what's a >$1000 DSLR good for?

<p>Been using point-and-shoot cameras for a number of years, recently upgraded to something better. I've played briefly with a couple cheap DSLRs (Canon XS, Sony A300) and also with a Sigma DP1 (very sexy camera, but so slow!), finally settled on a Panasonic G1 - not quite a DSLR (it's the first Micro Four Thirds camera actually) but for most purposes it's just like a cheap $600 DSLR, in terms of features and image quality, only smaller and more user-friendly. That's the camera I'm using currently.</p>

<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. Same with the Nikon high end. That's a 10x increase over my current type of camera. It just begs the question - what can those cameras do that mine cannot?</p>

<p>This is not just about features (a cheap DSLR has enough features for me now). One thing I currently struggle with is dynamic range and exposure issues. The G1 usually does a good job at finding the right exposure parameters but, when developing RAW, very often I have to fix the usual blown highlight, or the squished black, or whatnot. This is usually doable after twiddling the knobs for a while, but it's the main reason why I spend on average one hour for each album I develop. And it's not just the G1, I noticed all DSLRs in this price range are similar in this regard.</p>

<p>Also, the noise. The G1 is not quite as clean as a Canon XS, but surprinsingly it's slightly better than the Sony A300. In other words, if I have to shoot at ISO 1600 or higher, then I definitely need to use a smart denoiser (Noise Ninja), otherwise the image is freckled. In practice, I never go above 1600, I configured the camera to stop there.</p>

<p>Are those expensive cameras better in this regard? Can they "magically" do something to alleviate the burned highlights and that kind of stuff? What is the smart stuff those cameras have that the cheap ones have not?</p>

<p>How about low light performance? I bought the G1 specifically because I was dismayed with the low light performance of the point-and-shoot (also the shutter lag was a big issue). With the kit lens, the G1 is adequate: when my kids are playing in the living room, I can take pictures without the flash, and they come out just fine, provided I tweak the ISO and shutter a little. Given a similar lens (1:3.5/14-45), how much better in this regard would an expensive DSLR be? Would it get to the point where I can just push the button and it takes great pictures indoors without the flash, no tweaking required? (and keep in mind, children are pretty dynamic subjects) I know I can put a faster lens on my G1, but that's probably not going to happen.</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>Oh, it got moved here from the Beginners forum. Okay, just keep in mind, I'm still a newbie. :-) Thanks!</p>

<p>Better dynamic range, better color reproduction, better high ISO image quality, better ergonomics, e.g. faster and more versatile autofocus. But keep in mind that a $7k EOS-1Ds is not more than seven times as good as a 40D/50D; the higher you go, the more the returns dimnish.</p>

<p>-- "why are people paying $2k - $7k for a high-end DSLR?"<br>

-- "Okay, just keep in mind, I'm still a newbie. :-)"</p>

<p>Put it this way ... if you would be a mechanic (and you would be profesionally working as one), where would you buy your tools ... at the "20% off auction" at your local hardware store chain, or at a hardwarestore that sells quality equipment?</p>

<p>There might be 1000 reasons why people pay those prices ...<br>

... simply because the can afford it.<br>

... because they need a rocksolid reliable tool that they can rely on profesionally.<br>

... because they love the looks and the attention such a camera draws.<br>

and what not.</p>

<p>Are those cameras "better" than your G1? This certainly depends on your definition of better, but in most regards the answer is a very simple "yes" ... but not by the same ratio as the costs are compared to your G1 ... they are 10 times more expensive, but not 10 times better.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Florin<br>

High end cameras tend to be made for 2 basic markets. The photojournalist / sports photographers where low light performance and camera speed (autofocus, frame rate, shutter lag) are improved over moderate prices cameras. Prime examples are the canon 1D mkIII and the Nikon D3.<br>

The other type is aimed at photographers who need the highest IQ for landscape, fine art and studio work. Here Dynamic Range, color depth and Resolution are what matter most. Here you will find Canon's IDs MkIII, the Nikon D3x and various Medium formats cameras. To get the best out of these cameras you need to also get top grade lenses.<br>

These cameras also have many more features, are build more robust and to last longer (more cycles). There are various models in between with some of the features or capabilities of the top end models.</p>

<p>For any specific need these cameras may or may not be "better". I personally use a P&S for family pictures. Having it with me, is more important than any Image Quality thing.</p>

<p>So yes you can get a bit more dynamic range (about 1, maybe 2 stops). You can get better low light performance maybe 2 or 3 stops. (4 or 5 total with the right lens). You can get much higher operation speed and more robustness. You can get 3 to 4 times the resolution. You can't get it all at once and it cost many many thousands of dollars. Is it worth it? Only you can be the judge. But just remember to get the maximum from these machines requires top notch technique. It may be better to hone your technique first.</p>

