Has anyone abandoned DSLR photography for a compact?

[Dieter Schaefer]

<p>There are other cameras than SLRs?</p>

[mark_drutz]

<p>I was using a D60 and then bought a D90 and a Tamron 18-270. My standard walk around the city kit includes the D90, 18-270, Sigma 10-20, and Nikon 10.5 FF FE. It's not very big or heavy, but after a couple of hours it starts feeling heavier. Sometimes I just carry the D90 and 18-270, but even that starts getting heavy. I've tried several bridge cameras to lighten the load, but I don't like the power zoom for working fast or the time between shots. I bought a Tamron 18-200 nonstabilized which is lighter than the 18-270 and started using it on the D60. It's noticably lighter than the D90 and 18-270 and the IQ is good, but I miss the stabilization.</p>

<p>I've been reading up on the new Fuji HS10 bridge camera and the Olympus and Panasonic micro 4/3 cameras. The HS10 has manual zoom and costs $430 (not bad), but its gotten mixed reviews. The Olympus Pen E-PL1 looks promising. The camera, 9-18 and 14-150 lenses and vf-2 viewfinder cost $1869 and weigh 27 oz all together. I can also use my Nikon 10.5mm FF FE with an adapter.</p>

<p>Here's my thinking, maybe it will help you. I could get the Olympus with both lenses, but I don't need two systems, and I'm not ready to give up my Nikon DSLR system. I'm leaning towards the HS10 with an auxilliary w/a lens to use as my travel light outfit and keeping my Nikon gear for the heavy lifting (pun intended). If I don't like the HS10 I can return it or sell it and get the Olympus E-PL1 with the 14-150 lens and vf-2 viewfinder. If I like it enough, I can add the 9-18 and either use both the Nikon and Olympus systems or sell the Nikon gear.</p>

<p>Almost forgot. I have a Nikon P6000 compact that I find useful at times.</p>

[joshuasigar]

<p>In the end, you do what you want to do. You know what each camera type is capable of. If the Original Poster doesn't want to pay the price (the heavy load, etc) for possibly better pictures, well, he'll get what he pays for.</p>

<p>I know I won't hike Half Dome or Mt. Everest without a DSLR, if I have the opportunity. I have carried my DSLR (and at least 2 lenses) all the time when hiking (including Mt. Whitney).</p>

<p>Close to home, I'm doing project 365 and my daily outfit is D90 with one lens (35, 60, or 10-24) strapped on a BlackRapid.</p>

[victorwei]

<p>Please allow me to jump right into this popular thread.<br>

I started DSLR with Nikon D60 and then added the D90 (like Mark) to my gear along with Nikon/Sigma/Tamron lenses like 18-200mm, 50mm, 10-20mm, 28-75mm, 120-400mm. So I would say that I am pretty much prepared for most photographic missions. At the end of each shoot, I do appreciate the unmatched quality of images when compared with P&S. <br>

However, as many others would agree, you cannot always bring the whole gear with you. That prompted me to start looking for a "decent" P&S that will provide me with a good zoom range (matching my gear) whenever I head out, as you never know what precious moment you may come across. My philosophy is that it is always better to have it captured than miss it altogether. <br>

I am seriously considering the Fujifilm HS10 (24-720mm manual zoom) over its competitors like Nikon P100 and Olympus SP-800UZ, all have ultra zoom as my casual daily "haul along" gear. But I am not going to abandon my DSLR arsenal any time soon as it will be used for planned serious photoshoots.<br>

As P&S technology advances more and more, I suspect they will one day get very close to DSLR. Just have a look at some of the photos taken by the Fujifilm HS10 on the web and you'd be amazed, I know I was.</p>

[jim_hayes4]

<p>I've always had "big" and "little" cameras- when it was film, it was a Nikon SLR and a Minox 35, now it's a D300 and a Oly E-PL1. The big camera goes when I'm expecting to need fast response or long teles. The little camera goes on trips for documenting the trip. <br>

