What cameras did you use, and would it make much difference if you had used a decent point and shoot?

Thinking of buying a DSLR (again, owned two, sold them after a few months as they sat in a cupboard) partly inspired by some of the pic's on the thread. I have never really got on with DSLR's, but only have only used kit lenses, Should I try harder / get a decent lens, or it is a case that 'if you have to ask….'?

it depends on the individual – if I had to use a compact I'd probably just not bother.

alternatively, I have a DSLR that I can never be arsed to take anywhere.

I'm seriously thinking about one of these new crop of compacts with DSLR sensors in.

if I had to use a compact I'd probably just not bother

WTF?

if I had to use a compact I'd probably just not bother
WTF?

it's just personal preference. It's possible to get great photos with a compact. And I've been using an SLR for 36 years…

WTF?

While very good, my compact is seriously noisy in comparison with my cheap, old DSLR. When I've been used to the 20Ds performance (and thats hardly amazing in current terms) the compact is just dissappointing each time. I use it for snaps mainly now, or biking where I expect to crash.

If I intend to take good photos, the compact stays at home.

I have some very nice results from the kit lens, but undoubtedly you get what you pay for. My next purchase will be a nifty fifty, but I've no rush.

..any tips to improve my point and shoot technique. I just have my compact on automatic, press the button and hope for the best. Any settings worth playing with?

Problem with compacts is you rarely get a decent depth of field effect, so there's not much point going for the Av option to fix aperture (and DoF). About all you're limited to is trading off shutter speed and aperture to get long and short exposures for your water shots etc.

Saying that, with macro modes you can get a pretty good DoF effect in image (even if the branch wobbles and you miss focus on the drip)

I just fnd that with the same size (pixel, not physical) sensor, the DSLR gets a much cleaner shot over the compact:

But even a 3mp compact can take a nice shot given the right conditions:

I'd check out one or two of the books out there regarding exposure techniques to see how you can play with your manual settings. Or just teach yourself with a lot of faffing and trial and error. There are plenty of rules of thumb but many have less effect on a compact due to the aforementioned nature of the small sensor/more noise/lack of DoF, but it's fun to try to find their extremes. If its a canon you can probably get a CHDK firmware "hack" for it (doesnt actually change your camera, no worries there) which adds all sorts of functionality like motion sensing triggers, exposure bracketing (to make HDRs) and more. Composure of the shots is the ultimate importance, as you can see by the bottom one I've got the horizon at the half way point, this is frowned upon. I didn't know this when I started taking images, look for the rule of 3rds etc.

It depends how 'auto' your point & shoot is & how accessible and adjustable functions are.

Her indoors has got a fairly cheap Nikon compact and it lets you do very little aside from literally point & shoot. You can tell the flash to fire or not fire, but that's about it.
With more expensive compacts, you generally get more features.

Best thing to do would be to make sure you know what your camera can do and where the features are so you can access them easily. This might mean you have to read the manual (sorry!).
Then it might be worth looking on the internet or buying a book on basic photography – you'll probably pick up quite a bit quite quickly. This'll tell you under which situation to use certain features.

A little bit of thought on composition, looking at the entire frame not just the subject, things in the background, the angle you take the pic from (crouching down, standing, on some steps etc.) will make a heap of difference.

Depends on the compact. Some are optimised for people taking photos of pissed up mates, and some are SLRS without changeable lenses and a bit smaller.

My old one from 2001 had full manual control over everything, and focused down to 3cm. Got some amazing super close up pics on it, with depth of field of a couple of mm. Only thing I missed on it was the ability to stick a big zoom lense on it, and it was also way slower in use than a DSLR – ie shutter lag etc – but then it was almost a 10 year old design.

But +1 for reading about basic photography.. what shutter speed, apeture and whatnot mean and how to use them.

I've got the horizon at the half way point, this is frowned upon

arse, it's your photo not "theirs"!

I use mainly a Canon 5D MkII. Now yes, this is a very expensive camera, but I've found it to be streets ahead of everything my 450D before it did. My gf has a Canon G11 (top of their compact range), and last night we went out to take 'arty' photos (not THAT sort of arty) of bluebells in our local woods. Despite her being quite vociferous at times about why I needed such an expensive camera, why was it so big, so many lenses etc, she quickly saw that for those sorts of shots where a narrow DoF really makes the photo, her G11 simply couldn't hold a candle to it. Also shots into the dying sun the little CCD really struggled with, whilst my full-frame SLR was just fine.

That said, for shots in good light, the compact can certainly hold its own against a camera worth 6x as much unless you're printing silly-big. It also has the advantage of being taken everywhere, whereas my SLR gets left at home on occasion. It is fully adjustable, and even has manual focus, but is nowhere near as easy to use in these respects compared to even the most basic of SLRs. I have to say my 'hit rate' when using even such a high level compact is low, when compared to when I've got the SLR with me.

These days you can get a decent last-generation 2nd hand dSLR for about £250 from a camera shop, probably with some sort of guarantee. You can't really go wrong there, and it will be better than even the best current compacts. If you're really hard up. You can get a good film body for £8-10, nifty-fifty autofocus lens for £70, and a lot of film and developing (and scanning) before you get to the cost of a new dSLR. If you're happy to be manual, I'm sure you'd get an old Olympus OM-10 and 50mm f1.8 lens for about £30 all in. That's a serious amount of camera for your cash. Cost of a 36 exp slide film and scanning at 20MB .tif files is about £10, meaning each photo is 28p – still pretty cheap!

Mine were all taken with a Panasonic GF1 and kit lenses.

For me it's the perfect compromise of size/weight/quality. I take it literally everywhere with me.

DSLR will be better for action pics (faster AF and slightly less shutter lag) and in low light (less noise at high ISOs) but for most situations there's really very little difference in quality imo.

The other advantage is that it looks like a casual camera, so people act naturally around you, and you don't look like a creepy 'photographer' type like sfb 😉

and you don't look like a creepy 'photographer' type like sfb

… and here is Jane's response to prevocam:

Thanks you for proving my point so well 🙂

For most of mine I have used a Canon EOS 50D with kit lens.

Probably should have got a compact instead…or something cheaper

You not happy with the 50d Creg? How come?

Really dont think Im getting the best out of it. Feel like Im getting the same results as I would have with something cheaper.

On reflection something like a 450D with a couple of lenses might have been a more sound investment that a 50D with one lens. I cant afford to buy another lens at the moment.

Panny G1 is on end of line sale at the moment for £350…could be a good buy?