Do I really need DSLR ?

P

Pietrach

Messages
655
Edit My Images
Yes
Hi all,

I am currently using my old and trusty, although very basic digital compact (Sony W-30). Throughout last few years I have managed to find out what I am really missing from my camera, and what do I need.
First I thought that DSLR is the obvious next step but... The only few things I need is:
- possibility of wide-angle shots;
- manual focus (ideally adjusted by ring on the lens, not menu or button);
- wide range of manually adjusted shutter speed;
- manually adjustable white-balance;
- manually adjustable aperture;
- possibility to save pictures as RAW;

Well, from your exprience, do I really need DSLR or there is something else like more advanced compact. Of course price is the main factor, as SONY Alpha200 is now for 240 pounds, it would have to be less than 180-200.

Thanks for all your help.
Pietrach
 
You could do a lot worse than the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50

This ticks all your boxes including the price (used)

I just sold mine after nearly 2 years. Only reason being a 400D came up at the right price.

I miss it greatly !
 
there are cameras that allow this without forking out on 300-400 on a body and then more on lenses.
the prosumer bridge cameras are pretty nice nowadays
panasonic lumix, the fuji range of cameras and some of the new canons.

the fuji and lumix are the ones that spring to mind regarding manual focusing but I may be way off on that one. they have pretty wide lenses and can take a front mounted adaptor. manual controls, newer ones can now process RAW. not sure about manual ***** balance though. I think you can use a custom WB from a test card shot.

some of them have flash hot shoes on them too...always handy.
DSLR's are expensive..not because of the body but because of the lenses I keep pursuading myself to buy. I wouldn't wish to dump my DSLR now that I have one but I would consider having a bridge camera for holidays and running around airsofting instead of lugging my 40D around the place

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_sx10is.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/FujiFilm/fujifilm_S100FS.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmcg1.asp
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmcl10.asp
 
To me all of your above are what DSLR's are for. It is all about having that extra control that you don't have with a compact. Having said that, you can do pretty much all that on some compacts these days, such as the Canon G9.

I guess then it's down to personal preference. Do you feel that you would get better pics with a DSLR? Would you use it as much as a compact as they are bulkier to carry?

Then think of the money - with DSLR's it will NEVER stop with the camera!!
 
Thanks for all your recommendations.
All options given by you are quite expesnive. I
do you know somethings similar but let say to 6-7 MegaPixels? (Like Fujifilm Finepix S6500fd)

Thank you
Pawel
 
Ideally, yes, but a Canon G9 would fulfill most of your requirements, although it would still cost you the same as the Sony A200
 
Well, my problem with DSLR is what people above have said - spendings never ends with the camera. You always want more lenses etc.
Buying bridge camera I get good enough quality for me, and wide range of zoom in one lens.
 
With the exception of professional photographers, noone really needs a DSLR... there've been some incredible shots taken with much lesser equipment - but your 'essential criteria' are best met by a DSLR without doubt.

Bridge cameras are great, feature packed, and often better value than DSLR's - but with prices and competition there are real SLR bargains to be found, new and secondhand.

Plus, if you buy a bridge camera, you might just regret not having gone the more modular route that a DSLR allows. It's only natural to want more lenses - but at least a DSLR gives you the option; a bridge camera, once obsolete, requires starting again from scratch.
 
You've left 2 essentials off your list IMO - image quality and the ability to control depth of field.

Both are related directly to sensor size, 'compact' digicams have tiny sensors that can't handle high image contrast, produce excessive noise and exaggerate camera shake and other faults because of the degree of enlargement needed.

DSLR's have much larger sensors and overcome all of these problems - and they allow much more control of depth of field too.

As for spending too much - isn't that under your control too:thinking:?
 
danbroad said:
With the exception of professional photographers, noone really needs a DSLR... there've been some incredible shots taken with much lesser equipment
Click to expand...

If you genuinely think a bridge camera will produce, say, motorsport shots or even portaits of an equivalent quality to a decent dslr/lens combo then you're either an amazing photographer or not speaking from a position of experience.
 
