I have a Kodak M550. Basically a point and shoot with some manual settings that I can fiddle with. Nothing great. I keep seeing "DSLR" but have no clue what that means. The thing that flashes in my mind is a big huge dollar sign. I see fantastic pictures on the site all the time and they are all so beautiful and I don't think I can capture them with my teeny camera. I probably couldn't do it with a fancy "DSLR" camera either as I am not that great a photographer and do not ever profess that I will be. I was just wondering what is the difference? I'm sure it's got to do with all sorts of stuff I have no knowledge of but was just curious. I have gotten the inspiration back in my photos after my mini break a while back thanks to some great advice. I'd like to invest in a better camera, but being on a fixed income makes it difficult. I can't even get a decent editing program so for any of my pictures anyone sees, there is no editing done. It's all WYSIWYG. But if I was to just venture into a shop looking to upgrade or put on layaway or something, it'd be nice to know what it is I'm looking for. Thanks.
DSLR =Digital Single Lens Reflex. Similar to a 35mm, you are looking through the lens at the actual subject, not a viewfinder. It is done with mirrors (like a periscope). It can be a huge dollar sign, as lenses cost money. For regular shots, a Point and shoot is just fine. Some actually do real good work artistically!
I have been shooting "through the lens" my whole life. I am still a believer that it is not the camera, but the person that composes and makes the image. The camera only helps.
Keep that in mind before a salesperson tries to sell you something you don't need.
You can control ISO, shutter speed, and aperture just like with a DSLR, but it fits in your pocket. Of course, you can't change lenses, but if you need that kind of capability you're probably going to get a DSLR anyway.
I don't have a DSLR either but this year I actually spent a bit of time to learn a few things about my point and shoot. Because of this I am taking much clearer photos and have even found ways to get the kind of depth of field that a DSLR can get. :)
A compact camera has it's pros and cons, as does a DSLR. Quality is one of the key benefits of a DSLR, as achieved by a larger sensor, a larger dynamic range (better handling of tones), potential for higher quality lenses (you get what you pay for here) and more options with flash photography.
In terms of features such as automation, continuous shooting, RAW support, video recording, live view, auto bracketing, aperture or speed priority shooting, in camera processing, etc, the compact cameras are up there with the DSLR's.
@bink What exactly do you mean by continuous shooting? To me it means frame per second, and I highly doubt there's point and shoots that can have comparable frames to a mid level+ DSLR... My DSLR does 6fps (I think 8 with the battery grip, not sure)... I really really REALLY do not think there's a point and shoot that will do that. Hell, many can't even take one photo in 2 seconds, there's such a horrible shutter delay.
@hmgphotos - I was referring to features the compact camera has, not how good they are, just that they have them and they often have lots of them.
Out of curiosity though, I did a quick Google search just now to see what a compact camera could actually do in the area of continuous shooting. I immediately came across a few that were all capable of 10fps+ continuous shooting.
@moncooga I have been shooting "through the lens" my whole life. I am still a believer that it is not the camera, but the person that composes and makes the image. The camera only helps.
@vikdaddy Good to know! :) I've been contemplating one of those, or a Lumix, or one of the new Panasonic four thirds cameras (Lumix DMC-GF2) as a take-everywhere option for when I don't want to carry an SLR. But then today I saw a special on the 100mm f/2.8L macro, which might take a bite out of my current 1D-series fund. Decisions, decisions!
I agree completely that first and foremost that it's the person that makes the image.
Something to consider though: from 2003 until earlier this year, I was shooting on a point-and-shoot Panasonic FZ-20. For the first few years, it was great and I loved it. However, as I grew to understand more about photography and the things I could do, I became increasingly dissatisfied with the results I was getting as I was pushing the camera to its limits. A point was reached where I was giving up on many shots because the camera could not represent them well enough, such as low light or very bright days. I'd have problems with noise, or dismal tonal range.
So the tool was becoming a hindrance to my art. In my opinion, if someone reaches this point of compromising their art for the sake of the tool, an upgrade is in order, regardless of the person behind the camera.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I have been shooting "through the lens" my whole life. I am still a believer that it is not the camera, but the person that composes and makes the image. The camera only helps.
Keep that in mind before a salesperson tries to sell you something you don't need.
You can control ISO, shutter speed, and aperture just like with a DSLR, but it fits in your pocket. Of course, you can't change lenses, but if you need that kind of capability you're probably going to get a DSLR anyway.
In terms of features such as automation, continuous shooting, RAW support, video recording, live view, auto bracketing, aperture or speed priority shooting, in camera processing, etc, the compact cameras are up there with the DSLR's.
Out of curiosity though, I did a quick Google search just now to see what a compact camera could actually do in the area of continuous shooting. I immediately came across a few that were all capable of 10fps+ continuous shooting.
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ100 - 11fps (for 15 seconds)
Sony DSC-HX1 - 10fps
Nikon COOLPIX P100 - 10fps
i agree with this! =)
Something to consider though: from 2003 until earlier this year, I was shooting on a point-and-shoot Panasonic FZ-20. For the first few years, it was great and I loved it. However, as I grew to understand more about photography and the things I could do, I became increasingly dissatisfied with the results I was getting as I was pushing the camera to its limits. A point was reached where I was giving up on many shots because the camera could not represent them well enough, such as low light or very bright days. I'd have problems with noise, or dismal tonal range.
So the tool was becoming a hindrance to my art. In my opinion, if someone reaches this point of compromising their art for the sake of the tool, an upgrade is in order, regardless of the person behind the camera.