To SLR or Not to SLR?

[Ian]

Okay, so I'm sort of stuck in this dilemma and I'm hoping you all can help nudge me in one direction or another ...

Our current digital camera is on its last legs. We have a Sony Cybershot (that's only like 2 years old) and the software has just gone kerflooey. It randomly changes settings, won't turn on sometimes, flip-flops back between the camera and the pictures of its own accord, and has developed a scary sounding clicking any time I hook it up to the PC to move pictures off.

In short, I expect it to croak any day now.

We have a trip to WDW planned for the end of this month, so I want to replace it now before it dies on us in the middle of our trip.

So my biggest beef with the Sony (aside from the premature death) has always been the lack of a viewfinder, number one, and number two the lack of a decent zoom/wide-angle lens. From what I can tell, this seems to be a common problem with most of the "micro" size digital cameras these days.

So I've been strongly considering moving up and getting a good digital SLR. I take a lot of pictures of our kids and the idea of having a really nice camera to work with is pretty appealing.

I've been weighing the pros and cons and sort of am stuck in the middle. My biggest problem with the SLR is the size ... I hate having to lug a camera bag around with me in the parks and really love just being able to stick my Sony in the side pocket of my cargo shorts (although it has occurred to me that doing this may, in no small part, have contributed to its early demise).

Also on the con side for the SLR is the expense ... they're at least 2 to 3 times as expensive even as a really top-of-the-line smaller camera and the fact that, if I ultimately buy additional lenses for it, that's more expense and more stuff to lug around.

So ... any thoughts? I really, really hate the lack of a viewfinder on the smaller cameras. When you get even a little bit of glare on the display on our Sony you can hardly see what you're photographing. I also kinda don't like the touch screen aspect of it, because you often accidentally touch the screen and change settings you don't intend to change just in the normal course of using the camera.

HELP!!!

[Lizzy]

I would go with the bigger camera. I have a 19 month old and a camera that is on it's last leg. I would hate to miss anything. And since I still have a diaper bag/mom bag that gets carried everywhere having something else to carry around would make no diffrence to me. I would prefer the better pictures than the convience of the smaller one.

Edited to note: I know nothing about camera's, and haven't a clue what SLR is, but still my opnion is all for better pictures

[kakn7294]

I just bought a Canon PowerShot SD1100 IS in March and LOVE this camera. It's tiny enough to fit in my pocket but has tons of features including a real viewfinder and the price was under $200. I just took it to Disney and my pics are great. Good luck in your search!

[Ed]

Ian, I went through almost exactly the same thing about two years ago. I had been using a Sony Cybershot also, and had many of the same problems and complaints - - no viewfinder, impossible to see screen in bright sunlight, settings with a mind of their own ( ???). So I started exploring DSLRs, and finally found one that met all items on my "wish list" in the photo shop aboard the Disney Magic! However, their price was considerably more than I wanted to pay, so I kept looking and finally found the exact same camera at a local photo shop at the right price.

I, too, was a little skeptical about lugging the camera around, but that has not been an issue. I found a good strap that lets the camera hang comfortably, and I also picked up a bag that hangs on my side that the camera fits in perfectly.

Now that I'm spoiled by having true through-the-lens viewfinding (or via a decent size LCD panel if I prefer), I don't think I could ever go back to a point-and-shoot. And of course the quality of my photos has improved greatly, thanks to a great zoom lens and literally hundreds of available exposure settings, special effects, etc. And the fact that I can also shoot good quality video on the same camera doesn't hurt.

Go for it; I don't think you'll regret it a bit.

[Disney Doll]

I completely understand your dilemma. DH surprised me with a Nikon D-90 a few months back. I have been wanting that camera for a while and I totally love it! However, it is a pain to carry around. I can't just slip it in my purse and I swear I felt like the paparazzi when I pulled out that thing at my brother's wedding this past weekend. However, the picture quality is amazing and I even though I thought I would still use my Cannon Power Shot for convenience I never do because who wants to take a ****** snapshot when you have a D-90? So, yes the portability is a pain, but IMHO it's worth it.

Another consideration is your level of proficiency. There's no sense spending the money for a camera with all the bells and whistles if you don't plan to use all the bells and whistles. I love my D-90, but I had to learn a bit more about photography to truly appreciate it. I didn't mind because it's something I have always been interested in and now it's more of a hobby.

I do plan to bring the D-90 to WDW next month. I used to travel with a 35mm SLR and it wasn't bad. I didn't ever bring extra lenses so I can get by with a pretty small camera bag. Pre kids I would just slip my ID and sunglasses in my camera bag and I had less to carry than most people. Now, we travel with a stroller so I can always stash my extra load in the storage compartment of the stroller and it's no big deal.

My Canon is a couple of years old, an SD 900 I think, anyhow it does have a viewfinder and no touch screen. The zoom is another issue and you're right. I don't think you can get much zoom out of the micro digitals. Digital zoom just isn't the same as optical zoom and you can't get much optical zoom without size.

