at macro (even compared to a dSLR without a dedicated macro lens). I can't recall the exact technical reasons, but they are

Because the image plane (sensor) is smaller on a P&S the depth of field is bigger. At macro level this is advantageous because you can shoot at wider apertures and still get a decent amount of the scene in sharp focus. On an SLR you need to step down and this causes loss of light. Loss of light means slower shutter and this means at macro level it becomes more difficult to shoot hand held (unless you can afford a 100mm L IS).

 

[GouKi]

reams of paragraphs. well, i have a 9 year old digital ixus. then added a panasonic FZ50, sold off got my first SLR (450D) - quality of pics with stock lens compared to P&S was simply amazing. it's just a hobby and for a few months it gathered dust. pulled it out and took shots and was amazed all over again by the quality of the pics. 450D was sold to upgrade to 500D( which did not happen yet ) - doubt id go back to P&S, i would just feel too disappointed.

 

[Nokkie]

Hiya everyone,

Im not really sure if I need an SLR camera. I was to buy a decent one, R5000 max, but am thinking that a SLR is not really what I need...cos it might be overkill for my use of it? Am I right? Will a decent R3000 - R4000 point and shoot camera suffice for my needs below or should I just invest in a SLR?

1. Want point and click. Our current cheapo camera...you push the button...and it takes the pic like 2 seconds later. VERY irritating!

2. Want something that can capture motion movement and not blur the image, current one is bad with this. Even if you move a little bit, it blurs it slightly.

3. A decent zoom, current point and shoot camera has a kark one

4. Picture quality...think we have a 6 mega pixel point and shoot. Cant say Im very impressed with the quality of the pictures, even when you get it just right.

So with the above in mind...will a decent R3000 - R4000 point and shoot make a difference, or should I just save up a bit more and go SLR? I dont know much at all about cameras...so ja, hoping you guys can give some insight? Thanks.

you just need a better lens with more shutter speed and lower f stop say 1.5?

 

[Just_Ice]

Interesting read, as for my contribution - I dont have much to add

 

[swift412]

Because the image plane (sensor) is smaller on a P&S the depth of field is bigger. At macro level this is advantageous because you can shoot at wider apertures and still get a decent amount of the scene in sharp focus. On an SLR you need to step down and this causes loss of light. Loss of light means slower shutter and this means at macro level it becomes more difficult to shoot hand held (unless you can afford a 100mm L IS).

Thanks I was trying to figure out if the focal length and/or flange focal distance play a part as well, but I think that's way off topic.

you just need a better lens with more shutter speed and lower f stop say 1.5?

While having a lower f stop will most definitely help, he still has the problem where when he presses the shutter button, there is a delay between the pressing of the shutter button and the camera actually taking the photo. This may be because the camera itself has slow electronics, has a slow autofocus system, or indeed, because he lens has a slow f-stop making it hard for the camera to focus, but the point and shoot's camera body itself is still a problem in his case.


I just hope no one is going to buy a dSLR and hope that it will instantly and magically focus on what they want it to. Taking photos of moving things can still be tricky, even with a dSLR

As IRG, Quantum Theory, SubliminalThought, Rouxenator and others have said, it's no use just having fancy equipment, you need to know how to use it.

 

[PostmanPot]

Consider a Bridge camera like the Panasonic FZ50. Nice quality and zoom range for its size.

But the truth is once you go dSLR you won't want to go back. They are not overkill, they just interpret what you see better than P&S.

A Canon 350D or Nikon D40/D60 would be fantastic DSLRs to learn on, and can be had for a steal second-hand.

 

[Rouxenator]

So then, movie mode, weight and does it float - how does SLR owners cope with that ?

How does it feel if an arrogant punk with a phone takes awesome shots that you need an SLR to take ?

I wanna get inside the mind of these big spenders and see what makes them tick.

 

[SubliminalThought]

So then, movie mode, weight and does it float - how does SLR owners cope with that ?

Movie Mode - New DSLR movie kicks P&S arse with manual focus
Floatation - IKelite (sp?) housing
Weight - No need to go to gym anymore

How does it feel if an arrogant punk with a phone takes awesome shots that you need an SLR to take ?

Probably the same way that someone that drives a Ferrari and gets passed by a VW golf. But I guess for the most part they don't care...

I wanna get inside the mind of these big spenders and see what makes them tick.

I'm a self confessed gear head and I know people out there with less can do better than me. I don't care. I enjoy my hobby. I enjoy playing with shallow depth of field and doing crazy close up macros. I love taking the pics I take and post processing them on the computer. Could I achieve the same with a P&S ... yes... would I enjoy it as much... NO!

 

[Rouxenator]

Cool - thanks for the honest answers. However I stand by the point a few other people already made, if you want to try out photography on a budget, get a bridge camera. Once you actually know how to use PASM modes and the limitation of your camera becomes an issue only then do you need to look for something else.

 

[swift412]

So then, movie mode, weight and does it float - how does SLR owners cope with that ?

How does it feel if an arrogant punk with a phone takes awesome shots that you need an SLR to take ?

I wanna get inside the mind of these big spenders and see what makes them tick.

I use a SLR out of personal preference. I found that it's the camera best suited MY needs.

There are many, many people out there who take better photos than me. I don't care if they're using a dSLR, a cellphone camera, a medium format with a 65mp digital back or a disposable camera, they'd be taking better photos than me no matter what gear they're using.

 

[Positively Negative]

Cool - thanks for the honest answers. However I stand by the point a few other people already made, if you want to try out photography on a budget, get a bridge camera. Once you actually know how to use PASM modes and the limitation of your camera becomes an issue only then do you need to look for something else.

Yo Rouxenator - you got mad skills for taking photos and im gonna let you finish... but SLRS take the best pictures of all time! Of All time!

No seriously dude ,checked your flickr page out and those pics are sick with just a P&S.dont be hating on the SLR....someone like you would do amazing things with it.get one