A little advice, please

[Nomad57]

My first post. A brief history: My first camera was an Olympus Trip 35. I eventually got an Olympus OM-10, with 50mm and 135mm lens. I also bought a 28mm, which I broke. I still have the OM-10. In 2009, I bought a Canon A480. I recently bought a Canon A1400. It's an outdoor camera, as indoors (without flash), the lowest ISO I can shoot at with a tripod is 200, at which noise becomes apparent. (I bought this camera, not based on price, but on the fact that it has a viewfinder, and runs on AAs.) I had been thinking about also buying a Canon ELPH 330, which has good reviews, and can shoot at much higher ISOs, for indoor work. It has twice the zoom, a CMOS sensor, but shorter battery life and no view finder. Yes, I'd love a DSLR, but don't want to carry around a 4 lb. (including bag, lenses, etc.) kit. I once missed out on a shot of a lifetime, because I didn't want to lug my OM-10 bag around. My A1400 weighs 210g in a pouch on my belt. I have two questions: 1. I know many photographers have multiple cameras for various uses, but does having three point and shoots make any sense at all? Note: I don't really need the ELPH 330 right now, but the model replacing it has only fair reviews. If I wait, I won't be able to get one, as they are being phased out. 2. I took some test photos while walking in the park, and when I plug the cam into the TV (a 26" CRT), it's almost like I'm still in the park. The general consensus seems to be that a DSLR photo is much better than my point and shoot, but how much better can they really be? Feedback would be appreciated. Nomad

 

[tirediron]

It's not so much that a DSLR is "Better" than your P&S, rather that it's more versatile. It probably has a significantly larger sensor and better high ISO characteristics meaning you can shoot in lower light and print images at much larger sizes. You can use on and off-camera flashes, and most importantly, change lenses to suit the situation. If you're happy with your current set up and it meets your needs, then there is no need to change.

 

[Nomad57]

Thanks for the reply. It makes perfect sense. I would love the versatility, if it didn't come with such a weight penalty. I'm not a young man anymore, and when we go hiking, we're usually already laden down with stuff. I've done some more testing with my A1400, and find that I get good results at ISO 100. Of course, the speed is down around 1/4", so the subject has to be really still. At ISO 200, the wall in the background looks grainy. I was thinking of getting the ELPH 330 for higher ISO and longer zoom. The price is really coming down. I can buy the ELPH and the A1400 for what the ELPH cost when it came out last year. Regards, Nomad

 

[ABJayce]

I think to me it comes down to what kind of images you want. If you are satisfied with the pictures you are getting on your point and shoot(s) then use it. Me personally, I carry the best equipment I have with me wherever I go because I always want to get the best image I can get because you never know when you'll be out and an amazing shot will unfold for you. So to me I sacrifice carrying the extra weight with the pay off being peace of mind knowing that I am the most suited as I can be to capture images. But if you'd rather be lightweight then stick with the point and shoots after all a decent photo is better than no photo.

 

[minicoop1985]

Four pound bag... I wish.

Here's my question. What's your ultimate goal? Are you planning on editing your stuff? Are you working towards bigger and better things? Not everyone needs a DSLR, and you might be that person. There's a photographer here that purposely uses a point and shoot and creates some of the most artistic images I see on a regular basis. If you want to shoot indoors, I'd say pop for that Elph 330. The other thought, since you're concerned about weight, is a Canon Rebel SL1. INCREDIBLY small DSLR and nowhere near 4 pounds; if it's even one pound with lens and battery I'd be surprised.

Three point and shoots may not make sense, but having several cameras WITH you might. It depends-sometimes circumstances call for different things, and if you're an idiot like me, you drag them all with you everywhere and drive your wife nuts.

 

[goodguy]

Well I have a Canon G15 which is a great P&S, gives you basically same control as a DSLR but in a small P&S package, I use it up to 3200 ISO with very satifying results.
It also has a very fast lens which is very helpful in keeping the ISO low.
Today the Canon G16 has replaced my G15 but in most ways those cameras are almost identical.

 

[JoeW]

The best camera is the one you have with you. The camera that works best for me may not be the one for you. So be clear about what you're willing to go with and carry and use. Otherwise, it's just an expensive paperweight sitting on your desk or chest of drawers. So a camera phone you have with you will take better pictures than having no camera at all.

