what's a >$1000 DSLR good for?

<p>Florin<br>

I purchased a D3 shortly after they came out, if I would have waited I would have bought the D700 and saved some money. I had been shooting nikon for a long time so I had what lens I needed.<br>

My choice in the camera was, it was my fisrt digital camera as I held out on going digital until I felt that the camera would surpass what I was doing with film, and I didn't want a cropped sensor, and this it surely has done for me. It was very exspensive for me, but it was a retirement present that I purchased for my self, which I intead to keep for many years. With the photos I have taken in the last fourteen months the D3 has payed for it's self in film saving and proccessing. My out put is still prints mostly 8X10 and 16X20. Yes with film I would not have taken near as many photo, but the freedom to take as many as I want has led to many more keepers and exceptional photos. I am even selling some prints which I never thought I would do. I don't feel that I could have accoplished my goals with the quality of prints I get with to much less of a camera, yes if I wanted a cropped sensor the Nikon D300 would have been plenty. So it really boils down to what you exspect to get out of your camera, how involved you want to get and yes how much you can afford to spend. You certainly don't need a top end camera to produce stunning photos, but it sure helps.</p>

<blockquote>

<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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I have a problem with your reasoning. First of all, if you were correct, nobody would be shooting medium format. Nobody would be using Phase One digital backs. Nobody would even think of using 4x5 film. If you were correct, we'd all be jumping on the Micro Four Thirds bandwagon, ditching 35mm SLR technology entirely. We didn't do it when APS came out, what makes you suddenly think that the APS format is now superior to 35mm just because we're using digital sensors instead of film?</p>

<p>Most importantly, your reasoning is flawed because of one simple fact: Anyone can downsample their image to a lower resolution as the very first step in their workflow. And the images will have lower noise and better quality than a small sensor camera. So there goes your preposterous claims about being 20-30x more expensive. Now you have the same post-exposure cost--the time to downsample is negligible. You could batch run it while you're reading photo.net. And even if it weren't, there's a handy little dial that records the sensor data in a lower resolution....</p>

<p>You have an incredibly narrow vision of what photography is for. It's not necessarily a revenue stream. Sometimes, it is about getting the best of what present technology and money can afford. You're more than welcome to think of your own work as being income, but don't presume to tell me, or anyone else, the purpose of the images we take. And for those photographers for whom their images are their source of income, whose livelihoods depend on getting that shot, they would probably be the first ones to tell you how ridiculous and meaningless your claims are. They'll happily drop $7K on a body if it means the difference between getting a fantastic shot and selling it for $10K, and missing a shot because their camera wasn't weather-sealed, or their AF was too slow, or light levels were too low, or there wasn't enough resolution to salvage. And they'll drop another $7K on a lens if that means they get that once-in-a-lifetime shot.</p>

<p>A under $1000 digital camera is good for taking pics of:<br>

-the family<br>

-pets<br>

-anything you won't enlarge more than a 11x14<br>

-snapshots<br>

-stuff you selling on ebay</p>

<p>Shoot with 35mm and scan, I've got beautiful 40x60's from 35mm.</p>

<p>You can't beat film.</p>

<p>Okay, Peter, it's like this: using a $200 camera body, $638 budget for film and darkroom supplies, my publication costs run over $6,000. Two hundred times 30 equals 6,000. Somebody has got to pay that 6,000. It's a cost.</p>

<p>A camera body can easily incur or be associated with costs 20 to 30 times its individual unit price. </p>

<p>Now, I'm sorry if you took what I had to say personally, but my point is not meant to be about you or anybody else. It's that I think the sticker price of the camera body is not necessarily an indicator of its merit. </p>

<p>Even if I can afford it, the $$ cams are too big for me, because I like to travel with it and I do 2 days per place and move on .... There are pro's like the late Galen Rowell who have used $100 lenses on his Nikon cos he watned a light camera as he liked running and mountain climbing. </p>

<p>I tend to think the $$ provides speeds and build, yes pixels but most cases I think the cheaper DSLRs are well catered for already. Most people don't need to print larger than 13x19. I have a 6MP in 2004 and it is fine. </p>

<p>I do landscapes nad cityscapes so I use a tripod so the high ISO, faster speed, solid build, better water sealing is not an issue to me , nor the extra buttons and extra custom settings. And equally I like to get into film with medium and larger format with the cloth over the head cos the negative is 4x5" size, plus again I don't need the speed. </p>

<p>I mean for the price, even if I am interested in portraiture and event and sport photography, there is no way I can afford such thing new, so I will buy used. The D300 at $1600 or abouts is not too bad for a mid upper speed camera. </p>

