What is the better points of slr over compact cameras and vice versa?
im ntrested n getn a DSLR, but lookn through many cameras a lot of the compacts hav bigger mps than dslr and these compacts are mucho cheapo.... plz relieve
Answers: You would benefit from reading the link below. Mega pixels are not that important. Sensor size is and DSLR sensors are almost 15 times larger than that of any point and shoot. DSLR's also are fully adjustable, have far superior optics, faster more accurate auto focus, better high ISO concert and no shutter lag just to identify a few of the advantages.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.h…
These answers are correct. The camera maker have got the public believing that the numbers of mega pixels equates to better photos.
If you're enlarge to say 30 x 40 inches yes, mega pixels will make a difference. However, as Mardat222 mentioned, have a 6mp DSLR is far better than a 12mp point and shoot - it's in the optics for one thing but more over contained by the data processing that takes place inside the camera after the sensor is exposed.
Trust us, there's adequate difference that if good quality photos issue, choose a DSLR every time - every time!
Good Luck
Of course the SLR-type digital cameras will give you better image power than the "point and shoot" types, even SLRs with much less pixel level. It is ridiculously unfair to compare these two types of cameras and simply say "SLRs are better". All types of cameras are other getting better but still there is no instrument around the physics of a large precise lens and a large sensor.
Still, "point and shoot" camera do own advantages. Since there almost always seem to be an over-abundance of SLR-happy answers out there, I'll try to answer the "vice versa" part of your query.
Advantages of "point and shoot" cameras over SLR cameras:
Cheaper, the consequences here aren't just at purchase time. Unless you swimming in lolly you need to be more careful next to that more expensive SLR. Where can you safely leave it? Insurance? It is only just more of a worry the more you spend. Then there is replacement, do you want to be capable of afford getting a new one in a few years? Can you? Things today aren't similar to a generation ago where you would release up for the best camera you could afford, take care of it and hang on to it, even for decades and not much would change in camera technology except for show which you are always replacing anyway.
Smaller; depending on your needs, as you would expect, but are you really going to carry that much larger SLR camera around. Should you take the extra lens, flash. Do you want to other have a camera on you?
Video capability; almost adjectives of them allow you to record video, only amazingly recently do some SLR manufactures submit models that can also record video.
Higher selection of cameras that are more use-specific as appose to the SLR platform which is a system camera, intended to to be have many different configurations using extra accessories. The more dedicated use of the noninterchangeable "point and shoot" can in actuality be an advantage when it is really what you only requirement. For example, you can get a rugged underwater camera, or a big zoom camera, or a very compact camera or drastically cheap or good image part or wide angle or great video or manual controls, or RAW, etc.. Of course respectively of these types makes trade offs in other areas, but to be precise the point, you can take what matters to YOU.
You can bear a good picture with a point and shoot, you really can. The SLR will always give better symbol quality, but the biggest difference in picture level between the two types is situations where you have low muted and or moving subject. In such a situation the SLR might not just be better but the "point and shoot" won't be even able to produce a adjectives picture at all. Of course there are copious more examples where the SLR significantly excels in logo quality over the "point and shoot" but this "low light/moving subject" difference is the most basic and the one that the most adjectives in general.
I don't know what your distinctive needs and wants and budget is for you, but sometimes within is such a thing as the "point and shoot" being the better choice.
Megapixels aren't the answer. I would rather have a 6mp DSLR than a 12+mp point and shoot. Honestly!
The Nikon D700 is awesome! What is your budget.
Related Questions:
Answers: You would benefit from reading the link below. Mega pixels are not that important. Sensor size is and DSLR sensors are almost 15 times larger than that of any point and shoot. DSLR's also are fully adjustable, have far superior optics, faster more accurate auto focus, better high ISO concert and no shutter lag just to identify a few of the advantages.
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/mpmyth.h…
These answers are correct. The camera maker have got the public believing that the numbers of mega pixels equates to better photos.
If you're enlarge to say 30 x 40 inches yes, mega pixels will make a difference. However, as Mardat222 mentioned, have a 6mp DSLR is far better than a 12mp point and shoot - it's in the optics for one thing but more over contained by the data processing that takes place inside the camera after the sensor is exposed.
Trust us, there's adequate difference that if good quality photos issue, choose a DSLR every time - every time!
Good Luck
Of course the SLR-type digital cameras will give you better image power than the "point and shoot" types, even SLRs with much less pixel level. It is ridiculously unfair to compare these two types of cameras and simply say "SLRs are better". All types of cameras are other getting better but still there is no instrument around the physics of a large precise lens and a large sensor.
Still, "point and shoot" camera do own advantages. Since there almost always seem to be an over-abundance of SLR-happy answers out there, I'll try to answer the "vice versa" part of your query.
Advantages of "point and shoot" cameras over SLR cameras:
Cheaper, the consequences here aren't just at purchase time. Unless you swimming in lolly you need to be more careful next to that more expensive SLR. Where can you safely leave it? Insurance? It is only just more of a worry the more you spend. Then there is replacement, do you want to be capable of afford getting a new one in a few years? Can you? Things today aren't similar to a generation ago where you would release up for the best camera you could afford, take care of it and hang on to it, even for decades and not much would change in camera technology except for show which you are always replacing anyway.
Smaller; depending on your needs, as you would expect, but are you really going to carry that much larger SLR camera around. Should you take the extra lens, flash. Do you want to other have a camera on you?
Video capability; almost adjectives of them allow you to record video, only amazingly recently do some SLR manufactures submit models that can also record video.
Higher selection of cameras that are more use-specific as appose to the SLR platform which is a system camera, intended to to be have many different configurations using extra accessories. The more dedicated use of the noninterchangeable "point and shoot" can in actuality be an advantage when it is really what you only requirement. For example, you can get a rugged underwater camera, or a big zoom camera, or a very compact camera or drastically cheap or good image part or wide angle or great video or manual controls, or RAW, etc.. Of course respectively of these types makes trade offs in other areas, but to be precise the point, you can take what matters to YOU.
You can bear a good picture with a point and shoot, you really can. The SLR will always give better symbol quality, but the biggest difference in picture level between the two types is situations where you have low muted and or moving subject. In such a situation the SLR might not just be better but the "point and shoot" won't be even able to produce a adjectives picture at all. Of course there are copious more examples where the SLR significantly excels in logo quality over the "point and shoot" but this "low light/moving subject" difference is the most basic and the one that the most adjectives in general.
I don't know what your distinctive needs and wants and budget is for you, but sometimes within is such a thing as the "point and shoot" being the better choice.
Megapixels aren't the answer. I would rather have a 6mp DSLR than a 12+mp point and shoot. Honestly!
The Nikon D700 is awesome! What is your budget.
Related Questions: