2006-08-13 23:55:33 · 8 answers · asked by Raymond K 1 in Consumer Electronics ➔ Cameras
For 20 years I took pictures with a film SLR. My introduction to digital was three years ago, with a Coolpix 8700. At the time, that was Nikon's top of the line, 8 megapixel, megazoom, bells and whistles prosumer point & shoot. And I must admit, it took fantastic pictures of still lifes. It wasn't so good for action shots though (including kids).
The biggest drawback to point & shoots - then and now - is that they use an electronic viewfinder. EVFs take 1/10th second to transmit the picture from the lens to the eye piece or screen. In effect, when you press the shutter button, the moment you think you're shooting is already gone. Other drawbacks include slow autofocus, shutter lag (has gotten better since), lack of working manual focus, poor low light performance (has gotten better in some models), and poor depth of field.
I was overly harsh on my camera though. It's unfair to expect a point & shoot to behave like an SLR. If you can live with the limitations of a point & shoot (even the expensive ones), you can have a lot of fun with one. On the plus side, you'll have camera you can keep in your shirt pocket.
If you expect the responsiveness and creative control of an SLR however, there is no substitute for a (digital) SLR. When I switched to a Nikon dSLR earlier this year, I could finally retire my film body.
2006-08-14 02:05:30 · answer #1 · answered by OMG, I ♥ PONIES!!1 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I have both a Canon compact digital camera and a Canon digital SLR and they are both great for their functions. The compact can go anywhere and take quick snaps of the kids, etc. The SLR is much better for serious picture taking and the fact that the lenses can be changed is a big plus.
2006-08-14 07:13:13 · answer #2 · answered by Steve H 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It depends on how you'll be using it.
I have a Kodak 6.1 megapix point-and-shoot that's great for throwing in a backpack pocket.
My Canon Dig Rebel XT, however, takes great shots also but is much less portable. It's a great camera, don't get me wrong, but it's huge compared to a small camera.
Decide how you'll be using the camera the most and make your decision accordingly!
PS- If you get the Canon Dig Rebel, email me for some great websites that I've found for awesome Rebel tips!
Good luck!
2006-08-14 07:05:43 · answer #3 · answered by Austinite 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If you don't know how to spell CAMERA, I'm guessing the right answer here is 'no'. Just get one of those great little compact digicams. Something like a Panasonic FX01 or Fuji F30. they take great pics- and since they're so small, you'll always have it with you, and will have a much better chance of capturing the images you want, rather than missing the opportunity since you didn't lug your DSLR with you.
2006-08-14 12:00:45 · answer #4 · answered by Morey000 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
depends if you would like portability or fairly good quality; if you want good quality the rebel is ok, but it will take some time to learn, one of the best small camaras is a Kodak EasyShare V530
2006-08-14 11:18:39 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
SLR is good if you are a professional artist. but i suggest Nikon instead of canon
2006-08-14 07:03:29 · answer #6 · answered by Wise Architect 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
most cases you get what you pay for,most digital cameras do a good job but not all a professional job
2006-08-14 06:59:44 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
kodak cameras are better and cheaper
2006-08-14 07:01:23 · answer #8 · answered by worldstiti 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