DSLR vs point & shoot?

[Hexadeci]

So, what are the advantages/disadvantages of DSLR vs point&shoot cameras? On first glance, it seems like pretty much DSLR is more complicated, but offers a wider range of control.

I'm looking into buying a new (digital) camera. My decade-old 5 megapixel point and shoot is just not adequate, especially for capturing tiny, moving, sunlight fearing snakes. So recommendations would be great! I don't want to spend a bundle, but I want to be sure what I do spend is worthwhile and satisfactory for years.

I don't know much about cameras (yet), but I'm a technology person, so anything from long-winded technical details to user experience is all much appreciated.

What features do people find useful, indispensable, or obnoxious in a camera (particularly for snake picturing)?

[chris68]

The ability to take a good close up. I cant give you any insight over which to choose; I do know the better the lens used, the better the camera's photo's will be, regardless of whether it's a point and shoot or DLSR. my first point and shoot was a Canon A10, 1.3 megapixels...I have a Kodak ZD710 10 megapixel now, and the Canon hands down took better close ups.

[HeavenHell]

How much are you looking to spend?

[Nanci]

And do you want to be able to throw it in your pocket or purse? Do you want to be tied down by a big DSLR? Do you want to be able to change lenses? Can you afford to change lenses?

I have had a succession of Casio Exilims. Point and shoot. You can customize a lot of stuff, but you can't set it manually. My current version is a 12mp with 10x optical zoom. It has served me very, very well, and yet is tiny enough to put in a pocket and take anywhere.

I think the thing with snakes is, you need to be able to focus and shoot fast. A camera that can take rapid successive shots is very nice.

I like cameras with internal batteries that you charge in the camera.

[hypnoctopus]

I have a Canon Rebel. If you're looking for a basic DSLR that's very easy to use and learn, I'd definitely recommend it. It is bulky though so if you want to take it a lot of places, your neck can start to hurt a bit.

[Buzzard]

We have both a Canon Rebel DSLR & the Canon P&S SX30 - both are great but when doing corn snakes as mentioned above it is great to have the rapid shot action in which case the DSLR does much better. The P&S has a great optical zoom (to avoid the cost of heavy expensive lenses for the DSLR) and both have macro features. With the P&S you just dont have to drag around extra lenses or external flashes and the cost is about half - the optics for the Canon system are great and easy to use. Both of these have internal rechargable batteries which is a plus (some P&S eat batteries).

[HeavenHell]

The biggest difference between compact, four-thirds, APS-C and Full Frame are the size of the sensors in the camera. This has a direct effect on how much of a scene a specific focal length can capture.

Generally, the larger the sensor the better the image quality.

The following image represents what a 35mm focal length would capture in each format.

http://i599.photobucket.com/albums/tt79/HeavenHell_photo/sensor_image.jpg

[Brionuhh]

Heavenhell has the question.

If you are looking to stay cheap, point and shoot. I would recommend trying out some cameras at a store like best buy or walmart. If you don't care about the price, DSLR is probably the best way to go. They have a lot of adaptability. You can buy multiple lens', which you could use in other instances besides corn snakes. The do have mirrorless DSLRs now, so they are a lot smaller. The Nikon J is one. They are nice.

From experience, I would go with a DSLR with a macro lens. I have two nikons, one is a point and shoot and the other is a DSLR. The point and shoot is handy for its size, but I hate the flash on it. Having an avalanche corn, it just blows him out. My other camera is a Nikon D7000. I really love it. I only have the standard lens on it now, but it is great. There is a lot to learn with a DSLR. The manual controls on your DSLR are going to be your worst enemy at first, but after you will really love it. I always remember the sunny 16 rule. :D

If you'd like, feel free to send me a PM.

[bitsy]

Some point&shoots are a bit of a lottery when it comes to lens quality. I have one which has good write-ups and works well for outdoor snaps, but when using the macro function the pictures come out with a slightly distorted "fish-eye" effect. It's also useless in low light, when I've seen friends' point&shoots produce good quality results. If you can get the right one and you win the lens lottery, it's very convenient and can just be popped in a bag or pocket.