<p>I do scapes photography subjects, for me it is easy, I have not upgraded and put my money to airfares to do my international landscapes / cityscapes. Right now in my country $500US provides a ticket to Asia, $500US provides a generous Asian day to day spending all inclusive (for a week), backpackers could get via $250US a week if they wanted to - dorms and cheap food.</p>

<p>What I find generally happen is that the high end stuff get the state of the art sensors but overtime these stuff are trickered down to the chain to the cheaper cameras, they are also more refined and installed into the cheaper models. Then the upper end cameras after a few years puts out a newer model which entice pple to buy again for $5,000 or $8,000. But I cannot afford to upgrade so often. LOL. I rather travel with it and do other stuff.</p>

<p>FWIW with a 6MP cam I can do my photog I am happy with and it prints 13x19 for my photography club. Most time its that not the technical qualities but I need to improve on my art qualities be it with the camera or with the photoshop. Even if I have a Nikon D3 or a D3x or a large format camera with a large 4x5 inch negative size, I don't think it would make a difference. I just enjoy using film because it is a more manual way and with slide film you just project it, no manipulation whatsoever offsite.</p>

<p>Generally I would suggest people to buy a $1,500 cam if they do portraiture and want a bit of speed. I don't suggest pple to get a $8,000 cam for obvious reasons. I say it is up to them if they wanna spend $3,000 for full frame but does the same job.</p>

<p>I suggest pple to get a sub $1,000 cam for newbies and hobbyist if they are not into action. </p>

<p>I also suggest people to get 2nd hand if they want that.</p>

<p>that for example....</p><div></div>

<blockquote>

<p>Okay, Peter, it's like this: using a $200 camera body, $638 budget for film and darkroom supplies, my publication costs run over $6,000. Two hundred times 30 equals 6,000. Somebody has got to pay that 6,000. It's a cost.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>And you are <strong>still</strong> missing my point: It's misleading to talk about "publication costs" when not everyone who buys a camera--even a "pro" body--has those costs. Just because that cost *MIGHT* be incurred by someone in particular doesn't say anything meaningful about its relationship to the original purchase of the equipment. Furthermore, "publication costs" are presumably offset by earnings, unless it's for personal use, in which case it's pointless to talk about money at all--what dollar value can you put on capturing an image for your own personal needs?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>A camera body can easily incur or be associated with costs 20 to 30 times its individual unit price.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>FOR YOU, maybe. </strong>But obviously there's not a linear relationship. You could buy a $5 disposable camera, go to a pro lab and spend $10 on developing, $50 on scanning and $500 on making 20x30 prints. Alternatively, you could go to Wal-Mart and spend $4 and get some nice 4x6 prints in an envelope. What does any of that have to do with the $5 you spent on the camera? Similarly, you could buy an EOS 5DmkII for $3K, three L lenses for a total of $5K, and $1K on accessories for a total of $9K, and then end up spending almost nothing for digital display and projection. Or you can spend $1 to rip the HD video to a DVD. You think that over the lifetime of the body and lenses you're going to spend 30x = $270,000 in peripheral costs? Ludicrous.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Now, I'm sorry if you took what I had to say personally, but my point is not meant to be about you or anybody else. It's that I think the sticker price of the camera body is not necessarily an indicator of its merit.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The sticker price isn't an indicator of a camera body's merit because "merit" is not measured the same way by everyone. So don't go around freaking people out and dissuading them from buying what they can afford by talking about 20x or 30x TCOs. <strong>That</strong> is what I have a problem with. You're putting out baseless figures to support a message that, while true, is lost amidst the fearmongering. If I were to believe what you said, I'd never spend $4K on a camera. I'd take a cheap $200 P&S and lie awake at night wondering if I could afford your claimed 20x lifetime cost of ownership on THAT.</p>

<p>I spent $4K on a camera. And when I saw what I could do with it, I was immediately convinced that I had made the correct decision in terms of its lifetime value to me. I've taken shots that I could not have captured with anything less. And there's no way to put a dollar value on those images. So here's my message to prospective camera buyers: get the best you can afford, and learn to use it well. A camera is the closest thing to a time machine mankind has ever created. One the moment has passed, it will never come again.</p>

<p>They're not baseless figures. I worked in a newspaper factory for five years. No money, and production stops. This could happen on a small or large scale, but it's going to happen. </p>

