what's a >$1000 DSLR good for?

<p>if you shoot digital Florin, you have to live with blown hightlights. This is once of the areas where film reigns supreme. A camera/lens combo only needs to do two things to make a successful exposure; adjust the diagphram on the lens, and open the shutter for a given period of time. In camera metering, auto exposure, auto focus, auto iso et al, only serves to make it easier for the photographer to make decisions, or no decisions at all to make that successful expsoure into a successful image. They are by no means neccessary, although some that haven't gone without these luxuries may think they are. ISO 3200 is a luxury. Spend the bulk of your money on lenses, and get the cheapest smallest camera you can that meets your minimum requirements. buy fast prime lenses set your camera to iso400 and off you go.</p>

<p>I wonder - if this is your hobby or profession ?<br>

If it is your hobby - then I seriously doubt the benefits that these high end camera will give you. Even low end DSLR is ok for all practical purposes.<br>

Sometimes it is really surprising even for professionals - when someone makes such big ticket purchases - specially when your employer or someone else is not footing the bill.<br>

Off-course go for it - if you can afford - it is great for impressing other newbies in town.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Ahh, the joys of digital photography, where amateurs who don't shoot the image volume required to justify a super-rugged, high-end pro-spec body, not only give up the pro-level ruggedness when they compromise on camera price, but they also give up some in image quality.<br>

This is in contrast to film cameras where you can load pro-spec film into a low-end camera, mount a high quality lens and voila, you can produce images that match the pro-spec camera in image quality. There were even some cameras targeted to amateurs that were more popular with pro photographers than the pro-oriented cameras (eg Nikon FE2)</p>

<p>If full-frame cameras are presently out of reach for you, you might want to consider the Canon 40D or the Nikon D90, which fall within the price range you indicated (but without the lenses). Check them out on dpreview.com (among other places) and see what you think. You can also search for them at B&H Photovideo and read the specs and user reviews--or check the prices at Adorama or Amazon.</p>

<p><em>Do</em> keep an eye on price. The Canon 40D, for example, is (at about $875) holding its value well, for example, because some persons thnk that the 50D has too high a pixel density to give the best image quality. There is thus a potential saving there in the 40D in not buying the latest in that particular line of Canon cameras. There are also differing opinions as to what features are necessary. Finally, look at some of the sample pictures (full-sized files in some cases) at depreview.com, and you can see just what kind of image quality you would be getting.</p>

<p>If the cameras that I have cited are still too pricey, you will stil find a noticeable difference between point-and-shoot cameras and low-end DSLRS, such as the Canon XSi or the Nikon 5000.</p>

<p>Most point-and-shoots do not do too well at high ISO and thus when shooting under low-light conditions. The Canon G10, for example, is great in bright light but not good at all in low ligtht (which requires good performance at high ISO, which it simply does not have). Even the low-end DSLRS will give better results at high ISO.</p>

<p>Your bigger costs, however, are going to be the lenses if you buy any kind of DSLR. Camera body costs are just the beginning once one decides to move from point-and-shoot cameras to any DSLR. That said, even with the cheap kit lens (that you can get bundled with a DSLR) you will get better results than with point-and-shoot cameras, and you will also be able to learn more about photography if you have the options that DSLRS afford.</p>

<p>In other words, you do not really even have to go over $1000 to see the very real benefits of shooting with a DSLR.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>The D3 and D700 at least have very wide dynamic range, also at high ISO. I don't have any highlight saturation issues.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>For me the hgh price is justified if the camera has at least 20mp and a full frame sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? The extra megapixels will only help when you're printing large posters. The rest of the time more pixels means each pixel is physically smaller. Smaller pixels means less photons strike it for a given exposure, and that translates to more noise. Up to 16x20 printing, you're getting better image quality from a 12 megapixel camera than a 24. </p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>For me the hgh price is justified if the camera has at least 20mp and a full frame sensor.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Why? The extra megapixels will only help when you're printing large posters. The rest of the time more pixels means each pixel is physically smaller. Smaller pixels means less photons strike it for a given exposure, and that translates to more noise. Up to 16x20 printing, you're getting better image quality from a 12 megapixel camera than a 24. </p>

 

