OT - SLR vs Point & Shoot Cam, gift advice?

[Lee Knight]

My 14 year old daughter is taking a digital photography class as a high school freshman. She really wants a nice camera. They've been learning on your run of the mill point and point mini cams.

 

I'm all for that.

 

But she has a taste for it and she wants to step up. She's not aware of the distinction between an SLR and a point and shoot. And I barely am myself. But I think at the very least, we'd like to move up to a better lens. We;ve discussed leaving the smaller pop format behind and she's ready and aware of the larger sized, better lens cameras.

 

So, the price range is between 400 and 500 bucks and here's what I've come up with:

 

The Nikon P500, a mid-line point at shoot that streets for around $329.

 

http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Product/Compact-Digital-Cameras/26256/COOLPIX-P500.html

 

Or the SLR Nikon D3000 that streets for maybe $399-$429.

 

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=d3000&gbv=2&gs_upl=1500l2891l0l5813l5l4l0l0l0l0l281l875l0.1.3l4l0&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=shop&cid=13432894508399710147#

 

So... is SLR too much for a 14 year old? What are the drawbacks or advantages?

[Philter]

No, not too much for a 14 year old. I was really into my 35mm SLR camera by that age, and was old enough to learn how to manually control the focus, f-stop, and shutter speed to set a composition. I would look at the quality of the lens and I would want to know that the camera was easy to use in manual mode.

[Lee Knight]

Thanks Philter. The D3000 is getting great reviews as a "transition" camera for SLR beginners. Are the files themselves bigger? I'm clueless here. So, a Digital SLR, does that mean the file is raw and uncompressed? and if so, are they any less manageable? Huge file size, etc.?

[Philter]

Sure Lee, without a doubt Ken or maybe others here are going to know more about the topic than I, but I think the big difference between SLRs and other cameras is that the SLR camera lets you see the actual light through the lens before you take the picture. It's real-time, real-light preview. Other cameras these days show you an LCD output from the imaging system, with a lag (just like monitoring through a native DAW.) The actual light through the lens is always going to be the highest resolution, and the lack of latency means you can accurately time shots when there's fast action involved.

 

The file sizes should still be comparable and they will almost certainly be adjustable too depending on whether you want to take big, high-quality images or squeeze more images into memory. The part of the technology that digitizes the image is the same between SLR cameras and cameras with LCD displays. This is my understanding anyway, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[Lee Knight]

Aha! It's starting to makes sense. Thanks.

[scarecrowbob]

I do a lot of photography and am a firm believer that if you can't take a great picture with your cellphone, no camera is going to really do much for you.

 

That said, if you really want to study images and understand how focus, aperture, and exposure work to affect the image a camera takes, it is a lot easier to do with a camera where you can set these things. And while you can kind of get to these settings inside a P/S camera (and you can put most SLR cameras into a dummy mode), it is really cumbersome to work with them. Hence the usage of large lenses that can be swapped out: they have rings to let you focus and (sometimes) set the f-stop.

 

IMO, get the DSLr. Get a wide prime lens and a longer zoom, and get to filling up harddrives with pictures.

[Lee Knight]

I do a lot of photography and am a firm believer that if you can't take a great picture with your cellphone, no camera is going to really do much for you. That said, if you really want to study images and understand how focus, aperture, and exposure work to affect the image a camera takes, it is a lot easier to do with a camera where you can set these things. And while you can kind of get to these settings inside a P/S camera (and you can put most SLR cameras into a dummy mode), it is really cumbersome to work with them. Hence the usage of large lenses that can be swapped out: they have rings to let you focus and (sometimes) set the f-stop. IMO, get the DSLr. Get a wide prime lens and a longer zoom, and get to filling up harddrives with pictures.

 

OK! Yes... agreed, learn to shoot. Composition, etc. And that's what's happening right now. She's doing great work with the little cheap point and shoots at school. So, yeah, time to dig in. Thanks man. SLR it is. I think...