<p>You want to call my position fearmongering; I disagree. It's the reality of expenditure; those projections are based on what I have observed. Five, ten, twenty or thirty times the value of the camera body, as I wrote above. If you factor in all of the different ways the camera can cost you, it's not any different than any other daily cost. </p>

<p>When people sell cameras, review cameras, or advertise cameras in any way, do they tell others about the facts of all of these other associated costs? No, they'll associate "Professional" with expensive equipment, but not discuss all of the follow-on costs that go into generating profit or sustaining the system on a monthly budget of some kind. Isn't that profit important? [cf. "what you call income", above.]</p>

<p>Isn't a sustainable budget important? What's wrong with addressing those ideas? Maybe someone should say something about it. </p>

<p>What's a greater than $1000 DSLR good for? Well, it may not be good for much if the user can't carry on and spend on its future utility. Planning for future expenditures is an important part of making these kinds of decisions.</p>

<p>they are more expensive and therefore must be better.</p>

<p>After the purchase of a body and the first lens, a photographer is not obligated to spend any more than what they don't want to pay for. You are not addressing that simple fact nor the other facts I have stated in my previous replies, instead choosing to continue making assumptions that do not hold for a large number of photographers that DO purchase such bodies. And now you're backtracking and saying "5x, 10x, 20x, 30x," and saying "can cost," essentially rendering your original claims meaningless because there's a huge difference between 5x and 30x. When those extra costs can vary that much there is no point in bringing up 30x costs and attaching it to the purchase of the original body!</p>

<p>By all means, a sustainable budget is important. I know perfectly well the point you are trying to make but you are not articulating it. <strong>You are trying to bring up this idea of the cost of being immersed in photography as being more than the cost of a body.</strong> Yeah, you could get "L disease" and start spending insane amounts of cash on glass. And some people do. But nobody is holding a gun to your head, and certainly the camera body you buy isn't sending off mind control waves saying *you really need that EF 400/2.8L IS*. When trying to consider the total cost of being a photographer, the attachment point is not the monetary value of the body. Nobody says you have to become a photojournalist, or go into wedding photography, or make 24x36 prints, or...whatever. Moreover, whether you buy a Rebel or a 1DsIII, you are still (largely) faced with the same choices with respect to supplemental equipment and subsequent usage and expression of your images. <strong>The more meaningful way to talk about those "lifetime costs" is not to relate it to the body but to relate it to the photographer's personal goals, their intended use of their work.</strong></p>

<p>Anything worthwhile in life has costs, whether it is time or money spent. I also happen to be a <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aM-_NR3d0g">ceramic artist</a> . My work has been published in an internationally recognized ceramics magazine. I've spent a lot of money on that, too. Some people like to fix up cars. That costs money too. My regular day job costs me 40 hours of my life every week, and although I get paid for it, is it enough to offset that time that I will never get back, that huge chunk of my adult life given to a company instead of doing what I really want?</p><div></div>

<p>I wasn't backtracking. I was referring to my previous post because you quoted it, and then picked the highest factor I offered as part of making your point, which was that you thought mine was "preposterous." If you are going to hold me to what I said, it is only fair that what I wrote is taken in balance.</p>

<p>Given the advertising pressure that people are under to purchase camera equipment, I have absolutely no problem with aggressively counseling for a sustained budget. The OP is about gauging equipment based on the cost of a DSLR body. What I wrote above is what I think about it.</p>

<blockquote>

<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 small format.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Look any technically good 4x5" large format scan at 1020x760pix on your screen. If you come now to tell me that you can beat that with your p&s, we are here eager to see your 1000x jpegs? Further you should have a look for a lot of books, exhibitions and private galleries instead of making the the bold assumption that all you see at web is all there is published, even with the same pictures.</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>As for my clients' photo editors: good quality raw or uncropped full quality jpeg at minimum 8mpix resolution is a good starting point. As for stock agencies I would probably feel safe with technically good quality raw over 12mpix resolution.<br />Please remember that even if the presentation is in small format, the requirements for print house certainly are not: I have been asked raw many times and uncropped highest level jpeg most of times. With my field of work (bird photography) the ultimate quality of heavily cropped picture really matters. Both in commercial and aesthetical ways. But your mileage may vary: please just remember we are talking general and global photography here, not only about your activities.</p>

