DSLR vs point and shoot digital

15 years ago

I've had an Olympus Camedia C-740 w/3.2 megapixel camera for about 7 years and it seems to have given out on me. Just sort of locked up like the batteries were dead - replaced batteries and it worked a couple times then the same thing so I'm thinking it's done for. Anyway .... I've started looking at cameras and trying to decide what would best suit my needs. Looked at entry level DSLR's - Canon EOS Rebel XS 10.2 mp & Nikon D3000 10.? mp. If I go with a DSLR I'm thinking it will be between these two. The salesman also showed me a Nikon Coolpix (maybe 7000) can't remember for sure but I think it had 15 mpix.

It seems that if I go with the DSLR I'm going to be spending about $350 more than the point and shoot. I've always loved taking photos but and having recently retired am hoping to travel around a bit and take some nice photos that could be enlarged at least to 8 x 10 size. My other concern is shutter lag which although the old olympus took great pics, the shutter lag was incredibly annoying.

So, I guess my question is .... can a point and shoot priced in the $300 - $350 range overcome the shutter lag and give images worthy of enlarging to 8 x 10. If so, what would be your reccomendation?

Thanks in adavance for your opinions/experience/advice.

Frances

Sort by:Oldest

Comments (4)

MongoCT
15 years ago
I think that if you want to get more into photography, especially travel photography, you want to get to a place where you can take flashless photos. It's especially critical when traveling and taking photos indoors where a flash may not be allowed, or may not be appropriate.

It's quite easy to take photos without anyone ever knowing if you don't have to use a flash. Use a flash and you're telling everyone. Restaurants, churches, taking candids while traveling, etc.

To go flashless, you'll be looking for a camera with a high-ISO capability, in the 3200 to 6400 range, and also one where you can use fast glass, or a fast lens. While 4.5 lenses with a 3200 or 6400 ISO can get you flashless, a faster F2.8 lens will give you very nice results.

I do a lot of flashless theater photography with a D90 body and a couple of F2.8 lenses.

As to printing 8 by 10s, yes, both point and shoots and dSLRs have more than enough MPs to get you into that range.

If you go for the Nikon d3000, consider pairing it with the 18-200 lens. It's a very versatile camera-lens combination to start off with. Later on you can get a 50mm prime 1.4 or 1.8 lens. Very fast glass, and you'll get excellent indoor photos in relatively dark rooms with no flash.

Just a few ideas...
Konrad___far_north
15 years ago
You wont be disappointed with a canon rebel, these have a inbuilt
flash and come very handy at times...and have high ISO settings
for when you don't want to use flash. I was reading the D3000 doesn't have a auto focus motor, so some lenses will have no auto focus? Also camera doesn't have Live View...this can get handy on the Rebel.. no lag time.
Hm...looks like you can tell I'm a Canon lover....