<p>good luck</p>

<p>Edmond</p>

<p>Those are the answers I suspected.</p>

<p>Hmmm... I guess I'll have to borrow a camera like that somehow, and see for myself just how much better is the "better dynamic range" - i.e., just how much further can it go before it keels over.</p>

<p>EDIT: Oh, I see. Now I realize I'm looking for a faster camera which performs better in low light and fast motion. Shooting landscape photos is just a nice bonus, but snapping quick pictures in difficult conditions is what I'm looking for.</p>

<p>Another difference is the build quality. A "low" end DSLR may have a shutter rated at maybe 30,000 cycles. The 20D and 30D were about 100,000 cylcles while the 1Ds series is more like 500,000+. I don't remember the exact number any more but these are close enough to put it into perpective. Also plastic body vs metal and with partial or full weather/dust sealing on higher end models. </p>

<p>Feature set is major difference, although that seems to be less and less these days as they are packing low end cameras with what was high end features.<br>

I don't think the IQ is all that different from the bottom to the top, except for difference in High ISO and of course resolution. Keep in mind high resolution does not always equal high IQ.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Robert Capa crawled off the beach in Normandy with a camera body model that today would be valued at about $300. His whole kit, separated from his personal fame, would probably go for less than $500. If that's not good enough equipment, what is? All you need is a camera in basic working order.</p>

<p>Pricetag chasing is for sissies. Use what you've got and make good pictures. After it falls apart, get a replacement.</p>

<p>"Put it this way ... if you would be a mechanic (and you would be profesionally working as one), where would you buy your tools ... at the "20% off auction" at your local hardware store chain, or at a hardwarestore that sells quality equipment?"</p>

<p>Good point, however the sad trueth is that I know many many mechanics (technicians) that bought much of the China made tools at the local flea market.</p>

<p>When asked why I bought mine off the tool truck (MAC, Matco, and Snap-on) I tell them a bout the time I broke a wrench at 8:00am on morning and went to call the dealer right away because I needed that blasted wrench. Little less than two hours later he pulled up at the shop and walked up to me with replacement in hand and took the broken one with him.</p>

<p>Another time with the same dealer, I bought a small tool cart. One of the drawers was sticking. I found it was out of square. I called the dealer and in two or three weeks he showed up with the area manager and a new box already fully assembled. They even moved all my tools from the old box to the new one while I watched. A shake of the hand they wheeled off the defective box (the box was fine, it was the drawer that was the problem).</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>"Robert Capa crawled off the beach in Normandy with a camera body model that today would be valued at about $300. His whole kit, separated from his personal fame, would probably go for less than $500. If that's not good enough equipment, what is? All you need is a camera in basic working order." -John</p>

<p>True John, no one said the Op needed a high end camera. With film ( I know you know this John, I say it for the benifit of others) the camera had no effect on IQ. It was all lens and film loaded. With digital, the camera make as much a difference in IQ as the lens does. With that said, many (maybe not all) "low" end DSLR can and will do a very fine job.</p>

<p>Jason</p>

<p>Great info so far, thanks!</p>

<p>1. I have no intention to replace the G1 in the near (or possibly medium) future. That's the level I'm at now, I need to squeeze out of it all the lessons. I also expected the law of diminishing returns.</p>

<p>2. I do realize great pictures can be taken with a pinhole camera too. But in certain situations (living room, kids playing, don't want to ruin the original look of the scene by firing the flash) a cheap point-and-shooter just won't do; I tried hard and I kept missing irrepeatable moments. The G1 seems adequate, I was just wondering how much more than that is possible, seeing that I'm close to the limits.</p>

<p>3. Where can I learn more about the two kinds of high-end cameras (for sports photogs, and for landscapers), which camera belongs to which category, etc.? Is this distinction applied only to the highest end cameras? How about the midrange ($1k - $2k), are they sort of "general purpose" or do they fall into one or the other category?</p>

<p>Equipment tab. Read up on some reviews. There are some here at photo net and some other sites. If you want to try one out, there's always rentals. You see, though, that I am a new purchase discourager. I am a wet blanket for LBA.</p>

<p>There are some structural merits to the more expensive cameras; but, I will almost always discourage more spending on camera equipment for beginners (beyond a basic kit). Spend on prints and framing and sharing. This is just my personal view; I feel there is too much pressure towards spending and a tendency to focus on the equipment.</p>

<p>I am a wet blanket for LBA.</p>

<p>For the "burned in highlights" in the OP, try a filter. A medium-strong neutral density filter (ND) or polarizer will help a little sometimes. It's like putting sunglasses on your camera. Could be covered by a modest investment, easily at about $50; maybe more or less. Those filters are useful, and they'll easily last a long time.</p>

