Shooting for the web

[csafdari]

<p>If your photos are primarily (or even exclusively) to be posted online, is there any sense in purchasing a FF digital camera?</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>The point here is that you never know when a photo will require the extra resolution and IQ to be sold when you get that world wide scoop :-) The same applies to working at the greatest resolution a camera is capable of and if short on storage to increase compression rather than resolution. Personally I would, and do, primarilly use a top line pro-sumer or bridge camera as people call them. Read a question in another blog couple of days ago ...a guy had bought a ff camera and was asking for help how to use it ... not the camera but what photography was about :-) Shutter speeds/aperture etc. Jeez!</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>If you are sure it's only for online, then indeed FF might be overkill... any DSLR regardless of sensor size might even be....- from a image quality and resolution point of view.<br>

But it's not only about image quality. A camera as a tool should deliver you what you need, and DSLRs are very versatile, typically more so than compacts. Not only due to a wider choice in lenses, also typically more evolved flash systems, faster and more competent AF systems, and better performance at higher ISOs (giving a wider choice in shutterspeeds you can use "safely").<br>

Yes, if you'd only get a DSLR with 18-200 or 28-300 lens to post online, most bridge cameras would be just as good. But use a f/1.4 lens, and you get an image with a look that is beyond most compact cameras with the typical miniscule sensors.</p>

<p>Personally, I'd add the feel of a camera. I prefer a good optical viewfinder and a somewhat larger camera. Most compacts, to me, are cramped and they just don't give the feel that a DSLR does. And the feeling of having the right tool in your hands is to me already a large part of the fun.</p>

[csafdari]

<p>Thanks. I meant from a purely image quality point of view for online presentation (My "worldwide scoop" can wait!)<br>

<br />I work exclusively in black-and-white film anyway but I am going to start taking some photos for online presentation only for the foreseeable future (or at best, 11x14 in print form) so I am right in thinking that it does it really make any sense to get an FF dSLR versus a cheaper one with a smaller sensor. Quality-wise, there won't be enough of a distinction between the FF and non-FF photos once presented online or at 11x14 to justify the price difference in the camera.</p>

<p>As for the compact or point-and-shoot cameras -- yes I think almost 80% of the sort of photography presented on this site can be done just fine with a high-end point-and-shoot digital camera, the other 20% difference in capability (flash, etc.) justifies purchasing a dSLR. But that's only for now ... I suspect good quality point-and-shoots will supplant dSLRs in the near future though we're not there yet.</p>

[lachaine]

<p>"I suspect good quality point-and-shoots will supplant dSLRs in the near future though we're not there yet."</p>

<p>First, the quality point & shoots will have to finish being supplanted by the camera phones, and then they can go about supplanting the DSLRs.</p>

[bill_tuthill]

Despite the onslaught from camera phones, P&S sales remain strong and far exceed DSLR sales in unit volume, perhaps 10:1.

 

Regarding full-frame: I do not see much difference in image quality between the recent APS-C models and full-frame DSLR. Even at high ISO, APS-C is almost as good.

[danny_low]

<p>A high screen resolution is 1920x1200 or 2.3MP. A cell phone camera can give you that much resolution. The cheapest DSLR today gives at least 4 times more resolution. So for web display only, a high quality P&S can give you enough resolution. The main limits will be the lens quality and the number of focus points in the P&S.</p>

<p>If there is a possibility of making 11x14 prints, you can do that with as little as 8MP due to the resolution limitations of print paper. So the answer is any DSLR today with at least 8MP will suit your purposes. APS or FF is not a relevant factor for your purposes.</p>

<p>Danny</p>

 

[alvinyap]

<p>Most of my photos are for posting online, and though they are quite small in size, certain aspects like DOF control are still visible. More importantly, I relish the speed and control functionality of a slr.</p>

<p>Alvin</p>

[dave_clark4]

<p>Your photographic vision may also help decide if you need a FF or not. I have a 15mm lens. It produces images that I just can"t get with a crop sensor. </p>

[csafdari]

<p>Yes thanks -- my concern isn't "SLR vs. P&S" -- rather it is "cheaper dLSR v. more expensive, FF dslr"<br />I would go with something like an 18mp Canon Rebel. My only concern is that I want the best quality lenses I can get, which will eventually be used on a FF dslr. The "crop factor" of the lenses will change once I go from a APC to a FF dslr.</p>

[jcuknz]

<p>I have both Pro-sumer and DSLR and have yet to find a subject* that needs the DSLR, so it is rarely used :-), and I think this versatility claim is rubbish ...it depends on if you know how to use the pro-sumer and P&S for that matter.<br>

But like the difference between 35mm and MF it is easier to get IQ with a DSLR if that is your aim.<br>

*except for macro using extension tubes and bellows for which my DSLR was purchased since I have both from film days, fortunately 2n/h so I didn't waste much money on it :-)</p>