DSLR vs point & shoot?

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 that has worked well for me for years and years.

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

Really?

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.

Originally Posted by 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.

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? 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.

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):





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.

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

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.

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...

Originally Posted by Hexadeci

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.

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...

Originally Posted by 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.

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.