[Gus Lozada]

I do a lot of photography and am a firm believer that if you can't take a great picture with your cellphone, no camera is going to really do much for you.

 

I know I'm an ignorant and I'm going to say a blasphemy... but... I started taking really good photographs until the day I got my iPhone 4. Really. Before that, no point and shoot camera helped me to capture something barely interesting (other than hot women). I would love to own a SLR camera but I am TOO lazy to be taking it everywhere I go. iPhone 4S will be my best option

 

 

So, what you said up there is... half true (in MY case): I can take great pictures with my cell phone... because it has an awesome camera and inspires me to take good pictures.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

I think the big difference between SLRs and other cameras is that the SLR camera lets you see the actual light through the lens before you take the picture. It's real-time, real-light preview. Other cameras these days show you an LCD output from the imaging system, with a lag (just like monitoring through a native DAW.) The actual light through the lens is always going to be the highest resolution, and the lack of latency means you can accurately time shots when there's fast action involved.

 

 

That's generally true. The exceptions, which is not worth getting into, are interchangeable lens cameras and four-thirds cameras and that ilk, which blur the lines between point and shoots and SLRs, but in general, this is correct.

 

 

The file sizes should still be comparable and they will almost certainly be adjustable too depending on whether you want to take big, high-quality images or squeeze more images into memory. The part of the technology that digitizes the image is the same between SLR cameras and cameras with LCD displays. This is my understanding anyway, someone correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

That's right, the file sizes are more a function of what format you choose to shoot in and the pixel resolution. That said, DSLRs often, although not always, can have larger files. I say "can" because it's up to you to choose what sort of file you wish to shoot.

 

For instance, my DSLR, a Nikon D90, offers the choice of: RAW, TIFF, and several sizes (resolutions) of JPGs. All these different options have their own benefits/detriments. For most people, shooting in high-res JPG is perfectly fine.

 

You can shoot in RAW if you want the highest resolution possible AND you want to be able to alter the white balance after the fact, a rather nice bonus if you get your white balance wrong or simply want to adjust it. With other files, such as JPG, whatever white balance you choose is the one that you get, and there is no altering after the fact, although you can obviously change the coloring in a photo editing program...not quite the same.

 

RAW files are a pain in the ass because you have to convert them to another format for others to be able to see it. I frequently shoot in RAW, and convert to TIFF, which is sort of like WAV files in that it's lossless and perfect for sending off to a printer if I want to print a large photo. If I display the photo on Facebook or one of my photography websites, then of course, I convert to JPG, which is sort of like an MP3 in the sense that it is a lossy format but is considerably more manageable.

 

That said, a large (fine) JPG can be used in quite a number of printing situations, as it is still reasonably high resolution, although this is obviously too large for a website, which is typically a much smaller JPG. Just like MP3s, you can vary the amount of "lossiness" (the size and resolution of the image are all variable).

[Lee Knight]

That is awesome info, Ken. Thanks for the correlation to audio files, etc. That helps.

[Ed A.]

I know I'm an ignorant and I'm going to say a blasphemy... but... I started taking really good photographs until the day I got my iPhone 4. Really. Before that, no point and shoot camera helped me to capture something barely interesting (other than hot women). I would love to own a SLR camera but I am TOO lazy to be taking it everywhere I go. iPhone 4S will be my best option

 

Annie Leibovitz recommends iPhone as best camera

[UstadKhanAli]

I know I'm an ignorant and I'm going to say a blasphemy... but... I started taking really good photographs until the day I got my iPhone 4. Really. Before that, no point and shoot camera helped me to capture something barely interesting (other than hot women). I would love to own a SLR camera but I am TOO lazy to be taking it everywhere I go. iPhone 4S will be my best option So, what you said up there is... half true (in MY case): I can take great pictures with my cell phone... because it has an awesome camera and inspires me to take good pictures.