Having borrowed my Mum's DSLR for some university work, it does produce much better results. However the downside is that it's bulky, heavy and needs its own separate special shoulder bag. However, even with this one I found that there were limitations which related to what I needed. For some reason, the macro setting wouldn't allow me to disable the autoflash - this washed out the things I was taking close-up photos of, indoors (archaeological pottery sherds). In the end I had to mount it on a stable rig, place it next to a window and use the zoom function with the flash disabled. All a bit of a faff, plus it weighs a ton compared to the point&shoot.

So it's horses for courses really. For general use, I'd go for a good quality point&shoot (not my current one!) but I'd take a DSLR for specific jobs. I think you need to figure out what you'll mainly be doing with the camera, then buy the one which suits your needs and pocket.

[Kokopelli]

Hey...
Wow... that's a toughy... even after 2 years now of purchasing an SLR...

Thing is... buying a DSLR without wanting to invest time in learning photography will yield you horrible results... you can do WAY better with a point and shoot or a SLR-like camera.

Using a DSLR, especially indoors will mean that you'll need a decent set-up("studio"), an external flash(cause the built in flash SUCKS) and you'll have tons of trial and error.

It's very possible... but I have to admit, at times I get really frustrated. I'm not your average photography enthusiast... I grasp the basics but very little aside from that...

And to top it all... many would argue that SOME degree of post-editing via photoshop or lightroom is 'mandatory'...

End of the day... it's just TONS of things to sign up for when all you want is to take some snake pictures..

Not to mention the cost, and bulkiness of the camera.

If I had to make the same choice today, I'd probably go for a Zoom camera/semi professional camera which is not quite DSLR, but gets close to it.

I am particularly fond of the Panasonic Lumix series.

[Nanci]

Oren brings up a good point. Good editing software makes a HUGE difference in the quality of your finished image. I switched from PC to Mac back in November. I had been using Thumbs Plus for very basic editing. There was a drop down selection called General Something Or Other that would take my jpeg photo and sharpen it a little, saturate it a little, increase the contrast a little, and the resulting image would look a _lot_ better than the unprocessed image.

Well, they don't have Thumbs Plus for Mac, so I asked a friend of mine who is the best photographer I know, who shoots photos professionally, what software he recommended, and was told Lightroom. I got Lightroom, and took a short course in how to use it, and using that with my Point and Shoot I started turning out _really_ nice photos. IMO!! :-) Like all those parent and hatchling photos for example. I had been limited more by how I processed the image than the quality of the initial image captured by the camera. The data was there- I just had to bring it out, one step at a time.

Then, once I process an image to my liking, I can save those settings as a preset- such as Avalanche With Flash, Avalanche Without Flash, Overexposed Krinkle, Peach On Dark, etc.

This is the type of point and shoot (http://exilim.casio.com/digital_cameras/Compact_Digital_Cameras) that has worked well for me for years and years.

[RobbiesCornField]

Personally, I think it really all depends on the photographer, and their skills. While I've been able to take some fantastic photos with a DSLR, I've also been able to get some incredible shots with a couple of different point and shoots. My current camera is a Canon Powershot SX 40HS, and it has yet to do me wrong. My previous camera was a Fujifilm Finepix S800. Again, it never did me wrong. Knowing the LIMITATIONS of your camera is the key to taking either amazing shots, or shots that would make a Polaroid look like a masterpiece.

The ability to take a good close up. I cant give you any insight over which to choose; I do know the better the lens used, the better the camera's photo's will be, regardless of whether it's a point and shoot or DLSR. my first point and shoot was a Canon A10, 1.3 megapixels...I have a Kodak ZD710 10 megapixel now, and the Canon hands down took better close ups.

Really?

http://i1262.photobucket.com/albums/ii611/RobbiesCornField/021-1.jpg

[Joejr14]

First off, without knowing what the OP wants to spend in $$ it is pointless to offer suggestions.

Secondly, everyone who's suggesting 'bridge' cameras....those are not true point and shoots. Why anyone would spend $400 on a fake DSLR instead of just getting the real deal is beyond me.

Third, a DSLR is going to offer better images everytime over ANY point and shoot camera. Period. I'll go pull out a 6mp Nikon D50 I gave to my sister 4 years ago and it'll produce images better than a bridge point and shoot from today.

[RobbiesCornField]

First off, without knowing what the OP wants to spend in $$ it is pointless to offer suggestions.

Secondly, everyone who's suggesting 'bridge' cameras....those are not true point and shoots. Why anyone would spend $400 on a fake DSLR instead of just getting the real deal is beyond me.