Konrad
Related Discussions
digital camera recommendation
Q
Comments (36)
Andrea, I shoot RAW exclusively now for the reasons you stated except occasionally flip it over to sports because it goes auto to burst (I think), and does only .jpg. I love Photoshop, has a very steep learning curve, waited years until I got a $299 upgrade with Elements to CS2. I don't just use it for my photographs, and I agree with you about some of the software that comes with cameras, read about Nikon's, refused to get in the camera wars, was really torn between Canon and Nikon, at the time I thought Canons had better noise reduction at the expense of IQ, understood that going in. I started just doing graphics learning all I could with PSP (quit upgrading at 5 because I didn't like some things), then bought Photo Impact (fun for awhile but a waste of money), but when I saw the power of PS, I was sold. I don't use all the features, no, don't jump on the upgrade bandwagon (lightbox is really cool, can't afford it), but I love their USM and ACR white balance corrections and several others such as highlight/shadows tool (because of the limited dynamic range with all digital cameras, may be better with the more expensive, super-high resolution ones), when I want to make them pop more. And a lot of it is strictly a matter of taste. There are some incredibly talented with PS; I'm not one of them. The actual conversion process doesn't take more than 30 seconds, and when I can, I batch convert using scripts. I know everything you said is true, especially you can use Nikon pics right out of the cam, sharp as a tack, same with some good P&S cameras. Have to watch oversharpening, too. For web viewing, people probably can't tell the difference about sharpening. I can see it, very occasionally I don't bother with it, depending, but do like to do my own cropping and straightening, can't stand really crooked photos unless for creative effect. Other software does that just as well. I highly respect your opinion, and it sounds like you are some kind of pro. I don't presume to know everything. Blowing blows more dust in than I get out sometimes, always do that first regardless, a couple tries, then test, but I have used the wet method only once, got it better, but just let the dustbunnies I missed be for now and try to be careful changing my lenses. The only people I'd really trust to clean my sensor filter, not the sensor on Canon, but extremely delicate, is Canon. Nobody on the Canon dslr forum I've read yet on dpreview for almost 5 years now sends theirs anywhere for sensor filter cleaning; they all clean them themselves, most very confidently (not me!) many, many use a wet method usually Copperhill or a pen. I used extra pure alcohol and qtips I got at the medical supply center, just a drop w/eyedropper. I first try the dry method with Walgreen's brand q-tips very gently. The camera store person told me some use plastic knives from McDonald's! Not for me! I don't really trust my local camera store or Best Buy technicians. With the camera store, last time I was in was tempted to butt in and tell the customer something I happened to know, while the salesman didn't seem to, held my peace. Had some photos and a painting scanned I wanted to retouch, state-of-the art, awful, ended up using my camera and tripod. The camera store wasn't set up to cater to dslr users, maybe they're more with it now. I hate cloning out dustbunnies once a bad one gets in there, most don't show at the sizes and resolution I use, but do clone quite a bit for other reasons and like the healing tool. Once a piece of fiber got in there, it drove me nuts, that I got out by blowing, need a better blower, the Hurricane one. Sorry for taking up so much "airtime". Sooner or later most dslr owners are going to have to choose how to deal with it. Then if I screw up, I screw up, and will pay the consequences. You HAVE to clean your lenses, even on P&S cameras, which I do as little as possible. I know Nikon has fine cameras and lenses; that is why the choice was so hard, and sometimes I still look back, but now I'm invested heavily in a few lenses not as many as some have, don't need them, but very expensive and wouldn't get near what I paid for them if I sold them, even though they are all in mint condition.
...See More
suggestions of high zoom almost digital slr
Q
Comments (13)
Sorry to be late; didn't check in for a couple of days. Yes, the Panasonic makes extremely sharp photos, thanks, in part to the Leica lens. It offers two types of image stabilization, both optical (the best kind): 1. continuous and 2. at the moment of shutter let-off. Of my six non-DSLR cameras, the Panasonic DMC-TZ5 is the best one. Like most digital cameras, it has a wide range of shooting modes, most of which I never use. But they're there. It also shoots video, but I've never done it; I do know that it lets you zoom during video filming - I understand that many cameras will not zoom during video. As I said, the flash range is limited and the camera DOES NOT have an optical viewfinder. One other drawback - which you can overcome by careful "holding" - is that the flash is located below the shutter button, and it's natural to put your middle finger over it. You've got to get used to that. Panasonic has packed so much into this little camera that I don't think there was any other place to put the flash. And by-the-way, like most small digitals, it does not have a hot shoe for using an auxillary flash. If you'd like further info from me, go to My Page and email me directly. Javert
...See More
Question for those using a DSLR
Q
Comments (4)
Hi ... using my wife's call sign. greenfinger ... I love hearing about the Nikkormat. I still have a Nikkormat EL, the last in a line of 5 Nikkormats I've owned. But, these days, I shoot with a Nikon D80, usually with a 35mm F/2 AF prime lens since it's fairly compact and I find that I can get away without using a zoom for walk-around purposes. To answer alisande's question, what I like about the D80 (almost any DSLR, too) versus a digital point and shoot (P&S) are: o Instant-on. With my old P&S, you'd turn it on, but it would take a second or so before you take a shot o Push the trigger and you've got your shot. Again, the old P&S had a shutter lag. I wasn't quite sure that I had taken the shot. Autofocus on DSLRs with their more sophisticated focusing systems is almost instantaneous by comparison to P&S cameras. This is particularly important for sports photography or taking pictures of children. o Ability to take useful pictures in very low light. A DSLR has a sensor that's 10x the area of a P&S. That means you can take a picture at ISO 1600 without having it completely smeared by electronic noise. o Controlling depth of field. o Optical viewfinder. As mentioned, I'm an old SLR user. And, I've never gotten used to framing a shot with an LCD. The D80 viewfinder is a pentaprism (not quite as bright as my old Nikkormat) but beautiful by comparison to a P&S, especially in bright light. o Special lenses (including old Nikon manual focus lenses) There are a host of other reasons why I enjoy shooting with a DSLR versus a P&S. However, a DSLR will never be as portable as a P&S, even ones as small as the Nikon D40/40x/60. I've attached a link that you may find helpful. Here is a link that might be useful: Cameralabs P&S vs. DSLR
...See More
Cameras: Why I decided not to get a DSLR
Q
Comments (5)
I know how you feel. I did the same thing with film Canon cameras. I started out with a used Rangefinder Canonet in the late 1970s. Then I moved up to a used AE-1, used T70, and finally ended up with a Pro A-1 that had been completely overhauled. Of course I bought all the different lenses, macro and tele. I use to lug around 2 big camera bags with all the lenses and filters and don't forget the tripods. Now it all sits in a cabinet unused. DH says I should sell them but who is buying film cameras nowadays? I thought my Nikon Coolpix 8800 would be my last camera ever. It had a film camera range 35 - 350 mm, Image Stabilizer, TTL view finder, 10x optical zoom, Exposure Modes Bulb, Manual, Program, Automatic, Shutter-priority, Aperture-priority, ISO 50-400 ranges, Exposure Metering and at 8meg I could get great macro shots. Everything I was use to in an SLR except for the changable lenses. The front does have threads for filters. I paid more for that camera then I have for any camera before. I had a heart attack when I bought it. LOL Now it is getting to the point of being old technology and it is only 5 years old. As a matter of fact I am beginning to have technical problems with it. When I hit off it won't shut off, I have to pull the battery. I sure and heck am not going to get it repaired. It would cost more then a new camera. That taught me valuable lesson about digital cameras. I will never buy the latest and never paid a ridiculous amount for one. At least I can use my film SLRs forever, or at least as long as they sell film. Not so with digital cameras. They are throw away technology. Clare
...See More
krikit
Original Author
15 years ago
thanks for all the info - definitely lots to think about - looking at some of the additional lenses and WOW they sure can get pricey! - I guess what I've got to decide is whether the pics I want to take will be worth that much. I can see I've got a lot to learn!!!