<p>it seems to me that this thread took a wrong turn in its responses. I understood the OP's question to be the difference between a cheaper DSLR and a more expensive DSLR. S/He was wondering what benefits were gained, having noted that except for some lag in his Panasonic, it met his needs very well. The responses seem to have been explaining the benefits of a DSLR versus a P & S. Thus interchangable lenses, and whatever these two bullet points are supposed to mean are irrelevant. but seriously, what do these posts mean? what's a 35mm dSLR with APS-H and what is it 60% larger than? APS-C? and what is four-thirds 280% larger than? and then the third number just comes out of left field.</p>

<ol>

<li><strong>Superior optics.</strong> A 35mm dSLR has a sensor that is anywhere from 60% (APS-H) to 280% (Four Thirds) to 3356% (1/2.5") larger in imaging area. Larger sensor = more light collecting ability. It also means shallower depth of field is possible. </li>

<li><strong>Image quality.</strong> Better optics in the lenses and sensor means higher image quality, more accurate color, lower noise. The differences may be very minor between the flagship, $7k bodies versus the $3k bodies, but in the hands of a skilled photographer, the differences between the $3k bodies and the < $1k bodies can be quite apparent.</li>

</ol>

<p>but this second bullet point may accidentally touch on a response that teh OP was looking for: what's the difference between the very expensive and the not so expensive dSLR: "The differences may be very minor between the flagship, $7k bodies versus the $3k bodies". good advice spoken from someone who seems a little confused.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And so we have a new system with a new lens mount and this, the G1; the world's first electronic viewfinder interchangeable lens camera. From the outside it looks for all the world like a conventional SLR. . . . --dpreview.com http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicdmcg1/</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>I'm sorry that I dd not understand exactly what the Panasonic G1 was</strong> . I thought that it was either a traditional point-and-shoot or a compact with built in lens but somewhat larger sensor than the typical point-and-shoot.</p>

<p>So it does have interchangeable lenses but is not <em>technically</em> a DSLR. . . .</p>

<p>I'm blown away by the image quality of this camera, especially when shooting on RAW. At low to moderate ISOs, it blows away low-end DSLRs such as the Canon XSi, not to mention the Sony A 350, Olympus E 520, etc. <strong>With the crispness shown in the dpreview.com comparisons with RAW shooting, I can well see why you might ask what advantage there is in spending much more.</strong></p>

<p>If printing large files is not a requirement, if really high ISO shooting is not that important to you, and if you are satisfied with your available selection of lenses, then I cannot imagine why you would want to move up to the more expensive line(s) of cameras.</p>

<p>Even with regard to ISO, it does pretty well at 1600, I think--based on the comparisons and samples that I just looked at. If this camera had been around when I bought my Olympus E-20 in early 2002, I doubt that I would ever have bought another digital camera. This is a fine camera at an incredibly low price.</p>

<p>On top of everything else, you can get image stabilized lenses for it. I'm impressed. Panasonic's marketing skills are lagging behind its technical innovations, I fear.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p> </p>

<p>"what can those cameras do that mine cannot?"</p>

<p>Haven't read all the replies so this might have been mentioned already. Most performance (not "features"), say 90%, is available at every pricepoint. It's getting that last 10 percent that costs. Most people don't need that 10% (and may not even know it exists). If you do, you spend the big bucks.</p>

<p>It would be a better question to ask why some buy a mid-range dslr rather than one from the low end. What performance has been gained for the price?</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>it seems to me that this thread took a wrong turn in its responses. I understood the OP's question to be the difference between a cheaper DSLR and a more expensive DSLR.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fair enough. I shouldn't have included P&S in my response, but I did so because I was trying to relate my own personal experience and the reasons why I went to a 35mm full frame dSLR instead of a cheaper dSLR, from a P&S. But I agree, I should have been clearer.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>but seriously, what do these posts mean? what's a 35mm dSLR with APS-H and what is it 60% larger than? APS-C? and what is four-thirds 280% larger than? and then the third number just comes out of left field.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>These numbers are correct. A 35mm dSLR has an imaging area of 24x36mm. APS-H, APS-C, and Four Thirds are format sizes that are physically smaller in area than the 35mm format, and furthermore, each of these formats can be used in a single lens reflex design, so for example the Canon 1DmkIII is a dSLR even though it does not have a 35mm sensor. Canon uses APS-H, -C, Nikon uses APS-C, and Panasonic and Olympus use Four Thirds. The percentages are calculated as (Area of 35mm sensor)/(Area of other sensor) - 1. The reason for my pointing this out is that the lower-cost dSLRs have smaller sensors, whereas the high-end ones (> $3K) are almost universally 35mm.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>good advice spoken from someone who seems a little confused.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>A $7K body may have quite a bit of features that a $3K body doesn't. Better weather sealing, more robust shutter, integrated vertical grip, superior AF, faster continuous shooting, etc. These things can be extremely important--critical, even--to a full-time professional who needs a workhorse camera that can take a beating and still perform. But when I say the differences may be minor, I speak of resultant image quality--it's because a $3K body, optically speaking, is virtually equivalent to a $7K body. But from < $1K to $3K, there are often very clear optical differences due to fundamental design differences (e.g., sensor size, as mentioned above).</p>

