point and shoot - How do I choose between an SLR or an expensive P&S?

I am planning to buy a new camera and am all confused. I am an amateur photographer who likes to click good photographs. I try to make the most of my Nikon CoolPix camera and have some decent understanding of what and how to click. Photography seems to be an upcoming hobby for me in recent past.

Below are some of my chief requirements :

1. The camera should be able to take good pictures indoors. Mostly I will be clicking Indoors.



2. The Camera should be able to click quickly. This is a must. This requirement comes as I will be mostly photographing my one-year-old daughter. Children are not steady — they don’t wait for your camera to stabilize the image. In the best case, the camera should be able to easily capture moving objects; I think it is like a "sports mode" or should have a high FPS. I am hoping that I can use the sports mode when it is difficult to make my daughter to pose.


3. It should have a good zoom. Many a times, it is not possible to reach places which you want to photograph; for example, a bird sitting on top of a building.

I am now confused about which camera to buy: an SLR or an expensive Point-and-Shoot?. With the help of friends I have been able to shortlist the below two cameras:

• Nikon D5100 priced at $676 at Amazon. A default lens of 18-55mm.


• Sony HX 100 At $450 at Amazon. 30× Zoom

I am worried that if I buy an SLR, I will have to buy an expensive zoom lens as well. At 676 USD, the D5100 is already on the more expensive side for me. Also, in my experience, a 5× zoom looks trivial to me and I feel that a 10-15× zoom is generally needed. The Nikon 5100 comes with a 18-55mm lens which probably gives 3× Zoom. To my surprise, experienced photographers that I know said that you will not need much Zoom?! Also, I am told that a 30× zoom that the Sony P&S has will not be of much use without a tripod.

The Sony HX seems to have a good sports mode at a good 10 FPS. On the contrary, the SLR has a much lower 2-6 FPS, which means that I will not be able to capture moving objects. Again, my friends tell me that a 2-6 FPS that a SLR gives is very good.

Can you please suggest which camera will meet my requirements more? Is an Expensive Point & Shoot as good as a DSLR? Is Point-and-Shoot better for zoom and high FPS ?

I am also unsure why zoom is generally not given with SLRs, even though it is possible to calculate it.

And, finally, which camera will give better HD Video ?

Answer

Since you say "Photography seems to be an upcoming hobby for me in recent past", I think you should get a system camera of some sort. That means a camera with interchangeable lenses and other dedicated accessories (like hotshoe flash options). Usually, that means an SLR, but there's a relatively new class of mirrorless interchangeable lens digital cameras like the Micro 4/3rds system from Olympus and Panasonic or the NEX from Sony that you may also want to look into.

In this, you are giving up some of the convenience based flexibility of an all-in-one package with a superzoom lens in exchange for customizable flexibility where you can build a set of equipment for your needs.

Because you are trying to cover a lot of things, from low-light to extreme telephoto, any all-in-one package is going to suffer from a lot of compromise. The image quality of that 30× zoom lens is impressive for what it is, but not that great in an absolute sense. The same comes from the tiny sensor used, which enables the high telephoto numbers. (See this for the technical reason why a small sensor helps here; as you can see, it's really just like cropping.)

I've covered some of my reasoning in Are there disadvantages to a prosumer camera for a beginner, aside from cost?, and I'll try not to repeat myself too much.

You can get a lot from a point & shoot camera, although I'd steer you to one of the lower zoom high-end models which tend to focus more on image quality and low light rather than emphasizing the zoom range as a priority. Compromise has to happen somewhere, and for taking kid pictures, I think that's the right direction. That would be something like the Canon Powershot G12 or S95, Olympus XZ-1, or Fujifilm X10 (not to be confused with the X100, which is also very exciting but more of a commitment to a certain approach to photography).

If you go for an SLR, you'll have to put more work into clicking good photographs — but you'll also be able to get a much bigger return on that work in terms of results. You won't have the gigantic zoom range, so you'll probably have to move around more, and/or change lenses in the middle of things. Without spending for a camera body priced at about twice what you're aiming for, you won't get the raw FPS, so you'll have to learn to time your shots rather than counting on "pray and spray". If you had just said "I want to take good pictures and not think about it", I wouldn't advise this direction — but if you're really interested in photography as a hobby and in making great pictures, it'll be worth the investment.

You'll certainly end up putting in more money into a system camera, whether SLR or mirrorless. I think $1500-$3000 is a reasonable budget to start with for the first couple years, although you can be more frugal if you're careful. You don't necessarily need to spend that all in one go, but it sounds like you want to do a lot of things. You'll probably immediately benefit from at least a nice normal prime lens and a basic hotshoe flash. As you note, the 18-55mm kit lens doesn't cover a huge zoom range, and it's also not very fast. Given your desire for more telephoto reach, you'll probably want to add a telephoto zoom and a solid tripod. Each of these things, in their entry-level versions, runs about $200 — and you may decide you want to move up from entry level.

If you decide that frames-per-second are really vital, you may want to consider if you can stretch from the Nikon D7000, which offers 6fps (and comes with an 18-105mm kit lens, which offers more convenience but again is an exercise in compromise). Or you could look at the comparable Pentax K-5, at 7fps. I know this is stretching your budget (especially with a new baby — I've been there!), but you may decide it's worthwhile after all. Life is short, and your child won't ever be a baby again: start getting those great photographs as soon as possible. In support of this position, I'll leave you with one of my favorite camera-recommendation articles. It's tongue-in-cheek (there is no real "George") but is also serious: The Online Photographer: Letter to George.