Are Digital SLRs really worth the extra cost?

Question

Does it really make so much of a difference? I need a camera that takes really good pictures. Am I wasting money if I buy an SLR? Should I look for a nice point and shoot?

Answer 1

the main difference of digital SLRs is their much larger sensors. When the sensor is larger, each pixel interacts less with its neighbours, and each pixel can take in much more light.

This tends to produce cleaner images, to allow for much better images in low light, and to allow for a higher dynamic range in the photos (say, a snow capped mountain topping a landscape of dark valleys, the bottom of the valleys would be visible, and the snow cap would not over saturate the image).

In terms of flexibility and adjustement possibilities, SLRs are a bit ahead although some SLR-like cameras such as the Panasonic FZ-50 are not far behind.

Now the price to pay for the larger sensor, apart from the price of the camera itself, is that the sensor will need to be fed light through a broader aperture. Which means larger lenses than what would be needed on a camera with a smaller sensor. This is why the Panasonic FZ-50 (or similar cameras from Sony and others) can offer a 12x zoom and still be small enough to fit in the small pocket of a backpack, while 10x zooms for SLRs are rare, bulky, and weigh at least a couple pounds.

So at the end of the day you need to think long and hard about what you intend to do:
- if you want the best image quality, no compromise, then go for a digital SLR, say an entry model like the Canon EOS 400 (new) or the Nikon D80. You'll need a couple good lenses with that. This means that you'll be traveling with a not so light camera (over a poud) plus a couple pounds of lenses, and you'll need a dedicated bag. So clearly you won't be going everywhere and aywhere with that kit, unless you are ready to make serious physical efforts. And you'll need to spend at the very least 1'500 dollars and possible more.

- if you want pretty good (but are ok with not best possible) quality then a super-zoom stabilised model is great. Either a high-end one like the FZ-50, or a simpler one like the Panasonic FZ-7 or the Sony DSC-H5 or the Canon PowerShot S3 IS. The smaller ones weigh less than a pound and are fairly small so you can still take them around anywhere without needing a dedicated bag

So far I have often looked at the great image quality from digital SLRs, but I've remained a super-zoom customer because of the huge advantages in flexibility and portability.

Hope this helps

a

Answer 2

Depends on the end use of your photos. If you're just e-mailing to family and friends, and not looking to make large prints - a medium level point and shoot would be fine.

If you are looking to do more professional work, then there are some very good "one-piece" digitals, but you should look at one with interchangeable lenses as well.

The nice thing about SLRs is you have the ability to change lenses, and so you're not limited in that way. The Olympus E-Volt 500 and Canon Digital Rebel XT both have good reviews, and are "affordable" to start with.

Here's a good site to start doing some research...

http://www.dpreview.com/

Answer 3

YES and NO

NO: of you have a kid or kids and you are on vacation with their diaper bags. You know what I mean.

YES: everything else.
- Flexibility in changing lenses and filters
- Fast shooting unlike non slr's which start composing after you click and by that time the train has left. Newer non-SLR's are much better but still no comparision to SLR's still.
- The AI as in Artificial intellignce of the camera for controlling the various settings (sharpness. while balance, contrast, light metering etc) which a typical SLR compares with the thousands of it's pictures in it's database by far makes your pictures look good even if you use it like a pont and shoot.
- in extreme bright conditions LCD in non SLR's is worthless making you blind for what you;re composing.

Mst mention that non-SLr's have grown bigtime now and stealing the DSLR's amature market.

To share my gear - I have both and it all depends on needs.

Whatever you decide - Happy clicking!!

Answer 4

It depends on what you want to do with it. For landscapes, snapshots, etc., a point & shoot is great. By all means, get one of those tiny ones that you can tuck away in your shirt pocket.
With action photography (and that includes kids ;-) and low light photography, you'll find that point & shoot cameras aren't very responsive. This is where dSLR cameras shine. It's not that dSLR cameras take better pictures (um, well that too), but you'll need a dSLR to capture the moment at all.
I had a point & shoot myself for a while and I cursed the thing every time I missed a candid or an action shot, and every day after dusk. This eventually made me upgrade to a dSLR. (Look at the past questions in this section, and you'll see that I'm not alone.)

Answer 5

yeah they are worth the money if your going to use it for what their ment for but if your just taking pictures of your freinds any you dont intend on doing something semiprofessional then its not worth it all give you a few links to some cameras that give you great photos but cost nothing near the cost of an slr

Answer 6

Yes, because you have more control, usually the have higher resolution capabilities, and the overall quality is more like a professional film camera.

Answer 7

No, it isn't. You can't shoot with the LCD on and you can't take movies with it. Getting something like the Fujifilm S5500 is much better.

Answer 8

use film SLR,

i am a pro and film is better quality