dSLR or not dSLR, That is the Question.
June 18, 2007 8:44 PM Subscribe
Should I go dSLR on my next camera?
I gave my camera to my partner, mostly so I'd have an excuse to buy a new camera. I am coming out of a Canon SD500 Point & Shoot, and am looking at getting something a little more 'feature rich' than what I had.
I've been looking at the Nikon D40 kits, but then I've also looked at the Kodak Z712 IS & the Canon S5 IS that was just released. One dSLR, and two which are somewhere in between P&S and SLR.
I've been worried about an dSLR because I am worried I will miss the ability to take pictures from the LCD screen, and be forced to use the viewfinder. The other thing is that I wonder if I need it for the cost. I'd love to get into taking more pictures, which is why I am looking for something a little more versatile, but the Kodak is $300 and the D40 is around $600 (well, $525 at B&H).
I've been hearing some good things, and some bad things, about the D40. Some friends tell me to just buy the cheaper mid-range prosumer, others are adamant I go dSLR. Looking for some 'non-biased' opinions on whether going dSLR merits the cost, and whether it's a necessary push for someone who generally takes 10-15 pictures per day.
I gave my camera to my partner, mostly so I'd have an excuse to buy a new camera. I am coming out of a Canon SD500 Point & Shoot, and am looking at getting something a little more 'feature rich' than what I had.
I've been looking at the Nikon D40 kits, but then I've also looked at the Kodak Z712 IS & the Canon S5 IS that was just released. One dSLR, and two which are somewhere in between P&S and SLR.
I've been worried about an dSLR because I am worried I will miss the ability to take pictures from the LCD screen, and be forced to use the viewfinder. The other thing is that I wonder if I need it for the cost. I'd love to get into taking more pictures, which is why I am looking for something a little more versatile, but the Kodak is $300 and the D40 is around $600 (well, $525 at B&H).
I've been hearing some good things, and some bad things, about the D40. Some friends tell me to just buy the cheaper mid-range prosumer, others are adamant I go dSLR. Looking for some 'non-biased' opinions on whether going dSLR merits the cost, and whether it's a necessary push for someone who generally takes 10-15 pictures per day.
Shooting through the lens is how pictures are meant to be taken. Once you go SLR you will never be happy with anything else.
posted by spitbull at 9:07 PM on June 18, 2007
posted by spitbull at 9:07 PM on June 18, 2007
I'm a pretty serious (former pro) photographer. I shoot film in 4x5, 6x6, 6x9 and 6x12. I had a Canon 1Ds for a while but sold it. Currently I have a Panasonic Lumix LX1 and a Ricoh GX100 for digital. The GX100 is damned good. You might also consider the Sony R1. Unless you're a pro, don't pay more than $1000 for a digital camera. They are hitting a wall right now in terms of quality you can see at the print.
posted by unSane at 9:11 PM on June 18, 2007
posted by unSane at 9:11 PM on June 18, 2007
Get the dSLR. My answer to everyone's question on what the best camera to have is one you will use. Since your partner has the SD500, a dSLR will help complete your family of cameras. Oh.... the compact P&S may be handy for carrying around in one's pocket to always have a camera handy....but when you're faced with a situation with low lighting, a far away item to focus on or a fast moving subject.... you'll want to dSLR.
Why is the viewfinder such an issue?
If you're taking 10-15 pictures a day, I think you could improve your viewfinder picture taking skills.
As for the Caonon S5 - that is a pretty good camera for a point and shoot - batteries are rechargable - and the flip LCD screen helps if you like taking pictures with someone or pictures at wierd angles (that happens when you're taking pictures as part of a crowd).
posted by skillet at 9:13 PM on June 18, 2007
Why is the viewfinder such an issue?
If you're taking 10-15 pictures a day, I think you could improve your viewfinder picture taking skills.
As for the Caonon S5 - that is a pretty good camera for a point and shoot - batteries are rechargable - and the flip LCD screen helps if you like taking pictures with someone or pictures at wierd angles (that happens when you're taking pictures as part of a crowd).
posted by skillet at 9:13 PM on June 18, 2007
DSLRs are very very expensive. There is a large upfront investment for the amount of control and quality you'll have access to once you've built up a lens stable and have the experience and technical know-how to make the most of your purchase.
