Whats the point in buying DSLR

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by sanjeet_vaishnav, Jun 8, 2010.

  1. I am reading too many forums and reviews and internet stuff.. and Its looking to me like Canon G10, G11 are also capable of producing excellent images if you are not worried for more than 8x6 or 8x10 prints.
    I am beginning to think, then whats the point of buying DSLR? Obviously more manual controls and interchangeable lens could be the strongest reason?
     
  2. Yeah, G10 and 1 series camera, no difference.
     
  3. Low light noise, no shutter delay, quick servo AF, high fps, among others,
    But yeah, if you're shooting landscape with tripod and occasional snapshots, not kids skating around in a dark ice rink or kids performance on stage or any other sports activities for example, then the G series is perfect.
     
  4. A DSLR is much better at higher ISO. A DSLR has much faster autofocus. A DSLR is much better at blurring a background than a P&S is.
    In good light, shooting casual shots where you don't need background blur, the G10 or G11 are excellent cameras.
     
  5. I use an S90, and I only shoot snapshots and casual shots, and of course, only in good light...
    Yeah, right!
     
  6. If you ever try to capture the "decisive moment" or moving subjects with a G11 you'll greatly appreciate the near lack of shutter lag in even the most humble DSLR. The G11 zooms so slow you can see grass grow a little before it's finished. And, like others have mentioned, the DSLR does much better in low light and has truly useable high ISO 800 and above. Personally I find the optical VF of the G11 really poor and find it a little heavy to use at arm's length.
    Now I have a lot of lenses so I wouldn't ever consider a G11 as my main camera. However I do appreciate a pocket camera for causal snaps and to sneak into places DSLR aren't allowed. Love the little S90 but ISO above 400 is pretty gritty (& it whips any P&S I've owned in this regard) and it's hard too hold (small bar of soap).
    If you'll never buy more than one lens and like the built-in zoom range, don't shoot above ISO400, mainly do static snaps and don't print large, the G11 or S90 are may be the ticket.
     
  7. The G10 doesn't have the high-iso noise characteristics of the G11 or a DSLR, so I would struggle with only that camera in low light situations. It's a useful little camera and I'm still learning to use it, but it has nothing like the capabilities of a DSLR, and of course, you can't hang a long lens on it.
    Where compacts like the G10 do win out, is in their anonymity. You could use a G10 unobtrusively under conditions where a DSLR would start making people feel self conscious. I carry the G10 with me pretty much all the time, but wouldn't be without a "real" camera
    [​IMG]
     
  8. stp

    stp

    There is a very wide range of photographers who differ greatly in what they need from a camera. Thus, there is a very wide range of cameras that differ in their features and capabilities. You just have to know where you are along the continuum and the hopefully pick the right camera that corresponds to and fulfills your needs.
     
  9. I understand what your saying and a G11 would be enough for me about half the time but there is really no comparison when it comes to low light ( especially on a 5d2 ) action shooting etc. I don't think it just applies to print size, many times I simply would not get the shot without a DSLR but a good p/s like a G11 can produce good results.
     
  10. The guy with the champagne glass either has a terrible sunburn or is 3 sheets to the wind. Or maybe he's trying to color coordinate with his bow tie...
     
  11. I use both a point and shoot and a DSLR, if the light is good and the subjects are static both can get very good looking photos. But is the subject is moving then the faster focus and lower shutter lag of the DSLR makes it much more fun to shoot with, and gives me better photos. When the light level get low then the DSLR wins by a lot.
    On the other had my P&S has a much larger zoom range and if I am limiting myself to one lens on the DSLR often the P&S can get the shot that the DSLR can't, simply because it has more range.
    For me I wan't to have both a P&S and a DLSR, there are uses for both, but I must say when I have my P&S with me it just feels sluggish when I am shooting with it.
     
  12. Buy both. I have a G9. very comfortable for business travel. not as fun as dslr.
     
  13. Sanjeet,
    They all have their place, I have a G10 and a DSLR, for some jobs the G10 just works better, but it can't do many of the jobs that the DSLR can.
    Don't think the G10 can only print to 8x10, the 3 image stitch (done totally automatically in PS) below prints out perfectly to 36"x13.5", but it isn't a sports camera :). Good P&S's with exposure controls do have a place for photographers and they are a great place to start out getting into photography, they can do way more than many people give them credit for too, but they have their limitations.
    00WdDg-250379584.jpg
     
  14. No pun intended, but it would be hard to be taken seriously with a G10 at a wedding, Sporting event, or fashion shoot. Not to say that it can't be done, but it would be very limiting and somewaht awkward. The G10 and cameras like it are 'Fun" cameras, they are convenient and take some pretty good pictures, but when it comes to difficult lighting situations, they often fall short of the DSLR series of lenses. Especially the 'L' series lenses.
     
