admin
Damien Franco PRO 8:58am, 19 November 2008
Working on post about pros and cons of DSLRs and compact cameras in an effort to help people think about which camera system may be best for their particular use.

Share your thoughts!

What are some of the pros and cons about DSLR's and point and shoot cameras?
time for a new beginning [deleted] 7 years ago
Well, while my bridge camera suited my needs initially I now wouldn't mind a DSLR.

Why?

Cons

Well when I bought my Fuji s6500fd I figured that I'd never have a need for interchangeable lenses. Within two months I needed that feature.

Limitations of the shutter speed. I love long exposures. The longer the better. With no ability to take a shot longer than 30 seconds on my PnS it's useless at night (well, relatively).

No hot shoe. Again another area where I've outgrown my PnS. I never thought I'd want to take photos with flash, preferring natural light, but now I'm keen to try my hand at off camera lighting and the lack of a hot shoe is proving a challenge.

The dependence on AA batteries has it's benefits, but sometimes it would be nice to have a proper battery that I could recharge and know how long it will last.

Pros

AA batteries can be bought almost anywhere in an emergency.

The shutter is quiet. In fact it makes no noise at all - nice for candid shots.

My camera still has RAW capabilities, and a reasonable lens with a max aperture at f2.8, though that increases to f4.9 on the long end of the 28-300mm zoom.

It's light and sort of compact. It won't fit in my pocket but other PnSs will.

The Fuji "chrome" colour option is fantastic - slide like colours in camera.

That's all I can think of right now, but I'm sure I'll think of more stuff later :D
jeffegg2 PRO 7 years ago
Well I have a point and shoot Canon G9, and the DSLR Nikon D40. I like the G9 because I can put it into the wifes purse, handy, takes movies. I like the Nikon D40 for more control, change lenses, its more for real photography, the G9 is more for snapshots.
ranger650 [deleted] 7 years ago
The two posts above pretty much cover my thoughts on P&S vs DSLR
In my case, my P&S is a Sony P-200 7.1MP the down side is limited settings , CCD sensor which drains the Sony batteries , but does take good photos and is compact and weighs hardly anything.

The other P&S I have is a Sony R1 10.3 MP , CMOS sensor , it is not compact , but is pretty lite and has a good amount of settings as far as aperture , shutter speed. Has on board flash and hotshoe for the ITTL flash which is not a speed light though. I still use it as my second camera at weddings and events.

Since I moved up to dslr I mostly use it. To me it's worth packing the weight.
dicktay2000 PRO 7 years ago
I have a Canon Power Shot SX100 P&S and A Canon 40D and Canon 5D (with a whole pile of lenses). I have owned a bridge camera in the past (Fuji 9500) but in the end the shutter lag a very long write times to the memory when shooting RAW got to me. I like to shoot sport.

The P&S
The Good:
(1) Reasonably priced.
(2) Compact.
(3) Pics are ok but not great...
(4) Shuter lag is minmal for a P&S .
(5) Built in IS (VR)
It ok for snapshots & some landscapes.

Downsides:
(1) Jpg Only so poorer IQ.
(2) No Viewfinder.
(3) Using it in manual mode can be cumbersome.
(4) Slow writing to memory card (difficult to shoot a burst)
(5) Difficult to see display in bright lighting.
(6) Slow flash recycle time.
(7) Poor low light performance.
(8) Noisy at high ISO

DSLR:
(1) Very responsive
(2) Can be configured to be the perfect camera, for any particular use -- with the right lenses & flashguns etc.
(4) Super image quality - especially with good lenses. (particularly the 5D)
(5) Good at high ISO and low light shooting.
(6) Very fast - good autofucus tracking and continious shooting.
(7) Great viefinder
(8) Very easy to use in non auto modes.
(9) I like the fact that you can jam it up against your face which makes it a lot steadier to use.

Downsides.
(1) Can be very expensive - especially if you buy good lenses.
(2) Can be big & heavy, again depending on the lens .
(3) Dust on the sensor.
(4) To get the best out of them you need to post process your pics - but I don't mind that.
(5) If you do buy a lot of gear for it, just remember you may need a rucksack to carry it.
admin
Damien Franco PRO Posted 7 years ago. Edited by Damien Franco (admin) 7 years ago
I don't know if I tell you guys this often enough, but you all rock!

Here's the post on camera pros and cons. Enjoy!
time for a new beginning [deleted] 7 years ago
Using my photos is thanks enough :D
Bo Eder 7 years ago
Are we absolutely sure that an 'upgrade' must mean going to a DSLR?
How about the other way around?

I exchanged an interesting email with fellow strobist kirkinaustion (Kirk Tuck), a professional photographer in his own right and photo book author, and we discussed the new Canon G10. He told me this new G10 would most likely be able to handle 90% of the shots he gets hired to shoot (I paraphrase, of course). The few shots he posted of a studio session of his son gave nothing away - it coulda' been a Hasselblad for all I know.

He did go on to say that he'd be a little nervous about what the client would be thinking if he showed up and pulled out the little G10, but this discussion got me thinking: in this new era of digital miniaturization, and especially live view, the only place you'd need a huge speedy DSLR would be out shooting fast animals, or sports!

Yes, the smaller lenses, and smaller sensors just cannot compete with the bigger components of an SLR (which is to say that size still does matter), but they're getting better all the time. Canon was on to something when they came out with the G9, and now the G10 has surpassed it.

I for one, want the control I have when I shoot with an old manual SLR or my Canonet rangefinder, but really not have to carry around a 40-pound backpack chock full of stuff!
Gimel Vav PRO 7 years ago
The camera I use most often is a LOMO LC-A+. It's very light and compact, so I have it with me always. It also has a very wide lens (32mm), so I can usually get what I wanted to get in the shot. I can always crop it later. It also has good low-light capabilities and some other very interesting features like double exposure capabilities and rear-curtain sync flash.

When I finally save up enough pennies to go for a digital, I would go for something like the Ricoh GX 100 (Caplio), or the Sigma DP1. Those are sort of like digital rangefinders. I also like the Nikon Coolpix p6000, Canon PowerShot G9. Those are sort of like digital versions of the 1970s compact 35s - Canon QL 17 G-III, Olympus RC, etc. I also like the Panasonic Lumix because of it's "triple wide" feature and lots of shooting options.

For me convenience is much more important than lots of lens options, and wide angle capabilities are more important than telephoto capabilities. I will just be more likely to use a camera with these features. So, as nice as the DSLRs are, and I would probably buy one if money was not an issues, my next digital purchase will probably be a digital "rangefinder".
admin
Damien Franco PRO 7 years ago
I guess the term "upgrade" may not have been the best word to use.

I suppose that the idea of a photographer wanting to gain more control with the ability to change lenses is broad. In most cases I do feel that this would be accurate, however it should be noted that not all photographers need all of those options.

If you're style of photography only warrants one type of lens, ie wideangle, you could easily opt for going with a good point and shoot with a wide angle lens attached. The technology is certainly there.

It's the photographer, after all, that makes a great image, not the camera.

As noted in the article there have been plenty of art photographers that have found their niche with "toy cameras".
Groups Beta