I actually bought a Oly E-P1 first and used it on a trip to Turkey in April, (http://www.jimhayes.com/Turkey2010/index.html) but my son who was continuing backpacking around the Middle East and Orient, recognized the advantage of the smaller camera, stole it from me, having me bring his SONY DSLR back to the states. I got tired of waiting and bought the new Oly.<br>

Having lugged big cameras around the world, I was pleasantly surprised to find the E-P1 did 99% of what I wanted to do. So I bought a new E-PL1 plus the new 9-18 superwide. The 9-18 is so good - including the in-camera distortion correction - that I sold my Tamron 10-24 for the D300. I already sold the Nikon 18-200 because of the really bad distortion that required continual fixing (DXO).<br>

I too agonize over whether I need the D300, until I shoot birds or action (rodeos, races, etc.) and realize that like having a Honda and a F-150 pickup, I need the right tool for the job!</p>

<div></div>

[marius_mirea]

<p>For me the DSLR bulk is waay counterbalanced by the responsiveness, DOF and bokeh quality and sheer image quality. So, if you are doing mostly bright day and slow action shoots you might not bother with a DSLR. If you want real images, pay the price of carrying one :)<br>

Some prime lenses in my mount (the FA Limiteds) just give you a "je ne sais quoi" that could transform even the most mundane of situations in memorable pictures.</p>

[jason]

<p>I was required to go digital a few years ago,for pro work on the internet.Thinking that everything in "computer" electronics" keeps changing and prices keep falling, i decided to spend as little as was possible. Having tried film and scans, which 5~6 years ago, were problematic. The purchase of a Pentax Optio changed my whole way of photography. Carrying the small camera 24/7 allowed me opportunities as never before. I began a documentary on people in a certain area. Many of their portraits done in bars. My larger and seen as very serious cameras(film-Nikons,Pentax,Leica or Canon Ae-1p all very old and worn) were unwelcome! Small prints as gifts or paid for became the norm. The biggest disadvantage of the small digicam was slow shutter response and the rapid draining of batteries. Carrying spare sets and a charger for jobs became a must.I upgraded the Pentax, for a Canon Digicam, two years ago on Boxing Day special$107 incl taxes and a free ball pen.) The camera is fast but no Leica! The jpegs more than adequate. Better battery consumption. Air travel a joy. A few cards, use of borrowed or rented PC's for editing and duplicating. I still use film occasionally.<br>

The small camera a best value for money. Now retired suddenly, my income much diminished, the digital wonderful in it's lack of cost.The thought of a large bag with everything needed for simple snaps, a big NO-NO. If i need one of my camera systems, i bring only, simple tools and very little to augment the digicam.The freedom of weight, bulk, choices,macro, flashes,now not required, a simple joy.<br>

The bulk of my much less pro-work now digicam. I might sell off some of my equipment to finance a low end DSLR, but those fat large lenses(incl Olympus) are not an enticement. I mostly do Street and Documentary Photography. If one is happy carrying all that, good luck, enjoy. I never did! That was where the Leica-M came in in !966. One or two lenses and off around the world.</p>

[KenPapai]

<blockquote>

<p><em>"What do you mean "better" Ken? Lighter, smaller, less obtrusive, more discreet? Rarely is a good image dependant on good image quality; that's usually just the cream. And switching lenses on a camera has nothing to do with good or bad photography whatever. If image quality was the most important aspect of photography for you, then you likely wouldn't be shooting with a small format SLR."</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>I am directly addressing the point made -- a 50D system vs. a P&S. There's nothing a P&S can do better against a 50D even with a hyperzoom cemented to the 50D. That's obvious enough. I am not talking about myself but addressing the point of abandoning DSLR for a P&S or a small camera. Lightweight and poor IQ combined with a noisy sensor vs. a DSLR? If you value lightweight & superportability, and will forever eschew a real camera then go for it.</p>

