Buying a camera - I think I've narrowed it down

[peety3]

Right. And that was why I had initially decided on the SX530. But, I know that in a couple of years I'll want a dslr and was trying to make the most of my money. I'm still really torn.

 

I just noticed that I made a mistake in my original post. I've actually been looking at 2 dslrs. Both on sale at Costco right now. The second one is the Nikon D3300. It's the one that comes with the 8-55MM F/3.5-5.6G VR II and 55-200MM F/4-5.6G lenses. The sale on the SC530 ends next Saturday and the sale on the 2 dslrs ends at the end of the month. Just trying to make a decision I won't regret. ;)

To clarify, the Nikon kit has an 18-55 lens, not an 8-55 lens. That puts it on par with Canon kits. The D3300 has been out on the market since January 2014, making it 2.5 years old. I tell people to never buy a camera that's already been replaced, nor to buy a camera that's >2 years old (from release date). The technology comes so incredibly far all the time, on so many levels: ISO capability, focus, menu clarity, LCD screen, you name it. Sure, the photographer is a very important element in the finished product, but if I put two cameras on tripods, reset them to factory defaults and neutralize any "cheats" the manufacturers may have dropped into the settings, and take shots at ISO 100 and f/8 with the same lenses, you can tell the images apart fairly easily, especially when there's 3+ years difference.

[havoc315]

Unless your old camera is an entry level, very cheap P&S, you might be surprised how little difference there is. I have a Canon S100 that is "only" 5x zoom, but it's a pretty good 5x zoom camera ($350 retail when it was new) that takes pictures nearly as well as my Nikon DSLRs in good conditions and the differences that are there may be "invisible" to the average camera user.

 

If you current P&S is entry level, then that Canon, and any DSLR will definitely take technically better (better dynamic range, better tones,saturation, less noise, etc...) pictures.

 

Do you have any existing pictures that you can post that demonstrate the shortcomings of your current camera? posting the model would help also.

 

I just don't want you to "buy into" the DSLR hype*, spend a bunch of money on a body and a couple lens and camera bag to haul it all around in, only to find the pictures are not significantly better than what you already have and in exchange you get to carry a boat anchor everywhere you go.

 

* for the record I don't think DSLR is hype - I love my DSLRs - but I do think a lot of people buy them thinking they'll get amazingly better photos and are often quite dissapointed.

 

Whether the photos are significantly better will depend on 2 things:

1 -- Is the photograph of a challenging situation? Shooting a landscape in bright sunlight, you may not notice much difference between an iphone and a $10,000 dSLR. Trying to shoot basketball in a poorly lit gymnasium, you will see a huge difference.

2 -- Skill of the photographer. A skilled photographer will fully take advantage of a better camera, and it will show in the results.

Thus, if your goal is to push your own skills... get out of auto modes, then a dSLR (or mirrorless) is better.

[havoc315]

To clarify, the Nikon kit has an 18-55 lens, not an 8-55 lens. That puts it on par with Canon kits. The D3300 has been out on the market since January 2014, making it 2.5 years old. I tell people to never buy a camera that's already been replaced, nor to buy a camera that's >2 years old (from release date). The technology comes so incredibly far all the time, on so many levels: ISO capability, focus, menu clarity, LCD screen, you name it. Sure, the photographer is a very important element in the finished product, but if I put two cameras on tripods, reset them to factory defaults and neutralize any "cheats" the manufacturers may have dropped into the settings, and take shots at ISO 100 and f/8 with the same lenses, you can tell the images apart fairly easily, especially when there's 3+ years difference.

 

I think you're exaggerating advances a bit. With the same lens, a 3 year old... a 5 year old.. even a 10 year old camera can produce identical results in many situations. Yes, if there is enough light, that you are shooting at ISO 100 and F8 -- So shooting on a bright sunny day... And looking at a 4x6 or 8x10 image, you won't notice huge differences. (Sure, if you pixel peep, you'll see a difference... if you have to shoot at ISO 6400, you'll see a huge difference between a new camera and a 10 year old camera).