If "taking more pictures" means...you really want to be a serious hobbyist, you have to get a DSLR.
or if it means...you just want a better camera without the limitations of a P&S, get a prosumer model.
WIN/WIN: I've never heard of anyone saying "this DSLR is way too good of a camera for what I want, I'm so disappointed." Full auto mode on a DSLR is exactly what it is with a P&S, the results are just better. If you won't miss a rent check with the DSLR, go for it.
(full disclosure: I screwed my credit getting a DSLR and I've never been happier or more creative in my whole life)
posted by cowbellemoo at 9:15 PM on June 18, 2007
If "taking more pictures" means...you really want to be a serious hobbyist, you have to get a DSLR.
or if it means...you just want a better camera without the limitations of a P&S, get a prosumer model.
WIN/WIN: I've never heard of anyone saying "this DSLR is way too good of a camera for what I want, I'm so disappointed." Full auto mode on a DSLR is exactly what it is with a P&S, the results are just better. If you won't miss a rent check with the DSLR, go for it.
(full disclosure: I screwed my credit getting a DSLR and I've never been happier or more creative in my whole life)
posted by cowbellemoo at 9:15 PM on June 18, 2007
There are tons of info on DSLRs on previous posts. Maybe some of it can help you make up your mind! Check it out.
posted by ArchBr at 9:19 PM on June 18, 2007
posted by ArchBr at 9:19 PM on June 18, 2007
DSLR pros:
Interchangeable lenses
Much better low-light performance than all-in-one cameras
Option of limiting your depth of field to blur out the background
Manual controls that are easy to access
DSLR cons:
More expensive than an all-in-one camera, especially when you start buying lenses
Bigger than all-in-one cameras, it's more of a commitment to carry one
posted by Good Brain at 9:25 PM on June 18, 2007
DSLR cons:
posted by Good Brain at 9:25 PM on June 18, 2007
I don't have much to add here, but I did want to give you a few thoughts about the Kodak camera.
I bought a Z612 a few months ago to use as my "college camera" and I'm extremely pleased with it. The zoom is amazing, and the camera takes really good pictures--I've used many point-and-shoots before, and I'm really impressed with the quality of the camera. It's a great step between your average consumer P&S and a full-fledged dSLR.
If you want to see a sample picture or two, feel free to send me an email.
posted by DMan at 9:38 PM on June 18, 2007
I bought a Z612 a few months ago to use as my "college camera" and I'm extremely pleased with it. The zoom is amazing, and the camera takes really good pictures--I've used many point-and-shoots before, and I'm really impressed with the quality of the camera. It's a great step between your average consumer P&S and a full-fledged dSLR.
If you want to see a sample picture or two, feel free to send me an email.
posted by DMan at 9:38 PM on June 18, 2007
One concern about the D40: The D40 has no internal autofocus, and thus you won't be able to use that function with any Nikon lens without a built-in AF motor. This might well become frustrating if you do end up wanting the full flexibility of a dSLR as you get better. It might be worth considering a D50 or even a used D70, if you can find one for a good price - they're older models, but they're compatible with all lenses.
The Olympus Evolt E330 actually does offer live preview on a dSLR, as does the new Evolt E410, but you pay for the privilege, and most people who've gotten used to viewfinders feel no real need to switch. [Viewfinders are actually superior in some situations - ever been trying to take pictures in the middle of the day and found it a little hard to see the screen, for example?] It is something you get used to, and it's a useful skill if you ever decide to dabble in non-digital photography.
If you're taking 10-15 pictures daily, and you're feeling like you want more control and versatility in your camera, that feeling won't end if you get a high-end non-dSLR. Those cameras can be damn good [I use an Olympus model that I love] but you still don't get the ability to fine-tune that you do with a dSLR. If the cash isn't deadly, I'd suggest going for a dSLR - but go with something other than the D40, so that you'll be able to take full advantage of any lens.
posted by ubersturm at 9:51 PM on June 18, 2007
The Olympus Evolt E330 actually does offer live preview on a dSLR, as does the new Evolt E410, but you pay for the privilege, and most people who've gotten used to viewfinders feel no real need to switch. [Viewfinders are actually superior in some situations - ever been trying to take pictures in the middle of the day and found it a little hard to see the screen, for example?] It is something you get used to, and it's a useful skill if you ever decide to dabble in non-digital photography.
