Camera Help

[RosscoPCole]

I am thinking of buying a new camera with a budget of £400.
I like my large zoom compact and am taking some reasonable photos with it and like that I can video with it and take photos of things far away.
Now do I go for a second hand SLR and resign myself to spending a fortune in the future on lenses,etc and carrying a huge bag of gear around
Or is a compact system camera any good or is it just a passing fad?
Or lastly is a high quality bridge camera the way to go as it doesn't mean I have to carry a ton of other equipment around.
I don't want something too complex to start with and want to still be able to point and shoot.
So what do the good people of PH suggest. Now please, if possible, dont just say SLR and not justify why.

[Xaero]

There isn't really such a thing as a high quality bridge camera. They all use compact sensors in, so although you get control, they are basically SLRs with training wheels. They don't match the picture quality.

SLRs have enjoyed a longer lifespan and have many lenses available new and second hand to suit budget. I just sold my (slightly damaged) Canon 500d for £240, and Tamron 18-270mm lens for £250 for reference here.

Compact system cameras are certainly not a fad (or at least I hope not). They are great. I've got the NEX-5n with twin lens kit [£630 new today] (also considering selling this) and a friend had a Canon 7D with a 17-35mm L lens on (1k camera, £600 lens). Guess who got the better shots in our poorly staged try to match the photograph test?

He really struggled to match the quality of the NEX-5n which surprised me especially as I don't have an expensive lens on. The comapct system cameras are certainly taking a chunk of SLR sales nowadays.

Recent Panasonic and Olympus micro 4/3 cameras impress me too, but the nice lenses on that are pricey. I'm heavily considering a new Olympus OM-D EM-5 which is coming out in April to replace my 5n. I don't expect it to match the 5n quality, but I want to expand my lens collection which is a bit of a weakness with the NEX range as there isn't much available when it comes to lenses.

[flat-planedCrank]

I guess the question is whether you actually want an SLR and it's associated size and complexity?

Even the guys on here with multi-thousand£ SLRs have a pocket-size point'n'shoot for when taking their big kit isn't possible or, in fact, needed.

[RosscoPCole]

Thanks for the replies chaps.
I am feeling that the camera isn't producing the photos I want it to. Now is this a typical whinge or is it because I am using a point and shoot?
I like the size of the compact system but feel that I could get better value for money with an SLR. Is this correct?
Also what are flashes like on compact system cameras? Do I need a separarte one or will the built in do? As if I need a seperate, atteched flash I might as well have an SLR because of the size?
Sorry for all the questions.

[flat-planedCrank]

RosscoPCole said:

Thanks for the replies chaps.
I am feeling that the camera isn't producing the photos I want it to. Now is this a typical whinge or is it because I am using a point and shoot?
I like the size of the compact system but feel that I could get better value for money with an SLR. Is this correct?
Also what are flashes like on compact system cameras? Do I need a separarte one or will the built in do? As if I need a seperate, atteched flash I might as well have an SLR because of the size?
Sorry for all the questions.

No problem asking questions ..but I'll apologise in advance for my lengthy reply

It's fair to say that all photographic equipment is a compromise of some sort - e.g. what you gain in image quality you may pay for in cost / weight / limited ability...

Your point and shoot camera will probably have a small sensor, this limits it's ability to perform, especially in low light (increased noise, 'blotchy' final results), and limits it's creative opportunities.

The lens on your compact will also probably be a jack-of-all-trades approach, with decent reach (zoom) yet still have the ability to shoot wide angle shots or even turn it's hand to macro work (so have the ability to focus very closely) - and here is one of the compromises: the more you ask lenses to do (jack of all trades), the less they will do well.

One of the ways to maximise the possible image quality a larger sensor'd SLR is to use it with lenses that are good at a particular job - or at least less compromised. You may find that a good 'walk around' lens on a typical SLR may not have the zoom that a compact camera has, but it's image quality is much better. If you want to take a shot of something far away with your SLR then you will most likely want to change lenses to something more suited. Similarly if you want great macro photos then a dedicated macro lens will astonish with it's picture quality. And so you end up having a bag with a number of lenses and other kit in it

(FYI - The jack-of-all-trades highly-flexible approach to lenses are also available for SLRs, with associated compromises of course!)


As for flashes - it's probably fair to say that no on-camera flashes are that well regarded. It's generally best to invest in a proper flash that will allow such things are indirect illumination (eg. bounce it off the roof / wall) or even be fired remotely (via a cable / wireless system). Proper flash units also tend to be many times more powerful than on-camera setups.

Whether an SLR provides 'better value' will depend on what sort of things you want to take photos of, and whether carrying extra equipment to have a breadth of abilities fits in with you. If having a camera that you can easily bung in a jacket pocket is of primary importance then obviously nothing will rival a point'n'shoot

[RosscoPCole]

Thanks for the advice flat-planedCrank. It has confirmed a lot of my thoughts, but being not to flush with cash I want to spend as little as possible.
I've seen a Panasonic Lumix GF2 with a 14-42mm lens for £299. Seems to get good write ups.
Anyone had any experience with one?