 

For instance, here is an image taken with the Canon 5dii --

beautiful morning by hello flickr friends ^-^, on Flickr

 

This is from an 8 year old camera. Is there anything unacceptable about this image? Would you look at it and say, "darn, you can really tell it was taken with an old camera"

 

Or this image taken with a D7000... A 6 year old camera..

soft by Karen White, on Flickr

 

Or this picture from a 9 year old D300:

The sun sets on my D300 by Graham Stirling, on Flickr

 

Fact is, even a 5-10 year old dSLR will still out-class the vast majority of modern new P&S cameras

Edited July 12, 2016 by havoc315

[CT Sean]

Whether the photos are significantly better will depend on 2 things:

1 -- Is the photograph of a challenging situation? Shooting a landscape in bright sunlight, you may not notice much difference between an iphone and a $10,000 dSLR. Trying to shoot basketball in a poorly lit gymnasium, you will see a huge difference.

2 -- Skill of the photographer. A skilled photographer will fully take advantage of a better camera, and it will show in the results.

Thus, if your goal is to push your own skills... get out of auto modes, then a dSLR (or mirrorless) is better.

 

I agree on both points - which is why I said "in good conditions" (in regards to #1) and suggested a photo showing the shortcomings of OP's current camera to understand what specifically is hoped to be gained by a new camera (besides reach from more zoom)

[havoc315]

I agree on both points - which is why I said "in good conditions" (in regards to #1) and suggested a photo showing the shortcomings of OP's current camera to understand what specifically is hoped to be gained by a new camera (besides reach from more zoom)

 

But that's my point -- Even take a top of the line P&S, like the Sony RX100iv.. compare it to the top of the line dSLR.. like the Nikon D810... you will absolutely see huge differences in challenging shots. You might not appreciate a difference in easy shots, taken in great daylight or static objects. But you will absolutely notice in challenging shots.

[Chocolate Rose]

The absolute best device for zoom is... your two feet. With any consumer P&S or kit lens, zooming reduces the quality of the image. Whether a 10x zoom or a 50x zoom.

I'll try to explain it simply -- Consumer kits lenses and P&S cameras use smaller apertures as you zoom in --- That means they let less light into the camera. As they let in less light, they need to reduce the shutter speed -- which leads to blurry images. Or they need to boost the sensitivity/ISO -- leading to grainy images, though the camera may try to blur away the graininess. Additionally, longer zoom requires a faster shutter speed for steadiness, but due to the smaller aperture, you often need to use a slower shutter speed, again increasing the chances of a blurry image. In other words, by zooming in significantly with any P&S or kit zoom lens, you are more and more likely to get blurry/dark/grainy images. The lower the quality of the camera and/or lens, the more significant the difference.

 

The way you get sharp clear photos -- beyond making sure you use good technique to hold the camera really steady, is to get more light.

The ways to get more light are: Bright sunny days! On a bright sunny day, you can get a sharp clear image with any camera ever built. If you can't get a sharp clear image even with a 10 year old P&S, on a bright and sunny day, then you're doing something wrong.

Assuming you don't have a super bright sunny day... that's when you get into the capabilities of the camera and the skill of the photographer -- If a camera has a bigger sensor -- it can absorb more light. Thus, a dSLR/mirrorless has a bigger sensor than most P&S cameras. If a lens has a larger aperture, then it can also let in more light. (typically expensive lenses versus cheaper lenses).

And if the photographer understands how to manually adjust the ISO, shutter speed, and aperture, as well as know how to make proper use of off camera lighting, or tripods, it also ultimately lets in more light.

 

Thank for all the info!

[Chocolate Rose]

You mention wanting to get a DSLR now because in a couple of years you'll want that. In a couple of years, the DSLR you buy today will likely to have been replaced (twice) with models with better options, like the ability to use higher ISO with less noise or something we haven't even conceived yet. If you're buying just for this trip and then not planning to use it much for the next couple years, your better choice might be the point and shoot now, because it is the cheaper option. It too will be close to obsolete in 2 years, but you will have all your lovely cruise shots to make it worth-while. Having been bit by the camera bug, I consider buying the camera you need for the trip as part of the cruise expense (the cruise is a BIG expense and the camera is a small expense to help you remember and appreciate the trip.)

