High-spec compact or entry-level DSLR...?

[Lurking Lawyer]

First post so go easy on me!

I'm a complete n00b to photography. I do have an old Canon IXUS 3 compact, but latterly have tended to resort just to pulling out my mobile and using the built in camera when I want to take a picture. You will appreciate that I have therefore historically been very much in the point-and-click brigade.....

However, a friend demo-ing his Canon EOS 400D a couple of weeks ago showed me just how much better even casual snaps were with that than anything I had been used to. He was using a 50mm EF 1.8 II lens, so nothing particularly expensive, but the portrait snaps he took of my little girl were so much better than anything I'd ever been able to manage with a compact. The way the picture focused on the subject and blurred all the background around it was a nice touch (probably very basic when you know how, but it was new to me...)

So, it got me thinking. If I want to keep a halfway decent photographic record of my daughter as she grows up, and maybe develop photography into a bit more of a hobby, maybe I should dip a toe into the world of "proper" photography and try out an entry-level DSLR.

But as I thought about, I started to wonder it would be overkill for the casual use I have in mind - would I ever get beyond taking it out of full auto mode and learning how to use it properly? Would I actually use it if it meant carting a camera bag around rather than just being able to stick it in my pocket? Would I ever find the time and/or inclination to learn more about how to take a decent picture - how to compose and frame it, how to set the camera up to improve the picture and so forth?

I'd like to think that the answer to all of those would be yes, but I can't honestly be sure. Which brings me (eventually!) to my question - would I be better spending the money on a high end compact (the sort I've seen referred to as a "bridge" camera - something like a Canon Powershot S5, perhaps) which is a compromise and obviously lacks the ultimate performance and flexibility of a DSLR but is perhaps more useable, and a better stepping stone, for a lazy n00b like me?

I'm unlikely to ever metamorphose into the next David Bailey, so extracting every last ounce of performance is unlikely to be a major issue for me. I suppose I'm wondering whether there is still a gulf between bridge cameras and entry level DSLRs, or whether I'd see markedly better casual portrait and general usage pictures with a DSLR (and yes, I know that depends largely on the lens...) compared with anything of the compact variety, even the higher end.

Over to you good folks with much more experience than me!

 

[Flash In The Pan]

For the price of something like a 450D, I'd get one of those, although a Canon G10 would give you a pretty similar set of features in a compact body, but without the option to swap lenses etc...

 

[Lurking Lawyer]

Ooops. Just realised I posted this in the wrong forum - I had intended to put in the Talk Equipment forum, but forgot where I had last been reading when I clicked to start a new thread. Not the most auspicious start!

Sorry mods - any chance you might move it for me?

Ta!

 

[boyfalldown]

As a very short answer I'd say DSLR every time. Even if you use it fully automatically every time it will still prodcues shots of a higher standard then a bridge camera, and it will give you scope to learn and develop your photography should you want to do so. A bridge camera won't.

A DSLR will also bring you far more flexibility should you wish it.

Hugh

 

[Lurking Lawyer]

I should probably also add that I'd probably look to buy second hand, at least to begin with, if I went down the DSLR route - so that gives me a budget of maybe £300-350 for a body and basic lens.

 

[theMusicMan]

Yep, DSLR everytime. If anyone tries to fill you with stuff similar to the following bs... "be careful, go for a bridge camera, because there's a lot to learn with a DSLR and you might want to phase your learning curve"... look for the ignore function on here cos they're talking through their preverbials and being very patronising.

If you can afford a DSLR, go for one matey. Look at them all and decide what you want to be doing with your photography, then ask questions and make a decision. Plenty of super Nikons, Canons, Oly's and others to give you what you need.

Good luck...

 

[will69]

I'd like to think that the answer to all of those would be yes, but I can't honestly be sure. Which brings me (eventually!) to my question - would I be better spending the money on a high end compact (the sort I've seen referred to as a "bridge" camera - something like a Canon Powershot S5, perhaps) which is a compromise and obviously lacks the ultimate performance and flexibility of a DSLR but is perhaps more useable, and a better stepping stone, for a lazy n00b like me?

