Coolpix S3 or SLR?

I have had a Coolpix 4200 for 2-3 years. It has worked well for what
it is. I mostly take family photos such as at Christmas, birthday
parties, and trips. For about 90% of the photos I take, it is
adequate. Most of them end up as 4x6 prints from ofoto that are then
stored in albums.

The main problems with the 4200 are (a) not a wide enough lens
(sometimes I can't get far enough away to get everyone or everything
in), (b) lighting (this is probably more my lack of skill than a fault
of the camera), (c) speed (it sometimes takes too long between shots,
especially with the flash), (d) general quality (some blurring and out
of focus, again it may be my fault), and (e) poor quality for theose
few shots that we blow up (8x10).

This Christmas, I got a Coolpix S3 from my wife. The reviews are good
and it is even smaller than the 4200. Here's what I would like help
with: Is the S3 enough better than the 4200 that it can be my only
camera? That is, can it solve most of the problems mentioned above
(assuming I get better, too)? Or would I be better off trading it in
for a digital SLR and keep the 4200 for quickie shots and for a camera
I can put in my pocket?

Another way to put this is: Can the S3 (or some other pocket camera)
do everything I need (which, admittedly isn't that much), or would I
really be a lot happier with a gfood SLR?

About half the time, the ability to put it in my pocket isn't a big
factor. Whenever we are at home, such as at Christmas and birthday
parties, etc., a larger SLR would be about as convenient as a pocket
camera. Even on trips, I wouldn't mind taking two cameras if there was
sufficient benefit to the larger camera.

I guess the main question is this: Would I notice a huge difference in
the quality of the photos from a digital SLR (say for about $800) over
the S3?

If the answer is yes, and I suspect it is, then which SLR should I be
looking at?

Thanks


--
For email, use

LurfysMa wrote:
I have had a Coolpix 4200 for 2-3 years. It has worked well for what
it is. I mostly take family photos such as at Christmas, birthday
parties, and trips. For about 90% of the photos I take, it is
adequate. Most of them end up as 4x6 prints from ofoto that are then
stored in albums.

The main problems with the 4200 are (a) not a wide enough lens
(sometimes I can't get far enough away to get everyone or everything
in), (b) lighting (this is probably more my lack of skill than a fault
of the camera), (c) speed (it sometimes takes too long between shots,
especially with the flash), (d) general quality (some blurring and out
of focus, again it may be my fault), and (e) poor quality for theose
few shots that we blow up (8x10).

This Christmas, I got a Coolpix S3 from my wife. The reviews are good
and it is even smaller than the 4200. Here's what I would like help
with: Is the S3 enough better than the 4200 that it can be my only
camera? That is, can it solve most of the problems mentioned above
(assuming I get better, too)? Or would I be better off trading it in
for a digital SLR and keep the 4200 for quickie shots and for a camera
I can put in my pocket?

Another way to put this is: Can the S3 (or some other pocket camera)
do everything I need (which, admittedly isn't that much), or would I
really be a lot happier with a gfood SLR?

The S3 is probably perfectly good enough for your needs, unless your
intention is to progress to Club or semi-pro photgraphy.

About half the time, the ability to put it in my pocket isn't a big
factor. Whenever we are at home, such as at Christmas and birthday
parties, etc., a larger SLR would be about as convenient as a pocket
camera. Even on trips, I wouldn't mind taking two cameras if there was
sufficient benefit to the larger camera.

An SLR, with one or two lenses, is a biggish thing to lug around, or to hide
from the wife!

I guess the main question is this: Would I notice a huge difference in
the quality of the photos from a digital SLR (say for about $800) over
the S3?

No, not until you start to blow up to 20" by 16", and even then, the quality
of the S3 lens/CCD size etc. will probably not be bettered by the Canon or
Nikon DSLRs, unless you start using a magnifying glass to view your prints.
In my opinion, the future for digital photography will see actual prints on
paper becoming less and less the preferred option, and slide-show viewing on
larger TFT screens or high definition TV screens will become the norm. I
challenge anyone to look at a print and be able to tell which type of
camera, point-and-shoot or DSLR, it was taken on. What does the average Joe
do with his papaer prints?, he sticks them in a drawer and forgets about
them.

If the answer is yes, and I suspect it is, then which SLR should I be
looking at?

You could compromise, and look at the Panasonic-style "DSLRs" which have
none -interchangeable lenses by Leica, with huge zoom ranges (10 times) and
just about every other facility you could wish for, including anti-shake
software, all for half the price of a Nikon or Canon. See reviews at
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz20/ ;-)

Dennis.
Thanks