cameras, old dslr vs newer compact?

Page may contain affiliate links. Please see terms for details.

Smokin Joe

Legendary Member
I've just moved from a Pentax X5 bridge camera to an entry level Cannon DSLR. I have no complaints about the picture quality from the Pentax, it is more than capable of out performing anything I can do with it. But, as seems to be the norm with bridge cameras it runs off four AA batteries and it simply eats them, they don't seem to last five minutes. It's a great pity as that severely limits what is a very capable bit of kit.
 

Dave7

Legendary Member
Location
Cheshire
actually the modern compacts, eg the canon S100 can take astonishingly good photos in poor light - I'm talking caving shots just using helmet lights without flash. Things have moved on. I dare say the latest pro model DSLRs are even better still, but even cheapies are amazingly capable these days. Merely being an SLR (ie presence of a mirror) does not make the physics work better -eg some of the system compacts have just as many pixels, on relatively large sensors, and lenses by the big names.

If you read my post you will note that I use a bridge for my normal walk-about camera. I am saying.......and stand by it..........a bridge camera will not be as good as a decent DSLR with a decent lens.
An SLR is not merely a camera with a mirror.
Pixels mean very little...even 1Ds used to give great results with 5 MP (cant remember the exact number). Its the whole processing and memory system that counts
I do believe that with advancing technology they will get there but they're not there yet.
 

Gravity Aided

Legendary Member
Location
Land of Lincoln
I use a Sony H-70 Cybershot G, which gives you a like quality lens and processor to a DSLR, with manual control, but it has a good ways to go before it could meet and match a DSLR above the basic level. That being said, I use it alot more than I would a DSLR. I am more likely to carry it due to its small size, and it cost me little in a cash exchangers shop. And knowing the American propensity for unapoligetic clumsiness, in most places and crowds I would not take a DSLR there anyway. I once had a fellow blunder into me and knock my camera out of my hands, whence it broke on the pavement. No malice, just lack of awareness. I just find the smaller digital cameras more usable in a given situation. I don't know if shock proofing has improved over the years as well, but all of this may be a consideration.
 

Doseone

Guru
Location
Brecon
If you are just taking pics in broad daylight then your compact will be fine - you will probably find that because it is smaller you will have it with you more and use it more often.

The DSLR will probably knock spots off it in any challenging conditions eg low light. This will in part be down to a larger sensor.

Don't sweat what camera you've got, the best thing you can do is use what you've got - learn about how a camera works, composition, light, processing etc etc and when you have decided what type of photography you like then treat yourself to a new camera. As with bikes there is no camera that does everything and for example you would want a very different camera if you decide you like sports photography to if you decided you wanted to do portraits.

Have fun!
 

jamin100

Guru
Location
Birmingham
I think it depends on what you want to photograph

For years i lugged around a Nikon D90 and some very nice lenses. Then once the kids came along and I had to lug all there stuff around too I ended up not taking anything

So a few years ago I sold it all and moved to the mirror less compact market
Went for a Nikon V1 and several lenses which was a very nice little camera and very capable..

I then got fed up of changing lenses so now have a Sony RX100. It's remarkable and for what i photograph it's hard to tell the difference between that and my old DSLR
 

the_mikey

Legendary Member
actually the modern compacts, eg the canon S100 can take astonishingly good photos in poor light - I'm talking caving shots just using helmet lights without flash. Things have moved on. I dare say the latest pro model DSLRs are even better still, but even cheapies are amazingly capable these days. Merely being an SLR (ie presence of a mirror) does not make the physics work better -eg some of the system compacts have just as many pixels, on relatively large sensors, and lenses by the big names.
+1
 

SpokeyDokey

67, & my GP says I will officially be old at 70!
Moderator
My guess is that many DSLR's are purchased because they look cool and have oodles of features.

After a brief honeymoon period they get left in a cupboard at home - too bulky/heavy to cart about anywhere.

Good quality compact is the way to go for most snappers.

Zoom is over-rated as is Mp. Manufacturers hype these as people understand big numbers and big is better right?

Imo better to have a wide angle fast lense for bright all inclusive pic's.

I've had this for a whie now and it is spot on:

http://www.photographyblog.com/reviews/samsung_ex2f_review/
 

the_mikey

Legendary Member
I think it depends on what you want to photograph

For years i lugged around a Nikon D90 and some very nice lenses. Then once the kids came along and I had to lug all there stuff around too I ended up not taking anything

So a few years ago I sold it all and moved to the mirror less compact market
Went for a Nikon V1 and several lenses which was a very nice little camera and very capable..