[DestinationWDW]

The question you have to ask your self is how often do you purchase the smaller cameras? How old are your kids, do they play sports, and what type of photo's do you usually take? If you do decide to purchase a SLR make sure you have 2 or 3 months to learn how to use the camera.
If your kids play sports and you take photo's from a distance then an SLR is a good option. You will need a least two lens. Usually the stock lens is good for most pics. But you will need a zoom lens for sports with an f2.8, image stabilization doesn't hurt either. It really helps a great deal especially if you don't have steady hands.

If you take portrait photo's of family.. Pics of holiday, picnics and the family vacations then compact or sub-compact is great and the SLR will be over kill.

I have both and use both depending on what i am shooting. For Example, I use my Olympus which is a compact camera for pictures with Captain Hook and group photo's. It doesn't have a view finder which I do miss. I use my SLR when my 6 year old is on Dumbo because of the speed of the ride or at my kids ice hockey games. I have a Canon 30D with a stock lens and a 75 to 200 zoom lens. Canon also has a pro consumer SLR that gets great reviews and is less expensive.

Most cameras take good pictures, meaning unless your a professional you'll never know the difference. What you really what to look at is the features you want on the camera. For instance your view finder, these are getting harder to find but they still exist. Also don't get confused on Mega Pixels, everyone tries to sell you mega pixels, and most people think more mega pixels the better the picture, this is rarely true. What you need to consider is what size photos your going to print. If you only print 4x6 or 8x10 then 8 to 10 mega pixels are more than enough. Another thing to consider is how it feels in you hand, make sure the camera feels good in you hand and the controls are at your finger tips. If you have big hands then a larger camera may be better.

One thing you do want stay away from is using a digital zoom. Digital zooms only make the picture look grainy. Do opt for optical zoom which is completed by the lens not the processor in the camera.

Hope this helps and good luck

[Ian]

To answer a couple of the questions ... years back, before digitals became the rage, I had a Minolta 35mm camera that I used. I'm a fairly proficient photographer, so that shouldn't be an issue. I'm sure just a quick familiarization with the options and I'd be good to go.

My kids are young yet and I doubt DD is going to play sports, however, she is starting cheerleading this year so there's that.

DS, on the other hand, is only 2 1/2 and he's already insane for sports. He could turn out to be a 2, 3, or even 4 sport kinda kid, so taking pictures of sporting events is an almost sure thing.

So okay ... assume I go with the SLR (which is what I'm leaning towards) ... I'm thinking of one of the Canons? They seem to get the best ratings consistently ... would the EOS Rebel be okay? Any other recommendations?

Disney Doll, how do you like your D-90?

[DestinationWDW]

I think the EOS Rebel is a great camera, When i purchased my 30d they had just came out. The reviews at that time were really good. Whats nice is that you still have all the full features of the SLR but still have the simplicity of a point an shoot.
After doing some price hunting on the web I was able to find the 30D for a few hundred more and thought is was a better choice for me. Now I buy almost all my camera supplies from this company.
Can we mention websites on here?

Nikons are good cameras as well, but i prefer the Canon.

[beksy]

I would definitely go with the SLR. I have problems with my smaller digital camera (also a Sony cybershot by the way) and would love to upgrade, but that will have to wait a few years. I think a big consideration is that you have kids and they are only young once and have their "firsts" once, so getting good pics is important. I'd say go for it!

[BrerGnat]

Ian, I just want to mention that if you do NOT decide to do a SLR, Canon Power Shot Digital ELPH 's are excellent cameras. I used to have a Sony Cybershot and I HATED that thing! I moved to a Canon Power Shot and it's SO much better. AND, it has a VIEWFINDER! And, no touch screen. They're cheap too...and nearly indestructable.

I would highly recommend Canon in general, whether you go SLR or not. They take excellent quality photos.

[DizneyRox]

I just switched from an DSLR to a point and shoot. While I like the DSLR very much, it's just too much to worry about. Also, if you want others to take your picture, you often need to give a little lesson in how to work the camera.

With the prices of cameras these days, I would go for a nice point and shoot (A1000 is nice) and then if you find the feature set is too limiting, you can always get an SLR. It's not like you won't use the point and shoot, even if it's to give the kids to play with.

I'm amazed at the quality of many of the point and shoots. They are no longer the 110's of the digital world.

I prefer Canon. I have a very old Nikon 950 that I still enjoy, but it just can't keep up anymore. I liked that the body would rotate seperate from the lens (check their Coolpix line to see if any still do this) which was fantastic for parades, etc. I would recommend a Nikon in a second as well but my first choice would be a Canon.

