Do I need a DSLR?

I dont agree with you completely Mr mrodgers.
The functionality of a P&S even with manual mode is still quite limited. A dSLR give one wings!
Limited in what? I already said a camera like mine is limited in the ranges of the settings. But, my camera has auto, presets, Program, Shutter, Aperture, and manual modes. What else is there? A dSLR such as the Rebel XTi also have each and every one of these modes, including Auto. So, you can't designate my camera as a Point and Shoot just because it is not a dSLR. It has the exact same modes, only it is limited in the ranges within those modes (I can't do f/1.8 or f/22 for example.)

The description "point and shoot" has nothing to do with the mechanics of the cameras. I'm not entirely sure how mine displays on the LCD and eyeview, but it's different than the mirrored "live" view of a dSLR. The image sensors are also different, but that has nothing to do with being a "point and shoot" model either.

Of course, a dSLR camera is going to have better quality over my $200 camera. But again, this has nothing to do with the description "point and shoot".

A point and shoot is only that, no manual or semi manual modes. You point it and you shoot it. Both my non-dSLR and your dSLR has that auto mode, but neither are restricted to auto.

My old camera, a 2 mp Fuji 2650 shot at a set ISO 100. It adjusted the shutter speed for exposure, and it appears after looking through some old pictures, it set the aperture at f/3.5 when zoomed to it's extent and f/8.7 when at it's widest. I could not set anything on the camera, it was fully automatic. That is the description of a point and shoot, no manual settings at all.

It just seems to me that dSLR users like to feel superior because they spent a ton more money on their equipment than I did, even though I can change all the same settings as they can.
 
Well my big deciding factor was the shutter lag and, start up times with P&S cameras. That and the D50 came out making it a no brainer. I was still shooting with my film body for more serious stuff. Dslrs are basically instant on and, press to button and, the shot is taken.
 
Well my big deciding factor was the shutter lag and, start up times with P&S cameras. That and the D50 came out making it a no brainer. I was still shooting with my film body for more serious stuff. Dslrs are basically instant on and, press to button and, the shot is taken.

That was one of my biggest gripes with P&S's. I was constantly missing photo ops because of the lag time for start up and between pictures. With a dSLR I only miss photo opportunities because I was too slow to press the button
 
I definitely agree with the others re going with a dSLR. To me it's a lot more fun...you can be more creative and produce better images, and it doesn't cost an arm and a leg. Though, a warning, you might get addicted, and lenses can be very expensive (I know, I'm a non-recovering addict)!
 
- couldn't I shoot for a year and see if I have the love for it with just the Sony?
- Would a SLR really make me love it more?

The answer is yes to both questions. You could shoot for a year and see how you like photography... but don't you kow the answer to that already?

Shooting on a P&S and shooting on a dSLR is like comparing driving. You make like driving, but driving a Ferrari vs driving a bus... which would make you enjoy driving more? Thats where you make the decision.

The deal maker or breaker in the end is budget. If you want to play with the big boys-n-gals, you'll pay a lot more. You can get a nice P&S for 3 digits ($xxx),... most dSLR users have 4 digit ($x,xxx), camera systems within a year after buying into the dSLR system. Again, thats something that only you know if you can get into it or not.
 

Most reactions

Back
Top