I'm the wrong person to ask if getting a DSLR is worth it. B/c my answer to that has been "yes" for nearly 45 years now. I've annoyed people to death by taking my camera everywhere. Those points acknowledged...

1. Nearly every picture will look fine on a TV screen. The fidelity on a TV screen is crap. Try printing out the photos you're taking and see if you feel they're good enough.

2. As others have pointed out, it's not so much the "better" as it is the versatility. With fast glass, I easily shoot indoors with my DSLR and no flash. I can manipulate the settings to freeze action, blur movement, create a shallow DoF, alter color balance. Quite simply, it's the difference between taking a snapshot vs. creating a picture. You have to decide what it is you want to do and what you're willing to do (i.e.: lug a camera around or not). There are millions of people in North America who are perfectly happy to not lug anything around (including a camera phone). There are tens of millions who are content to just shoot selfies and highly-pixelated photos from their phones. Others who just want a photo of the wife in front of a scenic landmark ("see, that's Marge in front of the Taj Mahal. And here she is in front of this elephant that we got to pet. Oh, and here she is in front of the henna painting booth at the fair."). Nothing wrong with those things if that is what you're looking to do. If you intend to do some editing or get creative with your photographs or actually create some art, than consider a DSLR.

 

[Nomad57]

I think to me it comes down to what kind of images you want. If you are satisfied with the pictures you are getting on your point and shoot(s) then use it. Me personally, I carry the best equipment I have with me wherever I go because I always want to get the best image I can get because you never know when you'll be out and an amazing shot will unfold for you. So to me I sacrifice carrying the extra weight with the pay off being peace of mind knowing that I am the most suited as I can be to capture images. But if you'd rather be lightweight then stick with the point and shoots after all a decent photo is better than no photo.

I appreciate your point of view, but that's just it. You never know when an amazing opportunity comes up. My A1400 is in a pouch attached to my belt, and I can always have it with me. For me, most of my photography occurs when I am "out and about", and I'm usually already loaded down with "survival gear" (snack, water, clothing etc.,). Regards, Nomad

 

[Nomad57]

Four pound bag... I wish. Here's my question. What's your ultimate goal? Are you planning on editing your stuff? Are you working towards bigger and better things? Not everyone needs a DSLR, and you might be that person. There's a photographer here that purposely uses a point and shoot and creates some of the most artistic images I see on a regular basis. If you want to shoot indoors, I'd say pop for that Elph 330. The other thought, since you're concerned about weight, is a Canon Rebel SL1. INCREDIBLY small DSLR and nowhere near 4 pounds; if it's even one pound with lens and battery I'd be surprised. Three point and shoots may not make sense, but having several cameras WITH you might. It depends-sometimes circumstances call for different things, and if you're an idiot like me, you drag them all with you everywhere and drive your wife nuts.

I'm assuming that your bag is heavier than that. No, I'm not planning on editing my stuff. I'm not that creative, nor would I consider myself a "photographer". I'm not a legend in my own mind, although I did have aspirations (delusions?) of that sort when I bought my Panasonic PV-420K twenty-five years ago for $1,700. (I dunno what got into me.) I don't usually print photos, (although my wife does, and she seems to be happy with them). I'm still reviewing the ELPH. Speaking of wife, she did drop my A480 when it was a year and a half old, cracking the LCD window (it fell on a small stone). Canon wanted $65 to replace the $0.50 piece of plastic. I decided to pass, and spent the money instead on my A1400. The A480 is now hers. Thanks for the feedback. Regards, Nomad

 

[Nomad57]

Well I have a Canon G15 which is a great P&S, gives you basically same control as a DSLR but in a small P&S package, I use it up to 3200 ISO with very satifying results. It also has a very fast lens which is very helpful in keeping the ISO low. Today the Canon G16 has replaced my G15 but in most ways those cameras are almost identical.