Flash In The Pan said:
If you genuinely think a bridge camera will produce, say, motorsport shots or even portaits of an equivalent quality to a decent dslr/lens combo then you're either an amazing photographer or not speaking from a position of experience.
Click to expand...


agree with that, had a bridge camera a year or so back and it doesnt compare at all to a DSLR. the results are fantastic from an DSLR and i can only recommend them to anyone over a bridge camera
 
Just to illustrate the point, here is a side by side of a Nikon APS-C sensor against one from a point and shoot

2748503640_91923d54fc_o.jpg
 
Flash In The Pan said:
Just to illustrate the point, here is a side by side of a Nikon APS-C sensor against one from a point and shoot

2748503640_91923d54fc_o.jpg
Click to expand...
To put that into figures, many point & shoots have just 42 sq mm of sensor, compared to APS C of 330mm and 'full frame' of 864 sq mm.

Ask any woman - size does matter:LOL:
 
Flash In The Pan said:
If you genuinely think a bridge camera will produce, say, motorsport shots or even portaits of an equivalent quality to a decent dslr/lens combo then you're either an amazing photographer or not speaking from a position of experience.
Click to expand...

Of course not - but there are amazing shots out there that aren't fast low light sports or flattering portraits. Just as there are amazing shots taken with the kit lens, rather than the 14-24 or other high-end gear.

Surely it's the light and the photographer that makes the photo; better kit helps you realise your vision, and gives you a better chance to nail it, that's all.
 
Everybody's quick to say the o/p needs a DLSR.

I could be wrong, but I dont think anyone here knows anything about him/her.

He's got £200 to spend (less if poss). A bridge camera will give him ALL the things in his checklist and comes in at his budget. A DSLR does not.

To the o/p ! Check out used DMC-FZ50's out on ebay or such like.

Panasonic-FZ50-lg.jpg


Heres some pics I've took with mine :

P1020430.jpg


P1040607.jpg


P1050121.jpg


P1040913.jpg


P1060481.jpg


P1070992.jpg


P1040928.jpg


Very versatile, PM me if you want to know more !
 
I'm a previous Bridge Camera owner - Konica Minolta A200 which was an excellent camera & had pretty much most of the functionality of a current DSLR

However whilst I very much enjoyed the Prosumer I can honestly say that I wished I had bought a DSLR earlier...the increased image quality is significant and I find the ability to add additional lenses/focal range an essential option...albeit an expensive one !!

Having said this I print many of my shots at quite large sizes (upto 36 x 24inch) & IQ is consequently very important. If your intention is to mainly disply images on a PC or only to print small sizes then a decent Prosumer may well suit your requirements just aswell as a DSLR, particularly considering budget.

Simon
 
Pietrach,

You don't need an SLR as people have said, there are many bridge cameras out there. However, the points made by Gary, FITP et al are valid and if you think that in a years time you may want more then strongly think about getting an SLR now otherwise you'll be spending the same amount again.

Also what you spend is down to you.
 
SimonTALM said:
Pietrach,

strongly think about getting an SLR now otherwise you'll be spending the same amount again.
Click to expand...

I just sold my bridge camera for £100 more than what I paid 12 months earlier

ok, I added a cheap tripod (£8) and a couple of filters (£20)

:)
 
you might aswell ;-)
 
Pietrach said:
Hi all,

I am currently using my old and trusty, although very basic digital compact (Sony W-30). Throughout last few years I have managed to find out what I am really missing from my camera, and what do I need.
First I thought that DSLR is the obvious next step but... The only few things I need is:
- possibility of wide-angle shots;
- manual focus (ideally adjusted by ring on the lens, not menu or button);
- wide range of manually adjusted shutter speed;
- manually adjustable white-balance;
- manually adjustable aperture;
- possibility to save pictures as RAW;

Well, from your exprience, do I really need DSLR or there is something else like more advanced compact. Of course price is the main factor, as SONY Alpha200 is now for 240 pounds, it would have to be less than 180-200.