<p>It seems that it is you who are confused.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Why? The extra megapixels will only help when you're printing large posters.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To the contrary, the extra MP also gives me far, far more flexibility in terms of composition after the fact. That doesn't mean I'm lazy with composition, it just means that I have the flexibility to select the portion of my image I want without sacrificing too much in terms of sharpness or resolution. If I'm in a tight spot and the choice is between no shot versus capturing *something*, the likelihood of getting an acceptable image is greater. It also means that if I should choose to do so, I can scale down my image and get extremely sharp results corner-to-corner. I get more latitude to alter the image in post-processing, essentially.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>But I'm looking at the high end side of things, and I see a Canon 5D is over $2k, or an EOS-1Ds is over $7k.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Fortunately you haven't heard about the Hasselblad H3DII-50 or the Mamiya DL33...</p>

<blockquote>

<p>To the contrary, the extra MP also gives me far, far more flexibility in terms of composition after the fact.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I considered that when typing my post. I'll crop a little to clean up shots a bit, but I very rarely have to do a large cropping job to 'extract' the image I want. I can't really picture even pushing the shutter release knowing I'll need to crop away most of the image. </p>

<p>I remember in the 35mm days printing the whole frame including the spockets so I could proudly show I wa prining my uncropped composition.</p>

<p>With a cheap little P&S I think it's common to shoot first and crop later.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Cameras are more similar to bicycles -- low end consumers bikes & mtn bikes versus the higher end stuff. The price range is from $400 to $7,500. You do get what you pay for -- build, performance, and joy of use.</p>

<p>Cameras are less similar, however, than bottles of wine. Red wine generally is junk below the $10-12 price point (or for people who don't like wine or enjoy super entry level stuff) [as would a new, sub $400 DSLR be], but it markedly improves around the $20 point. You cannot say that a $400 bottle of wine is really all that much better than a $40 bottle. Wine is more about scarcity, origin, and label once it hits the $30 price. True. Not cameras.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I can't really picture even pushing the shutter release knowing I'll need to crop away most of the image.<br>

I remember in the 35mm days printing the whole frame including the spockets so I could proudly show I wa prining my uncropped composition.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Indeed--I agree, it does seem to be a habit from the film days, because I did the same thing too. It was not so much about demonstrating attention to composition, but about feeling that, by dealing with a tangible, physical medium, shooting with deliberate intent to crop out later was tantamount to wasting film area. I know, it sounds pretty silly, but such are the crazy ideas you get in your head when you're a poor college student. Years passed, and digital changed that for me, although I still feel that ever-so-slight sense of having "lost" something by cropping. Old habits die hard! :)</p>

<blockquote>

<p>it seems to me that this thread took a wrong turn in its responses. I understood the OP's question to be the difference between a cheaper DSLR and a more expensive DSLR. S/He was wondering what benefits were gained</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Exactly. And it's a "he". :-)</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>except for some lag in his Panasonic, it met his needs very well</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There's no lag actually, the camera is very snappy (with very fast autofocus and interchangeable lenses, it can't be distinguished from a "real" DSLR unless you open it up and see there's no mirror).<br /> My concern was with the low light performance: shooting fast moving subjects (kids playing) in low light (living room at evening) without flash is doable but I need to put the camera on ISO 1600 and jog the shutter. Even then, sometimes I do capture a good chunk of blur.</p>

