View Full Version : DSLR vs Compact
Compact cameras just seem to be getting better and better these days with excellent value for money.
I have both a DLSR and compact camera and as a light weight hiker ive found myself using my canon g9 compact more so than my 40d which is a great camera dont get me wrong but ive been notice recently that theres not much difference between the two if of course you are only an enthsiast like me.
Unfortunetly I had to spend 750 quid on the 40d to realise this haha
Do you find yourself shooting with dslr's or compacts more??
I shoot with both.
A compact will work well if used in good light and working on the native iso. setting.
Turn the iso. up and you will get noise, use it in low light and you will get a lot of noise.
A DSLR is bigger, heavier and in some cases more complicated to use, but because the photo receptors on the image sensor are larger, they are less prone to noise and therefor produce a smoother result.
Of course if you shoot on the Jpg. setting most of this improvement is lost anyway so most people will never notice the difference.
As with all things, it's all about using the right tool for the job you are doing.
Having just got my first DSLR I`ve realised it`s not really something I`d take on my bushy trips just because of everything else needed aswell. I know Wayland`s got it off to a fine art but for mortals like me it`s compact camera everytime.
I did buy it for taking some great shots on day walks so I suppose that`s different, I won`t mind carrying the bag and tripod etc if it`s just a short journey. You`re right about the G9 though, that looks the business. My dad`s just bought one and I was having a nosey at it the other night. The quality f the images now are superb, even on the lower budget models aswell.
Eventually I`d like to be able to combine the two interests and get off for a few days to some of the kinds of places Gary visits.
On the subject of improved compact cameras now, I`ve just bought five Kodak 9MP cameras for work from Argos for less than £50 each. Unbelievable really, when I bought my Sony 7.2 a couple fo years ago for over £200 I never imagined there`d be this kind of value round now.
The thing I like about the g9 of course its the full manual controls,which is ideal for shooting waterfalls etc on TV shutter priority and has a great macro mode with max appreture of 2.8.
The new g10 has a much wider lens though at 28mm I believe and better resolution at 14mp.
Ill get plenty of use out of my g9 for the mean time.
I should also mention the olympus e 420 which i tried out one weekend which has a great 14mm-42 lens in it kit.
Super light and compact but doesnt have image stablization which can be a pain if not mounted to a tripod but great buy never the less
I just got the G10 last week.
I like it but it's not a patch on my 5D for serious work even though it has more pixels.
I wish they had just left the pixel count the same as the G9 and added the Digic 4 processor and the wider lens.
Having said that it handles low light better than I though it would.
But not as well as the 5D
I do like my new Nikon D80 DLSR :D I find it gives me a lot more control over my photos. I'm still getting use to all the camera can do,its relay down to what sort of trip you are doing,whether you take a compact or DLSR but now I have a DLSR I would find room for it :)
I'd like a DSLR but bought a G9 for backpacking. Due to it being lighter and more compact I actually take it with me. :) Along with a Gorillapod it was well used on holiday.
I've used a few over the years; Pentax, Canon and Nikon DSLRs (as well as 35mm SLRs), Panasonic compacts, Nikon compacts and currently have a G9. All depends on what you want to do I suppose. You get much more flexibility in most respects with a SLR; want wider angle, get a wider lens etc., they're generally faster continuous shooting and less shutter lag makes them better suited to more serious sports work. Low-ISO is massively better than on any compact - with a D3 for example (I know, extreme example!) and a fast lens you can get a 6 stop + advantage over my G9 for comparable image quality.
So why a compact? Well for lightweight travel it wins hands down, I carry it with me almost everywhere, it does 90% of what I want it to do and irritates hell out of me the rest of the time! Seriously I still haven't found anything near an ideal compact or bridge cam. Having looked at everything from the new Ricos to Fujis to Leicas (God help me) to Sigmas and more I think compacts will always irritate me to some degree. Then again, so did my SLRs! Never happy and can't afford both! :)
Since getting my D3 I can't actually remember where my compact is... It's a Nikon S52 and it's... well... quite frankly I don't care if I never see it again.
Sure the big Nikon... ok, HUGE Nikon... is a pain to lug about but I don't care. It's worth it.
The difference used to be that you got more control from a SLR. That is not so true anymore, because the compacts are getting more and more clever, and better controls.
The best piece of photography advice I was every given was to always carry a camera. Modern tech is making this easier, and easier. You can now get at least three mobiles with 8mp cameras.
Basic photography can be done with any camera. Now we can do a little more after with software. The time a SLR should come into its own for work or to push limits. A compact is going to get limit you taking pictures with speed, or light issues.
I am still looking for a decent compact, to replace my aged digital compact. It has to be at least 8mp, with a decent zoom, and a viewfinder.
It has to be at least 8mp, with a decent zoom, and a viewfinder
Interesting you should say that, having got a 12MP cam atm, comparing the pics from it with those from my first DSLR (a 6MP Pentax) I'd bite the hand off any manufacturer who came out with a 3-4MP compact that traded MP for great (new Nikon DSLR-style) high ISO ability. Put it in a body with real useable PSAM controls, image stabilisation, RAW ability and a half decent fast lens and they'd have a real winner IMO. Would also be fantastic for both speed and the number of shots on a mem. card too...
Why doesn't someone make one? I suspect because of sympathy to the salespeople who'd have to convince your average high street shopper that, yep, something with 3 or 4 MP REALLY IS better than that 20MP (on a 1/2.33" sensor) 30 scene-mode microscopic super-cam over there.
One can keep hoping...! :o