  15. When I was back in NYC for an exhibition of my prints at National Train Day, I ran into a guy who was covering the event. We got talking about the G camera series and he told me of another AP photographer who had gotten rid of his dSLR's and was only using the G9. So, I think maybe it is just a matter of what you want to do and how you want to work. I have a G10 but honestly don't use it much. I found that for the type of work I am doing, even portraits of strangers, that the larger professional dSLR is actually to my benefit, but I am not trying to be unobtrusive. Don't ask me how I did it, but I did find a setting where the delay was reduced to almost nothing on the G10--I think it had something to do with getting away from figuring out if it needed fill flash.....
     
  16. John,
    Put it in M mode and manual pre focus and it is as fast and unobtrusive as any Leica, shutter release is instant.
     
  17. Cameras like the G10 and G11 are great for more casual shooters who won't print larger than the sizes you mention and who aren't concerned about some of the other features that are only available with DSLRs. They can also do a quite decent job while taking up less space and weighing less.
    Dan
     
  18. Are you all deciding the limit of the prints you can do with a G10/G11 based on MP alone? I ask because I haven't tried anything big with either of these, but the files on the G10 would indicate that a nice 24x36 or even larger would be no problem. I have printed 12mp files 40x50 and they look great, so a 14mp camera should do fine that size as well.
    I just ask since I haven't printed a G series camera file yet, but they seem to be very good when there is enough light and they are exposed right.
     
  19. I have a G-10 and a D-700. For shooting, say a castle on a hill in bright sunlight, the G-10 is phenomenal and sometimes even outperforms the D-700. for instance, I have gotten some nice shots by cropping that big 14.7 MP image from the G-10.
    That said, is can't compare to the D-700 in a lot of situations:
    - shooting in the dark. The high ISO ratings of full-frame cameras are unbelievable. I don't use anything over 400 on the G-10 and even 400 is a bit noisy. With the D-700 on ISO 5000, I have handheld cityscapes at night.
    - Inside at parties, in churches, etc. For the same reasons, the increased ISO will allow you to get shots inside that are impossible with the G-10.
    - Depth of field. The reduced sensor size means it is much harder to get a blurry background or nice bokeh. This is important with portraits.
    - For the same reason, it is hard to get a small enough aperture for some shots. For instance, if you want to slow the motion of a water fall in bright sunlight, it's difficult. To slow it enough to show motion blur from people moving in a bright light is also very difficult.
    - Of course, the interchangeable lenses (you might want more reach than the G-10 will offer) and the ability to mount filters and the fast auto-focus, etc. are all important also. For instance, it can be difficult to tell where the G-10 is focused and focusing can be slow. Again, if you are shooting landscapes with it, you won't notice, but try to shot your kids playing soccer are you find a HUGE difference.
    Good luck. Let us know how it goes.
     
  20. but it would be hard to be taken seriously with a G10 at a wedding
    Absolutely! That's why I would rather hire a wedding photographer who uses a at least a couple of G11's.
     
  21. Apples and Oranges. Both are good cameras, but it depends upon what you shoot. Need to be quiet, light, unobtrusive? G10 rangefinder. Need high performance and interchangeable lenses? DSLR. In a perfect world you could own both. But if I could only have one I'd pick a DSLR for my shooting needs. Only you can decide what's best for you.
     
  22. No doubt P&S cameras can also provide memorable images, but as already has been pointed out, they are not as versatile as DSLRs under many varying and demanding conditions. One thing I didn't see mentioned, the issue of DoF. It is much harder to throw the background out of focus and isolate the subject in a P&S, as compared to DSLRs. P&S mostly use comparatively very wide angle lenses compared to APS-C or full-frame DSLRs, since P&S sensors are much smaller in size compared to DSLRs. The crop area changes because of sensor size, looking apparently like a telephoto lens, but in reality the optical characteristics such us perspective and depth-of-field remain the same as an ultra-wide lens (compared to full-frame or APS-C DSLR).
     