<p>So, I guess, what I was really trying to find out is at which point on the price range will I get a big increase in low light performance, if I decide to get a more expensive camera. All the rest, features and whatnot, are rather just curiosity. Well, I wouldn't mind a camera more robust w.r.t. blown highlights either.</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>I'm sorry that I dd not understand exactly what the Panasonic G1 was . I thought that it was either a traditional point-and-shoot or a compact with built in lens but somewhat larger sensor than the typical point-and-shoot.<br /> <br /> So it does have interchangeable lenses but is not technically a DSLR. . . .<br /> <br /> I'm blown away by the image quality of this camera, especially when shooting on RAW. At low to moderate ISOs, it blows away low-end DSLRs such as the Canon XSi, not to mention the Sony A 350, Olympus E 520, etc. With the crispness shown in the dpreview.com comparisons with RAW shooting, I can well see why you might ask what advantage there is in spending much more.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure about the crispness (comparing the pictures I take with the G1 with those taken with a Rebel I don't see much of a difference - but then again I'm not a super-pro), but the low light performance is indeed surprisingly high for a sensor this small - on par with an average entry-level DSLR (Canon beats it, I would guess Nikon does too, but then the G1 beats Sony, according to the reviews). I would have avoided it due to the sensor size, were it not for the reviews. I agree it has less recognition than it deserves.</p>

<p>In the end, I am concerned with what I feel is a corner-case; how many people, after all, take photos of their kids playing in the living room and avoid firing the flash? So maybe I am nitpicking.</p>

<p>But this thread has gone way beyond where I expected. Great information, thank you all.</p>

<p>Hmmm I can give an opinion of the G1 VS the Nikon D200 - I use a D200 primarily, and have used a G1. but it really isn't really a better/worse thing -<br>

Nikon D200<br>

a) I prefer the system of lenses and accessories available for Nikon<br>

b) Prefer the build quality, handling, menu system.<br>

c) SLR! EVF of the G1 is not really that good imo, but the manual focus mode is very solid.<br>

G1 -<br>

a) Face tracking AF is amazing, even indoors. Did I mention amazing?<br>

b) Super compact<br>

c) Not attention grabbing<br>

d) Easy to use<br>

f) LCD screen is great!<br>

If I was swimming in money, I'd take the G1 as a travel kit camera, and D200 as my crap wildlife pics workhorse. So take your pick, that's my reasons why I paid good $$$ for my Nikon - lenses and system.<br>

Alvin<br>

PS: I got my D200 body + grip for AUD850 one year ago ;-) Used equipment r0xx0r!</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Hmmm I can give an opinion of the G1 VS the Nikon D200 - I use a D200 primarily, and have used a G1. but it really isn't really a better/worse thing</p>

</blockquote>

<p>How's the low light performance?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Face tracking AF is amazing, even indoors. Did I mention amazing?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not familiar with what the high-end cameras can do, but to me the processor on the G1 does seem pretty smart, for that kind of stuff.</p>

<blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Hmmm I can give an opinion of the G1 VS the Nikon D200 - I use a D200 primarily, and have used a G1. but it really isn't really a better/worse thing</p>

<p><em>How's the low light performance?</em></p>

</blockquote>

</blockquote>

<p>The D200 has been replaced by the D300 for over a year now, and a D400 is rumored to appear by years end. </p>

<p>For the D200, one should be able to get reasonably good images at ISO of 1600. For the D300, one should be able to get very good images at ISO of 3200. I don't have a D300 so my comments are based on the reviews that I read. I do have a D80, which is a pro-consumer model but it uses the same sensor as the D200. I can get very usable images at ISO 1600 but I do see noise, although the noise in these Nikon cameras are known to resemble the noise in using high ISO films so it is not "ugly." I wish my camera can have at least one stop better low light performance because that would allow me to shoot indoors without flash with very little noise. </p>

<p>With the G1, which I assume has built-in image stabilization, one can shoot at lower shutter speed; thus the G1 may not need to perform better in the ISO area than the D80/D200 under the same light intensity. However if your subject moves, you need higher shutter speed to freeze the movement. Thus like many have said before, you should use the G1 to take as many pictures as you can and see in what areas you run into limitation. In this way one can better judge whether upgrading the camera can solve these specific problems.</p>

<p>I shoot Canon, but the best low light camera out there right now is the D3 or D700--and, yes, I think that the extra money would be worth it, if you can swing it.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I've taken quite a few good pictures with my Nikon D40, which is definitely on the low end of dSLRs. However, I've always found that the only thing I want from a higher end camera is the ability to control some of my lenses that require autofocus and a better dynamic range for taking some of the pictures I do.<br>

Other than that, my $600 investment has served me quite well. Could it be better if it had more focus points? how about more ISO range? I do a lot of pictures indoors, so having higher ISO with less noise is always a good thing for me. More focus points would be great because the 3 that are available in the D40 aren't nearly enough for some of the pictures I take. But, it still does the job, and I can always use manual focus if necessary for some things.<br>