I'm unlikely to ever metamorphose into the next David Bailey, so extracting every last ounce of performance is unlikely to be a major issue for me. I suppose I'm wondering whether there is still a gulf between bridge cameras and entry level DSLRs, or whether I'd see markedly better casual portrait and general usage pictures with a DSLR (and yes, I know that depends largely on the lens...) compared with anything of the compact variety, even the higher end.

Over to you good folks with much more experience than me!

You will get excellent results from a bridge camera. Advantages are that you do not need to lug around a bag of lenses and accessories which are required to get the most out of a dSLR.

If you are interested in taking more control (which is what many people mean by more serious photography) in the canon range I would recommend the G10 as it is the only model to allow shots in RAW, this will lead you into the digital darkroom.

The main down side of the bridge camera compared to an entry level dSLR are: less control over depth of field; shorter maximum focal length; lower image quality (marginally - you may not notice the difference).

You need to decide how important these are to you.

 

[strumstrum]

The main down side of the bridge camera compared to an entry level dSLR are: less control over depth of field; shorter maximum focal length

yep I am astonished at my wifes bridge camera but the lack of DoP control means its a DSLR for me..

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/CANON-REBEL-X...id=p4634.c0.m14.l1262&_trkparms=|293:1|294:30

I got that from him but with kit lens for £250 which he doesnt have at the mo but you can pick up a kit lens dead cheap should you wish.. they are Canon refurbs but I tell you apart from the fact it comes in a Canon box with a @refurbished' sign on it you wouldnt know, they are like new..

 

[tbm]

As Will alludes to above, a compact won't give you the shallow depth of field / blurred background that you appreciate in your mate's shots of your daughter.

An SLR is also potentially far better in low light than a compact too.

Obviously an SLR is going to be a fair bit more versatle as far as learning / expansion goes and will allow far more control on your part.

IMO the only reason to go for a compact would be if you're concerned about size. While not as small the entry level SLR offerings are usually relatively small and light though.

 

[SarahLee]

I can't offer you the wealth of experience (or technical expertise) of the others, but if a fellow newbie's opinion counts I'd go with the SLR.

My husband bought me a bridge camera as a gift a few month back. It was a complete surprise and like you, photography was not something that I ever thought I'd get into.
With hindsight, this hobby is highly addictive and if it was something that I'd thought through and actually planned (as you're obviously doing) I really would have gone for the SLR option.

I'm already getting frustrated with some of the limitations of my camera and wanting to upgrade if I can.

 

[dod]

I should probably also add that I'd probably look to buy second hand, at least to begin with, if I went down the DSLR route - so that gives me a budget of maybe £300-350 for a body and basic lens.

You could get yourself a very competent kit for that.

I just picked up a 2nd hand 20D and a 28-105mm F3.5/4.5 for a friend for the princely sum of £200. Once I source a suitable 70-300 she'll have a very decent set up for less than £300.

Shifting to equipment, welcome to the forum

 

[Yv]

Welcome to the forum first of all.

I want to pick on something you said about lugging a bag full of kit rund with a dSLR. Yes, you can do that quite easily and most of us do, BUT and here's the thing, you don't have to. For instance, I have taken to popping into my smallish [for a woman] handbag either my Nikon D70s with a 28mm lens on board [a camera that is brilliant and should be well within your budget with a nice enough lens s/h] or an old Pentax film SLR with a 50mm F1.7 attached. TBH, with such small lenses onboard they are only marginally bigger than some bridge cameras. Now ok, I admit, such a set up isn't going to give you the zoom capabiliies of the bridge camera, but that doesn't mean your next lens purchase wont [eg, a nikon 55-200] and again, you still need only take the one camera/lens combo out with you, slung over your shoulder, no bag if you dont want it.

