Why Go To DSLR?

[Ronnoco]

I am not sure what the advantages are to an intermedate camera is. I have never owned one. But to me the advantages to the DSLR are, more control of the final image. Just shooting in RAW format and haveing that much control alone. Also a DSLR will hold it's value longer and sense you are buying a system when you upgrade most times you keep the lenes and just upgrade the body. I am also not sure that you can use filters on intermedate cameras. Once you make the plunge you won't look back.
Greg

I can still shoot in RAW format on a superzoom and use filters too. With 28mm to 200mm with macro at f 2.8 to 3.5, it is certainly as fast or faster than most kit lenses for DSLRs. It is also a smaller package which makes it faster and easier to use in some situations and not as visible which certainly works in street photography.

The advantage to DSLRs is a lesser problem with noise particularly at high ISOs although even these cameras have only somewhat reduced or in some cases masked the problem.

I look at different cameras for different shooting situations. A small pocket camera is great for "rough areas" or in other areas where you are not supposed to be using a camera. A superzoom is great for travelling light, fast journalistic event shooting, and situations where you might want to quickly change over to video. A DSLR is great for studio digital work, commercial advertising, occasions where you can spend more time setting up the shot, and where top quality is necessary. I still even tend to use film where colour is extremely important.

Ronnoco

[trog100]

well u can shoot raw with a decent compact and use filters.. and its nearly as cheap to "upgrade" your compact as to buy a decent lens for a dslr..

i dont think things are as as black and white as some think they are.. also we are moving into the era of disosable dslr bodies.. i dont think they are a long term option any more than a decent compact is..

also compacts seem to be improveiing at a faster rate than dslrs are..

i have gone the "decent" compact route i have now gone the dslr route but i am still not entirely sure it was the wise route to choose..

money for money i could have bought three or four decent compacts for the same price as my "entry level" dslr and a few basic lenses has cost me..

trog

[Ronnoco]

well u can shoot raw with a decent compact and use filters.. and its nearly as cheap to "upgrade" your compact as to buy a decent lens for a dslr..

i dont think things are as as black and white as some think they are.. also we are moving into the era of disosable dslr bodies.. i dont think they are a long term option any more than a decent compact is..

also compacts seem to be improveiing at a faster rate than dslrs are..

i have gone the "decent" compact route i have now gone the dslr route but i am still not entirely sure it was the wise route to choose..

money for money i could have bought three or four decent compacts for the same price as my "entry level" dslr and a few basic lenses has cost me..

trog

What is making digital cameras somewhat disposable is that the technology is still not there yet and at different levels they are still dealing with problems.

To varying degrees shutter lag, focusing speed, picture noise, vignetting, the 1.5 frame ratio to 35mm, limited colour range in comparison to film, limited dynamic range (combining shots à la HDR should not be necessary), and the large size of DSLR cameras and lenses are still being worked on and the improvements are coming but not very fast in all areas.

Ronnoco

[trog100]

"What is making digital cameras somewhat disposable is that the technology is still not there yet and at different levels they are still dealing with problems."

the implication being that when it is "there" we wont have to keep buying new cameras.. ???

i think u are living in the past ron.. the technolgy will never "be there" so to speak.. its the modern age and they do have to keep making money..

we live in a disposable age.

trog.

[Ronnoco]

"What is making digital cameras somewhat disposable is that the technology is still not there yet and at different levels they are still dealing with problems."

the implication being that when it is "there" we wont have to keep buying new cameras.. ???

i think u are living in the past ron.. the technolgy will never "be there" so to speak.. its the modern age and they do have to keep making money..

we live in a disposable age.

trog.

You are partially correct but the change from film to digital has been taking a long time and some pros are still using large format film cameras for some of their work.

The $30,000 or so dollar Hassablad with 39 megapixel photos is certainly not making inroads into main stream photography very quickly for obvious reasons. Moreover the technology to edit 39 megapixel photos quickly and efficiently is not there yet either.

It basically comes down to what you as a photographer really want in terms of equipment. A good quality Contax with Zeiss lenses, a Leica or a Hassablad were and are really the best for certain types of film photography despite any changes that occured.