 

Most people using DSLRs invest in their lenses, and replace their camera bodies every 2-3 years, although I have kept some of mine and used them a lot for about 5 years.

 

I plan to continue using whatever camera I do buy. I just had specific thoughts on what I need for this trip and so that's what I wanted in a camera.

I had thought that people held onto their dslr cameras for many years and it was the lenses that they upgraded if needed/wanted. Guess I had it backwards.

[Chocolate Rose]

Here is my take. I believe that if you are only going to own one camera, and you are interested in photography, want to learn about photography, and want to grow as a photographer, that one camera should be a DSLR. I don't say this because it will take better pictures than a point and shoot, or mirrorless. It won't. The quality of photos depends almost exclusively on the skill of the photographer.

 

I say this because of the flexibility of DSLS's. At this time, there is simply a much wider variety of lenses, flashes, and other accessories that are available from any of the major camera providers (Canon, Nikon, etc.) As one grows as a photographer, the flexibility will be appreciated.

 

I disagree that a modern DSLR will need to be replaced in two to three years. SLR's are a very mature technology. For the last few years, their picture taking ability has not improved greatly. Granted, a few years from now, the newest SLR's will have more and different features. But I doubt very much that they will take much better pictures.

 

This is not to diminish the value of having a mirrorless, point and shoot, etc. I own several DSLR's, a point and shoot, and use my iPhone on occasion. I am considering buying a mirrorless for the small size. But, in my opinion, if you are serious about photography, and only want to own one camera, it should be a DSLR.

 

Thank you. This is very reassuring. I would like to learn photography skills and can't imagine buying a new camera every few years. I just don't have that ability. Wish I did...

[Chocolate Rose]

Unless your old camera is an entry level, very cheap P&S, you might be surprised how little difference there is. I have a Canon S100 that is "only" 5x zoom, but it's a pretty good 5x zoom camera ($350 retail when it was new) that takes pictures nearly as well as my Nikon DSLRs in good conditions and the differences that are there may be "invisible" to the average camera user.

 

If you current P&S is entry level, then that Canon, and any DSLR will definitely take technically better (better dynamic range, better tones,saturation, less noise, etc...) pictures.

 

Do you have any existing pictures that you can post that demonstrate the shortcomings of your current camera? posting the model would help also.

 

I just don't want you to "buy into" the DSLR hype*, spend a bunch of money on a body and a couple lens and camera bag to haul it all around in, only to find the pictures are not significantly better than what you already have and in exchange you get to carry a boat anchor everywhere you go.

 

* for the record I don't think DSLR is hype - I love my DSLRs - but I do think a lot of people buy them thinking they'll get amazingly better photos and are often quite dissapointed.

 

I have a Canon Powershot A3100 that's probably 8 years old.

[Chocolate Rose]

To clarify, the Nikon kit has an 18-55 lens, not an 8-55 lens. That puts it on par with Canon kits. The D3300 has been out on the market since January 2014, making it 2.5 years old. I tell people to never buy a camera that's already been replaced, nor to buy a camera that's >2 years old (from release date). The technology comes so incredibly far all the time, on so many levels: ISO capability, focus, menu clarity, LCD screen, you name it. Sure, the photographer is a very important element in the finished product, but if I put two cameras on tripods, reset them to factory defaults and neutralize any "cheats" the manufacturers may have dropped into the settings, and take shots at ISO 100 and f/8 with the same lenses, you can tell the images apart fairly easily, especially when there's 3+ years difference.

 

Oops, that was probably my copy and paste fault.

So, you're recommending not going for the Nikon. What about the Canon Rebel kit that I mentioned?

[peety3]

I plan to continue using whatever camera I do buy. I just had specific thoughts on what I need for this trip and so that's what I wanted in a camera.

I had thought that people held onto their dslr cameras for many years and it was the lenses that they upgraded if needed/wanted. Guess I had it backwards.