Stepping into the world of dslr's allows you that flexibilty in a way a bridge camera never could. If you want small and compact you can have it, but you can also build your kit into a nice collection that would still be fairly easy to take around with you as and when you feel like it and circumstances require it.


oh yeah, and its terribly addictive too, and expensive, and, and...... :nuts:



So, as an alternative to the canons already mentioned, I would suggest looking at Nikon D70/D70s or even D80, and either an 18-70mm lens, or maybe the 55-200 or even a straight forward 50mm F1.8

 

[ogbyte]

another for DSLR

originally had a Konica/Minolta Dimage A1 prosumer bridge camera which i thought was very good when i first got it, but after a few months or so began to get frustrated with the shutter lag on it.

Kept at it for about a 1yr or so, then upgrade to a full DSLR (Canon 30D) and the difference in performance is like night an day.

no shutter lag, great low-light performance (obviously lens dependant) different lens types, proper speedlights and other fancy items (although the A1 did have the ability to use external flashes)

Go for it - DSLR all the way

Gary

 

[SteveA]

Quite simply it's a toss-up between image quality and convenience.

At the risk of being flamed...

While I love my DSLR (Nikon D80), I recently bought a Panasonic LX3 simply because I found myself leaving the camera at home because of the bulk and weight of the thing (though some might say through laziness!).

I reach for the D80 whenever I'm specifically going out to take photos. The rest of the time the LX3 goes with me. It's fairly pocketable, has manual controls, a fast lens, RAW output, and great results. The Canon G9/G10 is rather a hefty beast in comparison - if you're looking at the G10, you may as well just go for an entry-level DLSR from the size/convenience point of view.

 

[Lurking Lawyer]

Thanks for all the replies and the welcome to the forum!

There's a lot of food for thought here. I keep swinging back and forth between thinking I should get a DSLR and do things "properly" (yes, I know it's far from being that simple, but I'm sure you get the idea) and thinking I may actually be inclined to use a camera more if (a) it's smaller and thus more portable and (b) I don't have to worry about what lens works best for what sort of photo.

At the back of my mind is the concern that I won't be arsed to use it if it's a faff to carry around and use, and that given the limited free time I get thesedays for various reasons will I actually invest the time and effort required to learn how to get the best out of a DSLR?

Decisions, decisions!

Heart says DSLR, head says decently-specced compact with enough functionality to allow me to start playing around once I know what I'm doing.

I rather expected the opinions from more serious photography fans like the folk on here to be very firmly in the DSLR camp, so it's a bit surprising to find a groundswell of support for something like the G9/10 or the LX3.

Thanks again for all the input. I'm going to do some more reading over the weekend and maybe venture down to wherever my nearest camera emporium is to actually handle a few and see what feels "right".

 

[Freester]

To try and put in a nutshell...

If you really want to create the 'Depth of Field' effect (which is nice for portraits) you will need a DSLR. Sensor sizes on compacts will not produce such a pronounced effect.

But you will also need a bit of know how to achieve the effect. Just buying a DSLR and shooting in Auto won't get you the effect you want either.

My head says get yourself a bottom of the range DSLR AND a mid range compact!

 

[Lurking Lawyer]

My head says get yourself a bottom of the range DSLR AND a mid range compact!

That would certainly simplify matters!

Alas, having a 15 month old daughter and a wife that isn't working limit the funds available to indulge my photographic whims.

The depth of field issue isn't a deal-breaker. I mentioned simply because it was what had impressed me when I saw a DSLR in action and made me stop and actually think about whether a camera that gives me more control than a humble IXUS 3 might be worth investing in.

Nice to have, certainly, and especially if I'm going to use whatever I buy for portrait snaps (which is quite likely).

 

[Freester]

Alas, having a 15 month old daughter and a wife that isn't working limit the funds available to indulge my photographic whims.

One of the things that impressed one of my friends is the lack of shutter lag / and start up time with a DSLR. He bought a bottom of the range one simply because he was missing shots of his young kids with his Sony compact.

He just shoots in Auto. More food for thought I guess

 

[Lurking Lawyer]

Good point, Freester - that was also something I had noted.

