Compact Digital or SLR?

le sigh

I was going to give you a long opinionated post about how I think photography is about money, and SLRs are the new status symbol, the new cool. About how the digital revolution of photography has opened the floodgates and allowed access to the art like never before. About how the technology has leveled the playing field and allowed any average joe to think he's a good photographer. But instead, I think I'm going to give you the reasons why I don't necessarily think that an SLR is the right fit for me.

The SLR
I drool over SLRs. I can spot one from a mile away and will zero in on that thing like a fly to ..well, you know. They're beautiful things. I like how they feel. I like manually focusing. I like being in control of my camera. I like the sound the shutter makes. I like looking through the eye piece. I like feeling like I'm holding a camera the way a camera was meant to be! I like that you can get gadgets for them: different lenses and filters and flashes and remotes and, and, and. I love the clarity of the photographs and the depth of field. I love that you can keep the shutter open indefinitely.

But...
SLRs are expensive. The Nikon D90 (newest one on the shelf) with a standard 18-105mm lens kit will run you $1500 at Best Buy. My preferred brand, the Canon EOS 50D with a 17-85mm lens kit costs $1,800.

Lenses are limiting unless you're willing to spend even more bucks. Those 18-55mm lenses... you're just not going to be happy with one of those. Sure, it'll give you great pics! (as long as you're within 10ft of the subject) To get greater range from your camera, you're going to have to invest in more lenses. You're at least gonna want a wide angle for taking nice group shots, and a zoom lens for that far away action. I LOVE my zoom! The Canon 100-400mm would only set you back, oh, the price of the camera! $1749.95. Granted, you're paying for the brand at a fancy camera shop, but you get the point - lenses add to the cost of the camera. Oh, and that 400mm, that's about the equivalent of something like a 10x zoom, are you going to be satisfied with that? I wouldn't be.

Bulky & Heavy. The camera body itself is pretty heavy, then add in two or three lenses to cart around, plus some filters, a tripod, cords, remotes, flashes, blah, blah, blah. Its not unusual for a properly equipped SLR owner to have an entire backpack dedicated to his camera! And I hope you don't want to move from a macro shot to a zoom shot in less than 2 seconds, cause it's going to take you at least a minute to dig through your gear to change your lens! I took my mom's SLR on vacation with me once - it was a giant pain in the butt, not to mention heavy to drag around everywhere. Not something you want to carry on a 10km hike through the woods.

Memory. Oh man, those new SLRs, they're 12-15 mega pixels! Not to mention that they take pictures in either JPEG or RAW formats. You know how much space that's gonna take up on your hard drive?!

They have more capabilities than the average user knows what to do with. Unless you're willing to spend hours and hours and hours and hours (and maybe take an actual photography course), practising with your new toy, you're not likely to use that camera to its fullest potential. And actually, you're probably going to be taking pictures that look fairly similar to any other point & shoot camera that you could buy for 1/10th of the cost. Disappointing eh?

The expectation factor. I already have people who tell me that I'm an awesome photographer and I missed my calling and I should try to develop that talent. Umm. Hate to break it to ya, but its just not true. Really, its like telling a karaoke singer he should sing the national anthem at an NHL game - probably not a good idea. In the past four years, my little camera has taken over 16,000 images. By shear dumb luck, a couple of them have turned out really good! But I'm not naive enough to think that I could make a living at it (I also know what the market for stock photography is like - the market is so flooded with people trying to make it big that stock photos are all but worthless.) Put an SLR in my hand and I'm going to end up with everyone who knows me asking me to shoot their weddings and babies! AUGH!!! The camera doesn't make the talent, trust me. Just to clarify: I am not some sort of outstanding photographer; I take lots of pics, sometimes I get lucky. End of story.


The Compact Digital (aka Point & Shoot)
Everyone's got a compact digital. They're everywhere, they're cheap. And, for the most part, the technology has come so far in recent years, that they all take really good pictures. The market is so overwhelmed with compact digitals (I mean, FisherPrice sells them for little kids for like $20), that there's really nowhere to start when talking about them. So, I'll show you what I like about mine.

I've got a Canon PowerShot S2IS. It was top of the line in compact technology 4 years ago. Still a good camera, not quite as powerful as I'd like, but still good enough that I don't necessarily want to upgrade quite yet.

What I like about it:

• It feels like a camera should feel, its got some size to it.
• Its got manual settings
• 12x zoom! yeah... that's the stuff! I can litterally focus on stuff that is touching the lens I'm that close to it, and then within seconds I can be zoomed out taking a pic of something that's 200ft away! For me, zoom makes the camera. Maybe I'm a bit of a sniper photographer - I like to sit way back out of the way, but still be able to zoom in for those nice close ups. I can do that with this camera.
• Its got just the right amount of play toys on it to make taking pictures fun, but nothing silly like 'smile recognition'.
• I can take decent video with it (something I forgot to mention, they're just starting to release SLRs with video capture - not all of them have it)
• I can throw it over my shoulder and walk around with it for a week without having to slug around a backpack full of equipment.
• at 5 mega pixels, it does a decent 8x10 enlargement. And, each picture doesn't take up ridiculous amounts of space on the hard drive.
• This camera is as close to being an SLR, without actually being an SLR, as you can get.
  

If I had my choice of cameras today, anything I wanted, I would be tempted to fall in love with a Nikon D90 and learn to be a snobby SLR user. But, I would hope that at the end of the day, reason wins and I would put the SLR back on the shelf for the simple reasons that its far too expensive for me, and its way more bulk than I want to lug around.

I'd have to say that I would (and probably will eventually) invest in the older brother of my current camera: The Canon Powershot SX10IS. All of the Canon functionality I know and love, with a longer zoom! That's right, a 20x zoom lens (equivalent to a 28-560mm lens) for a price under $450! You know what a 560mm telephoto lens for an SLR would cost?! Too much!

Here's one I found for $28,500!! I'm not even joking! Sigma 200-500mm

Anyway, I've found a winner in the Canon PowerShot S - series. I'm going to stick with it, and fight off the crazy ragamuffins telling me that I should invest in an SLR. SLRs aren't for everybody you know.