Basically, the only reason I can see justifying a higher priced camera than one that covers those few things I need is basically just because I want it. Not because there's a specific need, but just because it's something I think I could get a lot of use out of.</p>

<p >"So, to make a long story short: in terms of performance and image quality, why are people paying $2k - $7k for a high-end DSLR?"</p>

<p >My thoughts:</p>

<p >- Low light performance is much better in these expensive cameras, which are capable of much higher ISO performance</p>

<p >- Action photographers get higher frames per second</p>

<p >- Faster, more intelligent autofocus</p>

<p >- Superior metering</p>

<p >- Overall image quality improves with price, though at a far lower pace than ISO performance and FPS</p>

<p >- If you’re including expensive lenses in the mix, you also get better low-light performance, and enhanced control over depth of field</p>

<p >- The more expensive cameras are much more ruggedly built</p>

<p >- Camera software, functionality and customization capability is far superior as the price tag goes up</p>

<p >Put simply, if you have great light and static subjects, most would be hard pressed to see the difference between a photo taken with a $1K DSLR and a $7K DSLR (given the same lens and photographer technique, skill and ability). </p>

<p >If the scenario moves to challenging light and a higher-end lens, however, the story changes—especially if you want larger prints or the subject is moving.</p>

<p >You mention taking photos of kids in the living room without a flash….sounds like you need excellent high ISO performance….decent FPS….solid autofocus….fast lens…. ;-)</p>

<p>What about the other costs?</p>

<p>I submit, the camera does not cost what its pricetag says. I think it costs between five and ten times as much. Maybe 20 or 30 times as much, if you count in costs like printing, publishing and advertising based on photos made with the camera. Now, of five photos made with the camera, and worked through to completion, how many will turn a profit? Are you prepared to absorb the costs created by unsold images?</p>

<p>If you are an amateur, you'll still have those costs. They just won't be offset by monetary profit.</p>

<p>How about unprinted images? I see, every so often, someone touting the billboard/poster ability of a given camera. Of the units sold, how many were used to build a billboard ad, how many times? If you were actually building a billboard ad, wouldn't renting equipment be a better option?</p>

<p>Some people will not get their images off of a web page. Look at the size of the images in these web ads. Hold a postage stamp next to your monitor, and then check the ad photo size again. Tell me someone is not building the equivalent of a very expensive postage stamp.</p>

<p>If you were painting, instead of uploading the latest digital image, that size of image would be considered miniature. Even in the larger views, we're still seeing an overwhelming majority of images, even commercial images, used in final presentation size that is <strong>small format.</strong></p>

<p>Now, how many megapixels does it take to have angels dance on a postage stamp?</p>

<p>If you use the pricetag of the body to gauge the value of the camera, then you're already headed down the wrong path. And also, from a commercial cost viewpoint, the camera body price as an indicator is grossly incomplete. Printing, computer improvements, shipping in, shipping out, time editing, printing, printing, printing, web page coding, advertising, fuel, food, travel, your bar tab when you are in another city, and so on. That camera body price as a commercial indicator is buried way down the list.</p>

<p>When you look at these obvious marketing models, and see the bracketing on the prices, and you move up from one level to the next; ask yourself, is there an adjacent cost increase in another support cost category that would go along with that move? Considering that part of this is chasing a megapixel count and the latest autofocus system, or getting weather sealing like that Pentax; some camera body costs will affect other costs.</p>

<p>Those other costs affected; they're not hidden costs. They're part of the price. The full price of the camera.</p>

<p>With that full price in mind, do those latest initials and model numbers on the nameplate really look so good?</p>

<p>Use your current system until the thing falls apart, or is in danger of eminent collapse.</p>

<p><em>"Ahh, the joys of digital photography, where amateurs who don't shoot the image volume required to justify a super-rugged, high-end pro-spec body, not only give up the pro-level ruggedness when they compromise on camera price, but they also give up some in image quality.<br /> This is in contrast to film cameras where you can load pro-spec film into a low-end camera, mount a high quality lens and voila, you can produce images that match the pro-spec camera in image quality. There were even some cameras targeted to amateurs that were more popular with pro photographers than the pro-oriented cameras (eg Nikon FE2)"</em></p>

<p>What an odd observation but one that arguably seems accurate. I was pricing 700 dollar RZ67 kits today. It make 700 bucks spent on a G1 a total waste.<em><br /> </em></p>