It's an absolute nightmare getting her to sit still long enough to get a shot with the IXUS or phone camera - by the time the shutter closes, it's not just a question of having missed the shot, she has more often and not left the field of exposure completely! :bang:

As you say, all the more food for thought

 

[Jim.R]

I was in pretty much the same quandary as you, really wanted a DSLR but was scared that it wouldn't get used enough due to the size. I'd pretty much made up my mind to get a G9 (the G10 wasn't out at the time) until a friend gave me his 400D for the day to get him some shots while he was getting married. Then it all went full circle!!
After witnessing the almost instant startup, superquick focussing and zero shutter lag (all compared to the Ixus 500 that I had at the time) there was no way in my mind that I could settle for less. My family all clubbed together and got me the 450D as a birthday present a month or two later.

So, do I take more or less pictures now than when I had the compact? More, definitely.
There were so many times in the past that I'd just not even think to pick up the compact when going out for the day.
Now, I see every outing as an opportunity to practice, try something new or just get a bit more experience.
And I'm starting to get pictures now that I'm actually pleased with and want to print/display, rather than just a buch of JPEGs clogging up a hard drive being ignored.

 

[SteveA]

Decision made, lurking_lawyer?

 

[Naboo32]

That would certainly simplify matters!

Alas, having a 15 month old daughter and a wife that isn't working limit the funds available to indulge my photographic whims.

The depth of field issue isn't a deal-breaker. I mentioned simply because it was what had impressed me when I saw a DSLR in action and made me stop and actually think about whether a camera that gives me more control than a humble IXUS 3 might be worth investing in.

Nice to have, certainly, and especially if I'm going to use whatever I buy for portrait snaps (which is quite likely).

Although depth of field may not "be a deal breaker", I would just like to add this in favour of the DSLR:

If you got yourself an entry level DSLR (any major brand, they're all excellent these days ) and a 50mm f/1.8 lens (like the one one your friend's camera), you're going to be able to do two things, which would be very hard/impossible on a compact or bridge camera.

1. You're going to be able to create really 'professional' looking portraits (with very blurry backgrounds ) at the click of a button, by simply putting the camera into "A" mode and selecting either f/1.8, f/2, f/2.8 or one of those lower numbers that are not available on any compact or any bridge camera (that I know of ). The camera will automatically do everything else for you (provided that it has a built-in motor to focus the lens. Not all do).

2. You will be able to take pictures wthout using the built-in flash, in light levels that are much lower than those which you may be used to shooting in, provided that you keep the camera in "A" mode and use those smaller "F" numbers again. This gives you the possibility to photograph your children in the 'natural' light available around the house and still get decent, blur-free images. As you probably know, the smaller "F" numbers translate to shorter exposure times - just the thing for freezing the moment !

Just think of all of those birthday parties that you'll be photographing over the next 20 years ! Much better if you can do it without having to use the flash on your bridge camera, IMHO :|.


Of course, DSLRs can do much more than these two 'tricks', but it's my belief that they are two tricks which can only really be pulled off with a DLSR :shrug: - otherwise, we'd all be shooting with fag packet sized cameras and would still have healthy postures (and bank balances ).

End of my $0.02 . Good luck!

 

[Lurking Lawyer]

Decision made, lurking_lawyer?

I've pretty much decided that I'm going to go with my initial thought of used entry level DSLR (ideally with a lens or two bundled with it) and see how I get on.

The way I see it, if offers me more flexibility than even a well-specced "bridge" type compact, and if I don't like it and/or it turns out I never actually get around to working out how to take a proper picture and how the camera works in anything other than full auto, I can probably sell it and not lose too much.

So, thanks for all the advice - very helpful, in particular those last comments from naboo.

Now, the dilemma becomes which "system" to buy into. The few compacts I've had have all been Canon, so I'd probably stick with that and look for maybe a second-hand 400D, unless I spot a particularly tempting deal for something from Nikon, Sony et al.....