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>I cannot get exactly what you are talking here? First you gave us impression that high end Dslrs are in your opinion overkill for majority of applications. Now you claim that their price is very minor part of total cost of photography activities.<br />Two user cases: <br />A professional with decent turnover will pay back a $2.500 body (tax deducted) in no time. That is considering the other costs like studio rent, gasoline, lights, computers etc. There is no benefit to struggle with subpar camera, smaller viewfinder and more time at pp if your budget is anything more than pennies, right? At least that is the impression I have got with studios that are making ok: they have many times digital backs with ff dslrs as sidekick cameras.<br />A semi-pro or hobbyist who travels a lot and sells a few pictures during year: The total cost of camera is fly dropping compared to flight costs, hotels, lenses, gasoline etc. Especially if you consider that camera can be deducted in taxes. Otoh again, scrambling with a lesser camera is pain in the back all of the year if you decided to skimp with those few bucks: smaller viewfinder, missed shots with less responsive af, allround pictures with lower quality. I have tried it both ways and know by experience. In my case I go to some distant country maybe once in my lifetime. Would I like to be there shooting my personal and/or selling bird portfolio with lesser camera than I can easily afford? My answer is: Certainly not. But again your mileage may wary.</p>

<p>I do believe that high end DSLRs are overkill for a majority of applications. I'm not saying that they're worthless, or a bad choice in and of themselves. Yet, I strongly believe that they are a bad choice if their costs takes up a large part of a total operating budget for a photographer. I think that for most people they do make up a big part of that year's budget, and for the most part, are frequently a bad choice for that reason. </p>

<p>For example, last year I spent over $10,000 on equipment and supplies. I purchased several camera bodies throughout the year, based on some careful choices. I assessed what I wanted to do, and looked at the overall costs of the effects I wanted to achieve before I made my purchases. </p>

<p>My most frequently used camera bodies purchased last year came in at about 2% of the total operating budget. </p>

<p>The results? Money available for spending on actual operation. </p>

<p>Like those activities I listed, that were just quoted above, there's cost there. I really believe that the larger portion of the costs are with the activities. The using of the camera, more than its acquisition or possession, is going to involve greater expense. </p>

<p>Everything costs. The whole day costs. It can cost us in our professional, or our personal finances. As long as we're alive, we're consuming, that consumption is going to have a pricetag. </p>

<p>If users really want to get those great features put to use in top end equipment, then really, they need a budget to match. Hey, there are probably people who can buy an expensive camera body and still have it come in at under 10% of their costs for the year. No problem. More power to them. </p>

<p>But, the greater the percentage of the total operating budget that goes into getting the camera, the less of a budget a user will have to operate it. It's the operation, the utility, of the equipment, that's going to bring the benefits. The bulk cost of some of the higher end equipment is so high, it can conceivably crush a user into inactivity. Who's most likely to be paralyzed by high costs? Those who get lured in by slick ads, unused features, and all these advertisements about how great expensive equipment is. </p>

<p>Imagine you were the person who was selling the equipment. Would it be to your advantage to sell someone something that was too expensive for them to liberally operate? What's a >$1000 DSLR good for? Okay, in the hands of someone who has a large budget, then maybe they can operate it liberally, and not have to worry as much about its expense. Yet, I submit the high costs are by themselves something to be reckoned with. The >$1000 DSLR is not going to be good for much if the user cannot finance its frequent utility. </p>

<p>I do believe that they are overkill; I don't think that photographers have to push the technological edge of their equipment in order to make great pictures. It might make it easier in some cases, but there are plenty of photos made that don't need the fastest shutter speed, or the widest aperture, or the fanciest of computer functions. Those maximum capabilities are some of the most frequently cited selling points of cameras; but, they're probably among the least frequently used; compare those maximums and their use to overall cost of the equipment. Do photographers really need to push it to the technological edge every moment of every day? No. There are plenty of photos made at ISO 100, 1/125, f/8. </p>

<p>The enticing features can persuade someone right into purchasing equipment that's too expensive for them to operate liberally. People thinking about taking on camera bodies that cost thousands need to think it through, before they buy. Is that really so radical? </p>

<p>What's the >$1000 camera body worth? Not much if they can't afford to use it. Even less if they paid a lot of money for capability extremes that they didn't need. </p>

<p>John, I understand your point. In my individual case, I was talking about a particular situation: shooting fast moving subjects (kids playing), in a low light environment (living room), without using the flash. A camera such as the G1 (or XSi, D60, A300...) is just barely able to do it. I can snap usable photos in about 60% of cases if I aggressively jog the controls (ISO at the usable maximum, lens at the wide end, aperture max open, and then try and manually get the quickest shutter which works at that particular moment), and even then it's not exactly perfect.</p>

<p>I do believe I know enough about photo technique to extract most of the performance out of this camera in this kind of situation, so the question naturally arises whether a further improvement can be obtained by upgrading the camera. Seeing as similarly priced cameras are about the same in this regard, I logically started to look at more expensive devices. But I have no experience with those, so that's why I'm asking these questions.</p>