If you're taking 10-15 pictures daily, and you're feeling like you want more control and versatility in your camera, that feeling won't end if you get a high-end non-dSLR. Those cameras can be damn good [I use an Olympus model that I love] but you still don't get the ability to fine-tune that you do with a dSLR. If the cash isn't deadly, I'd suggest going for a dSLR - but go with something other than the D40, so that you'll be able to take full advantage of any lens.
posted by ubersturm at 9:51 PM on June 18, 2007
If those 10-15 pics a day are of your friends & coworkers, get another P&S. If they're meant to be art, get a dSLR. I would just note that if you are shooting daily, the dSLRs can get heavy when you add in a decent lens. Having switched to dSLR myself I only miss the viewfinder and the convenience. The picture quality and control are just so much better that I don't think I'll use a P&S again.
posted by chairface at 9:55 PM on June 18, 2007
posted by chairface at 9:55 PM on June 18, 2007
We got a dSLR (Canon EOS 350D - it looks equivalent to the Canon Digital Rebel), and it's awesome. We don't aim to do any sort of professional photography, and use the lenses that it came with, but it is a great camera to use. The brilliance of dSLRs is that they are very much like a conventional camera to use - my mum absolutely despised the point and shoots we had previously, but adores the new camera.
If you're taking 10-15 pictures a day, you will more than likely get your money's worth out of it. Also, the specs on the entry model dSLR cameras at the moment are good enough that they won't be dated the second you purchase it, like alot of P&S cameras.
posted by cholly at 10:00 PM on June 18, 2007
If you're taking 10-15 pictures a day, you will more than likely get your money's worth out of it. Also, the specs on the entry model dSLR cameras at the moment are good enough that they won't be dated the second you purchase it, like alot of P&S cameras.
posted by cholly at 10:00 PM on June 18, 2007
If you want a pocketable camera with DSLR-like features, take a look at the $600-700 Ricoh GX100 - it has a nice wide-angle lens along with RAW. It has both a live LCD and an acceptable EVF. Personally, I got tired of my SLR due to the bulk and non-stealthiness of photo-taking.
posted by aye at 10:11 PM on June 18, 2007
posted by aye at 10:11 PM on June 18, 2007
The "bulk" aspect that aye and Good Brain mention has turned out to be a big issue for me. I bought a D70 kit a few years ago and while it takes amazing photos (even on auto) I find that I don't carry it around with me unless I consciously plan to go on a photo safari. Then I'm pretty much in committed photographer mode as long as I have the camera on my person. It's too big to just slip in my coat or my computer bag so I rarely take it along on a daily basis.
Ultimately I think the answer is two cameras. I wouldn't give up the quality of the Nikon for serious work and the occasional large format print but I need something handier for everyday use and more subtle when I'm out doing an ethnography.
posted by Jeff Howard at 10:35 PM on June 18, 2007
Ultimately I think the answer is two cameras. I wouldn't give up the quality of the Nikon for serious work and the occasional large format print but I need something handier for everyday use and more subtle when I'm out doing an ethnography.
posted by Jeff Howard at 10:35 PM on June 18, 2007
I'm looking into getting a D40X myself, an improved version of the veritable D40. And I'm not even an active P&S hobbyist photographer yet. I'll admit that a part of me wants the camera for the "geek rush" a new gadget always produces, but I do actually have a dormant interest in photography. The local retailer bundles the Nikon Dschool Basic training course with the purchase of the camera, and I've got a couple of photography books in my shopping list as well.
Here's what dpreview has to say about the D40X, with comparisons to relevant competitors.
posted by lifeless at 12:01 AM on June 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
Here's what dpreview has to say about the D40X, with comparisons to relevant competitors.
posted by lifeless at 12:01 AM on June 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
Don't forget... it's not about the camera! Unless you have specific ambitions which require specific lenses and features, a prosumer will do almost everything you need and images are designed to look better straight from the camera without software editing. And they're easier to carry about. Because of the smaller sensor, they can often come with amazing lenses which wouldn't be possible on a DSLR. A good photographer will be able to get great photos from any camera so perhaps you should bide your time until you *know* you need a DSLR.
posted by BobsterLobster at 5:07 AM on June 19, 2007
posted by BobsterLobster at 5:07 AM on June 19, 2007
Olympus is actually making dSLRs with live preview. The ever-reliable dpreview just reviewed one favorably.