Third, a DSLR is going to offer better images everytime over ANY point and shoot camera. Period. I'll go pull out a 6mp Nikon D50 I gave to my sister 4 years ago and it'll produce images better than a bridge point and shoot from today.

Because some of us don't have hundreds of dollars extra to spend on extra lenses (macro, etc) where some of the bridge cameras have features like that built in? :shrugs: Jussayin'. I've gotten some pretty damn good pictures with my bridge that a lot of people would struggle with on a DSLR and the lens in the kit.

[Kokopelli]

Bridge cameras rock... I'd probably take one right now if I could make that choice again.
They do very well on automatic settings, something which can't really be said about DSLR's...

Couple of pics I took with point and shoot(an old Nikon):

http://i965.photobucket.com/albums/ae133/FFReptiles/DSCN1489.jpg

http://i965.photobucket.com/albums/ae133/FFReptiles/DSCN2069.jpg

It takes quite a bit of time and effort, for me, to score a picture like this:

http://i965.photobucket.com/albums/ae133/FFReptiles/DSC_0199-1.jpg

with my DSLR... and that's after 2+ years of training(granted, I'm far from being a top photography student).

Are they really that different? does the difference worth the extra time and the rather large cost-gap?(Lenses cost tons, external flash is not very cheap either).

I think that the difference is not that cost-effective, I really do... only if you're a true photography enthusiast.

[diamondlil]

I love my fugi! I've got the finepix S2000HD and I'll upgrade to a newer model next christmas. For me it means I can get beautiful macro photos without having to buy extra lenses and I am quite hard on my cameras. The last one was damaged at a works night out and the one before that got dropped from horseback but the insurance meant I got an upgraded replacement without any hassle. This one has taken a few knocks, has chew marks from a friends puppy but still functions. I do miss out on long-distance shots, especially if I'm birdwatching I find the optical zoom isn't as sharp as I'd want ideally. I use a home-made flash diffuser for macros with flash, for the supermacro flash isn't available so I have to rig up good lighting.
Ultimately it's a case of reading comparison reviews, try out at a dedicated camera store, think about what features you really want and what your budget is. Also be realistic about how much you'll get out of your investment. For me, spending $300 or so knowing I'll get 2-3 years of enjoyment, using the camera in different settings seems worthwhile. I don't have the spare cash to go higher in my budget at this point, or rather I can't justify spending more than that to myself

[Hexadeci]

Good points all. I see I will have to put deeper thought into how much to spend. I'm leaning toward DSLR. I anticipate the learning curve, but see it as part of the fun, and the end goal is definitely worthwhile. I like the option of changing out lenses in the future, when I know what I'm doing and by then, will have saved more money.

It also looks like the more money I spend, the more time I'll have (need) to invest in the learning. Fortunately, the more money I spend, the more time I'll have (possess) to invest, while saving up to move out.

I still have to work out how much I'm willing/able to spend. It's rather a function of how long I live with my parents: the longer I can stand, the more spending money I have, but the more I spend in the meantime, the longer I must stand, but the longer I can stand because I have something to keep me occupied after work. As much as I'd love to pull out a formula and plug in variables, it's rather more timey-wimey, wibbly-wobbly at this point.

Robbie, what camera did you use to get that close up of the scales? It seemed like you were implying a point and shoot, which completely baffles me. How??? Even if I got my snake to sit perfectly still (I've practiced with rubber snakes, believe you me), used a tripod, best quality settings and maybe if my zoom worked in ideal lighting there's no way in reality my point and shoot could take that quality of picture.

Alright, so my current point and shoot doesn't fit in my pocket (old -> bulky), and I see the advantage of a camera that does. To be honest, I think my cell phone camera answers that need, at least for me. People who shy away from cameras tend to pose more readily for phones. Insurance companies and courts looking at car accidents and such don't care as long as the picture is half decent. Besides, a camera would have to be pretty tiny to fit in girl pockets. For that matter, due to the shortage of pocket space, I rather like having a bag with a strap for the camera. Not a bad purse substitute, actually. And if I'm hiking, I have a backpack anyway. Just thinking out loud.

I suppose I don't like to put too much cash into any one object that I use "out in the world", but I'd rather spend $500 on something that will be satisfactory and useful for 5 years, than $100 for 1 year. Technology person though I am, I don't like "upgrading" (which usually really means disposing and replacing) often. I come from a background of "use it til it don't go no more". And with the right DSLR, an "upgrade" would mean buying a new lens or whatever, rather than just replacing the camera.

