Prosumer v. dSLR differences

[SGerke]

What's the difference? I thought "prosumer" was a category of dSLR. Very confused!

[wjh31]

Prosumer would typically refer to high end point and shoot cameras, ones with fixed lenses rather than dslrs with changable lenses. These days they are typically superzoom cameras, with lenses that will zoom from ~30mm to sometimes over 400mm, even up to 600mm equivilant in the rediculous examples.

Examples would be the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ38, the canon powersho S3 IS, or the nikon P90. These three are at the top end in terms of price (~£250-£350) and features/qulaity etc in terms of what you can get without going for a DSLR.

Prosumer (also sometimes known as bridge cameras) will have smaller sensors (than DSLR), which will therefore be more noisy, which will be especially noticable at high iso and/or in poor lighting conditions. Another big difference is the viewfinder. DSLRs have a 'proper' optical viewfinder so you see straight through the lens. Alot of prosumer cameras have an electronic viewfinder, which is basicly a second small screen in place of where the viewfinder would be on a DSLR, these are often criticised for their low resolution, and therefor being generally not especially usefull.

In terms of performance, i.e shooting fps, prosumer cameras can get close to matching DSLR cameras, so that is unlikely to be a major concern. However in addition to the poor low iso perfoemance, there may also be hits to general image quality compared to DSLR cameras if you make a poor selection.

Most do include full creative options, i.e PASM modes, once you get into the higer end, and some will even come with a hot-shoe for a flash, and with threads to fit tele/wide coverters if you wanted; however the lens is still fixed, so you cant upgrade the lens without throwing away the body as you can with the interchangeable lens system with DSLRs

Prosumers will however be generally cheaper, lighter, and smaller than DSLRs, aswell as likely having a more userfriendly interface. The live-view and video shooting is something which some DSLRs still lack, with some prosumers offering HD video shooting.

In general with photography, you get what you pay for, so weather you go for DSLR, or Prosumer, make sure you get the best you can afford, and try to be reasonably extensive in checking out reviews to see which set of pros and cons for each camera works for you.

Some would say get onto the DSLR ladder, since you will atleast get the lenses which you can keep while you may upgrade the body laters, and lenses tend to keep their value quite well if you do need to sell them to upgrade later, others would suggest sticking to a high-end prosumer untill you can afford to come in straight to the mid-range/high end of DSLR cameras. But ultimately its up to you to do the reasearch to see what meets your needs in terms of your budget, and what you want to get out of your next camera.

Sorry for the waffle, i just spewed this out rather than trying to organise it in anyway, hope it helps anyway

PS, if you put 'prosumer vs dslr' into your favourite search engine, you should get a few results of discussions from various sources, heres one of the higher results to get you started untill you get more results here http://www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php...READ_ID=132069

[KentDub]

Prosumer is both a category of dSLR and point and shoot cameras. As they are different products, they each have entry-level, prosumer, semi-pro, and professional level models. (Though, point and shoots don't really have semi-pro and professional lines, the high-ends are prosumer).

The entry-level dSLR cameras arn't that great, you might be better off looking for a high-end point and shoot. If you give us some more information, such as price range, what you'll be shooting (Sports, landscape, portraits, etc.), and any preferences we'll be glad to help you pick out a camera.

[SGerke]

I'm definitely leaning towards a Canon or Nikon dSLR (am researching/seriously considering a Canon 40D/50D, 450D/500D and Nikon D5000). I currently use a Canon SD1100 IS. I'm looking for something I can grow into and use for a long time especially since, my understanding is, the lenses are a larger factor than the body.
Will be doing work in a little bit of everything (landscape, portrait, macro, indoor & outdoor, night/low light, family/spontaneous, etc.) until I know what I want to focus on. I do know I won't be doing a lot in sport or wildlife, if any at all.
I need to stay below $1000 USD for the camera (between $600-800 USD would be best) and spend more on lenses. I will probably buy the camera body used to save cost.
Thank you for all the help! Very useful!!

[KentDub]

The cameras you mention sound great. Let us know if you have any questions

[Jim B.]

I started with a Canon Rebel XTi.Very nice camera,but the size was a bit small for my hands(ring size 15).
I then went to a 40D.Another really nice camera that I would still have,but went to the 50D for the 3" screen, the extra MPs and the micro-adjust feature for lenses.The MA feature is nice to have,but the lenses have to be pretty far out of calibration to have the need for this feature,my opinion only.
You can pick up a nice used 40D with low shutter count, 3K or so, for $620-$650.I see the 50Ds going for mid to low 800s.

