DSLR v P/Shoot

  • Thread starter Thread starter del69
  • Start date Start date
D

del69

Guest
Hi all.

Having read endless topic's, threads across the internet looking for a camera,for my future upgrade i was just wondering what really is the difference between a DSLR and a point and shoot jobby.

I currently use a Panasonic FZ8 P/Shoot....Its a good little camera,its been dropped so many times its become the norm and after taken it completely to bits for a good clean after noticing dust in the inner lens it works as good as gold and incredible difference to the image quality before the clean.

Anyway....i can under stand that you can tweak the settings on a DSLR to your liking but you can also on a P/Shoot,i know if you can spend some 3000 pound plus on a camera, your going to get better results as in image quality but on a bog standard DSLR compared to a new P/Shoot are you going to notice the difference.

And also Glass,you can spend endless amounts on lenses for a DSLR but for a P/Shoot its built in and you can get a converter for the extra distance and i presume filters to suit your needs.

Its like the Linux v Vista,,,,,,have it done for you and add your input or go the full slog and do it your self...........i don't know,they both have there good points and bad.

Apart from the high models in Canon/Nikon would i get a good P/Shoot that is as good as or am i missing the point.Well DSLR users are going to state there case but you could have a good holiday if not spent on lenses yes lenses....


Should i or should i not.............


Please feel free to put your point across.

Cheers Del.....:thinking:
 
*bites tongue* :shake:
 
It's such a tough question to answer as different cameras suit different folks better. It's true that an SLR camera is always going to offer you more options, both in terms of upgrading and opening up more opportunities to tackle more difficult shooting situations.

Things like low light, fast moving subjects, the need for very wide lenses, a high frame rate of shots per second, these will all cause your trusty P&S to faulter and could cost you the chance of getting the images you want.

I have a meduim format kit and Canon stuff with fast cameras and expensive lenses that I use for work and they cover just about any shooting situation that I might find myslef in. When I pick up a camera to take out with me in my own time, it's always my little panasonic LX2. It's small, light, very creative, doesn't get too heavy or in the way of me having a good time.

It's all up to what fits your needs. :)
 
ThanX Dazzeljl

I do understand why to use a dslr for the only two reasons you say and for them two is enough to sway me but the cost can be so mind boggerling in glass.

I don't really focus on a particular subject from day to day so that would mean a bag off glass and im sure thats why you see some have spent a penny or so for your needs.Well its fine if you focus on macro shots maybe two three glasses would do but when your eyes are as wide as mine,ill need a wheel barrow.

Del
 
I think you've really answered your own question. You know the pros and cons of both formats. Now you really have to decide what you want to use your camera for and when you'd use it. If you buy a DSLR and leave it at home all the time because you can't be arsed carrying it around, then you'll never get any photos at all. If that's the case then a P&S is better, simply because it will get more use.

There are also a few high end P&S format cameras (Canon G9, for example) that have many of the features one would expect from a DSLR - so where previously there was a clearly defined line, its starting to get somewhat blurred now.

You needn't spend '000s on a DSLR - there are some very capable cameras at around the £300 - £500 (or so) mark. Although you may need to think about how much you'd end up spending on glass on top.
 
Having a P&S im not clinging on and as you say Modilevirgin somewhat blurred,this is really my point i guess,they are starting to catch up in a compact form and if truth be know would this be a warm welcome or stick with what works........

I like the idea to take endless shots of a action but really you have to be in the right place at the right time and iv struck gold with my P&S after x amounts shots........


I think for me it its the glass and if you have no subject you have to be prepared....


del
 
I think this has been a very interesting thread, and a credit to TP. As many people have pointed out, it's not necessarily correct to think of a DSLR as "better" than a P&S - just "different". Whether or not the differences are positive or negative depends *totally* on what you want to do with your camera.

Having said that, here's another difference that hasn't been mentioned so far. DSLRs have much bigger sensors than P&S cameras, and therefore they are capable of taking photos with much more blurred backgrounds (ie shallow depth pf field). If that's the kind of effect you like, then you can't do it without a DSLR. If not..... not.
 
