View Single Post
  #6  
Old 04-06-09, 06:23
graham harcombe's Avatar
graham harcombe graham harcombe is offline  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Gosforth, Cumbria UK
Age: 77
Posts: 7,340
Default

Thanks Duncan for an excellent letter. Quite understandably you address dSLR only as that is, of course, the preferred option for most 'serious' enthusiasts.

The biggest hurdle for attaining the goal of good quality equipment is a financial one and many camera manufacturers produce a range that embraces compacts, the so-called bridge range (mega-zooms included) before reaching the more expensive dSLR range.

So what do you lose when opting to purchase a lower-end camera? Ignoring the technical comparisons which are legion, I feel that the following points represent the 'tangible loss' that one has to consider:-

(a) speed range; can't freeze shot anything faster than a pedestrian.

(b) light tolerance; poor light, poor shot. That may well include limited flash coverage in that the low-power built in flash is inadquate for all but a small arc and range.

(c) depth of field settings: maybe some can provide this control, but most do not.

And is there anything to gain? Well, apart from the cash aspect, it is a smaller bundle to carry protect and 'hide'. Plus there are no extra bits of kit to carry around. A further consideration - which is very close to my heart - is that they are replaceable. My wife and I live aboard an ocean going yacht and electronics usually need replacing regularly due to the salty atmosphere.

Next is to ask ones-self "can I live with these limitations and save money".

Summary: There is no comparison between a half decent dSLR and a 'compact' type. But there is a perfectly valid and rewarding photographic world out there for those owing cameras in the cheaper end of the market.
__________________
http://www.ellida-of-laira.com

Last edited by graham harcombe; 04-06-09 at 09:24.
Reply With Quote