New Camera Help Please: DSLR or High-End Compact [Archive]

Munas

26-02-2010, 09:00

I currently have a Fuji F72EXR compact, on occasions it produces very nice photo's but a lot of the times it produces pretty poor results. I had a Fuji F31fd, which was a lot better IMO. Should've kept it.

I've been doing a little research and I'm now considering moving up to a better camera. I can't decide between a DSLR or a high-end compact. I know a DSLR will produce better photo's, but would you have to be an expert and take ages sorting the ISO's apertures and what not?

I want the camera for, general use, holidays, days out etc. I don't mind tinkering about with it here and there, but dont want to be messing about with it for every shot.

I looked at a few DSLR's in shops and I'm not that fussed about the size. Also with a compact like a G11 or an S90 will see a big improvement over my Fuji?

Any help would be very much appreciated.

paulsaz

26-02-2010, 09:09

Buying a flash camera wont automatically get you better pictures. You need to understand a bit about shutter speed, aperture, iso etc and how they all affect each other and the image.

You can do that on either a dslr or high end compact and there's a massive amount of choice these days. Recommendations are going to come down to budget and what you want to use the kit for. Are you happy to lug a bag full of camera gear around or do you want something to go in a jacket pocket or small bag?

Nana

26-02-2010, 09:19

Like all cameras SLRs have a simple do it all setting that you can use until you're inclined to try using the apperture or shutter speed setting, or even full manual settings.
The cost is an important factor as you have to take into account camera, lenses and other extras in the future (bags, tripod, extra cards, flash etc).

If you have the money to spare and want to make the commitment to taking better pictures choose a DSLR, but imo choose a compact if you just like to take a nice snap now and again.

AdminSpod

26-02-2010, 09:48

Buying a flash camera wont automatically get you better pictures.

Er, yes it will actually! Even without understanding exposure, the bigger sensor on a DSLR will give you better, clearer images than a compact. The more expensive DSLRs will have better image processing units. The really expensive full-frame models will give even better images, again because of the increased sensor size. And that's just using them on auto.

The DSLR will also respond more quickly than most compacts when you press the shutter release. That will give you a much better chance of getting an action or critically timed shot. Most DSLRs have a better grip than most compacts. That aids stability and reduces camera shake.

Sure they won't make you a better photographer from the point of view of seeing and understanding how to get the best pictures, but the "flash" DSLR camera will definitely give you better images.

AdminSpod

26-02-2010, 09:56

I know a DSLR will produce better photo's, but would you have to be an expert and take ages sorting the ISO's apertures and what not?

Just about all DSLR cameras have at least 1 auto mode - just as easy to use as any compact.

If you want to go deeper you can switch to semi-automatic and either choose a shutter speed or an aperture and let the camera choose the other. That will help you to learn the effects of shutter speed and aperture. You can pick it up over time.

You will be also able to use exposure compensation to over- or under- expose if you want to create a specific effect. Again, you can experiment at your leisure if you are interested.

To start with though you can just leave everything on auto. The DSLR cameras these days have excellent exposure systems. They do get things right most of the time.

Shoei

26-02-2010, 10:13

Waves the GF1 flag.

But AdminSpod has hit the nail on the head regards dSLR over Compact.
Though the Micro 4/3's like the Olympus EP1 and Panansonic GF1 are catching up. They'll never match a dSLR in some respects but in others they work really well. Can put my GF1 in a trouser or jacket pocket no problem and they dont seem as "in your face" when taking pics of people.

Best thing is go find a shop that'll let you play and dont be daunted by all the features of a dSLR, beauty about shooting digital is that if its a naff shot its not cost you anything and if its shot in RAW you may be able to save the pic in post processing.

paulsaz

26-02-2010, 11:30

I'm going to disagree with AdminSpod with a few major caveats. We have no idea of budgetary or other requirements and the high end compacts and 4/3'ds stuff produce images of an excellent quality that are more than good enough technically to satisfy the needs of the vast majority of users.

If the OP needs work that will require the technical levels of the high end dslr's then he's going to need to learn the theory regardless and if he doesn't then a good compact or 4/3'ds will be more than sufficient.

