My conclusion on dSLR cameras

[Socrates]

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.

It's not really 38-380mm focal length. Because of the small sensor size, it's the apparent focal length or the equivalent focal length but not the real focal length.

The camera is crap at high ISO because of the sensor size. Small sensors mean small pixels and small pixels are conducive to electrical noise.

 

[schumionbike]

It's not really 38-380mm focal length. Because of the small sensor size, it's the apparent focal length or the equivalent focal length but not the real focal length.

The camera is crap at high ISO because of the sensor size. Small sensors mean small pixels and small pixels are conducive to electrical noise.

I know the 38-380 mm is the equivalent focal lenght but only the equivalent lenght will determine how far you can reach and not the real focal lenght. The 380mm will go pretty far too. I know the 1/2.5in sensor and make a lot of noise but hey, at $150, you can't complain.

 

[Mystwalker]

I switched to DSLR 10 months ago. For the first 3-4 months I felt the same way as OP. For stationery shots, my wife's SD8xx IS (I still can't remember which one) seem to take better pictures in any situation - very very sad. Wanted to toss 30D through wall, but wife knew price of camera and would've killed me.

10 months later ... my pictures are getting "better" (defined as not embarrassing), BUT most important is that I also know I can take certain shots that a P&S can't take in a million years (you can prove me wrong in a million years). I'm talking about the speed and clarity of zooms, the ability to shoot in lower light situations (okay, external flash counts, I'm cheating), ability to take shot after shot after shot after shot (low shutter lag was primary reason I switch to DSLR) ... AND a P&S would look plain absurd mounted to a white "L" lens. As recent as last week, wife's shots in low light with flash still looked better because my understanding (lack of) of flash was embarrassing - just kept reading threads here, and experimenting until something worked.

A lens that helped change my view of DSLR is the 50mm f/1.8 for ~$90 (think Canon increased price to that). Lens is flimsy, feels like a toy, blah blah blah ... BUT it works very well. At f/1.8 it is very forgiving in low light situations. Do not know if any of the recent P&S have lens that is f/1.8 - only ones that come to mind are Olympus 3040 and 4040 which were discontinued a number of years ago.

If you want to be really convinced, invest in an "L" lens - me think the 70-200 f/4L IS or the 70-200 f/2.8L IS will have you singing a different tune.

I haven't even started to mess with RAW files yet - cropping in Elements is as far as I go and you can do that with photo from any camera.

 

[skieur]

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

Some of you guys, don't know your cameras! :er:

In digital, there are small point and shoots, same size cameras that have both automatic and manual settings (f stop, shutterspeed etc.), and compact superzooms that have all the features of most DSLRS except the lens is fixed. However with a wide angle to telephoto fixed lens, that is all that some people need. Moreover these cameras can also do video as well as stills and you can use filters etc. just like on a DSLR. The final kind is of course the DSLR.

I have all types with settings, except the point and shoot.

skieur

 

[shorty6049]

i know cameras, but i sure know the cameras that i USE better than i know the ones that i really don't care about... thats like saying that everyone who drives a toyota should know everything about racing trucks or something.

 

[skieur]

i know cameras, but i sure know the cameras that i USE better than i know the ones that i really don't care about... thats like saying that everyone who drives a toyota should know everything about racing trucks or something.

The big difference however is that I can get the shot by having the right camera in my hands while you are fiddling with lenses. I can also get the shot where cameras are not allowed, and my superzoom allows me to take photos from waist level as well as eye level which makes street photography easy as well. Instantly switching to video is also perfect in some situations.

Don't get me wrong, I love my DSLRs too, but one camera type is not the best for all photo situations.

skieur

 

[shorty6049]

, but one camera type is not the best for all photo situations.

skieur

never said it was

 

[Wozza]

The term 'prosumer' is hard to define and match to paticular camera's. It's a buzz word which has been used to describe goods for hobbyists. Generally a grey area between professional and general consumer goods. Speaking as such, a 'bridge' camera or an entry level 'DSLR' could easily be labelled prosumer.

As for DSLR's, I love mine. If I go out somewhere with the intention of taking photo's, I will take my DSLR. If I'm going somewhere that I may or may not use the camera, or will have long peroids of needing to stash the camera, I will take my little Canon IXUS. Again if I'm off Mountain Biking or Hiking, I will probably take the IXUS. However if I wanted o shoot someone else mountain biking, I'll take the DSLR because of the shutter speeds.

There are many, many other circumstances that the DSLR is handy in, not to mention I prefer the feel and having the controls on the surface of the camera instead of having to dig through menus.

The op stating that a smaller camera suits their style of photography is fine - each to their own, but a compact vs dslr debate is pointless as everyone has differing needs.

 

[abraxas]

I like looking through the little view-hole and seeing the picture before I push the button-thing. And all the other stuff and knobs and switches--amazing!

 

[shorty6049]

haha, agreed....

 

[JerryPH]

...but my views are not biased in any way. In fact, they couldn't be more unbiased.

I have compared photos of the same scene, with the same natural light and the same camera settings with both cameras and I honestly feel the Casio's images are near-identical to the 350d's.

Another reason that I am not biased is I just spent over £500 on equipment which I enjoyed using and produced some great results, but I feel the convenience of just slipping the Casio into my pocket and keeping it with me all the time is just an invaluable benefit, do you not think?

Nope. (lol) Amount of money spent on a camera is NOT a guarantee that you will get good pics, not even if you added another zero or 2 to that amount that you spent.

Here we have a GLARINGLY obvious case of someone that has no idea about the fundementals of photoraphy, has no idea of how to get the best out of a camera that they paid over £500 on and thinks that all they need to do, to get a quality picture... is to press the shutter.

None of that is wrong in anyway... for you. You have no interest in investing in your education, at least not at this point. You have no understanding of what it takes to get a good picture out of your camera. Of course you will not see a difference.

A comparable example is that you used to drive a 300,000km yugo, bought a new £50,000 Cadillac and now complain that your Yugo is more comfortable becuase you did not even take the time to learn how to adjust the seats in the Caddy.

Whether your £500 purchase entices you to learn or not is totally up to you, and its neither a fast or easy path for some to walk, but it sure is fun.

Once you learn how to squeeze the best pics out of that camera, you will start to see how good things can get... and maybe place that Casio where it belongs, on the shelf collecting dust.