 

If you don't have a camera, you can't take photos. That's the beauty of small cameras like point and shoots, and that's the beauty of smartphones with cameras. And now, iPhones can take surprisingly good photos and have some interesting apps for applying effects (panorama, HDR, etc.). I've seen a few of Gus' photos with his iPhone, and they're really quite good.

 

I have a high quality point and shoot (compact), by the way. Lots of advantages. One is that it doesn't attract tons of attention. This can be wonderful if you are a tourist but are in crowded areas or even sketchy areas. It's also wonderful if you go inside a place and want to be low-key. Just carry it in your pocket and go. And sometimes, people you are photographing are less intimidated or less self-conscious when you have small cameras.

 

Many professional photographers shoot with high quality compacts for the reasons above. Some even shoot with iPhones. I've seen a couple of gallery exhibitions with iPhone photographs already, and there are numerous iPhone photography blogs.

[UstadKhanAli]

I know I'm an ignorant and I'm going to say a blasphemy... but... I started taking really good photographs until the day I got my iPhone 4. Really. Before that, no point and shoot camera helped me to capture something barely interesting (other than hot women). I would love to own a SLR camera but I am TOO lazy to be taking it everywhere I go. iPhone 4S will be my best option So, what you said up there is... half true (in MY case): I can take great pictures with my cell phone... because it has an awesome camera and inspires me to take good pictures.

 

If you don't have a camera, you can't take photos. That's the beauty of small cameras like point and shoots, and that's the beauty of smartphones with cameras. And now, iPhones can take surprisingly good photos and have some interesting apps for applying effects (panorama, HDR, etc.). I've seen a few of Gus' photos with his iPhone, and they're really quite good.

 

I have a high quality point and shoot (compact), by the way. Lots of advantages. One is that it doesn't attract tons of attention. This can be wonderful if you are a tourist but are in crowded areas or even sketchy areas. It's also wonderful if you go inside a place and want to be low-key. Just carry it in your pocket and go. And sometimes, people you are photographing are less intimidated or less self-conscious when you have small cameras.

 

Many professional photographers shoot with high quality compacts for the reasons above. Some even shoot with iPhones. I've seen a couple of gallery exhibitions with iPhone photographs already, and there are numerous iPhone photography blogs.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Annie Leibovitz recommends iPhone as best camera

 

 

Yes!!! Well, sort of!! She said it's the best "snapshot camera of today". And how can you argue with that? I think it is!!!

[scarecrowbob]

" I can take great pictures with my cell phone... because it has an awesome camera and inspires me to take good pictures."

 

Hell, I shoot on a 5dii, and the best pictures I've ever taken have been with my iPhone.

 

"The best camera is the one you have in your hand."

[Lee Knight]

Of course! An iPhone does appear to be the snapshot of today. But if it is being recommended over something with more control for a student, no. Something like an iPhone is like a Zoom H2. GREAT! I love it. Take it with me, go guerrilla. Absolutely. But recording on an H2 isn't going to help me with understanding other more in depth issues with digital audio. And the same with the iPhone. Sure, take the iPhone with you a capture what you couldn't with a bigger rig.

 

But it doesn't replace something with more control and higher quality. Does it? I'm the noob here.

[UstadKhanAli]

Oh, one more thing. In general - not that I'm saying "in general" - DSLRs do better in low light situations than their compact brethren. There's exceptions to this. For example, my Leica DLux 4 compact does better in low light than my old Nikon D50 did. But in general, that's the case. Why? Aperture.

 

And it gets better. If you get a big ol' prime lens as Scarecrowbob suggested, well, most of those are pretty "fast" lens - "fast" meaning that it has a larger aperture, which therefore lets in more light. The larger the f-stop, the more light it lights in. So, for example, f/1.4 is a considerably considerably larger opening (aperture) than, say, f/18. And many prime lens have large apertures.

 

This is awesome for several reasons:

- as I said, better in low light situations

- greater ability to manipulate depth of field. Narrow depth of field in which only the subject is in focus and everything else has that beautiful, blurry bokeh, is wonderful for portraits, and many prime lens, such as the Nikkor 50mm prime lens, is coveted for this.

