Has anyone abandoned DSLR photography for a compact?

<p>I've been taking photos for 20 years and currently own a nice, versatile 50D outfit. However, I increasingly find myself leaving it at home and taking a compact with me as I no longer enjoy changing lenses, filters etc or the physical effort involved in carrying my gear around. I toyed with the idea of going down the Panasonic/Olymus 4/3rds route but feel I may end up in the same situation, albeit with a slightly less aching back, where I am having to work out if it's worth the effort involved in taking an interchangeable lens outfit with me.<br>

<br /> I should point out that I have nothing against DSLR's, four thirds, compacts or film and I do not earn my living from photography and I do know that I will lose some creative possibilites and the more extreme focal lengths if I sell up my kit. <em>However, I will miss those same opportunities if the DSLR stays at home!</em><br>

<em> </em><br /> I was just wondering if anyone has dramatically downgraded their gear without regrets.</p>

<p>Thanks.</p>

<p>I hate SLRs -- digital or otherwise. In film days I ditched them for Leicas and had no regrets. Once I moved to digital I've tried to use something lesser a few times and have always regretted it -- loss of image quality is part of it, but it's also things like focus speed, shutter speed lag, and the lack of flexibility that (d)SLRs offer.

 

<br>

Best example: we went to Hawaii in December and were on a boat trip to do some snorkeling as I remember. We ran across porpoises as you would expect, but we also had 3-4 whales that were breaching and fully leaving the water within 50 yards of the boat. With a DSLR I could have captured it and (maybe) made something memorable. With the sub-dslr I had I think I got a side flipper reentering the water once.

 

<br>

I totally know where you're coming from, but for me the burden of the DSLR is worth it. I just need to avoid the mistake of carrying too much gear on a trip to keep it a usable size...</p>

 

<p>While I haven't abandoned my DSLR, my camera of choice when I go out is a Canon PowerShot XS10 IS. It's smaller than my DSLR, its "superzoom" goes from 28 t0 570mm, has mostly the same controls as my DSLR, accepts my Canon flash, has a swivel LCD, takes videos, etc. Smaller camera in a smaller bag, and I can do most of what I want when shooting casually. I find myself shooting a lot more with this camera, with close to 17K images taken with it in a year and a half or so. I doubt if I took that many photos in 30 years of shooting with film cameras!</p>

<p>Just this morning after coming home from breakfast with some friends, I wandered around our back yard and took a bunch of shots of my wife's flowers that were all wet with the overnight rain. It would have been a whole lot more complicated if I had attempted to do the same with my DSLR, switching between lenses all the time. And I probably would not have bothered.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>interesting question-while I haven't 'abandoned' my dslr in favour of a point-and-shoot camera, I do have a P&S which I use to (1) carry around in a pocket so that I always have a camera with me (2) use as a back up in case my dslr malfunctions and (3) when I just don't feel like carrying the bigger camera around. I can't imagine just having a P&S but, as they say, 'never say never'! regards, cb :0)</p>

<p>I wouldn't say abandoned but a compact with me way more often...</p>

<p>I've often told the story of how I had to use a Rollei 35 when my Nikon packed up on a trip to Maya ruins in Yucatan (cries of "oh no, not again!) but there is something very attractive about the freedom from carrying heavy gear around.</p>

<p><em>Hate</em>, however, seems kind of a strong emotion to be stirred by what is only a tool after all. Does one hate saws? hammers? I'm sorry that you hate your tools, Derek. :_(</p>

<p>I sense, however, that Jerry is looking for someone to tell him it's all right. OK.</p>

<p>Jerry, it's fine. You do photography the way <em>you</em> want to.</p>

<p>:)</p>

<p>The thought that the O.P might be looking for 'validation' hadn't occurred to me but if you are, then of course it's ok; as JDM said," it's fine. You do photography the way <em>you</em> want to." cb</p>

<p>I suppose I have spent ages thinking about the pictures I "might" miss without a DSLR without considering what I am missing out on elsewhere e.g. liberty of movement, enjoying the moment. In Derek's position I would <em>definitely</em> have missed out on the whales as I would have left the DSLR at the hotel, and in JDM's case I'm sure I'd have ended up regretting taking the DSLR with me but I <em>would</em> have taken it. </p>

