Has anyone abandoned DSLR photography for a compact?

[john_tran14]

<p>That depends on which DSLR and which compact digital camera. I used to go to camera stores a lot and I listened to other customers. In many cases, they want to buy a DSLR just because someone told them that DSLRs are better cameras; they dont really know what DSLR means. They request a DSLR but also make it clear that they only take pictures with the back LCD, never with the small useless hole (viewfinder). They are very surprised that the DSLRs have interchangable lenses and they are very disappointed that the saleman shows them some cameras that cannot take video, no face detection, too big, too heavy (cannot take pictures with only one hand), too many buttons, too loud, all black not colorful, not in brands that they like as HP, Kodak, Fuji, Sanyo, Casio</p>

[mjferron]

<p>I seriously consider just using my Olympus EPL1 and a few lenses for all my digital work. The damn thing knocks down detail with the anything under 18 MP's or so. There I said it. Don't believe me go check out the coin shots over at DP review. Autofocus is much improved over the original EP1 and the detachable EVF is the best out there. The body and 3 lenses fit in a bag that straps around my waist.</p>

[koray_p]

<p>I started photography with my father's 1960 Zeiss fixed lens rangefinder. Then I thought photography was a serious hobby for me, so I bought a pro film SLR, then a digital 'prosumer', and then a DSLR. After several years of DSLR use I noticed that I lost my concentration when I was actually out there shooting, most probably due to many buttons and switches and options that I had. Oh and don't forget the need for getting organised for post processing and working for consistency across each shot. This is just a hobby for me and I started enjoying it less just because of these issues.</p>

<p>Finally I realised the need to simplify things. So I sold all my DSLR gear, lenses, etc, and treated myself with a Leica M6.</p>

<p>Now I carry less bulk, I can concentrate on taking photographs and better engage with my surroundings since I am no longer <em>chimping</em>. Moreover, there is a nice 'mystery' into using film. I shoot one or two rolls per month since I am busy with many other things. At the end of the each roll, I mostly end up with pleasant surprises. I remember what happened in the last 30 days by just looking at the scans and enjoy. There are some unpleasant surprises, too. But that is all about life, isn't it? Since this is just a hobby for me, I am learning to let it go, once again. If I was doing digital, I would waste my time trying to 'better' each shot at the scene, taking many exposures and distancing myself from the actual moment. Yes some people suggest turning off image preview, but that didn't work for me.</p>

<p>Sorry if I turned the talk into a boring digital vs film discussion, but yes I ditched DSLR to 'downgrade' to film rangefinders.</p>

<p>K.</p>

<p> </p>

[alvinyap]

<p>I have a friend who went from a 5D setup down to a Micro 4/3 system. Less intrusive, easier to carry around, and let's face it: Using a 5D for vacation pictures is just plain overkill. He does lament the lcd lag, otherwise I think he couldn't be happier. He does rent a proper dslr getup when he does serious work.</p>

<p>Personally I'd want a M4/3 as well but I can't justify owning two camera systems.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[colin carron]

<p>I have used cameras of many formats and they each impose different shooting styles and disciplines on the shooter. Large Format for example takes time and care but has rewards of high quality and precision. So just choose whichever format camera you feel happiest with at the moment and don't give it another thought.</p>

[faysal]

If there was an adapter for the epl-1 that allowed it to use ef lenses (and have the camera set the

aperture) I'd get one and use that most of the time, otherwise, I'm happy with my setup. I think an SLR is

the right tool for a certain job. If you're at a beach outing with the family, I think you're better off with

action shots on the p&s vs an slr. Sure the slr is better in iq, but the p&s is miles ahead in practicality.

You don't need a Bugatti Veyron to go grocery shopping, if you will. Sure, when you want to have a nice

family portrait, then it wouldnt be so bad to get the SLR out then.