 

Lenses do last longer than cameras. Lenses get updated because manufacturing technologies get better, allowing them to cut and polish the glass in newer, better ways. Go watch this video to get an amazing view into how a lens is made:

 

That said, I don't want you to think that cameras are throwaway, but I do see them as having a finite lifetime. If nothing else, knowing that many of the different products are updated every 2-3 years, I'd steer clear of buying anything that's been on the market more than 2 years. Just check Wikipedia for dates.

 

Thank you. This is very reassuring. I would like to learn photography skills and can't imagine buying a new camera every few years. I just don't have that ability. Wish I did...

 

Can you buy a new lens every year, or perhaps every 18 months? If not, I think you're going to miss out on what a DSLR can do for you. Perhaps every 6-8 years, you might pick up a new DSLR.

[Chocolate Rose]

Can you buy a new lens every year, or perhaps every 18 months? If not, I think you're going to miss out on what a DSLR can do for you. Perhaps every 6-8 years, you might pick up a new DSLR.

 

Possibly. I guess that my thoughts were that I would purchase a decent camera with decent lenses, maybe add a couple of lenses as needed, and I'd be able to learn to take decent photos and continue with using the equipment without feeling like I needed to constantly upgrade.

[peety3]

Possibly. I guess that my thoughts were that I would purchase a decent camera with decent lenses, maybe add a couple of lenses as needed, and I'd be able to learn to take decent photos and continue with using the equipment without feeling like I needed to constantly upgrade.

Ah, let me "help you rephrase that". Yes, you will upgrade your starter lenses at some point, but more importantly you'll add lenses that give you new capabilities and expand what you have and can do. Perhaps a "fast 50" for portraits, a "fast 85" for kids/grandkids' indoor sports, maybe an ultra-wide for landscapes, maybe a birding supertelephoto zoom, etc.

 

Every lens is a compromise. Sometimes it's made for a low price. Sometimes it's made for low light performance, at the expense of how fast it focuses. Sometimes it's made for getting extreme closeups of wildlife, at the expense of weight (and outright expense!). Kit (starter) lenses are optimized for price and initial versatility, plain and simple.

 

I still have the first camera and the first lens I bought (ignoring the Minolta stuff that got stolen) as an adult. That lens is my wife's "main" lens. The camera is, however, our "shelf spare", called into action if needed (and there's no time to rent something newer) and on loan to my dad to shoot the birds by the lake. However, the other kit lenses we got around the same time are all sold, though one stayed with us for 7-8 years.

 

Here's a fantastic article that might give you a taste of what DSLR life is like. Some of it won't make sense to you yet; that's OK. Read past the progression part, and take a look at what he says for where to start, where to go next, and how to specialize after that. If none of this sounds appealing, perhaps DSLR isn't right for you. If some of it does though, you're on the right track.

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/lenses-dont-collect-the-whole-set/

[peety3]

One more random thought: do you have any friends nearby who have a DSLR? If so, and you think they're willing to mentor you, buy the same brand as them. They might loan you gear to try before you buy. They can talk you through settings with better context than if they had a different brand. You could perhaps form a micro co-op, and choose your purchases so you don't duplicate each other's things, and can share if the opportunity comes up. A friend and neighbor has a Canon, and I was just helping her out the other day, something I couldn't do nearly as well if she'd gone Nikon. (Amongst everything else, I feel like far more Nikon users hate their camera's menu system than any other brand, but if it "talks to you" or you have friends who "get it", let that guide you.)

[Chocolate Rose]

Ah, let me "help you rephrase that". Yes, you will upgrade your starter lenses at some point, but more importantly you'll add lenses that give you new capabilities and expand what you have and can do. Perhaps a "fast 50" for portraits, a "fast 85" for kids/grandkids' indoor sports, maybe an ultra-wide for landscapes, maybe a birding supertelephoto zoom, etc.

 

Every lens is a compromise. Sometimes it's made for a low price. Sometimes it's made for low light performance, at the expense of how fast it focuses. Sometimes it's made for getting extreme closeups of wildlife, at the expense of weight (and outright expense!). Kit (starter) lenses are optimized for price and initial versatility, plain and simple.