StewartR said:
. DSLRs have much bigger sensors than P&S cameras, and therefore they are capable of taking photos with much more blurred backgrounds (ie shallow depth pf field). If that's the kind of effect you like, then you can't do it without a DSLR. If not..... not.
Click to expand...

There's always the Canon G9, or even the new Sigma DP1 with the APS-C sensor, which is the size most Dslrs have.....
 
well put simply-if you need to ask the question your not really into cameras and should just buy a point a shoot.

:razz:
 
As an afterthought to this discussion - I always find flickr useful for a bit of research. You can search by camera model and see what others can achieve to help you make your mind up.

There are 3 compacts I would suggest you may want to think about, as below. None of them are really best described as P&S because as far as I know they all offer full manual control over shutter aperture and ISO (if you want - they presumably also have an auto setting too) and at least 2 of them (Leica and G9 - don't know about the Ricoh) shoot raw files. I've seen stunning images from all 3. I have the Leica and I love it. I still have a soft spot for the Ricoh, though because of the "mood" it can produce.

Anyway - flickr links:

Canon G9

Ricoh GR 2

Leica D-Lux 3

None of them are particularly cheap - you could get a 2nd hand DSLR for less than the new price of any of them. But they all perform superbly.

(And if you're interested, I've posted some of my pics with the Leica on here - do a search for "Lisbon" and you'll find the threads)

MV
 
Flash In The Pan said:
The Leica is just a Panasonic in a party frock....
Click to expand...

Yeah, but its a pretty classy frock - I love looking at it and it makes me want to take it out and show it off. So, I do. Often.

Still, its a valid point - the Panasonic DMC-LX2 is more or less equivalent to the Leica D-Lux 3 and should maybe be added to my flickr list, so here its it is

Panasonic DMC-LX2
 
digitalmaniac, that's just not true.
There's nothing wrong with asking even if you were a gear head.

I think dazzajl said most of it.
If you get a DSLR, you get to work with depth of field more, you're likely to have faster AF (not necessarily, but it's very likely) and if you need fast shutter speeds, you can crank up the ISO and still have plenty of detail in your shots, especially if you shoot RAW.
If you have bigger hands, most DSLRs will feel more comfortable in your hands (except for the E-400/E-410/E-420 Oly cameras, they're tiny for DSLRs).
A manual focus ring is a bonus, manual zooming is great. Manual zooming is usually much faster than if you did it via a button or two on the camera body. Manual focusing ring is very nice for macros (although you're likely to end up swaying to and fro like a drunk anyway).
 
ThanX people....

Its still a tough one and i do understand the pros and cons.

Has any one gone back to P&S after using Dslr and why.........can you live with out the extra functions..............


Cheers Del.............
 
Fab topic and some spot on answers too :)

I've got medium format which I shoot B&W film on. I have Canon bodies and lenses that cover 15mm to 400mm and I also have a little Olympus UZ that just about fits in a pocket.

It's very much a case of taking what I think will do the job though. There are times when one is infinitely better suited than the other. One of my best pics is of my step daughter shrieking her head off on a fairground ride. Would I have got that with a dslr? Not a hope in hell! One nil to the little guy.

Another is of the dog running flat out through the grass, could I have got that with a P&S. Again, no chance! Back to all square.

The dslr is capable of some stunning stuff, those one in a thousand (I'm now glad I spent as much as a small car) moments but as someone else has said, It won't catch anything if it's sat in a cupboard at home. As a hobby, photography can become seriously addictive and you can spend years carefully selecting the equipment that allows you to expand your shooting range. At the outset, there is probably not much to choose between a dslr and a good P&S. Three years down the line and a couple of bags of kit, there's a huge difference (That's what happened to me)

In other words it's horses for courses.

Pick whatever you think will give you the most enjoyment, after all, it's the enjoyment of what we do that is more important than the end result. Whichever you decide you will be welcome here.
 
here's another difference that hasn't been mentioned so far. DSLRs have much bigger sensors than P&S cameras, and therefore they are capable of taking photos with much more blurred backgrounds (ie shallow depth pf field).
Click to expand...

