Transitioning from P&S to SLR

[hedgehog]

I have been shooting with digital P&S for the last 6 years. Recently I have become more serious in photography. I have been playing around with an old Canon EOS (film) camera for the last month. Less concerned with size and convenience now, I have seen the light. While I do like what a SLR has to offer, my canon SD1000 photos are consistently better than my film photos (first 10 rolls). Someone with professional photography background has suggested that I should transition myself slowly to a digital SLR. He suggested the likes of Canon G9 to get me used to the manual controls before moving on to a full frame D-SLR. Equipment is only half of the answer to a good picture, right? My questions:
1. Is this a good idea?
2. Is so, is Canon G9 the answer? Is there others like it?
3. If not, would an entry-level D-SLR be a better option?

Here's my criteria:
Budget
* What budget have you allocated for buying this camera?
= $400-600, but not a big issue.

Size
* What size camera are you looking for?
= no matter

Features
* What optical zoom will you need?
= at least Standard 3x-4x, I mean an ultra-zoom would be nice, but for a novice?

* How important is “image quality” to you? (10: professional, 5: family snapshot)
= 7

Do you care for manual controls?
YES

General Usage
* What will you generally use the camera for?
= travel: landscape, architecture, crowds, (individuals if I ever get enough courage)

* Will you be making big prints of your photos or not?
= Hopefully.

Miscellaneous
Are there particular brands you like or hate?
= Canon and Nikon are brands I am likely to trust based on reputation

Thanks everyone.

[Visual Reality]

Actually as a transition I used the Canon Powershot S3. I think its almost perfect for the job. I am still debating whether I should keep it or sell it now that I have a D80.

[bauerman]

I probably don't see the sense in buying a 'transition camera'.......just dive in with an entry level DSLR and start on the path to learning that type of system sooner rather than later.

[Honest Gaza]

...While I do like what a SLR has to offer, my canon SD1000 photos are consistently better than my film photos (first 10 rolls)...

I'd be interested to know what is your criteria for saying they are "better".

Like all of us that have moved from P&S to SLR, you possibly have a perception that the P&S shots were sharper. That does not always mean they were better.

In-camera sharpening & greater depths of field achieved by the P&S will certainly produce a "different" photo than the SLR.

[hedgehog]

I'd be interested to know what is your criteria for saying they are "better".

Like all of us that have moved from P&S to SLR, you possibly have a perception that the P&S shots were sharper. That does not always mean they were better.

In-camera sharpening & greater depths of field achieved by the P&S will certainly produce a "different" photo than the SLR.

"Better" mainly has to do with the control over exposure. P&S allows me to take more pictures with different exposures, sometimes up to 4 or 5 tries, while I typically has been taking the same picture with SLR with either a +/-1 exposures at max.

On the other hand, I do like the ability to change aperture with SLR and to play with the depth, though poorly at that. I know it will take time to appreciate the SLR, hence my willingness to hold off a new d-SLR purchase at this point. It is much more important to take more pictures at this point than take it with the best equipment.

[SpecialK]

Any of the current DSLRs produce fine pictures. Expect to invest another $500 to $1000 for another lens or two at some point, though, to make the most of it.

[downtrodden]

As someone who started with the Canon S3 and then moved up to dSLR when I felt comofortable I can genuinely tell you this is not a good idea. Yes, it was nice learning what manual controls were and how they affected an image, however, processing done in camera in a point and shoot and the deeper depth of field gets you used to having a high "keeper"ration- this can be completely frustrating when you step up to dSLR.

Plus most DSLR's have excellent automatic modse for you to start with while you're reading up on and learning manual controls. you'd be spending 300 bucks for a decent point and shoot anyway, and then 500-600 bucks later for a DSLR, why not take that 800-900 dollars now and buy a Nikon D40? I think you'd be much happier this route. And later on when you have learned your camera, you can spend money to get nicer longer lenses.

