Whats the point in buying DSLR

[paul_reklaitis]

<p>You could print a billboard with the quality from a G11. Stunning results! Very comfortable! <br>

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. <br>

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!</p>

 

[nathangardner]

<p>Every tool has a purpose, and the DSLR serves its purpose well. </p>

<p> </p>

[allardk]

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[dave_b15]

<p>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.<br>

For P&S cameras, I really think the Lumix brand has the Canons beat (The S90 <em>is</em> 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. <br>

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.<br>

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.<br>

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.</p>

 

[oofoto]

<p>Did anybody mention the characteristics of fast glass on full frame? For me it's the most compelling reason to have a DSLR.</p>

[ted_raper1]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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!</p>

[kelly_flanigan1]

<p>Here I have printed great wedding images by a shooter that used an Olympus C- 3030 P&S 3.3 Megapixel,</p>

<p> I have also printed folks poor crappy lame wedding images shot with higher end Dslrs of 6 to 12 megapixels.</p>

<p>There are doofuses and gurus behind all cameras ever made. If you are a newbie; then what really matters is the camera.</p>

<p>Experience and lighting means zero to newbies ; If you buy that better camera you will shoot better images.</p>

<p>Some folks never will "get it"; ie that experience and lighting matters.</p>

<p>Thus the newbie is always "surfing for the latest camera". This drives the camera industry; since about all cameras are bought buy amateurs.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Few if any folks talk about lighting here. But with pro cine and pro still work LIGHTING is huge thing; what matters. </p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Having a better saw or camera can help; but it does not instantly make one a better carpenter or photographer.</p>

[oofoto]

<p>Bet you never printed them 3.3MP pix very large though eh Kelly? ;)</p>

[pgranone]

<p>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). </p>

 

[Landrum Kelly]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p><em>All of the shots were astonishingly usable. (</em>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.)</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>There are other reasons to buy a DSLR besides low-light shooting, but low light at high ISO would be reason enough for me.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Curious Paul, what do you consider very large? I have printed quite a few A3s from my 1D, 4.2 mp</p>

[oofoto]

<p>Aaah well anything larger than A3 and it all falls apart.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>This is all so silly.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Oh, medium format, eh? But it's not a Hasselblad.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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?</p>

<p>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.</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>

<p>Pierre,<br>

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.<br>

　<br>

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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

</p>

</p>

[kevin cassar]

<p>to <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5911856">Pierre Lachaine</a></p>

<p>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.</p>

[hjoseph7]

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.

[david_ngo]

<p>Compact is for casual vacation-type snapshots and dSLR is for serious photographs. Real photographer use dSLR. Leave the compacts for the tourists.</p>

[petrana_batik]

<blockquote>

<p>"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."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br />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.<br /> <br /></p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>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. </p>

[alvinyap]

<p>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 ;-)</p>

<p>Regards,<br>

Alvin</p>

[hstelljes]

<p>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.</p>

[john_reynolds10]

<p>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.</p>

[dan_south]

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.

[swilson]

<p>

<p>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.</p>

</p>