photo question

[lapsedmodernist]

OK, so I understand the structural difference between SLR and point-and-shoot film cameras, that with an SLR you see an actual image formed by the lens of what you are shooting in the viewfinder, whereas with a P&S you only see an approximation, through the "window" in the camera body. Is that also the only difference between a digital SLR and a digital point-and-shoot? I always assumed that digital cameras were priced based on maximum resolution, but brownsing the B&H site I just realized that I could, in theory, get an 8 megapixel P&S Canon for $500, whereas an SLR Canon with the same capacity is $800. The other major difference between SLR and P&S film cameras is that by and large point-and-shoots are automatic, and and I like cameras with manual settings for interesting creative photography (and thus I am very happy with my 35MM Canon Rebel SLR). But that does not appear to be the case with digital cameras. The Canon I was looking at has 21 shooting modes and in general seems like a high-performance camera on the professional, rather than consumer end of the scale. So if I want to upgrade from my 3.5 Nikon coolpix to an 8 megapixel camera, does it make any sense for me to save up for an SLR capable of such high performance, or would I be just as well off getting the high-end P&S?

[ON EDIT]: okay, theophile has convinced me not to consider the point-and-shoot. Thank you all for your input.

Comments

[ersatz-life.livejournal.com]

i could be wrong... but i think also w/ the digital slr's you can usually swap lenses? and that's why they're more pricey?????

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

right, true, I guess I didn't think of it b/c I haven't done it that much, even with my SLR (the 35MM kind) I usually just use filters or polarizers, I recently bought a fish-eye but it's the kind that screws on top of the lens...the extras list a "lens adapter" you can buy, so I wonder what that means...

[ersatz-life.livejournal.com]

hm... maybe a lens adapter allows you to use two different types of lenses? (like base sizes?)

i have all these lenses for my nikon slr film camera, and so i covet a digital back for them, but they're so pricey...

if you aren't into using different types of lenses, then i guess the extra money isn't worth it. my digital is one of those canon power shot cameras. it does the job just fine, but i personally wish i could mess around with the lens ...

[mycrust.livejournal.com]

I don't really know what I'm talking about, but I think that ersatz_life is right, that the biggest difference for digital cameras is lens swapability. I don't think the SLR distinction between "approximate image through viewfinder" and "actual image through final optical path" really exists for digital cameras, since, whether you're just framing your shot or actually taking it, you're still looking at the image as collected by the CCD chip.

[theophile.livejournal.com]

hay guys what's going on in this livejournal

[lapsedmodernist.livejournal.com]

hay is for hourses.

[woodydespair.livejournal.com]

I don't know much about digital cameras, but I would guess that even though the digical P&S has a multitude of shooting modes that you still don't have real creative control. For example, with the digital P&S could you deliberately over- or under-expose? Could you specify exactly how long you wanted to keep the shutter open? Could you zoom in and out while the shutter was open (and shooting) with a digital P&S (this, btw, creates a very cool effect in night shots)? Could you take multi-exposures with a variety of aperture/shutter speed settings? As I say, not very familiar with digital cameras, but these are some things I'd consider.

[protogeek.livejournal.com]

If you're thinking about buying one (and haven't yet), I highly recommend the Canon Digital EOS Rebel. It'll run you around $1200 but it kicks major ass (I have one).