I'm after the following kind of usages. Taking pictures of the corn snake is the first: small subject, fast mover, ne'er-sit-still, close up macro type shots. I'd like to nurse my passing interest in entomology into a hobby, but would rather not deal with the corpses, so photos would be ideal: similar needs to the corn snake pictures, but smaller subjects and even more desire for detail. Someone mentioned bird watching, which was a great reminder. I've all but given up on photographing the local wildlife, particularly the avian, but the local hawks and falcons are so awesome: rather different set of needs than the first two, being much more distant subjects, but still the more detail the better. Fourth, astronomical photos would be awesome: I know it might be a bit of a stretch, but that's what this part of life is for.

[Kokopelli]

I spent roughly 1000$ on my camera, including everything... and my setup isn't good enough to do all you expect your camera to do.

To me, and please don't take it the wrong way, you are leaning towards DSLR and make things sound way easier than they really are... I think you should temper your choice with some realistic considerations.

Sure, taking pictures sounds great- but you're talking about proffessional uses, which will require a deal of set up and preperation... having a good camera won't mean you can just go out and take pictures... it'll require quite a bit of setting up to do to get the results you seem to be hoping for. The camera will be very expansive... damages can end up costing tons of money should they occur(and that's part of life).

Lenses... well... at some point companies stop producing lenses that fit the body you own... sometimes the lenses can't "travel" with you to a new body... new technology always pops up... no camera you'll own will be a "forever" camera... I'm not sure if it'll even be a 5-6 years camera.

A good Macro lense can easily cost 500$ just for the lense itself...

So yes, 500$ will net you a decent body+kit lens(greatly depends on your choice of model)... but you will need a deal more to get what you want out of your camera... built in flash will not suffice, nor will the kit lenses.... not to the quality you're hoping to get to.

So... you kind of sound like me when I made the call.

Truth of the matter is? I think that investing money in learning photography will yield you the best result... I see what skilled photographers can do with a point and shoot cam... it's absurd...

[RobbiesCornField]

Robbie, what camera did you use to get that close up of the scales? It seemed like you were implying a point and shoot, which completely baffles me. How??? Even if I got my snake to sit perfectly still (I've practiced with rubber snakes, believe you me), used a tripod, best quality settings and maybe if my zoom worked in ideal lighting there's no way in reality my point and shoot could take that quality of picture.


I'm using the "bridge" camera (which, to me, will always be a point & shoot) I mentioned previously - Canon Powershot SX40 HS. I used the macro setting outside in full sunlight.

Like I said before, the camera doesn't matter nearly as much as the skill of the person operating it. I could hand my father a DSLR and he would still take the world's worst pictures. I've also seen National Geographic quality photos come from a mid-range point & shoot. Knowing your camera's limitations as well as your own will help you take the best photos you possibly can.

[Joejr14]

Let me preface this by saying I haven't posted here regularly in years, but to give a brief synopsis on my posting style---I'm very to the point. That being said...

I spent roughly 1000$ on my camera, including everything... and my setup isn't good enough to do all you expect your camera to do.

The D3000 sucks. Sorry, but it's a piece of junk. When it came out years ago it was retailed with a price of $599 with the kit 18-55mm VR lens. I'm not sure what kit you bought, but if you had the one referenced above you got hosed.

To me, and please don't take it the wrong way, you are leaning towards DSLR and make things sound way easier than they really are... I think you should temper your choice with some realistic considerations.

Sure, taking pictures sounds great- but you're talking about proffessional uses, which will require a deal of set up and preperation... having a good camera won't mean you can just go out and take pictures... it'll require quite a bit of setting up to do to get the results you seem to be hoping for. The camera will be very expansive... damages can end up costing tons of money should they occur(and that's part of life).

Taking pictures IS great. I can take fantastic pictures with my sister's hand me down D50 that I got new back in 2006. Taking great pictures has nothing to do with 'setting' anything up, it has everything to do with having an eye for what you're doing and knowing your equipment. That being said, no, you're not going to learn your equipment inside and out in an hour---it takes some time and practice to figure everything out.

Also, if you have an expensive DSLR and lenses, get photography insurance. It's super cheap and covers everything.