The cream will eventually rise to the top in digital cameras as well. It may be Canon, but Sony with Zeiss lenses, Leica or Hassablad are still in contention as well, Prices however have to come to down to a more relatively reasonable level.

I think what most photographers want is the ability to create a very sharp photo with rich colours and great dynamic tonal range that they can blow up to a certain size on screen or in print form and retain what they consider to be top quality. Once they get what they want they will be slower to move to newer technology.

As far as living in the past, I notice that some of the best photographers used the best but not necessarily the newest technology.

As a photographer, you need to know when to change and adapt to new technology and when to realize that it is not time yet....but perhaps soon.

Money and time also become factors as well. Some felt and feel that picking up a DSLR and learning the technology despite the fact that they were and are far from perfect was and is a worthwhile expenditure of money and time. Then from what they have learned, they can make a better decision about what they should look for in a digital SLR and pick up a top quality one as their next purchase.

Personally, I do not think that any camera purchase is a bad move, as long as you learn from it and use it to its potential.

Ronnoco

[oldgearhead]

For me it was five things:
1) No shutter lag.
2) I already had two film SLR's (Nikon F, and F3HP).
3) I already had some Nikon lenses.
4) Home digital darkrooms are far more advanced than film ones.
5) The insanely fast flash sync speed of my D70 (1/1000th second with RF triggers,
and 1/4000th second with wire. Too bad Nikon obsoleted this feature.

If I resist the urge to switch from my 18-200VR, I have a range of 10:1+, and no dust problem.

[Kingnitro]

My first Digital camera was a Kodak 6490, the pictures were as good as any SLR I've shot with. But like many others who have posted, the shutter lag, turn on delays, got old quick! Once you go DSLR you'll never go back! Now I do have a Fuji F40 for the quicky shooting, good for the easy stuff when I don't feel like carrying around the DSLR Dumbell.

[nycexit2]

hey i had 2 sony cyber shots and canon p&s till about 2 months ago i got my self the canon XSI/450d. sold all my P&S'sn ebay i will never go back.
the image quality is soo much better. the low light is great and speed

[Kajuah]

My PS has the same amount of features fully upgraded with firmware that some DSLRs don't. I can shoot in raw, buffer 3 raw at a time, use exposure bracketing up to 3 ev, set WB by kelvin and tune the image on screen. I also have one of those cool histograms that appear in the liveview and change as you move the camera. Of course, it has a crappy sensor and an even worse ISO noise compression but hell, it's a point and shoot that behaves like a DSLR!

It doesn't matter what you use, if you know what you're doing then you can make whatever work for you. Look what ansel adams shot with back in the day and nobody has come close to topping that level of perfection even with all of our hi-tech gear.

I've seen pinhole cameras do excellent work. I've seen fujifilm point and shoots meant for parties and pocket snapshots produce very hi-quality work. The canon EOS1D mark III is ridiculously outdated and it can still produce some fairly decent stuff considering it has half the processing power as some cellphones today

[byjamesderuvoDHQ]

When you reach the point in your photo journey where you'd like to grow and experiment, then it's time to get a camera system that grows with you. That's the beauty of DSLR cameras. And entry level rigs like the Canon XSi can be used on full auto, but also have full manual, shutter priority and aperture priority modes. So, you can venture out into experimenting with various features as you're comfortable doing so.

DSLRs also give you better options. Point and shoots are for snapshots. Flashes that are only good for about 9 feet, shutter lag, and small CCD chips which have been stuffed with enough megapixels that noise becomes an issue in low light. Fine for a shutterbug, but for someone who takes photography a little more seriously than capturing "kodak moments" definitely you're ready for the next level.

But remember this. You're looking at a system here, not just a camera body. Bodies will come and go, but your lenses will move from body to body. And since you can still get the XT or the XTi, I would save money there and invest the rest of the money on a good zoom lens that will serve you well. Then, when prices drop next year on the XSi, you can consider selling that older body on eBay and upgrade to the XSi.