[Altair]

The Canon Digital Rebels are not huge like their more expensive cousins.
The Rebels include the XTi, XS, and XSi, in that order of complexity and cost.
I looked at all the features and my needs and ended up with the XS. I was going with the XSi, but Canon finally dropped the price on the XS to put it back in the mix.
You can buy Rebels in kits which include two zoom lenses. The lenses have EF mounts, so you can use them on other EOS Canon cameras if you upgrade later.
To see shots taken with the Rebel XS check out my Yellowstone thread in the Beyond Disney Trip Reports.

By the way, it you like "point and shoot" you can set the camera on full auto and point and click to your heart's desire.

[Ian]

Do the DLSR's typically have a built-in equivalent to the "auto-winders" the old 35mm cameras had? That has some appeal to me ...

[Altair]

Do the DLSR's typically have a built-in equivalent to the "auto-winders" the old 35mm cameras had? That has some appeal to me ...

Yes they do. The more expensive the camera, the more shots per second they can take.

[DizneyRox]

It's a functoin not only of the camera, but the memory you buy as well. The "cheap stuff" often has slow read/write times, and today's camera's take pictures in the 5-8MB range in terms of file size, which means you need to be able to save more data in a short amount of time. If you can't get that to the memory, the camera's buffer will fill and you'll have to wait until it's done saving (or saved enough to take another picture).

This is/was one area that manufactures skimped on. For example, the Canon D30 and the first EOS rebel used very much te same internals. How do I know? Because I loaded the D30 firmware onto my EOS Rebel and actually got some of the functionality back. One area where Canon skimped though was internal memory throughput. This is where the D30 really stood out, it could take many more pictures per second and for more seconds. Even getting the high speed memory for the EOS Rebel, didn't help much.

[RedSoxFan]

I have the Canon EOS Rebel SLR with 6mp. I bought in 2004 for our DL trip. It's a very nice camera. I'm seriously considering upgrading to the TI with 15 mp. However, for our last WDW trip in 2008, I bought the Canon Power Shot 950 which I love for use on the boat (which is now for sale). It's so small that DH just put it in his pocket and it is 12mp and takes great pictures. However, I learned that if you take close-ups of the kids, leave some space above their heads so they don't get chopped off when processed (Ritz Camera told me this). Both cameras are nice; but I personally like the convenience of the power shot for Disney. The SLR does get cumbersome because of the size.

[tazlikesrobots]

I own a sony A100 DSLR and I've taken it with me on every tripto WDW. Frankly I could not do without it. The pictures turn out amazing.

This year I experimented with nightime photography (see website) and fireworks and having manual control allowed for great pictures.

Bottom line is it all depends on what kind of pcitures you like to take. For me, photography is a small hobby and I want the flexibility of changing out lenses and filters to get the perfect shot. Size and weight can be a consern, but there are some great camera bags on the market to take care of that issue. Personally I use a small shulder stap bag that allows easy access to the camera.

We also own a small Cannon point and shoot camera (great for photos while on a ride), but we find ourselves using the DSLR more than the point and shoot.

[Kenny1113]

It seems like you have made your decision, but I wanted to let you know a few months ago I went through the same thing. I went with the DSLR and have never looked back. I love it!! I take it with me all the time. ( I only wish it were water proof) I took it on WDW trips and hiking in the mountains. I just wear it across my shoulder. I have a nikon and I love it. In regards to "teaching" someone to use it, my camera (I believe most DSLR) has a AF (autofocus) feature which makes it just as easy as a point and shoot. Also has manual focus feature which would be like your old 35mm SLR. I found my nikon online $200 cheaper than in most stores. All I need now is the 55-200 lens.

[Ian]

Okay so ... I'm like 90% I'm going with the DLSR ... seems like the Canon are getting the best reviews (although I'd still like to hear feedback on the Nikon D-90?) ...

Now all I need are some suggestions on where to get good pricing. I've been looking at like Best Buy and Amazon.com ... where else should I be looking?

[prprincess]

Okay so ... I'm like 90% I'm going with the DLSR ... seems like the Canon are getting the best reviews (although I'd still like to hear feedback on the Nikon D-90?) ...

Now all I need are some suggestions on where to get good pricing. I've been looking at like Best Buy and Amazon.com ... where else should I be looking?

Looks like I'm a bit late and you've already made up your mind.

My issues, two years after buying my first DSLR, are inconvenience (mine weights 8 lbs. and I lug it in a camera backpack with two lenses, a flash, etc.) and proficiency. But since you are proficient, it seems as if you are good to go. I'm still learning and get quite frustrated, so I've been taking the lazy way out and just using my P&S lately.

The D-90s are getting good reviews. So much so, that I'm thinking of selling my Olympus Evolt-500 and buying one of those.

Price was an issue for me, so I bought a factory demo from a place called Cameta Camera, as well as accessories. I have also purchased my accessories from Adorama, and they are great. I've heard good things about B&H and Beach.

Let us know what you end up buying!!