<p>Personally I abhor hyperzooms (more than 3:1 zoom ratio) and cheap, slow glass. Life is too short anymore.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p><em>"I know I won't hike Half Dome or Mt. Everest without a DSLR, if I have the opportunity. I have carried my DSLR (and at least 2 lenses) all the time when hiking (including Mt. Whitney)."</em></p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>For sure. I've lugged an SLR up Half Dome twice. It was WELL worth the mild extra effort. A P&S there? Maybe for happy snaps for the (grand)parents and high school kids.</p>

[billfoster]

<p>I have a D-700 with a f2.8 70-200 and f2.8 24-70 and I have to say that I seriously underestimated the weight (the lenses more than the body) and the "intimidation" factor. The latter stifles my photography a bit as when I am in India or China and I put that lens to my eye, cars crash into poles looking at me. Really. People spot it from 500 meters away.<br>

I also carry a G-10. Sure, the IQ and the bokeh isn't as good, but in favorable conditions (sunny days mostly) it equals my other rig and I get great pictures because it is always with me. I get a lot of pictures because I run five miles a day wherever I am and I carry the g-10 with me while I run. In fact, I just came back from New Orleans and the best pictures I took were of the "Brad Pitt" houses and I took those while jogging in the Lower Ninth. In fact, in five days, I only took the big rig out once, for a trip down to Venice and the bayou. That seems a fairly typical ratio for me these days. That said, because I didn't take the big rig out at night, I have no useable night shots from that trip.</p>

 

[mark_drutz]

<p>I think that Jim hit the nail on the head when he said, "I need the right tool for the job!" (pun intended). There are times when the DSLR with its various advantages is the tool of choice. There are other times when carrying the bigger heavier DSLR and lenses is not practical or necesary. I'm 66. I'm in good shape, but I can't do some of the things that I easily did when I was younger. Even in my 30's and 40's I could pay softball all day in any weather. Today, on the really hot days, I'd be dead by the forth inning.</p>

<p>I'm not going to pretend that an HS10 is as sharp as a DSLR with a good lens, but do I always need it to be? If I'm making mostly 4x6 prints with an occational 8x10 the HS10 or any similar bridge camera will do very well. With 700+mm it's not likely that I'll be doing a lot of cropping so that's also not an issue. If I go to the zoo or aquarium I'll bring my D90 with my Tamron 17-50 f/2.8, Sigma 50-150 f/2.8, and Nikon 70-300 VR. If I'm walking around Manhattan (I live in NYC) I may carry my D90 with my Nikon 10.5mm FF FE, Sigma 10-20, and Tamron 18-270. But if I'm walking around Central Park (or one of the cities other parks) or the boardwalk on Staten Island I'll carry the HS10, and if it's a hot day in Manhattan, I'll leave the DSLR home and take the HS10 and some extra water.</p>

[teneson]

<p>As I've stated before, a 35mm f2.0 on my Canon Eos 5DMkII makes a big difference. I just have to use my feet to do the zooming.<br />With so many technological advances, I would like to see it used to make smaller professional-level cameras.</p>

<p> </p>

[chris_newhall]

<p>@<a href="../photodb/user?user_id=190082">Greg Chappell</a><br />They are working on it, the Micro 4/3 are getting pretty decent and Sony has the new NEX cameras. The Foveon sensor cameras are also getting better.</p>

[jerry_crowley]

<p>I was looking at the NEX-5 earlier today. I'd love to hear from anyone who has used one or owns one as I am thinking it might be worth looking into in greater depth.</p>

[ross_lipman]

<p>I wouldn't say I've abandoned DLSR for compact, but I have found that a compact works better for some applications.</p>

<p>I use a Kodak C875 8mp / 5x zoom for taking pics of items to sell on Ebay. It is better and easier at macro/closeup photography than my Nikon D70. Since I down scale the photos and post process, absolute quality is not an issue. The C875 is capable of capturing very nice images, but there is also alot of jpeg noise to deal with. </p>