Then again- nothing in your post suggests to me you really desire or have the needs for a dSLR- so maybe a good superzoom would suit you best. In this case, I would recommend the Canon S3 IS ... 12x zoom does not affect your abilities as a photographer, so the whole "ultra-zoom would be nice, but for a novice" comment doesn't make any sense.

Either way you go, definitely pick up the book "understanding Exposure" I think this will help your photography a lot more than a DSLR would..

[hedgehog]

Thanks for the suggestions. I will be holding off on the d-SLRs. Several people have suggested the ultra-zoom, Canon S3. A newcomer to the manual side, I am wondering the major differences between the S3 and G9, beside the price and the zoom. Any particular reason why one would favor the S3 over the G9?

[Rooz]

if you are expecting to grow into photography i'd question why a superzoom as a stepping stone ? waste of money and time imo. if you;re unsure if photography is your gig, then i get the S3 decision but if the only reason you wont go for slr if cos you think its complicated or hard to learn, think again. check the d40 pic of the day thread and look at what complete newbs o photography are turning out with limited experience and time behind the dials.

dslr's are not anywhere near as complicated as people make them out to be. they take a bit of time to get the hang of but the principals of photography are the same regardless of whether its an s3 of an xti.

so my advice...if you love photography and want to learn and grow into it then forget the G9 or S3 and dive in. there are plenty of cost effective options out there for you.

[tim11]

if you are expecting to grow into photography i'd question why a superzoom as a stepping stone ? waste of money and time imo.
----

dslr's are not anywhere near as complicated as people make them out to be. they take a bit of time to get the hang of but the principals of photography are the same regardless of whether its an s3 of an xti.
----
so my advice...if you love photography and want to learn and grow into it then forget the G9 or S3 and dive in. there are plenty of cost effective options out there for you.

I have nothing new to add but agree with others here; and Rooz nails it spot on. I originally thought the ultra zoom FZ20 would satisfied me at least 5 years but it wasn't the case; I quickly grew out of it.... But at the time I wasn't sure if photography is really for me.
If you are sure you love photography, just dive right in.

[blackudder]

The S3 offers some manual controls, a bunch of auto settings and a zoom that you won't get on a DSLR for under several thousand bucks. I don't know that the picture quality is that different unless you start talking near the professional area. I think the biggest areas are what you can do with the DSLR compared to the S3. The DSLR gives you the option of lenses, a wider exposure range, better focus in low light, ability to add an external flash and many other choices. The S3, while I think it's a great camera, does have limitations and some options are limited or removed due to it's limitations.

If you don't need an ultra zoom (12x), I would think the best bet would be one of the intro DSLRs - D40, d40x, XT, XTi, XSi, etc. I'm partial to Canon/Nikon also just because of reputation, but there are a few other cameras that do a great job as well.

You can look at the specs for the G9 vs S3 to see differences. One is the zoom 6x vs 12x optical and the G9 does RAW which the S3 doesn't. The G9 has a bigger LCD, but the S3 has one that swivels.

As most folks have said, if you plan on doing this for awhile, I would bite the bullet and go DSLR. To keep the budget down, I'd start with an entry level body - the d40/XT/etc. series and get the best lens you can afford for what you believe you will use the most. Then, over time, if you find the need for something else, then you can get additional lenses. if you decide it's not for you, then there will still be a solid market aftermarket for a quality lens.

[Visual Reality]

Low light / poor ISO performance and no RAW are the top 2 things that I had to upgrade for...the S3 just couldn't hack it for me. It was great outdoors during the day though.

[tim11]

---I don't know that the picture quality is that different unless you start talking near the professional area. ----
I know quality is subjective but you only have to step inside the house where light is low to see the different in quality. With an XTi, for instance, you can still make decent prints from ISO1600 and the same can't be said for S3 on ISO800. You can produce better DoF in DSLR too; of course.

Click here to see the difference.
http://www.dcresource.com/forums/showpost.php?p=287862&postcount=6