Which is better??

[RBennett]

Ok, so this past weekend I was at Best Buy where I was looking for a new digital camera, (or researching for one.) I have been looking at the S3 and the Sony H5 which are both very similar, but I came across another one: the Sony DSLR-A100K. It is a inexpensive DSLR (around $800 w/ 18-70mm lens) but I'm wondering if it's worth it. I want a good camera for my family's memories, but I am by no means a professional photographer or even semi-professional. Is it better to spend the money on a cheaper DSLR or a nicer P&S like the S3/H5? I know the DSLR should still be better than the P&S but I don't want to fall into a trap where I have to start buying lenses, etc when a P&S might have sufficed.

 

[Steve's Girl]

Oh, definitely the DSLR! Even if you never upgrade from the kit lens and use the on-board flash, the DSLR will have much greater capability than the P&S - especially in low-light. Someone else recently purchase the Sony A100 and could probably give you more insight on this particular camera.

My husband has no interest in photography whatsoever. He has always been a P&S fan. When I first bought my DSLR, he had no interest in picking it up. But now that he has realized it won't bite him and he can just use the auto mode, he really enjoys using it. He is amazed at the difference in quality over the P&S he used to always use.

 

[deletedpenguin]

I bought a Canon 30D DSLR as an upgrade from a Canon A520 P&S and won't ever look back.

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Here's a review that might help you make your decision:

DCRP Review: Sony Alpha DSLR-A100

I really like this guy's reviews ... he's very thorough, seems unbiased, and his reviews are easy to compare.

Here's his reviews for the Canon S3 and the Sony H5 to help with your comparison shopping.

Something to consider ... with a DSLR you *will* get better performance (especially at night), but you won't get a movie mode ... none of them have it, yet. This might not make any difference, but being able to grab a quick bit of video and still take great stills is a neat and useful feature, especially at WDW.

Also, the differences between the entry-level DSLRs and the higher-level models is *nearly* as great as going from an advanced P&S like the S3 or the H5! Just check out the comparison photos, especially the high ISO ones, on the DCRP site and you'll see that....

 

[Master Mason]

The DSLR should be a better camera, however your spending a lot of money for it, and if you don't want to learn to use it to it's potential, I would say your better off saving the money and getting the bridge camera.

Not everyone has the desire to learn how to work shutter speeds, appatures, and ISO's. You do not have to to use a dSLR, but if you don't you have a $1K p&s. And it won't be significantly better than a $300 p&s.

If however you have the desire to learn, then go ahead and make the investment.

 

[Anewman]

IMO a DSLR in full auto mode is still better than any Point and shoot digicam, so no you dont need to get deep into photography to get great results.

But the one thing you would be missing with the DSLR kit is focal range, the S3 and H5 are ultra zoom models whereas the lenses included with most DSLR kits are not. You can buy the BODY only version of a DSLR and then buy a lens with a longer zoom if that is important to you. It sounds like you are not interested in buying many lenses so that may be ideal for you. Just remember those lenses with a huge focal range are not the GREATEST lenses by DSLR standards, but they will be much better than anything found on a P&S camera.

ALSO The Sony is not really an "inexpensive" DSLR, I would put it more in the mid level catagory. You can get a entry level pentax DSLR for about the same price as the two P&S models you mentioned. I would actually go a bit up to the Pentax K100d Currently selling @ $519 for the body and lens from BEACHCAMERA/BUYDIG dotcoms and they charge no tax or shipping. They also have a $150 rebate if you buy TOGETHER WITH their 50-200mm(sells for $229), so that would mean a Good DSLR with two lenses for $600 after rebate. Yes the SONY is a better camera IMO, but why spend money of some of those extra features that you may not know how to use???

 

[Groucho]

$800 is not particularly cheap for a DSLR, in fact, the cheapest DSLR is approximately half that price. Pentax, Nikon, Canon, and Olympus (in other words, everyone else, except Fuji and Panasonic who make fairly expensive DSLRs) all produce DSLRs that you can find for cheaper than that.

A DSLR will give you much more flexibility and image quality than any PnS, at the expensive of somewhat more effort and time to learn the camera's workings, size, convenience (to get the best out a DSLR, you need multiple lenses), and of course, price. I do think that even on auto mode, you should easily see better performance out of a DSLR than a "bridge" camera, and if you go to higher ISO levels, the difference will be unmissable.