<p>"but snapping quick pictures in difficult conditions is what I'm looking for." A canon 40D or 50D, a Nikon D90 or D300 and you will have what you are looking for. </p>

<p>Camera's are no different than any other consumer goods. You get what you pay for. For something like a camera which I consider a non essential item (hobby camera) you just look to your budget and shop accordingly. There would be no reason to purchase a top end camera unless you had a real need for one. CostCo sells Nikon D60 and D5000 and so on. Perfectly good camera's for the family or the enthusiast that wants a DSLR..</p>

<p>For me the hgh price is justified if the camera has at least 20mp and a full frame sensor. Any of the endless other things it does are things I just don't use. Well, I did use autofocus for a self portrait, and made some videos. But high ISO, in camera retouching, or most of the other things on the menu are not only wasted on me but get in the way.</p>

<p>Generally the better DSLRs will have better metering systems which will lower the chances of having blown out highlights. They generally have more dynamic range and better color accurancy as well as better builds. A Nikon D3 for instance is designed for a professional. Not only does it have the best sensor and AF system that Nikon offers, they are weather proof and can shoot more than 300,000 acuations. Are they worth 10x what the average camera costs? That really depends if you make your living with it. Most amatuers could get by very well with a D90, D5000, or 40D. The better DSLRs generally have better high ISO performance which really makes a difference in image quality. Going to a true DSLR you will gain the option of adding different lenses, better metering, better high ISO performance, more features, and generally a better build.</p>

<p>The higher specs on image quality (no you might not print that big, allows wider latitude for cropping and retaining quality, so you can shoot wider). Weather sealing/resistance (I remember when in a continuous downpour in China in '97 my cheaper mid-range film Minolta SLR's display went nuts and looked like text from the console from a ship in Star Wars - similar downpour/humidity conditions in Rio during Carnaval and 1Ds kept shooting). 1Ds from 5D Mark II - near prescient autofocus on the 1Ds. That said, I would steer anyone to a 5D Mark II before the 1Ds - having waaaay too much fun with my (IR converted) 5D Mark II and HD movie mode. And the 5D is thankfully lighter.<br>

The high end cameras are geared towards pros with specific specs, who also can write off as business investments their equipment. There seems to be a healthy market for Hasselblad's medium format digital setups - again, for pros. These were people shooting primarily large format for things like product photography - 4x5 and 8x10. 35mm film was never adequate for many commercial markets.<br>

What may be interesting is that the highest end full frame digital SLRs may have taken out film medium format, while digital medium format has taken out film large format. The overall simplified workflow (since a lot of end result is digital production), the ability to know you got the shot (I wonder what % of shots - must be miniscule - of film develops were lost in pro lab development?).<br>

What's nice is that over a generation high end features (say high ISO performance) bump their way down to the prosumer line.</p>

<p>While the above posts list most of the advantages of the DSLR, and higher end ones, I'd like to add that the viewfinder on a full frame DSLR is a big advantage to seeing what the camera sees and pre-visualizing the image. At least it is for me. There is a big difference between a Canon 5d and a digital rebel in this regard.</p>

<p>Florin, it does sound like you now have a very good camera for your present purposes though. The only thing I can think of that might be an issue is if there is a delay when you press the shutter button before it takes the picture. DSLR's are quite fast with the auto focus/exposing the frame, but you won't need a $3000 camera to get this feature.</p>

<p>Sounds like your G-1 is doing as much as you need for now. Maybe look at helpful and necessary convenient quality accessories. Flash. Tripod. Ballhead. There are some Best Buys out there which will give you more than you have for a little bit of money as a partner system to what you now have-don't sell it quite yet I mean. Those are called ' Pre owned cameras" Some good Canon D40s and NikonD 200s are looking for adoption... I am for Buying Used if you can. Especially to fill in your future lens kit-assuming you get serious about the photo life-- downstream. Good luck.</p>

<p>If your shooting demands the features, and abilities of a professional grade piece of equipment, I would recommend you buy it. OTOH as a beginner, it's a waste of money. Buy the camera you can(/want to learn to) USE, not the camera you can AFFORD. </p>

<p>If you don't use split second AF, variable metering, AEB, HSS flash, shutter speed 1/8000sec, a 150,000 exp rated shutter (and still have to replace it every year!), 6-10fps capability, interchangeable lenses, etc, etc. DON'T waste your money, because you'll never get a decent return on that. For those of us who DO use those features (and a myriad more) everyday, a lost shot because of a laggy shutter, or a slow lens is simply NOT acceptable.</p>