Very good point, it's not always impossible to get a blurred background with my LX2 but there are times. Then to turn that around the other way, because of those tiny sensors, the tiny focal length lenses mean you can have a huge Depth of Field that you'd never get on an SLR.

My little 6 to 23mm lens can pretty much focus on the front glass all the way out to infinity. :)
 
I was in a similar position to you about 2 years ago and I decided to buy a Canon A620 as I thought a DSLR was too expensive. I read that the A620 had full manual control and I thought it would be like a mini DSLR at half the price.

Its a great camera and I have taken some lovely shots with it but it does have its limitations. I took it to a local sprint track and ended up with a dozen shots of empty tarmac, there is too much shutter lag. However if you want to capture a moment its very easy with the PnS (so long as its not fast moving action), almost everything is in focus and it fits easily in your pocket when you want to travel.

In March this year I bought a DSLR, since then I've not touched the A620, it was a good camera, but for what I want (which it to try and be creative) it just cant cut it.

If you aren't sure, hire a DSLR for the weekend and have a play.
 
I'm looking at this the other way around.

I've had SLR kit for 30 years, and have a decent digital setup now.

When I'm not shooting (hate that word) I can't be bothered to carry it all around with me any more.

So I'm wondering if a decent compact would be a good idea for holidays, etc. I'd probably get more pictures that way.

Horses for Courses ..... absolutely.:)
 
I went from a point and shoot FZ5 and have no regrets at all. I got a D40 and love it. The main differences to me are a significant improvement in image quality and a need to buy an additional lens for the D40.

Really I found the image quality vastly superior. I do miss the super zoom hence a need for an additional lens but that's also down to my shooting preferences.

Get a DSLR I doubt you will regret it.
 
There is a massive difference.

I have just upgraded from p/s to dslr and christ almighty is this DSLR in a different league. You get more ouptions with settings. More options with zoom. Oh and you get a lighter wallet.
 
digitalmaniac said:
well put simply-if you need to ask the question your not really into cameras and should just buy a point a shoot.

:razz:
Click to expand...

Is that meant to be a joke?
 
I have not long sold my Canon 40D as i just did not use it but im all ways useing my GF point and click. So im going to get me a point and click to.
Canon G9 / Nikon p80 / Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ18
There all ment to be top spec point and click I was going to get a Sigma DP1 but after some reading I found that the lens is slow and the zoom is low all so.
 
good post.

If I ever remember to, i'll try and post a comparison. I have a 400d, the father-in-law has a 40d and the mother-in-law has just bought a g9.

luckily we get on very well;)


i suspect i am going to be envious of the G9 for many things, could be interesting.:thinking:
 
Lets say....

That P/S become the next best thing to a DSLR and it did what it said on the tin,how would you feel that you have spent xx only to find that a single object would do the same..........can you see this been the way of the future or not..........its only time, this will be the WAY..............

Del
 
del69 said:
ThanX people....

Its still a tough one and i do understand the pros and cons.

Has any one gone back to P&S after using Dslr and why.........can you live with out the extra functions..............


Cheers Del.............
Click to expand...


I have point and shoot I use when a DSLR is not convenient but would not give up my DSLR to go back solely to point and shoot as it,s to restrictive IMO.

I have taken up a full format again though , 35mm film I mean :D:D
 
Teh Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1 seems to bridge the gap between teh P&S, bridge and prismatic DSlrs.

Not cheap, but reviews show it's a wuick pick-em-up type of kit.


Ek
 
With an slr every penny you spend will in some way be recoup-able with a PnS it won't.
(this makes no sense let me explain)

At the outset you buy a prosumer slr 100d d40 ect with kit and maybe tele lens.
6 months down the line you add a prime or a speedlight
another 6 months you feel you want a faster or better walkabout and sell your kit
another 6months its the tele you want to change
6 more months and you upgrade the body


wit a PnS its x months then new camera, no real evolutionary process.

I'm not the best person to answer in all honesty as I never really had PnS, I went from phone cameras to an SLR.
I love my kit but would consider a G9 or similar to keep with me when I haven't got it, but really I just keep body and prime on my shoulder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top