>> |
ac
!!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>257879 >whats the difference between this and a SLR? 1. Much smaller sensor. Which has some consequences: 1a. Much worse noise at a given ISO. ISO100 on this camera will likely look like ISO400 on the cheapest of SLRs. 1b. A lot less control over depth of field 2. Fixed lens. So you can't get a lens with a larger aperture than the one you've got there, or a wider angle, or a longer telephoto, etc. Larger aperture lenses will, again, help you get blur-free shots in lower light conditions. 3. Speed. Cameras like this are slow to focus and slow to take the shot after they've focused. With an SLR, it's press-buttan-receive-pictar. With this, there will be a couple extra steps in there along the lines of "wait a perceptible amount of time for the camera to figure out you want it to do something and then do it". Startup time is usually an issue, too, especially on cameras with retracting lenses like this one appears to be--modern SLRs go from "off" to "picture has been taken" in the time it takes you to hit the shutter button, and you don't need to wait for it to start up before you can see what you're about to shoot.
On the other hand, an SLR isn't going to have nearly that zoom range unless you buy a bunch of lenses (++$), especially if you want those lenses to have image stabilization (unless you get a Sony or some other SLR with in-body stabilization). Personally I find that most interesting images happen more at the wide end than the superzomfgtelephoto end, so losing my zoom range when I switched from a camera like this to an SLR wasn't a problem for me. Your mileage may vary.
|