do you REALLY need an SLR camera for taking world class photos?

Question

What do You think the main advantages are of SLR cameras, that are impossible to do with average good quality digital cameras
I am thinking of getting this camera for nature photography:
http://www.teds.com.au/www/6/1001102/displayproduct/1993946_1005965_.html
it has the option of full manual control. Do you think it would be any good?

Answer 1

u don't need any special camera's or what so ever in taking great pictures.

what count's is the photographer's vission and passion towards art. that's what makes every shot a real masterpiece.

Answer 2

There are many world class photos that were taken using a film single-lens reflex (SLR) camera or a digital single-lens reflex (DSLR) camera.

Off-the-bat, the thing in common with the two is the fact that you can use a wide range of lenses (telephotos, wide-angles, macros, etc.) for specific needs; unlike the average "point-and-shoot" (or instamatic) cameras whose "standard built-in" lens is quite limiting.

Furthermore, as with a DSLR, aside from being able to change lenses, you also have a lot of settings options that you can "play" and experiment with.

Moreover, as with the film SLR, you can achieve more "depth" with your compositions compared with average digital cameras. There are still many photographers who would recommend using film because of this advantage.

Those are the more ostensible advantages that an SLR camera has over those "average good quality digital cameras".

By experience, SLRs are still the best for those artistic or dramatic shots. :-) Although, yes, it's a given that you have to shell out a considerable amount to guy the good ones; plus the lenses that you need. But if you're serious about being a nature photographer, SLRs are a very good investment.

Answer 3

I'm a professional photographer and I use my DSLR for my work. However, when I travel I take a high end 'point and shoot'. I would recommend something a little more feature rich than the Canon A720.
I like the all in one 'ultra-zooms' such as the Panasonic Lumix Z8, the Sony H8 or H9 and the Fiji Film S700, S5200 or S9000. If you like the Canon brand, then the s4 or s5 would work. Most of these camera are between 250 - 450 dollars

These cameras have 10 time or more zoom, very sharp lenses, image stabilization and full manual control. The main drawbacks are: Higher noise at High ISO or in deep shadows, some distortion at very wide angles and no hot shoe for external flash unit.


http://www.peterwaynephoto.com

Answer 4

The A720is is a nice little camera, but it has "manual control" via menues only, so you will find it frustrating to keep up with yourself and your subjects. Manual control on this camera is for static subjects, believe me. If you want real manual control, you want something that can be addressed IMMEDIATELY and not something that puts several steps on a menu between you and your final results. Obviously, this is going to cost more money. Since you are looking at Canon, you might consider the Rebel XT (aka EOS 350D) which can be had for about $500 in the states. I don't know about price or availability in AU, though. MAN are cameras expensive down there! The A720is costs about 2/3 of what they are showing at Ted's, although I don't what the exchange rate is.

To keep costs in line if you are just checking out this manual control stuff, I'd suggest that you look for a used Canon 350D or even 300D. The 300D would probably be in the right price range and it's a good camera. It's not image stabilized, but it's a good camera.

Also, the sensor in the A720is is very small. It is the size used in MOST point and shoot cameras, but you will not be able to do any decent enlargements unless you are going to use pretty much the entire frame. If you want to stay with the point and shoot class, look into the A600-series. The A630 and A640 are very nice cameras with (menu driven) manual control, but the sensor is twice as big as the A720is. They also have an A650is, but by the time you spend that much money, you should consider a used 300D or 350D for what you are looking for.

Here is a stock answer that I have written on the comparison of SLR's to point and shoot's.

SLR vs. P&S

"Single Lens Reflex" means that the camera has only one lens (which is true for almost all cameras these days anyhow) and the light follows a "reflex" or reflected path through the lens, through the camera and up to the viewfinder where you look when you compose your shot. Many years ago, there used to be a separate lens for the viewfinder and another one for exposing the film. These were called "Twin Lens Reflex" cameras. Hence the distinction of "SLR" came into being.

Today, an SLR still uses one lens for taking the picture, but the most important distinction is that the lens can be removed from the camera so that you can interchange lenses for different shooting situations, if you desire. For most casual photographers, one general purpose zoom lens will suffice most of the time, but you have the option of buying new lenses to give your camera different capabilities as your interests change.

A point-and-shoot (P&S) camera is set up so that you don't need to know much more than how to aim the camera (the "point" part) and press the button (the "shoot" part). While you can use pretty much any SLR in the same manner, this is almost the limit with many P&S cameras. The user can exercise a little control if desired, but it's usually easier just to stick to the automatic mode for 80-90% of your shots. P&S cameras do not have interchangeable lenses.

P&S cameras are generally a lot smaller than SLR's and many of them are small enough to fit into a shirt pocket with ease.