 

I still have the first camera and the first lens I bought (ignoring the Minolta stuff that got stolen) as an adult. That lens is my wife's "main" lens. The camera is, however, our "shelf spare", called into action if needed (and there's no time to rent something newer) and on loan to my dad to shoot the birds by the lake. However, the other kit lenses we got around the same time are all sold, though one stayed with us for 7-8 years.

 

Here's a fantastic article that might give you a taste of what DSLR life is like. Some of it won't make sense to you yet; that's OK. Read past the progression part, and take a look at what he says for where to start, where to go next, and how to specialize after that. If none of this sounds appealing, perhaps DSLR isn't right for you. If some of it does though, you're on the right track.

 

https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2010/07/lenses-dont-collect-the-whole-set/

 

Thank you! Good article!

But who knew deciding on a camera was going to be so dang frustrating!!

[Chocolate Rose]

One more random thought: do you have any friends nearby who have a DSLR? If so, and you think they're willing to mentor you, buy the same brand as them. They might loan you gear to try before you buy. They can talk you through settings with better context than if they had a different brand. You could perhaps form a micro co-op, and choose your purchases so you don't duplicate each other's things, and can share if the opportunity comes up. A friend and neighbor has a Canon, and I was just helping her out the other day, something I couldn't do nearly as well if she'd gone Nikon. (Amongst everything else, I feel like far more Nikon users hate their camera's menu system than any other brand, but if it "talks to you" or you have friends who "get it", let that guide you.)

 

Right now, I don't. This actually started because a coworker told me her daughter bought a Rebel and loves it and that's what I should get. I was then talking to my daughter (at college) who told me that she and her boyfriend had just bought the Nikon D3300 and LOVE it. She also has the same p&s as I do and was very frustrated with it. But, neither of them live locally. I'll have to start asking around. I'm also leaning towards purchasing from Costco because of their return policy, not that I'm planning on returning it, but just in case something goes very wrong. And, I spoke with my sister (in another city)who bought a Panasonic and took a class. Her instructor dislikes Panasonic but loves Canon. Too many choices...

Edited July 13, 2016 by Chocolate Rose

[Oakman58]

Just wondering, when is your trip to Alaska Chocolate Rose?

 

It sounds like you are leaning toward a DSLR for your cruise so just remember that the DSLR and standard lens that comes with it won’t be enough. You will want to have at least one good zoom lens for that camera for wildlife photography, whales, eagles, seals, etc.

 

Before you buy a DSLR for your Alaskan cruise ask the others on this forum what are the minimum lenses you will need to take with you to get the photos you want of Alaska.

 

There is no question a DSLR can take better photos than a P&S but a quality P&S is quite capable of taking excellent photos. If you plan to become serious about photography as a hobby then get the DSLR. If you just want a camera for taking great vacation photos then buy the P&S. As I said before, regardless of what you buy, learn the features of the camera and how to use it before your trip.

[CT Sean]

Thank you! Good article!

But who knew deciding on a camera was going to be so dang frustrating!!

 

It's just what happens when you ask an enthusiast their opinion on what you should buy. Doesn't matter what the object is - Cameras, watches, dive gear, kitchen knives, etc...

 

Regarding your Canon A3100 - you should see notable improvements from nearly any modern camera over $200.

 

 

Can you buy a new lens every year, or perhaps every 18 months? If not, I think you're going to miss out on what a DSLR can do for you. Perhaps every 6-8 years, you might pick up a new DSLR.

 

Why would anybody need to buy a new lens every year or so to get the most out of their DSLRs? I bought my Nikon 16-85 around 7 years ago and still does exactly what I need it to. Sure I could upgrade to the new 16-80 but I know it would gain me nothing (it might gain something for someone but definitely not me). Sure one can buy additional lens, maybe some primes and macro lenses but many DSLR owners just have no use for them.

[peety3]

[Apparently the quote function is broken for me at the moment.]