[paul_soohoo2]

<p>like most that have replied I carry and use depending on the situation. The most difficult decision is when you are on vacation. Clearly you want freedom when hiking and walking around. In the past I have seen people imply you are a wimp if you are not willing to carry tons of gear but as indicated this is is a personal choice: carry heavy equipment and be prepared for any shot or carry a small camera and be happy to get something.<br>

There are instances where heavy DSLR gear is almost your only option such as on safari where only long teles will get you close or sports where 8 fps is almost a requirement. Yes, I know with a well timed shot you can get the decisive moment but it ups your odds if you have the right equipment.</p>

 

[ted_raper1]

<p>While I will never completely abandon my Nikon DSLRs, I do find that now I only carry them around when I know in advance that I need serious, make-money-for-me gear. I own a Canon G11, and a Panasonic micro 4/3 G1 which are my usual cameras these days. The G11 stays with me almost all the time and the G1 comes with me when I'm purposely going out shooting. I just returned from a family get together in the North Carolina mountains, and I was assigned the task of doing some serious family portraiture for which I used my D200. But all my other shots of the lovely scenery were done with the G1.</p>

[steve_bellayr]

<p>Your question sounds as if you want to "down grade" the weight of your equipment. I have heard this spoken of by others including myself. The Leica M system might solve your problem. It is very light weight and the lenses are small, even the 135mm. There is no motor drive or autofocus to weigh you down. Yes, it is film with no flash in the camera but you can always add a small digital with flash to complement your system. </p>

[dg1]

<p>I just sold my last DSLR, an Olympus E1. I loved the build, the image quality, the whole thing, but seldom used it as it's a big brick.. a fairly ergonomic brick.. but a brick nonetheless. This is ultimately what has happened with every DSLR I've owned, so I don't think I'll return to that kind of system.<br>

So I have no DSLR, but now use a Panasonic G1 for an interchangeable lens camera, and a handful of compacts, both digital and 35mm film. The G1 sort of looks like a DSLR, but is quite a different animal, much smaller and lighter, is brilliant with manual focus legacy lenses, and offers excellent electronic viewfinder options. </p>

<p> </p>

[brucecahn]

<p>I never fully committed to digital photography. I prefer an M6 on the street. I often use digital in the studio, but when shooting for prints, a large format film camera is the first choice, a 6x7 second choice, a 35mm third choice. I do not do digital printing. Why? There are two enlargers here, no room for a printer, and I prefer silver (or platinum) prints. As for the matter of slr vs. rangefinder for digital shooting, I do a lot of work that is too close up for a rangefinder, though I would prefer an rf for street use.</p>

[igor_smirnoff]

<p>My last one as Nikon D300. I have used both film and digital cameras in the past few years with less and less digtal. I hardly touch the DSLR any more.<br>

Shooting a DSRL is quite dull, frankly. Essentially, it's a big cell phone. Secondly, the images from a digital sensor are telephone-like. Perfect for technical documentation - but otherwise too predictable, too uniform.</p>

[jerry_crowley]

<p>Thanks everyone for a fantastic response to the post. The "best" outfit I ever owned, personal taste, was a Contax G2 outfit. It had cracking lenses and was highly portable and built like a tank. However I could not and would not go back to film photography, again personal taste and I don't want to open up a film vs digital debate here.<br>

<br /> The 4/3rds system obviously suits a lot of people and it's something I may have to look into in depth and as a previous owner of a Powershot G series camera I know that I can expect excellent quality from the G11. At the moment my compact of choice is a Fujifilm F200EXR and I am in no rush to get down to the camera shop as I still have the DSLR. it's not a case of questioning whether I have have what I need as wondering if I need what I have...</p>

[jesse_barba]

<p>Abandoned, no. I do think it is acceptable to own several cameras for different tasks and moods, though. I use my Canon S90 as my always in pocket camera and it probably gets the most "clicks".</p>

<p>I still use a Contax G2 system. If I could use the lenses on a 4/3rds camera I would buy one today.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Ha! I absolutely love my F200EXR, Jerry. I just purchased an S200EXR for a long telephoto camera. NewEgg has the F72EXR on sale for $130 now, so I won't be able to resist buying them all. If you compare the Tunnel of Doom (Stanford University quad) on the DCresource.com site, you can see that the EXR cameras have more dynamic range than full-frame DSLR. Check the palm trees against blue sky in the bright spots on the right side. Not sure Fujifilm has the financial resources to continue developing EXR, but I hope they do.

