Please help me pick a camera! Point-n-Shoot vs. DSLR? Help please!!

[WDWFreak07]

Hi everyone!

I would really like help in deciding on a camera for me.

I am only 15 but very into photography and graphic design. I have seen amazing pictures on here by people who have used a Nikon D40.

I have been thinking about this camera because of the amazing pictures it can take but a couple things that I am weary about are:

-the size, it is much bigger than a point and shoot
-the lens does not autofocus (I may be wrong but that is what I have heard)
-carrying around a DSLR in WDW as my parents do not want to be carrying it
-it may be hard for me to get to use, is it?

I have also looked at simple point and shoots like Canon Powershot and Sony Cybershot, and I really am stuck on whether to get a point and shoot or DSLR.

So how is the Nikon D40 for a 15 yr old who is very into graphic design (photo editing) and photography?

Is it that bulky to carry? Do you always take it to WDW?

And I cannot get both a DSLR and point and shoot like many people have, so I would like to make a good decision. Please let me know and if you steer me towards a point and shoot please, if you can, give me specific suggestions.

Also WDWFigment I believe you have a Nikon D40 so I would REALLY appreciate your input.
Thanks for your help guys!

 

[bob100]

Hi everyone!

I would really like help in deciding on a camera for me.

I am only 15 but very into photography and graphic design. I have seen amazing pictures on here by people who have used a Nikon D40.

I have been thinking about this camera because of the amazing pictures it can take but a couple things that I am weary about are:

-the size, it is much bigger than a point and shoot
-the lens does not autofocus (I may be wrong but that is what I have heard)
-carrying around a DSLR in WDW as my parents do not want to be carrying it
-it may be hard for me to get to use, is it?

I have also looked at simple point and shoots like Canon Powershot and Sony Cybershot, and I really am stuck on whether to get a point and shoot or DSLR.

So how is the Nikon D40 for a 15 yr old who is very into graphic design (photo editing) and photography?

Is it that bulky to carry? Do you always take it to WDW?

And I cannot get both a DSLR and point and shoot like many people have, so I would like to make a good decision. Please let me know and if you steer me towards a point and shoot please, if you can, give me specific suggestions.

Also WDWFigment I believe you have a Nikon D40 so I would REALLY appreciate your input.
Thanks for your help guys!

I can't decide 4 U - but consider this: look at a camera model and the photos at www.flickr.com/cameras - choose any camera model and see amazing pictures!

 

[ukcatfan]

Just a few comments. It does autofocus, just not with every lens. One popular example where it does not is the 50mm f/1.8. The kit lens that it comes with will. The D40 is one the small side for a DSLR, so if it seems large you might be limited on future upgrades. All high end models are much larger. Lastly, go actually handle the different brands and models to see how they feel in your hands.

 

[sherry7]

You also might want to think about the Sony Alpha DSLR's. The lenses are quite a bit less expensive than those for Nikon, Canon, etc. Also, most of the older Minolta lenses will work on Sony Alpha's as well. The pricing difference is because Sony's have the image stabiliation (vibration reduction) built into the camera itself. With the others that feature is built into the lenses, making them more expensive. That's not a very technical explanation...I'm sure someone else could be more clear about it.

I recommend doing some reading at steves-digicams.com and dpreview.com.

 

[ukcatfan]

You also might want to think about the Sony Alpha DSLR's. The lenses are quite a bit less expensive than those for Nikon, Canon, etc. Also, most of the older Minolta lenses will work on Sony Alpha's as well. The pricing difference is because Sony's have the image stabiliation (vibration reduction) built into the camera itself. With the others that feature is built into the lenses, making them more expensive. That's not a very technical explanation...I'm sure someone else could be more clear about it.

I recommend doing some reading at steves-digicams.com and dpreview.com.

Really??? Every time I have looked at Sony lenses, I thought they were very expensive. I was comparing to Pentax though. One big thing I have never seen is an affordable Sony prime. True there are used Minolta ones, but not everyone is willing to go used.

To the OP, keep in mind that there are many very good 3rd party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. They are usually around the same price for whatever mount (except for the 4/3 mount).

 

[fitzperry]

-the size, it is much bigger than a point and shoot

But it's much smaller than a lot of cameras I lug around a Nikon D300; the D40 seems tiny to me. It's all relative. I believe the results from my dslr's have been worth the effort of carrying them around as compared to a p&s the vast majority of the time.

-the lens does not autofocus (I may be wrong but that is what I have heard)

As others have said, that's not quite accurate. The D40 does not have a focus motor in the camera body, so it will not autofocus with older lenses that do not have a focus motor in the lens. There are loads of lenses that will AF on the D40. For someone without a bunch of older Nikkor lenses, the only one that is likely to matter is the 50mm f/1.8, which is very popular due to it's low light capabilities and low price (around $115 when I bought mine).

-carrying around a DSLR in WDW as my parents do not want to be carrying it

My guess is you'd get used to it pretty quickly. Then you'd want to start carrying around extra lenses, a flash, full-sized tripod, etc.