For reviews, it's kind of tough as nearly every PnS review I've ever read only compares it to other PnSs - it goes without saying that the DSLR's larger sensor makes them in a whole different league.

Also, the differences between the entry-level DSLRs and the higher-level models is *nearly* as great as going from an advanced P&S like the S3 or the H5! Just check out the comparison photos, especially the high ISO ones, on the DCRP site and you'll see that....

Sorry, I have to disagree pretty strongly with this. On a pure image-quality basis, there is little to no difference between entry-level DSLRs and anything but the top-end full-frame DSLRs - they all (outside of the smaller 4x3 sensor in the Olympus/Fuji/Panasonic) have sensors that are about the same size. By and large, most Nikon, Pentax, and Sony DSLRs use basically the same 6mp or 10mp Sony sensors, and the Canons generally share their own sensors between different lines. If you shoot raw, you shouldn't see a difference - and while the 10mp sensors have more resolution, the 6mp ones should have slightly lower noise levels (probably barely noticable at the Sony 10mp sensor seems to do quite well.)

The extra cost of the body generally goes into construction (sturdier), features (more options for the photographer), and performance (shots-per-second, etc.) The image quality is really more up to the lens than anything else... what you're probably seeing is people who have spent more for a higher-end body and high-end lenses compared to cheaper bodies and cheaper lenses. You may also find the more experienced/advanced shooters using the higher-end cameras thereby producing better quality photos, which would be true no matter what they shot with.

 

[deletedpenguin]

Ya, as Groucho mentioned, it's not all about the megapixel rating on DSLRs. Pay attention to the Sensor size/etc.

 

[Groucho]

There are basically three sizes for DSLR sensors... the "four thirds" sensor used by Olympus, Fuji, and Panasonic, the "full frame" sensor (same size as 35mm film) used in the very high-line Canons, and pretty much everything else uses an APS-sized sensor. So if comparing DSLRs, sensor size really doesn't play into it unless considering an Olympus or a $4,000 Canon.

For PnS cameras, sensor size varies and is definitely an important consideration IMHO.

 

[RBennett]

I am sooooo confused now. When I first started looking at cameras I always heard, (from the stores) that higher MP meant better pictures. Don't flame me!! I know this is FAR from the truth now. But now I was under the assumption that the larger sensor size made the difference. But now I'm hearing that's not the end of it either. So I went to a couple websites that some of you mentioned to compare cameras side-by-side, and I have to say that for once, I found myself leaning towards something other than a Sony. The Pentax K100D that someone mentioned earlier looked nice because it had a very similar sensor size as the sony, but it was only 6.1 mp, so I thought that would lead to a better picture quality. Then someone said that it's generally the lens that makes a difference and not the camera so much. So here's where I'm at: I LOVE the suggestions that everyone is giving!! They're GREAT!! But here's my budget: my DW has put a cap on my spending at around $700 or $800. So keeping that in mind, could I also get people's recommendations? Thank you SO much for being the most helpful disers!!!

 

[Anewman]

I LOVE the suggestions that everyone is giving!! They're GREAT!! But here's my budget: my DW has put a cap on my spending at around $700 or $800. So keeping that in mind, could I also get people's recommendations? Thank you SO much for being the most helpful disers!!!

My suggestion would still lead to the Pentax k100D, but if you dont feel that 6.1 mp is enough...

Canon Rebel XT is $509(body only) at Beach Camera(no tax free shipping), you can then find decent lens. The Camera is 8mp, I doubt you can tell the difference between 10 and 8 mp in prints upto 12x18 and even with larger prints it might take a magnifying glass to find any difference.

Then someone said that it's generally the lens that makes a difference and not the camera so much.

Well lets not forget the photographer is a big part of the equation. But yes today most DSLRS offer very good image quality, some might have better lowlight capabilities but otherwise it would take some serious pixel peeping to find a clear winner.

They all have adjustable saturation and sharpness settings on the camera and they all shoot RAW so you can do the adjustments yourself.

Regardless of the Camera you choose if you buy a bad lens your photos may suffer, but there again all brands have good lenses and bad lenses.

