LearnHub

I strongly believe that the SLR is for pure amateurs, too!

As long as you don’t mind the pound more of weight nor the cash, a SLR (e.g. the Canon EOS Rebel or its followers), even with the normal kit-lens, provides you with pictures of far higher technical quality – even when shot in automatic-mode.

With those new SLRs on the market you definitely don’t have to be a pro – as the advertisement says : Come to the playground!

But Adam is right in that you only can reach the limits of a SLR, when you leave the automatic mode and train yourself to use all possibilities of the camera – and there is a world to be discovered!

One big advantage of the SLR that results in higher technical quality of the pictures: sensor-size!

Even the cheapest SLR uses a sensor a few times larger than the sensor of any compact-camera.

This results in far less noise under low-light-conditions (when you shoot with high ISO (800+)): Even if you underexpose your pictures up to 1 F-stop, your pictures show far less noise than taken with a compact-camera at ISO400.

As I love to shoot available-light pictures – this is a keyfeature i really love about the SLR.

Yes, if I had the money, i would invest into an up-to-date Full-Format-SLR!

A SLR and a high end Compact camera (Canon PowerShot G6) on Automatic Mode will have almost the same results. It has to be high-end Compact. There are plenty out there. It’s not until you go into Manual Mode, or even Aperture Priority mode do image quality really start to differ. Adding new lenses also make a huuuuge difference. That is the biggest difference I find between SLRs and Compacts.

If I had the money, I’d invest in a really really expensive set of lenses for my current SLR. A few primes, a couple zooms, a macro, etc. In 5-10 years I think it would be time to upgrade from my current SLR to a new one.

I have only just recently become interested in photography after picking up a compact, now I am eagerly saving for a SLR. I did to invest in expensive gear until I was sure I would enjoy using it.

I have my Rebel and a cool little fuji pocket camera. Both have a place in your life. When i go snowboarding i throw my pocket cam in, who wants to be lugging a big bag with you? Unless it is a ski hill photo shoot. I also use the point and shoot when i travel if i am not carrying alot of luggage. On a recent trip we were only taking carry on luggage ( no SLR that trip) used the point and shoot and it was great.

I guess it comes down to how bogged down do you want to be to get that great shot? If you are going out to take pictures, take the SLR. IF you are going out and might want to take some pictures take the point and shoot.

Cheers scott

I think the choice comes down to: do you want to take photographs, or do you want to take snapshots? If you’re just interested in memorializing a moment and you don’t care about controlling any aspect of the image, then a compact is for you. If you’re a hobbyist interested in photography and you want to understand and control the process of image creation, you need an SLR.

That’s not to say you can’t take excellent photographs with a pocket camera, just that the SLR affords you far more flexibility. With the latest generation of dSLRs, though, I don’t think that size is as big a factor as it used to be unless you’re interested in hiding the camera for the most part. (This doesn’t imply nefarious intention—for instance, I bought my wife a Canon SD950 pocket camera because she doesn’t regard photography as a creative pursuit…at least, all the time…it’s more a lifestyle choice for her. So she needs something tiny that she can slip out of her purse when the occasion calls for it, but is unobtrusive the rest of the time.)

The upshot is: the best camera is the one you have with you. If you’re unwilling to carry around an SLR, it doesn’t matter how great it is…you’re not going to get any good pictures if you leave it in the bag. Having said that, recently a new crop of “prosumer” fixed lens cameras have been introduced that address most of the limitations of a compact. They’re larger than pocket cameras, but come as a single package and don’t require as much space as a dSLR. If your plan is to buy a dSLR and you know you’ll only be sticking one a single lens, then it’s definitely worth investigating these models.

Is there a digital SLR that will work with the lenses that I bought for a non digital Nikon 6000 in 1997?

I read that newer Nikon lenses won’t fit on the dx40, but older ones will. I need to take a trip to the camera store. If I can save some bucks on lenses-that would be a selling point for upgrading to a digital SLR.Thanks

My suggestion to those considering a camera look at the third option: a rangefinder camera. Digital Rangefinders like the Leica M8 are quite pricey (but worth every penny) while film RFs are often quite affordable.

Rangefinder cameras don’t use mirrors and so when you focus, you’re not looking through the lens. It means that the whole mechanism is a lot smaller, lighter, and quieter. RF lenses are all prime and are smaller and lighter than SLR lenses.

Without getting into the relative merits of RF vs. SLR photography, I will say that a Leica is built like a tank and its form factor allows and encourages you to have it on your shoulder or in the passenger seat at all times. I’m sure every SLR person has had to ask themselves if they want to lug out their camera bag… with a RF you generally just have the camera, and don’t need a bag. It makes a huge difference, in terms of psychology.