Do I actually need a DSLR?

[Vocal Minority]

Hi all

I know the square route of jack about cameras.

I basically take all my pictures on my iphone5 currently - and even I know that this is a fantastically inadequate solution, I do enjoy playing with pictures in my own quiet way, and seeing what can be created etc - and SWMBO and I go places like the Lake District a lot, and never fail to be disappointed by the distinctly average justice done to the landscape (may well be me as much as the phone).

We are getting married in the lakes in May, and going on our honeymoon to Edinburgh, then the west coast islands of Scotland. Obviously there will be LOADS of opportunities to take great pictures - and also muck about with what can be done.

My question is as above. With bridge cameras etc - do I really need to go for an entry level DSLR, or can I get a level of performance where I (as a luddite in this stuff) will notice little difference for less?

Thanks

[K12beano]

Ah - the perennial dilemma

You don't know what you want
You can't see what the learning curve is going to be like, to know whether you want to ride it
Cameras can look cheap, and then can quickly get scarily expensive (factor in the tripod you'll want to buy for landscape photography as just the first starter!)

And then, kit can be expensive and depreciate rapidly (new digital body) or hold its value surprisingly well (secondhand quality lenses) so you don't know a budget...

...and then you still don't know what you want!

You could probably do worse than hanging around the PH P&V threads and doing a lot of reading.

As a first suggestion - a quality compact (secondhand from a reputable source), with a wide-ish angle lens, and controls that allow you fully automatic operation and full manual control. If it doesn't excite you after a couple of trips, sell it on Fleabay and buy a nice print off someone like GetCarter to hang on your wall instead

[Rosscow]

Vocal Minority said:

Hi all

I know the square route of jack about cameras.

I basically take all my pictures on my iphone5 currently - and even I know that this is a fantastically inadequate solution, I do enjoy playing with pictures in my own quiet way, and seeing what can be created etc - and SWMBO and I go places like the Lake District a lot, and never fail to be disappointed by the distinctly average justice done to the landscape (may well be me as much as the phone).

We are getting married in the lakes in May, and going on our honeymoon to Edinburgh, then the west coast islands of Scotland. Obviously there will be LOADS of opportunities to take great pictures - and also muck about with what can be done.

My question is as above. With bridge cameras etc - do I really need to go for an entry level DSLR, or can I get a level of performance where I (as a luddite in this stuff) will notice little difference for less?

Thanks

In a similar position to me, but I know a little bit but quite like the idea of knowing/doing more.

For someone like yourself, I don't think (from what I've learnt over the last 48 hours of online research!)you'd go far wrong with something like:

http://www.ukdigitalcameras.co.uk/digital-cameras/...

Of course, you go one step up and go for a CSC, in which case as someone pointed out to me earlier today, this seems like a great deal:

http://www.johnlewis.com/sony-a5000-compact-system...

But then you have to think about zoom and how much you'd like. Which means buying a compact super zoom camera, or a CSC like the above with a telephoto lens (but this then takes your spending back up to £600)

Or, something like the following which is big, but not as big as a DSLR. Also a £600 touch:

http://www.digitalrev.com/product/panasonic-lumix-...

It's a bloody minefield!!!!

[Pixelpeep7r]

i think if you have to ask the question the answer is yes.

you've shown a desire for better photos which might happen again in a few years once you've got used to the images the cross over produces for you.

might as well cut out the middle man and get a canon/nikon and then treat yourself to a new lease every now and then.

[Pickled]

One thing you will notice if you get a DSLR, coming from primarily using your phone, will be lugging it around with you!

Have a look at the Sony RX100 that gets rave reviews on here.

[Vocal Minority]

The Sony Compact System one looks good - as I say whilst I like playing, I imagine the lugging around would get a little tiresome, and I cannot see myself getting super serious - just wanting to take it out every so often and have a play.

Thanks guys - PH at its helpful best

[marctwo]

Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100 and spend some time learning them properly. An entry level DSLR is not really going to give you much better quality and you're much less likely to take it with you due to the bulk/weight.

[Rosscow]

marctwo said:

Sony RX100 or Panasonic LX100 and spend some time learning them properly. An entry level DSLR is not really going to give you much better quality and you're much less likely to take it with you due to the bulk/weight.

The problem with these, of course, is a lack of zoom (3.8x and 3.1x optical, respectively).

I love the look of the LX100, but can't help but think I'll end up wishing I had got something with more zoom.

Which leads me straight down the CSC path...... where you can get a Sony A6000 with 2 lenses for similar money, or a A5100 for considerably less.

[marctwo]

Rosscow said:

The problem with these, of course, is a lack of zoom (3.8x and 3.1x optical, respectively).

I love the look of the LX100, but can't help but think I'll end up wishing I had got something with more zoom.

Which leads me straight down the CSC path...... where you can get a Sony A6000 with 2 lenses for similar money, or a A5100 for considerably less.

People seem obsessed with zoom. Unless you are photographing wildlife or sports, you can zoom with your feet most of the time.

[andy-xr]

You know what? On honeymoon, get a selfie stick and either bluetooth to your iPhone or stick a reasonable point and shoot on it. We went to NY, and to be honest, while there was some ace photography going on, most of what we wanted to have photos of was us infront of something, us doing something, the view with one of us in it, one of us taking a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge....sickly things that are to be expected.

Heading off at 6am for the golden hour first thing while you're on honeymoon isnt going to make anyone happy. I'm sure you'll get some lovely photos, but you'll have a pissed off wife. Then, when you've got a range of dark through to massively blurry photos, and an unhappy wife, plus a dented wallet, you'll be wondering why you bothered.

But, for the sake of capturing some of the nicest views around, I'd go with this:
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/pro...

Or this:
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/pro...