[Amberglass]

I'm definitely leaning towards a Canon or Nikon dSLR (am researching/seriously considering a Canon 40D/50D, 450D/500D and Nikon D5000). I currently use a Canon SD1100 IS. I'm looking for something I can grow into and use for a long time especially since, my understanding is, the lenses are a larger factor than the body.
Will be doing work in a little bit of everything (landscape, portrait, macro, indoor & outdoor, night/low light, family/spontaneous, etc.) until I know what I want to focus on. I do know I won't be doing a lot in sport or wildlife, if any at all.
I need to stay below $1000 USD for the camera (between $600-800 USD would be best) and spend more on lenses. I will probably buy the camera body used to save cost.
Thank you for all the help! Very useful!!

If you're highly considering buying used, recommend that you start off with a Canon 28 mm f1.8, Sigma 30 1.4 (Canon or Nikon mount), 50 mm f1.8-1.4, or Nikon 35 mm f2, 35 mm f2-1.8 or 50 mm f1.8-1.4. These fixed focal length primes are wonderful to learn exposure with, "what you see is what you get approximately", and are fast enough to be indoors with low lighting. Most kit lenses or lenses with apertures of f4 and smaller are not good indoors without the assistance of flash if lighting is poor.

Please watch this video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T3ceZ...r_profilepage#

FYI, there are two types of lens mounting brackets. Lenses made for larger sensors (also known as full frame) will fit on any camera body including the smaller sensor ones. Lenses made for crops sensor will not work properly or may damage the mirror on FF sensor bodies. So think long and hard about what type of lenses you wish to buy in the long run; consider any possibility of potentially upgrading later down the road. Though FF Nikons( like the D700 and up) can accept crop sensor lenses, it's just a waste and defeats the purpose of going FF if you do. Crop lenses will only use a small section of the larger sensor, not whole like it would with regular lenses.

[megrag]

I'm definitely leaning towards a Canon or Nikon dSLR (am researching/seriously considering a Canon 40D/50D, 450D/500D and Nikon D5000). I currently use a Canon SD1100 IS. I'm looking for something I can grow into and use for a long time especially since, my understanding is, the lenses are a larger factor than the body.
Will be doing work in a little bit of everything (landscape, portrait, macro, indoor & outdoor, night/low light, family/spontaneous, etc.) until I know what I want to focus on. I do know I won't be doing a lot in sport or wildlife, if any at all.
I need to stay below $1000 USD for the camera (between $600-800 USD would be best) and spend more on lenses. I will probably buy the camera body used to save cost.
Thank you for all the help! Very useful!!

If you have not already found them, these sites have been very useful for me.
They both have in depth reviews for most, if not all , of the cameras you have mentioned.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs.asp
http://www.imaging-resource.com/DIGCAM01.HTM

Greg

[rpcrowe]

It all depends on what you shoot, how important your photography is to you and what your final use of the imagery will be.

IMO, there are many photographers out there who are way "overgunned" with equipment.

1. If photography is of secondary importance to your travels and general life; you need far less equipment than if photography is extremely important. As an example, my daughter documented a two week tip to Europe with a "key-chain" digital camera that she bought at a supermarket check-out stand. I offered her the use of my Canon XT but, she considered that too heavy. She was very happy with the terrible imagery of her trip. I, on-the other hand, will carry a fair amount of equipment on a forthcoming trip to Mainland China. I will carry two 1.6x Canon DSLR cameras, three lenses, a flash and both a tripod and a monopod. Rather than photography being secondary to my trip, it is of primary importance. I would have no interest in the trip if it were not a great photo opportunity.

2. If your primary use of your photography is to email images of the kids to grandma and to post your images on Face Book; you certainly do not need top-line equipment and don't need to pay the price both in original cost and weight to carry. If however, you want to make large prints, enter your images in contests or eventually sell your images; then you need the best equipment you can afford.

High quality P&S cameras can be ideal for many persons. They are light in weight, usually cost less than the DSLR and are easier for some folks to use. However, they do have drawbacks which include less than ideal high ISO performance, small sensor size and especially the dreaded shutter lag. Although some P&S cameras have reduced the time between tripping the shutter button and acquiring the image, they still lag (pun intended) far behind DSLR cameras in this aspect which is important when shooting any fast moving subjects such as children, dogs and sports.

I switched from a P&S to a DSLR because I was sick of images of the tails of my puppies as they exited the frame in the delay between tripping the shutter button and acquiring the image. Although working with a very good (at the time) P&S camera; my imagery from my DSLR equipment is far superior to that of the P&S.