DSLR or Point and Shoot?

"I want a digital camera - but I'm not sure what to get? Should I get one of those fancy DSLRs or will a point-and-shoot (compact camera) be enough for me?"

I get this question a lot - but never as much as when the Christmas holiday is approaching.

The answer depends on a lot of factors - but mainly, it comes down to how you plan on using your camera. What kind of photos, and in what sort of environments, will you take? Casual snapshots? Photos for your eBay store? Your kid's baseball games? Nature?

Once you have a good idea about your photography needs, then you can evaluate the differences between the two and determine which will best meet your needs. With that in mind, here's a quickie overview of the differences that are important to most people.

Point and Shoot / Compact Cameras

Point and shoots (PS) have come a long way over the years, and most of them in the $300-$500 range take really nice pictures (with some caveats, however, which I'll touch on later). They're small and they have great battery life, making it easy and convenient to take lots and lots of pictures - at parties, reunions, school plays, etc. They have large, clear displays you can use to frame your shots and review your photos. P-S cameras, because of the kind of lenses they use, often make great macro (close-up) cameras.

P-S cameras generally don't pre-suppose that you have any photography expertise. Most people just fire-away in "Auto" and are fine with the results. P-S cameras also offer various "Scene" modes that adjust the camera settings for you based on your current situation - sports, portrait, nightime city scenes, snow, etc.

They're fairly inexpensive, come in different styles and colors, and there are a huge variety to choose from.

Now to the negatives. Most P-S cameras have the same drawbacks. The first which most people notice is the long lag between shots. If you want to take photos of anything moving faster than, say, a kiddie pony ride at the county fair, you'll have to rely on your own timing to "get the shot." By the time you snap an action shot and your P-S camera is ready for the next, the action will be over with.

Also, your P-S lens is the only lens you'll have, so you're stuck with whatever its limitations are. They're usually OK on the wide end, but you won't be zooming in on football action like a Sports Illustrated shooter. You're also limited to the camera's onboard flash, which is usually harsh and underpowered.

Digital SLRs

As you can guess, the weaknesses of the P-S camera are the strengths of the DSLR, and vice-versa.

First, the glass. DSLRs give you a lot of choices and flexibility when it comes to lenses. You can change lenses - add a high-powered zoom for sports or wildlife, or a wide-angle lense for indoor shots. If you've got the money, you can buy fast lenses that let you shoot in low-light situations without flash. I've got a 17-55 f2.8 Nikon lens that stays on my camera most of the time because of its very useful zoom range and great low-light capabilities. You can also add filters to your lenses, for changing the color cast, polarizing, etc.

DSLR cameras can also take photos in fast bursts. My Nikon D300, for example, can fire-off about 7 or 8 frames PER SECOND. So when action is headed my way, I can hold the shutter down and get a whole sequence of frames from the action. There are usually one or two keepers each time I do that. With P-S cameras, it often comes down to sheer luck.

DSLRs also offer RAW image formats as well as JPEG. RAW is something worthy of its own post, but suffice it to say that it gives you a lot more flexibility AFTER the picture is taken, when working with imaging software such as Lightroom, Photoshop, etc. You can make adjustments to your images in an entirely non-destructive manner that might not work so well with standard JPEGs - changing the white balance after-the-fact, pulling details out of shadows, excellent black and white conversion, and so forth.

The ability to use a speedlight or external flash cannot be overlooked, either. Speedlights have more power and more flexibility, allowing you to rotate the flash head so you can bounce the flash or light from different angles. You can increase or decrease light output, too. They can be used off-camera with a bracket - or even ten feet away, totally removed from the camera, via a wireless connection. Depending on the camera, you can even use multiple external flashes to achieve some pretty great lighting effects.

The downsides to DSLRs? Well, size and weight. I've opted for taking the family P-S camera to Hershey Park because I didn't want to lug-around the "big guy." If you're just after some quick snapshots to record the moment, you don't want to carry around 10 pounds all day. Five or ten pounds doesn't sound like much, but believe me - I've done some gigs where I was sore for days after the shoot.

DSLRs are easier to use than ever, but they still assume a certain level of expertise unless you just want to stay in "Auto" all the time. To really get the most of your DSLR, you may need to invest some time in understanding concepts and settings and topics such as aperture, shutter speed, depth of field, ISO, and so forth.

Expense is often the biggest consideration. A quality DSLR from Canon or Nikon, with a good starter lens, storage cards, etc., is going to set you back at least $1000. And if you're new to DSLRs and photography, understand that after a while you may get the urge to look at all sorts of accessories - new lenses, tripods, speedlights, vertical grips, etc.

Hear this advice and hear it well: when it comes to DSLR photography, "the poor man buys twice." You want a new lens for your camera, so you start to shop around. You see some pretty big differences in price. One lens looks pretty decent, and costs $400. Another, with (seemingly) similar characteristics, costs $1600.

So you go for the $400 lens. Lots of people do that, and are perfectly happy with their choices. But if you really, truly, firmly believe that photography is something you really want to get in to, if you're improving your skills and even pondering making some bucks from it here and there, don't opt for the cheap lens. Wait. Save. Buy the good glass. Camera bodies come and go. But a quality lens can last decades. You might upgrade cameras five times but the lens stays with you.

And besides the photographer, it's not so much the camera body that makes for a quality image. It's the lens, period. I'd rather have my old, first DSLR back again (a D70) with my GOOD lenses, than a brand new D700 with cheap glass.

That saying about the poor man buying twice? It refers to people (myself included) who ultimately buy the better lens AFTER buying the lesser one, and either end up with a bunch of unused lenses sitting on the shelf, or taking a loss by unloading them on ebay or at the local camera shop. And boy, do you take a loss on cheap lenses. The market is flooded with them, so you might get 25% of its original value. A quality lens, on the other hand, holds its value very well.

Now, you might not be able to afford expensive lenses, and photography might not be a serious endeavor for you, and that's fine. But I think it's helpful to at least keep this dynamic in mind when getting started.

There are a TON of other things I could discuss here, but this is already getting pretty long. If you have questions or want specific advice, please, by all means post back to this blog. I'm a Nikon guy, so I usually recommend and am most familiar with Nikon DSLRs. But I've heard that Canon makes superior compact cameras.

Here are some additional resources to help you decide:

YouTube Video - Digital SLR versus Compact Camera - start here, great comparisons.

Camera envy? Tips for using a Point and Shoot Camera

Digital Photography School

Happy shooting!