[SufiBlade]

As the above person said: You're looking at a system when choosing a DSLR. Which is exactly why I chose a P&S only two days ago over an entry-level DSLR. I am not ready to side with any brand's lenses at the moment as the future looks very hazy. However, things should clear up in the next couple of months, during which time my G10 should serve well enough and then it can be my second camera.

[voyagerrisk]

I think, when one is seriously into photography, he/she at one point of time comes to know that with a particular camera, the saturation point has come and one has extracted all kind of photography that that camera could provide. Its only then the time is to switch to next level in photography. I have used all kind of cameras so far, auto focus, compact, 35mm slr, digital compact and am now using alpha 200 by sony. My experience has been that once I felt that I have seen what all my present camera could do and a better camera is available in the market and is within my affordability, I opted for the next level. I am with my Sony Alpha 200 for the past six months now and know DSLRs offer great flexibilities. (my earlier experience is with Minolta Dynax 4). So, one has to feel the need to switch to next level by sensing level of saturation with compact camers.

[havana_joe]

Different camera types are different tools in your toolbox. You can still use your current camera for certain things. I have 3 cameras, and I use them all pretty regularly.

Canon A580- Small enough to throw in my pocket for "spur of the moment" shots, plus I don't have to be "that guy" with the big camera if I am at a party or BBQ and want to just take a few quick pictures

Fuji S1000 FD- Too big to fit in a pocket, but small enough to carry around easily, has a good 12x zoom, and when I photograph out in the woods, quarries, abandoned buildings, etc I can just throw it around my neck. If I drop it or break it, it's not a huge loss as it wasn't overly expensive

Nikon D40- When I know I will be photographing something specific and want better results, I bring the D40 with me.

[dseigel2]

But remember this. You're looking at a system here, not just a camera body. Bodies will come and go, but your lenses will move from body to body. And since you can still get the XT or the XTi, I would save money there and invest the rest of the money on a good zoom lens that will serve you well. Then, when prices drop next year on the XSi, you can consider selling that older body on eBay and upgrade to the XSi.

If I had to list the MOST important reason to recommend DSLRs over point & shoot I would definitely go with the size of the sensor. The bigger the sensor the more you can to improve the images, blow them up, adjust for under exposure, etc.

Because I believe that a bigger sensor is better, I disagree with your statement about a system. My Nikon D80 has an APC size sensor and the lenses are less expensive but they only provide an image the size of an APC sensor. When (and if) I can afford it and decide to go with a pro DSLR with a larger sensor I will have to sell my current lenses and purchase new more expensive lenses that will provide an image the size of the larger sensor.

[Anbesol]

Bigger sensors aren't only better because of their inherent technical capacities and pixel densities, but because you can slap much better glass on them than you can on a point and shoot. Even the bottom rung DSLR glass will run circles around point and shoot glass. You don't need to purchase APS lens to fit your D80, you could already be getting full frame glass and using it cropped.

What he meant by system was (I think) the range and variety of accessories, and the proprietary standards that tie a lot of gear together.

[dseigel2]

You don't need to purchase APS lens to fit your D80, you could already be getting full frame glass and using it cropped.

What he meant by system was (I think) the range and variety of accessories, and the proprietary standards that tie a lot of gear together.

It is true that I don't HAVE to buy the 'APS' lenses, but they ARE a lot less expensive. But I do agree about the other accessories: I won't have to replace my flash which is dedicated to Nikon because it will also work on a Nikon DSLR with larger sensor.

[gryphonslair99]

[QUOTE]

It is true that I don't HAVE to buy the 'APS' lenses, but they ARE a lot less expensive.

Unless you upgrade to a full frame body in the future, then you have wasted money.

But I do agree about the other accessories: I won't have to replace my flash which is dedicated to Nikon because it will also work on a Nikon DSLR with larger sensor.

For me it is simple:

Point and shoot if you want to take pictures and not worry about additional gear or think about the future, but rather are living for the now.

DSLR if you plan on doing more with this over a period of time and do plan for the future. Buying a point and shoot is buying a camera. Buying a DSLR is buying a system. For today and beyond.

