DSLR vs Point and Shoot

[DAF7065]

I have read thru a lot of the Photo forum for camera advice.   I have been using my phone for some time lately mainly just family and quick email / postings.   We will be starting to travel again and I want to use a "real" camera whatever that means.   

 

I do not envision myself as being a Photographer with 1000's of photos but I do like taking better photos especially on vacation.   We plan Med in 2023 and So Pacific in 2024.

 

This is a point and shoot with "I think" good features.  Nikon - COOLPIX B500 16.0-Megapixel Digital Camera

 

I have seen also the basic Cannon EOS Rebel with 2 lenses  

 

My main issues with DSLR vs the Point and shoot for me include:

Changing lenses

More to carry

Do I really need the "extra" quality?   

I do not want a $1500 camera just good and fun.

All that said   Maybe with a DSLR I will start to enjoy and use the camera more.

 

Mainly with the photos we watch our vacations via Slide shows on the TV

Email and so on.   

May print one or two but those are mainly people photos...this is where we visit. 

 

I am not saying above choices are the best as just  names I grabbed.

 

Any thoughts advice is appreciated.

 

Dave

[Heymoe]

The DSLR's main advantage, in my view, is that the sensor is much bigger.  So there are more pixels and greater resolution (important if you crop a lot of the photo out) - but also the pixels are larger and less likely to register as random noise (more important if you shoot in low light)

 

Operationally, if most of your photos are outside in decent light or shot with a flash, noise becomes less of a problem.

 

If you can zoom to make your subject fill the frame before even touching the shutter, cropping in Lightroom/Photoshop/On1 may not even be needed.  With a good vibration reduction built into the camera and high power zoom built in, this is usually less of an issue than with a phone or even a typical DSLR mid-range (70-200) zoom.

 

Personally, I still have my old Canon SX50HS superzoom while I traded my Rebel T2's off a couple years ago.  If I wasn't shooting photos for others in a dark environment and need to crop, I wouldn't have bought a Canon 5D4 and a couple of zoom lenses.

 

The Superzoom is small, light, has excellent magnification for displaying on the web and prints up to about 8x10.  My only recommendation is to buy a lightweight monopod and carry it everywhere.  It's almost impossible to hand hold shots at full zoom.

 

 

[TheOldBear]

I still recommend a 'fixed lens' [not interchangeable like a dSLR or mirrorless system camera] as the first step up from a phone.

The Panasonic FZ-1000 mark 2 is a useful baseline [and a very nice choice].

Price new is about $800 - with the similar 'mark 1' available for less than $600

I still have, and occasionally use, the FZ50 bridge camera I purchased in 2007.

The Leica branded zoom lens covers the range from about as wide as a wide cell phone camera [24mm in 'standard' terms] to extreme telephoto [over 400mm in 'standard' terms].

The advantage of the fixed lens is you always have it.

The camera has 5 axis dual image stabilization [optical and moving sensor] to compensate for photographer movement. So far I have not found a need for a tripod or monopod even with the much older FZ50.

The 'one inch' sensor is much larger than cell phones [apparently there is a pending release of a large sensor cell phone that will make an iPhone look cheap] 

There are nice 4k video modes, and a burst mode [6k photo] that helps to capture fast action [similar to the 'pro capture' mode on my Olympus].

There is a nice electronic viewfinder - and like all mirrorless cameras, it shows the live view of the subject [plus optional information like focus confirmation and over exposure warnings]

 

[Gardyloo]

I ditched my DSLR for a "bridge" camera (the Panasonic FZ1000 mentioned above) and haven't regretted it.  More precisely, my neck and shoulders haven't regretted it for a second.  It weighs half as much as my Nikon DSLR with my "standard" zoom lens, offers tack-sharp images across a wide range of focal lengths, and, really, I've yet to uncover any weaknesses at all.  Its big sensor allows me to capture highly detailed images and/or shoot in lower light than the DSLR. and at 20mp it gives me plenty of room to crop and resize images without worrying about loss of detail.  Here are a couple of examples, reduced from their native sizes (5472 x 3648) to something manageable.  

 

 

[billandsue]

I also frequently shoot with a bridge camera (Sony DSC RX10 Mark II).  With a Zeiss zoom lens, 1 " sensor and 20.2 mp, I have found the images, such as the one below of the Cliffs of Moher in western Ireland, to be excellent.

 

 

 

Edited July 11, 2022 by billandsue

[Z0nker]

For your situation as you've described it, a newer iPhone should get the job done. I stopped travelling with my "point and shoot" a few years ago because the iPhone does as good or better job and I always have it with me. I still have a Canon Rebel DSLR for special purposes like shooting the lunar eclipse or product photography.