  23. The less you know about how to use a camera, the more digital horsepower you need to overcome that.
    Pros used to take their sports/action photos with manual focus 35mm SLRs, and before that, with big, 4x5 Crown Graphics. They pre-focussed, or they hyperfocaled... whatever worked for them. I can do that, and I have done that with my compact, because it can be focused manually and the next time it's turned on, it will still be focused there, ready to shoot. That way, I laugh at shutter lag. I get instant shutter response. I don't even have to meter, because that can be preset too. I don't always use my compact like this, but I guarantee you that when I do, I can whip it out of my pocket and take the picture quicker than you can even turn your DSLR on. And it's there in my pocket, not sitting at home.
    Look, I'm not saying there aren't advantages to using a DSLR, but things progress, and compacts have come a long way... some of them are now virtually as good as even some DSRLs were just a few years ago. They are already better than film was, when you get right down to it, so what more do you need? There's no law that says you can't have a compact and then later buy a DSLR if you want one.
    If you're a beginner, you're not missing out on anything by starting with a compact, but it should be a good one, with full manual and semi-automatic controls. There's nothing about photography you can't learn with one... because you have everything you need right there, straight out of the box... no need to buy anything else. The only real disadvantage is that because the sensor is smaller, the lenses are even more crop-factored than DSLR lenses are. This means that the equivalent to a 35mm camera's 28mm lens is a 6mm lens. You won't get much blurring of backgrounds with that, unless you are very close to the subject, and the background is very far away. Even then, it's only going to be very mild blurring at best. On the other hand, virtually infinite depth of field does have its uses too.
     
  24. The big thing for me is shutter lag and all the other factors that come into play (too slowly) when using a compact camera.
    In good light at base ISO a camera like the G10 has wonderful image quality that can give a DSLR a run for it's money when printing an 8x10. Like someone said above catching the decisive moment with one is another story.
    I'm using a EPL1 for a compact right now and autofocus speed using the 17mm 2.8 is decent. Still it can't match a quality DSLR for reaction time.
     
  25. For about 75% of the non-pro photogs I see out and about, a G11 would be just as good as a DSLR. However, if they figured this out, they might stop buying gear they don't need, leading to price increases for the rest of us.
     
  26. You could print a billboard with the quality from a G11. Stunning results! Very comfortable!
    But I prefer the larger film/sensor size. Something about an 8x10 film that is timeless. With digital, I'll settle for my hasselblad hd3. The sensor size is twice the size of 35mm. It has amazing results. Subtle difference.
    It's like driving a Toyota to the grocery store: very nice and comfortable. But sitting in a Ferrari race car is amazing! Not as comfortable and easy, but exhilarating!
     
  27. Every tool has a purpose, and the DSLR serves its purpose well.
     
  28. I'm an amateur (from the French word 'aimer', to love), I shoot for fun. I don't have 1/10th of the fun photographing with a digital P&S, no matter what the image quality. Remember that back in the film days, the 'sensors' were all the same size and quality, and still people used SLR's. I want a big bright viewfinder, I want responsiveness, I want DOF control, I want control over all my settings right under my fingers, that's why I shoot an SLR.
     
  29. For P&S cameras, try leaving the Canon and Nikon World. Those brands are tops in the mid to high end DLSR market, but in others, they're not so good. Entry level DLSRs - Pentax is the way to go there.
    For P&S cameras, I really think the Lumix brand has the Canons beat (The S90 is a great camera, though.) in many areas and makes toast of Nikon. The shutter lag is only noticeable if you're rapidly taking pictures - more than one a second.
    The Micro 4/3rds is getting better (IQ, shutter lag, noise) with every release and I've been watching them very carefully. Samsung's EVIL SX-10 camera is very interesting too - but that's sort of a DSLR.
    If you're making your living as a photographer - action photographer - then a mid-range or better DSLR is the only way to go, but for hobbyists like myself, it really isn't necessary.
    I have a Kodak M575 that my wife got me on sale at Target ($160) and I'm having a blast with it - it's more fun than my SLR.
     
  30. Did anybody mention the characteristics of fast glass on full frame? For me it's the most compelling reason to have a DSLR.
     
  31. I own a G11 and a D200 (as well as a Panasonic G1). I love the G11 and have found that in good light, low ISO, I can make gallery worthy prints up to 11 x 14 from its files. As already noted above, it's great for static objects with good light. Anything else, or if I anticipate a bigger print, the G11 goes away and the D200 comes out. The G1 is a wonderful travel camera, and that, too, will make a good 11 x 14 print from a file shot at low ISO.
    There's a saying - don't know the origin - "horses for courses". So for me, the situation usually lets me know which camera to bring along. Why buy a DSLR? For low light shots, action shots, lens interchangeability, a proper viewfinder. If you don't need any of that, stick with a G11 or a Pan G1.
     