 

[Groucho]

Sony makes both the 6mp and 10mp sensors found in most Nikons and Pentaxes, including the Pentax K100D and the Sony A100. From what I've seen, they managed to squeeze in the extra megapixels without causing a significant change in image noise. There is a limit, of course; a quick glance at the Nikon D2X, which has the APS-sized sensor but this one is CMOS and 12mp, indicates that it suffers from higher noise levels (but great resolution), but that's a somewhat older camera now.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaanyway.

The reason I said that the lens is most important with a DSLR is because they are all capable of producing extremely high-quality images, and most either have the same sensor or a very comparable one. In a PnS, sensor sizes vary more widely so it's an important thing to keep an eye on.

The K100D is definitely, IMHO, the best "bang for the buck" out there. Like Anewman says, you can get a $150 rebate if you buy the K100D plus the pretty good Pentax 50-200mm lens, total investment of about $600. Feature-wise, the Sony sits somewhere between the K100D and the K10D - but the K10D is more expensive than the A100 (around $900 w/lens.) Generally the single "key" feature that the K100D is weak on is the size of the buffer, it can only do five photos in a row when continuous shooting. In pretty much every other category, it matches or beats the entry-level Nikons and Canons, neither of which offer in-body IS.

To sum up... let's say that your budget is around $700... your choices are:
Pentax K100D, 18-55mm lens, 50-200mm lens, both stabilized (as will be any lens you'll ever attach), $100 left over
Nikon D40, 18-55mm, 55-200mm, $20 over budget
Canon Rebel XT, 18-55mm lens, $100 left over
Olympus E500, 14-45mm, 40-150mm, $80 left over (the smaller sensor means that the "real world" zoom distance is pretty similar)

The 10mp D40x and Rebel XTi are both over $700 each with kit lens. A D50 would be preferable to a D40 but you might not be able to find one any more?

 

[deletedpenguin]

Generally speaking, the higher a camera's megapixel rating the larger the image is said to be. Superior image quality is not necessarily achieved with more megapixels. Putting other factors such as lens quality, firmware or software aside for the moment , the higher quality CCD chips of cameras are important criteria for comparing digital cameras. Problems do arise however when comparing megapixel ratings, as different digital camera manufacturers may arrive a an particular MP by using different standards from another manufacturer .

 

[handicap18]

Don't get cought up in the Megapixels. Unless of course you do a lot of cropping. I have the Nikon D50 and have taken an image, croped to about 75% of the original size then enlarged that crop to 11x14 and it looks awesome! The more you crop then you'd want some more MP's, but with 6.1MP you can get very clear enlargements up to about 20x30 maybe even higher.

Now, lenes will make a difference. The typical kit lens (generally 18-55mm) that comes with most of the entry to mid level dSLR's are very good for what they are. If you were to buy that lens seperatly they wouldn't cost much, $100 or so. You can upgrade that lens to something faster (meaning a wider aperture, aka lower f/stop number), but this is where you get into spending lots of money. You don't have to go that route, but it is available to you.

Based on your stated budget I would go with the Pentax K100D or a Nikon D50. I like the lineup of lenses for Nikon better, but Pentax also has a lot of great lenses, especially in the prime lens category. Stick with the kit lens and a 2nd lens like a 50-200mm size. Use it for a while then go from there based on your photography habits.

We could go on for hours or days on other lenses, but I'll leave that for another day.

Happy Shopping.

 

[steery1]

I was in the same position as you a couple of weeks back and bought the Sony Alpha a100.

Read through this thread and it might help you decide. Some of my first pics with the Sony are posted there too.

Good luck with your decision.

 

[ukcatfan]

I think there is alot of good advice already given, but there is one thing I would like to mention. If you go to a DSLR instead of a p&s, you really need to learn the concept of exposure and especially depth of field. DOF is how much of your image is in focus. With a p&s, on most shots the DOF goes to infinity. This is not the case with a DSLR and some people that only use a DSLR in auto end up being very disappointed because that mode generally favors making sure there is enough shutter speed to capture the shot at the expense of DOF by using a wider open aperture. This is usually not the sharpest aperture of the lens either. I know that my K100D typically picks an aperture in auto or P mode that concentrates on the shutter speed.

I also agree that if your budget is $700-800, then you should go ahead and cross the Sony off the list. You cannot get enough lens power to be happy with that amount of money.