 

Oakman58, did you READ the whole thing? The two kits that the OP is considering are both two-lens kits, so they'll have something out to 200 or 250mm. That could be good enough for Alaska, at least for whales and to capture the presence

 

By the way, please use better terminology than "need a good zoom lens". You can do better than that. I suspect you meant "need a telephoto lens, ideally the longer focal length, the better."

 

CT Sean, if you've got a DSLR, a 16-85mm lens, and nothing else, why did you buy a DSLR in the first place? Have you tried a 50/1.4, a 100-400 or similar, or a 10-22 or similar? To me, there's no sense buying a DSLR for one lens, and only some sense in buying a two-lens kit and NEVER anything else for it. For someone who intends to learn photography (as the OP openly indicated was their mission here), skipping out on the whole fast prime option is missing the whole magic of interchangeable lenses.

[CT Sean]

 

CT Sean, if you've got a DSLR, a 16-85mm lens, and nothing else, why did you buy a DSLR in the first place? Have you tried a 50/1.4, a 100-400 or similar, or a 10-22 or similar? To me, there's no sense buying a DSLR for one lens, and only some sense in buying a two-lens kit and NEVER anything else for it. For someone who intends to learn photography (as the OP openly indicated was their mission here), skipping out on the whole fast prime option is missing the whole magic of interchangeable lenses.

 

My first DSLR was given to me as a gift with the Nikon kit 18-55 as well as a 55-200. several years later I inherited a D300 (from an uncle who just has to have the newest Nikon body every time they make one) along with a 70-300mm VR. I have also picked up a 50mm 1.8 that I almost never use as well as a 12-24 Nikon. I use the 16-85 a good 90% of the time (possibly more). I have very recently replaced the D300 with a D7200 (pretty much entirely for higher ISO capability) I actually wish the 7200 wasn't 24mp. I a rarely crop and never print large enough to need a 24mp file. I'm aware I'm one of the few people in the world that wants LESS MP

 

I use a DSLR for the increased sharpness, cleaner images, better dynamic range, high ISO ability (I prefer ambient light whenever possible) and RAW processing flexibility. (my brother had a D40 before I did and we went on vacation and when I saw his pics compared to mine, I immediately though "I need those clean blue skies") I also like wide angle shooting which just isn't possible on most P&S cameras. When I want portability, I use my Canon S100 (its also my underwater camera).

 

Just because someone doesn't use the full capability of their DSLR doesn't mean they shouldn't have one

Edited July 13, 2016 by CT Sean
spelling

[havoc315]

[Apparently the quote function is broken for me at the moment.]

 

Oakman58, did you READ the whole thing? The two kits that the OP is considering are both two-lens kits, so they'll have something out to 200 or 250mm. That could be good enough for Alaska, at least for whales and to capture the presence

 

By the way, please use better terminology than "need a good zoom lens". You can do better than that. I suspect you meant "need a telephoto lens, ideally the longer focal length, the better."

 

CT Sean, if you've got a DSLR, a 16-85mm lens, and nothing else, why did you buy a DSLR in the first place? Have you tried a 50/1.4, a 100-400 or similar, or a 10-22 or similar? To me, there's no sense buying a DSLR for one lens, and only some sense in buying a two-lens kit and NEVER anything else for it. For someone who intends to learn photography (as the OP openly indicated was their mission here), skipping out on the whole fast prime option is missing the whole magic of interchangeable lenses.

 

I taught a photography class a couple of months ago. It was for the "adult school" in a very very affluent community. My students were all adults who could easily afford thousands of dollars in camera gear.

None of them owned more than 2 lenses -- They were all shooting with older Canon Rebels (t2i, t3i) and entry level Nikons (D3100), and kit lenses or kit superzooms (18-250).

I like to think, that with my help, they all became better photographers -- learning composition techniques, learning the importance of controlling your focus point, learning how to manipulate depth of field.

I did spend 1 of the classes largely devoted to a discussion of gear, including the advantages or prime and specialty lenses. Basically, at most, I got a bit of, "maybe I'll think about buying a nifty fifty some day."