Thanks for all your help.
Pietrach
Click to expand...

Do you need a DSLR to do all that?,in a word...No.. There are some cracking compacts/bridge cameras out there at the mo.If i knew then what i know now ,hand on heart i'd still have my Fuji S9600 ,and saved myself a small fortune .I've printed A4 pictures from the fuji with surprising results ,excellent in fact(y).But this is just my penneth ,i'm sure you'll get plenty help on here.http://www.shopcompare.eu/ash/searc...1a9f180a8uji&gclid=CLblk9TA8JYCFQgrlAodiEn3rw
 
Just though I'd say I have an S9600, it's exactly in your budget, and IMO does everything you need and some. check out my site for what it can do... www.joshuathomson.co.uk (it's currently under construction but it has some pics up)
 
I started with a Fuji S5600. Got hooked on snapping silly and I have treated myself to my first DSLR. Gone 2nd hand and cheap to make sure I get it, got myself a Fuji S1pro £100 + Tamron lens. If I don't get it I still have the old S5600 and won't be to far out of pocket. Good times. :woot:


Wife wants to wrap it up for my Xmas pressie. Bad Times!!!:bonk:
 
Thank you for all you recommendations.
Like Borats Baby have said, I am able to spend max 200, ideally even less. DSLR doesnt come as cheap as that.
Regarding the picture quality, well, I am using very simple compact at the moment and i am happy with the quality. As someone mentioned my pictures stay on my PC, I rarely make print outs.
Taking on board all your comments, I think I will wait till new year and look around for second hand FujiFilm FinePix9600.

Thank You
Pawel
 
You are obviously on a tight budget, so it would be daft to stretch yourself and buy a DSLR - you won't enjoy it if you feel guilty for spending too much.

I bought a new fujifilm s1000fd for £120 delivered, 12xoptical zoom and 10 mp (I know, I know, Megapixels aren't everything, sensor size, yadda yadda..)

It's a great little thing, and gives the user a lot of control.

I will probably look at DSLR in a couple of years, they will be cheaper and I will be richer then. I will have to wait before I can fit in with the gear snobs, but I can have fun and learn with the equipment I can afford.
 
I have a panasonic Lumix FZ8 and am really happy with it - I have heard great things about the FZ18 / FZ50 / FZ28 too so they would be worth a look.

To be honest with £200 I would go for a bridge camera and probably have enough left over to get the required accessories (bag / memory etc). Sounds like you would be happy with what a bridge camera has to offer and they certainly give a lot of scope for learning / creativity.

I know there are lots of people who say you NEED a DSLR but I think I made the right choice buying my FZ8 - it's just the right level for what I need now.

Good luck with whatever you decide (y)
 
there is a canon available for £200 at the mo, can't remember the model but seen it quite a lot. Sainsburys had it for a while.
 
The Fuji s9600 is now discontinued, so you may have to shop around to get a new one at a sensible price (230 on amazon today, mine was 179.99 2 months ago), but it is a nice peice of kit. It shoots RAW, will take a cable release, has a Flash Hotshoe. It is very similar to the s6500FD, but has a slightly large optical zoom and also more MP.

Your best also following the tricks/advice on here to get cheap extras as well:



PCworld pricematch +10% for memory, 7dayshop for rechargable batteries, look out for cheap bags etc.

With a fixed lens camera you need a UV filter to protect the end, so again look for a bargain.

I'm not saying it is right for everyone, but is a good buy.
 
Hi.

I have just acquired a pre-owned Fuji S9600 for the grand sum of £100 !!

If you have a budget of £200 that gives you enough left over for a decent tripod or a Raynox macro lens + memory cards etc. Keep an eye out in the usual places - they do come up occasionally for silly money.

I deliberated for ages about whether to buy a bridge or a full-on DSLR but realised that I wouldn't be able to stop buying things if I had a selection of lenses to choose from.

Hope this helps a bit.

Daniel.
 
No you don't so any money you are thinking of spending on one, send to me and I will spend it for you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top