[DAF7065]

I hear you about the iPhone.   But I want something a bit more than that for Scenery and Tours.  Photos at dinner and quick and easy people photos is fine.  Plus I do enjoy the feel of taking a "real" photo as many on this site have discussed.  

 

For these "Bridge" Cameras what are the search words used to look up various models.  What are the better places to shop?  

[TheOldBear]

12 minutes ago, DAF7065 said:

I hear you about the iPhone.   But I want something a bit more than that for Scenery and Tours.  Photos at dinner and quick and easy people photos is fine.  Plus I do enjoy the feel of taking a "real" photo as many on this site have discussed.  

 

For these "Bridge" Cameras what are the search words used to look up various models.  What are the better places to shop?  

 

There is a comparison and buying guide over on DPreview https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/buying-guide-best-enthusiast-long-zoom-cameras 

For retailers, there are the 'usual suspects' - DPreview is owned by Amazon these days.

There are the major NY retailers [B&H, Adorama] but you may want to see if there is a somewhat local camera dealer where you can see how the cameras fit your hands and eyes.

[mskaufman]

I travel with both.  For my DLSR I use a zoom lens that covers most situations so I do not change lenses.  The bridge camera is a Canon 40X.  I use that when I want the longer zoom or when I want to carry something smaller. I also like that takes sharper pictures than my phone.

[DAF7065]

Thanks for all the info.   My cruise is May 2023.   I want to know the camera well by then so figure I start looking and buying something soon

[mskaufman]

My bridge is a Canon SX740 HS

[Capitals Fan]

I have 2 cameras I use for travel.  One is a Fuji X100F.  Small, unobtrusive (great when shooting people), and high quality.  Only drawback is that it has a fixed lens.  23mm (or the equivalent of a 35 mm on a DSLR.  This is the camera I use on trips to cities, or when I need to pack very light.

 

Other camera is a Fuji XT-3.  I started with just the "kit" lense -- 18-55mm.  Have since gotten a 16mm lense for landscape and a 55-200mm zoom for when I went to the Galapagos.  There are less expensive options in the Fuji line you might also look into.  The benefit here is that you can start small, with a body and the kit lense, and then grow as you need.  Then, if you want to upgrade your camera, your lenses still work.  Might cost a bit more at first, but will be less expensive as you evolve.

 

[ski ww]

Always bring a back up in case. On our recent cruise I dropped my camera & broke the clear filter on my lens which bent it so bad I could not remove it. I even took it to the ships photographer and they couldn't remove it either. I had to wait until I got home to take it to a camera shop to get it fixed. The thing that saved the day was I had an Olympus point & shot to take pictures with for the rest of the cruise. I always bring it because it's waterproof for when we snorkel. 

[pierces]

5 hours ago, ski ww said:

On our recent cruise I dropped my camera & broke the clear filter on my lens which bent it so bad I could not remove it.

 

Rubber jar opener. I used to carry one of these all the time back when film needed a bunch of filters. They give a great grip and protect your hand from the edge of the filter. Really magnifies your ability to grip. The fact that it will work on that pesky pickle jar is just a bonus.

 

Amazon.com: Human Intentions Jar Opener (4PK) - Rubber Jar Gripper for Weak Hands - Bottle Opener for Arthritic Hands - Jar Opener Gripper Pad - Lid Opener Non Tear - Coaster - Trivet : Home & Kitchen

 

Dave

[Herschel Dirtwater]

A little late here, but this is my $.02.

 

If you want to  take pictures with a 'real' camera and not iPhone, I will always recommend a DSLR.  I've taken some excellent pictures with a fixed lens digital camera in the past, but shooting in RAW format with a DSLR will give you photos that you never dreamed you could take.  

 

Contrary to popular belief, DSLRs are not prohibitively expensive.  $500 will get you a very good camera with a decent kit lens (a kit lens is the one that comes with the camera).  On auto settings, this is basically a point-and-shoot.  The thing is, you can set it to take RAW images instead of JPEG.  RAW is an image that has not been compressed or altered in any way, thus leaving it the best option for post production.  JPEGs are fine for everyday shooting, but they are compressed which eliminates some fine detail.

 

If you enjoy photography, a budget DSLR gives you a nice entry into more serious shooting, but also with room to grow into new lenses and different shooting methods.  A point-and-shoot digital  camera is a good option for those who don't like too many options while shooting.  Good ones can cost as much as an entry-level DSLR so why not go for the better camera?

 

Of course, in 2022, an iPhone or good Android phone takes pictures as good as any point-and-shoot from 10 years ago. 🙂

[DCB9]

12 hours ago, Herschel Dirtwater said:

A little late here, but this is my $.02.