thanks again,
Frances
jemdandy
15 years ago
I've got a Canon Power Shot S2 IS. Its a great point an shoot camera, but with a few gripes.

The good stuff:

1. Fast boot up. Ready to go 1 second after turn on.

2. Quick auto-focus. If the auto-focus is turned off for general viewing and composing, it will focus when the shutter button is pressed to the first detent and immediately fire the shutter when the button is pressed all the way down. You press to the first detent, wait for focus, then shoot. Focusing in good light takes nore more than a second or so. Focus lag can be eliminated if the auto-focus is set to full time, but uses more battery power. Usually, by the time you compose the picture it is waiting for you.

3. Auto-focus continues while shooting a video.

4. Great lens

12 X Zoom, 6.0 - 72.0 mm; f/2.7 - f/3.5. There aren't many lenses out there (in this price range) that will have an arperature of f/3.5 at 12 X zoom.

5. The S2 model has 5.0 MP. This has been plenty for what I do. Later models have more.

6. Battery life is average with the Hybrid NiMH rechargeable cells. Regular NiMH cells are disappointing. These do not hold charge very well. The Hybrid NiMH cells leak rate is acceptable and superior to the regular NiMH cells.

7. The view finder brightens in low light to aid composition. The amount of brightening is amazing. When the shutter button is pressed to the first detent, a small green led light beam turns on to aid focusing and turns off for the shot.

8. Raising the flash lamp activates it. It needs a few seconds to charge.

9. Lens distortion is low.
1. Swing-out and swivel rear screen.
The agravating:

1. The sensor does not seem to have as much dynmaic range as a Nikon or Kodak.

2. Default settings causes burn out of highlighted items. This can be remedied by switiching to the "P" (program) mode and adjusting exposure down by 1/3 F stop.

3. Although the lens has 12X zoom, I would sacrifice a litte zoom on the long end to get wider at the low end. The low end is not wide enough for close-in group shots.

4. The worst failing for the S2 model. Viewfinder is too dim in bright light and the rear screen is hard to see (and increases battery drain).

5. There is no optical view finder; it is electronic. It is a little short of pixels to make good judgements about fine focus and there is a lag as one adjustes the focus. However, since the viewfinder is using signal from the main sensor, it accurately frames the scene.

These comments apply to the S2 model. Improvements have been made in later models. It will be difficult to beat the performace of this camera in this price range.

DSLR vs point and shoot digital

Comments (4)

MongoCT

Konrad___far_north

Related Discussions

krikit
Original Author

jemdandy

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

DSLR vs point and shoot digital

Comments (4)

MongoCT

Konrad___far_north

Related Discussions

krikitOriginal Author

jemdandy

COMPANY

BUSINESS SERVICES

GET HELP

CONNECT WITH US

krikit
Original Author