snubbr.com

Point and Shoot vs SLR-like camera
I'm going to be doing a bit of traveling over the next year and am looking to upgrade my camera. I am currently trying to debate the benefits of having a point and shoot (canon powershot sd) vs something along the lines of powershot s5 IS..

When it comes down to it I'm a complete novice with this stuff, though I'm interested in taking it more seriously. I'd consider getting a dSLR like the Nikon d40 but feel like I wouldn't have a clue what I was doing with it. Most of my traveling will be outdoors, particularly in the mountains, so I was thinking a wide-angle camera might do the trick, but I really have no idea where to start looking..

My questions would be:.

1. Is there a significant difference in picture quality between compact cameras and SLR-like cameras?.

2. What are the real benefits/disadvantages between the 2 types of cameras..

3. If you have any thoughts on the G9, SD870IS or the S5 IS I'd love to hear them. I'll be traveling with this so please keep that in mind..

4. Would it be worth considering buying something like a nikon d40 or would I be in over my head?.

Thanks in advance!..

Comments (17)

1. Is there a significant difference in picture quality betweencompact cameras and SLR-like cameras?..

Yes, but not as much as between DSLR and top of the range compact..

Digital noise is the issue here and it comes from having over-crammed small sensors. If you want to shoot at long telephoto or in low light using high ISOs to enable fast enough shutter speeds, then you need a DSLR for top quality work. If shooting for enjoyment only (not publishing/printing at large size on glossy paper) then a SLR-like camera will suffice..

2. What are the real benefits/disadvantages between the 2 types ofcameras.>>.

The REAL ones? Big cameras get stolen and are a pain to carry around. No point having one if it just gets left in a hotel locker because there is a danger of taking it certain places. More positively, the bigger cameras have better leses and wider zoom ranges. They also have viewfinders; don't buy a camera without a viewfinder as the LCD on the back is not nice to use in very bright sunlight..

3. If you have any thoughts on the G9, SD870IS or the S5 IS I'd loveto hear them. I'll be traveling with this so please keep that inmind.>>.

G9 would be the best compromise on the grounds of it still being just about pocketable. You can shoot RAW with it and that could be important if you want to post process difficult shots later on. It has an optical viewfinder and won't eat the batteries as quickly as a camera with an EVF like the S5..

You could probably manage with the SD model, but when I took one of it's forebears with me on a trip a few years ago (see my Red Centre of Australia gallery at PBase... click on one of the links and navigate to it).

4. Would it be worth considering buying something like a nikon d40or would I be in over my head?>>.

You won't be in over your head as it will work nicely in Auto Mode. Just factor into the equation the information that a DSLR camera body plus an 18-200 lens (which is needed for walk-around) can weigh 1.5kg (3lbs). If you want the option of selling your photos for publication later then you have to suffer for your art in getting better image quality..

John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor..

Comment #1

Thanks for the input..

Convenience aside, my biggest concern right now is cost vs. performance. For hardly any extra money I can get a Nikon D40 with 18-55mm kit lens as oppose to the G9. For a few hundred more I can get a nicer lens (18-135mm or the 18-55mm and 55-200mm package). Part of me questions why I would ever get the G9 over the D40 from a cost vs. performance perspective.

Traveling with it may be an issue, but if thats an obstacle I think I could handle would shouldn't I get it?.

Any opinions on this are greatly appreciated.

Thanks!..

Comment #2

If you are worried about the complexity of a dslr or whether you could handle one, dont get it..

The important issue from the threads above is portability. A dslr is huge, extra lenses add bulk. Unless you want to take professional level photo's go for a compact..

Take spare batteries..

I would go for one with a fast, wide angle lens. Olympus used to make a few that were the equivalent of 28mm wide (in 35mm format) Very useful to take it all in..

Not that many camera's are made with a really wide angle. look around, they are out there..

I am not an expert on canon camera's. The indicator of a good camera is not the megapixels, not the brand but the quality of the lens.Sony and Panasonic now make excellent compacts..

Ignore megapixels. Get a camera with the fastest lens you can get. Try to get one that says 2.8 at the wide end..

Huge zoom ranges can be useful but there is a cost. The cost is that as the lens is zoomed out it lets in less and less light (usually) just when you need it the most.AndyDalineanconvert.

Sigma sd10etc..

Comment #3

Viennariver wrote:.

Thanks for the input..

Convenience aside, my biggest concern right now is cost vs.performance. For hardly any extra money I can get a Nikon D40 with18-55mm kit lens as oppose to the G9. For a few hundred more I canget a nicer lens (18-135mm or the 18-55mm and 55-200mm package).Part of me questions why I would ever get the G9 over the D40 from acost vs. performance perspective. The versatility of a dSLR seemsthat it would make much more sense for me to get. Traveling with itmay be an issue, but if thats an obstacle I think I could handlewould shouldn't I get it?.

Any opinions on this are greatly appreciated.

Thanks!.