 

If you want to  take pictures with a 'real' camera and not iPhone, I will always recommend a DSLR.  I've taken some excellent pictures with a fixed lens digital camera in the past, but shooting in RAW format with a DSLR will give you photos that you never dreamed you could take.  

 

Contrary to popular belief, DSLRs are not prohibitively expensive.  $500 will get you a very good camera with a decent kit lens (a kit lens is the one that comes with the camera).  On auto settings, this is basically a point-and-shoot.  The thing is, you can set it to take RAW images instead of JPEG.  RAW is an image that has not been compressed or altered in any way, thus leaving it the best option for post production.  JPEGs are fine for everyday shooting, but they are compressed which eliminates some fine detail.

 

If you enjoy photography, a budget DSLR gives you a nice entry into more serious shooting, but also with room to grow into new lenses and different shooting methods.  A point-and-shoot digital  camera is a good option for those who don't like too many options while shooting.  Good ones can cost as much as an entry-level DSLR so why not go for the better camera?

 

Of course, in 2022, an iPhone or good Android phone takes pictures as good as any point-and-shoot from 10 years ago. 🙂

I agree with what you said, but I would suggest for someone with no previous experience shooting raw to set the camera to save raw+jpeg.  This gives you the ability to take a quick look at your photos without having to load the raw files into a raw viewer or processor.  I have been shooting raw since 2008 and I still shoot raw+jpeg.

 

Once you start shooting raw, you'll never go back.  Using a photo editor like Lightroom, it is just as easy to edit the raw files as jpegs and you have so much more flexibility as nothing is baked in like it is in jpegs.  The first time you have a high contrast photo and are able to bring up all the shadow detail, you'll be hooked.

 

Dave

[tfred]

my dilemma as well.  "Better " cameras are with DSLR types or pocket (mostly) small cameras

 

DSLRs are bigger than I would like to carry around.  Pocket cameras these days are $1000 (with 5 year old technology) and I dont shoot enough year round to justify one.  The Sony RX100 mk 7 is very attractive but is $1200. Nope 

 

We spent a month in Europe recently and I have to tell you that the pictures off my iPhone 13 pro are really good.  Certainly good enough to make a Shutterfly photo book with full frame double page 11x24 prints in them.  I was actually shocked (and I worked for Fujifilm for 25 years)

 

What is lacking is low light capabilities on the iPhone   There is a limit on low light and noise that it can handle.  Its close though. Also battery life is suspect when you are on vacation and using the phone for pictures, GPS and calls. Have to bring along a power bank charger

[Herschel Dirtwater]

21 hours ago, DCB9 said:

I agree with what you said, but I would suggest for someone with no previous experience shooting raw to set the camera to save raw+jpeg.  This gives you the ability to take a quick look at your photos without having to load the raw files into a raw viewer or processor.  I have been shooting raw since 2008 and I still shoot raw+jpeg.

 

Once you start shooting raw, you'll never go back.  Using a photo editor like Lightroom, it is just as easy to edit the raw files as jpegs and you have so much more flexibility as nothing is baked in like it is in jpegs.  The first time you have a high contrast photo and are able to bring up all the shadow detail, you'll be hooked.

 

Dave

Totally with you on that.  The only drawback to RAW is the software needed to view/edit them.  I use Lightroom (I have the Photoshop/Lightroom package from Adobe for $10/mo).  There are some free programs out there as well.  Unfortunately, shooting in RAW means you can't just throw the memory card into your laptop and see anything.

 

The only time I actually shoot in JPEG is for sports photography or when I need continuous shooting and lots of speed.  Other than that, it's RAW or nothing.

[pierces]

Raw vs. Jpeg has been a point of discussion since digital cameras started dominating at the turn of the century.  The ability to recover detail with RAW is, to this day, revered by photographers of all skill levels. "Real" photographers shoot RAW!

 

Look at the detail pulled from a balanced exposure using Camera RAW in Lightroom/:

 

Before...

 

After...

 

Note the cloud detail and unblocking of the shadows.

 

Except it wasn't a RAW image, but a JPEG with dynamic range optimization enhanced with the incredible AI-driven tools built into Lightroom's Camera Raw. In the last two decades the in-camera rendering of JPEG images has improved like everything else in tech... exponentially. 

 

I shot RAW back in the day when it really mattered. In the last ten year or so, a modern camera's ability to process a JPEG that matches the output from the RAW image has progressed to the point that I just stopped using RAW and instead spent my effort producing a well-exposed shot that is within the ever-increasing capabilities of the ever-improving digital post-processing available today. I'm not a RAW denier but I have found the need just isn't there for me, even for a few weddings I've done since I abandoned RAW. To each their own, eh?