Lenses... well... at some point companies stop producing lenses that fit the body you own... sometimes the lenses can't "travel" with you to a new body... new technology always pops up... no camera you'll own will be a "forever" camera... I'm not sure if it'll even be a 5-6 years camera.

Hogwash. Nikon has been producing the same mount system since 1977. You can buy ANY Nikon lens dating back to 1977 and slap it on ANY current DSLR. Up until a last week I was still shooting with my D300....that I bought new in 2008. Still works perfectly fine and I can sell it for over half what I paid for it.

A good Macro lense can easily cost 500$ just for the lense itself...

Sure can. I bought my Nikon 105mm f/2.8 back in 2009 to take pictures of hatchlings. It wasn't cheap, it's also a FANTASTIC piece of glass that I could sell right now for almost what I paid for it. Nikon (and Canon) glass (at least the good stuff) is an investment.

So yes, 500$ will net you a decent body+kit lens(greatly depends on your choice of model)... but you will need a deal more to get what you want out of your camera... built in flash will not suffice, nor will the kit lenses.... not to the quality you're hoping to get to.

The Nikon kit 18-55mm VR lens is perfectly fine for any non-professional work outside of macro (which you can actually somewhat get away with) or avian photography.

So... you kind of sound like me when I made the call.

Truth of the matter is? I think that investing money in learning photography will yield you the best result... I see what skilled photographers can do with a point and shoot cam... it's absurd...

Invest what? Pick up a camera and read any of the numerous free websites that are available, or join a photography forum or local club. Take some free classes at your local community college to learn about exposure, ISO, aperture, exposure compensation, etc.

[Joejr14]

I'm after the following kind of usages. Taking pictures of the corn snake is the first: small subject, fast mover, ne'er-sit-still, close up macro type shots. I'd like to nurse my passing interest in entomology into a hobby, but would rather not deal with the corpses, so photos would be ideal: similar needs to the corn snake pictures, but smaller subjects and even more desire for detail. Someone mentioned bird watching, which was a great reminder. I've all but given up on photographing the local wildlife, particularly the avian, but the local hawks and falcons are so awesome: rather different set of needs than the first two, being much more distant subjects, but still the more detail the better. Fourth, astronomical photos would be awesome: I know it might be a bit of a stretch, but that's what this part of life is for.

The MFD on the Nikon 18-55mm kit lens is 0.9'...from the plane of the sensor. That's maybe 6" from the front of the lens. It's not a macro lens, but it's damn close. It doesn't offer true 1:1 reproduction, but it's also a $200 lens. You can also add extension tubes or close up filters for some extra 'oomph'.

Delving into avian photography is going to be considerably more expensive, even if you go off-brand. The more reach the better, but 300mm is generally accepted as the lowest you can go. Anything more than 300mm is better, but it comes with much higher costs.

There are options for $700-$1200 that'll get you to 500mm, but those are all in zooms. Image quality most always suffers with zooms over prime lenses, but again, it's a cost/benefits analysis.

Sigma/Tamron make zooms that'll get you plenty of reach and not break the bank. Sigma offers the 'Bigma' 50-500mm zoom for around $1200, Tamron offers a 200-500mm zoom for around $900, and you can get a 300mm Nikon prime for around $1200. Slap a TC on it (like I did for a while) and it turns into a 420mm f/5.6 lens that'll get you fantastic image quality with plenty of reach.

When you've then decided that 420mm is nice, but the min aperture of 5.6 is limiting your low light shots and you'd rather have a 500mm f/4, feel free to upgrade at a cost of several thousand dollars...

[Joejr14]

Bridge cameras rock... I'd probably take one right now if I could make that choice again.
They do very well on automatic settings, something which can't really be said about DSLR's...

It takes quite a bit of time and effort, for me, to score a picture like this:


with my DSLR... and that's after 2+ years of training(granted, I'm far from being a top photography student).

Are they really that different? does the difference worth the extra time and the rather large cost-gap?(Lenses cost tons, external flash is not very cheap either).

I think that the difference is not that cost-effective, I really do... only if you're a true photography enthusiast.

Yes, they are really that different. There's a huge difference, actually. The DSLR picture is sharper, has better colors, and has better background bokeh.

Btw, it shouldn't take you any time to get pictureS exceeding the quality of the one you posted. The problem is you're hand-holding your camera and attempting to get sharp in focus pictures of a moving object at 1/160 of a second. Good luck with that one.