 

As a bonus, prime lens are often sharper than zoom lens (in other words, lens that have variable distances) and are frequently lighter in weight and smaller in size.

 

That said, a zoom is so wonderful, so flexible.

 

Always trade-offs. And that's part of the fun.

 

Lens are to cameras what microphones are to recording setups. And the lens you choose will directly affect the image you get, most often more than the capture medium, much more so than megapixel size. There is, of course, a parallel to this. Different types of microphones (say, a dynamic vs. a condenser) will typically affect audio more than whether you are recording at 96kHz or 44.1kHz, and so it is with your choice of lens as well. Your choice of lens will typically affect your image more than whether you are shooting 10 megapixels or 20 megapixels.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Hell, I shoot on a 5dii, and the best pictures I've ever taken have been with my iPhone.

 

 

That's so cool.

 

 

"The best camera is the one you have in your hand."

 

 

Exactly!! I love that saying.

[UstadKhanAli]

 

Of course! An iPhone does appear to be the snapshot of today. But if it is being recommended over something with more control for a student, no. Something like an iPhone is like a Zoom H2. GREAT! I love it. Take it with me, go guerrilla. Absolutely. But recording on an H2 isn't going to help me with understanding other more in depth issues with digital audio. And the same with the iPhone. Sure, take the iPhone with you a capture what you couldn't with a bigger rig. But it doesn't replace something with more control and higher quality. Does it? I'm the noob here.

 

 

It's simply a different tool. Take the bloody phone with you when you don't have a DSLR and you're covered. As Scarecrowbob quoted, "The best camera is the one you have in your hand."

[UstadKhanAli]

Lee: for responsiveness, flexibility and learning about cameras in general, I don't believe it gets better than an SLR. The one exception may be something that is similar to an SLR, such as the relatively new Sony line of mirrorless cameras (A55, A77, etc.), which basically function as an SLR but are technically not SLRs. But for the purposes of this discussion, I believe that she would benefit most from an SLR if you are talking about learning a camera. And you have far more flexibility (in a variety of different situations and uses and so forth) and responsiveness.

 

For capturing fast action, it's difficult if not impossible to beat an SLR. There's a reason why all those sports photographers and photojournalists use SLRs. Fast, responsive, flexible. It becomes an extension of you. You're not fighting the camera. No lag. No waiting for the zoom to slowly respond. No waiting for someone to stand still before you can take a photo. Nothing.

 

You can use an SLR as a point-and-shoot (most have dials with "Scenes" that you can use, which are automatic settings, just as you do with compacts), or get into it more and learn a lot more as you progress.

 

And SLRs are more FUN.

[rjt]

A couple of quick points. RAW is an interesting format because, in addition to changing the white balance, you have a lot of play with the exposure as well, so the RAW format is very forgiving there. (In fact there is so much play in the exposure of a RAW file, some people do HDR with just one RAW exposure.) Cameras which shoot RAW come with conversion software and if someone does any real photography (insert has any type of interest at all) they will usually get some post processing software from PS Elements to Paint Shop Pro to ???? that can also convert the RAW.

 

The speed of a camera is important for indoor work and sports. I used to take my "walk around" 18-250 lens and a super wide angle when I traveled. Now I leave the wide angle at home and take a 30mm prime (about 45 mm equivalent) at f 1.4 for indoor shots of cathedrals and things. A basic fast prime (I would say around 1.4) in 30 or 50mm should not be too expensive. Mine weren't (I have a 30 and 50mm.)

 

Be careful of the megapixel myth. Megapixels are great..... more are better IF they are spread out on a bigger sensor. More megapixels on a smaller sensor means more noise.... (a type of light or color aberration.) So one thing I look at is sensor SIZE (the actual measurement of the sensor) not just how many megapixels is it.