<p>Carry compact with me all the time. On recent trip to Old Saybrook, CT. most people and snaps were with it. When it came to sunset and landscapes it was the DSLR. You can see them at the http://SwensonStudio.com place, New England, Od Saybrook 2010. The low numbers are the P&S.</p>

<p>I would rather have a Canon 50D and the Canon superzoom 18-200 and, maybe, the 10-22 superwide rather than a point & shoot with a megazoom lens. You don't mention which lenses you have, but if it's a heavier, faster set, consider picking up a one or two-lens, lighter combination for the time you don't want to bring the heavy stuff.</p>

<p><em>"I was just wondering if anyone has dramatically downgraded their gear without regrets."</em></p>

<p>Yes.</p>

<p>I had a very nice 5D system, and then downsized to Olympus E-volt system. </p>

<p>Now all I have is a 10MP Olympus Stylus 550WP (water proof). I can take it anywhere, rain or shine, in any pocket. Totally unobtrusive, great quality photos, still a fair amount of creative flexibility.</p>

<p>Having a camera with me always has done much more for my personal photography than did having a large system at home.</p>

<p>Attached is a photo I took at dusk with my Canon G7 (since dropped and broken by my daughter...). Steve McCurry really liked this shot when I showed it to him at a workshop in 2008.<br>

<img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/6310697-lg.jpg" alt="" width="500" height="375" /></p>

<p>I often go on a weeks vacation with a minimalist camera (believe me I am an equipment "junkie"). Some of my cameras used: Leica M3 with DR Summicron nothing else/ Rollei 35/ Bessa L with 15mm/ Nikon with 45mm f2.8P or Fuji S Pro with same lens. In other words, one body one lens, no accessories, no bags, no extra lenses, strobes none of this nonsense (I have and do use this stuff) but not on vacation. My idea of a vacation is away from the computer and all the attendant gadgetry. Enjoy what's there and have a camera available but don't have the camera dictate the day's itinerary!</p>

<p>First, we have to recognize that digital is different. For instance, in the film days, if you happened to have to use a Rollei 35 because you didn't have your pro Nikon SLR with you, you were still shooting the same full-frame 35mm film, and if you had the Rollei with the Sonnar lens, you weren't losing a darned thing in "image quality". In fact, you might have been gaining some.</p>

<p>In digital, compact means a smaller sensor. It's more comparable to having used a Minox, a half-frame 35mm or a 110-film camera vs a full-frame 35mm camera.</p>

<p>That having been said, this image quality obsession can get a little silly. What is it that we are trying to prove, and to whom are we trying to prove it? I mean think about it. The cameras many of you here on photo.net were raving about 5 years ago are just garbage now that you wouldn't dream of using, long replaced by "better" models. What has changed?</p>

<p>Personally, I've been taking pictures for over 40 years, and I've always liked small cameras. I know I'm not getting the same "image quality" as you guys with the full-frame DSLRs, but it's pocketable, and at some point, good enough is good enough.</p>

<p>Like I've said before, when I look back, some of my favourite pictures over the years ended up being unplanned, spontaneous ones I took with the small camera I had in my pocket. They aren't necessarily the sharpest, and they might have more grain, but who cares... I got the picture.<br /> If you ever spend some time with the photographs of many great masters, it doesn't take long to realize that except for a few specialists (landscapes for example), they would never have passed photo.net forums sharpness or image quality standards.</p>

<p>Anyway, try it out. Don't give up the "real" camera. It's not an either-or situation.</p>

<p>I sold the DSLR outfit early in 2009 and went with a Canon G10 for the year. It worked well in many respects, but after a year I decided to return to the DSLR's nearly instant shutter response, better low light performance and broader dynamic range. A good mid-range zoom covers most of my needs, so it's not all that bulky or heavy. Some can afford having both types of systems. That too, would be nice.</p>

<p>I think it depends on what sort of photography you do and personally I am glad that financial reasons, lack of, introduced me to the Nikon 5700 years ago instead of a DSLR. I bought a DSLR after a couple of years and respect it for what it is but rarely use it. The disparaged 'bridge' camera is a different 'digital animal', a breed we didn't have with film. <br>