 

We true enthusiasts are the minority. The vast majority of dSLR owners never go beyond 1-3 lenses. Does that mean they are wasting their dSLRs?

 

Not really, IMO. Sure, they aren't getting the fullest potential, but I also wouldn't say they are wasting it.

 

Even when using nothing more than the kit lens, and essentially staying in auto modes...

A dSLR is more responsive than most P&S cameras.

Depending on the person, they might prefer the big grip and bulk of a dSLR in their hands as part of the photography experience.

A person may like the look and feel of an OVF.

The low light capability and image quality of a dSLR will still surpass 99% of P&S cameras, as there are so few P&S cameras that utilize APS-C or full frame sensors. Even the newer "enthusiast" P&S cameras only have 1" sensors.

 

Compare the RX100iii with a dSLR + kit lens. The RX100 will have a faster lens, but smaller sensor. On balance, it will give you similar image quality to an APS-C dSLR with kit lens. The RX100iii is $800.

A Canon Rebel t6i bundle is about $750.. so cheaper.

 

So saying, "why would anyone buy a dSLR if they only plan to stick to the kit lens" -- To me, that's no different than why someone would buy a RX100.

 

It's not like a dSLR is worse than a P&S when using a kit lens. In fact, it can be cheaper than a P&S that gives inferior quality. And certainly, even with the kit lens, the IQ and performance is far superior to small sensor P&S cameras.

Edited July 13, 2016 by havoc315

[MHF]

Took my Panasonic Lumix 200 to a cathedral today...wow...the colors from the stained glass really popped. I decided I wanted something more "pocket sized" than a DSLR or bridge so that is a consideration when choosing between the various models too.

 

What's the old saying...the best camera is one you have with you?

[Victress2007]

So saying, "why would anyone buy a dSLR if they only plan to stick to the kit lens" -- To me, that's no different than why someone would buy a RX100.

 

It's not like a dSLR is worse than a P&S when using a kit lens. In fact, it can be cheaper than a P&S that gives inferior quality. And certainly, even with the kit lens, the IQ and performance is far superior to small sensor P&S cameras.

The reason I went to a mirrorless rather than P&S is because I have upgraded cameras several times in the last several years. I decided if I got a body I liked then I could spend the money on new lenses rather than a whole new camera. I only lasted a few months before buying a new lens, but after buying a 16mm wide next I think I'll be good for a while. (fingers crossed :) )

 

Vic

Save

[GUT2407]

I use a variety of cameras..

 

DSLR full frame and crop

 

Mirror less

 

And a compact with a largish sensor.

 

Go Pro

 

Each fills a need..

 

The crop sensor could probably go but it has an underwater housing so stays alive as I don't want to spend on one for the Full frame.

 

To be honest what suited me when I started in this game 40 odd years ago wouldn't do today.

 

Likewise it is horses for courses, if I went back to shooting portraits I'd go back to medium format, as just one example, but I'd never bother taking a medium format on a cruise.

[Chocolate Rose]

Just wondering, when is your trip to Alaska Chocolate Rose?

 

It sounds like you are leaning toward a DSLR for your cruise so just remember that the DSLR and standard lens that comes with it won’t be enough. You will want to have at least one good zoom lens for that camera for wildlife photography, whales, eagles, seals, etc.

 

Before you buy a DSLR for your Alaskan cruise ask the others on this forum what are the minimum lenses you will need to take with you to get the photos you want of Alaska.

 

There is no question a DSLR can take better photos than a P&S but a quality P&S is quite capable of taking excellent photos. If you plan to become serious about photography as a hobby then get the DSLR. If you just want a camera for taking great vacation photos then buy the P&S. As I said before, regardless of what you buy, learn the features of the camera and how to use it before your trip.

 

My cruise isn't until next May, so I'll have some time to experiment and learn with whatever camera I end up with. I keep going back and forth between the p&s and the dslr. But, you're right. Right now I'm thinking that it makes more sense to go with the dslr, use the time I have before the cruise to learn how to use it, and then see what I think.