  32. You gotta be careful you don't end up making beautifully sharpened pictures of nothing with those things... and very large inkjet prints of them. Magazines and internet forums have always tended to emphasize equipment and technique over inspiration and creativity. It's all too easy to fall into that trap of perfect nothingness.
    Personally, my favourite pictures of those I have made over the past decades have ended up being the ones I took with an Instamatic 110 (well, admittedly, it was a "deluxe" model, bought near the cash registers at a supermarket in 1974), various Polaroids, Holgas, Agfas, etc., not the ones made with the expensive SLRs. I have to say though, that I'm having a heck of a lot of fun with the little S90 these days. It's like a Polaroid on steroids, but for me, only with judicious application of unquality in post-processing... otherwise, the pictures are way too good. I did consider the G11, but it was a little too expensive for me.
    But, for god's sake, if you do end up choosing a DSLR, at least make it a reasonably "entry level" one... and then take pictures, lots of them, and experiment. Never mind this idiotic idea that you should only do it in one take. Real photography has NEVER been like that. If you have more keepers than rejects when you get home, you're doing something wrong!
     
  33. Here I have printed great wedding images by a shooter that used an Olympus C- 3030 P&S 3.3 Megapixel,
    I have also printed folks poor crappy lame wedding images shot with higher end Dslrs of 6 to 12 megapixels.
    There are doofuses and gurus behind all cameras ever made. If you are a newbie; then what really matters is the camera.
    Experience and lighting means zero to newbies ; If you buy that better camera you will shoot better images.
    Some folks never will "get it"; ie that experience and lighting matters.
    Thus the newbie is always "surfing for the latest camera". This drives the camera industry; since about all cameras are bought buy amateurs.
    One can take a great shot that was done by a master where lighting was sweated; controlled; mastered. A newbie will *NEVER* ask anything about the lighting; reflectors; type of fill. It is about *ALWAYS* about what camera was used.
    What drives the photo industry is amateur sales. If You buy that camera the guru used; you too will shoot great shots with great lighting.
    Few if any folks talk about lighting here. But with pro cine and pro still work LIGHTING is huge thing; what matters.
    An associate shoots images for houses; high end house interiors/exteriors; those perfect photos in those glossy house magazines. He has *TWO* vans; one is filled with reflectors; gells for windows; bulbs to swap out; lights; cords; stands to hold lamps. A house shoot can take a week. Once published every crazy fool asks him what camera was used. Lighting means ZERO to lay folks; if you buy the same ACME camera as Mr Guru; you too will shoot those great shots.
    Having a better saw or camera can help; but it does not instantly make one a better carpenter or photographer.
     
  34. Bet you never printed them 3.3MP pix very large though eh Kelly? ;)
     
  35. If you actually believe you can get the same quality with a cheap point and shoot camera then do it (image quality, noise level, focusing ability, focusing delay, etc, etc).
     
  36. I did a shoot for a friend yesterday in her Indian sari. (CHECK MY MAIN PAGE.) I was, oh, so certain that I had set the ISO to 50 for maximum resolution, and thus I brought a tripod. I didn't check my settings but instead started firing away (big mistake), but the pics looked okay on the back screen.
    Turns out I did half the shoot at ISO 12,800. I felt sick, even though the rest of the shoot was shot at much lower ISOs--most of the shots made on another camera (50D).
    It turns out that the shots made at 12,800 ISO were at least usable for web display. (I would not much want to print them at any significant size.) No G10 or other P&S could have made usable shots (or any shots, for that matter) at 12,800.
    This morning I brought the same camera (Canon 5D II) to to a college classroom (for the first time ever!) and shot all six students during their break between classes at ISOs running the gamut from 50 to 25,600 ISO.
    All of the shots were astonishingly usable. (For ISO 50, the 4-stop IS feature of the EF 100 2.8L IS Macro saved the day, since I had no tripod with me. You can't use a lens like that on a point-and-shoot.)
    In other words, low light shooting at high ISOs (and without a flash) is increasingly an option on DSLRs, especially those with full-frame sensors--but increasingly on those with cropped sensors as well.
    There are other reasons to buy a DSLR besides low-light shooting, but low light at high ISO would be reason enough for me.
    --Lannie
     
  37. Curious Paul, what do you consider very large? I have printed quite a few A3s from my 1D, 4.2 mp
     
  38. Aaah well anything larger than A3 and it all falls apart.
     
  39. This is all so silly.
    You can never win with equipmentists, because they can always one-up you. I remember in the 60's and 70's when the put downs were directed at the "amateur" 35mm SLRs. Never mind that so many of the great photographs of our time were made with them, never mind that pros used them for all kinds of things. No, if you were an amateur, you were a nobody unless you bought into a 120 format camera. Of course, it was always amateurs saying this to other amateurs... equipmentists one and all.
    Oh, medium format, eh? But it's not a Hasselblad.
    And then, once you were at that level, you were still just an idiot, because you couldn't really take pictures unless you had a 4x5 view camera.
    Even among 35mm owners, if you didn't have a Nikon F-series or a Leica rangefinder hanging from your neck, you were "just an amateur". Meanwhile, the people who weren't reading the letters and comments in the popular photography magazines were actually using their "amateur" equipment and either having fun or earning a living with the little 35mm cameras... so much so that in the digital era, you're still judging the IQ of a camera by how close the sensor size is to 35mm film... even though that's totally irrelevant now.
    So what is this "quality" we're all missing out on compared to the other guy who has more money than brains or ability? At what point is enough good enough? When do you just start taking pictures? Why must everybody who has a camera be able to make billboard-sized prints even though they never will?
    No matter what you buy today, Nikon, Canon, Sony et al. will all make darned sure it will be obsoleted tomorrow, so, do go out and spend the big money for marginally better results... just in case that next snapshot turns out to be a good candidate for a billboard.
     
