Digital SLR vs Non SLR

richardpinnock · Jan 21, 2007

Hi all,

I am on a verge of buying myself a new camera,
at the moment I am close to buying the new Fujifilm Finepix S9600.
http://www.fujifilm.com/products/digital/lineup/s9600/index.html

But I am not sure whether it would be worth me paying a bit more and going for a digital SLR.

Could anyone help me by telling me what are the advantages a digital SLR has over a high end non digital camera?

Thanks!

Richard

just x joey · Jan 21, 2007

get dslr, its worth it.

table1349 · Jan 21, 2007

1. Vast array of lenses that will cover any shooting situation. (Sports & wildlife to name just a couple)

2. Much improved quality of lenses over P&S lenses. Yes you will pay for top quality

3. Vast array of accessories that allow you to be far more creative.

4. Vast amout of features that again allow you to be more creative with your photography. Spot metering, broader ISO range, broader shutter speed range, faster FPS range, various methods of auto focusing. (Yes some P&S cameras have some of these thing in a limited way)

5. Wider range of lighting options.

6. Buying a DSLR is not buying a camera. A P&S no matter what the features, is buying a camera. When you out grow it, you buy an new camera. Buying a DSLR is buying a system. When you outgrow a DSLR body you replace it. If you buy good glass and take care of it, then the lenses will last for ever. Also if you decide for what ever reason to upgrade to a new body, you can keep the old body for a second camera or a backup should you need one. I shoot sports for one of the local small colleges and having one body with my 70-200mm telephoto on it and a second body on my shoulder with a 17-50mm makes life a lot easier.

Big Mike · Jan 21, 2007

All good points.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned...is one of the biggest differences IMO. The size of the digital sensor. 99.9% of non-SLR digital cameras...have a very small sensor. This generally makes for a lower image quality...especially at higher ISO settings. A 'digi-cam' is usually at it's practical limit by ISO 400...while a good DSLR is still usable at ISO 1600.

Also, point #6 above is a very good one. A DSLR & lens is a system that can be upgraded on both ends. With a digicam, the lens is attached and there is no upgrade. Also, consider the investment. A two year old digi-cam has a very low resale value while a 2 year old DSLR has lost some value...but not as much. Lenses on the other hand, hold their value very very well...especially the top end lenses. They are often sold for %90 of their initial value...even years later.

auer1816 · Jan 21, 2007

Before I got a dSLR I thought "I can take pretty good photos with this camera". After I got a dSLR I thought "What the heck took me so long to get a dSLR?".

It's worth it.

firemedic0135 · Jan 21, 2007

I would also suggest getting a dSLR. I bought a Canon S3 IS last november thinking the same thing you are thinking right now.
I wish I had gone ahead and gone with the dslr because it doesnt take long to reach the limitation of those (bridge) cameras

table1349 · Jan 21, 2007

Big Mike said:
All good points.

One thing that hasn't been mentioned...is one of the biggest differences IMO. The size of the digital sensor. 99.9% of non-SLR digital cameras...have a very small sensor. This generally makes for a lower image quality...especially at higher ISO settings. A 'digi-cam' is usually at it's practical limit by ISO 400...while a good DSLR is still usable at ISO 1600.

Also, point #6 above is a very good one. A DSLR & lens is a system that can be upgraded on both ends. With a digicam, the lens is attached and there is no upgrade. Also, consider the investment. A two year old digi-cam has a very low resale value while a 2 year old DSLR has lost some value...but not as much. Lenses on the other hand, hold their value very very well...especially the top end lenses. They are often sold for %90 of their initial value...even years later.

Hey Big Mike, thanks for the addition, I couldn't think of everything when I posted before, the Bears were behind at the time. :wink:

OregonAmy · Jan 22, 2007

gryphonslair99 said:
... 5 really good points, and then...

6. Buying a DSLR is not buying a camera. A P&S no matter what the features, is buying a camera. When you out grow it, you buy an new camera. Buying a DSLR is buying a system. When you outgrow a DSLR body you replace it. If you buy good glass and take care of it, then the lenses will last for ever. Also if you decide for what ever reason to upgrade to a new body, you can keep the old body for a second camera or a backup should you need one. I shoot sports for one of the local small colleges and having one body with my 70-200mm telephoto on it and a second body on my shoulder with a 17-50mm makes life a lot easier.

This is a great post, thank you! I have been lusting after dSLRs for a couple of years but cringe at the price. My current camera (panasonic dmc-fz10) has so many features on it and a great lens, I don't feel like I'm suffering with it.

I'm convinced. I think I'll do more research & look into getting one this summer. Thank you!

Jeremy Z · Jan 22, 2007

In defense of the ultrazoom digicams is that you get a whole, functioning setup for for less than $400. You get focal lengths from a long wide angle to a nice telephoto. They usually have very high quality lenses too.

However, with the smaller sensor, and being limited to just one lens means that you will never have a true wide angle, or a true macro, or a true fisheye, or a tilt-shift, etc. Most of them can't take a proper flash either. Some of the higher-end ones do have dedicated hot shoes.

DSLRs are better. There is no doubt about it. But you WILL pay for quality & flexibility. Prepare yourself now pal, you're going to spend a LOT of money on lenses by the time you're done.