[beeper007]

I know that I am asking a very absurd question but I do need to know this before deciding on a mainstream Canon Power Shot A640(US $400) or the dSLR Canon EOS 400D(Rebel XTi)(US $1000).

I take on an average 50 pictures in a month mostly of people(in Daylight, Night Time, Night Long Exposures), HDR(multi shot overlap) and some times nature & architecture solely for personal and creative use. I am not much into changing the lenses and I may never buy anything other than the 18-55mm kit lens but I am very very fond of image quality, color vibrancy and saturation, edge to edge sharpness, contrast etc. I rarely print the pictures as I watch them on our wide screen 19" LCD or XGA DLP Projector. So please let me know,
1) Why should one spend 250% extra on a dSLR?
2) Can the pictures from a "Really Good" main stream DigiCam come closer to the "promised high quality" of a dSLR on the Kit Lens?

[Rob Barron]

In my personal opinion, no, they can't. The picture quality from a DSLR will be higher both down to image resolving capability and internal processing.

Having said that, you don't seem that bothered about the best quality images as you said you only look at them on a monitor anyway. That means you are fine with images that are low resolution. So, let's say you make a picture nice and big to show on your 19" monitor. I assume you don't to scroll around all over the place to see the full image so a 12" x 8" image is likely to be the sort of size. At 72 dpi that is just 864 pixels by 576 pixels giving a total pixel count of 497,664 pixels. In other words less than 0.5 megapixels!

Frankly if that is definitely all you are going to ever display your images on, I would definitely go for the A640 as you really don't need any more and that camera is a perfectly respectable camera. I think I'm right in saying it uses the same Digic II processor that the 400D uses as well.

I think you will be perfectly happy with the image quality of the 640 so my suggestion would be that you go for one of those. If in the future you decide you really want to go the SLR route, you can always upgrade and sell your A640 for a reasonable price without losing too much.

Cheers,
Rob

[beeper007]

Oh No, Not at all. I am not a 0.5 Mega Pixel kind of guy. Currently I have two cameras
old) Kodak LS 753 5 Mega Pixel/3X Camera and
new) Kodak Z650 6.1 Mega Pixes/10X Camera
and I have somewhat less complaints with the new camera maybe because of the Schneider lens or 1 meg of extra resolution but lemme tell you, on a 80" display or 19" the extra megs do count but I DONT scroll, I watch it full screen in one go(iRfanView).
Its just that , will an extra US $600 really matter for a person like me.

[Dave]

DSLR will allow more flexibility, but you mention you don't want to change lenses....although there are wide focal range zooms out there circa 18-200mm.

Keeping images purely on the monitor means ultimate image quailty will not be such a key factor between. Even on a projector I assume you can only show X x Y pixels, which will be alot less than camera is producing ?

I would say you can't justify the extra money for the DSLR over the powershot at this moment in time.....in my humble opinion

[Mick]

Have you considered a canon powershot G7? This is the camera that I chose when in the same situation as you. 10 megapixals and a lot of manual control, including a hot shoe for external lighting. It is more expensive than 640 but less than a DSLR and comes with a 6x zoom (also teleconverter and wide angle adapter lenses as extra if you needed them).
Anyway, I chose this camera two months ago and have not been dissapointed.

Mick

[abirkill]

In my opinion a bridge camera with a decent lens will outperform a DSLR with the kit lens in most situations. Yes, the DSLR has advantages in low light performance, shutter lag, and so on, but if you're not going to change lenses then you're not using one of the killer features of a DSLR - one that you're paying a lot of money for.

While I love my DSLR, I do think that a lot of consumers have bought DSLRs incorrectly because they're perceived as the 'best' cameras you can buy. I see so many photos from DSLRs that are soft, dull and flat - with a bit of adjustment to the shooting settings and a bit of minor post-processing these photos would improve dramatically, but the owners don't do this, and hence get less appealing photographs than they would from a bridge camera that will do all that for you automatically.

[beeper007]

Could anyone please provide me any link of a group review(either on Pixalo or any where on the internet) of entry level dSLRs or "Good Quality" Prosumer Digital Cameras so that I can strike the best balance between the two.

[silkstone]

Sorry if this is repeating what has already been said, but one of the main differences between DSLRs and 'compacts' or 'bridge' cameras is the sensor size, and (with current technology) that usually has a significant effect on high ISO performance. With a 400D and most other DSLRs you can get very useable pics at ISO 1600, but you'd struggle above ISO 400 with most compacts.

Another consideration is external flash - many compacts don't have a hotshoe, and this limits the flash range and also precludes bounce flash. Then there's shutter lag - the time taken to achieve focus and take the shot. That's almost always better on a DSLR, but maybe it doesn't matter if you're not taking action shots.

As long as you accept their limitations, the wide-range zooms like the Tamron 18-200 Di-II are excellent IMO if you're not keen on swapping lenses, and the 18-200 plus 400D is a great combination.

Having said all that, I agree that many people who buy DSLRs would probably be happier with a compact or bridge camera, so it really depends on whether you really need the additional features and performance of the DSLR.

Solution is to have one of each.

[stepheno]

Why not have a look Equipment Reviews Section. There's all the current DSLRs and a good crop of Bridge cameras too.