What makes a digital SLR camera better?

Lisapeep

Hello!

I've recently become interested in photography and would like to upgrade my "point-and-shoot" camera to something better. Would a digital SLR be a good idea or would it just have me completely confused? I barely even know what they are! Would an SLR-like "bridge camera" suit me better as it may be less complicated? Do bridge cameras have any advantages over digital SLRs? I would really just like a camera that will allow me to take the best pictures possible!

Thanks, in advance, for your help!

Sebzy

It's all down to how much your prepared to spend????

nilhg

As Seb says your budget has to be a major factor, the big advantages of a bridge model are size, (though the bigger bridge models are close to the smaller DSLRs) and the lack of worry about dust.

The advantage of DSLRs is their flexibility, the same body can shoot landscapes, gigs, sports and do studio work. The major downside is the cost of the different lenses to do those jobs to the highest possible standard, many will cost multiple times the cost of the body.

Thirdfox

To have a set of lenses that will cover the 28-500mm of the 18x ultrazoom bridge cameras on a dSLR will cost a small fortune. And you'll have to change lenses. And you'll have to worry about dust.

But in return you get the best possible images in a relatively compact form (as compared to medium format or large format). Better response and greater flexibility.

zanardi

Another great thing about DSLRs is that they have fantastic battery life because you (usually) use the viewfinder instead of the display to take pics. One charge will suffice for an entire holiday, no need to bring a charger.

dhaslam

The main difference between P&S cameras and DSLRs is the size of the sensor. P&S cameras have small sensors and lenses which are easy to autofocus. The downside is poor low light performance and sometimes slower processing. The DSLRs have more sophisticated focussing and you can override auto focus for close ups, for long lenses and special effects. Generally speaking for sport, wildlife, macro and low light photography the choice is DSLR.

Mellor

The op is upgrading his P&S,
so people should be comparing DSLRs to Bridge cameras, not to P&S

Thirdfox

zanardi wrote: »

Another great thing about DSLRs is that they have fantastic battery life because you (usually) use the viewfinder instead of the display to take pics. One charge will suffice for an entire holiday, no need to bring a charger.

Lol wouldn't quite agree with that - I can take around 700 shots with my Nikon D40 but ended up taking around 2000 for my holiday (so charged 3-4 times). When taking pictures is this much fun you want to take lot's of pictures

mathias

people should be comparing DSLRs to Bridge cameras, not to P&S

It amounts to the same thing , reason being that bridge cameras have a fixed lens ( albeit better than most point and shoots ) but the sensor is usually the same size as a point and shoot.

The biggest advantage by far on any SLR and the reason the pictures are so much better than most point and shoots is the size of the sensor ,

In terms of image quality , even a 4mp aps size sensor will wipe the floor with a 10mp point and shoot , as the sensor in a point and shoot will be the size of your small fingernail.
Most bridge cameras have this small sensor as well , so no real comparison to any SLR at all.

With the likes of the 400D and the D40 being not much dearer than a good bridge camera , if your thinking of getting something better than a point and shoot , then jump all the way over the fence , and get the DSLR , with a kit lens it wont cost that much more , and the pictures you get will be so much better in terms of image quality , adding lenses later is always an option and not compulsory.

duffarama

Thirdfox wrote: »

To have a set of lenses that will cover the 28-500mm of the 18x ultrazoom bridge cameras on a dSLR will cost a small fortune. And you'll have to change lenses. And you'll have to worry about dust.

But in return you get the best possible images in a relatively compact form (as compared to medium format or large format). Better response and greater flexibility.

An Olympus twin lens kit will give you 28mm to 300mm at relatively little money and no worries about dust either

Thirdfox

yes but what about the 500mm? I doubt there are many cheap 300-500mm zooms out there (i.e. twice the cost of the bridge camera).

Olympus does seem to have a pretty good anti dust feature though (when compared to others).

nilhg

Thirdfox wrote: »

yes but what about the 500mm? I doubt there are many cheap 300-500mm zooms out there (i.e. twice the cost of the bridge camera).

Olympus does seem to have a pretty good anti dust feature though (when compared to others).

