Regular digital or digitial SLR?

Jitz wrote:
I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.

My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
it's a fai trade-off.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff




With kids, you should skip the digital camera and get a digital
camcorder. I've been looking at the Sony DVD-301. It's got image
stabilization to minimize the blur and also records direct to mini-DVD.
Price is about a grand.

Bill

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
lid wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:


There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
might as well get a good quality point and shoot.


I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Andrew.

If you will compare the specs on some of the latest model P&S cameras in
the $400-$500 range, you will find them much closer to the DSLRs of only
last year. This should be more than adequate for 90% of users. I am
quite impressed by the performance of my Kodak DX6440 (which is last
year's model), and newer ones are even more advanced, with faster focus,
faster processors, and more pixels. The quality of newer P&S cameras is
amazing, and is a moving target as well.

I agree on the faster AF. Go and play with the Canon SD300. Its AF is very
fast. Personally I own a 20D DSLR, mainly due to lens choices and the sensor
size (not to mention fast "everything"). Not sure if anyone has pointed this
out but a DSLR will have MUCH LESS NOISE due to larger sensor. For example,
my old Oly C-5050 (P&S) was noisy at ISO 64. My 20D shoots at ISO 1600 with
very low noise. But when you actually look at image quality, the P&S models
are usually sub-par compared to a DSLR with a "decent" lens, eg CA etc. If
flexibility outweighs compactness in importance - SLR is the only choice.
You want to avoid buying the wrong thing and then regretting it. I found
that compactness quickly lost its charm when the camera starts to be the
limiting factor.

lid wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:


There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
might as well get a good quality point and shoot.


I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Andrew.

Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between, say a
Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and size? Only
the person paying for it can really decide. Not everyone wants to carry
around several pounds of camera, lenses, and other accessories. I have
one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST fit in a trouser pocket without
making me uncomfortable. If it won't, then I won't carry it around,
which renders even the most sophisticated camera in the world useless
for my purposes.

In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:
lid wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:

There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
might as well get a good quality point and shoot.

I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between,
say a Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and
size? Only the person paying for it can really decide. Not
everyone wants to carry around several pounds of camera, lenses, and
other accessories.

Sure, but that is a totally different issue. You seemed to imply that
high-end gear is harder to use to get good results. I don't believe
it -- full auto mode on a top quality DSLR makes a *great* point and
shoot camera.

Andrew.

"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
lid wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:


There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
might as well get a good quality point and shoot.


I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Andrew.

Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between, say a
Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and size? Only
the person paying for it can really decide. Not everyone wants to carry
around several pounds of camera, lenses, and other accessories. I have
one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST fit in a trouser pocket without
making me uncomfortable. If it won't, then I won't carry it around,
which renders even the most sophisticated camera in the world useless
for my purposes.


So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own DSLR
then?

Musty wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
lid wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:


There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but
if you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting,
you might as well get a good quality point and shoot.


I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag,
flash, and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a
near-neophyte, set everything to auto, and after just a few minutes
instruction said "go shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure
they were better than would have obtained with a good quality point
and shoot.

Andrew.

Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between,
say a Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and
size? Only the person paying for it can really decide. Not
everyone wants to carry around several pounds of camera, lenses, and
other accessories. I have one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST
fit in a trouser pocket without making me uncomfortable. If it
won't, then I won't carry it around, which renders even the most
sophisticated camera in the world useless for my purposes.


So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own
DSLR then?

Let me ask you, Musty: can you imagine any good, legitimate purpose
served by his being in this NG? Please?


--
Frank ess

In article ,
wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:

There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
might as well get a good quality point and shoot.

I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Nobody is saying that a good DSLR won't do the job. The question
is whether a far cheaper camera will do all the original poster needs.

I believe it would. Modern P&S cameras have just about solved the
shutter lag problem. The AF and metering are good enough for almost
all situations. The only area where the DSLR is indubitably superior
is flash photography, end even there you can find a few P&S bodies
that will accept an external flash for those problem cases.

I'm speaking from experience; I use either, as the situation demands.

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Musty wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
lid wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:


There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but
if you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting,
you might as well get a good quality point and shoot.


I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag,
flash, and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a
near-neophyte, set everything to auto, and after just a few minutes
instruction said "go shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure
they were better than would have obtained with a good quality point
and shoot.

Andrew.

Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between,
say a Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and
size? Only the person paying for it can really decide. Not
everyone wants to carry around several pounds of camera, lenses, and
other accessories. I have one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST
fit in a trouser pocket without making me uncomfortable. If it
won't, then I won't carry it around, which renders even the most
sophisticated camera in the world useless for my purposes.


So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own
DSLR then?

Let me ask you, Musty: can you imagine any good, legitimate purpose
served by his being in this NG? Please?

I will let you know once I can think of something, it may take some time ;-)

Its strange to me that someone with such a firm camera criteria (must fit in
pocket!!) would even be posting in such a NG - I would think
rec.photo.digital would be more appropriate. I can speak from experience, I
have owned 2 P&S digicams and currently own a 20D (over a short period of
time my needs evolved realizing that the shot and flexibility was more
important than compactness). The last P&S was the Oly C-5050Z which was an
excellent camera (f/1.8 lens), but by no means would fit into my pocket.
Cameras that fit into a pocket are usually good for one thing - for doing
very candid happy snaps at parties or being out with friends at a bar.
Beyond that, they have no use UNLESS the user does not care about color,
clarity, dynamic range, noise, sharpness, tonality etc. Having said that I
plan to get a Canon SD300 just for the purpose of candid happy snaps for
situations where carrying my gear is inappropriate.



--
Frank ess

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:42:03 +0000, Musty wrote:


Its strange to me that someone with such a firm camera criteria (must fit in
pocket!!) would even be posting in such a NG - I would think
rec.photo.digital would be more appropriate. I can speak from experience, I

Ummm ... read your newsgroups line.

This is crossposted to rec.photo.digital and rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.

-- Patrick Mansfielkd

Musty wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...

wrote:

In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:



There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
might as well get a good quality point and shoot.


I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Andrew.

Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between, say a
Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and size? Only
the person paying for it can really decide. Not everyone wants to carry
around several pounds of camera, lenses, and other accessories. I have
one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST fit in a trouser pocket without
making me uncomfortable. If it won't, then I won't carry it around,
which renders even the most sophisticated camera in the world useless
for my purposes.



So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own DSLR
then?


No, I don't, but then I am NOT in the DSLR group. Someone cross-posted,
I replied.


--
Ron Hunter