  40. Pierre,
    I think you are missing the point and just wrong on several counts. First off DSLRs really don’t go obsolete very fast at all. We bought my wife a 20D in 2004 and it is still going strong, still does fine in low light and still has plenty of resolution for just about anything we would do with it.
     
    Regarding DSLR vs. P&S cameras, as I and many others have said they both have their uses and I for one am glad I have both. There is much more to a DSLR then just trying to get the best IQ.
    The right equipment for the job makes a big difference in many cases but depending on what you are photographing your needs might not be the same as others, all I can speak to is what gear works for me and why. In most cases I would rather be shooting with an old 10D rather then the newest P&S that has 2 to 3 times the number of pixels. It is not about the newest and the best, it is about the right tools for the job.
     
  41. to Pierre Lachaine
    Please spare us the bull and "likely stories" trying to impress. I have a Nikon D200 (a 5 year old DSLR) and it powers up in 0.15 sec. Even if you had your compact glued to your right eye and your finger glued to the shutter button with the camera manually focused beforehand, there is no way in this UNIVERSE that you would be able to take your picture before my DSLR is on. You may have other arguments in favour of compacts or photographer "skills" but this is definitely not one of them.
     
  42. Pierre you didn't tell us what type of compact camera you are using. If it's that good as you say maybe I'll run out and get one.
     
  43. Compact is for casual vacation-type snapshots and dSLR is for serious photographs. Real photographer use dSLR. Leave the compacts for the tourists.
     
  44. "Please spare us the bull and "likely stories" trying to impress. I have a Nikon D200 (a 5 year old DSLR) and it powers up in 0.15 sec. Even if you had your compact glued to your right eye and your finger glued to the shutter button with the camera manually focused beforehand, there is no way in this UNIVERSE that you would be able to take your picture before my DSLR is on. You may have other arguments in favour of compacts or photographer "skills" but this is definitely not one of them."​
    It is still up to the photographer to release the shutter at the right moment though... And yes, a G11, prefocused and ready to fire will release its shutter faster than a D200 like any other camera that does not involve a mirror: it has barely nothing to move. That said, its a very VERY specialized tool... and the viewfinder is crappy.

    The cool thing about the G's isn't about how they compare to DSLRs, because in many ways to don't. They compliment DSLRs wonderfully. My G11 even fires off my 580 and 430 Ex flashes, although both are larger than the camera itself. It also packs wonderfully. Regarding high ISO? well, I stay away from 800 and higher.

    There was also another comment about printing a 3.3mpixel image... I have a shot made a long while ago on my Fuji S2pro, a 6 mpixel camera. Cropped, the image was around the 3mpixel range. It sold more than $5000 in revenue so far, mostly printed at 11x14.
     
  45. it seems that alot of newbie photogs seem to think that the only cameras made are compacts and dslr's...both of which could be classified as 'point and shoot' cameras. If you want compact, but the best image quality for the size, plus interchangable lenses, then there are better options than either of these two types of cameras.
     
  46. I went on a tour with my friend. He had a compact canon. I was toting my dslr and bunch of lenses. He got way better shots than me. Reason? He's got the touch. I don't :) Now when it comes to wildlife photography... that's a different story ;-)
    Regards,
    Alvin
     
  47. I have both types of cameras. Canon g9 and Canon 40d plus recently aquired Panasonic G1. All are good at different things, as we've heard many times over. Truly the bottom line is to use the camera you feel comfortable with for what you're shooting. But when in doubt I reach for the 40D.
     
  48. With an SLR you get a viewfinder. This is a great feature because when you look into it everything but the picture (to be) disappears. It's quite an experience - you should try it.
     
  49. Every camera design has advantages and disadvantages. Medium format cameras have HUGE viewfinders that put so-
    called full frame cameras to shame. Movements on large format cameras give unmatched control over focus and lens
    distortion effects. Post D3 era full frame dslrs offer unprecedented high ISO performance with which even the MF digital
    backs cannot compete.