 

There are lots of cool cameras in the world. When I am ready to buy something, I look at Steve's Digicam's or DP Review on the net. They are two great "go to" websites. One last thing, don't buy on specs....... find the local store which carries a camera you like (if the price is close, support them and buy it there.) But you just might find how buttons are located, how a camera fits your hand, how fast it turns on etc. really make a difference. Recently I picked the perfect camera out on specs... checked it out at the local store and left it there. Took forever to focus and I thought the pics were horrible... so saved some money.

 

One last thing, I really agree, a good photographer can take a good pic with a cellphone or a brownie or a box camera. So something which lets you learn by taking lots and lots of pics is super. I often go to websites just to look at whatever photos others take and ask myself why I like it, what makes it a good photo etc. Of course, Ken's website is a great place to go to start to learn!!

 

Good luck with the camera.

[Lee Knight]

thanks ^ good stuff!

[UstadKhanAli]

 

A couple of quick points. RAW is an interesting format because, in addition to changing the white balance, you have a lot of play with the exposure as well , so the RAW format is very forgiving there. (In fact there is so much play in the exposure of a RAW file, some people do HDR with just one RAW exposure.) Cameras which shoot RAW come with conversion software and if someone does any real photography (insert has any type of interest at all) they will usually get some post processing software from PS Elements to Paint Shop Pro to ???? that can also convert the RAW.

 

 

Great points.

 

 

A basic fast prime (I would say around 1.4) in 30 or 50mm should not be too expensive. Mine weren't (I have a 30 and 50mm.)

 

 

Yup. The Nikkor 50mm f/1.8 is barely above US$100. The Nikkor f/1.4 is about $300.

 

 

Be careful of the megapixel myth. Megapixels are great..... more are better IF they are spread out on a bigger sensor. More megapixels on a smaller sensor means more noise.... (a type of light or color aberration.) So one thing I look at is sensor SIZE (the actual measurement of the sensor) not just how many megapixels is it.

 

 

Great point also!

 

 

One last thing, don't buy on specs....... find the local store which carries a camera you like (if the price is close, support them and buy it there.) But you just might find how buttons are located, how a camera fits your hand, how fast it turns on etc. really make a difference. Recently I picked the perfect camera out on specs... checked it out at the local store and left it there. Took forever to focus and I thought the pics were horrible... so saved some money.

 

 

And it should seem logical...where the buttons are placed, getting around the menu, etc. Give it some time, but definitely try and pick up the camera in a store if you can.

 

 

One last thing, I really agree, a good photographer can take a good pic with a cellphone or a brownie or a box camera. So something which lets you learn by taking lots and lots of pics is super. I often go to websites just to look at whatever photos others take and ask myself why I like it, what makes it a good photo etc. Of course, Ken's website is a great place to go to start to learn!!

 

 

Wow, thanks!!!

 

There's a lot to be learned by looking at lots of photos and seeing how they're lit (after all, you are capturing light!), looking at their composition, and so forth. For composition, you can think that perhaps not every subject should be in the middle of the photo, after all...why are certain photos off to the side? What makes this cool? How is it using the "rule of thirds"? Why is that important? How is the photo using negative space? Why are certain portraits more emotionally potent than others? Why are some photos of trees compelling and others are dull?

 

And although great photos can be taken with any camera, do remember that a good camera makes it far easier to take a great photo because it's more flexible and responsive, not just because it takes sharper images.

[scarecrowbob]

Just another thought:

 

There are some great deals to be had buying used from good dealers. I use KEH and have always found them to be great, are is B&H and andromeda.

 

Just keep in mind that there are a lot of scummy online camera stores and that you're way better off buying from a reputable dealer.

 

and IMO, it is better to buy online from someone who really knows the stuff versus buying from a local camera shop-- holding the camera is cool and all, but they all have the same basic form factor and if you're a novice you don't really know what is important to be able to access via button vs via menu....

[UstadKhanAli]

Buying used stuff online is a good bet. I get used camera gear online from places like Cameta Camera, which has an actual real store that you can walk into that has been in existence for a long time and has a good reputation. I've been treated really nicely there. I've also had good luck with Adorama.