DSLR vs Point and Click

[CC86]

My biggest sticking point. Can't make up my mind. I need to decided soon for my pre-trip trip(lol) to New York next weekend. Any thoughts?

[TheJake]

I guess the biggest difference is money. If you've got the money for a dslr and you want to spend it on that, then do it! I know that the folks traveling with them can get some amazing shots... evidenced by Omisan and SpaceVirgins flickr pages.... then again I think I've taken some pretty damn good pictures with a point and shoot, though I'd love a DSLR.

It's really you're call man.

[space virgin]

A few things.

-How long is your trip? If it's only a week or so, I doubt the investment of a DSLR is worth it for a single trip.

-Are you planning to print large-- as in, bigger than 11x14-- prints of the shots you take? If the answer is NO, then stick with a point & shoot for now.

-Are you trying to seriously study photography and you're willing to put a lot more work into getting a single decent shot? Then go the DSLR route.

-Are you interested in capturing any video clips? No digital SLR cameras have a video function.

-Are you planning on having time to set up just the right settings for the photos you take or are they going to be more spontaneous? P&S is WAAAAYYYY better for spontaneous or quick-reflex shots unless you know your camera REALLY well.

One downfall many people make is that they think the big fancy camera is going to "take better pictures". It's not. YOU are going to take awesome pictures, and the tools you have at your disposal are a lesser part of the factor.

The challenge with SLR cameras is that you have to work a lot harder to get your settings correct for that good photo, whereas a point & shoot does all the work for you. The technology on P&S cameras these days is amazing! But humans as a species always seem to think "bigger is better", and with the market being flooded with new DSLRs these days it seems like everyone is doing it (with wildly varying success).

Basically, it all comes down to your personal choice and budget... but FYI, I've gotten fantastic prints up to 11x14 from my 2-year-old Canon point & shoot camera in addition to my SLR shots.

[space virgin]

Oh, I forgot to mention: The initial camera cost is only the tip of the iceberg with SLRs. Lenses (good ones anyway) will practically bankrupt you. It is the way of things.

[MeTurk]

A DSLR needs to be looked after, it's more prone to being nicked or broken and it's size makes it awkward to carry around. It's allot of added hassle that might get in the way.

You can get some very good point and click cameras that allow you to mess with settings. May never be as good as a DSLR but they do have some flexibility. There slim enough to fit in a pocket and some are very sturdy.

I had a Casio Exilim and it was great. It had a metal body and took allot of abuse without breaking.

Depends on weather you think the added hassle is worth it. You'd really need to love your photography. I don't think DSLRs are sutable for taking pictures at nightclubs or general out and about party stuff so if that's where your planing on taking your photos a slim camera is the one to go for.

[mish99]

Sorry to bring this thread up again...

This is some pretty good advice, and ive taken it into account, but here's my story:

I bought the canon eos 450d about 3 weeks ago and absoloutly love it! Im an amateur photographer (Is there anything less than amateur? ) but this camera takes the best pics. Im going on a 2 weeks trip through Italy, and am so looking for that 'perfect shot' but like you said, it is an added hassle. I also have a small digital camera, which takes ok pics, which would be best for nights out....

Basically the deciding point for me is this: I would have to pack the dslr in my backpack which is being checked in. Do you think the camera or the lense would break even if I packed it really well? Im sure the answer is obvious, but I thought id ask anyway.

[space virgin]

Personally I would NEVER pack any camera, regardless of monetary value, in my checked bag. Are you sure you can't carry it on?

[buzzingtalk]

i carried my SLR bag with me on my trip to asia...no problems...i cant see anyone objecting?

id never check it in! and SLR's are AMAZING for clubbing/night pics --->







just a few off my facebook from a festie a few weeks back

[mish99]

Great pics! Now my mind is made up!!

I guess if I want the pictures, ive got to get used to the extra hassle. I leave in 2 days for first backpacking trip ever. Wahoo!!

[c0urt]

slr's are heavy. but i still have carried one daily for the past few years.


they do make point and shoots with creative controls. cannon does and casio does. learn to keep it on your person. and get used to the hassle and learn not to bump it into things.

[freespiritz]

I initially balked at carrying my conspicuous, large, un-sneaky DSLR, but now I wouldn't leave it behind for anything, and it really wasn't as much hassle to lug around as I thought it would be. Then again, I am a photo major as well.

[Joker]

I dunno, I only have several Nikon and Olympus 35mm SLR rigs and a couple P&S digitals. Remember that, kids? Film that goes into cameras? It came on these rolls...


Last big trip I bought a 5.5MP Nikon P&S that gave me everything I needed, and was compact enough that I could slip it into my pocket, etc. The clincher, it was cheap ($300 with a case, batteries, and a 1GB SD card). If it got stolen/broken, I wasn't going to have a coronary like I would if I had a big DLSR kit. Sure, I'd love to have the DLSR, but it was too much, especially for a traveler on the go like me. I pack VERY light, so a case with all the stuff was just too much to bring.

Did everything EXCEPT the shutter speed wasn't fast enough, so there was a lotta tossed pics from blurs. Next trip, I'll buy something a little nicer since the technology has moved that much further.

[paulkaplan]

I S90, and wonderful as it is, is still very slow AF, sucking at high ISO, is not particularly wide or long lens, and the department is so friggen little hard for me to be a father smokes hostage Thang. How long before the P & S can not replace my flame throwing 7D. But the S90 is a very quick snaps and makes the bulge in my jeans my gf do not think that I'm happy to see him.

[haraamzadaa]

The bottome line is your never going to get the shutter speed, quality and high iso's of an SLR in a compact due to the lense and the sensor within the camera. However carrying one of those around with you is cumbersome and if carrying in a camera bag, you may as well have a sticker stuck on your forehead that says mug me. I guess if you can put up with the size of the SLR then and have the patiance to shoot on manual to get the exposure you want, they stick to an SLR. If you master the manual mode you will get breathtaking shots. No point getting a SLR and use it on auto, your not doing it justice.

As for Compacts there are some that will match SLR at low iso's and make a practical compromise of size whilst still maintaing some SLR quality. The cannon G series normally fit the bill, but they are still too bulky for my linking. If I were to buy one today it would be either the Panasonic LX5 an upgrade to the legendary LX3, or the cannon s95, an upgrade to the s90. I'de personally go cannon as they use the same control system in their SLR and that is what I'm used to.