Should I get a good point & shoot or a DSLR?

[nick_rojas]

<p>I currently have a Kodak Easyshare M883 and it's really not that great. The thing is that I am between the Canon Powershot S95 or the Nikon D3100. I will be going on vacation to Israel and I would really like to to take some really nice photos of the family and places we visit. I am willing to learn photography to take good photos but i dont know what you guys suggest?<br>

Also is the image quality the same on both camera since one is a high end point and shoot and the other an entry level DSLR?</p>

<p>And how do you guys feel about taking your DSLR on vacation?</p>

[gary_mayo1]

<p>Both camera types have advantages and disadvantages. The learning curve for point and shoot cameras is pretty quick, and you can relax and just have fun on vacation. DSLR's or HDSLR's as they are becoming to be known as require more time to become acquainted with all the features. If you go the DSLR route, you also need to choose a lens or lenses. A good one in the Nikon line is the 18-200mm VR. With one lens, you can capture most all of your vacation adventures.</p>

<p>If you have a Best Buy in your area, or a camera store (getting pretty scarce) go in and look at what they have. You will need a couple memory cards depending on what size you get.</p>

<p>You could also look at the video cameras that also capture stills.</p>

<p>My last two vacations I used my iPhone. Great little camera and video recorder. The maps tell you where each photograph was taken.</p>

[lornesunley]

<p>I always take my DSLR on vacation. Not much point in having a camera if you don't use it. Personally i would favour the DSLR above a point and shoot, but that is just my opinion.</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I always take my DSLR when traveling. The D3100, which I have, is a good choice for traveling because it is small and light for a DSLR. It only comes as a kit with an 18-55 VR lens. I sold my 18-55 VR because I didn't need it. I suggest you do the same and put the money towards a lens with a higher zoom ratio. A superzoom, like a Nikon 18-200 VR (very expensive), Sigma 18-250 OS, or Tamron 18-270 VC (which I have and like very much) or new 18-270 VC PZD make very good travel lenses. Other good choices include the Nikon 16-85 VR and 18-105 VR. The 16-85 VR is better built than the 18-105 VR (which has a plastic mount), but it's much more expensive. The 18-105 VR is built well enough for most amateurs. If you don't mind the cost, the Tamron 18-270 VC PZD would be my first choice. If you want to keep the cost down, but still get a good sharp lens, get the Nikon 18-105 VR.</p>

<p>I would also get an inexpensive P&S for those times you don't want to carry the DSLR. Look for one with a 28mm (equivalent) wide end on the zoom.</p>

[mark_tate]

<p>if all you wish to do with a camera is point and shoot then get one of them .<br>

If you wish to do more get and SLR</p>

[mariosforsos]

<p>I agree with Mark - if you want to take family photos and keep a simple visual account of your life together, then a nice point-and-shoot is definitely the way to go. Save the extra money for a nice dinner for all of you or for an extra night there - it'll be more worth it.</p>

<p>BUT, if you really want to be able to take nice images as well, then maybe you should look into one of the more "advanced" point-and-shoots (like the Nikon P100 or whatever equivalent) which give you much more versatility and are more likely to withstand the "future" challenge...;-)))) My personal preference in advanced point-and-shoots would be the Canon G12...</p>

[tony_leinster]

<p>You might want to look at micro 4/3 cameras like the Panasonic and Olympus offerings. whilst these are not as versatile as SLRs in some ways you do, at least, get interchangeable lenses and still in a very small package.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>It seems that you have the classic dilemma of size/portability versus quality/flexiblity.<br>

If your major gripe about the Kodak is all about picture quality then the S95 will serve you very well - it is small enough to fit in a shirt pocket and produces excellent images. But if you are looking at the Nikon because it can enable you to do things that the Kodak can't (such as using long focal lenghts or achieve shallow depth of field) then obviously the DSLR is the route to go.<br>

The way you phrase your question ("I am willing to learn photography to take good photos") leads me to think that you are happy with using the camera to create a record of your life rather than 'getting into' photography and this again leads me to suggest the S95. And its size means having the camera with you far more often.<br>

Think of it this way: if you get the S95 and later you find you need more from your camera, then you can keep the S95 as a back-up to take to places you do not want to carry the Nikon (like parties or city centres). But if you get the Nikon and you find you do not take it as often as you thought, then it becomes an expensive paperweight and you have to buy a compact anyway.</p>

