Bearing in mind that all my favourite photos to date have been impromptu, spur of the moment photos that I was able to take with zero notice because I can carry my little compact everywhere just in my pocket, point and shoot.
I'm not into difficult, arty compositions so much. I mean I am, but the ability to carry a camera everywhere and take pictures with no warning is way more important to me.
e.g. there is no point having a dirty great SLR if that SLR's sheer weight prevents you from getting to the peaks where the photos are
At same time though I feel I could do better than my current cheapo compact
Any suggestions? Was thinking of getting a £300 Olympus introductory DSLR
How about a mirrorless intechangable:
[img] 
[/img]
Small enough to easily carry. Better image quality than any compact.
What do you feel is wrong with the images you currently get?
Or... have a look at m4/3 - Olympus (e-p1, e-pl1), Panasonic (gf1). Or Sony (Nex-3).
Almost compact sized and almost as good as a dslr (or as good in most circumstances and almost as good in others).
EDIT: too slow 😆
Sounds like a compact suits your needs better. Maybe spend £300 on a decent compact with plenty of manual settings if fancy having a play. I went through the same process a while back and settled on a Lumix LX3, I just don't believe I'd have an SLR with me and ready to shoot nearly often enough to justfy it. YMMV
don't bother with an SLR if you can't afford to buy extra lenses.
on of my even more geeky friends has done some testing, comparisons, and stuff, and found that the lenses in high-end compact cameras are suprisingly good.
and the lenses that come with cheap SLR's are rubbish - you might be getting a good 'body' but that's pointless if the lens attached to it is cack.
i've seen the results and have to agree.
It's not that simple though.
Even a brilliant lens on a compact will still fail to isolate a subject or produce poor low light pictures compared to a dslr with a crap lens.
AF on compacts is inferior too, so you may not have got the photo to compare to the dslr from the compact anyway.
it's not that simple though,
it depends on the compact camera...
😉
it depends on the compact camera...
Not really. It's down to sensor size and AF approach. You don't get large sensors or PDAF on compacts.
and the lenses that come with cheap SLR's are rubbish
Not necessarily.
it depends on the compact camera...
The small sensors in compacts are physically incapable of producing low depths of field, or low noise in low light.
5thElefant - Phase detection AF is certainly best, but contrast detection AF is getting closer in performance all the time.
Trying to work out whether an SLR is right for you is definitely going to be tough.
What you haven't done is explain why an SLR might be of benefit. If you are just wanting every photo to be that bit 'better', you're barking up the wrong tree imo.
A Canon s95 or a Panasonic LX5 or a slightly bigger Canon G12 might well give you all that you'll need.
Or, conversely you can trade fidelity for something which is the most versatile (an iPhone for e.g.)
If however, you wish to become a photography student; experiment with photography, flash, filters, playing with motion, depth of field, etc, then an SLR is a great way to learn. It's also far, far more expensive than you probably imagine.
This is all very useful.
I find my existing camera (cheapest Canon digital) takes alright pictures in the sense that if I take 3 different shots of each item, one normally comes out alright. But it just doesn't knock my socks off, catch the tone of the light, etc., and don't get me started on action shots and low light (although low light doesn't matter so much). If a compact will address all these issues I'd prefer that, but my reference point really against which the compact falls down is an old retro Pentax SLR I used to have - so I think a "proper" lens is required.
I would try and get hold of one of the 'prosumer' compacts to have a play with. They are very good as long as you know what you can never achieve with them. (noise-free ultra-low light, shallow depth of field, etc).
Some don't have viewfinders either, so you have to play.
They do definitely manage to capture subtle light more than cheaper compacts though.
Learning to shoot in RAW and having something like Adobe Lightroom can help a lot in this regard too.
For e.g. this was taken with the LX3
[img] 
[/img]
The highlights on the Chameleon were blown but apart from that it's done a very good job (I precessed from RAW in Lightroom).
and don't get me started on action shots and low light
A view finder and a big body really helps for action shots. If that is a priority a dslr is certainly worth considering over compacts or mirrorless interchangeable lens format cameras.
Pentax dslrs might be a good place to start looking.
I was in your situation - wife got me a 2nd hand Nikon d70 and 50mm lens. Not pocket friendly at all, but surprised me how quickly I chose to take the Nikon over my decent little Canon Ixus, simply as the pics on average were much much better, and it 'encouraged' me to take more / try stuff (a decent bag makes life easier).
If you go secondhand, you can always sell with little loss, but def worth a go
I was happy with a digi compact. However, the pics my dad took of our daughter with his old 5mp Canon DSLR were so superior I wanted as good a picture for recording her growing up. I settled for the Sony A390 for £300 new. I researched and the lens is well-rated too, all good so went for it. I can say I'm chuffed to monkeys with it and getting some brilliant shots even with it as standard - a great big step up from any compact. Not too big, not too heavy and fun to explore the different settings.