In many cases any camera is how you use it and action was caught by the speed graphic years ago, a more awkward and cumbersome camera I am pressed to think of. I'm often pleasantly suprised at the results I get from my cellphone after it has been post processed .... only my I-pod is more pocketable .... but I'm not a member of a photo club at the moment so have less critical aims. Definitely I think you should hold on to what you have rather than trade.</p>

<p>I used to haul a DSLR with several nice lenses and a flash in a Pelican box on wilderness vacations but got tired of the hassle of it all. So I bought a Tamron 18-270 do-it-all wonder lens, and the Pelican box got smaller. But I find it's still a hassle to haul it around and drag it out every time I want to shoot something. So I bought a Panasonic waterproof camera to have handy.</p>

<p>The last couple vacations I only took the little Panasonic and found I really did not miss the DSLR, but wished several times for a longer lens. So I've decided to sell the 18-270 and buy a small superzoom point & shoot for all those things the the little waterproof camera cant get to. Both cameras together are smaller & lighter than the DSLR with one lens. Of course I will give up some responsiveness, low light capabilities and image quality, but I don't think it matters for what I shoot while on vacation.</p>

<p>I'm still not dumping the DSLRs. I need them for the times when the image matters more than convenience. I see small cameras as an adjunct to better cameras, but not a replacement for them.</p>

 

<p>Sorry, I should have said: Sigma 10-20mm, Sigma 28-70mm and Canon 70-200mm plus the Sigma 105mm macro. At one point I was considering the replacing the first two with the Canon 15-85mmIS but I don't think more gear is the answer for me. </p>

 

<p>I just acquired the camera I have been looking for since I left my OM1 for digital several years ago. Not even the Leica M8 I have been carrying for 2 years gave me as much enjoyment as my new (3 days old) Olympus EPL-1 ! </p>

<p>I have "dramatically downgraded". I scaled up to a 5d mark ii, and then came all the way down to pocket 35mm film...<br>

I still keep a Canon 5D classic and EOS equipment exclusively for Jobs at the studio. Everything else I use is film. I am back there because I find it to be another branch of photography if you like.<br>

I use Nikon 35ti for 35mm (came down from contax G2 system). That camera es exceptional. Lightweight, full manual control, great metering, sharp as it can get... take a look http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/35ti.htm...<br>

Also enjoy using 6x7 with mamiya 7. And have a good Nikon Coolscan 9000 to digitalize film. (I don't know if that is downgrading, but maybe switching type of technologies...)<br>

I have not looked back, film photography works for me. The feeling for the equipment is different. don't ask me why, it's just I get the "shots" in film.<br>

Best regards,<br>

Diego.</p>

<p>I went right to a Point and Shoot when I went digital. I could not justfiy spending huge amounts of money on a DSLR as an amateur.</p>

<p>The Nikon Coolpix P90 has served me very well and after opening my first solo exhibit at a commercial gallery last month, I really question the benefits of going to a DSLR since most of my outdoor nature shots require having my camera ready RIGHT NOW.</p>

<p>Sure I miss some shots or they are not super clear, but packing thousands of dollars worth of camera gear into the wilderness in rain, snow, freezing weather etc. etc. and trying to change lenses in really foul weather would be crazy unless I made a living at it.</p>

<p>Filling my backpack full of survival gear and one small carrying case with a camera on the belt of my backpack works for me for now.</p>

<p>When I'm not specifically planning to do photography but realize I might stumble across something interesting, I carry a little G11. It doesn't weigh me down, and it fits nicely in my purse. No shame in that. It takes some very nice pictures under favorable conditions. ;-)</p>

<p>Nope. Compact cameras are too slow and too limited and the image quality isn't up to standard. The only non-SLR camera that I use is an Ebony 4x5. SLR's rock!</p>

<p>to me, the point of a small format camera is its size. if i'm going to carry a huge dslr around with a big zoom lens, then i may aswell carry a medium format. dslr's have their use, for sports and wildlife, but there are better options for most other types of photography. I abondened DSLR's in favour of smaller rangefinder cameras, usually shot hand held. very discrete and easy to haul, unitimidating, with superb IQ.</p>

<p>I use a Canon G10 exclusively. It is very compact and great for macros. Zoom is about 10:1.</p>

 

<p>I use a Canon G10 exclusively. It is very compact and great for macros. The lens quality is fine for my purposes.</p>