DSLR-look-alike P&S cameras?

[yhelothar]

DSLRs are jumping into the territory of carrying around multiple lenses, right? Unless there's such thing as a DSLR (...within my budget) that literally does everything from macros to landscape shots without having to carrying around a bag of lenses and swap them around to snap a quick picture or two, I really don't want to go that route.

Basically I just want something that will take superior pictures than my Droid X without breaking the bank. I'm not a photographer, and very few of these pictures will ever be printed (which, if that was the goal, would involve an expensive professional IPS monitor, better printer, copy of Photoshop, etc. as well). I want a good self-contained camera that won't require me to carry around more than a couple of cables, spare batteries, and SD (perhaps CF) cards.

Let's put it this way: if an expensive DSLR with all the right supporting gear will get me photos "rated" at 9/10 or 10/10, and my current Droid X will get me something around 2/10 or 3/10, what's it going to take to get a 5/10 - 6/10 or so?

Thanks for the suggestions everyone. 🙂

There is such thing as a DSLR (...within my budget) that literally does everything from macros to landscape shots without having to carrying around a bag of lenses and swap them around to snap a quick picture or two. You can buy a superzoom lens for the DSLR and never have to change the lens for less than $350, but granted you might have to go used.
If you feel that 3-4x zoom is sufficient for your needs, which will do macro and landscape shots, and good portraits, the choice is easy. If you need a lot of zoom, which is more useful if you want to do wildlife photography where it doesn't permit you to walk close to the subject, then a lot of zoom would be of help.

Here is an example of a few DSLR options that you don't have to change the lens, and it's basically identical in ease of use and handling as the superzoom P&S. There are a lot more options out there if you're interested, and you could possibly get the whole set for less than $300 if you really shop around.


This used DSLR body, $150
http://cgi.ebay.com/Silver-DSLR-Can...242565?pt=Digital_Cameras&hash=item1c162eaf45

Or if you don't like ebay, you could get a refurb nikon D3000 for $300
http://www.adorama.com/INKD3000R.html

18-200mm(11x) zoom lens for $189 AR http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc..._XR_Di_II.html , nikon version here http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produ...AF014NII_700_18_200mm_f_3_5_6_3_XR_Di_II.html

If you don't need all the zoom, you can get better image quality and better low light performance with this highly regarded 17-70mm(4x zoom lens) $210
http://cgi.ebay.com/Sigma-17-70mm-F2-8-4-5-DC-Macro-Canon-MINT-/320599791727?pt=Camera_Lenses&hash=item4aa53c986f

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I agree, a DSLR doesn't necessarily mean multiple lenses, and the smaller ones are not all that much bigger than something like a Panasonic FZ. It depends on what you want. For ~$300 for a used Rebel XT and the 18-200, that would be much better image quality than a point and shoot.

That said, I have liked the Panny FZ's for many years now (bought my dad an FZ20, and myself an FZ5, back in '05-'06 or so) and the FZ40 looks like a great current incarnation of the series. Still though, once you're up to that size, it's a small step up to a DSLR -- I made that leap in '08 (with a $300 Rebel from eBay) and haven't looked back. I still carry a pocketable P&S (Canon SD780 IS) for times when the DSLR's are too big.

 

[ElFenix]

Look pal, I said superzooms don't have as large of a sensor as a lot of the non superzooms,

no, you didn't. you said:

And anything at his budget($180-300) is most likely going to come with a much larger sensor than 1/2.3".

which simply isn't true these days.

and you disagreed with me then proceeded to list the majority of the non-superzoom cameras that cost over $180.

Oh and I just clicked on a few random non superzoom cameras on dpreview, every 3 cameras I clicked on has a sensor larger than 1/2" to every 1 camera that has a sensor smaller than 1/2".

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/pentaxa20/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikonp5100/
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf50fd/

are any of those cameras on the market anymore? no. the market has consolidated on 1/2.3" sensors for both superzooms and compact cameras.




OP: if you like the fuji go ahead and get it. practically all these cameras use the same handful of sensors and so the differences are going to be in usability and image processing. and for the most part you'd get much better results taking the time you'd spend shopping, and spend that time working through the manual and knowing how your camera works.

 

[speedy2]

OP: I think if you were to use a used DSLR, i.e. Rebel XT, with a $100 or less 50mm f/1.8 lens, you'd be pretty happy. Especially if you compared images to just about any P&S. You can always pick up the Kit lens for pretty cheap as well. I found my sister an 18-55mm IS Kit lens that was in a kit but never used. Got it for $80.

