Point And Shoot Vs A "real" Camera?

[StyloBug33]

I am in the process of trying to buy a new camera. My plan was to find a good general digital camera. My sister-in-law takes beautiful photographs with a Cannon Powershot 230. My plan was to get this year's version of this camera, the Powershot 260.

 

My husband and teenage son, however, think that if I am going to get a new camera I should get something much nicer than a point and shoot digital camera. I do want do much more in terms of photography than I have been doing. I bought a light tent so I can start doing better pen photographs and photography is something I have always been interested in learning. We have a good camera store in town that is very helpful and also offers classes. However, a good camera with a general lens and a macro lens would be a fortune. My husband's point is that a good camera will last a long time and do a much better job. It is best to get something good rather than something cheap.

 

I am torn. I am sure the Powershot would be good enough for most things, but a good camera could open up a whole new hobby.

 

Any thoughts from the photographers out there?

[hari317]

I think it is rarely the camera, good pictures are taken by good photographers, equipment is secondary, unless you are a professional. I think you should be fine with a P&S.

[mdbrown]

If you go with a point and shoot keep in mind that light is a major issue. The imaging sensor for a point and shoot is tiny in comparison to even an entry level DSLR. With the massive number of pixels they pack in there now they tend to be very noisy in low light conditions. If you are serious than I say get a DSLR. An entry level DSLR will pay for itself in the future. Point and shoot cameras are very limiting. If you don't mind buying used there are tremendous deals to be had on ebay and craigslist.

 

If you went as far as buying a light tent setup then I don't think you'll be happy with the limitations of a point and shoot for very long.

 

PS. hari317 is somewhat correct that it's the person not the camera to a certain degree. OTOH, a good camera makes a difference. Beautiful pictures can be done with a point and shoot but a DSLR is far more versatile and something you are far more likely to keep and use for a very long time.

Edited August 16, 2012 by mdbrown

[ArchiMark]

Really depends on your needs, budget, etc.....

 

The reality is that some P&S cameras are very good quality these days....

 

As hari said, a good photographer can take very good pics with almost any camera....

 

It may easier to get a finer level of control and some bit of extra quality with a better camera, but the downside, besides extra cost to purchase, is that those cameras are larger, heavier, bulkier, and with extra lenses, etc, you need a good camera bag to carry it around....Then to help steady the camera, you'll want a tripod....so, before you know it you're packing a lot of stuff around.... meanwhile, in my case with my trusty lil' Panasonic Lumix DMC-FX-150, 14MP, with Leica lens I can carry it wherever I go, either in my leather manbag or my pocket and be ready to capture a pic and not miss those opportunities....

 

So, there are tradeoffs either way....you need to be clear about what your real aims are for wanting a particular camera type....so, no one answer that fits all, just depends on your situation....

[colrehogan]

I will agree with your husband on this point. Buy the best gear that you can. Work with him on this. Visit the camera store and talk to the people there and try out some of the gear in the store. I don't know what your budget is (and it is none of my business), but DSLR prices have come down quite a bit in the last few years.

[brunico]

My husband's point is that a good camera will last a long time and do a much better job.

 

Doesn't really work for digital, at least for the many people who 'upgrade' every few years.

 

I've settled on a micro four-thirds camera (Panasonic GF1) as - for me - the best balance of quality, price, portability and features. It's superior to your camera in some ways, e.g. taking a picture of someone and being able to blur the background. And I know there are plenty of cameras that are superior to mine in some ways. Many DSLRs will be able to blur more background than mine. But my medium-format film camera will wipe the floor with them. It's heavier and slower to operate, though. Choosing a camera usually means some sort of compromise.

 

But if I want to take a picture of something smaller with my GF1, e.g. a close-up of a pen, I need to buy a macro lens or play around with extension tubes or close-up lenses. So I don't bother. Most point-and-shoots will let you take pretty decent close-ups with no extra equipment, and that may be all you need. Some people have fancy DSLRs but don't really use them any differently from their old point-and-shoots, so there's no real difference if they're just printing at 5x7 or even 8x10 or putting photos on blogs.

 

Not trying to persuade you either way. On the other hand, if you're husband's offering to pay...