Jack up your ISO from 200 to 500 and crank up your shutter speed to 1/400 of a second or higher and you'll have much sharper pictures and a much higher keeper rate.

Psst, a Nikon SB-400 external flash will only set you back ~$120. That's cheap!

[Joejr14]

And finally one final point...

It's not totally about the gear. I can set someone who's never taken a picture before with $10k worth of equipment, manually set exposure and all the specs and tech, and tell them to go take a picture...

And I'll bet it looks nothing like the one that I took.

On the flip side, I can hand someone who's had experience with a lower level DSLR my setup and they'll instantly take better pictures than what they were previously taking because equipment DOES matter to some degree.

OP, you referenced avian photography....

http://josephcala.zenfolio.com/img/s1/v47/p772360229-5.jpg

http://josephcala.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v42/p428663884-5.jpg

http://josephcala.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v45/p844669515-5.jpg

http://josephcala.zenfolio.com/img/s11/v34/p768937104-5.jpg

[HeavenHell]

Well said. The camera is just a tool not unlike a musical instrument. A good musician can make even the oldest equipment sound good but give a Stradivarius to a beginning music student and maybe it just sounds ok. Real nice photos. Too bad the focus on the eagle was a bit off. I mean the beak looks a bit sharper than the eyes.

[Hexadeci]

I hate when I'm half way through a post and accidentally browse back and loose it. O well, probably save yall some verbiage.

I suppose maybe I'm aiming high in what I'd like to achieve: that the optimism of a scientist showing. I don't want to give the impression I'm underestimating the effort it'll take me, but it's the conceit of an engineer. I imagine it's rather liking going from Windows all your life to Linux. Different experience? Absolutely. Complex? I hope so! Harder? In all the best ways. ;]

I have a better idea now of what I'm after. I think I'm looking for a beginner's DSLR. I want something I can learn and develop (o, bad pun) my skills with.

Investing in classes and training is all well and good, but I think I can make a good start with free sources like google, manuals, forums. Pay for information I can find for free? I'm not made of money. If I exhaust those and still need more, then I'll see.

Problem with point and shoot is all the fun technical details about what you're doing to manipulate light is hidden away and simplified to the point you can't get at it if you want to. Increase the ISO is about all I can do with my old hand-me down p&s (and have done, at least since those first pictures a year ago. I have abominably low memory capacity to contend with however. I get ~20 shots on highest setting.). I don't think I can do anything about the shutter speed (I'll have to google it later). Unless there's a way to hack it?

[Kokopelli]

Joejr14 - being to the point and being... well, unpleasant, don't have to go hand in hand.

I appreciate the input- will try to do as you said(though thankfully the snakes are quite still when I take the shot), too bad about the tone you choose to use... the attitude doesn't make your words less or more true, and it's a shame because your words do have value.

You represent one end of the spectrum, I represent another- thankfully not everyone in the universe thinks that the D3000 sucks(even if you feel that it so terribly does). That's what was out at the time here(Israel) and at a cost I could afford... sorry you disapprove.

As for the flash- that's exactly what I have... and yes it's cheap, and it's also very limited. It's tiny, it can't be mounted nor activated by remote control... I'm also quite sure that it's considerably weaker- the light doesn't reach as far as it does with higher end flashes.

You take allot of things for granted in your post... I'm not a git(well, I guess it depends on whom you ask :P ) and fact of the matter is, even though I did try- the learning curve wasn't(isn't) that easy for me... I also have distinctly different priorities...

Not everyone will get the hang of it as well as you did... maybe everyone CAN, according to you, or possibly most... but not everyone will- because it'll end up not being their highest priority... because they are too busy, because some technical aspect of everything just doesn't work out...

As for lenses... well, yes you can mount all Nikon lenses, but you lose the auto-focus and have to do so manually... it's not a huge deal, but it is -some-. I also don't consider paying X money and receiving the same amount back later an investment... that's wise consuming, but not an investment, not really.

You're a photography enthusiast... it's pretty clear. Not everyone who wishes to take decent shots of their snakes are photography enthusiasts... it's not obvious that they want to spend so much energy and time on it... IF you want to take photography seriously, everything you said applies... but I don't think it applies to everyone. Some people think that if they'll invest more money, their pictures will be better- without realizing that only the potential for better pictures is gained... the rest comes with learning.