Examples: Took these with an XT and 50mm f/1.8 a few years ago. Straight out of the camera using Auto mode at that.

 

[yhelothar]

no, you didn't. you said:

which simply isn't true these days.



are any of those cameras on the market anymore? no. the market has consolidated on 1/2.3" sensors for both superzooms and compact cameras.




OP: if you like the fuji go ahead and get it. practically all these cameras use the same handful of sensors and so the differences are going to be in usability and image processing. and for the most part you'd get much better results taking the time you'd spend shopping, and spend that time working through the manual and knowing how your camera works.

lol it is true, you listed the cameras yourself. The fact is that the OP has a lot of choices(yes at least 6 choices of excellent P&S cameras) for larger sensor cameras if he feels it's not worth the versatility of the zoom for the degredation in image quality. Why are you even arguing against this and then supporting my argument with facts?

EDIT: OK so I checked newegg for all compact cameras priced between $200-300, and you're right, it's vastly 1/2.3". It's sad to see the market go in that direction, even though I don't even see why anyone would want to spend $200-300 on a regular camera that you could get for $80-120 that's nearly identical.
Either way, I would still suggest that if the OP doesn't feel that the zoom is really needed, then a consideration of a different cam with a larger sensor could provide better picture quality.

 

[yhelothar]

OP: I think if you were to use a used DSLR, i.e. Rebel XT, with a $100 or less 50mm f/1.8 lens, you'd be pretty happy. Especially if you compared images to just about any P&S. You can always pick up the Kit lens for pretty cheap as well. I found my sister an 18-55mm IS Kit lens that was in a kit but never used. Got it for $80.

Examples: Took these with an XT and 50mm f/1.8 a few years ago. Straight out of the camera using Auto mode at that.

NOICE! :awe::thumbsup:

 

[CurseTheSky]

Ok. Not trying to play dumb here - forgive me.

1) Is the Rebel XT my best bet in terms of price / performance, or are there other models that are known to go cheap (used) that I should keep in mind as well? The Nikon D3000 (like you mentioned) seems plentiful and fairly cheap, but I definitely can't swing a $300 body + $200 lens. If I could get both together for more like $350 - even if it's only a lens to start with that doesn't have much zoom, I'd be satisfied. I really don't want to deal with Ebay. 🙁

2) Other than camera, lens, CF card, battery, battery charge, data cable, and case, is there anything else I'll absolutely need to get started?

3) Assuming I don't get heavily into photography (very unlikely, I have enough hobbies) and just take some casual "good" pictures from time to time, would you expect this camera to last 3-4 years, or is it like other electronics where it's already fairly outdated and will be a dinosaur in another year or two?

Thanks. 🙂

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I would recommend the Rebel XT or XTi personally (there is not much difference in price or performance between the two -- the newer XSi goes for more -- the XS is basically an XTi -- T1i added video, T2i is latest model). XT is 8MP, XTi is 10MP. Both are a lot better than the original Rebel, which was 6MP and took 3-4 seconds to start up. XT forward has very minimal startup lag -- hardly noticeable. If you flip the switch, by the time you put it up to your eye it is ready to shoot.

I have a 20D and a 5D, both of which came out at roughly the same time as the XT (2005). I also own an XT (which is on permanent loan to my sister). I don't see any reason to upgrade for still photography. 8MP is enough for most purposes, and the image quality hasn't really gotten that much better. If I had the money, I would upgrade, but IMO this level of DSLR hits a very sweet spot in terms of price per performance. DSLR's don't turn into dinosaurs that quickly. They do depreciate as newer models come out, but you'd be taking advantage of that by buying a $300 DSLR. Personally I would say that there is very little practical difference between an XTi and the most recent T2i, outside of video. 18MP vs 10MP only makes a difference if you're nuts. The AF is probably incrementally better, FPS is a bit better, and high ISO performance is definitely better at 1600 and beyond, but few people go that high on a regular basis.

There are some downsides to buying a $300 XT versus a modern $300 P&S, though. You will not get video. You will have to look through the viewfinder to compose the photo, not the LCD screen. You will be carrying significantly more size and weight. On the plus side, the image quality will be much better, the autofocus will be much faster, the high ISO performance will be much better, and the shutter will snap as soon as you press the button instead of having a .3-second lag.