    I'm sure that these small, mirror-less systems have strengths, too. Portability. Silent operation. These qualities will be
    leveraged by clever, committed users as sure as they will be overlooked by pedantic gear heads. Cameras don't make
    photographs. People do. I've seen brilliant work captured with Canon 30Ds and Nikon D70s. I've seen crap from Phase
    One systems and 8x10 cameras. The gear is not what matters most.
     
  50. It is funny to be reading a thread right now where a few people are trying to say that the gear you use does not make that much difference. I do Hash runs (Google it) and like to photograph the runs, the question each time is which camera to take, my small light P&S or my 50D. The P&S take pretty good photos, but for photographing runners the 50D does much better. I have taken each camera on runs a number of times and I really like the photos I get from the 50D a lot more, and I like shooting it a lot more, but it sure is a lot easier to run with the P&S. We have a run coming up this Saturday and I am still not sure which camera I will take on the run. I sure wish it that "It is not the camera, it is the photographer that matters" was really true, then I could just take my lightweight camera and get photos that are just as good.
     
  51. I think this is a troll. On another thread the OP claims to have the 70-200 f4L... and also cannot yet afford his dream EOS Bird (7D).
     
  52. Scott: I wish it that "It is not the camera, it is the photographer that matters" was really true, then I could just take my
    lightweight camera and get photos that are just as good.

    I never claimed that gear doesn't matter, only that it's not what matters most. Most p and s camera are p of s cameras.
    They're more like toys than photographic instruments. Instead I compared a variety of serious camera types and said that
    each had advantages and disadvantages, and that one can leverage those advantages if one is creative and clever. Care
    to disagree with this assessment?
     
  53. Dan,
    I guess we are in agreement that the gear is not what matters most, as long as the gear is at least decent.
     
  54. I guess we are in agreement that the gear is not what matters most, as long as the gear is at least decent.​
    Holga 120N
    [​IMG]
     
  55. Ty,
    You are showing a very small version of a photo where the subject was static and it looks like there was probably plenty of light. As far as the photo goes it is not bad but the sign on the left hand side is distrasting, shooting wide enough to limit the FOV might have helped this photo a lot, IMO. But then the Holga simply can't shoot at low f/numbers so you are stuck with what you got. Again not a bad photo, but with a better camera it could have been better, again IMO.
     
  56. Better gear just lets you vary your approach. If you take a good shot with a G10, its a good shot. There is no point for many people to have a DSLR because they don't need the variety of options available to get the shots they want. A powershot is great at snapping out photos of kids playing soccer that their mom can email and never print out. A person who wants large prints of landscapes portraits, and macro shots will likely find that having a lens dedicated for each type of shot will produce better results for them. @TY that is a great portrait.
     
  57. Scott, that is the look i was going for with this particular shot. the sign is supposed to be there, but unfortunately I had the holga set to 645 mode, so i had to crop it. it is a "pioneer" village filled with antiquities, and old signs, vehicles, farm equipment, and anything else from our local region that was used in the latter part of the 19th Century/early 20th Century. I also had other equipment that would have produced a technically better image, but I felt this was the right tool for the job. My G10 compact would have produced a different but acceptable image, just as my RB67 or Leica M's would have. I couldn't imagine having only one camera like an SLR to try and do all jobs.....too much of a compromise.
     
  58. I bought a Canon S90 a few months ago, just to use for family snaps, ebay photos to sell some cameras I wasn't using... that sort of thing. My first intention was the G11 when I walked into the store. This was because I still remembered some terrific images in photo.net galleries years ago that had been made with a Canon G3. I don't remember who the photographer was though. But, I ended up deciding the S90 would do what I wanted and was both cheaper and smaller to carry around. I don't need a viewfinder, since my eyesight isn't that good and a big 3 in LCD is actually better for me.
    My idea was to continue using my film cameras for "serious" photography. However, I was very pleasantly surprised to find how far these little cameras have come since I last had one a decade ago. I had owned a Canon S30 and S45 before, but decided to stick with film at the time. For what I do, a high-quality compact is more than capable enough, and if I happen to need more, I'll just take out one of the Nikons or 120-format cameras.That hasn't happened so far though... and I've done plenty of available and low light photography with it. I gather from this thread that I'm not supposed to be able to do that, so I guess I must be doing something wrong.
    That's not to say that I would never buy a DSLR if I could. However, right now, it would be pretty expensive to replicate the capabilities I already have built into the S90. An entry-level DSLR body would not be much more expensive than an S90, but when you start adding a comparable lens, I would be looking at a lot of money. Maybe, one day, if I win a small lottery, and once the camera industry ends up with some kind of standard that doesn't change every month.
    Anyway, use whatever the heck you want, recommend whatever you want, spend $20,000 on gear you don't need if it makes you happy... but don't think that will make you a photographer. Following most photo.net forum advice will bankrupt you both financially and creatively. To uncertain beginners I say, go to flicker and look at the photos. Anyone's. Just have a look, by camera.
     
