What would I be better off with: a high-end compact digital camera, or an entry-level DSLR?

  • Thread starter Thread starter PhotographyBuff
  • Start date Start date

High-end compact digital camera or entry-level DSLR?

  • High end compact digital camera

    Votes: 1 14.3%

  • Entry Level DSLR

    Votes: 2 28.6%

  • Neither

    Votes: 4 57.1%
  • Total voters
    7
P

PhotographyBuff

Guest
 
I don't know, what do you intend taking pictures of? What are your criteria for buying a camera? Skill level and aspirations?

Unlike the majority on Talk Photography, I don't think that a DSLR is the answer to every 'what camera shall I get' question. However there are some things that a compact or bridge will struggle with. And why not consider a CSC camera, which are by and large smaller and more compact than a DSLR, which may or may not be important to you?
 
A bridge is a good compromise, both financially and creatively, a bit of best of both. I have had the fuji hs30 exr for 2 years and am just about to get a dslr. However, will keep the fuji for its 720mm zoom and hd video if nothing else
 
PhotographyBuff said:
Would I be better off with one of these?:

http://www.ephotozine.com/article/top-10-best-serious-compact-digital-cameras-2014-16010

http://www.dpreview.com/articles/0445208298/dpreview-recommends-best-compact-cameras-for-enthusiasts

http://www.techradar.com/news/photo...s/best-compact-camera-2013-34-reviewed-963985


Or would I be better off with one of these?:

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/round-ups/camera_round_ups/best-entry-level-dslrs-2015-5492

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/buying-guide/8-recommended-entry-level-dslr-cameras


Please, explain your advice, i.e. whether you are talking photography-wise (results), skill-development-wise, practicality, efficiency, durability, etc.
Click to expand...


It's completely impossible to advise you until you let us know what you like to shoot and what you intend to do with the images once shot.
 
As above, only you can really answer that question. How seriously will you want to take your photography? How much creative input will you want in your shots? What are you planning to shoot? Are you physically able to carry around a DSLR kit? The list of questions could go on and on and on...

You need to decide what it is that YOU want to achieve with your photos. Is it possible with a compact or would you NEED a dslr to get the desired effect?

Lots of questions.
 
generally when you look at compact cameras' bridge cameras. MFT, mirrorless etc, those that seem to come top of the list in most occasions are those with the larger sensors. therin should lie your answer. no matter how high spec a compact camera may be and how many features, gadgets, gizmos, buttons, functions and whatnot it has. if its got a tiny sensor image quality will suffer.
 
As above, is this about 'photography'? what are you wanting to shoot?

For an enthusiast, I'd recommend an older better camera S/H. In most conditions a Canon 40d will outperform all compacts and hold it's own (IQ wise) against all the recent entry level cameras. But it'll be much nicer to use and costs peanuts. Leaving money in the kitty for more important purchases (decent lenses) Admittedly, it's low light performance won't be up to a new entry level Nikon, but it's usable.

That said, if you're really after a small camera, look at the Fuji x system or some of the other mirrrorless cameras (get a viewfinder though - rear screens are still useless picture taking devices, except in specific circumstances).
 
I have a 40D which I'm very fond of but quality wise my G1X is better and much smaller so is carried everywhere in my backpack. Where it does not compare is speed with the 40D being vastly superior in every respect. If you're after a nearly compact then the original G1X is excellent for static, or at least slow moving subjects and benefits from having an optical viewfinder for those occasions when the rear one is blotted out by sunlight. The rear screen also swivels in all directions which has proved useful over the 2 years I've owned it.
 
If you need something to keep you dry, you would be better off with an umbrella.

But seriously, we need to know what you want to use the camer for.
 
Like everyone says, you need to know what kind of pictures you want to take.

Sensor size is king - all things being equal, a bigger sensor will give you a better image, not just in terms of sharpness, but also the subtleties of the image, light, shade and dynamic range.

As for whether you need an SLR type of compact system camera, for me *personally* when I started shooting through a viewfinder I began framing much more carefully instead of having to crop afterward and my horizons also needed much less straightening than before. However some will find it easier to compose on the rear screen of a camera instead of looking through a finder.

HTH
 
PhotographyBuff said:
Please, explain your advice, i.e. whether you are talking photography-wise (results), skill-development-wise, practicality, efficiency, durability, etc.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you're writing an assignment! o_O

In fact, looking at your posting history, most of your threads read the same?! :thinking:
 
velocette said:
I have a 40D which I'm very fond of but quality wise my G1X is better and much smaller so is carried everywhere in my backpack. Where it does not compare is speed with the 40D being vastly superior in every respect. If you're after a nearly compact then the original G1X is excellent for static, or at least slow moving subjects and benefits from having an optical viewfinder for those occasions when the rear one is blotted out by sunlight. The rear screen also swivels in all directions which has proved useful over the 2 years I've owned it.
Click to expand...
The 40d, with a decent lens, should out perform the G1X quite easily!
 
Should possibly but in practice it doesn't. The 40 D has a slightly bigger but older 14.8X 22.2 sensor against the G1x's 14.0X18.7. Where it certainly scores is in speed but loses out big time in low light capability with the G1. The G1's main general drawback is that having a large sensor and complementary large lens it is vary heavy for a compact and of course slow. I'm often tempted by the Sony RX100 range but how a 1" sensor would stand up against the G1's much larger one always stops me.
 
The RX100 really punches above its weight, I'm stunned by the output of my mk1!

Even more stunned as this little thing only cost me 250 brand new!
 
Last edited:
velocette said:
Should possibly but in practice it doesn't. The 40 D has a slightly bigger but older 14.8X 22.2 sensor against the G1x's 14.0X18.7. Where it certainly scores is in speed but loses out big time in low light capability with the G1. The G1's main general drawback is that having a large sensor and complementary large lens it is vary heavy for a compact and of course slow. I'm often tempted by the Sony RX100 range but how a 1" sensor would stand up against the G1's much larger one always stops me.
Click to expand...
I'd still bet the 40d with, say, a 35mm f/2 would beat the G1x hands down for IQ, in normal shooting though? I don't mean to take the thread off topic :)

As above, I actually preferred the output of the RX100 (mk1) to that of both the G1x mk 1 and the Canon G7x when I was trying to decide on my large sensored compact for travelling. And its half the price.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top