[Anbesol]

[QUOTE=gryphonslair99]

Unless you upgrade to a full frame body in the future, then you have wasted money.

Full frame glass on an APS crop body still has a major advantage with sweet spot. Its the edges of the image circle where image performance is at its worst, and on a full frame crop lens you don't use those borders. It does sacrifice range, and its heavier and bigger, so I think I understand your sentiment - but it does have its unique advantage and far from being 'wasted money'.

[OldClicker]

[QUOTE=gryphonslair99]

Unless you upgrade to a full frame body in the future, then you have wasted money.

The APS lens will give you the same image on a full frame body as it does on an APS body. If it was good before, it's still good.

[QUOTE=gryphonslair99]

For me it is simple:

Point and shoot if you want to take pictures and not worry about additional gear or think about the future, but rather are living for the now.

DSLR if you plan on doing more with this over a period of time and do plan for the future. Buying a point and shoot is buying a camera. Buying a DSLR is buying a system. For today and beyond.

To me, it's not nearly that simple. With the excellent IQ gear available from the cheapest P&S through the most expensive full 'pro' kit and with the vastly different needs of the individuals, I don’t see any such differentiation. Many DSLR buyers are simply looking for the flexibility and will never use anything but the kit lens. Especially, with the new EVIL/ILC systems filling the gap between the true DSLR and the high end fixed lens, the hardware difference is also gone.

Terry

[gryphonslair99]

The APS lens will give you the same image on a full frame body as it does on an APS body. If it was good before, it's still good.

Terry

Except that on some systems the APS/EF-s mount will not fit a FF body. If you want to modify the mount to make it fit you can do so at your expense and risk. Whereas a FF lens will fit an APS/EF-s body as is. Also with a APS/EF-s lens on a FF body you get vignetting since the APS/EF-s does not produce the same amount film plane/sensor area of coverage.

[OldClicker]

Except that on some systems the APS/EF-s mount will not fit a FF body. If you want to modify the mount to make it fit you can do so at your expense and risk. Whereas a FF lens will fit an APS/EF-s body as is. Also with a APS/EF-s lens on a FF body you get vignetting since the APS/EF-s does not produce the same amount film plane/sensor area of coverage.

Only Cannon won't fit, correct? I believe he has a Nikon. I know the only problem with Sony/Minolta is that the FF bodies automatically crop to APS-C when you could probably get more.

Yes, it may vignette, but you still get at least the same image once the vignette is cropped.

Terry

[Anbesol]

Yes Nikon and Sony APS lens do work on full frame as a crop. The EF-S series has the rear element further back for closer backfocus, which is unique to canon and why their APS lens don't work on full frame.

[dseigel2]

Especially, with the new EVIL/ILC systems filling the gap between the true DSLR and the high end fixed lens, the hardware difference is also gone.

Terry

Pardon my ignorance, but what is an EVIL/ILC system?

[Anbesol]

"Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens". They are basically the same thing as DSLR's without the pentaprism and optical viewfinder, at least, from a sensor size/focal plane standpoint. They don't have the same lens selection as DSLRs, but the short back-focus affords the lens' to be built smaller and more compact. The difference is very similar to the difference between an SLR and a rangefinder.

[daviidwilson]

A contrarian's view
A DSLR will ///
- cost much more
- weigh far more
- take up more space in your bag
- get dust in it when you change lenses
- be a pain to clean internally (if you dare)
- require return to the manufacturer to clean (if you don't dare)
+ work in lower light *
+ have higher ISO settings **
+ take photos when you press the button ***
+ start immediately ****

* My Minolta A1 P&S focussed in lower light than the Canon 300D
** at the same ISO setting, a DSLR shoudl have less noise than a P&S
*** But my A1 also does that ... IF you pre-focus and use Manual mode
**** on the 20D certainly, not sure anout the 300 and 350

You may find you carry a DSLR less often than your P&S

Is there something you want to do that your Coolpix wont let you? If you're Coolpix is limiting what you want to do then I would consider stepping up to a DSLR, but until then, I would keep shooting with what you have.