  59. This is sort of a funny debate. There is no absolute "best" camera for all situations and all photographers, and depending upon your circumstances, needs, and intentions a wide range of equipment might be right.
    Rather than characterizing this or that piece of equipment as junk or ("p of s") and so forth, it is probably a lot more helpful to folks with questions about this stuff if we just help them understand the differences and how they may or may not be relevant to their photography.
    A group of landscape photographers I know recently had a book of their photographs of the Yosemite back-country published. The landscape work was mostly shot with gear ranging from 35mm film through film and digital medium format to large format film, and is photography of the highest quality. Interspersed with these images in their book are a variety of casual photographs that they made using much less pretentious gear, including inexpensive p&s digital cameras. Those images would not have made it into the book if they had only brought the high end gear.
    Dan
     
  60. There has to be a better word than pretentious.
     
  61. I am a pro photographer. By "pro" I mean I earn my living solely by my photography. I own 4 DSLR's and two "point and
    shoots", one being a G11. It is a very capable camera but it definitely has it's limitations. With that being said, I use it
    everyday as it is the camera I carry in my messenger bag. But when you compare the G11 to any of my DSLR's there is
    really no comparison.
     
  62. There has to be a better word than pretentious.
    Good point. Even though they would be justified in being so, these guys are anything but pretentious. :)
    How about "less expensive?"
    Dan
     
  63. Just to be clear there is a big difference between saying "there is point in buying a DSLR" and saying "there is no need for non-DSLR cameras".
     
    There are times when a small lightweight camera is just what is needed and in many cases it can produce very good results. There are a number of reasons why I might want to use my P&S, it is quiet, it has a large zoom range, it takes video. In fact the thing is useful enough that I will often through it in my camera bag with my DSLR and my lens collection. But just because there are cases where my P&S is the right tool does not mean that it comes close to being as good as my DLSR for most of what I photograph. On the other hand if I have my P&S with me and I don’t have my DSLR it is pretty clear that the P&S is going to be the camera that gets the better photo, and because it is so easy to carry there are many times that I have the P&S without the DSLR.
     
    In short there is a point in buying a DSLR and there is a point in buy something a lot smaller as well.
     
    One more point, even if my DSLR produced no better photos then my P&S I still would much rather use the DSLR. The DSLR feels very responsive, I push the shutter button and it takes the photo. When you get use to a manual zoom it feel rather sluggish to use buttons to zoom. The DSLR makes photography more fun for me, and for me I am in this for the fun of it.
     
  64. Pierre, Ty,
    get back to us when your P & S or Holga cameras can routinely produce high quality images of fast sports or challenging, uncooperative wildlife in crappy light.
    You can use any camera for (slightly soft!) snapshots of well-lit, obliging subjects like architecture and old men, but it is complete hogwash to suggest that this somehow implies that such cameras are all you need across the board.
     
  65. wow Keith, i don't recall suggesting anything other that what you've stated in your post. i shot sport for three different papers/publications, so kind of knew that already....i didn't use my holga or g10 either. but i also know that taking photos of sport hasn't got a lot to do with hardcore photography, and it's usually just a means to an end (but i digress).
    you seem to be trying to get the same point across that I am. but Keith, how many people use DSLR's for portraits and landscapes, yet snicker at compact cameras....as though they aren't good enough for many applications? i mean, if i were to pay someone big $$ to shoot my portrait, and I turned up to the studio and there was a 35mm DSLR sitting on the tripod, I'd turn right around and out the door. they are accpetable, but my point was that there are more suitable types of cameras available, and if you were serious about your photography, you likely wouldn't limit yourself to one style of camera, unless of course you hone into one or two genres of photography...then you would likely have a camera that was best suited for your requirements.
     
  66. Chill, Keith.
    The "best" camera is the one that gets the photograph that you are trying to get, with as much quality as is appropriate for your needs. Ultimate image quality is not necessarily always the most important thing - if it were we would not shoot with anything less than 8 x 10 LF film. Sometimes resolution trumps all. Sometimes the availability of a wide range of lenses trumps all. Sometimes having a camera in the pocket and quickly available is the thing.
    There are trade-offs among all of these choices. Depending upon the circumstances any of these or a number of other options could be best. Quite a few people who think they need a DSLR really don't and they don't see any image quality advantages. It is all relative.
    Dan
     
  67. get back to us when your P & S or Holga cameras can routinely produce high quality images of fast sports or challenging, uncooperative wildlife in crappy light.​
    Exactly. Don't forget about the large format 4x5 and 8x10 cameras either. They are the slowest cameras of all, so they are even worse than P&S.
     
