My conclusion on dSLR cameras

[shorty6049]

if someone has already said this stuff, i appologize, but these are MY personal reasons for buying a DSLR

1- RAW
2- you can get very different looks by changing lenses, so its worth the extra hassle for me.
3- A DSLR just feels better in my hands than most point and shoot cameras and has a more solid build.
4- Noise at high ISOs is much lower on most DSLRs , plus the larger sensor allows for more light to get in as well
5- Dslrs are almost always faster than point and shoot cameras at pretty much everything.

You dont buy an SLR camera for the size or weight. Maybe you didnt need one after all...

you dont buy

 

[Mike_E]

With a camera phone you can order pizza.

But then you already knew that.

 

[CanAm]

Don't some current DSLR's have that? I think the 20D/30D has a "Depth of Field Preview" button, which sounds like what you're describing. (And, yeah, I rarely use it -- not because it makes the viewfinder too dark, but because I just don't find it that useful. )

My 10D has it.

I have a DSLR because I have creative control at my fingertips. I don't need to go into a menu to change the settings I want to change. I simply move a dial or hit a button or two and I can make a bad shot a good one.

 

[frXnz kafka]

With a camera phone you can order pizza.

But then you already knew that.

With a view camera you can anchor your boat.

 

[THORHAMMER]

learning to weild my dslr as nimbly as a small P&S thats what I want.

 

[Tiberius47]

Show me a bridge camera that can open up to f2.8 at an 80mm efl and I'll start to consider that a bridge camera is as good as a dSLR. Not that bridge cams are bad, but a dSLR gives you so much more freedom. I'll never turn back.

 

[shorty6049]

is a bridge camera just a point and shoot with SLR-like features?

 

[skieur]

A pocket camera that you can use manually as well as in automatic mode that can shoot as low as F. 2.8 is perfect for shooting where cameras are not allowed or when you are carrying a camera just in case a photo opportunity presents itself.

A superzoom 28mm 2.8 to 200mm with a fixed lens, still camera that also has the ability to shoot 800 x 600 video is ideal for travelling light and producing CDs that mix stills and video.

A DSLR can be ideal for low light work (depending on picture noise), continuous shooting with no shutter lag and good control of contrast, shadow and highlight detail. Lens however should include a wide angle zoom at 2.8 and a telephoto zoom at 2.8 to have more range than the other cameras.

All these types of digital cameras fit different shooting situations and I would certainly not give up using any of them.

skieur

 

[schumionbike]

Show me a bridge camera that can open up to f2.8 at an 80mm efl and I'll start to consider that a bridge camera is as good as a dSLR. Not that bridge cams are bad, but a dSLR gives you so much more freedom. I'll never turn back.

I have a Kodak Z710 that could give 80 efl at like f3.1. The stat for it is 38-380, f2.8-f3.7. The camera is crap at high ISO though, I think that where DSLR really have an advantage.

 

[schumionbike]

is a bridge camera just a point and shoot with SLR-like features?

Yes, bridge camera PASM settings so you can use it manually. You can also choose what kind of metering, white, balance and think like that. Most bridge camera won't do well at over 400 ISO though.

As to the OP, I have a bridge camera, Kodak Z710, and I shoot it completely in manual mode with it and I get some pretty decent pictures. I had a chance to shoot a D70 the other day and I had it on automatic because I didn't really know how to use it and the control just look confusing, that ,and I didn't have all day to play with it. Anyhow, the pictures from the D70 didn't come out any better than when I was shooting the Kodak in manual mode. it's also important to note that the conditons that I shot the D70 was darker than what I was use to before. The point is, you have to know how to use the camera. Granted, the automatic mode in the D70 is better the automatic mode in the Kodak but both of them are still pretty bad. I can't wait until I get my own DSLR and play with it.

 

[shorty6049]

so that'd be a "pro-sumer" point and shoot?

 

[schumionbike]

so that'd be a "pro-sumer" point and shoot?

I guess you can call it that, Walmart considered them "serious amateur" camera. The image sensor in the bridge camera isn't bigger than a normal p&s, just the manual controls that people attracted to.

 

[shorty6049]

apparently nobody knows what they're called then. lol. I was told in a different thread on this forum that it was callled a pro-sumer, but then i've also heard that term applied to things such as the rebel, or the canon 40d.

 

[Socrates]

1- RAW

Some P&S cameras provide RAW. I had one several years ago. On the flip side, many of us see little benefit to RAW.

2- you can get very different looks by changing lenses, so its worth the extra hassle for me.

I agree.

3- A DSLR just feels better in my hands than most point and shoot cameras and has a more solid build.

So what? How does that relate to better pictures?

4- Noise at high ISOs is much lower on most DSLRs , plus the larger sensor allows for more light to get in as well.

The lower noise is because of the sensor size (large sensor means large pixels). The sensor does not "allow" more light; rather, it needs more light. The lens is the item that "allows" the light.

5- Dslrs are almost always faster than point and shoot cameras at pretty much everything.

I disagree completely. Strictly one example out of many: I just finished taking my flash head and cable off the bracket and the bracket off the camera. I'm in process of removing the portrait lens so that I can install my all-purpose walk-around lens. My wife shouts "Quick, take a picture of [whatever]" Well, needless to say, she fires off four shots with her Casio before I can bring my Nikon up to my eye.

 

[shorty6049]

Some P&S cameras provide RAW. I had one several years ago. On the flip side, many of us see little benefit to RAW.


I agree.


So what? How does that relate to better pictures?


The lower noise is because of the sensor size (large sensor means large pixels). The sensor does not "allow" more light; rather, it needs more light. The lens is the item that "allows" the light.


I disagree completely. Strictly one example out of many: I just finished taking my flash head and cable off the bracket and the bracket off the camera. I'm in process of removing the portrait lens so that I can install my all-purpose walk-around lens. My wife shouts "Quick, take a picture of [whatever]" Well, needless to say, she fires off four shots with her Casio before I can bring my Nikon up to my eye.

Ok, i'll try to cover all the points where i disagree with you quick...

RAW- as for RAW, it was just ONE thing that i wanted from a camera, not the ONLY thing. If it weren't for the other points, i wouldn't have bought it. What i'm saying , is that i didnt buy it JUST for RAW capability, its just part of the package.

The Feel- on this point, I wasn't saying that it made for better photos, just a better user experience for me.

Sensor size- From my knowledge , the larger a sensor is, the more light gets in. Thats because its bigger and therefore has more surface area. This also means that you get brighter images at lower ISOs than with a point and shoot.

Speed- This one is kind of down to how fast YOU can change lenses, and it wasn't what i was referring to. dSLRs are not really SUPPOSED to be a general all-purpose family photo camera. I've been in the same situation, where i was at a family barbecue, and someone said to take pictures of them. I was stuck with my 50mm on, so i had to switch lenses. Its kind of a hassle, but thats what variable focal length lenses are for. DSLRs were made (originally) for only the professionals, and they suited them perfectly. It wasn't until recently that they became affordable enough for just average people to start buying (and get talked into buying by greedy camera salesmen working on commission) them as a reasonable alternative to point and shoots.



i mean, come on, are you REALLY trying to argue that a point and shoot is better than an SLR???