I'm unwilling to make a recommendation until I've heard more but the g11 and gf1 spring instantly to mind for someone making the step from compacts to taking their photograhy a little more seriously. If the OP is after the best technical image quality then they'll be looking for a Hassy HD4 as they crap all over those mickey mouse dSLR's.

rick67

26-02-2010, 11:50

If he's not bothered about size then why go 4/3s instead of DSLR? He'd easily get a decent DSLR kit for 4/3s money

paulsaz

26-02-2010, 12:04

Agreed dSLR may be the best option but we don't know if he is bothered about the size. Plus frankly the build quality and features on the gf1 and g11 are likely to be better than say the 1000d.

mebz

26-02-2010, 15:28

DSLR best way to go. Stick it in AV or TV mode...if that fails then AUTO it. You'll learn a lot about how to take good photos as you start becoming more proficient with the sDSLR in AV/TV or M mode.

You can get a good entry level 400d second hand for about £200 and then maybe pick up a lens or two covering say 18mm up to 200mm

All in all, a nice kit can be bought for under £350 (2nd hand of course)

AdminSpod

26-02-2010, 16:48

We have no idea of budgetary or other requirements

So what? The OP clearly stated that he's considering high end compacts and DSLRs but wasn't clear if going the DSLR route would require too much technical knowledge. You can use DSLRs with minimal technical knowledge so that's been answered.

the high end compacts and 4/3'ds stuff produce images of an excellent quality that are more than good enough technically to satisfy the needs of the vast majority of users.

While it is true that 4/3 does come close to the image quality of DSLRs, most compacts do not, even most of the high-end ones. The image quality comes down to sensor size, lens quality and image processor quality - and a large sensor will give you better images than a small one. Very few compacts come with large sensors. Even a lot of the "top end" ones.

Yes, 4/3 could be a sensible choice. The sensors are nearly as large as DSLR and I haven't heard of any poor quality 4/3 lenses. I don't know enough about the Canon G11 to comment on that particular model.

mebz

26-02-2010, 17:28

I am after a compact and took various daylight photos with the Canon G11 and the sharpness was not that much more impressive than a budget £100 Canon (can't remember model). The G11 is around the £380 mark and the 4/3 micros are nearly twice that. So I reiterate that getting a DSLR is the best route and value for money vs high end compacts.

My tip if you want to go for a brand new kit

Canon EOS 450D + 18-55mm IS kit lens (http://www.thedvdforums.com/affiliatelink.php?localaffiliateid=8&url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00131W8IW/thedvdforums-21)

Let us know if you do have a budget in mind and we can make suggestions.

You have to first decide what camera category you will go for though!

Munas

26-02-2010, 18:42

Wow, just seen this. Thanks for the responses. My budget would be around £350-£400.
As for size, I wouldn't mind carrying a small bag with a camera in it, but wouldn't carry tripods, extra lens and stuff.

As for use, I wouldn't really be using it for landscapes and "fancy" shots. Just like to take regular family day out shots, birthdays, holidays etc.

I would be interested in learning how to take decent shots using iso's etc. but it seems really daunting. Also is it known for a DSLR user just to have one set of lens or do you all have different lens for different situations?

I'm edging towards a DSLR, the prices between them and high end compacts aren't that significant and the only benefit of a comapct I can see over the dslr is size?

DeadYankee

26-02-2010, 18:52

It isn't daunting but the whole ethos of SLRs is the interchangability of lenses. I just can't see the point in going down the SLR route unless you have a desire to take it further than a few family snaps. In which case you'll want to get a tripod and more lenses. The question you want to address first is what is wrong with the shots you are currently getting and whether it is the fault of the camera that you are unhappy with them.

Munas

26-02-2010, 19:02

Outside shots are fine. But indoors and low-light ones are all grainy. It might be the way I took the shots, tried all different settings but can't get decent shots.

You saying that about lens and stuff has made me think again. :-(

mebz

26-02-2010, 19:32

If you bought a DSLR and an 18-200mm lens, you would not need to buy any more. As for being able to take photos easily, well you can keep the DSLR in auto-mode when you need it and in manual when you want to mess around and learn more about the camera.

