Why Go To DSLR?

Printable View

  • 05-03-2006, 09:14 PM
    coachgns
    Why Go To DSLR?
    I've recently begun to do some serious (but amateur) photography, and am thinknig of "upgrading" to a DSLR. But I'd like to know WHY - will I get more from it.

    I have been using a Nikon Coolpix 8800 for a couple of years. Other than being very slow writing on the cards when shooting large pics, I like the results I'm getting. It has 8 megs, and a 10X zoom. Also decent Macro.
    A large electronic swivel viewfinder, and a fairly large lens.

    I like taking nature, cityscapes & people. Not doing sports or portraits at this time.

    So if I go to a DSLR, what will I get that I don't have with this?

    Thanks
  • 05-03-2006, 09:38 PM
    lidarman
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Well just having a camera (and knowing how to use it) is 95% of it--the rest is details.

    SLR are about flexibility and that extra 5%

    DSLR's allow you to
    • use various lenses to suit specific shooting requirements.
    • Better Optics in general.
    • use fast lenses with very short depth of fields and lock on that subject.
    • use large sensors with better noise quality and more sophisticated image processing.
    • Faster frame rates with shorter lag times.
    • External controls on almost all features, so changing settings don't require looking at the LCD.
    • External flashes that are matched with camera.
    • More control on shooting parameters such as Curtain sync'ing and white balance.
    Bottom line is no camera can give a photographer creativity and inspiration..it can only give him or her a tool to express it. SLRs just add more flexibility.
  • 05-03-2006, 10:21 PM
    Anbesol
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    there are TONS of differences - but I'd probably say the biggest one is ISO.

    sure, other cameras offer you 800 or 1600. but my minolta 5D's noise looks better at 3200 then any digicams look at 400 or 800... optics too... of course.
  • 05-03-2006, 10:30 PM
    WillCAD
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    SLRs in genreal have features that P&S cameras don't have. Lidarman covered them all pretty well, but the features that I have found most important to my photography, which is mostly vacation pics, are:

    * No shutter lag. Yes, you have to pre-focus, but when you click the button to actually trake the pic, it actually takes the pic, no waiting.

    * Modular construction. Pick the body you like, pick the lens or lenses you like, pick additional accessories like battery grips, hot shoe flashes, remote shutter releases, etc., and build your own personal camera set up to fit your needs.

    * Flexibility. SLRs come with modes from full auto to full manual, and a bunch in between, and generally let you adjust the settings in each mode to a greater degree than most P&S cameras. You don't have to use all that stuff - but it's all there if you need it.
  • 05-04-2006, 12:02 AM
    SmartWombat
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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 :)
  • 05-04-2006, 05:00 AM
    mjs1973
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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.
  • 05-04-2006, 08:29 AM
    Ronnoco
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by SmartWombat
    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 :)

    Yes, a DSLR that is much smaller, lighter, without a dust problem, a swivel OLED screen, an anti-shake system of course in the camera body, built-in as well as hot shoe flash, WIFI connection to computer and off camera remote TTL flash and designed ease of use in terms of the location of buttons, dials, etc. Needless to say all of this should be at a reasonable price...certainly below several thousand dollars.

    Ronnoco
  • 05-04-2006, 09:51 AM
    ken1953
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Hello Coach...I recently went through this dilemma. I used a Kodak DX 4330 for about 3 years. Then I upgraded to the Nikon Coolpix 8400. I loved it, but then I purchased a Pentax *ist DL for the wife. That was it...2 weeks later I bought me one.
    I found that it was actually easier to use than my 8400 and much faster. I have had a few problems with keeping the sensor clean and even had to have my wife's sent to the factory as a piece of debris got somewhere that couldn't be cleaned manually. My picture taking has improved slightly because I find myself using only manual 99% of the time. I still carry my Nikon and my Kodak, but mostly for backup and to let the grandkids use. However, I upgraded mainly for the ability to have more zoom. Unlike your 8800, my 8400 only had 3x zoom...but it does have the 24mm lense which is great and offers me some flexibility combined with my Pentax. It really all comes down to how far you want to take your photography. If you want the flexibility, then upgrade to the DSLR's, if you like the convenience of the p/s's, there are pros out there who only use p/s's. Don't think that upgrading is necessary to improve your photography. It's the nut behind the camera that creates the masterpiece, not the camera.
    Ken
  • 05-04-2006, 12:59 PM
    greghalliday
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Anbesol
    there are TONS of differences - but I'd probably say the biggest one is ISO.

    sure, other cameras offer you 800 or 1600. but my minolta 5D's noise looks better at 3200 then any digicams look at 400 or 800... optics too... of course.