Your answer applies to SOME people, but not everyone... and the OP doesn't strike me as a photography fanatic since... well, the question is posted in a Cornsnakes forum... and I get a vibe of "oooo and I can do this, and also that"(no disrespect intended).

We're talking about a gap of... 400-800$ easy, for just a body and kit lens... that's a fair amount of money and not everyone can afford to spend that and more... it's a very personnal descision whether or not the difference in quality(which can seem minor to some, and in the case of my pictures, to me as well) is worth that extra investment.

[Kokopelli]

Problem with point and shoot is all the fun technical details about what you're doing to manipulate light is hidden away and simplified to the point you can't get at it if you want to. Increase the ISO is about all I can do with my old hand-me down p&s (and have done, at least since those first pictures a year ago. I have abominably low memory capacity to contend with however. I get ~20 shots on highest setting.). I don't think I can do anything about the shutter speed (I'll have to google it later). Unless there's a way to hack it?

Hence why some of us suggested bridge cameras, or super zooms where you do have some level of control over some of the parameters.

[Hexadeci]

I uploaded an album of a couple examples of my latest attempts with my Sony dsc-p92 point & drool-I-mean-shoot. I know the resizing isn't great for pictures, but there's not much harm to do to these. While I'm researching/shopping, I appreciate any advice to improve with what I have.

http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/album.php?albumid=1684

A couple days ago I found a dying swallow tail butterfly in my backyard. One of those excellent species I could never manage to catch for my collection in high school, and would have managed to make me sad about killing. I let it live of course, but not without trying to get a decent picture of a convenient opportunity, beautifully melancholy as it was.

Out of about a hundred shots, these were the best. Get in focus was really hard: it was dying, but not dead. Crawling and fluttering. I had the light of the setting sun for a while, and flash washed out horribly.

[diamondlil]

I uploaded an album of a couple examples of my latest attempts with my Sony dsc-p92 point & drool-I-mean-shoot. I know the resizing isn't great for pictures, but there's not much harm to do to these. While I'm researching/shopping, I appreciate any advice to improve with what I have.

http://www.cornsnakes.com/forums/album.php?albumid=1684

A couple days ago I found a dying swallow tail butterfly in my backyard. One of those excellent species I could never manage to catch for my collection in high school, and would have managed to make me sad about killing. I let it live of course, but not without trying to get a decent picture of a convenient opportunity, beautifully melancholy as it was.

Out of about a hundred shots, these were the best. Get in focus was really hard: it was dying, but not dead. Crawling and fluttering. I had the light of the setting sun for a while, and flash washed out horribly.
Use a home-made flash diffuser, it really helps. In a pinch just put tissue paper over the pop-up flash! http://www.diyphotography.net/diy-built-in-pop-up-flash-diffuser/

[proileri]

So, what are the advantages/disadvantages of DSLR vs point&shoot cameras? On first glance, it seems like pretty much DSLR is more complicated, but offers a wider range of control.

What features do people find useful, indispensable, or obnoxious in a camera (particularly for snake picturing)?

What DSLRs offer is two things: size and flexibility. When it comes to optics, larger performs better - cramming that sensor and lens into a small space comes with a price in terms of image quality. The flexibility comes in the form of more complex manual settings and being able to tailor your setup any possible way: lenses ranging from compact to massive and with features you want, external flashes, studio lighting control devices..

Indoor, you might get away with a small pocket cam - you can compensate using different lighting setups etc. somewhat. With stationary "studio" photography, learning to use camera settings, flash units and/or stationary lights is the primary thing - not having a good camera or expensive lens.

If you want to shoot things outdoors, all animals are somewhat shy and quick. For snapping a few shots on a sunny day, pocket models might be ok. However, to do actual outdoor photography, you need a DSLR to get decent image quality at high ISO setting, and you also need a good lens to get that low-F value (gathers more light = is physically bigger, in general) at longer ranges (see lens F-values). These are for getting that nice, fast shutter speed and/or longer range, so the animals don't look all blurry.

When buying a new camera, if you want to learn how to take a good pic, there's absolutely no sense in choosing a pocket model. DSLRs aren't very expensive nowadays, and basic lenses aren't expensive either, especially if you look for 2nd hand stuff. Point'n'shoots are good only for carrying around when a DSLR feels too big, they offer no other benefit.