To ME, the major distinction between the two styles is the image quality. P&S cameras have much smaller sensors, which is where the camera captures the light to make the image. The larger the sensor, as a rule, the better the image quality. For a typical 4" x 6" print of the entire shot, this doesn't make a whole lot of difference, but if you want to make an enlargement of a portion of your picture, the SLR with its larger sensor will give a much better result. Most P&S cameras have a sensor that is only about 4 mm x 5 mm. A few have the larger 7 mm x 5 mm size. Most SLR sensors range from 14.8 mm x 22.2 mm to 15.5 mm x 23.6 mm. (There are some smaller and some larger, though.) This is about 10-to-20 times bigger than a P&S sensor.

Go here http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/476181751/ and click on "All sizes" and then "Original" to see the difference. Read the text for more explanation.

Do the same for this pair of shots:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/1098666030/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/1198936061/

The first one is taken with a Canon Powershot SD900, which is a pretty darn good camera by P&S standards. The second one is taken with a Nikon D200, also a prety darn good camera by SLR standards, but it could have been done with almost any other SLR out there with similar results.

~~~~~

There is a lot of overlap in these tags for wildlife and nature, but see what cameras I used:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/tags/nature/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/samfeinstein/tags/wildlife/

You will see only two made with a P&S and one of them doesn't count!

Answer 5

The SLR has a wide range of specialist lenses that are opticaly superior to this Canon.

It is a good general purpose snapshooter, but it costs less than one of my SLR lenses, and you get the quality you pay for.

Have a look at the price of a world class "L " series Canon lens.

It does not a have a RAW file format mode that most advanced photgraphers prefer when shooting for ultimate quality.

However the little Canon would be a good starting point for learning the all important art of composition.

Answer 6

This camera's weakness is the inability to add a powerful lens.

However, if you are willing to be creative and use it's advantage, a waterproof housing, it has the potential to capture some great wildlife photos. Go into a swamp and get down to water level with that housing and I bet you can find something unique and interesting. Just watch out for the alligators and snakes.

With most any camera, if you are willing to go the extra mile, there is the possibility you will capture a great image.

That being said, it's sweet to be able to add a 400 or 600 mm lens and get right into the face of wildlife you can't easily outrun when they are hungry.

Answer 7

Give a world-class photographer a cheap disposable camera.
Give a total beginner the best equipment money can buy.
Who will give you the best photograph?
A SLR cam will give you the option of changing lenses and, if it is nature in the raw that you want, then it will be a must.
I did not open your link. Buy what you can afford but buy the BEST that you can afford IF it is justified - that is, that you will get out there and use it and benefit everyone with your vision.
Good luck. Be successful.

PS - try Sony Alpha 100 and a suitable lens or two.

Answer 8

This is a delicate question.
The truth is YES and NOT.
Technically a Single Lens Reflex allows you to explore (almost) any possibility. Your fantasy is the limit.
Practically though, we all know of great pictures taken with very simple cheap cameras.
Absolutely true is that camera does not take the picture itself. You and you only will be the one to choose the light, and the composition, and will be able to "look" at the "mood" of your subject.
Then...... it is all matter of personal taste. Try a SLR once, have it in your hands for a week, and then you will find your answer by yourself.
My best wishes of a Merry Christmas.

Answer 9

Its a nice little camera. IMO the Canon G9 would be a better choice. However...

If you are serious about nature photography, though, a DSLR is your best option. The larger sensor alone is worth the extra cost plus the ability to change lenses to suit different situations simply gives you more creative control. The image quality of a 400mm lens on a DSLR mounted on a tripod will blow away the image from a digicam mounted on a tripod.

If you want to do real macro photography the DSLR allows you to use a real macro lens. A zoom lens with "macro" on it is, IMO, mis-labeled. Its a "close focusing" lens and its "macro" setting seldom produces more than a 1:4 (1/4 life size) image. A real macro lens will give you a 1:1 (life size) image. A true macro lens is designed to give optimum results at very close distances and is corrected to give maximum center to edge sharpness and minimum center to edge light fall-off.

If you decide to go the DSLR route, IMO you should give serious consideration to the Pentax K100D Super and the Sony A100. IMO they both offer more features and benefits than the comparably priced competition.

Answer 10

No you don't need an SLR to take a world class photo but if you want to sell them commercial you will need an SLR for the hi res shot and full control of the image
if you need mor info look at this site
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/sellingyourphotography/

Answer 11

NIkon D40, I just got it last week and its just amazing! I went through a lot of browsing and getting reviews and comments and no regrets. At first am looking between Olympus evolt e420, sony Alpha a200 & Nikon D40. Nikon was a major decision for me. I went for reliability and quality. 6 MP is enough for my needs at this time and theVR or IS is not yet a major thing for me. All I need is an affordable but not cheap SLR and take wonderful and better looking pictures.