DSLR or point and shoot confusion...strange i know

[student_trap]

hello,

for about five months I have been looking towards buying a DSLR (either the Nikon D50 or Cannon EOS 350D, priced at £450 and £600 respectively (the cannon includes a gig of memory). However, having all this time to raise funds/decide has made me wonder...is an SLR really what i need. Here are my thoughts:

Against DSLR:
- although I want to go out at dedicated times and shoot things, it is more important for me to *always* have a camera on me, as most of my subjects tend to be those who i meet randomly on a day to day bases, and also things I see while i am out.
- the cannon really is the most i could dare to pay, and the D50 seems so chunky
- money

Pro DSLR
- i usually have to be really quick to capture what i want to photograph, and my current cybershot takes ages to load up and then ages to actually shoot, even then, often the images are blurry
- i'd like to choose what im focusing on, i.e. have more control without having to use digital menu's

so this got me wondering as to whether there were any good small cameras that could take good photos on that i could keep in my pocket all the time, and that would be super quick upon start up and of course, not blur in my "spur-of-the-moment" shots?

Any help would be really valuable to me, i have recently been missing some great photographic oppertunities which has added a sense of urgency to my need to buy a new camera

Thankyou in advance

 

[lee255]

I've had the 350D for a few months and im really satisfied with it and getting into the whole experience of getting a dslr like raw images and lenses. I wanted a dslr becasue i needed the quality and flexibility as i wanted to incorporate photography with design work.
I had a canon ixus from 2 years ago and that was really disapointing due to slow start up and shutter speed. this put me off getting another point and shoot.

However recently i tried some more recent point and shoots and i have to say im pretty impressed (although theres no way they can compete with dslrs). more recent point and shoots seem to start up quicker, with faster shutter speeds so a newer point and shoot might be right for you.

personally i'd go for a dslr as theres so many opportunties to explore.

 

[bousozoku]

I'm not sure anything that you can put in your pocket will be better than what you have now. Limited depth limits the ability produce a quality image. Even SLR-like models don't have the greatest image quality but they certainly have the ability to outperform other point and shoot models.

Olympus, Nikon, and Canon all have reasonable cameras within the range of an SLR-like camera. Olympus even packages the E-500 with two reasonable lenses and you get the automatic dust reduction system.

That's one thing Nikon and Canon don't have and, if you don't like messing inside of something that costs so much for fear you'll break it, the Olympus technology will help a lot. It's something many people don't consider going from point and shoot to SLR.

The ability to manually focus in low light is great, especially if you've dealt with a camera that couldn't focus and you wasted time taking blurry photos. Creative control is also a great thing although some advanced SLR-like cameras have some controls for this.

 

[Applespider]

The DSLR is more likely to give you better pictures since you'll have better lenses and more flexibility in taking pictures. But, if you're looking for something compact, it's not going to be ideal for you.

Some of the small P&S have got pretty fast shutters these days - which takes out some of your previous problems. But many of them have pretty small CCDs so you still end up with very noisy shots at a high ISO or blurry/dark shots at a low ISO

However, I'd suggest having a look at the small Fuji compacts. The F10/11 (and the new F30) have an impressive CCD which give you a wider range of usable ISO speeds (ISO1600 on the F10/11 and 3200 on the F30 when it comes out). The F10 is pretty basic. The F11/30 have a few more manual options. And it's compact enough to carry around - the incredibly long battery life also means that you don't have to recharge it too often.

 

[ibilly]

There is no way that you will be able to get the optical quality out of a point & shoot as the Digital Rebel. It's images are VERY smooth, it's one of the best cameras at all at High ISO, and its speed is ABSOLUTELY unmatched by ANY non DSLR.
There was an American Photo (an EXCELLENT publication, BTW) article comparing the dRebel to the top of the line Sony EVF (Electronic View Finder) which was 10 (+?) MP and the Canon still won handily with image quality. Also, they said that while the Sony was by far the fastest non-SLR camera they had tested, but it 'couldn't match' the SLR

I can't speak for the Nikon, but I know that you will be able to get EXCELLENT pictures out of the Canon.

Also, the interchangable lens system and wide array of accesories means that your new SLR can grow with your needs. It is a very capable camera that you could easily sell prints from if you're careful about your method. The P&S's... Slow, noisy, lesser quality, no expandability (those strap on lens accesories aren't so hot as far as image quality goes).

another thing about the two options–people are FAR less intimidated by lesser cameras. Even a rangefinder puts people comparitively at ease. Some people aren't really that comfortable with SLRs, and Point and Shoot cameras are really easy to ignore/forget. IF when you're going to not use your SLR because of its size, and you don't see yourself needing/wanting the advantages of an SLR, save yourself some cash and get a Powershot, the F10, F11, or F30, or another line that has a feature you need/want. I know that the Powershot series and the F30 have good quality, both lens and sensor wise.