Before I posted my thread up, I did a search for threads on "starter DSLRs", so it's apparent that there are plenty of decent ones out there and it's a matter of personal preference as to brand as anything else.

BTW, would I be right in thinking that the 50mm f/1.8 II lens I mentioned in my original post is what seems to be referred to around here as a "nifty fifty"....?

 

[PsiFox]

I've pretty much decided that I'm going to go with my initial thought of used entry level DSLR (ideally with a lens or two bundled with it) and see how I get on.

The way I see it, if offers me more flexibility than even a well-specced "bridge" type compact, and if I don't like it and/or it turns out I never actually get around to working out how to take a proper picture and how the camera works in anything other than full auto, I can probably sell it and not lose too much.

So, thanks for all the advice - very helpful, in particular those last comments from naboo.

Now, the dilemma becomes which "system" to buy into. The few compacts I've had have all been Canon, so I'd probably stick with that and look for maybe a second-hand 400D, unless I spot a particularly tempting deal for something from Nikon, Sony et al.....

Before I posted my thread up, I did a search for threads on "starter DSLRs", so it's apparent that there are plenty of decent ones out there and it's a matter of personal preference as to brand as anything else.

BTW, would I be right in thinking that the 50mm f/1.8 II lens I mentioned in my original post is what seems to be referred to around here as a "nifty fifty"....?

Don't brand fixate go to some shops and play with the various cameras. All can take good shots you make them great.

Have a look at www.camerapricebuster.co.uk to compare prices.

It shows Sony with some quite tempting body and 2 lens deals.
The 50mm 1.8 is the nifty fifty.

 

[Naboo32]

(*snip*) ...
BTW, would I be right in thinking that the 50mm f/1.8 II lens I mentioned in my original post is what seems to be referred to around here as a "nifty fifty"....?

That's right, the cheaper 50mm "prime" lenses (those which only have one single focal lenght and don't zoom in and out) with the f/1.8 aperture, are referred to as 'nifty fifties' (presumabley because of the fast shutter speeds that they enable you to use and because of the 50mm focal length, which is thought to be a good 'general purpose' field of view - if indeed there is such a thing in photography :shrug.

I know for certain that both Canon and Nikon (the best established brands names in the world of DSLRs, although being challenged now by relative newcomers, Sony) offer these kinds of lenses for the less than £100 new. You would be well advised to look long and hard at which lenses are on offer and at what prices, should you decide to go with any other brand.

Hope that helps .

 

[Overexposed]

I've pretty much decided that I'm going to go with my initial thought of used entry level DSLR (ideally with a lens or two bundled with it) and see how I get on.

The way I see it, if offers me more flexibility than even a well-specced "bridge" type compact, and if I don't like it and/or it turns out I never actually get around to working out how to take a proper picture and how the camera works in anything other than full auto, I can probably sell it and not lose too much.

So, thanks for all the advice - very helpful, in particular those last comments from naboo.

Now, the dilemma becomes which "system" to buy into. The few compacts I've had have all been Canon, so I'd probably stick with that and look for maybe a second-hand 400D, unless I spot a particularly tempting deal for something from Nikon, Sony et al.....

Before I posted my thread up, I did a search for threads on "starter DSLRs", so it's apparent that there are plenty of decent ones out there and it's a matter of personal preference as to brand as anything else.

BTW, would I be right in thinking that the 50mm f/1.8 II lens I mentioned in my original post is what seems to be referred to around here as a "nifty fifty"....?

Decisions decisions !
be aware that some of the more prosumers get quite big and bulky - a Canon450d with a nifty fifty or an 18-50 kit lens is not much bigger than many bridges and so much more adaptable.............
go and have a play - the Nikon d40/d60 is also a belter if you can find one

 

[SteveA]

I agree with PsiFox - the best thing to do is to go into the camera shop and have a play. I chose Nikon purely because the think felt solid and comfortable in my hands. The specs and price of the entry level cameras where pretty similar at the time, and I expect they are now (Sony's current aggressive pricing aside).