I've got a Panasonic Lumix FZ7, and I'm trying to justify upgrading to a dSLR like that one, mostly because I've been so disappointed with its low-light capabilities.
posted by adamrice at 6:40 AM on June 19, 2007
I've got a Panasonic Lumix FZ7, and I'm trying to justify upgrading to a dSLR like that one, mostly because I've been so disappointed with its low-light capabilities.
posted by adamrice at 6:40 AM on June 19, 2007
The Canon Digital Rebel XTi and this $100 50mm prime lens (which can be found for $70-80 online) make an excellent "walk around" pair that does GREAT in low light.
And that's the big thing that dSLRs have over regular digital point and shoot cameras: Low light performance. The image sensor on a dSLR is bigger and the lenses are bigger, letting more light fall on that sensor. The sensors are much more sensitive than typical P&S sensors, which will let you shoot in lower light with less grain with faster shutter speeds, making it easy to photograph kids.
I'd recommend you read this page from Digital Photography School to get more insight.
posted by Merdryn at 6:59 AM on June 19, 2007
And that's the big thing that dSLRs have over regular digital point and shoot cameras: Low light performance. The image sensor on a dSLR is bigger and the lenses are bigger, letting more light fall on that sensor. The sensors are much more sensitive than typical P&S sensors, which will let you shoot in lower light with less grain with faster shutter speeds, making it easy to photograph kids.
I'd recommend you read this page from Digital Photography School to get more insight.
posted by Merdryn at 6:59 AM on June 19, 2007
One more point (brought up in part by the link to DPS but worth mentioning here):
A good digital SLR (and lenses, you could go crazy on lenses) are expensive compared to a point-and-shoot, yes, but they're a good investment, and for a few reasons.
Natural light photographs of my son (without him blurring across the frame), richly detailed pitures of our garden, and I won't even begin to describe the creative glee I experienced when I did a 30 second exposure of the Orion Nebula on a tripod. Yes, it had star trails, but it had COLOR, damn it.
Now, I've gone nuts. I have several high quality Canon lenses, I've mounted it to my telescope (for real nice Orion Nebula shots :P), I have an assortment of filters ... it's become quite an involved personal hobby/passion.
posted by Merdryn at 7:08 AM on June 19, 2007
A good digital SLR (and lenses, you could go crazy on lenses) are expensive compared to a point-and-shoot, yes, but they're a good investment, and for a few reasons.
- Digital SLRs tend to hold their value, certainly much better than P&S cameras
- If you spend money on lenses, you can always upgrade the camera body to get new features later. Canon EF lenses, for example, work on all the latest Canon camera bodies. Manufacturers rarely change the lens mount system used by their camera bodies.
Natural light photographs of my son (without him blurring across the frame), richly detailed pitures of our garden, and I won't even begin to describe the creative glee I experienced when I did a 30 second exposure of the Orion Nebula on a tripod. Yes, it had star trails, but it had COLOR, damn it.
Now, I've gone nuts. I have several high quality Canon lenses, I've mounted it to my telescope (for real nice Orion Nebula shots :P), I have an assortment of filters ... it's become quite an involved personal hobby/passion.
posted by Merdryn at 7:08 AM on June 19, 2007
If you only want to take snapshots, it doesn't matter much what you get. If you want to take decent amateur photographs, the 400d is the way to go. The image quality is as good as you're going to get for the price... and you can buy more lenses / other kit to go with it if you get better.
Point-and-shoots are for tourists.