If these trade-offs are worth it to you, get an XT with a kit lens. Upgrade that kit lens to the newer 18-55 IS (Image Stabilized) version for <$100 when you can afford it (IS helps a lot). Get a <$100 50mm f/1.8 for low-light shooting. In a year or two, pick up a 55-250mm IS for $225 for telephoto. Then maybe a few years down the road you can get a used T1i for $400 and use the same lenses but get HD video and Live View on the LCD.

The Nikon D3000 should be roughly the same. I am not sure how cheap you will be able to find one. If you can get one for $300 with the lens, go for it. But it's not that much of a reach to get one new for $450.

 

[CurseTheSky]

I would recommend the Rebel XT or XTi personally (there is not much difference in price or performance between the two -- the newer XSi goes for more -- the XS is basically an XTi -- T1i added video, T2i is latest model). XT is 8MP, XTi is 10MP. Both are a lot better than the original Rebel, which was 6MP and took 3-4 seconds to start up. XT forward has very minimal startup lag -- hardly noticeable. If you flip the switch, by the time you put it up to your eye it is ready to shoot.

I have a 20D and a 5D, both of which came out at roughly the same time as the XT (2005). I also own an XT (which is on permanent loan to my sister). I don't see any reason to upgrade for still photography. 8MP is enough for most purposes, and the image quality hasn't really gotten that much better. If I had the money, I would upgrade, but IMO this level of DSLR hits a very sweet spot in terms of price per performance. DSLR's don't turn into dinosaurs that quickly. They do depreciate as newer models come out, but you'd be taking advantage of that by buying a $300 DSLR. Personally I would say that there is very little practical difference between an XTi and the most recent T2i, outside of video. 18MP vs 10MP only makes a difference if you're nuts. The AF is probably incrementally better, FPS is a bit better, and high ISO performance is definitely better at 1600 and beyond, but few people go that high on a regular basis.

There are some downsides to buying a $300 XT versus a modern $300 P&S, though. You will not get video. You will have to look through the viewfinder to compose the photo, not the LCD screen. You will be carrying significantly more size and weight. On the plus side, the image quality will be much better, the autofocus will be much faster, the high ISO performance will be much better, and the shutter will snap as soon as you press the button instead of having a .3-second lag.

If these trade-offs are worth it to you, get an XT with a kit lens. Upgrade that kit lens to the newer 18-55 IS (Image Stabilized) version for <$100 when you can afford it (IS helps a lot). Get a <$100 50mm f/1.8 for low-light shooting. In a year or two, pick up a 55-250mm IS for $225 for telephoto. Then maybe a few years down the road you can get a used T1i for $400 and use the same lenses but get HD video and Live View on the LCD.

The Nikon D3000 should be roughly the same. I am not sure how cheap you will be able to find one. If you can get one for $300 with the lens, go for it. But it's not that much of a reach to get one new for $450.

Great advice - thanks. I didn't realize I would have to rely on the viewfinder only... is that just how DSLRs are in general or a limitation of the cheaper models? On P&S cameras I use the LCD almost exclusively.

Video wise, I have a ~$500 digital camcorder that was given to me last Christmas, so I'm all set. 🙂

 

[slashbinslashbash]

Great advice - thanks. I didn't realize I would have to rely on the viewfinder only... is that just how DSLRs are in general or a limitation of the cheaper models? On P&S cameras I use the LCD almost exclusively.

Yep, that's a DSLR "feature, not a bug" 🙂 Until maybe the latest 2 generations of DSLR's (i.e. when video was introduced) all DSLR's relied solely on the viewfinder for framing. This is nice in some ways (there's no lag whatsoever) but it means you've always got to hold the camera up to your face, or else be really good with point-aiming your shots if you're holding it over the top of a crowd or something (although wide-angle lenses help with that problem).

A side benefit of the viewfinder is the DSLR's autofocus (AF) system. DSLR's inherited film SLR's phase-detect AF systems, which rely on being in the light path of the viewfinder. These systems are extremely fast and accurate (although individual lenses have motors that can affect real-life focus speed and accuracy) when compared with the contrast detect AF that is used by P&S's, as well as DSLR's when in "Live View" (LCD) mode (although there were one or two DSLR's introduced with Live View but not video, such as the Canon EOS 40D, that didn't have contrast detect, and would flip the mirror down briefly to autofocus then flip it back up to return to Live View mode). Newer Interchangable Lens non-DSLR's such as the Olympus PEN, Panasonic GF1 and Sony NEX, etc. do not have phase detect AF and thus their AF is slightly slower than a "real" DSLR's, although their contrast detect AF is quite good overall.