My 5 year can use my DSLR to take half-decent photos in auto-mode mate

Munas

26-02-2010, 19:34

I think I'll never know 100% if a dslr is right for me until I start using one. So I'm gonna go for it, I can always sell it if it doesn't work out.

So any recommendations? £400, I wouldn't mind 2nd hand either.

mebz

26-02-2010, 19:54

A 2nd hand mint condition Canon EOS 400D can be bought on forums usually between £200-£250

A Tamron 18-200mm F/3.5-6.3 XR Di II LD Aspherical (IF) Macro can be bought brand new for £159

As you build up more competence with the camera, you could always invest in more/better lenses. With compacts you can't do that.

I think you should put up a wanted post in the classifieds..you might get lucky

Munas

26-02-2010, 20:52

Assuming I can get a 400d for £250, with the len it would take it to £410.

Wouldn't I be better off getting a Nikon D3000 for £356 (http://www.thedvdforums.com/affiliatelink.php?localaffiliateid=8&url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/B002J9GIAQ/thedvdforums-21)

Or there's a mint Nikon D5000 with the same lens for £375 on another site?

Or is a Canon with those lens you mention the way to go?

AdminSpod

27-02-2010, 23:31

If you can get the mint Nikon D5000 for £375 with lens then go for that rather than a new D3000. I don't know enough about the Canon models to comment on them. The D5000 is a significantly better camera than the D3000 and is even capable of taking some high definition video.

The cheapest brand new Nikon D5000 is at Currys - use discount code ALL5 to bring the price down to £503.49 and then claim £50 back from Nikon: http://www.nikon.co.uk/sites/cashback/post/D5000-spring.html - but that does mean forking out £500 and then claiming £50 back which will probably take a couple of months to arrive!

Woz

27-02-2010, 23:59

The complaint was that indoor shots are grainy, and yet the advice you're offering is to buy a low-end DSLR with a slow zoom?
I'm not sure you're on the right track here - for example, indoor shots with a 400D and the kit lens will be crappy quality.
I'm with DY - there needs more thought here than just 'buy a DSLR'.

RobDickinson

28-02-2010, 00:06

a low end SLR with a fast cheap 50 is a whole nother game though...

Munas

28-02-2010, 07:56

paulsaz

28-02-2010, 08:48

Your indoor shots will have been grainy because the camera had to raise the ISO to compensatge for there not being enough light. The amount of light allowed into a lens is set by the aperture, the hole in the lens. The problem with the low end zooms you've been recomended is that they are all rather "slow" i.e. they don't have a very big aperture.

If you're set on a dslr then as Rob suggests the best lens to get is one of the 50mm f1.8 lenses that are available for either Canon or Nikon. It's a fixed focal length but at f1.8 it's pretty fast and will let a lot of light in.

This is what I meant when I said you had to understand the basics a little, it's not that overwhelming and you'll easily pick it up with a bit of practice. The other thing is that your budget is really at the very bottom end. You can get a Canon 1000D for £300 for the body and the 50mm f1.8 is about £80. I'd personally be looking for a better body second hand as you'll soon outgrow the 1000D if you get into it and it will have very little resale value. I've less idea about Nikon but aren't some of their entry level bodies missing an autofocus motor?

Woz

28-02-2010, 15:34

I LOVE primes and my 50mm is my favorite lens (on a crop body) BUT it's very limiting for indoor group shots. If you don't have a massive house, you're not going to be able to get a group shot at that focal length in a normal room.

mebz

28-02-2010, 15:50

Compact = £100-£200 No upgradeability
High End compact = £300-£450 No upgradeability

DSLR= around £400 (second hand) with half-decent lens (comparable to compact at least) and future upgradeability. I recently bought a 2nd hand 18-135mm IS f3.5-5.6 and it is great with indoor/low-light shots due to the image stabiliser

The choice is pretty simple if size is not an issue ----> DSLR

ChrisBlack

28-02-2010, 17:13

There's always a used micro 4/3's option (Panny, PEN..) - best of both worlds.