<p>By the way, I'm an amateur, so body + lens is my only expense. OK, I bought a tripod and a wired remote for a grand total of $25 :-) But that's it. I made the decision to not spend any more money on hardware. I am going to use the kit lens (unless somebody gives me a fast lens as a present, which is unlikely). But then, if I want more performance in low light, what do I do?</p>

<p>Come to think of it, that might be a way to get better performance without spending too much money: just get the F1.4/25 and use that one in the living room. That should give me a performance boost over the F3.5/14-45 kit lens, huh? I just hope 25mm is not too narrow, I usually shoot at the wide end indoors.</p>

<p>http://panasonic.net/avc/lumix/systemcamera/gms/lens/index.html</p>

<p>Of course, I can always use the flash, and then the whole discussion is irrelevant, since the G1 works great in any other situation I tried it.</p>

<p>Do they have a pop up flash?</p>

<p>jeje</p>

<p>Well, you may want to look at flash. I guess it would be common to be hesitant about it. I know I was. Back when I got my first flash, the only way I could use it was either on hot shoe, or on a shorter PC cord. This flash had no bounce hinge; it was pretty much direct, on camera flash or nothing. It wasn't very powerful, either. So, as a beginner, I used it less and less.</p>

<p>If you get into using pop-up flash, I recommend the use of an index card rubber banded to the base of the lens assembly; bend the card upward to block the directness of the flash, and bounce it upwards or rearwards. I was pleasantly surprised at the back-bouncing technique mentioned in another thread. I had just never thought of it. Works great in smaller and average sized rooms indoors.</p>

<p>That simple blocking card/bounce technique is so effective for the pop-up flash indoors, I'm surprised that it's so infrequently mentioned. Photo below made with that technique. Just a snapshot made from a few feet away, but notice that there are many objects that would be casting harsh shadows in direct on-camera pop-up flash that have softer shadows using this method. Brings out a good color in wood (wet paint on oily wood pallet in photo); another snapshot in a mirror just to show it working.</p>

<p>"Projected sustainment budget?" One rubber band and a piece of junk mail. Pro version: fresh index card and rubber band.</p><div></div>

<p>Let's say this, a four thirds camera is good enough for daily "professional" photography, once you step into a world of commerce and advertisements, you will need something that can print ads on billboards and fill up the windows of the empire state building where your model's pores are visible from ground level and it cannot have any noise at all.</p>

The O p has a G1. That's no slouch. For a casual shooter shooting pictures of family it's perfect. My advice to the OP:

 

First, pro grade bodies are expensive because pros spend all day shooting. They sometimes find themselves in rough

conditions or in situations where very high speed operation is needed. The 1DS is for sports and photojournalism etc,

where you need extremely high end build quality. The 5D is for landscapes and weddings and other areas where you

can take a medium build quality but require the most image quality you can get. The G1 is for when you want

something that's not huge to take photos of your kids. I know pros who own cameras like that and use them when

they're not working.

 

Second, don't buy any more cameras. The camera companies and the magazines that are actually very long ads will

have filled you with the desire for more equipment, which is how they make money, but it's important to resist that

desire. Your current camera is excellent.

 

Third, work on technique. Better low light and DR is gained by nailing the exposure and doing a good job on raw file

processing. (If you happen to own a Mac with 10.6 and don't already have a favorite raw processing and photo sorting

program, invest in a copy of Aperture which is only $80 through the App Store.)

 

Fourth, once you've got in some work on that, if you still want more equipment, a decent flash and/or a prime lens

might be nice. There's a very nice 20mm prime for m4/3 for example. These are good for indoor and low light use

because they let more light through than zooms.

<p>In case it hadn't already been mentioned above, the difference between entry level DSLR's and professional DSLR's costing over $1,000 is closing. As the entry level DSLR feature sets keep improving, these cameras can definitely keep up with the pro DSLR's especially if they use the same sensor. I use a D300 which currently runs about $1,400 and a Sony A580 for $800. The A580 actually has higher resolution, continuously focuses at 5.5 frames per second (burst mode is 7 FPS), and begins focusing when the viewfinder senses and your eye nearing the viewfinder. This is great for flying bird photography. The D300 is several years older. It's amazing that the new entry level DSLR's have such advanced feature sets compared to pro bodies only a few years old. It is actually the lenses that will make the biggest difference in equipment. A professional grade lens will work just as well on either camera body. </p>