Need an Upgrade?

[kim.suarez]

Hi I'm fairly new to digital photography and as I am beginning to spend more time and get more involved in it, I am wondering if my camera needs an upgrade.

I have a Panasonic Lumix DMC-fZ50 that I purchased a couple years ago and was wondering how important it was to make the switch from point and shoot to DSLR?

I would be spending most of my time doing street photography and photographing nature/wildlife.

I have been looking at the Nikon D70, D3000 and Canon 300d, since I am a student and on a budget. What would be a good recommendation or are there any other options I'm missing?

I am looking at a used D70 with 18-70mm and 55-200mm lenses for $500, used D3000 with 18-55 VR lens for $395 and a Canon 300d with 28-80mm lens for $200.

[Tito87]

If you're serious about photography. it;s important.

[inkista]

It's important if your equipment is actively preventing you from getting the photos you want. But the Lumix you have has a full manual mode, and as a bridge camera has a ton of function so you can still do quite a lot with it. You even have a flash hotshoe, so you can play with off-camera lighting if you want.

The thing is, a dSLR isn't necessarily a better camera in all situations. It won't always get you a better image than a P&S might. An SLR can have fewer technical limitations and can do a lot of stuff a P&S/bridge camera simply can't, but it's big, it's heavy, it's expensive, and it's conspicuous. It's a different type of tool for the job.

Most photographers I know have both a P&S and a dSLR. The analogy I continually make is that a P&S camera is like a swiss army knife: it can do a lot of things in a very handy way, but some of those tools are compromised for portability. A dSLR is kind of like a big red toolbox. You still have to buy the tools to go in the box--it's big, it's heavy, and it's expensive, and a pain in the butt to haul around, but you'll (hopefully) have the right tool for the right task.

When you get a dSLR, your photography doesn't instantly improve. In fact, it may slide backwards given the steepness of the learning curve most people hit in figuring out exposure settings AND post-processing techniques simultaneously. If you get a single kit lens, you're also likely to lose supertelephoto and macro capability, too.

This isn't an upgrade. It's a paradigm switch.

The plus sides are that you can time shots exactly, that you have larger sensor resolution and high-ISO performance, and interchangeable lenses. But a budget of $300 isn't going to go very far in the world of dSLR gear. Most folks eventually spend at least a few thousand on gear: a body, two or three lenses, a tripod, a flash, etc. It all adds up. My guesstimate is that two or three times the amount of what is spent on the camera body will eventually be spent on camera gear.

You really want to consider if you can afford to go down this path, or if maybe waiting and saving up some money first might be a better plan.

[kim.suarez]

Thanks for the info. I'm going to keep my Lumix for a while since as of yet, I'm not super serious about my photography and I do know the camera well.

[inkista]

No shame is sticking with what works. And it's not like a P&S camera is going to stop you from becoming a compositional genius.

I'd recommend reading something like Bryan Peterson's Learning to See Creatively and playing about with composition. Composition can sometimes have a bigger impact on a final photo than the camera you took the photo with.

[kim.suarez]

Thanks so much for the help! I will check out that book.

[sk66]

I'm with Inksta on this. In fact, sometimes a good P&S is BETTER than a DSLR.