  68. Anybody, even I, can come up with any number of exceptions, since there is no camera that is best at absolutely everything. I was just responding in the context of the original post. If you really want what's best, I suppose that gigantic, 11 x 14 view camera I keep seeing in a shop window near where I live would beat the heck out of any of your cameras by some of the criteria used in this thread.
     
  69. The contect of the original post was not if P&S cameras were useful but rather is there a point to buying a DSLR. The fact is that in many cases a DSLR is simply going to be the better tool for the job. This does not mean that a P&S will not be the right tool for other jobs, but that was not the question the OP asked.
     
  70. OK, then, here is part of what the OP actually wrote:
    Its looking to me like Canon G10, G11 are also capable of producing excellent images if you are not worried for more than 8x6 or 8x10 prints.
    I am beginning to think, then whats the point of buying DSLR?
    Is a G10 or G11 capable of producing excellent prints at the 8 x 6 or 8 x 10 size? Indeed, it is. (Unless, of course, your standard for comparison is contact prints made from 8 x 10 LF film, but I doubt that is the typical case in this forum.)
    What's the point of buying a DSLR? Good question, and each buyer needs to ask him/herself what their real photographic needs are, and which thing are more or less valuable to them. Two examples of many possible examples:
    • If being able to shoot action sports at a professional level is really your reason for buying a camera - and I'm not talking about the kids' little league game here - then a DSLR is likely (almost certainly, actually) going to be a better choice.
    • On the other hand, if you want to capture some good quality photographs of your family, your vacation, and your other adventures; mostly post jpgs on line or send them in email, and occasionally make a print no larger than roughly letter size... there is an excellent chance that a camera like a G10 or G11 or other equivalents would be a better choice overall for you, especially if you are not inclined to carry large amounts of equipment of fuss with multiple lenses.
    When anyone asks "What is the best camera?" the follow up question always must be "For what?"
    Dan
    (Who carts two full frame bodies, a bunch of lenses, and a tripod around most of the time.)
     
  71. 'Exactly. Don't forget about the large format 4x5 and 8x10 cameras either. They are the slowest cameras of all, so they are even worse than P&S'.

    Not quite David..some 4x5's can focus faster than a G11...LOL
    00WfPk-251699584.jpg
     
  72. G11 has an f/2.8 wide-angle to mid-zoom lens
    S90 has an f/2.0 wide-angle to mid-zoom lens (a little shorter).
    I'm not familiar that much with similar cameras from Panasonic and others, but I'm sure they are just as good.
    Of course, I do know a DSLR will be better in many ways (I'm not stupid), but not in pocketability (and we're not talking only the body, but the lens too). And then, once you've got the body, you still need a lens. Have you priced wide zoom lenses with an f/2.8 aperture, let alone an f/2.0 (if that even exists). Even most of your cherished L lenses can't do that. Even a fast prime lens will cost you almost as much or more than a whole camera. Same thing applies to the new 4/3 kids on the block. Yeah right, I really want to spend the same or more money for a newcomer oddball format that is not really that much smaller than a smallish DSLR. If money is no object, like it appears to be for most photo.netters, go for it.
    A good higher-end compact will give you a pretty fast lens at the wide end (which, by the way, will allow you to get shots at an ISO rating 2-3 stops lower than the DSLR with the zoom lens would), very good macro ability, a very good display, full manual control, and raw files too... all in a package that fits in a pocket or a small bag... and all at a price which is equal to or less than entry-level DSLRs (body alone).
    Don't just look at compact vs DSLR. Look at the whole package. There is no "vs" anyway. It just depends on what you really need... and for many people, one of those better compact cameras may well fit the bill.
     
  73. G11 has an f/2.8 wide-angle to mid-zoom lens
    S90 has an f/2.0 wide-angle to mid-zoom lens (a little shorter).
    The G11 has a variable aperture from f/2.8 (28mm) to f/4.5 (140mm).
    The S90 has a variable aperture from f/2.0 (28mm) to f/4.9 (105mm).
     
  74. Well, of course, that goes without saying... no different than 99% of the variable aperture zooms that are on DSLRs.
    A camera like the S90 (I use this example only because that's the one I have, not saying it's necessarily the best):
    f/2.0 at 28mm, f/2.5 at 35mm, f/3.2 at 50mm, f/4.5 at 85mm
    Price over and above the cost of the camera: $0
    Price of a constant aperture zoom: you can look it up, but it's a heck of a lot more than $0. While the original poster is saving his money up for one, I'm already shooting at f/2, ISO 400 or less in many low light situations. But I admit I prefer shorter focal lengths anyway.
     

Share This Page