Cirrus888

01-03-2010, 03:12

Canon S90 - unsatisfactory indoor shots although it will beat most cameras.

Nikon D90 + Nikkor 35mm - Best indoor quality you'll ever need. Set it on auto and snap away. Makes beginners look like pros.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f90/cirrus888/DSC_4730.jpg

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f90/cirrus888/DSC_4911.jpg

I saw and I snapped. No effort went into these two pictures. Both using D90 and Nikkor 35mm DX. I believe the D5000 and 35mm will be the same. Drop the kit lens its poor for night/dark photos and get the Nikkor 35mm.

Woz

01-03-2010, 06:19

Nikon D90 + Nikkor 35mm - Best indoor quality you'll ever need. Set it on auto and snap away. Makes beginners look like pros.

http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f90/cirrus888/DSC_4911.jpg

I saw and I snapped. No effort went into these two pictures.

...but it's out of focus!
I suspect it's caused by camera shake from a long exposure, but that's hard to tell with no exif.

Conversely:
Canon 400D, not known for it's low-light performance on account of it not being very good, but I carefully composed and braced:
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dvf-woz/2565233779/" title="Wedding by Woz!, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3099/2565233779_6db6d254cd.jpg" width="333" height="500" alt="Wedding" /></a>
The light hitting her face is only the candle light from her hands.

And a Canon G10 (which also has poor low-light performance in my opinion, certainly worse than the S90):

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/dvf-woz/2974674805/" title="Val's dogs. Canon G10 ISO 800 full resolution by Woz!, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3156/2974674805_af35c3260e_b.jpg" width="1024" height="768" alt="Val's dogs. Canon G10 ISO 800 full resolution" /></a>
Windowlight and high ISO. Bear in mind the subject is stationary - it won't get anywhere close to this with moving subjects.

So, the OP needs to make a more informed decision before parting with a large wodge of case!

RobDickinson

01-03-2010, 06:54

This is from a 350D and a slow 10-20mm lens, f4, 1/13th, ISO 800 ..

http://zarphag.com/images/stories/clipclimb/motion.jpg

Whole set from the 350D in rather dark consitions with the 10-20 and 50/1.8 , ISo 800 or 1600

http://www.zarphag.com/clipclimb/

paulsaz

01-03-2010, 08:13

man we suck at giving advice, the poor OP must be completely baffled.

Nick dVl

01-03-2010, 09:17

man we suck at giving advice, the poor OP must be completely baffled.
At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious, I think all the OP really needs to know is this:

Good image quality + small size = mid-range compact
Better image quality + flexibility + small size = high-end compact
Best image quality + flexibility + expandability = DSLR / MFT

I'm in the high-end compact camp myself. The hassle of carrying a DSLR and all its accessories is just not worth it for me and I'd be taking far fewer pictures if I had one. Ultimately I'd really want to own a high-end compact and a DSLR to cover all the bases, but I'm just not at that level yet. :(

Shoei

01-03-2010, 12:50

Not exactly "low light" but taken under halogen spots. The good old GF1 struts its stuff.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2678/4301379912_f2c9ed42db_b.jpg

Camera: Panasonic DMC-GF1
Exposure: 0.067 sec (1/15)
Aperture: f/2.2
Focal Length: 20 mm
ISO Speed: 100

And used in a more sensible way ;-)

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2785/4387904670_93d94fd6fc.jpg (http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2785/4387904670_93d94fd6fc_b.jpg)

Camera: Panasonic DMC-GF1
Exposure: 0.006 sec (1/160)
Aperture: f/1.7
Focal Length: 20 mm
ISO Speed: 100

Cirrus888

01-03-2010, 13:30

[QUOTE=Woz;8986023]...but it's out of focus!
I suspect it's caused by camera shake from a long exposure, but that's hard to tell with no exif.

Yes both pictures were taken in the dark with only street lighting. All subjects were moving, all the time. Imagine what you can do if it was properly composed. Taken on Sat and Sun. I take only the D90 and 35mm lens out hung around my neck no bag. Street photography is what I like.