[StyloBug33]

Thank you for your replies. You all bring up great points, and something has occurred to me. I did buy a light tent because trying to get the lighting just right for pen photographs has been driving me crazy. I love all the really interesting photos that people take of their pens. That is what I really want to learn how to do. I don't see myself carrying a camera around. My sister-in-law does get some very nice photos of scenery, but that isn't really my interest. I also honestly like just using my iPhone for when I am out and about. I know it is just a camera on a phone, but it actually does a fairly nice job. I already plan on getting the next version, and that will probably have an even better camera. So, even though the point and shoot on my phone isn't as good as the Powershot, it is good enough for things I just want to - well - point and shoot.

 

So perhaps getting a DSLR is the way to go.

[mdbrown]

You won't be disappointed. I had a very nice Panasonic superzoom point and shoot for years, had the Leica spec lens. Both her and I thought it took beautiful pictures.... until the first time we used a Nikon D3000 DSLR... not even close. Colors were more accurate, sharpness was an order of magnitude better. It's big weakness (the accessories) is also it's biggest strength. Good luck! Now you need to decide on which altar to go... Nikon or Canon. Don't overlook Pentax either. You are gonna have a blast!!

Edited August 16, 2012 by mdbrown

[jakelogan]

I am in the process of trying to buy a new camera. My plan was to find a good general digital camera. My sister-in-law takes beautiful photographs with a Cannon Powershot 230. My plan was to get this year's version of this camera, the Powershot 260.

 

My husband and teenage son, however, think that if I am going to get a new camera I should get something much nicer than a point and shoot digital camera. I do want do much more in terms of photography than I have been doing. I bought a light tent so I can start doing better pen photographs and photography is something I have always been interested in learning. We have a good camera store in town that is very helpful and also offers classes. However, a good camera with a general lens and a macro lens would be a fortune. My husband's point is that a good camera will last a long time and do a much better job. It is best to get something good rather than something cheap.

 

I am torn. I am sure the Powershot would be good enough for most things, but a good camera could open up a whole new hobby.

 

Any thoughts from the photographers out there?

You cannot replace a proper camera.

 

If you are new to the whole DSLR thing and want a brand new camera, go for a relatively inexpensive entry-level Canon T2i/T3i Rebel. They are very user-friendly and extremely easy to start out with into the field of "legitimate" cameras. You don't even need to read the user's manual.

 

They even have similar "fully automatic" modes for beginners and a "fully auto without flash" mode. That is how easy it gets. Basically, "point and shoot" but with a bigger body. Heck, it might even be easier than a point and shoot.

 

They normally come packaged with two decent lenses: a macro and a wide(ish)-angle. And you will be set for everything, ALL the pictures and pen-porn. Especially the pens. I love pen pictures.

 

And the difference is huge. You can spend the same money on a "high-end Point and Shoot" as a used entry level SLR and you can get a much much better picture.

 

There is definitely a big difference between a pen-porn shot with a Point and Shoot and a pen-porn shot with a "real" camera.

[ticoun]

A used DSLR can be a great option. My camera is a 2006 Pentax *ist DL2 that I got in very good used condition for 200$ with an 18-55mm zoom and I couldn't be happier.

[radellaf]

You'll get a ton of opinions on this. It's a never ending and long standing debate on camera forums like those at http://www.dpreview.com . I've spent my time on both sides, and come down on the "P&S" side, but with the high end versions that offer most of the DSLR's control, and lacking only interchangeable lenses and larger sensor. What I gain is a camera that is always with me, and does 90% or more of what I'd do with a larger, heavier camera. With enough light, and smaller prints, I get results that are to my eye just as good. FWIW, I chose the Canon S100. At the high side of the $400s, not cheap, but it's the best truely pocketable camera I can find for low-light. It's not great at it, but worlds better than what was available even 5 years ago. The iPhone camera has improved to the point that it is good for some of my impromptu mobile photography, but a lot of the time I'm glad the S100 is there. With an Eye-Fi memory card, I can even transfer photos to the phone and share them minutes after taking them.

 

I agree that the argument that "a good camera will last a long time" doesn't hold up for digital so well. Yes, it might, but so might an S100, if you never end up wanting new features that will come out as technology improves.

 

The interchangeable-lens non-reflex cameras are long overdue (a mirror is a holdover from film, IMHO), and the cameras are improving rapidly. Wouldn't be a bad strategy to get a good P&S now, and wait for those to mature.

 

However if:

You have the money and want the fun of using different lenses

You need the best low light or high-speed performance

The camera will stay home (pens?) or you are truly willing to carry it

then, sure, get the DSLR.

