Article on Buying a Compact Camera vs SLR

[Miaow]

Thought this was an interesting article for people that aren't sure on what what type of camera (p&s or SLR) to buy.

Making a snap call
Franco Darioli
May 07, 2008 12:00am

LET'S start by defining what is generally understood by the terms compact and SLR.

Strictly speaking, a camera that lets you look through the lens is an SLR (Single Lens Reflex) -- also called DSLR (Digital Single Lens Reflex), to differentiate from film cameras.

This changed somewhat with the introduction of the EVF (Electronic View Finder). The EVF does not provide the real view as you see it with your eyes, but it is through the lens.

At your camera shop you will notice on the shelves displaying compacts several largish high-zoom range cameras as big and heavy as those in the SLR section.

So neither the type of viewing nor the size is directly related to the terminology. Simply put, if you cannot change the lens it's a compact, otherwise it's an SLR.

The SLR corner

THE two main advantages SLRs have are direct viewing and interchangeable lenses.

The first assists focusing and composition; the second saves the day when you discover the lens you have is not wide enough, long enough or good enough.

The supplied kit lens is usually two levels down in quality from the best the brand can offer, so for better results get a better lens.

All interchangeable lenses have a thread for attaching filters. Consider buying a lens-protecting filter, a UV filter and a close-up filter to discover the world of macro photography.

For professional-looking portraits and group shots, an external flash is required. Dedicated macro flashguns also exist to deliver the desired flat, even light required for this rewarding type of photography. A few compacts can take external flashguns, but they are the exception. An important but often overlooked point is that compact cameras, at best, have a limited aperture range -- often only two or three settings. Combined with the low focal length caused by their tiny sensors, even at the widest aperture you tend to get an extended depth of field.

This eliminates all of those shots where the subject stands out from the rest of the picture because of a shallow depth of field.

Also, pretty much any type of technical photography (sport, wildlife, macro, portraits, landscape) is too difficult or virtually impossible with most compacts.

Another big plus for the SLR category is RAW capture. Think of RAW image files as the digital equivalent of negatives, or exactly what the camera captures before any internal processing.

Every manufacturer has its own bias, so what you download in the JPEG format is a processed image. RAW allows you greater control to do your own manipulation from the start, using software such as Adobe Photoshop. Some compacts now come with a RAW mode, but not many.

So, if you are not happy with snapshots, look at the SLR range.

The compact corner

SO WHY would anyone buy a compact camera? The most obvious answers are size, weight and cost. Now most compacts have at least a 3x to 5x zoom for zeroing in on the subject without moving. Some are weather and shockproof.

Generally, they are designed to be easy to use in auto mode. However, don't underestimate such features as image stabilisation, slow sync, snow and sand mode, backlight control and, with some, brightness/contrast/sharpness control.

Explore the many options buried inside the menu and sub-menus and reap the rewards.

Betwixt compact and SLR

MANY "bridge" cameras have a similar form factor and look of the typical SLR. These are designed to offer a large (but not interchangeable) zoom, and have more manual controls -- such as focus/aperture and shutter speed -- than the smaller versions.

Some will take filters and auxiliary flashguns. So really there is a third type of camera, so far called "hybrid" or "superzoom".

This category has some but not all of the advantages of their interchangeable lens cousins, yet 2008 will be a big year for them . . . but that is another story.

Why buy both?

MY REASONING behind the "get both" solution is this: if you have to ask the question (compact or SLR?) it is probably because you want to take real pictures

(= SLR) but you see the advantages of having a "pocket-able" camera that can be with you at any time (= compact). No camera, so far, can do both. In a future article we will take a look at the emerging "superzoom" category.

It is unlikely most would want to take their SLR with them "just in case". I know a few people who do just that and, oddly enough, they tend to have more "great shots" in their portfolio than I have in mine. But that, I'm sure, is just a coincidence and down to luck.

Just remember: the shot you miss today is not going to be available tomorrow.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,23648970-11869,00.html

 

[Miaow]

Ah well ( since no replies currently) hopefully this article will be able to help some people with a decision

Though I have to say in my opinon ~ SLR all the way

 

[Senor Hound]

STICKY IT!!! Seriously though, this should be in a link sticky ("Beginners start here before posting" sort of thing)


I got my point-and-shoot because it does a little bit of everything. For 300 bucks I got macro, telephoto zoom, (somewhat) wide angle and a lossless format for whenever I wanted to learn Photoshop (TIFF). I had NO CLUE what sort of photography I would find interesting until I did it. The Lumix FZ20 I have just went along with whatever I felt like shooting... people, flowers, low light, black and white, animals, sports, anything!