For what it's worth, I had bought my wife a Sony DSC-600 (small compact 6 megapixel P&S) with a zoom range of 31-93mm. It was okay for snapshots but we both felt she needed something that could get in close to wildlide and give more control over her shots. I ended up getting her a Sony DSC-H2, which is dslr-like but with a fixed zoom lens of 36-420mm, but the same 6 megapixels..

The wide angle was enough (a few steps backwards if she needed more), it satisfied her need to get in close (it can also take teleconverters for even more reach without losing light, which an slr can't do) and the processor is much better for final jpeg output. (Just want to mention that the Canon S5 IS that you mentioned has shake reduction for telephoto and low light shots, and a swivel live-view lcd, don't underestimate how handy those are to have)..

Yes, the Nikon will overall beat that Canon for critical images if you can also afford the better lenses that you may want, but you really need to know what kind of range you want to have. For me, 200mm isn't nearly enough (which I think becomes 300mm in the D40, still not enough). I have a Pentax K100D but use a Sony H5 with teleconverter for reach, as a big lens is just too much size, weight and cost..

Again, just for what it's worth (which may not be much).JJ..

Comment #4

Sounds to me that an SLR-like camera (called 'bridge' cameras) is what you might want to look at:.

The new Fuji S100FS.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.dpreview.com/news/0801/08012410fujifS100FS.asp.

Or the Panasonic FZ50:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Http://www.dpreview.com/news/0607/06071905panasonicfz50.asp.

These cameras both have big zooms with manual focus and zoom rings and controls just like an SLR without the camera bag full of stuff!.

I have three such bridge cameras (and a DSLR).I love them!.

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

From Panasonic FZ10:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Remember.always keep the box and everything that came in it!..

Comment #5

"Most of my traveling will be outdoors, particularly in the mountains".

If that means hiking, then a heavy superzoom or DSLR may not be the best choice. I agree about an optical viewfinder for bright daylight situations. My Canon S3 has an EVF and the darned thing washes out in bright sun. The Canon G9 should give great results, but there is still that weight..

For a light compact with optical finder you will be pretty well limited to Canon and Sony. Here is a link to another thread along these same lines -.

Http://forums.dpreview.com/...ms/readflat.asp?forum=1002&message=24137576.

Kelly Cook..

Comment #6

I think I can get over the inconvenience of the weight of a camera. My pack is probably going to weigh around 60 pounds, so a 2 pound camera is going to be the least of my worries on day long hikes. Sorry that I didn't clarify this before..

Right now I'm kind of leaning away from a compact camera and towards a pseudo-SLR or the nikon d40, possibly with just the 18-55mm lens that comes with it. Its light, has long battery life, and may be the perfect introduction to DSLRs cameras for me..

Thoughts are always appreciated ..

Comment #7

As the extra weight is not an issue, I think you have already answered your question. Take a DSLR with you but not with an 18-55 lens only. 18-70 is better but 18-135 or 18-200 may actually be what you need. (Tamron and Sigma are nice walk around lenses if the Nikon lenses are out of the budget). You can of course get that extra telephoto length by hiking closer, and that's often a good thing because you get to discover a lot more about the places you're visiting. However, a longer telephoto compresses perspective nicely and that's what I use them for rather than for seeing what I can't see from a distance..

John.Please visit me at:http://www.pbase.com/johnfr/backtothebridgehttp://www.pbase.com/johnfr/digital_dartmoor..

Comment #8

DSLR's definitely offer better image quality in low light, but a P&S may be more practical..

I just got a Canon SD870 IS. It offers 28mm wide angle, image stabilization, and near camcorder quality video in 1 inch thick package. No optical viewfinder, but the 3" high-res anti-glare LCD is marvelous. Even the G9 lacks the wide angle..

The D40 or D40x is also a great option. You might consider the 18-135 lens with it...

Comment #9

Viennariver wrote:.

I think I can get over the inconvenience of the weight of a camera.My pack is probably going to weigh around 60 pounds, so a 2 poundcamera is going to be the least of my worries on day long hikes.Sorry that I didn't clarify this before..

Right now I'm kind of leaning away from a compact camera and towardsa pseudo-SLR or the nikon d40, possibly with just the 18-55mm lensthat comes with it. Its light, has long battery life, and may be theperfect introduction to DSLRs cameras for me..

Thoughts are always appreciated .

If I were going hiking, I'd take a compact pocketable camera or super zoom over a DSLR. Size and weight is surely an issue as well as 'extras' that the smaller cameras give you, namely reach and depth of focus..

You would need to bring the DSLR, 2 lenses (18-55 and 70-300) and a tripod to be able to get the simular shots as your wifes super zoom..

Technologist @ Large- Mark0..

Comment #10

Viennariver wrote:.

I think I can get over the inconvenience of the weight of a camera.My pack is probably going to weigh around 60 pounds, so a 2 poundcamera is going to be the least of my worries on day long hikes.Sorry that I didn't clarify this before..