I then got fed up of changing lenses so now have a Sony RX100. It's remarkable and for what i photograph it's hard to tell the difference between that and my old DSLR


Sony RX100 is available at sub £300 prices too, tempting... :ohmy:
 
OP
OP
Tommy2

Tommy2

Über Member
Location
Harrogate
Thanks for all your comment and help everyone.
I've logged in to the photography forum next door so will browse that.

I bought a Nikon d70 off a work mate with a 'normal' lens and a telephoto? Lens, £100 which seemed a reasonable price from what I've seen them for sale For.
 

fossyant

Ride It Like You Stole It!
Location
South Manchester
This^^^

A load of megapixels will do sweet fa if you don't have a decent lens.

Seconded. Photographer is indeed the most important, but most of us haven't a clue.

I have an old 'Fuji' S9500 'bridge' camera (didn't realise it was a bridge until tonight), which is basically a compact but it is the same size as a DSLR. It can be fully automatic, or indeed manual.

Get it right and it can take some fantastic photos. They have a much better lens than a compact, but you lose the compact size. DSLR if you want the ability to change lenses and get more creative. My camera is better than me. Even though it's old, it's fast, takes great pics (only 9 megapixels - enough) but it is bulky. It is still point and shoot.

All this crap about phone cams having xxx megapixels, maybe, but the lens is crap and tiny.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

KneesUp

Guru
I carry my Pentax K-7 almost everywhere, so not all DSLRs live in a cupbaord. Mine is not one of the ones that will go on eBay as 'in mint condition' - I would describe it as 'battered to chuff, but works perfectly' It's part of the reason I bought it - a magnesium chassis and weather sealing. I echo the earlier sentiments about lenses - mine almost always wears a 40-year old Pentax 50mm manual lens which is so much sharper than the 18-55 'kit' lens that it makes me wonder if the auto-focus works properly with that lens.

We also have a Canon G5 - one of their 'enthusiast' compacts, which has pretty much every setting the Pentax has, as well as having a proper optical viewfinder. Admittedly the G5 is older than the K-7, so you would expect the k-7 to be better, and it is - but the reasons why are to do with Physics.

Firstly, a dSLR has a larger sensor than almost all compacts. This means that each pixel is larger, which in turn means the sensor is less liable to generate 'noise' - the annoying little speckles you see on pictures, especially if they are taken in low light. I believe it also tends to lead to a larger dynamic range: the difference between the darkest and lightest levels at which the sensor can record details. A larger sensor also means that for a given aperture (the size of the hole that opens in the lens to let light in) you will get less depth of field (the amount of the picture front-to-back that is in focus) With very small sensors such as in phones, most things from a few metres to infinity will be pretty much in focus all the time. This effect will be less pronounced with a compact, but with a dSLR you can begin to use the depth of field by adjusting the aperture to get the bits you want to be in or out of focus. The larger the sensor (or piece of film) the more control over depth of field you have - it's for this reason that I prefer a APS-C (that's the sensor size of most dSLRs) dSLR over a 4/3rds one - but then there will be other people who will say that APS-C is too much of a compromise and one should use a 'full-frame (i.e. the sensor is the same size as a 35mm negative) dSLR - and then there are others that will say that one should use a Leaf back on a medium format body, and there are still others that say that unless you are using a 5"4" wet plate, one isn't really a photographer at all - and even then a 5"x4" is only suitable to test the composition before using a 10" x 8" In short, it's horses for courses.

The other huge advantage of the dSLR for me is that when I press the button it takes a picture almost instantly, whereas most compacts have a lag to varying degrees. I remember watching birds fly near a cliff for hours once trying to get a picture of one but the lag on my bridge camera meant I kept getting cliffs, sky and no bird.

On the other hand, the G5 is quite nice, and if I were really concerned about weight, or only wanted to record shots of where I'd been I'd be perfectly happy to use it. In fact technically it's my daughters camera and she tells me off for using it too much. But ultimately a dSLR in the hands of someone who knows how to use it will get better results more of the time - but a compact will get perfectly good results most of the time, and the beauty of digital is that you can check you're happy with the picture there and then and re-shoot if you want to.

And of course, the best camera is the one you have with you ....
 
Top Bottom