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:12 AM on June 19, 2007
Point-and-shoots are for tourists.
posted by chuckdarwin at 7:12 AM on June 19, 2007
I don't understand why the Pentax K100D doesn't get more recommendations. Small (for a DSLR), a bargain, good auto and manual modes, excellent handling, solidly built, anti-shake system, and you have a used market of millions of old and new Pentax mount lenses that fit it to play with.
posted by normy at 7:59 AM on June 19, 2007
posted by normy at 7:59 AM on June 19, 2007
There are dSLR cameras (like the Evolt-330, and later) which have an additional little video camera in the SLR optical view-finder, and that secondary camera outputs to a fold-out LCD screen, so their optical mechanism is genuinely that of an SLR, yet they still offer an electronic viewfinder. It's cleverly done so that you can still use the optical viewfinder if you wish.
In addition to that SLR-with-LCD feature, these cameras also allow you to raise the reflex mirror and use the feed from the main sensor plate for the LCD. When you use this feature, the camera loses the SLR advantage and acquires shutter-lag just like a point&shoot (for the same functional reason) but the fact that you can genuinely alter the camera's functionality between SLR and P&S at whim sounds pretty useful to me.
posted by -harlequin- at 9:29 AM on June 19, 2007
In addition to that SLR-with-LCD feature, these cameras also allow you to raise the reflex mirror and use the feed from the main sensor plate for the LCD. When you use this feature, the camera loses the SLR advantage and acquires shutter-lag just like a point&shoot (for the same functional reason) but the fact that you can genuinely alter the camera's functionality between SLR and P&S at whim sounds pretty useful to me.
posted by -harlequin- at 9:29 AM on June 19, 2007
normy, I just got a Pentax K100D two weeks ago (my first DSLR or even SLR). I am thrilled with its performance in low light, despite having no idea what I'm doing.
I don't miss the LCD viewfinder at all (I bought the K100D to replace a broken Lumix DMC-FX01, now fixed) but the weight definitely means I'm bringing it fewer places.
I, too, was tempted by a cheaper, smaller, higher-zoom and lighter DSLR-like (such as the Z712) but I was scared I'd regret not "going all the way". I admit there was an ego thing going on (what with attitudes like this one).
posted by skryche at 12:45 PM on June 19, 2007
I don't miss the LCD viewfinder at all (I bought the K100D to replace a broken Lumix DMC-FX01, now fixed) but the weight definitely means I'm bringing it fewer places.
I, too, was tempted by a cheaper, smaller, higher-zoom and lighter DSLR-like (such as the Z712) but I was scared I'd regret not "going all the way". I admit there was an ego thing going on (what with attitudes like this one).
posted by skryche at 12:45 PM on June 19, 2007
I, too, was a professional photographer (I taught college-level photo as well). I wanted to buy a dSLR but I just couldn't stand carrying that weight around with me. I had a Pentax 6x7 way back when (well, I actually still have it). A behemoth of a camera (but a good one). I agree with Jeff Howard. The weight of the camera was going to limit my picture taking.
I've been walking around with a Pentax Optio S6 for a while (just keep it in my backpack which I love). But I often wanted/needed more of an optical zoom. I really liked the Nikon P5000. It's got a lot of manual controls and it's really light (doesn't have RAW but many are hopeful Nikon will offer a firmware update). But, it only had a 3.5x zoom. The telephoto adapter was a joke IMHO.
So, after doing a lot of research I bought the Panasonic Lumix TZ3. It has a 10x optical zoom at 7mp (a 12x optical at 5!), is light, has gotten good reviews for a p&s, and has a very bright 3in LCD viewfinder (which you can make very bright in sunlight).
These days it seems that no camera is "perfect." As a former teacher I would tell you it isn't the camera that makes a good photograph, it's the creative photographer. But to each his/her own.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 12:53 PM on June 19, 2007
I've been walking around with a Pentax Optio S6 for a while (just keep it in my backpack which I love). But I often wanted/needed more of an optical zoom. I really liked the Nikon P5000. It's got a lot of manual controls and it's really light (doesn't have RAW but many are hopeful Nikon will offer a firmware update). But, it only had a 3.5x zoom. The telephoto adapter was a joke IMHO.
So, after doing a lot of research I bought the Panasonic Lumix TZ3. It has a 10x optical zoom at 7mp (a 12x optical at 5!), is light, has gotten good reviews for a p&s, and has a very bright 3in LCD viewfinder (which you can make very bright in sunlight).
