Sunday November 22, 2009 8:38 PM ET
SmartMoney
Published May 6, 2008  |  A A A
SmartMoney Magazine by Neil Parmar (Author Archive)

Comparing Digital SLR Cameras

IN THE SPARE room at Jennifer Anderson's Lovettsville, Va., home, you'll find an old baby carriage, a chalkboard easel for her two-year-old daughter and a wall displaying 40 photos, from squinting newborns to laughing toddlers. After her kids were born, the mother of three started snapping pictures of them with an old film-based point-and-shoot camera. But thanks to some high-tech upgrades — namely, an $1,800 digital single-lens-reflex (DSLR) camera and an iMac loaded with the latest photo-editing software — she's turned this room into the epicenter of a burgeoning photography business. As it turns out, most of those smiling sprouts on the wall aren't her kids — they're images of children she's shot for clients.

Pro photographers are on alert: The well-equipped amateurs have gone digital. And while not everyone's looking to set up shop, serious shutterbugs after the perfect action shots of Junior's judo tournament are upgrading their point-and-shoot digicams to more sophisticated DSLRs, which offer higher image quality, interchangeable lenses and more overall versatility. Indeed, sales of digital single-lens-reflex cameras jumped 26 percent, to $2.2 billion, in 2007, says research firm IDC, while digital point-and-shoot models fell 22 percent compared with a year earlier. And with the market in flux, camera makers are loading up their DSLRs with a host of high-tech features that promise to reduce shaking, find faces in a crowd and even allow images to be transferred wirelessly between devices.

For more SmartMoney Magazine features, turn to the May issue.
It's no wonder SLRs are making a comeback. When they were first popularized in the 1970s, they were heavy, clunky affairs, and developing pictures often involved either inhaling a brain-numbing cocktail of chemicals in one's basement darkroom or forking out costly processing fees. These days camera bodies have gotten smaller and lighter, and software like Photoshop makes image refinement a far less toxic endeavor. Early digital SLRs carried breathtaking price tags (Kodak's first model, marketed to the military, cost a cool $25,000), but they've come down significantly; last year the average price dipped under $1,000, according to the NPD Group. But the main reason people are upgrading? The same reason they've always bought SLRs: fuller creative control over their images — allowing them to decide what part of the frame should be in focus and whether to freeze motion or opt for an artful blur. Anderson, for one, really likes her DSLR's controls for shutter speed, which broaden her options with action shots. "Little kids move around a lot," she says.

And of course, with hundreds of lenses available — wide-angle, portrait, tele-photo — DSLRs introduce photographers to a far wider world of visual possibilities than the point-and-shoot. But consumers usually can't choose the lens when they buy a "kit" of camera body plus lens (versus buying body and lens separately); results with the kit lens can vary widely. At least that's what we heard from Maynard Switzer, a 30-year pro and instructor at the School at International Center of Photography, whom we enlisted to help us sort through some of the newest DSLR options. Together we ventured into the jungle of soaring buildings and blinking billboards that is New York City's Times Square, to determine which camera was the sharpest shooter of the bunch.

First up: the Olympus E-510 ($650), which comes with a 14-42mm lens, the smallest — and least versatile — of the group. Still, Switzer gives the E-510 points for being the only one with a lens hood to protect images from damaging sunspots. He camera skyward and shoots a giant beer bottle on a digital billboard: "See, no flaring!" But his excitement sours as he starts scrolling through the on-screen menu. "It's not intuitive," he says, struggling to adjust the white-balance setting. Once he figures it out, he snaps some pictures, but aiming at the bright blue sky makes the nearby buildings look too dark, while targeting the shadowy buildings overexposes — washes out — everything else. This model, he says, is "just not that sophisticated."

1
2
Next

Follow SmartMoney on Facebook, Twitter & More: Facebook Twitter
Bookmark and Share RSS
Order ReprintsOrder Reprints
User Comments
Posted by: dr3amboy
This is a stupid comparison. I thought Smartmoney was about fair comparisons, how can you compare a $1500 camera to cameras in the $500-800 range, of course it's going to be better! It's like comparing a civic to a bmw without regard to price.

What they should have is the Canon 400D or 350D which is the same class as the other non-canon offerings or step it up with the Nikon D80/D300 or Sony A700. This is an unfair comparison of models that are not even in the same class!
Advertisements