Right now I'm kind of leaning away from a compact camera and towardsa pseudo-SLR or the nikon d40, possibly with just the 18-55mm lensthat comes with it. Its light, has long battery life, and may be theperfect introduction to DSLRs cameras for me..

Thoughts are always appreciated .

Here are some comparison shots of the FZ50 and D40 I did a couple of months back:.

Nikon D40 has 18-55 kit lens attached:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Now, to bring the D40 to near the same zoom range with image stabilizer:.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

Image control:Zoom outZoom 100%Zoom inExpand AllOpen in new window.

You'll still need to keep the 18-55 in your pocket on a hike..

The 10MP FZ50 with Leica 35-420mm with OIS costs $400..

The 6MP D40 with 18-55 and 70-300VR $1100 (US)..

Suddenly.the FZ50 doesn't look so big and heavy..

And, the FZ50 really isn't that big and heavy, either.that Nikon 70-300VR lens alone is about the same weight as the FZ50..

J. D.Colorful Colorado.

Remember.always keep the box and everything that came in it!..

Comment #11

The FZ50 does like quite appealing. Since I'll be hiking in the mountains wide-angle pictures of landscape is very important to me, could you comment on the wide-angle capabilities of the FZ50?.

Thanks!..

Comment #12

I'd say 75% of my pictures will be of landscapes and 25% will be of villages, temples, mosques, people, etc. I doubt that I'll be doing any photography of animals. With that said how much zoom do I actually need? I was thinking the 18mm of the kit lens would suffice for the wide angle but was debating how much I'd need for the tele-photos..

At this time budget is a concern for me which is my reasoning for considering pseudo-SLR for a wider range of zoom ranges, but I'm not sure I'd need a 420mm zoom that many of them provide. With that said, if this camera is going to be an "investment" of sorts into my photographic future, the DSLR with a 18-135mm or 18-55mm and 55-200mm VR make more sense..

Thanks for the help everyone!..

Comment #13

Viennariver wrote:.

3. If you have any thoughts on the G9, SD870IS or the S5 IS I'd loveto hear them. I'll be traveling with this so please keep that inmind..

4. Would it be worth considering buying something like a nikon d40or would I be in over my head?.

I was debating what camera to get and had the opportunity to use a Canon S3is, which isn't a whole lot different from the S5is beyond 8mp (more resolution at the cost of higher noise - a wash at best in my opinion) and the S5is has a much better LCD (worth the price of admission). As long as I was outisde in decent light, and the subject wasn't moving around a lot, it was great. Indoors/low light/lots of movement (auto racing for me) and the performance dropped off dramatically - the sensor is small on superzooms and they get a lot of noise in low light. It was slower to zoom, focus, and actually take the shot (shutter lag). On the plus side, it had a wide zoom range, and a close macro function. Great for hikes in the Sierras, but not at it's best in all the environments and situations that I wanted to shoot in.



Will you be in over your head? No, the D40 works fine on full-automatic. Just use that until you feel ready to take more control of the camera. I don't have a problem hiking round with a SLR with another lens - it doesn't sound like you are the type to be bothered much by it either. Now, a superzoom/bridge camera might be all that you need, but for me, I discovered that it was just too limited to do well enough to satisfy me in all the situations I knew I'd be shooting in...

Comment #14

Sounds like we were/are in a similar boat..

What lenses have you found useful for your hiking with the d40x? I'm just curious to see if others who work outdoors typically need the amount of zoom provided by the superzoom cameras or if they can get away with somewhere in the 18-135/200mm range for typical use..

Thanks!..

Comment #15

Viennariver wrote:.

1. Is there a significant difference in picture quality betweencompact cameras and SLR-like cameras?.

Yes, but much of the improved image quality comes from the glass. So just getting a dSLR body with a kit lens may not blow your socks off as much as you're expecting. But if you put nice glass on that same dSLR body, it will knock your socks off MORE than you expect! That has been my experience. Unfortunately it gets pricey to get there..

2. What are the real benefits/disadvantages between the 2 types ofcameras..

Convienence and value vs. performance and top image quality. (Except for Macro where P&S have real advantages).

4. Would it be worth considering buying something like a nikon d40or would I be in over my head?.

I would. But that's me. I've seen what a dSLR with good glass can do, and I'm convinced. D40 with a prime is getting you top image quality for under $1000..

(Canon offerings are fine too, I'm a Nikon guy, but I like any dSLR over a P&S).

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/jcovert..

Comment #16

Jizzer wrote:.

...I would. But that's me. I've seen what a dSLR with good glass can do,and I'm convinced. D40 with a prime is getting you top image qualityfor under $1000..

D40 with most primes leaves you with manual focus. Actually, most Nikon zooms have excellent image quality. The primes mostly offer larger apertures...

Comment #17

Click Here to View All...

Sponsored Amazon Deals:

1. Get big savings on Amazon warehouse deals.
2. Save up to 70% on Amazon Products.


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.