These days it seems that no camera is "perfect." As a former teacher I would tell you it isn't the camera that makes a good photograph, it's the creative photographer. But to each his/her own.
posted by Taken Outtacontext at 12:53 PM on June 19, 2007
There are also products like this which can add a live LCD screen to an SLR, but judging by this review of a really expensive one, you'd be better off buying one of the aforementioned SLRs that have the feature built-in.
posted by -harlequin- at 9:28 PM on June 19, 2007
posted by -harlequin- at 9:28 PM on June 19, 2007
Bah. I completely disagree with the idea that you should just buy a p&s if all you want to do is take snapshots. A snapshot taken in program mode with a dSLR will often look significantly better than the same shot, taken by the same photographer, with a P&S camera.
First, the dSLR will generally have a shallower depth of field, so the subject will be better isolated from the background, rather than competing for attention with some guy picking his nose 20 feet in the background.
Second, the dSLR will have less lag between the time the button is pressed, and the photo is taken, so the photo will be more likely to capture any action or transient expression the photographer was after.
Third, the dSLR will take better photos in low light situations (like most indoor shots). There will be less noise, and less chance of motion blur because of the higher shutter speeds available due to the larger sensor in the dSLR. (You may have to manually choose the higher ISO sensitivity on the dSLR, but you'd have to on most P&S as well).
Fourth, a photo taken with a DSLR will have more nuanced tones. They have a larger dynamic range than most compact digital cameras, which means there will often be more detail in shadows and highlights.
Yes, you don't need a great camera to take a great photographs, but there are some great photos that you can't get without the right camera (and lens). In some cases, that means having a camera with a fast lens and a big sensitive sensor so you can shoot indoors with natural light. In other cases, that means having a long telephoto lens with image stabilization so you can get the shot of a hawk snatching a rabbit 100 feet away. In other cases, it means having a small camera in your pocket that you can whip out when your baby decides to walk for the first time while you are dropping a casserole off at your grandmother's house. In others, it may mean buying a waterproof case for your existing point and shoot so you can save $800 towards a cheap ticket to Hawaii so you can take underwater photos while skindiving.
Figure out what's important to you, then buy (or don't buy) accordingly. You already have a decent pocketable camera in the family. Which gives you room to go a different direction with a new camera.
posted by Good Brain at 11:17 AM on June 20, 2007
First, the dSLR will generally have a shallower depth of field, so the subject will be better isolated from the background, rather than competing for attention with some guy picking his nose 20 feet in the background.
Second, the dSLR will have less lag between the time the button is pressed, and the photo is taken, so the photo will be more likely to capture any action or transient expression the photographer was after.
Third, the dSLR will take better photos in low light situations (like most indoor shots). There will be less noise, and less chance of motion blur because of the higher shutter speeds available due to the larger sensor in the dSLR. (You may have to manually choose the higher ISO sensitivity on the dSLR, but you'd have to on most P&S as well).
Fourth, a photo taken with a DSLR will have more nuanced tones. They have a larger dynamic range than most compact digital cameras, which means there will often be more detail in shadows and highlights.
Yes, you don't need a great camera to take a great photographs, but there are some great photos that you can't get without the right camera (and lens). In some cases, that means having a camera with a fast lens and a big sensitive sensor so you can shoot indoors with natural light. In other cases, that means having a long telephoto lens with image stabilization so you can get the shot of a hawk snatching a rabbit 100 feet away. In other cases, it means having a small camera in your pocket that you can whip out when your baby decides to walk for the first time while you are dropping a casserole off at your grandmother's house. In others, it may mean buying a waterproof case for your existing point and shoot so you can save $800 towards a cheap ticket to Hawaii so you can take underwater photos while skindiving.
Figure out what's important to you, then buy (or don't buy) accordingly. You already have a decent pocketable camera in the family. Which gives you room to go a different direction with a new camera.
posted by Good Brain at 11:17 AM on June 20, 2007
Late to the game but NY Times has an article (reg required) but it actually does a nice comparison and introduction to dSLRs and has me making my lists of references. Article is by Pogue
posted by jadepearl at 1:40 PM on June 22, 2007
posted by jadepearl at 1:40 PM on June 22, 2007
This thread is closed to new comments.
posted by one_bean at 8:52 PM on June 18, 2007