AZFlyer

I've long had the interest to begin pursuing photography as a hobby finally have a few spare bucks to jump in.

My dilemma presently is in trying to decide between purchasing an entry level DSLR (Sony a200, Nikon D40, etc) with a kit lens, or purchasing a high quality and high feature super zoom point and shoot (Olympus SP-590UZ being my first choice). I'm generally aiming to stay in the $500-$600 range.

I fully intend to make use of the capabilities of such a camera, and shoot out of auto-mode.

My question to you shutter-bug types is how you feel about the two such camera types for amateur photography use. Pros/Cons? Likes/Dislikes?

Any advice would be much appreciated!

jban642

I am a Nikon shooter and love the d40. I just recently sold my d40 to up grade to the d700 and now shoot with that and the d300. The d40 is a great starter camera and the kit lens that come with it are adequate for a beginner. If you are thinking about photography as a hobby then I would go with the SLR and you will not be disappointed. There is a lot to learn about a camera and the big thing is to get out there and play with it. I also think that the d40 is right now at 450 with a lens kit. Some of the things that he Say's is whacked but there is still a lot of info at KenRockwell.com.

Brian Z

Go with a DSLR. You will be happier in the end with ease of use after the initial learning curve. There are many more options to be creative when you can switch lenses. The quality of the photos will be better with the larger sensor.

esa17

My first SLR was a Rebel XT, one of the best cameras I've ever had. I love my 40D but don't shoot nearly enough anymore.


For a lot of good information go to:
fredmiranda.com: Specialized in Canon - Nikon SLR Cameras, Forum, Photoshop Plugins, Actions, Reviews, Hosting and Digital Darkroom

AZFlyer

Thanks for the input, guys.

I'm pretty certain that I'll purchase the SLR. One reason being that, if I really get into the hobby, it will save me expense in the future from having to upgrade from the p&s to the SLR. And these days, the price difference from the entry SLRs and the high feature p&s's really arent all that different.

The Sony a200 seems to be frequently favorably reviewed and is reasonably priced.

Cubdriver

DSLRs are a good value these days, agreed. They have improved by leaps and bounds over the last ten years. But so have point and shoots. Don't forget the ever-unpopular fact that it ain't the camera, it's the artist. You could buy a $250 point and shoot and spend the other $350 taking an art classes at a junior college. I promise you would be happier with the results than if you fooled around for years trying to figure out the same things on your own. I have had the money from time to time to get fancy cameras and I have always decided to resist the temptation. My father is a life-long fine art photographer with Hasselblads, Mamiyas, darkrooms, 8x10 film cameras, you name it. The most moving work he ever did was on a $5 Brownie. Get the nice gear eventually, but grow into it. Another plus for the point and shoot is that small cameras are a lot better roadways, airports and cockpits than DSLRs. I would try a cheap camera to begin with and grow into fancy gear when your needs grow to that point.

AZFlyer

Point well taken, indeed. I do have a cheapy Sony point and shoot, but I feel pretty limited with its capabilities. I do feel that I have taken some decent shots with it, but I have very little manual control with the camera. In the meantime, I've been reading LOTS online and in magazines about how to understand the various jargon, terminology, and processes involved in the specifics of SLR cameras. Also, my girl has a degree in photographic arts and restoration, so I've also been getting advice and pointers from her.

I guess I'm just really eager to get out there and start trying new things with a camera that gives me full control, which my little Sony offers very little of. I can still take the p&s on vacations, in the plane, etc. I look forward to actually going on trips/journeys for the sole purpose of photography.

ewrbasedpilot

I have two Nikon Coolpix 8800's and love them. (Also have a Nikon D200....I like it, but prefer the ease and simplicity of the 8800). I've literally taken 10's of thousands of shots with them. Have had a few "focus" issues after a year or so of constant shooting, but the repairs run around $150 and I'm up and running again. The 8800 is one of the best "all around" cameras I've ever found. It's just pretty much "point and shoot" and it produces INCREDIBLE images on 13 x 19 inch photo paper. I sell a lot of my work and people are amazed at the quality and clarity this camera produces. Nikon, for whatever reason, doesn't make this camera any more, but you can get a nice used one on eBay for around $250. It's an 8 megapixel digital and takes movies with sound too. Sunsets, action, museum, fireworks, with several other scene selections that do all the work for you. Just point, push the focus selector half way, then press when you have the shot you want. You can't go wrong with this camera! (The ONLY problem I have with this camera is the delay between processing pictures. Sometimes it takes four or five seconds to process a shot before it's up and ready again..... but then again that's why I carry two cameras with me. ;-) ).

Iflywinnebagos

AZ Flyer, I had the same dilemma several years ago. I didn't think I had the patience to learn to use a complex DSLR but once I started taking pictures with it, it became an addiction. There's so much more room to be creative with a DSLR than a point & shoot. Just being able to shoot in RAW vs. JPEG (although a couple P&S can do this now), allows for a great deal of post processing freedom in Photoshop.

I'm a Canon guy myself so I can't say much about Sonys but here's why I decided on Canon: Lens Selection. There's about twice as much lenses you could buy for a Canon or Nikon than you could for a Sony. The whole reason you're getting a DSLR in the first place is to be able to change the lenses right? If not, a Canon G9 would do the same job, with the same amount of control as a DSLR.

The last advice I can give is to spend the money on buying a good lens and not the body. A DSLR from 3 or 4 years ago will do almost the same thing as the current models, for half the price! A quality lens will last you decades, but bodies are meant to be replaced every 3-5 years. If you go with a Canon, look at the Rebel XTI or 30D. Used or refurbished, they'll both produce great results. Even a brand new 30D body is half the original price right now, and at the time, many Sports Illustrated/ National Geographic photographers used this as their main camera.

Good luck!