<p> </p>

[kevin_delson]

<p>I don't own a P&S, yet sometimes I wish I did.</p>

<p>As a professional photographer, I battle with a problem, although it is a little different than yours.</p>

<p>When I go on vacation, I usually bring my better IQ producing DSLR and sometimes my old MF film.<br>

I get great photos, but at a cost.</p>

<p>The people I vacation with I'm sure get a tad irked with me as I take the time to setup the shot, scout locations, return to a certain area when the light is just right, change lenses etc..etc...</p>

<p>All this takes time and no doubt detracts from me simply enjoying my vacation; not to mention the people with me waiting patiently as I change lenses, filters, mount the camera on a tripod, etc, etc....</p>

<p>Even I get a little tired from carrying the extra weight all day long, but when the vacation is over as I look at my images, I am glad I brought the better equipment with me.</p>

<p>I probably will purchase a P&S someday to cure a photographic problem that plagues us all; the best sunsets usually occur when we DON'T have our DSLR with us. ;)</p>

[alvinyap]

<p><strong>I am willing to learn photography to take good photos but i dont know what you guys suggest?</strong><br>

There are several aspects of photography, such as composition and technical skills e.g. exposure. Either of these can be learned on a P&S or slr, though a slr will have much more flexibility - lens choices, dof control etc. What's your budget like?</p>

<p><strong> Also is the image quality the same on both camera since one is a high end point and shoot and the other an entry level DSLR? </strong><br>

I own a LX5, and at base ISO, quite comparable to my d300 - ignoring dynamic range and depth of field control. However when one ramps up the iso, the dslr with it's relatively larger sensor will generally provide technically better quality.</p>

<p><strong>And how do you guys feel about taking your DSLR on vacation?</strong><br>

I think a dslr on vacation is awesome - you get to use your favourite tool, knowing it more intimately. Also, better IQ etc. Downside: weight. Lugging a ~1kg dslr plus two lenses around gets heavy after 8 hours worth of walking! I doubt I will give that up since I can't justify the cost of a smaller dslr, but when I travel around on less critical adventures, I'm planning to bring my P&S out only.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>It really depends on what you want for the end result - are you intending to just take photographs for memories, your own personal use? Make small prints, maybe upload to websites? If so, a good point/shoot would probably suffice, and as stated above, the learning curve would be pretty quick - you'd be firing off good photographs in no time.</p>

<p>If your aspirations are more than that, say maybe to exhibit, sell, or enter photo contests - then maybe you should consider the more advanced DSLR. And as Alvin says, your budget factors in to the decision, though these days a really good point/shoot can approach the cost of an entry level DSLR.</p>

<p>Personally, when I go on vacation I take three cameras: a DSLR, a Panasonic G1 (micro 4/3 is also a format you may be interested in) and a high end P/S. Each has its own use, for me, anyway.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>Coincidentally, I've had both these cameras in their previous generation over the past year: S90 and D3000.</p>

<p>I've long had pretty good film equipment, so I'm not exactly an entry-level photographer, but I did not want to spend nor have the money to spend for the more expensive digital cameras... every single one of them a one year wonder.<br>

First of all, let's get this out of the way right now: all cameras today are <strong>point and shoots</strong> if you want to use them that way, and both of the cameras you're considering are also <strong>not point and shoots</strong> if you want to take more control. One is easily the equal of the other in terms of manual control.<br>

I like both types, the higher-end compact like the S95, and because I do like photography itself, I like the extra capabilities of a DSLR. However, for family vacation type pictures, I would pick the compact, just because it's a complete high-quality package in a very small size (complete with a fast, high-quality wide angle zoom lens which is very expensive to replicate in the DSLR class of cameras). It's the kind of camera you can carry around with you everywhere you go without having to think about it. For walking around town, you can just carry it at the ready in your hand with the wrist strap twisted around your wrist. Nobody really notices or pays much attention to the fact that you have a camera.</p>

<p>When you carry even the most compact DSLR like the D3100, you know you're carrying a camera. It's gigantic compared to an S95. It has to hang off your body somehow, around your neck or shoulder, in some kind of big case (like a toploader), and you end up having to perpetually look after it.</p>