I think the cheapest Canon DSLR that you could find with Live View is probably the Rebel XS, used versions of which seem to be going for under $400 with lens on eBay, which is not a bad deal at all considering that the kit lens for the XS is the IS version. The Nikon D3100 also has Live View, but it is significantly more expensive than the older, Live View-less D3000. The Sony A330 and A380 both have Live View, as does the Pentax K-x. The Micro 4/3rds and other EVIL (Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangable Lens) cameras all do as well. The Olympus E-P1 and Sony NEX-3 are in the $550 range with lens included.

 

[ElFenix]

Great advice - thanks. I didn't realize I would have to rely on the viewfinder only... is that just how DSLRs are in general or a limitation of the cheaper models? On P&S cameras I use the LCD almost exclusively.

Video wise, I have a ~$500 digital camcorder that was given to me last Christmas, so I'm all set. 🙂

until recently the sensors output too much heat to keep them on for very long. so live view wasn't an option. plus the optical viewfinder is way better better anyway. on p&s models the viewfinder is usually a tiny tunnel and you can't see anything and it is limited with respect to framing accuracy and coverage. on an SLR the viewfinder is much larger, brighter, you can use it to check focus, and on pretty much every digital SLR it covers 95%+ of the frame.

 

[twistedlogic]

Great advice - thanks. I didn't realize I would have to rely on the viewfinder only... is that just how DSLRs are in general or a limitation of the cheaper models? On P&S cameras I use the LCD almost exclusively.

When I first used a D-SLR I was stunned by the fact you cannot use the LCD for framing. Then I found it couldn't do video, I was awed. For the price, I thought for sure these "features" should be included. Now I can't pick up a P&S without wanting to stick it to my face.

One of the benefits of an OV (optical viewfinder) is that it makes you use proper technique in holding the camera to minimize camera shake. Think about it for a sec, can you hold something more steady with your arms straight out or if its braced against your body.

would you expect this camera to last 3-4 years, or is it like other electronics where it's already fairly outdated and will be a dinosaur in another year or two?

Most entry level D-SLRs are rated for 50,000 shutters, with the more expensive bodies rated for 100,000 to 150,000 shutter actuations, so they should last for a pretty long time. And as far as MP count or sensor quality, I'd take a 4MP image shot with nice glass from a 10 year old DSLR over almost any P&S available today.

 

[CurseTheSky]

Man, what am I getting myself into? 😛 This is definitely a world that I know a lot less about than I would prefer to, hence so many questions.

So, let's forget about the Rebel XT and say that I'm going to bring it down to the Rebel XS and Nikon D3000. Is there any inherent advantage to either camera, other than Live View on the XS, or can I really not go wrong with either one? Again, I'm hoping to get 3-4 years out of my purchase, but also trying to keep the cost down. I see several "Like New" Rebel XS' available on Amazon with lens for ~$430.

Edit: this review summed it up pretty well: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Nikon_D3000/verdict.shtml. Live View / HDMI port is a really nice selling point of the Rebel XS, while the Nikon D3000 seems to have better IS, friendlier beginner features (I'm a beginner, but I tend to figure things out quickly), and some more advanced features. I REALLY like the Live View / HDMI feature of the XS, but I don't want to sacrifice picture quality or important features for it if that's what it'll boil down to. Do you guys think the D3000 would be significantly better, or is it a moot point?

 

[twistedlogic]

So, let's forget about the Rebel XT and say that I'm going to bring it down to the Rebel XS and Nikon D3000. Is there any inherent advantage to either camera, other than Live View on the XS, or can I really not go wrong with either one?

I'd suggest you try each one out before making the decision yourself. In the end, if you don't like how the camera feels in your hands or how the interface is set-up, your just not going to use it as much.

When it comes to IQ, I'd give a slight edge to the Rebel XS. For comparison you can check out this review. Where the D3000 peaks my interest is the 11 point Auto focus, viewfinder grid, and a .5" bigger screen. Live view may sound nice but it comes with many limitations, like slow AF and battery life drain.