    VERY true. I would buy a DSLR for this reason alone. It makes such a difference in actual usability that any story I could tell regarding this would border on hyperbole. Close to 70% of the images I took on a recent winter trip to Prague would have been unusable had they been taken with my A60 P&S (an otherwise great 2MP camera). ISO 800 on my 20D looks like ISO 100 or 200 on the A60. Even the images taken at ISO 1600 and 3200 are acceptable. I have not used a digital P&S that gives me as nice an image from even ISO 400.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Greg
  • 05-04-2006, 06:50 PM
    coachgns
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Hmmmm - Pros & Cons.
    I do like the 8800 - have taken some beautiful shots with wonderful detail at 10X zoom. Recently I would have liked to go faster than ISO 400, but ended up with some good night shots anyway - but I am sure they could have been better. And when I shoot in RAW at 8 megs, I can fall asleep waiting for the image to write to the card. But, overall it's pretty good - for now, anyway. I guess I'll readress this issue in a few months, and then again, and again, and again....
  • 05-06-2006, 03:52 PM
    TTT
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Or, you could go back to film :)
    No dust problems....
  • 05-06-2006, 04:39 PM
    Erik Stiegler
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by TTT
    Or, you could go back to film :)
    No dust problems....

    Dust on scanned film was always a major annoyance for me. In addition to the dust, there were the lab workers who always seemed compelled to eat a basket of fried chicken while they were handling my film. :mad:
  • 05-07-2006, 09:01 AM
    hesaias
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    I went from Z1 to a Rebel XT and I use my DSLR as much or more because the image quality, ease of use, and personal satisfaction are higher. With my Canon, I do not have to wonder if I will get the shot. The write time on RAW is quick, even with slow Kodak cards.
  • 05-11-2006, 11:42 AM
    lidarman
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Erik Stiegler
    Dust on scanned film was always a major annoyance for me. In addition to the dust, there were the lab workers who always seemed compelled to eat a basket of fried chicken while they were handling my film. :mad:

    Exactly. There is always a dust problem. It's just at what point dust can get in the process.
  • 05-11-2006, 06:31 PM
    coachgns
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    UHOH.
    I thought I had convinced myself to NOT go DSLR at this time. However, yesterday in B&H I checked out some DSLR's, and I was quite surprised at the feel of the D200. It was much more comfortable to use than I thought it would be. It actually seemed much more user friendly than my Coolpix 8800.
    So now thinknig more.
  • 05-12-2006, 08:48 AM
    Loupey
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Now you did it. You "looked" at one.

    That's why I don't like to go to camera/computer/sporting goods stores anymore. If I do, it's only to get that one specific thing and run out. Otherwise, I end up with stuff I didn't know I needed, wanted, or even existed :D
  • 05-12-2006, 09:29 AM
    coachgns
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    AND to make matters even worse - a friend today offered to sell me his Canon 20D with a couple of upgraded lenses for significantly less than the Nikon 200 would cost. He bought it as a "backup" to other SLR's he has, but his others are strictly professional grade, so this has been used only a couple of times.
    I am going to try it out this weekend.
  • 05-12-2006, 11:30 AM
    Photo-John
    Digital SLR Buyer's Guide
    I wrote this Digital SLR Guide with you in mind - or at least someone with the same questions :)

    http://www.photographyreview.com/dig...rguidecrx.aspx

    Lidarman did cover the main issues, and Smart Wombat gave a pretty good counterpoint. There is something to be said for superzoom compacts. I think the Konica Minolta A200 is a wonderful camera with nearly all of the flexibility of a digital SLR, and in a much smaller and lighter package. But I don't own one...
  • 05-31-2006, 05:02 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by greghalliday
    VERY true. I would buy a DSLR for this reason alone. It makes such a difference in actual usability that any story I could tell regarding this would border on hyperbole. Close to 70% of the images I took on a recent winter trip to Prague would have been unusable had they been taken with my A60 P&S (an otherwise great 2MP camera). ISO 800 on my 20D looks like ISO 100 or 200 on the A60. Even the images taken at ISO 1600 and 3200 are acceptable. I have not used a digital P&S that gives me as nice an image from even ISO 400.

    Just my 2 cents.