I got mine cause for 300 bucks I could get out to the equivalent of 430mm at f2.8 (Leica Elmarit, though not the real deal, is VERY nice). I know depth of field on a compact is different, but this is still really good, IMO. Plus, the macro on my Lumix is nice. I'm not a big macro guy, but I didn't know that when I bought it. I still take photos of flowers cause I find people love flowers (even though they aren't critically acclaimed, you'll never hear people say they don't like a flower photo).

Anyway, the post is good, and I think it needs to be put somewhere for quick reference...

 

[Miaow]

Senor Hound, I was sorta thinking would be a good sticky also - have seen the question asked a couple times before if I remember right (hence why I posted this article when I saw it)

 

[Miaow]

From the article

It is unlikely most would want to take their SLR with them "just in case". I know a few people who do just that and, oddly enough, they tend to have more "great shots" in their portfolio than I have in mine. But that, I'm sure, is just a coincidence and down to luck.

Have to say i have both (a p&s and the Canon) the P&S i think is getting a bit lonely - it doesnt get used now - I used to drag around a small tripod 'in case' with the p&s so now i just drag along a bigger tripod and the DSLR

 

[passerby]

They both have their pros and their cons. Don't forget the little snap shooter is a mini video camera. Also you would not walk around alone in such many countries with an expensive DSLR around your neck. Even my humble d40 alone maybe worth few months wages in some places.

 

[TamiyaGuy]

A very good point, Passerby. And you get treated completely differently if you have a DSLR compared to a point 'n' shoot. If I walk into a park with a P&S taking photos of children, I get treated like normal; just a guy who enjoys taking a pic. But if I walk into a park with my D40 and a 55-200 telephoto, I get treated like a child molester.

The video part is a good point too, although cameras generally suck at making video (in the same way that camcorders suck at taking photos).

 

[Miaow]

A very good point, Passerby. And you get treated completely differently if you have a DSLR compared to a point 'n' shoot. If I walk into a park with a P&S taking photos of children, I get treated like normal; just a guy who enjoys taking a pic. But if I walk into a park with my D40 and a 55-200 telephoto, I get treated like a child molester.

The video part is a good point too, although cameras generally suck at making video (in the same way that camcorders suck at taking photos).

Yep thats true on the video

Taminyaguy - I will say if I found someone taking pics of my daughter in playground, espeically with a DSLR or actually any camera without my permission I wouldnt like it....

 

[mrodgers]

On the video aspect.....

It all depends on what you plan to do with the video. The first thing that many folk do when they have a baby is run out and buy a video camera. My wife and I were never into videos with the kids. I did get a hand-me-down camera and used it for my older daughter's birthday. The problem was, I missed most of her birthday party because I was watching it through a little window (the viewfinder). We never watch the video....

My camera does pretty good 640x480 30 FPS video for decent viewing on the computer. I use it (or plan to since I didn't have this camera last year) at the RC airshow that my daughter loves to go to in the summer. It is great if you want video for on the computer. In fact, my $200 camera does twice as good as my brother-in-law's digital video camera that is specifically for video that he paid the same for.

With a normal video camera for viewing on TV, there's more hassle to getting it onto the computer. I just upload from my little SD card and it's there. Well, I guess that's not entirely true. The last time I used a video camera, it was when the Hi-8 tape recorders were the most common and the digital camcorders were just coming out and quite expensive.

 

[RubyMagic]

ACTUALLY, we are kind of close to having compact SLR's.

Sigma just came out with a 14 MP P&S camera with an SLR sensor in it.

It's called the DP-1.


It comes with a non-detatchable prime lens.



Only con is its price...800 bucks.

 

[TamiyaGuy]

TamiyaGuy - I will say if I found someone taking pics of my daughter in playground, espeically with a DSLR or actually any camera without my permission I wouldnt like it....

*fixed

And I would feel the same if someone took photos of my kids (well, if I have kids), but there's the weird word that all people with bright white, huge lenses are paedophiles (not meaning to diss the Canon guys, but you you get what I mean )

 

[Miaow]

Just thought I'd bump this since there's been a few posts along similar lines recently