The K110D, K100D, D50, D40, and Rebel XT should be your pool of choices. I personally do not like the Olympus due to the 4x3 aspect ratio instead of the 3x2 that most other DSLRs use. Every one of them are nice cameras but there are certain things about each one that might make you lean towards it. The best thing to do is go out and handle them to see which feels the best. The Pentax K110D is likely going to be the cheapest if that is your primary concern. Also, do not let the two extra MPs of the XT sway you for that reason alone. Like it was said before, there is not much difference between the two. I am going to post a diagram that I made for a co-worker showing the diminishing returns of more MPs as a separate thread.

Kevin

 

[LPZ_Stitch!]

Sorry, I have to disagree pretty strongly with this. On a pure image-quality basis, there is little to no difference between entry-level DSLRs and anything but the top-end full-frame DSLRs - they all (outside of the smaller 4x3 sensor in the Olympus/Fuji/Panasonic) have sensors that are about the same size. By and large, most Nikon, Pentax, and Sony DSLRs use basically the same 6mp or 10mp Sony sensors, and the Canons generally share their own sensors between different lines. If you shoot raw, you shouldn't see a difference - and while the 10mp sensors have more resolution, the 6mp ones should have slightly lower noise levels (probably barely noticable at the Sony 10mp sensor seems to do quite well.)

Okay, then, can you explain what am I seeing in these ISO tests?

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a100-review/index.shtml
vs.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/eos_30d-review/
vs.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d50-review/index.shtml

The Canon 30D is better at ISO 3200 than the Sony is at ISO 1600, and the Nikon D50 is also better at ISO 1600.

I wouldn't use my Canon S3 IS at ISO 800 unless I had no choice, likewise, I'd never use that Sony at 1600 for the same reason....

And, neither of those two cameras are even *that* much more expensive than the Sony.

 

[Groucho]

Explain what? You're comparing a 6mp, 8mp, and 10mp camera. The differences you're seeing are mostly likely due to the noise reduction software in the camera, and also the natural progression of noise increasing as the megapixel count goes up. If you shoot raw, you can pick your own noise reduction.

Also, the D50 was a fair amount less expensive than the Sony, not more.

I'll restate: on a pure image-quality basis, you're not likely to see a big difference when buying higher-line models from the same manufacturer. You're paying for features, not image quality.

 

[deletedpenguin]

I would have to agree that a better camera usually means a better quality sensor (ie. jumping from a Rebel XTi to a 30d). The 30D does actually have a larger sensor in size than the XTi. These numbers are from DPR.

30D = 22.5mm x 15mm
XTi = 22.2mm x 14.8mm

And as the XTi is smaller but with more pixels it is inherently more prone to noise than the 30D is. If you were to compare the cameras side by side, at the same ISO, the 30D would have less noise than the XTi, that's why the Rebel has a higher MP rating, to compensate for the noise when scaling down in post processing. Shoot with both bodies and resize to match the resolution, then shuffle them around.. It will be a pure genuine luck to guess them right without looking at the EXIF. You'll just have alot more usable shots right out of the camera with the 30D than the XTi. The real difference though, comes with the lenses you use.

 

[handicap18]

Okay, then, can you explain what am I seeing in these ISO tests?

http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/sony/dslr_a100-review/index.shtml
vs.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/eos_30d-review/
vs.
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/nikon/d50-review/index.shtml

The Canon 30D is better at ISO 3200 than the Sony is at ISO 1600, and the Nikon D50 is also better at ISO 1600.

I wouldn't use my Canon S3 IS at ISO 800 unless I had no choice, likewise, I'd never use that Sony at 1600 for the same reason....

And, neither of those two cameras are even *that* much more expensive than the Sony.

You looking at 100% crops of an image that was taken with the camera about half a mile or further away from the subject. If you really do a lot of 100% or there abouts croping then that is something to really pay attention to, either that or you need to get closer or get a much much longer lens, like a 1000mm or greater. As for making enlargements, you'll still get pretty good clarity at about 8x10. If your doing bigger than that, then you might have issues. But think about how many photos your going to take using high ISO's that you'll want real big enlargements.

I have no problems using ISO 1600 on my D50 and I also rarely crop when using that setting. If you frame your subject correctly and use the right lens then ISO1600 wont be much of an issue.