[jerry_crowley]

<p>Accepting its limitations, the F200EXR is what really started to undermine my unquestioning commitment to DSLR photography Bill. Glad you are enjoying yours. </p>

[chris_newhall]

<p>I've been using a Canon S90 and a Panasonic GF1 WAY more than my Nikon DSLR lately. The GF1 offers good enough picture quality for the vast majority of situations and the S90 has a good built in zoom lens (f2.0 on a point and shoot is amazing!), it fits in my pants pockets, and it is quickly accessible and easily adjustable. I still use my Nikon when I need the faster x-sync, the relatively higher quality Nikon lenses, or the image quality a slightly bigger APS-C sensor gives me (if I could afford a Nikon full-frame I would get one).</p>

[nicholas_fiduccia1]

<p>Hi Jerry,<br>

I believe the DSLR will begin to lose dominance in the next few years as the EVIL cameras start to mature. Most people do not need an DSLR, but get talked into them anyway by an overzealous salesperson and the marketing machines of the large camera companies. The AF speed on the m43's cameras is just fine for most purposes and the electronic viewfinders (for those cameras that have them) present the user with a sharp and bright image for composing even when light levels get low. The focus accuracy on the m43's camera is dead on, whereas the DSLRs, because of the complications of phase-detect AF system may suffer from back/front focusing issues.<br>

The EVIL cameras will be entirely adequate for many people and give quality close to the APS-C sensor on digital SLRs at a fraction of the size and weight of traditional DSLRs. Yes, the DSLR manufactures will respond by building smaller cameras (eg. Pentax K7), but they are never going to be able to build a DSLR camera smaller than the Panasonic G1, for instance.<br>

However, DSLRs are still useful for those that require fast autofocus, the ability to follow action quickly, or needs a wide variety of special purpose optics. The best IQ today lies with full frame DSLRs (or medium format DSLRs), but look for someone to introduce a full-frame EVIL camera (I know, there is the M8!) that is smaller than todays DSLRS and will produce superior IQ at a comparable price.<br>

My advice for the original poster is to pick up a Panny G1 at closeout prices (~500). This camera is very small and light, has a very sharp kit lens, and produces images that will satisfy all but the most discriminating photographer. If that camera is too big, there are lots of compacts without interchangeable lenses that may satisfy you. Good luck!</p>

[nicholas_fiduccia1]

<p>Hi Jerry,<br>

I believe the DSLR will begin to lose dominance in the next few years as the EVIL cameras start to mature. Most people do not need an DSLR, but get talked into them anyway by an overzealous salesperson and the marketing machines of the large camera companies. The AF speed on the m43's cameras is just fine for most purposes and the electronic viewfinders (for those cameras that have them) present the user with a sharp and bright image for composing even when light levels get low. The focus accuracy on the m43's camera is dead on, whereas the DSLRs, because of the complications of phase-detect AF system may suffer from back/front focusing issues.<br>

The EVIL cameras will be entirely adequate for many people and give quality close to the APS-C sensor on digital SLRs at a fraction of the size and weight of traditional DSLRs. Yes, the DSLR manufactures will respond by building smaller cameras (eg. Pentax K7), but they are never going to be able to build a DSLR camera smaller than the Panasonic G1, for instance.<br>

However, DSLRs are still useful for those that require fast autofocus, the ability to follow action quickly, or needs a wide variety of special purpose optics. The best IQ today lies with full frame DSLRs (or medium format DSLRs), but look for someone to introduce a full-frame EVIL camera (I know, there is the M8!) that is smaller than todays DSLRS and will produce superior IQ at a comparable price.<br>

My advice for the original poster is to pick up a Panny G1 at closeout prices (~500). This camera is very small and light, has a very sharp kit lens, and produces images that will satisfy all but the most discriminating photographer. If that camera is too big, there are lots of compacts without interchangeable lenses that may satisfy you. Good luck!</p>

[joshuasigar]

<p>When I got my D90, I thought I would still use my D40 as my daily, walkaround camera due to the size. But no, I carry D90 full-time; the size doesn't bother me anymore.</p>

[charlie_didrickson1]

<p>I tried to love my D700. I used it for 9 months and sold it for a Leica M6. I never cared for B&W from digital. I am very happy shooting Tri-x and cheap color film. My wife has a Canon G10 I use on occasion. I really don't miss anything except the immediate gratification.</p>

[KenPapai]

<p>To add to Greg Chappell (page one) or rephrase, even a semi-decent DSLR like the 50D with a superzoom is better than *any* P&S ever made. No need to switch lenses and scads better IQ + Creative Freedom.</p>

[ty_mickan]

<p>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.</p>

[ejchem101]

Don't overlook prime lenses either. In my experience it is as easy to carry a dslr with a small prime lens on it as it is to

carry something like the dslr like cameras.

[rossb]

<p> One thing about a hobby is you can do it anyway you want. It's about having fun your way.</p>