<p>I use my D70 for everything else and it is actually faster to use than the C875...less shutter lag, quicker autofocus and faster turn on.</p>

[Jim_Dockery_Photos]

<p>I have both Canon SLR and P&S, but find myself grabbing the S90 a lot for walks with the wife, or days of skiing with the boys. For my <em>serious</em> landscape work I love the SLR, but the S90 even does pretty well at that many times. (I'm not a pro - shoot mostly for myself).</p>

<p>I dream of the day when they come up with new lens and sensor technology that will put a superzoom and noiseless super megapixel sensor into a P&S. Canon has a concept camera they are talking about in the future, but even that looks bigger than what I want - the S90 is my ideal size!</p>

[teneson]

<p>The biggest hurdle in the development of compact pro-level (digital) cameras (and p&s) is their shutter lag time. I don't know if that's a hurdle for them (the camera manufacturers), or if it's just low on their priority, but sports, journalism and documentary work deal in milliseconds. <br />Compactness and a hair trigger are a must. Both were addressed by Maitani in the form of the Olympus OM-1, in that era.</p>

[jerry_crowley]

<p>I am also looking as the Panasonic GF1...</p>

[dave_b15]

<p>The DSLR is a throwback to the <em>film</em> SLR era. There's no real point in keeping it around other than to keep some company's manufacturing lines profitable.</p>

<p>Unless Canon and Nikon keep up, they will be doomed with technology changes. Panasonic, Sony, Samsung and Olympus will eat their lunch. The 4/3rds system, SONY and Samsung are cutting new ground. Nikon and Canon aren't keeping up.</p>

<p>The SLR is an old and outdated form factor - like the TLR. Yeah, yeah, yeah, - there are still folks who use it but the fact of the matter is it's old, outdated and inefficient. It gives folks neck pain.<br /> As LCDs improve they will become more and more popular because they're much easier for composition. Viewfinders will become obsolete.</p>

<p>EVIL will win.</p>

<p>Remember, I base my opinions on what technology may be.<br /> Just because it sucks now doesn't mean it'll suck next year or the year after or there'll be something better....<br>

Remember, I don't base my opinions entirely on current technology.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>Dave, technology has nothing to do with making good photographs. </p>

[john_robison3]

<p>Horses for courses. I have a small light DSLR with a kit lens and can also mount legacy lenses but.....I also most often walk out of the house with a half frame film camera, an Olympus Pen S with a fixed 28mm f3.5 lens. The micro 4:3 looks appealing and when (or if) they perfect a built in EFV, (no big ugly lump on top of the camera) in the form factor of an EP-2 I'm there.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

EVIL is a nice name, but most sold are actually LCDIL, LCD [view] interchangeable lens. Looking at the Amazon top 100 list for cameras, there is not a single EVIL or LCDIL to be found. Not many DSLRs, either. The Panasonic G2 is reviewed today on dpreview.com, but I got bored after half a page and stopped reading. EVIL seems like old news in 2010. LCD view P&S is what's killing off DSLR, not EVIL. The Canon S90 is in 8th place on Amazon, and at $349 costs less than many DSLR lenses.

[chris_newhall]

<p>@Bill Tuthill<br />You mean other than the G1 in 95th place (which it says has been in the top 100 for 10 days). Because last time I checked the Panasonic G1 was indeed an interchangeable lens camera with an electronic viewfinder.</p>

[chris_newhall]

<p>Maybe we looked at different lists, here's where I checked:<br />http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/photo</p>

[bill_tuthill]

WTF? (as they say). That is indeed the list. Now the G1 is in 88th place. I could swear it wasn't there when I posted. Probably the rise is due to its $499 sale price, which tempted even me. In DPreview testing did you see how bad the new 14-42 lens is, compared to the 14-45?

[chris_newhall]

<p>I know, it's really disappointing.</p>