Why you want a DSLR

Posted on: 19 September 2009

The idea for this article has been in my head for a while and I'm finally now putting pen to paper (in a virtual kind of way). So the age old question, why get a DSLR over a compact camera. I'm gonna make this a pretty straight forward argument. 5 points for, 5 points against. Here goes.

1. Colours: Everyone loves good colours. Although Digital Compacts are improving, they'll never be able to compete with the richness and saturation of colours you get with a DSLR. Compacts are always a little washed out and lifeless.
2. Depth of Field: For anyone who doesn't know what this is, it's the area in which a part of the photograph appears in focus. The larger the depth of field, the more of the picture is in focus, and vice versa. If you're thinking "uhh… what?" then you've probably never touched a DSLR, as compact cameras are renowned for having almost infinite depth of field. This means there's no real room for creative expression. As more often than not, your background is always going to be just as sharp as your subject in the foreground. An SLR (ideally equipped with a large aperture lens) gives you complete control of the amount of depth of field. Portrait with a nice dreamy blurry background: very tight depth of field. Landscape where everything even in the far distance is pin-sharp: very broad depth of field. I could elaborate further but it's not appropriate for this article.
3. Flexibility of lenses: This may or may not be a consideration for you. But if you buy a compact camera, the lens that's built into the camera is the only lens that will ever work with it. If you realise in the future you enjoy photographing wildlife or sport, you will need a telephoto - not gonna happen with a compact camera. With an SLR your choice of lenses off the bat is extensive to say the least. You're bound to your camera brand but except from that you've pretty much got the option of any lens.
4. Reliability: Compact cameras break. It's a fact of life. Sure SLR's break too, but they're much more durable and have a longer life expectancy than compact cameras.
5. Creative flash use: Compact cameras have a tiny little flash on the front. Convenient, yes. Point it at your subject and press the shutter: you've got a photo. But if you're not satisfied with your flash photos, an SLR breeds a whole world of experimentation. Take the flash even slightly off the same axis as the lens, and you've instantly got a more natural looking photo.

As promised, here's the opposing argument. Albeit a tad briefer:

1. Price: You're looking at upwards of £250 for an entry level SLR. If you've got better things to spend your money on then don't bother (it only gets worse, see point 3).
2. Portability: Probably the biggest gripe for me with using an SLR. I have a d40 which is about the smallest DSLR you can buy. But it is still big. You can't put it in your pocket, it's either gotta be in a bag, around your neck or in your hand. It doesn't quite carry the same subtlety that a compact does.
3. Buying an SLR can be the start of an expensive obsession: I have unfortunately fallen into this trap. I've spent about £600 since February when I bought my first DSLR, but if I had more money to my name that figure would probably be 3x greater. With a compact camera, you've pretty much got all you're gonna want in that neat little package.
4. I'm out...

Well, unfortunately for the against argument I could only seem to find 3. And I could've probably compiled a list of 10 for the for argument. If you're looking to buy a new camera and you're on the fence, IF you have the money and you think of using a camera as more than just an extension to your arm on a night out, then by all means buy an SLR, you won't regret it.