Which camera, an ordinary Digital or an SLR Digital, that is the question

Up to now I have been persuaded that the best Digital camera was an SLR
Digital. A friend tells me that provided you don't want to change lenses
you don't need an SLR, if so, which cameras would you buy right now.
Can someone comment on that please, thank you.
To assist anyone kind enough to help me here, can I add the following
comments I made to a previous post in another Newsgroup which might
explain my question better...

In reply to the following comments from a very kind poster..

"Before declaring that the recommendation to keep your SLR Contax was
inappropriate, take a look at the price of a digital SLR that will
deliver the same quality of image".

I replied thus..
"Yes, I agree but I am repeatedly told the digital revolution is
catching up and that my Contax is now virtually UN-saleable at anything
other that a give-away price. However, and this is the best answer to
your comments above, what good is this extra quality if it becomes too
expensive to use it and as a result it simply "does not get used". A
good analogy is that of LP records, while they have in some ways a
superior sound to CD's, the monopoly and prevalence of the newer format
means that "LP's are not played as much, (if at all), in my opinion
there is not much use in having them on the shelf if they are not going
to be played.

In relation to my Contax, I recently got a burst of enthusiasm in that I
would make a speciality of Black and White (Monochrome), photography
only to discover 1. the cost of developing my prints and 2. the scarcity
of people willing to do it. Yes I got recommendations of company's and
persons willing to process my films and even a way of doing it using
Colour and printing them as B and W, but neither way avoided prohibitive
costs. So you see, my Contax remains on the shelf while I use my little
Cannon Ixus regularly with my PC.
So much for your very kind and no doubt well intentioned advice which I
do greatly appreciate. However, do you now have a solution for my
redundant Cannon other than trading it in at a give-away price against a
Nikon?"
I hope that explains my question, I will now go on the side and hope
someone advises me as to the best course in my circumstances.
End of quote.
Over to you....

 

Playing LPs costs nothing. If you have them, it's completely up to
you how often you play them. No analogy.

 

Depends if you have to replace your player.

 

I don't agree, both are now "old" formats and are being less and less
used generally, (notice I said generally), therefore while the quality
is still undoubtedly better, to be realistic, in everyday use the newer
technology is now dominant and it makes more sense to "go with the
flow".
Having said that, and with thanks to the previous two posters for at
least taking the trouble to respond to me, (however much I disagree with
them), I am disappointed with the answers to my comments as such. I was
directed here from a different newsgroup with the advice that my queries
would be betted addressed here, so far, the "juries still out" as far as
I can see.
Regards,

 

i use film and digital.
i use film , 35mm slide , when i want a picture that can be enlarged
beyond a3+.
i use digital for instant pictures which will be printed on a3+ paper.

there is still a place for both , but my canon eos300d has more usage
than my canon eos500.

advantage is that lenses work on both bodies.

 

And what has any of your message got to do with video ?...

 

I didn't respond because your post is off-topic here (didn't you notice
the "video"?). Since others have picked up the ball, I might as well put
my 2-pence worth in.

Your suggestion that digital photographs are cheaper than still-printed
photos is incorrect. Try doing the sums (24 photographs proofed at (say)
5x4 plug (say) five enlarged to 10x8).

I've got a Pentax LX with assorted lenses, as well as a Bronica up in
the attic that haven't seen the light of day for, maybe, three years.
Though my interest is in video, my interest in still photography was
re-awakened following the BBC Voices initiative (I've still got some
pictures on the BBC website, e.g.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/wales/northeast/sites/in_pictures/pages/rhyl.shtml?1
5)

When I was asked to produce 10x8s to hang in the BBC Voices exhibition,
I was unable to oblige since the photos were taken with the still-photo
facility on my camcorder. I was unwilling to have my name below a
pixillated exhibit Anyway, it re-awakened my interest in still
photography.

I then looked around at the various options that would permit me to
produce 10x8s (or better 12x10s). Since I rarely go out without my
faithful Sony DCR-TRV30 video camera, I didn't want anything large to
hump around. After much investigation, I settled on a Sony F88. Small
enough to slip in my pocket, but able to take good photographs under
most conditions and (most importantly) able to get "hanging-quality"
prints, since it has more than 5 mpx resolution. Another factor was to
allow my wife to pick it up and "snap" without being intimidated, while
giving me enough override controls to be useful in all situations.

One thing did trouble me, though, was (as on most digital cameras) the
non-wide characteristic of the wide setting of the zoom. Fortunately,
the F88 offers an optional click-on WA attachment with gives remarkably
good results. I bought one of these, though it was quite expensive.

In retrospect, I'm pleased with my choice. I'm glad I didn't go the
digital SLR route.

Still, buying still digital cameras depends on your expectations and
requirements. I'll just say that the F88 was the very best choice for
me. Horses for courses, as they say.

 

Perhaps the OP has noticed there isn't a specific uk digital stills
group? Is there need of one? - uk.rec.photo.misc seems rather non-specific.

Can anyone say where the charter for this group can be found please?
Google seems to have failed me for once :-(

 

Quite so, and if I have upset anyone by coming in on this NG with a
question about still photograph, can I point out that its "still"
photography, (pun intended, can't help it ;-))
In any case not only could I not get satisfaction from the
"professional" websites, but I was actually directed here by one of
them, (which shall be nameless).
Finally, the responses now to my query are starting to be really
interesting for which I must thank you all.

 

Well, seeing that digital stills are not affected with regard to location as
video is, how about the following groups for starters ?

It is listed at http://www.usenet.org.uk/, along with all the other uk*
charters or search this group using google groups with the word charter as a
search term.

 

A lot sniped

As most SLR film or digital just use the one zoom lens and Fixed lens
Digital compact camers with the same range can fit in the pocket and be
avalabel any day What diferance does it make.

Mind what I would Like is a Digital with the Screen on top with pop up sun
shade like a medium format. That little Rollie 35 slr 3008 or something
would be Ideal Design

 

How do you "go with the flow" if you have a collection of music on
vinyl? Don't kid yourself it's higher quality. But it might be
good music. No-one's forcing you to junk it, though the way some
people talk, you'd think they were

 

Of course you do, you compress it ever further and bung it onto MP3....NOT.

But some people do / are :~(

 

A better one
http://www.rollei.jp/e/pd/MiniD.html

But was thinking more of a Rollei 2000f /3003 we bit more compact but
squire, would that make it a 1/3 rd size Bronica SQ

 

HE he! I have a Digital camera but I never got round to a Autocue 35 mm Slr
And was very happy with my XE1 and XGM Minoltas. Still play my Vinyl's on a
connoisseur BD1 with SME arm but will never replace either with like.
Will not dump my old stuff but when the time comes That I can no longer use
them the modern alternatives beckons