Upgrading from a point and shoot

[cgipson1]

First of all, lets get something straight about so-called "Point and Shoot" cameras.

Most photographers hold them in high disdain, merely because of the name.

THEY think that Point and Shoot cameras are soooo "simple" when, in fact, they are *not*.

Nothing has ever been "simple" about photography, whether you are talking about Matthew Brady or the Polaroid Land Camera.

A point and shoot camera does not come flying out of the box, just ready for YOU to take an award winning photograph-Nor does purchasing a $3,000 rig turn you into Ansel Adams. If Ansel Adams had known about the future of photography, back in HIS time, he would have had purple cows!!! But Mr. Adams was a pioneer in his field, using the tools available to him at the time.

P+S need to be adjusted, from the date/time stamp, to white balance, to image size and quality and so on.

You need to know how to use a camera of this sort, especially in this DIGITAL AGE, because digital has some telling differences from film cameras.

Yeah, you can put your camera on "auto", such as exposure and white balance, but that does NOT guarantee a "perfect" picture-it doesn't even guarantee a "mediocre" picture.

Some advanced "point and shoots" have THREE settings for flourescent lights, when there only used to be one. But even in an ancient P+S, there was STILL a way you could calibrate your white balance, on a custom level-this function exists even now, because there are times when you don't want to depend solely on the "presets".

LOTS of good things can be achieved on gear that won't drive you to the poorhouse:

Duality 1024 | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Opinions abound, but in the end, it's your own judgement that counts....

For someone that has probably never owned or used a SLR / DSLR, how can you possibly make any comparisons? That image you posted is not one I would consider good. The image demonstrate one of the biggest failings of point and shoot cameras. They lack High Dynamic range. Can you see where you have very little to no detail in the shadow areas on the mountain? That is due the the small sensors that point and shoots have... and their inability to "see" more than a couple of stops of dynamic range. Any decent DSLR with a decent lens would have given a much more detailed image. A Full Frame DSLR would have done even better with the extended dynamic range that they have.

The other issue with the image is the framing and composition... which makes it look like a snapshot. The trees are cut off in the middle, there is one, small patch of sky showing that is actually disruptive to the image. It would have been better to include more sky (IMO) but with a Point and Shoot, it probably wasn't feasible.. again due to the lack of dynamic range.

I have owned Point and Shoot cameras, and it is possible to get nice images from them. But they actually require more knowledge of photography than a basic DSLR does, to help overcome the inherent shortcomings.

 

[goodguy]

For under 1000$ I think the best camera you can get is a Nikon D7000 with an 18-105mm VS lens.
Here in Canada this camera goes for 999$ and currently I think its the best camera for the money.

Good luck