DSLR vs. New Sony Cybershot H7

[harvc99]

I am a returning semi-enthusiast and need to buy a new camera. I am really impressed by the soon to arrive Sony Cybershot H7 but I wonder if I'll really be able to have enough flexibility in terms of depth of field and also the overall quality of the pictures. How much difference would it make in these areas if I moved up to a DSLR? And which one would be the easiest to operate while still giving really good results? Price isn't really that much of a factor. Thanks.

[Saralonde]

It looks like the Sony will be a nice camera when it comes out, but basically you want to know if you should go with this or a dslr. Price: dslrs can get way more expensive if you are buying lenses. Flexibility: the new point and shoots are better then ever, but with a dslr there are a wide variety of lenses to choose from, such as extreme zoom, macro and wide angle. There are some excellent quality optics to choose from. Also, dslrs tend to be more versatile when it comes to manual settings. Size: can be a problem with dslrs if you are lugging around extra lenses. The body with the lens can be a lot heavier than the Sony.

If you are interested in becoming more involved with photography, I would go with the dslr. If you are interested in a particular type of photography, such as macro, a dslr will suit you better. If you want a camera to record your life and still take a few interesting closeup or distance shots, get the Sony.

Some people are disappointed with the first shots they take with a dslr. Point and shoot cameras have images that look better straight out of the camera. This is because manufacturers assume a dslr user wants more control over post processing, so the dslr does less in camera processing. The more complex dslr can be intimidating, so you have to be willing to deal with the extra learning curve.

There are many people here that do not own a dslr and take beautiful shots.

[Farkled]

Make sure you read the reviews and the camera does the things you want and does not do the things you don't want.

If you will actually carry a DSLR and a couple lenses with you, pretty much everywhere, then get that. If is largish camera and assorted lenses tends to be too much bother, then get the H7. If the budget permits, get both.

If you don't have the camera with you, you can't get the shot. The camera that gets used takes better pictures than the one that stayed in the closet.

[Jargon]

One thing you should consider is that if you buy a DSLR camera, you are investing in a system. At the very least, you should buy the camera body and a lens. But you'll probably buy more lenses and an external flash later. And you will need to be choosy when buying a tripod. Cheap (plastic) tripods may not be able to hold the weight of the camera with the heaviest lens and flash attached. Moreover, if you live in an area where the relative humidity goes above 50%, you might want to buy an electric dry cabinet (or a vacuum-sealed box, a hygrometer and some silica gels) to protect your camera and lenses from fungi. This is very important if you won't be using the lenses for some time.

[wulf]

You mentioned "returning" - were you used to an SLR in your previous photography experience?

Wulf

[inkista]

I am a returning semi-enthusiast and need to buy a new camera. I am really impressed by the soon to arrive Sony Cybershot H7 but I wonder if I'll really be able to have enough flexibility in terms of depth of field and also the overall quality of the pictures. How much difference would it make in these areas if I moved up to a DSLR? Moving to SLR would greatly increase the possibility of better image quality, flexibility, and depth of field, but all of those possibilities would only be realized through a selection of lenses.

Just to cover the focal length range of the H7 (31-465mm) you'd probably have to get two to three lenses (throw in one more for macro capability), and the telephoto end wouldn't come cheap. The difference would be large, but it might not be worth it for the budget, learning curve, and equipment-hauling hit you'd take. Budget-wise, with an SLR you're proably going to spend about two to three times the cost of the camera body to equip with lenses (and probably a tripod, flash, and camera bag as well as the usual digicam accessories of batteries and cards).

However, the SLR's ability to switch lenses is insanely great. Wide angle capability, going wider than f/2.7 (the max the H7 will get) for better bokeh and available light shooting, all at higher quality with a larger sensor (APS-C vs 1/2.5") for better noise performance... the tradeoff is more than worth it for a large number of folks, and typically the more concerned with quality you are, the more it's worth it.

And which one would be the easiest to operate while still giving really good results? Hands down, a point-and-shoot is always easier than an SLR, simply because it takes away choices. Not having to choose which lens goes on the body considerably lightens the load, even as it limits your image quality. What really matters is what's an acceptable level of "good" to you. I'd say, poke about on the Flickr page for the H5 (http://www.flickr.com/cameras/sony/dsc-h5/) and see if the quality there would be a good fit for you.

It sounds to me like you'd be happy with either choice, but if travelling light is a concern, the point-and-shoot is probably the way to go. If cost really is no object and you can't make up your mind: get both. Most SLR photographers also have a P&S. There are days when you want to shoot, but you just don't feel like hauling around all the stuff.