-it may be hard for me to get to use, is it?

You can use it in auto mode as you learn, so it's not that difficult at all. If you're really interested in photography, I think an slr is the best way to go.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

My opinion would be to get a dSLR while you're young. It doesn't get easier to learn these things as you get older. It sounds like you'd learn it pretty well. Consider a small-ish one so carrying it isn't as big of an issue. The smallest dSLR currently is an Olympus E-420. You could also check out the micro four thirds cameras - currently the Panasonic G9 is available with others on the way. (They're not real popular here, so there could be some flack about these suggestions, but I mention them so you know what other options you have.) The Nikon certainly is a nice choice as well, as are the other dSLRs in the same category. Do some research on all of them. Good luck.

 

[spinetnglr]

I agree with Jen that if you have a genuine interest in photography a dslr is the way to go. I have a D40 and am happy with its performance for my first dslr. I am now considering an upgrade to the D90 or D300. The D40 is a good choice to start learning the basics. If you have a good camera store close to you try to go and handle the different makes and models and see what feels comfortable to you. Once you settle on a brand and model that you like do some price comparison with the larger reputable online stores. I have ordered from both B & H and Adorama without any problems.

 

[sherry7]

Really??? Every time I have looked at Sony lenses, I thought they were very expensive. I was comparing to Pentax though. One big thing I have never seen is an affordable Sony prime. True there are used Minolta ones, but not everyone is willing to go used.

To the OP, keep in mind that there are many very good 3rd party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, etc. They are usually around the same price for whatever mount (except for the 4/3 mount).

Yeah, I should have explained that better. The Sony lenses themselves can be pricier, but the used Minolta lenses, and even the compatible Tamrons, Sigma, etc seem to be less expensive.

 

[KAT4DISNEY]

Yeah, I should have explained that better. The Sony lenses themselves can be pricier, but the used Minolta lenses, and even the compatible Tamrons, Sigma, etc seem to be less expensive.

Actually, Sony has just dropped the price on many of their lenses and now is offering the 55-200 (which is a decently rated zoom) for only an additional $50 with a camera/kit lens package. I saw someone comparing the fast Sony zooms to the equivilent Canon/Nikon and though a couple were higher, a couple others were now lower. A couple of the primes have been reduced a bit too, but the Zeiss name has several of those very high to start with and I don't know how they compare now to other lines. They may be adjusting to get more in line with the industry, or it may just be an early holiday sale.

But on topic for the OP, I purchased my first SLR when I was 17 (back in the old days of film of course) and my nephew recently did the same thing with a DSLR. He carries around a lot more than I ever would have but if you enjoy the photography then you most likely won't notice the weight. I've gone thru different phases including those where I didn't want the bulk and got a P&S but I didn't regret having the added weight when I was getting the shots that I wanted to.

I visited Norway last year with my cousin, who had just bought the Nikon D40 and she could hardly get it out of the hands of her 13 yo daughter. I don't think I heard a complaint from her daughter about carrying it around because she was enjoying it so much!

 

[alan]

I think that there are a lot of people, in many age groups, who have the same questions in their minds. I kow for sure that I do (I'm...a touch... older than 15!)

A top-end point-n-shoot like the Canon G10 will give you pictures that are for practical purposes pretty much indistinguishable from a low-end dSLR when you're out in the bright sunshine. Score one for the point-n-shoot.

Go indoors, and you get much better pictures from the dSLR than the point-n-shoot. You can ramp the ISO up a long way on the dSLR and still get lovely pictures. One-one.

Night-time, the dSLR scores for the same reason. Two-one to the dSLR.

Buying an ultrazoom lens for the dSLR will cost, and lose you some picture quality, but you'll still be better than a point-n-shoot. However, you need to factor the price into your calculations.

Bottom line: if I were only able to take one to WDW, it would be the dSLR with the 18-200mm lens.

regards,
/alan

PS Don't think of a dSLR as a one-off camera purchase. It's a licence to spend more money - lots more money - on photographic equipment!

 

[spinetnglr]

But on topic for the OP, I purchased my first SLR when I was 17 (back in the old days of film of course) and my nephew recently did the same thing with a DSLR. He carries around a lot more than I ever would have but if you enjoy the photography then you most likely won't notice the weight. I've gone thru different phases including those where I didn't want the bulk and got a P&S but I didn't regret having the added weight when I was getting the shots that I wanted to.

I purchased my first SLR while still in high school too way back in the dark ages. It was a Pentax K1000. I used that camera for many many years before getting the ME Super. That camera I passed onto my son when he developed an interest in film photography and took a course in college. On one of his trips home from Philadelphia about a year and a half ago he showed me the Nikon D50 he had just gotten. Its what got me to look at and purchase my first DSLR after years of using a digital PNS. Point and shoots come and go but when you start investing in a brand of cameras you are comfortable with many of the items you purchase for your first dslr you will be able to use when you upgrade in the future to a model with more bells and whistles.