But yeah, in the end you can't go wrong with either one.

 

[corkyg]

Agree with TwistedLogic about LiveView. Based on many years of experience with and without it, I would add another wrinkle. Unless the LCD is articulating, LiveView doesn't bring much to my party.

 

[ElFenix]

d3000 doesn't have IS. it may come with an IS lens, but that's a feature of the lens. canon and nikon bodies do not have IS built. sony, pentax, and olympus bodies do.

number of AF points has nothing to do with AF speed.

XS may be more difficult to hold on to if you expect to put all your fingers on the grip. when i had the similarly-bodied XTi i put my middle finger in the grip, my ring finger kinda on the grip, and my pinky under the camera. it was fine that way. of course, i'm used to SLRs with no grip at all.

 

[speedy2]

Agree with TwistedLogic about LiveView. Based on many years of experience with and without it, I would add another wrinkle. Unless the LCD is articulating, LiveView doesn't bring much to my party.

Agreed. If you have a big 70-200mm lens or similar live view is a waste. You're going to look ridiculous trying to hold the lens and the body, and be back enough to see the LCD screen...all while trying to hold the camera steady for a shot. Even with a wider lens it's still not something I would ever use on a DSLR. Maybe with a tripod it can come in handy, but still "maybe."

 

[yhelothar]

I would recommend the Rebel XT or XTi personally (there is not much difference in price or performance between the two -- the newer XSi goes for more -- the XS is basically an XTi -- T1i added video, T2i is latest model). XT is 8MP, XTi is 10MP. Both are a lot better than the original Rebel, which was 6MP and took 3-4 seconds to start up. XT forward has very minimal startup lag -- hardly noticeable. If you flip the switch, by the time you put it up to your eye it is ready to shoot.

I have a 20D and a 5D, both of which came out at roughly the same time as the XT (2005). I also own an XT (which is on permanent loan to my sister). I don't see any reason to upgrade for still photography. 8MP is enough for most purposes, and the image quality hasn't really gotten that much better. If I had the money, I would upgrade, but IMO this level of DSLR hits a very sweet spot in terms of price per performance. DSLR's don't turn into dinosaurs that quickly. They do depreciate as newer models come out, but you'd be taking advantage of that by buying a $300 DSLR. Personally I would say that there is very little practical difference between an XTi and the most recent T2i, outside of video. 18MP vs 10MP only makes a difference if you're nuts. The AF is probably incrementally better, FPS is a bit better, and high ISO performance is definitely better at 1600 and beyond, but few people go that high on a regular basis.

There are some downsides to buying a $300 XT versus a modern $300 P&S, though. You will not get video. You will have to look through the viewfinder to compose the photo, not the LCD screen. You will be carrying significantly more size and weight. On the plus side, the image quality will be much better, the autofocus will be much faster, the high ISO performance will be much better, and the shutter will snap as soon as you press the button instead of having a .3-second lag.

If these trade-offs are worth it to you, get an XT with a kit lens. Upgrade that kit lens to the newer 18-55 IS (Image Stabilized) version for <$100 when you can afford it (IS helps a lot). Get a <$100 50mm f/1.8 for low-light shooting. In a year or two, pick up a 55-250mm IS for $225 for telephoto. Then maybe a few years down the road you can get a used T1i for $400 and use the same lenses but get HD video and Live View on the LCD.

The Nikon D3000 should be roughly the same. I am not sure how cheap you will be able to find one. If you can get one for $300 with the lens, go for it. But it's not that much of a reach to get one new for $450.

Also if you don't mind two lens, the olympus E600 with two lens kit I linked in page 1 is also an excellent choice.

 

[slashbinslashbash]

I'd suggest you try each one out before making the decision yourself. In the end, if you don't like how the camera feels in your hands or how the interface is set-up, your just not going to use it as much.

When it comes to IQ, I'd give a slight edge to the Rebel XS. For comparison you can check out this review. Where the D3000 peaks my interest is the 11 point Auto focus, viewfinder grid, and a .5" bigger screen. Live view may sound nice but it comes with many limitations, like slow AF and battery life drain.

But yeah, in the end you can't go wrong with either one.

Agreed, it's a matter of personal preference, the way it feels in your hands, and the way the controls feel to you.

Personally I don't really care about Live View, although it could be useful in certain situations. I would use it every once in a while if one of my cameras had it, but it's not a make-or-break feature for me.