 

I wrote an article about the RAW vs. JPEG discussion:

RAW vs. JPEG – The Family Photographer (pierce324.com)

 

Dave

 

[dwc13]

The question is whether a larger sensor, interchangeable lenses, ability to shoot RAW (and likely take better pictures) that are available with a DSLR are worth the significant additional weight and baggage space (and probably higher cost, steeper learning curve). Good luck with that one, lol. 

 

I have an old Canon PowerShot S100 point and shoot that I haven't carried on travel for quite a few years. It's still a decent camera but technology has substantially improved over the years since it was introduced. My current smartphone takes good enough pictures (for my purposes) in many instances, so it's my primary camera. That means 1 less thing to carry when walking around the ship/port, even though the S100 is lightweight and compact, easily fitting into a shirt pocket. However, if I had a Sony DSC-RX100 VII, I would bring it along.

 

On 2 recent cruises a few weeks ago, I brought along a Panasonic Lumix GX-85 m43 camera and 1 lens (14-140mm) to save space. Turns out I didn't use it much, occasionally taking it out when I was aboard the ship and could easily return to the room to drop it off. Basically select port days and sail aways. It's considerably smaller and lighter than a DSLR, but it's still much larger and heavier than a smartphone. I have also brought it on road trips to national parks, where the 14-140mm lens did its thing much better than a the 2x optical zoom in the smartphone. During those times, I was hiking with a backpack so it was easy to store if I didn't want to swing it across my shoulder (I have a BlackRapid cross body camera strap attached, which is awesome). 

 

Perhaps take a look at mirrorless camera options like the Sony a6xxx series (APS-C). Interchangeable lenses and a larger sensor compared with point & shoot without the bulk and weight of a DSLR. Mirrorless cameras generally take better video than DSLRs, if that is important to you. Don't forget the big 3 (Sony, Canon, Nikon) and others are focusing their efforts on mirrorless offerings. If you don't have 35mm lenses for a specific mount that you want to continue using, you have a clean slate to work with. 

[GUT2407]

I think they all have a place. A bit like a spanner, shifter, crescent, ring. Cameras, phone compact, bridge, DSLR, Mirrorless, sports, all have a use.

[pierces]

3 hours ago, GUT2407 said:

I think they all have a place. A bit like a spanner, shifter, crescent, ring. Cameras, phone compact, bridge, DSLR, Mirrorless, sports, all have a use.

 

Good analogy. The size and content of the tool kit reflects the requirements of the user. Some people only need a small hammer to hang the occasional picture while an auto mechanic needs a garage yacht toolbox with 50 drawers and $20k worth of tools.

 

With the exception of my experimental phone-only cruise, I still take the backpack full of gear as well as the phone because I know I can find something to hang a picture with in one of those 50 drawers, but I wouldn't have much luck rebuilding an engine with a small hammer.

 

😉

 

Dave

[GUT2407]

8 hours ago, pierces said:

 

Good analogy. The size and content of the tool kit reflects the requirements of the user. Some people only need a small hammer to hang the occasional picture while an auto mechanic needs a garage yacht toolbox with 50 drawers and $20k worth of tools.

 

With the exception of my experimental phone-only cruise, I still take the backpack full of gear as well as the phone because I know I can find something to hang a picture with in one of those 50 drawers, but I wouldn't have much luck rebuilding an engine with a small hammer.

 

😉

 

Dave

Many forget that a camera is just a tool.

 

A long time ago (seems like a lifetime) I made a living with camera in hand doing most types of photography at one time or another.

 

When I started shooting weddings I was using a Canon F1, with an EX-EE as my back up. The Ex was soon replaced with an AE-1 program, and eventually I moved on to only using the AE-1s, two loaded with colour, one B@W, and a spare or two in the bag. The number of times I heard “I have a better camera than that”. The difference was they didn’t know how to get the best out of it, I at least like to think I had some idea.

[pierces]

13 hours ago, GUT2407 said:

Many forget that a camera is just a tool.

 

Amen.

 

I've noticed the items bundled with even the most capable cameras never include things like compositional awareness, experience or passion.

 

 

Dave

[GUT2407]

8 hours ago, pierces said:

 

Amen.

 

I've noticed the items bundled with even the most capable cameras never include things like compositional awareness, experience or passion.

 

 

Dave

A mate still works as a photographer, doing a lot of ads now, including video ads. He shot one using nothing but phone cameras (it was for one of the big phone companies) another he shot with about 12 go pros, they were mounted in a track and circled around going in and out of water, and extremes in temperature.

 

He also did an experiment at a college he does some work with where he had some actors photographed by different photographers, but the actors presented themselves as different socio economic levels to each photographer. So one bloke was unemployed to one, a computer geek to another, pro surfer to the next, you get the drift, the difference in how they were photographed was, to say the least, interesting.