Do I really need an SLR camera?

donderhaas said:
The thing that I like about DSLR's is the flexibility to change lenses and have more control over the choices that I make with the camera.
Click to expand...
The thing I like about bridge cameras is you don't need to change lenses. From 0mm super macro, 28mm wide angle to 560mm tele - its all in a package weighing about half kilo. Higher ISO (1600) performance is a lot better than two years ago. Add to that HD movie with CD quality stereo sound and sub R4000 price tags and the ability to change lenses and get dust on your sensor is not looking as attractive anymore.
 
Rouxenator said:
The thing I like about bridge cameras is you don't need to change lenses. From 0mm super macro, 28mm wide angle to 560mm tele - its all in a package weighing about half kilo. Higher ISO (1600) performance is a lot better than two years ago. Add to that HD movie with CD quality stereo sound and sub R4000 price tags and the ability to change lenses and get dust on your sensor is not looking as attractive anymore.
Click to expand...

ISO1600? Do you have an example of a photo at ISO1600?

AFAIK, you can't even compare a bridge vs SLR when it comes to noise and higher ISO figures. The SLR is in a league of it's own.

In a sentence, a bridge camera is Jack of All trades and Master of none. Yes, from super macro to 28mm wide to 560mm tele ... but a SLR with dedicated lens for each function just does it better, sharper, clearer. Anything bought 'dedicated' is alot better than something that can do it it one box. Look at hi-fis. Even media streamers (PS3 vs a decent media streamer)

A bridge camera min apperture is F8 which means I can't do the some of the shots I'd like to attempt with it. So your range is F2.8-F8 - and that's it. Forever

Blurring the background is, again, reasonably difficult with a bridge and small sensor :/

I've realised even with 'full manual' there is one thing it can't do either ; you can't manual shutter speed beyond 1 sec and manual aperture. Shutter speed goes to 15 seconds - but from 1-14 seconds you get an auto aperture (IIRC) ... which makes some shots impossible
Make no mistake - I'm a fan of the bridge, but it does lack ...
 
Last edited:
I edged my way into photography with a p&s some years ago. I thought as you did that I'd not need a 'prosumer' level camera... what I didn't realise is that I'd get totally hooked and look back angst-fully thinking of the glass I could have bought with what I spent on that crappy Cybershot!
 
SlinkyMike said:
I edged my way into photography with a p&s some years ago. I thought as you did that I'd not need a 'prosumer' level camera... what I didn't realise is that I'd get totally hooked and look back angst-fully thinking of the glass I could have bought with what I spent on that crappy Cybershot!
Click to expand...

:D 'tis true

Although a good (small) P&S is handy for certain situations.
 
SlinkyMike said:
I edged my way into photography with a p&s some years ago. I thought as you did that I'd not need a 'prosumer' level camera... what I didn't realise is that I'd get totally hooked and look back angst-fully thinking of the glass I could have bought with what I spent on that crappy Cybershot!
Click to expand...
IQ wise even a consumer level dslr would get you considerably better results than a point and shoot, at a fraction of the cost of a prosumer body.
SiriS said:
:D 'tis true

Although a good (small) P&S is handy for certain situations.
Click to expand...
I used to use mine to take photos of my dslr for insurance purposes - does that count? :)
 
Rouxenator said:
LOL - yeah mine is a bridge. These days small sensors have more pros than cons. Had a look at that 55-250mm lens and it is huge, don't think I would ever want to carry something like that with me. So how do you SLR guys deal with getting decent zoom? Like in 500mm and beyond, do you just foot it?
Click to expand...
I've used one of those compact cameras that supposedly goes to 500mm+. Couldn't even see as far as a 200mm lens on an SLR.
 
Last edited:
Of course for professional use SLR makes sense because then its your job and you shouldn't mind carrying kilograms of noisy equipment around and yes, it will always have better low light performance and higher ISO ranges than small sensor cameras. But for the price you pay as a normal consumer I find them too expensive for what you get and have to put up with...
ISO 80 28mm | ISO 400 560mm | ISO 800 35mm | ISO 1600 28mm
Remember, these images are from a sensor that is 12 times smaller than the one in the 550D
 
One of the things about DSLR's and lenses are that the focal lengths are based on full frame 35mm cameras. The 550D for instance is not full frame so putting a 250mm lens on it makes the result a 480mm lens (If I remember correctly from SACamera).

@Rouxenator - You are definately right in saying that it depends what you want to use the camera for...so there is no right or wrong. For my purposes the 550D and lenses were the right choice for me.
 
donderhaas said:
One of the things about DSLR's and lenses are that the focal lengths are based on full frame 35mm cameras. The 550D for instance is not full frame so putting a 250mm lens on it makes the result a 480mm lens (If I remember correctly from SACamera).
Click to expand...
250*1.6=400mm. :)
 
noxibox said:
I've used one of those compact cameras that supposedly goes to 500mm+. Couldn't even see as far as a 200mm lens on an SLR.
Click to expand...

Nah. they do ... theyv'e got a 35mm equivilant of 560mm - it does get there.

bwana said:
250*1.6=400mm. :)
Click to expand...

Damn - I was just about to do that and demostrate my uber knowledge ...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X