Why is a DSLR Better?

[kunaldaswani]

Hi all!

I am planning to finally upgrade from my Powershot S3IS to the EOS 400D! :)

I would like to know the advantages of the DSLR other than shooting in RAW and the 10MP.

The way i look at it is the powershot S3IS has a sweet lens , excellent zoom, killer macro lets me shoot manual, S, P, A etc... then why a DSLR?

Buying the camera on Monday so all answers before that will be highly appreciated! Is the EOS 400D a good buy is do you suggest and other camera around the same budget?

Thanks in advance

[higabyte]

im a newb, so im going to answer like one, sorry...

cause they're funner to shoot with!!! =p

[Nicole]

It's cause of the lenses... you can spend a small mint on the and still want more... or there's always the fact that you look so much cooler and all the cool kids are doing it ;) Really, I think that the best thing about a DSLR is that they're versatile because of the number of lenses and types of lenses you can get. You might have all the modes on a P&S, but you won't get a 1.8 aperture (in most cases, I don't know about every single P&S). Stuff like that :) Enjoy your new purchase!

[Tiberius]

There are five huge advantages that all digital cameras have over film cameras.

You never have to buy film again. You'll never have to pay to develop film again. You can cahnge your ISO speed at any time easily. You can change your white balance at any time easily. You can review your photos immediately without waiting for the film to be developed.

The first two points deal with cost. It's more expensive to buy a digital camera, but after the initial purchase, it's more or less free.

The last three points deal with the flexibility offered by digital. In film cameras, changing the ISO can only be done by "pushing" or "pulling" the film, but this affects the entire roll. White balance can be altered in film only by changing film or using filters, but filters block some of the light and can affect your exposure. And the only film camera that gives anything close to an instant review is polaroid film, but even this takes several seconds at least, is very limited in the post processing you can do, it is limited in format as well and most importantly, it is very rare and extremely expensive.

Digital cameras do all these things easily, in a few seconds, and most importantly - for free.

[Darren Rowse]

A couple of posts you might like to read:

How to Choose a DSLR (http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/how-to-buy-a-dslr-camera/) (with some reasons why it can be a good idea).

Should you buy a DSLR or Point and Shoot (http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/should-you-buy-a-dslr-or-point-and-shoot-digital-camera/) - similar to the first one.

[wulf]

In general, a DSLR will give more flexibility than a Point and Shoot camera - a greater range of options to tweak and a wide range of lenses, filters and extensions to choose from. Also, the camera is likely to be set up so that the controls make common options more accessible.

I suspect that some Point and Shoot cameras push the envelope on the range of what can be controlled (eg. providing a manual mode) but a DSLR is likely to win on the quality of the lens and the future option of taking more specialist photos by buying a more specialist lens.

Personally, I have no regrets about having moved up to the world of DSLR photography with my Nikon D40 but I am sure there are many people for whom a good Point and Shoot camera would be a better choice.

Wulf

[Joe Hoetzl]

Along with some of the comments already mentioned...
With the exception of a very few P&S style cameras (that come close in price to the DSLR's), the ability to take the flash and move it off camera is a massive benefit.

Being able to QUICKLY access settings like Aperture and Shutter Speed without diving into menus is another one I can think of off that I didn't see mentioned.

[inkista]

For me, the biggest benefit was simply being able to time a shot again. Since I like event and wildlife photography, I have to say that timing is 98% of the game. Being half a second off can mean a completely different picture. Being able to time when that shutter is going to click--EXACTLY--it's all the difference in the world.

Second biggest benefit was getting the larger sensor and having better high-speed ISO/noise performance. Having usable 400 and 800, and if-I-really-have-to 1600 lets me do available light no-flash shooting again--just like I used to with 1200 film.

Hopefully P&Ses will eventually offer these features.

[Damo]

I'm with Inkista, a major reason is the sensor, a point and shoot just cannot come near with their smaller sensors, DSLR all the way for me ! :) I have the 400D and you wont be disappointed, penniless maybe, once you have bought all the accessories available and lenses, but, like me, happy ! :)

[Jargon]

There is a huge difference between the two cameras. The EOS-400D's sensor size is more than 13 times that of the PowerShot S3 IS. So the 400D's sensor can gather more light and less noise than the S3's sensor. The advantage is not just in the number of pixels but also in the quality of each pixel.

[ryan s]

Because all the cool kids are doing it! :cool:

But seriously, they take more effort to use, but are in a sense, "more flexible." I haven't touched a P&S since I bought my camera, besides friends' and customers' cameras. Actually, I'm trying to sell my Sonys because they're just sitting around. I tell the camera what to do and it does it. With a P&S, it does what it thinks is best.

Only thing I can't do with my Canon is take videos. Ok. Isn't that what video cameras are for?

[inkista]

There is a huge difference between the two cameras. The EOS-400D's sensor size is more than 13 times that of the PowerShot S3 IS. So the 400D's sensor can gather more light and less noise than the S3's sensor. The advantage is not just in the number of pixels but also in the quality of each pixel.Errr...actually, it's mostly the size of the pixel (http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm). A simplistic way of thinking of it is that you have a grid of pixels on your sensor, and in between the pixels, you have wiring to transfer the data from the pixels, and each individual pixel has to be wired up. This inbetween area is covered with microprisms, but there's no actual data capture going on.

While the size of the pixels can decrease to up the pixel count, the inbetween area can't change size. And as the pixel count increases, the area given over to the inbetween also increases (think of it as the blue lines on graph paper--the smaller the grid size, the bluer the page becomes). The proportion of the inbetween area vs. the pixel area is what determines noise. The larger the sensor, the larger the proportion of image-capture-area to non.

I also wanted to add that the original poster does have a point. If you wanted to approximate the focal length range of an S5 IS, as well as macro capability and IS, you'd have to get the camera body, a 100-400L, an IS zoom that covers 36-100mm, and a macro lens. And all that gear is a bit weighter and larger than just the S5 IS (not to mention at least $2000 more). I can see why the jump to dSLR might be daunting.

Usability and convenience can also be huge factors, especially if you're travelling (http://strobist.blogspot.com/2007/06/on-assignment-on-vacation.html).