 

[bob100]

A top-end point-n-shoot like the Canon G10 will give you pictures that are for practical purposes pretty much indistinguishable from a low-end dSLR when you're out in the bright sunshine.

That simple fact has kept me from upgrading to a starter dSLR. If you attend one those "photowalks" and compare the same shot from different cameras, say a D40 or 40D, XT, TX, or an S5, you will discover the same resized photo taken from different cameras on a computer monitor will look pretty much the same! a photo taken indoors without a flash then the choice between high end P&S and "starter" dSLR might make a difference but looking at pics on dpreview.com with the Panasonic LX3 and Canon G10, etc. they seem pretty good in low light.
Of course, if you like getting a "licence to spend more money - lots more money - on photographic equipment" then the dSLR is the way to go.

 

[Steve's Girl]

That simple fact has kept me from upgrading to a starter dSLR. If you attend one those "photowalks" and compare the same shot from different cameras, say a D40 or 40D, XT, TX, or an S5, you will discover the same resized photo taken from different cameras on a computer monitor will look pretty much the same! a photo taken indoors without a flash then the choice between high end P&S and "starter" dSLR might make a difference but looking at pics on dpreview.com with the Panasonic LX3 and Canon G10, etc. they seem pretty good in low light.
Of course, if you like getting a "licence to spend more money - lots more money - on photographic equipment" then the dSLR is the way to go.

I have to somewhat disagree with this. A photo taken outdoors on auto mode with a P & S and a DSLR will look very much the same. However, with A DSLR you have a greater ability to control depth of field, etc. Understanding and using manual settings will give you the ability to take photos even in good lighting that are not possible with a P &S.

 

[bob100]

I have to somewhat disagree with this. A photo taken outdoors on auto mode with a P & S and a DSLR will look very much the same. However, with A DSLR you have a greater ability to control depth of field, etc. Understanding and using manual settings will give you the ability to take photos even in good lighting that are not possible with a P &S.

my point was comparing the same pics using manual controls on a higher end P&S and taking the exact same photo view with a DSLR on a sunny day, e.g. landscape type pics. I've seen the evidence with my own eyes that they look very similar! I'm not trying to discourage anyone from buying a dSLR because they will do better with the right lens but I am suggesting if you can participate in one of these photowalks (usually sponsored by the local paper) and have the opportunity to compare photos taken from different cameras at the same position at the same time - you may be surprised ... or maybe not.

 

[alan]

I think you're both right here. Looking back to the days of my Pro1 - admittedly an extraordinarily good point & shoot - I could take landscapes that could match most people's pictures. In that regard, Bob is absolutely correct.

Steve's Girl is also right. I had a much harder job - sometimes impossible - if I was wanting to do selective focusing and make use of narrow DoF. So I didn't do that.

The pictures that I took would be hard to distinguish from a dSLR. It was the pictures that I didn't take that shows up the difference between the cameras!

regards,
/alan

 

[jfinke]

I think that part of the problem is a lot of people buy a DSLR, don't bother to learn how to use the power and keep it in green the whole time. In that case, I think a lot of shots then look like "snapshots". I know I have a bunch of them. But, as I got out of the comfort zone and started shooting Av, that is when a lot of it started clicking for me. Heck, just shooting my cats around the house with my nifty fifty looks much better than with my PnS.

Then, when you add on an external flash, the whole world lights up (pun not intended) to new possibilities.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I think you're both right here.

I agree.

But it just goes to show how individual it is. For me it's less about the picture itself, than the experience of learning to use an SLR.

I also think that with all the choices today, a dSLR doesn't have to be either overly bulky or expensive.

 

[bob100]

I agree.

But it just goes to show how individual it is. For me it's less about the picture itself, than the experience of learning to use an SLR.

I also think that with all the choices today, a dSLR doesn't have to be either overly bulky or expensive.

No, it doesn't but I can see it's going to cost me at least a grand $$$ to go to the next level no matter what model dSLR - because I want more than the kit lens! The manual controls in a superzoom (and Photoshop!) can get you pretty far but there are limits. I will eventually upgrade to dSLR, it's just a question of what and the price point.

 

[princess.chell]

Hey WDWFreak07

I am in a similar position and of similar age (17). Photography is one of my favorite things also. I am currently camera-less and in the same situation of trying to pick a camera (either point and shoot or just waiting for a dslr).
Here is what I think based on my own experiences....
My parents bought me a high end point and shoot that had limited manual controls for my birthday last month. My mom also has a Canon Rebel Xti that I can use basically whenever since she hardly uses it. Long story short I decided that I didn't want the high end point and shoots because they didnt allow me the flexablity of the dslr. So basically, what I'm trying to say is that if you can get a dslr I would go that route. It will really allow to you grow more and expand more.
As for at Disney, I carried my mom's dslr for her last year and will probably this year too. It took a bit to get used to because the strap rubbed my arm wierd for the first bit, but as for the weight it wasn't bad at all.
The size when out with friends is the reason why I wanted a point and shoot, but one of my friends brings her dslr every where with her and has no problem with it at all....
Anyway, hope that helped! Have fun shooting! =)