BootsnAll Travel Community

I have a Fuji F440. Pretty nice little camera. Very compact, good viewscreen. 4.1 MegaPixels, 3.4X optical zoom.

Takes pretty nice pictures.

I've talked to a few people about my impending trip who have suggested I invest in a digital SLR, such as the REBEL TX.

Now the Rebel TX looks great and has some great features, but it seems cumbersome. Regardless of how easy/hard it is to transport, are the pictures really that much better than a 4.1 MP standard digital?

If it is so much better, I would probably invest in an SLR, but if not I'll save myself the cash.

Thanks!
-J-

Depends upon what you want to do ultimately with those pictures. If you want to be able to take a lot of dusk time or dawn time shots which require long exposure times (longer shutter speeds), then you can forget about getting sharp pictures from your F440. If you want to be able to print images from the trip of sizes larger than 4x6", then your F440 will really not be ideal. But if you just want to have a picture memoir of your trip then it will do the job just fine without getting in the way too much. Also remember that because the digital camera lenses are limited by their really small size and are of the zoom variety, you will get a huge amount of "lens flare" on your image whenever you are taking pictures in bright sunlight.
You CAN avoid all the above problems by using an SLR. However it is not necessary that you WILL, unless you are well experienced in using it and have a good couple of lenses to go with it.
In short, it's a preference that is based on your ultimate expectations of the pictures that you will be taking. A lot of people I know have made some really great images using the compact digital cameras like the F440, Canon A220, Minolta Z2 etc.

I agree with Maverick, and here's my two cents thrown in though, too.

If you plan to view your photos just on your computer, the Fuji is plenty good enough in my opinion. Yes, the SLR lenses are sharper and more accurate, but the casual observer would be hard pressed to tell the difference. An 8x10 print from the SLR will look better than from the Fuji, but again, the casual observer probably won't be able to tell. A top-quality shop working with a 4.1MP photo can get a decent 5x7 or 8x10 - it takes a little more effort and care, but it is possible.

You will most likely be able to take 90-95% of the photos you'll want to take with the Fuji. However for some of those unique photos (such as long shutter, difficult lighting and the like that Maverick mentioned), you could get better results with an SLR, if used properly.

But the real question is, "how much better." To answer that, I recommend to go peruse the 'top photos' at photo.net - some are film, but most are compact digital and digital SLR. Each photo lists the type of camera used. Be aware a lot of the photos have been adjusted with Photoshop. But still, see if you can tell the difference.

And also for example, I took this 15 second exposure with a compact Canon S45, and with a little boost from Photoshop, ended up with a decent photo. I've traveled with just a compact camera, and with an SLR. For the vast majority of my travel, the compact camera was all I needed. The one trip where i was really glad to have the SLR with a long lens was for photographing wildlife in Alaska.

But the bottom line is, a good photo has much more to do with the photographer and how he uses his camera than the camera itself.

If you want some more comparison:
Digital Rebel SLR photos: Hatcher Pass and Machu Picchu
Compact Canon Digital: Sailing Trip and Leiden, Netherlands

Only photos with a black border have been run through Photoshop. The vast majority of mine though are straight out of the cameras.

but that 15sec pic is AMAZING. Absolutely stunning.

Thanks everyone. I think after much review i'm going to stick with the fuji. Thanks for the help/info.

I'll post some pics with my fuji ;0