    Greg

    Almost all of that difference however is due to 2MP of your P. & S. versus 8 MP of your 20D. A point and shoot with 8 mp. versus your 20D would be a much more worthwhile comparison.

    Ronnoco
  • 05-31-2006, 05:05 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by coachgns
    UHOH.
    I thought I had convinced myself to NOT go DSLR at this time. However, yesterday in B&H I checked out some DSLR's, and I was quite surprised at the feel of the D200. It was much more comfortable to use than I thought it would be. It actually seemed much more user friendly than my Coolpix 8800.
    So now thinknig more.

    I agree, but I am also interested in waiting to see the Sony Alpha on the projected release of June 9th. I am not particularly impressed with Sony, but a Minolta like camera with Zeiss lenses and 8 to 10 mp would certainly be worth a look.

    Ronnoco
  • 05-31-2006, 05:08 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: Digital SLR Buyer's Guide
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Photo-John
    I wrote this Digital SLR Guide with you in mind - or at least someone with the same questions :)

    http://www.photographyreview.com/dig...rguidecrx.aspx

    Lidarman did cover the main issues, and Smart Wombat gave a pretty good counterpoint. There is something to be said for superzoom compacts. I think the Konica Minolta A200 is a wonderful camera with nearly all of the flexibility of a digital SLR, and in a much smaller and lighter package. But I don't own one...

    I do own one, and I agree with John. On some occasions, with its flexibility , I can get the shot that I would have missed with my SLR.

    Ronnoco
  • 01-27-2007, 07:38 PM
    rpiereck
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    I bought my Rebel Xti because my Powershot A640 was stolen, and since buying my first DSRL I am taking more pictures for the simple fact that I carry the camera around my neck.

    The Powershot spent most of its life in its bag, and when I wanted to bring it out I had to get the small bag from inside my backpack or wife's purse, unzip it, bring out the camera, start it up, wait for it to be ready to shoot and then shoot.

    The Rebel is bigger so it's never inside the backpack or the purse. Even if I have it in it's camera bag, it's large enough to hang on my side instead of inside another bag. When I startup the Rebel it is pretty much ready to shoot, startup time is great on the XTi. So I find that despite the extra bulk and weight I am becoming more productive because the camera is always there, ready to shoot.

    Last night I was taking pictures of my dog in low light without a flash. The Rebel 1600 ISO setting was enough and produced very acceptable levels of noise, one thing that I could have never done on my A640. It only went to 800 ISO and already produced too much noise at 400 ISO.

    I am really enjoying my XTi and I am already saving to buy a better lens than the 18-55mm kit lens that came with it.
  • 01-27-2007, 07:54 PM
    trog100
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    i think better low light performance is the only real gain..

    compared to something like the panasonic FZ50 or another decent compact it is.. an FZ50 with usable ISO 800 would be hard to beat..

    trog
  • 02-19-2007, 06:54 PM
    Frog
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    I didn't see any mention of faster focus in the above replys.
    I had an 8700 and yes I got some very nice photos with it but it was slow to focus and slow to write.
    My d80 focuses right now and I thought I didn't even want auto-focus.
    Its sort of like the difference between dial-up and cable.
  • 03-03-2007, 09:00 AM
    Greg McCary
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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
  • 03-03-2007, 12:17 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Greg McCary
    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
  • 03-03-2007, 10:25 PM
    trog100
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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
  • 03-04-2007, 09:37 AM
    Ronnoco
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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

    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
  • 03-04-2007, 12:55 PM
    trog100
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    "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.
  • 03-04-2007, 05:46 PM
    Ronnoco
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by 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.

    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
  • 11-08-2007, 02:27 PM
    oldgearhead
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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.
  • 05-29-2008, 09:09 PM
    Kingnitro
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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.
  • 06-11-2008, 06:59 AM
    nycexit2
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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
  • 07-21-2008, 12:55 AM
    Kajuah
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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
  • 08-26-2008, 10:27 AM
    byjamesderuvoDHQ
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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.
  • 11-11-2008, 03:37 AM
    SufiBlade
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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.
  • 04-16-2009, 07:22 AM
    voyagerrisk
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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.
  • 12-30-2009, 06:08 AM
    havana_joe
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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.
  • 07-10-2010, 10:51 PM
    dseigel2
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    Quote:

    Originally Posted by byjamesderuvoDHQ
    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.
  • 07-10-2010, 11:22 PM
    Anbesol
    Re: Why Go To DSLR?
    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.