Whats the point in buying DSLR

[oofoto]

<p>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).</p>

[dan_south]

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?

[swilson]

<p>

<p>Dan,<br>

I guess we are in agreement that the gear is not what matters most, as long as the gear is at least decent. </p>

</p>

[ty_mickan]

<blockquote>

<p>I guess we are in agreement that the gear is not what matters most, as long as the gear is at least decent.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Holga 120N</p>

<p><img src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4028/4433513539_bb0cef1831_o.jpg" alt="" width="533" height="800" /></p>

[swilson]

<p>Ty,<br>

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.</p>

[faysal]

<p>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.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>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.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[savas_kyprianides]

<p>There has to be a better word than pretentious.</p>

[bobsimsphoto]

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.

[g dan mitchell]

<blockquote>

<p><em>There has to be a better word than pretentious.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Good point. Even though they would be justified in being so, these guys are anything but pretentious. :-)</p>

<p>How about "less expensive?"</p>

<p>Dan</p>

[swilson]

<p>

<p>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".<br>

　<br>

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.<br>

　<br>

In short there is a point in buying a DSLR and there is a point in buy something a lot smaller as well.<br>

　<br>

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.</p>

</p>

[keith reeder]

<p>Pierre, Ty,</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p> </p>

[g dan mitchell]

<p>Chill, Keith.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>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.</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p> </p>

[david_ngo]

<blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>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.</p>

[swilson]

<p>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.</p>

 

[g dan mitchell]

<p>OK, then, here is part of what the OP actually wrote:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>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.</em><br /><em> I am beginning to think, then whats the point of buying DSLR?</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>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.)</p>

<p>What's the point of buying a DSLR? Good question, and each buyer needs to ask him/herself what their <em>real</em> photographic needs are, and which thing are more or less valuable to them. Two examples of many possible examples:</p>

<ul>

<li>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. </li>

<li>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 <em>better</em> choice overall for you, especially if you are not inclined to carry large amounts of equipment of fuss with multiple lenses.</li>

</ul>

<p>When anyone asks "What is the best camera?" the follow up question always must be "For what?"</p>

<p>Dan</p>

<p>(Who carts two full frame bodies, a bunch of lenses, and a tripod around most of the time.)</p>

 

[razzledog]

<p>'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'.<br>

<br /> Not quite David..some 4x5's can focus faster than a G11...LOL</p><div></div>

[lachaine]

<p>G11 has an f/2.8 wide-angle to mid-zoom lens<br>

S90 has an f/2.0 wide-angle to mid-zoom lens (a little shorter).<br>

I'm not familiar that much with similar cameras from Panasonic and others, but I'm sure they are just as good.<br>

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.</p>

<p>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).</p>

<p>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.</p>

[peter_j2]

<blockquote>

<p><strong>G11 has an f/2.8 wide-angle to mid-zoom lens</strong><br /><strong> S90 has an f/2.0 wide-angle to mid-zoom lens (a little shorter).</strong></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>The G11 has a variable aperture from <strong>f/2.8 (28mm) to f/4.5 (140mm).</strong><br>

The S90 has a variable aperture from <strong>f/2.0 (28mm) to f/4.9 (105mm).<br /></strong></p>

[lachaine]

<p>Well, of course, that goes without saying... no different than 99% of the variable aperture zooms that are on DSLRs.<br>

A camera like the S90 (I use this example only because that's the one I have, not saying it's necessarily the best):<br>

f/2.0 at 28mm, f/2.5 at 35mm, f/3.2 at 50mm, f/4.5 at 85mm<br>

Price over and above the cost of the camera: $0</p>

<p>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.</p>