<p>In absolute terms, no, a high-end small sensor compact won't match the "entry-level" DSLR in terms of raw pixel-peeping image quality... but in my opinion, it's more than good enough for almost any normal purpose, and I would even say that, the little S90/S95 with its built-in fast zoom lens may even take sharper pictures than the DSLR if all you have is the slow, fuzzy kit zoom lens on it.</p>

<p>All in all though, not wanting to start any arguments, but for a trip abroad, I would rather take a film SLR. They aren't as fragile, don't need to be mated with a recharger every day, etc.</p>

[martin_evans]

<p>I'm sure that Israel is a safe place to travel in, but in some parts of the world one looks conspicuous with any dSLR. With a P&S one is just another tourist; with any dSLR one might look like a rich tourist to the quick-fingered. One can be put out of sight in a coat pocket; the other is either always on view or else one's camera bag makes one conspicuous.<br>

I had a Canon Powershot A620 for a Norwegian holiday, and cannot fault it at all for that purpose: lovely pictures and even though they are JPEG one can still do some editing enhancement. However, it cannot handle difficult low-light situations. A group visit to a historic industrial site made me envious of those with cameras that could "photograph a black cat in a cellar" and I now have an entry-level dSLR as well (Pentax K-x).</p>

 

[andrewg_ny]

<p>Many people will own both. A good P&S (I recently bought a Panasonic LX5, rather like a Canon S95) can be a handy tool and will do quite a lot with relatively little weight/bulk. </p>

<p>Some key pros for the DSLR:</p>

<ul>

<li>Interchangeable lenses allow you to shoot wider angles and longer telephoto lenses. That said, the 28-105-equiv range on a S95 (or 24-90 on a LX5) could easily cover 90% of what 'most people' shoot. If you're shooting sports or wildlife, you'll want longer lenses like >=200mm. Of course, these extra lenses come at significant cost--the ultra-wide angle lens will cost as much or more than the cameras we're talking about.</li>

<li>Better low-light capabilities; the state of the art compacts like S95 and LX5 basically have a significant quality dropoff higher than ISO 800. The latest DSLRs are doing considerably better than that, very usable at ISO 3200, maybe even higher. Even last-generation DSLRs were better at ISO 1600. This is somewhat mitigated by relatively fast lenses on S95 and LX5, faster than you're likely to have on your DSLR.</li>

<li>Optical viewfinder. Better for working in bright light, where LCDs are harder to view; also encourage more stable camera holding.</li>

<li>Flash - most compacts don't even include a hotshoe for adding accessory flash for off-camera or bounced use. My LX5 has one (S95 doesn't) and it works but these cameras don't handle very well with larger flash units. Better use of bounce flash is a huge differentiator vs. the weak/direct-only/near-the-lens-axis flashes that are built into cameras. Of course if you're only going to use the built-in flash on the SLR, it's only incrementally better than the one built into most compacts.</li>

</ul>

 

[nick_rojas]

<p>Hey guys, so I went with the Canon Powershot S95. I <em>just</em> bought it. Should i get a warranty from Best Buy? A 3 year warranty is $68.00.</p>

[mike_hitchen]

<p>That seems a good deal to me - I don't usually bother in UK because a warranty from the store would likely be more than that.</p>

[brians.]

<p>Without reading the other responses, I have to say this is one of the best questions any photographer could ask. I was so let down going from my Canon A620 to an Olympus 510 that I was convinced the DSLR was defective. Of course you get lots more with a DSLR but the additional cost, often $500 or more above a good P&S, is ridiculous, in my opinion. Also, the introduction of new versicle P&Ss like the S95 has made the need for a DSLR even less important.</p>

<p>Still, if you need more, like better low light exposure, and a wide assortment of lenses, a slew of shooting options, quality flash, and much more, you might be ready to switch. Just be ready to start shelling out the bucks and don't expect the differences from your P&S to be gigantic. Many of my old P&S shots are quality images that no DSLR could have improved upon.</p>

<p>I'm not saying you shouldn't move up, but be aware the next wrung starts to get expensive for what you get. The D3000 certainly is a good place to start, but the kit lens may not meet your needs, you may need a flash unit, a tripod, a carrying bag, the list goes on. Obviously, you're heads-up on this or you wouldn't be asking the question. Good luck on making an informed decision.</p>