Point I'm making is that no compact can ever take pictures of moving people in dark places but with the D90 and the Nikkor 35mm you have a chance. I'm not going to show you day pictures as its pointless I can jump off a wall and still take good pictures in daylight.

paulsaz

01-03-2010, 14:48

[QUOTE=Woz;8986023]
Point I'm making is that no compact can ever take pictures of moving people in dark places

My lx-3 would take issue with that.

Of course the dslr is going to be better but at £400 can we get a good dslr (because the new compacts are better at handling noise than the old dslr's) and a fast lens and stay in budget. You're looking at the very base models and sticking to a 50mm prime lens to stay in budget and tbh an lx3 or g11 might be a better choice than that on several fronts.

If the budget was £600 it's a no brainer, but it isn't it's £350 to £400 and that makes it a tough call.

Tob

01-03-2010, 15:55

Nikon D5000 with a 18-55mm lens is £475 at www.Amazon.co.uk, minus £50 cashback from Nikon, which makes it £425.

EDIT - since posting the above, it's gone up again to £516...but keep an eye on it, it'll drop again hopefully.

RomerojpgX

01-03-2010, 16:26

And a Canon G10 (which also has poor low-light performance in my opinion, certainly worse than the S90):
Windowlight and high ISO. Bear in mind the subject is stationary - it won't get anywhere close to this with moving subjects.

I dont mind my G9 for low light performance, maybe not every shot will be perfect, but hey it does work well. These were both moving and taken with the G9, are looks pretty solid. They are not exactly room lighting I will add. Mind you if you like black in an image, it does that well.
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/18705743@N00/4180671302/" title="Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Karen O Gets A Paper Shower In Newcastle by JP.G, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4047/4180671302_e68a82b0f6.jpg" width="375" height="500" alt="Yeah Yeah Yeahs - Karen O Gets A Paper Shower In Newcastle" /></a>
<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/18705743@N00/3611835442/" title="Imelda May is a Screamin - Newcastle Gig 2009 by JP.G, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2428/3611835442_669eee4b2d.jpg" width="500" height="375" alt="Imelda May is a Screamin - Newcastle Gig 2009" /></a>
But I have done room lighting at bars and places whicle just lingering or playing pool, with higher ISO and slower shutter speeds with my G9 and got pretty solid results, many very impressive once you learn the nack, every image will not be good, but it is free to shoot plenty of shots I say.

Still far from DSLR super sharpness and light up the room clarity :D

Munas

02-03-2010, 00:07

man we suck at giving advice, the poor OP must be completely baffled.

:) Thanks to everyone for their help. I've decided on getting a 2nd hand DSLR or the entry level Nikon D3000. I'll play about with it and see how I get on.

For the 2nd hand set I've decided to lower my budget to £300. Can you please recommend a DSLR and suitable lens.

Thanks

Cirrus888

02-03-2010, 01:18

My lx-3 would take issue with that.

I base my opinion on the Canon S90 together with the Nikon D90. The LX-3 may indeed take better pictures in poor light but the S90 has failed me time and time again, I primarily need candid shots and although some excellent examples of moving people in the dark has been posted. Normal people and kids (those who aren't performing in some way) just won't let you snap away a hundred times and rightly so as they aren't models.

Most of the time you get one chance and one chance only, I am saving up for a full frame because even the D90 lets me down far too often but most of the pictures are usable even if they are "out of focus".

Shoei

02-03-2010, 07:03

:) Thanks to everyone for their help. I've decided on getting a 2nd hand DSLR or the entry level Nikon D3000. I'll play about with it and see how I get on.

For the 2nd hand set I've decided to lower my budget to £300. Can you please recommend a DSLR and suitable lens.

Thanks

Have a look round for D80's. They go pretty cheap plus they have the bonus of in body lens drive so your not limited to using AF-S or HSM lenses.
Never had any problems with my D80 at all and got some stunning pics from it.
This being one of my favorite.

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2159/2263106997_fe6f67a352.jpg

kopo

03-03-2010, 03:56