Or for less money, and an 'I'll give it a crack and see how we go' approach, then this:
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/categories/pro...

[Vocal Minority]

That last one is definitely more in the price bracket I am after.

I do see what you mean about what you need for a honeymoon - and I won't be going nuts, but just taking opportunities as they arise.

Re the above and zoom - I will be taking to various hillclimbs so zoom will be used.

A compact system is starting to look like it makes sense.

[DavidY]

Except that the auto focus on a DSLR will be a lot faster than on a CSC (despite any marketing bumpff), and generally you have a better range of optics available. If you want a DSLR then buy one the 1200D is a perfectly fine entry level camera, and other manufacturers have similar offerings. When you want to do motorsport invest in a s/h zoom lens with a decent focal length.

The 1200D and kit lens are more than capable of being used to create great shots, and can even be very sharp!!

This is straight out the camera of my partners daughters 1100D after I had cleaned the sensor. (no editing other than a resize)

[

[Dr Jekyll]

Do you still get shutter lag on current compacts? And am I right in thinking this doesn't happen with a DSLR?

[DavidY]

No its not shutter lag per say like a compact, but the auto focus is slower.

If its moving quickly children, motorsport, wildlife, etc, you will get more keepers with a DSLR

If your bag is landscapes and other slow or non moving objects then a CSC will be fine.

You can do motorsport on a CSC camera but it will often require a fair bit of pre-focus and tracking.

[andy-xr]

Vocal Minority said:

That last one is definitely more in the price bracket I am after.

I do see what you mean about what you need for a honeymoon - and I won't be going nuts, but just taking opportunities as they arise.

It's OK, it's got HD Video on it, you'll be right.

No particular allegiance from me on whichever you go for, the Canon just looked to be at a decent price point. I prefer Nikon, but they'll all do the same thing.

I'd say dSLR over CSC, I have both and the dSLR trumps it out and out image quality. The thing is, will you get better iq from a smaller, but further up the range CSC, or an entry level dSLR

Your call really on where you want to get into it at. Also, Leica are expensive because they're Leica, and Panasonic do much the same.

[rich85uk]

I was in this situation last year and looked at it in a very basic and blunt way, you either want something that fits in your pocket (compact) or accept it won't and do down the DSLR route which is what I did and feel I made the right move. You do get your mirrorless, bridge cameras etc that are smaller and lighter but only a few seem truly pocketable ( I did see a link to one that with the lens detached would fit in a pocket)

I recently took mine round SE Asia and it was never an issue but I only took a 35mm prime and the kit lens with me, once in a day bag you never notice the size or weight, pop into a shop where you can handle a few to get an idea on size and weight

[DavidY]

andy-xr said:

I'd say dSLR over CSC, I have both and the dSLR trumps it out and out image quality.

I'm not so sure that statement is true. many CSC's have an APS-C sized sensor, and can give equally good images as a DSLR (many of which only have APS-C sensors). The Fuji's which have particularly good optics certainly rival my DSLR for IQ. The DSLR has other advantages though, focus speed and better IQ at high ISO though, but its much bigger and heavier.

Its horses for courses

[wildoliver]

rich85uk said:

I was in this situation last year and looked at it in a very basic and blunt way, you either want something that fits in your pocket (compact) or accept it won't and do down the DSLR route which is what I did and feel I made the right move. You do get your mirrorless, bridge cameras etc that are smaller and lighter but only a few seem truly pocketable ( I did see a link to one that with the lens detached would fit in a pocket)

I recently took mine round SE Asia and it was never an issue but I only took a 35mm prime and the kit lens with me, once in a day bag you never notice the size or weight, pop into a shop where you can handle a few to get an idea on size and weight

I think this post sums it up for me, I use a dslr and a compact, I either want to chuck it in a pocket or have something to lug around but gives me options, why anyone wants something in the middle which doesn't fit in a pocket and doesn't offer all the options I don't know. But cameras are a personal thing.

[Rosscow]

wildoliver said:

rich85uk said:

I was in this situation last year and looked at it in a very basic and blunt way, you either want something that fits in your pocket (compact) or accept it won't and do down the DSLR route which is what I did and feel I made the right move. You do get your mirrorless, bridge cameras etc that are smaller and lighter but only a few seem truly pocketable ( I did see a link to one that with the lens detached would fit in a pocket)

I recently took mine round SE Asia and it was never an issue but I only took a 35mm prime and the kit lens with me, once in a day bag you never notice the size or weight, pop into a shop where you can handle a few to get an idea on size and weight

I think this post sums it up for me, I use a dslr and a compact, I either want to chuck it in a pocket or have something to lug around but gives me options, why anyone wants something in the middle which doesn't fit in a pocket and doesn't offer all the options I don't know. But cameras are a personal thing.

What would you choose if you only had £600 to spend?

It's all well and good saying have both or nothing but not all of us can afford a decent DSLR setup and a good compact.

[otherman]

Rosscow said:

In a similar position to me, but I know a little bit but quite like the idea of knowing/doing more.

For someone like yourself, I don't think (from what I've learnt over the last 48 hours of online research!)you'd go far wrong with something like:

http://www.ukdigitalcameras.co.uk/digital-cameras/...

But then you have to think about zoom and how much you'd like. Which means buying a compact super zoom camera, or a CSC like the above with a telephoto lens (but this then takes your spending back up to £600)

Or, something like the following which is big, but not as big as a DSLR. Also a £600 touch:

http://www.digitalrev.com/product/panasonic-lumix-...

Wise words. I'm a big fan of the Lumix cameras and I have two of them. A compact to pop in the pocket, and one of these. Fixed lens, but apart from that a lot of the quality you'd get from an SLR, but considerably smaller and a bargain to boot. I really suggest you don't go straight to DSLR, learn the trade a little first.