Since you did ask: 140-600 mm (effective), stabilised too if used with a e510 or e3.

The only problem is they can't make them fast enough.

mathias

Olympus does seem to have a pretty good anti dust feature though (when compared to others).

I guess they are better than nothing , but these little ultrasonic shakers only cater for fine dry dust , i.e. the type that never causes the problems anyway , as I have found out to my cost , working on beaches , sports tracks etc , the type that annoys most is damp splodges that adhere to the sensor and these anti dust features do nothing about that.

mervifwdc

Other than image quality that has been mentioned above, one of the big things you'll notice is how fast they are. The camera takes the picture almost the instant you press the shutter, meaning you can take pictures of exact points in action, and will not end up with shots of where stuff was.

Go for it. Get an DSLR.
Merv.

Calina

zanardi wrote: »

Another great thing about DSLRs is that they have fantastic battery life because you (usually) use the viewfinder instead of the display to take pics. One charge will suffice for an entire holiday, no need to bring a charger.

I have to reiterate that this is not good advice. If you have a device that needs to be charged, always bring the charger with you along with a suitable adaptor if required.

Last week I spent a good deal of time and effort charging batteries for my DSLR because I took 2500 photographs using lenses that drain batteries. It is not a simple linear relationship.

5uspect

Absolutely, while its true that an SLR uses less power LCD wise you still have a flash, focusing motors IS etc etc. Now with a battery grip you can really extend the battery life of your camera but never leave home with out a charger and spare batteries!

Also have a look at Hybrid NiMH batteries for whatever camera you do get. They discharge very slowly making them ideal for storage when travelling.

zanardi

Calina wrote: »

I have to reiterate that this is not good advice. If you have a device that needs to be charged, always bring the charger with you along with a suitable adaptor if required.

Last week I spent a good deal of time and effort charging batteries for my DSLR because I took 2500 photographs using lenses that drain batteries. It is not a simple linear relationship.

Absolutely agree - if you are someone who takes over 2000 pictures on your holiday, then you may well need a charger if not a personal nuclear power plant.

sheesh

Well first of all it looks a way cooler!:D

then theres start up speed capture speed and that really cool sound it makes when you put it into continuous shooting mode. then theres the fact you can shoot raw which you can with some p&s but not alot then there is the higher iso
so you can shoot in darker conditions alot of p&s have high iso settings as well but because the smaller sensor they are alot noiser so you sacrafice quality of the pic when using that setting.

Did I mention how cool it looks? because they do look really cool

and how cool I look by extension. while using it.

(I got to get one of those really massive Zoom lenses)

tbh I feel like a bit of a dork carrying it around. I am afraid it will get stolen or I'll drop it.
but when I get the images home you really see the difference its worth it.

Calina

zanardi wrote: »

Absolutely agree - if you are someone who takes over 2000 pictures on your holiday, then you may well need a charger if not a personal nuclear power plant.

You are missing the point. The key issue relates to what lenses you use too. It's not just the camera. Various things drain the batteries.

mervifwdc

As to the charger thing, I brought enough spare batteries with me on my last trip to take about 8400 shots. And I still brough the charger, and I still needed to use it.

When you've stopped rolling your eyes to heaven, I'll explain :-)

I've got 4 batteries for the 1dmiii and that camera can get up to 3000 shots per battery charge (that's the best I ever got) but your pretty sure of 2000 shots per charge. 2000 * 4 = 8000 shots. And I brought my point and shoot with 2 batteries, at 200 shots per battery= 400 shots. I had figured this was a pretty good theory.


I needed the charger because during transport I had left the camera's on, and the bumping must have kept pressing the shutter button against the bag, and I only got in the region of 500 shots per battery.

And yes, I'm the sort of person that comes back with over 2000 shots from a holiday. Then again, we were in Uganda and Kenya so..... :-)

Merv.

5uspect

Add a flash to that mix and you will be needing to invest in zanardi's Nuclear power plant!

or this:
http://news.softpedia.com/news/First-Fuel-Cell-Powered-Camera-on-Display-by-Canon-11360.shtml