That looks like a very good camera. Something to keep in mind, if I decide to move up the food chain. Thanks for the tip. Regards, Nomad

 

[Nomad57]

The best camera is the one you have with you. The camera that works best for me may not be the one for you. So be clear about what you're willing to go with and carry and use. Otherwise, it's just an expensive paperweight sitting on your desk or chest of drawers. So a camera phone you have with you will take better pictures than having no camera at all. I'm the wrong person to ask if getting a DSLR is worth it. B/c my answer to that has been "yes" for nearly 45 years now. I've annoyed people to death by taking my camera everywhere. Those points acknowledged... 1. Nearly every picture will look fine on a TV screen. The fidelity on a TV screen is crap. Try printing out the photos you're taking and see if you feel they're good enough. 2. As others have pointed out, it's not so much the "better" as it is the versatility. With fast glass, I easily shoot indoors with my DSLR and no flash. I can manipulate the settings to freeze action, blur movement, create a shallow DoF, alter color balance. Quite simply, it's the difference between taking a snapshot vs. creating a picture. You have to decide what it is you want to do and what you're willing to do (i.e.: lug a camera around or not). There are millions of people in North America who are perfectly happy to not lug anything around (including a camera phone). There are tens of millions who are content to just shoot selfies and highly-pixelated photos from their phones. Others who just want a photo of the wife in front of a scenic landmark ("see, that's Marge in front of the Taj Mahal. And here she is in front of this elephant that we got to pet. Oh, and here she is in front of the henna painting booth at the fair."). Nothing wrong with those things if that is what you're looking to do. If you intend to do some editing or get creative with your photographs or actually create some art, than consider a DSLR.

Thanks for your well thought out reply. I don't consider myself an artist or a great photographer. I've never taken any really bad photos (unlike a guy I know who bought an expensive Nikon F series, but couldn't take a decent photo to save his life) but not any great ones either. I'm not planning on doing editing. Yes, I'd love to be the next Yousuf Karsh, get a black belt in Fung-Gu, and add an airline transport rating to my pilot licence, but I'm not a young man anymore, and it ain't gonna happen. I may change my mind in the future, but for now it's point and shoot. Regards, Nomad

 

[Nomad57]

Four pound bag... I wish.

I'd say pop for that Elph 330. The other thought, since you're concerned about weight, is a Canon Rebel SL1. INCREDIBLY small DSLR and nowhere near 4 pounds; if it's even one pound with lens and battery I'd be surprised.

Minicoop: I did pop for that Elph. I found a website where I was actually able to compare images from the Elph with my A1400, and there IS a difference. Thanks for the tip on the SL1. I had gotten so wrapped up in trying to compare the T3/T5/T3i/T5i and make sense of it all that I never even looked at the SL1. Something to think about if I make the leap to a DSLR.

Regards,

Nomad

 

[timor]

Well I have a Canon G15 which is a great P&S, gives you basically same control as a DSLR but in a small P&S package, I use it up to 3200 ISO with very satifying results. It also has a very fast lens which is very helpful in keeping the ISO low. Today the Canon G16 has replaced my G15 but in most ways those cameras are almost identical.

That looks like a very good camera. Something to keep in mind, if I decide to move up the food chain. Thanks for the tip. Regards, Nomad

There is always the dilemma: price versus quality. As long as your camera will have small, 1/2.3 sensor there always will be limitations. Then you talk a lot about convenience, about camera by your belt. If this is of utmost importance, then there is no point of any discussion; any last of the line p$s, no matter from which stable, will do. But if the IQ is important to you convenience will have to make some sacrifices. Wallet to. G16 has bigger sensor (1/1.7), X20, same price has 2/3 sensor and if you look well G1X is priced down and has 1.5 size sensor. All three are considered p&s, for all pouch at the belt is good enough.

 

[Civchic]

My mom and my best friend both have good cameras. My mom has a T2, my best friend has an Olympus something or other (not a DSLR but a pretty hefty bridge-type camera). They take good pictures.

However, they NEVER have their camera! Ever! It's awkward, it's cumbersome, it gets in the way. To me, they might as well have a little P&S they can stick in their pocket, since then at least they'd be able to take pictures once in awhile.

 

[Nomad57]

The rickshaw runner brought my ELPH yesterday. I've taken a few comparison shots, and the ELPH is better. It has some features that I like, and some I don't. (Ain't that the way?)

Now, I'm beginning to wonder if it's even worth keeping the A1400 (I can still return it). I do like the viewfinder on it for outdoors, and if I drop it while tree-top trekking, oh well... but the pictures are better on the ELPH... but I can hardly see the screen outdoors... but the pictures are better... sigh...

Nomad57