Note that Nikon announced the D3000 today (replacing the D60). Might be a good option...

 

[mr_pants]

I agree with PsiFox - the best thing to do is to go into the camera shop and have a play. I chose Nikon purely because the think felt solid and comfortable in my hands. The specs and price of the entry level cameras where pretty similar at the time, and I expect they are now (Sony's current aggressive pricing aside).

Note that Nikon announced the D3000 today (replacing the D60). Might be a good option...

Perhaps the only caveat to D40/D60 is the inability to autofocus with the 50mm f/1.8 (if I haven't got it completely wrong again). Maybe the D70/D70s/D80 as suggested by Yv?

 

[AndyWest]

I sold my DSLR and got a very good compact. Although i love my Panasonic TZ6 it is still not as good as DSLR and has a fair few shortcomings. The image quality on things close up (portrait etc) is excellent on the TZ6 but it lacks in many other ways. I have just bought a Canon 400D 2nd hand from the For Sale section for £210 and can't wait to start using it.

 

[Lurking Lawyer]

Just to round this thread off, I thought I'd post to say that I bought a second hand EOS 400D with 18-55 kit lens and a few other bits and pieces from the classifieds on here earlier tonight.

Looking forward to receiving it next week!

Thanks again for all the advice. Expect to see some numpty question threads once I start playing around with it!

 

[AndyWest]

Nice one! The 400D looks a good all round camera. I'm trying not to spend £280 on a Canon 50mm f1.4 lens and loosing the fight big time!

Where abouts are you?

 

[MScotts]

A Nikon D40x (or D60) with the kit lens would be a good starter for 10, and wouldn't break the bank. As-per above, if you went bridge or compact you could well be soon itching to go DSLR...

If you decide to go the compact route, I had a Panasonic DMC-TZ3 (gave it to my eldest lad) which I found a cracking bit of kit for a compact; excellent optics with a decent zoom and 28mm w/a, plus very good video mode which was had digi-cam definition when re-played on the 42'' plasma telly.... It's been superceded by the TZ5 then TZ7 since, but I can imagine they're all of similar ilk!

Have fun and whatever you choose to have matey

 

[MScotts]

Just to round this thread off, I thought I'd post to say that I bought a second hand EOS 400D with 18-55 kit lens and a few other bits and pieces from the classifieds on here earlier tonight.............

Missed this post when replying ( :doh: )

I'm sure you'll have no regrets going the DSL route, and if you want a compact you can always nip to Tesco's and buy a cheap compact snapper for the back pocket for a few quid

Andy

 

[Naboo32]

Just to round this thread off, I thought I'd post to say that I bought a second hand EOS 400D with 18-55 kit lens and a few other bits and pieces from the classifieds on here earlier tonight.

Looking forward to receiving it next week!

Thanks again for all the advice. Expect to see some numpty question threads once I start playing around with it!

Great choice, LL !

Canon have the biggest range of DSLR compatible lenses on the market (over 60 models) and buying a used, but recent model of camera is a smart way to get more bang for your buck .

As you'll discover when you get it, the maximum aperture value on the 18-55 kit lens will be around f/5.6 at the 55mm setting (where you're most likely to use it for portraits) and this will give you a moderate amount of background blur. If you want the truly blurry background (or, "bokeh", as it's known ) with the sharp subject, you'll need a larger aperture (like f/2.8 or even f/1.8), which you can get with the "nifty fifty" that we talked about earlier on .

There's a forum member here called, "Kerso", who I believe has a good stock of these Canon 50mm lenses, at the lowest prices. You can PM him, or do a search on his user name to find out more.

So, welcome the wonderful world of "DIY professional photography", as I like to think of it (much to the disgust of the real 'pros' on here ).

 

[Lurking Lawyer]

Where abouts are you?

Andy, I'm in Congleton, in south Cheshire. I'll update my profile so it shows....

Naboo, I've already got my eye on a nifty fifty It might have to wait until Christmas though. I'm sure the 18-55 will keep my occupied while I take my DSLR baby steps....