Entry tags:

howto, photography

How to buy a digital camera #3: dSLR alternatives
In the continuing series on how to think about the current digital camera markets, I'm going to look at cameras that are often priced as much as a very basic digital dSLR, but which don't have an interchangeable lens system. Some of these specialty cameras, in fact, cost more than a basic Nikon D40 or Pentax K110D kit, but I'm segmenting by type here, and not by price, for a reason -- dSLRs are meant, by their very nature, to cost a great deal more than the basic kit price, since there's always another lens or accessory around the corner that will improve your photos.

So …

Should I just get a dSLR?
If you're buying in this market, you're probably more than just a casual snapper. Some of these cameras, like most of the good megazooms, are too big to stuff in a small purse, let alone a pants pocket. So, why not just go all the way into the land of interchangeable lenses?

Since I shoot with dSLRs for at least 99 percent of my photos, you might think I'm about to say "come on in, the water's fine!" But there are plenty of users who would be better served by an advanced "bridge camera" for a few reasons:

1. Money. As I mentioned above, the basic kit price of a dSLR is just getting your toe wet regarding its potential -- you're usually getting just one slow lens with a short zoom range. If you will never take this lens off and put on a better one? You should likely get a camera that was MEANT to have one lens. For less money, a megazoom bridge camera will give you a tremendous range, and (in most bodies this year) viibration reduction for $800-$1,000 cheaper than a megazoom + VR combination with a dSLR. They still offer some of the best ways to get versatility on a budget.
   
   
2. LCD composition: dSLRs have a big, slapping mirror in the way of the image path, as a function of their design. This means nice optical viewfinders, but it makes it very had to implement a system where you can compose a shot by looking at the LCD -- a few camera makers are trying, but the solutions aren't nearly as elegant as on a simple point-and-shoot. Being able to accurately compose a shot with the camera lifted above your head? Nice feature.
   
   
3. Size: Other than the Sony R1, which is based on the same larger sensor as a dSLR, most bridge cameras are still significantly less bulky than any dSLR. In fact, many of the cameras in this market this year are putting 10x zooms with VR in truly pocketable bodies. If a camera is too big for you to bring with you, it's no better than not having a camera at all.

VR, reconsidered

As I alluded yesterday, vibration reduction/image stabilization becomes a lot more important when you're dealing with camera that has a good telephoto range. You're magnifying the word ahead of you a great deal, and any shake from your hands will be magnified as well. Especially since you can't bump the speed up on these to ISO 1600 and beyond and get recognizable pictures, I consider VR a very important feature for a megazoom.

RAW mode
A camera in this price range should shoot RAW, and shoot it well. The files shouldn't be needlessly gigantic, and it shouldn't be much slower than when shooting JPEGs. RAW vs. JPEG is a debate for another time, but suffice to say that if you're buying in this price range, you probably want to grow as a photographer, and even if you don't want to shoot RAW now, you might in the future. There are just some things that cannot be set in camera:



When I took this photo, Smokey Robinson was bathed in bright purple light. No iin-camera setting can compensate for that. I could have messed with the JPEG in Photoshop, but it would introduce posterization and other problems. With RAW, it was a simple (if extreme) white balance adjustment.

Speed
At this price range, there's no excuse for a truly slow camera. When you press the shutter, the camera should take a picture. Lag is going to be tremendously frustrating if you're trying to use this to capture life's fleeting moments. Thankfully lag has decreased a lot on these cameras in recent years, but I would still try them out at the store to see if it's fast enough for you.

What other kinds of cameras are in this market?
I've mostly been talking about the megazoom bridge camera, like the Sony Cybershot H5, the Canon S3 IS, and the Panasonic DMC-FZ50. But there are other cameras filling niche markets. The Ricoh GR digital has no zoom at all, but unlike the cheap cameras they work that into a solid camera design instead of passing it off under a gimmick, and it has a fanatic user base. Leica sells in this market, but I do not recommend buying them, as they are all just re-badged versions of existing Panasonic cameras marked up considerably just for branding reasons. Let's face it -- they aren't real Leica cameras. The optics on them are good enough that Leica could be associated with them without embarrassment, which is a good sign, but they're no more made by Leica than Steven Spielberg made Joe vs. the Volcano -- it's just a name on a product.

Other cameras, like the Canon SD900 or Fuji F31D, are starting to implement software gimmicks like face-recognition technology. For automatic shooting, I'm betting this can actually be helpful, or at least good party conversation, but I wouldn't spend much money on it. The F31 makes the face-detectionless F30 seem like a great deal.