<p><strong>The bottom line, is you feel you have to ask this question, <em>for you</em> , the answer is no, there is no reason for such an item to even exist. </strong><br>

I guess it's like someone asking "why do we have race / sports cars?" They are so ridiculously expensive... I can buy a KIA for $10k And it even comes w/ AC! It'll do 110mph! Not even that noisy inside!</p>

<blockquote>

<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>

</blockquote>

<p>I think that's a fair question. Why indeed? As someone who went straight from a digital point-and-shoot (Canon Elph) to a 5DmkII (yeah, that's quite a jump, I know), I can tell you why I dropped serious coin.</p>

<ol>

<li><strong>Flexibility.</strong> You have interchangeable lenses, numerous types of shooting options, and the image quality to allow post-exposure decisions (e.g., cropping). End result? You have more keepers. You miss fewer shots. </li>

<li><strong>Control.</strong> This is similar to the above, but what I mean is that with every optical setting at your fingertips (aperture, ISO, shutter speed, etc.) you can have absolute control over the outcome of your shots, and therefore such a camera becomes a teaching tool as well.</li>

<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>Of course, it's easy to make these claims, but the proof is in the image. That's not to say that one can't take incredible pictures with an inexpensive camera. Many great images are taken with budget equipment. But with a skilled user, a high-end camera can do amazing things. And that's why I went from P&S to 5DmkII. I knew I was capable of so much more, and I also wanted a system that would teach me, challenge me, and grow with me. It'll be a while before I'll outgrow this camera body.</p>

<p>

<p>One hard, measurable, objective difference between a $700 Panasonic G1 (12.1Mp) and a $7000 EOS1Ds (21.1Mp) is final print size.<br>

At some point (20x24, 30x40, . . .), the $700 camera’s image no longer provides acceptable print quality, but the $7000 camera will.<br>

Stitching images together is a work-around; if you’re good at it, and your images fit well, and you have the time, and . . . but time is money, and being late or failing to deliver are bad choices.</p>

</p>

<p>Why are almost all DSLR's better than P&S's:<br>

Due to fact that DSLR's have interchangeable lenses. With a P&S you are stuck with whatever lens they give you. For the most part, its a POS. When you can put whatever lens you like on your camera, you choose the quality of the image that you want to hit the sensor. For this reason, camera makers provide the user with more quality in many different areas.<br>

Basically what I mean is that P&S cameras are made poorly, with poor sensors, poor specs etc because without quality glass in from of that sensor, there is no need.<br>

<br /> What can they do that yours cannot:<br>

You can toss a 400/2.8 on a DSLR and focus in tenths of a second, you look through the 100% viewfinder, dial in your shutter speed, or your aperture, or even both and choose your ISO (6400) in this case. You snap the once in a lifetime shot and can be sure that it is a keeper. <br>

I doubt that you woul get the same results from a P&S</p>

<p>Well, to be fair, a P&S is really good at what it does. In fact, it is often better than a high-end camera when it comes to making photographic decisions. That might sound like it contradicts my previous post. But here's what I mean.</p>

<p>A modern P&S camera is small. Small sensor, small lens. It has design compromises. So no f/1.4, no 500mm focal length. No bulb setting or 1/8000 shutter speed. No selective AF. What is it for? Taking family photos. Tourists. Your average layperson who doesn't know anything about camera optics and doesn't care to. They want reasonably sharp photos, and they don't think about composition, lighting, etc. So a P&S will have a small aperture range around f/4-8 (too low = shallow DOF = blurry photos, too high = diffraction). It will have shutter speeds from around 1/4 to 1/1000. ISO is maybe only up to 400 or 800. But within all these constraints, it focuses fast, reasonably accurately, and gets the metering in the ballpark--if not it pulls a Ron Popeil--set it and forget it--and flashes the crap out of the scene @ 1/60 s. Why? Because that layperson doesn't care that their subject is washed out--they care that the image is sharp. They don't care about bokeh. They need fast AF because they don't wait to press the shutter.</p>

<p>So, given what a P&S is designed to do, it does it quite well. It's not going to take photos of a bird being eaten by a snake in a tree 500 meters away. It wasn't meant to. But it will take photos of people standing around in groups looking goofy. And for the rest of us, that's a good thing. Unfortunately, the sub-$1K dSLR market has brought to the unwashed masses (j/k) all the basic features that the pros have been using to get their great shots, and it's cutting into their business when Joe Sixpack goes African Safari with his wife and three kids, takes his Digital Rebel, slaps on a cheap 70-300 zoom and gets a shot of a gazelle racing across the savanna that could rival something in National Geographic.</p>

<p>Again, kidding. Well, only sort of. :T</p>