 

Either way, read some reviews, try some cameras in the store, borrow one if you can,and try to enjoy the selection process. In truth, almost all the digicams out there are pretty amazing. I had a Minolta SLR with a 50mm lens and 400ISO film in college, and yeah, it's a good camera, it still works, but wow, would I have been happier with just about any of today's equipment instead.

[Ish.P]

If you think you might want to take photos with the object sharp and the background nice and blurred to make it stand out, you won't do that with a P&S. As a keen photographer, I'd recommend you go with a DSLR, or maybe a micro four thirds if you want something smaller and these will give you a lot more control over everything. You can then keep the P&S for putting in your pocket when you don't want to carry a larger camera.

 

I'd recommend you have a look at the Digital Photography forum on MacRumors. The people there are friendly and knowledgeable and there's a lot of information there in response to questions such as yours.

[hari317]

Then there is the learning curve about photography using a versatile instrument like the SLR camera. I learnt photography on a film SLR camera. You have more controls and capability with the SLR but you will need to learn a lot before you can utilise the full potential.

 

Best

Hari

[Silvermink]

If you want to progress in photography you won't be happy with a mostly-automatic camera for long. I'd agree that you should get something that offers more manual control.

 

As an alternative to a DSLR you might consider some of the mirrorless cameras that are out nowadays (Micro Four Thirds, Sony NEX, etc.) as they offer most of the advantages with a lot less bulk. Ultimately it doesn't matter how good your camera is if you've left it at home because you're tired of lugging it around.

 

I'm still on the fence, because I do love my optical viewfinder. That Olympus OM-D is pretty tempting, though.

[Sasha Royale]

My cameras were 35mm, an Olympus OM-1 and an Exakta with an

F.2 Zeiss Jena. I had a fair load of accessories for them.

I worked in a basement darkroom.

 

With the advent of digital and fading support for 35mm, I

found the Oylmpus C-5050 to be entirely adequate, as much

of what I need can be done Post-photo through the computer.

 

Consider what can be done with digital images through software,

before you choose the camera.

 

Good hunting.

Edited August 16, 2012 by Sasha Royale

[raging.dragon]

The ideal setup for pen photography would include, in addition to the light tent, a tripod for your camera, and two or more flashes or studio lights that can be mounted off camera. As far as I know, multiple off camera flashes will require a mid range or better DSLR; otherwise, any camera that that can focus reasonably close should be fine. Studio lights would be on constantly while working and thus will consume alot of power and generate alot of heat. On the up side that would also make it easier to get accurate exposure (light) readings.

[raging.dragon]

You won't be disappointed. I had a very nice Panasonic superzoom point and shoot for years, had the Leica spec lens. Both her and I thought it took beautiful pictures.... until the first time we used a Nikon D3000 DSLR... not even close. Colors were more accurate, sharpness was an order of magnitude better. It's big weakness (the accessories) is also it's biggest strength. Good luck! Now you need to decide on which altar to go... Nikon or Canon. Don't overlook Pentax either. You are gonna have a blast!!

 

Sony also make good DSLR's, and (along with Nikon and Cannon) probably have high end lenses better lenses than anything from Pentax (who's lenses should be competitive with the others low to mid range offerings). Sony bought Minolta and thus inherited their lens making facilities and expertise, while their truly high end lenses are made by Carl Zeiss.

[GnosticMoron]

I wound up getting a nice DSLR (T3i), but also keep a reasonably high-end P&S (PowerShot) handy. If I want to take a macro shot of a nib, the P&S isn't really going to get the job done, but it fits in a purse pocket and is ready to shoot the second I hit the power button.

[bphollin]

PowerShots are great cameras. I have the S95 and my wife has the G11. We've had hers for years, and frankly, we're still learning how to use it to its full capability.

[cavey]

I'm with Silvermink on this one. Nowadays there are some very nice system camera's out there, with interchangable lenses.

I'm following this board/thread for some amazing pictures taken with DSLR's and some Sony NEX/other 4/3 systems with old manual focus lenses (Pentax Takumar in particular).

 

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/lens-clubs/31601-takumar-club-716.html

 

So a lot is possible these days. There are a plethora of adapters out there for the various systems.

 

I'd say, if you're wanting to do some more serious photography, upgrade your system to something with changable lenses, to be able to go from potraits to insane telephotos to nice landscape shots and macros.