10 Reasons To Buy a DSLR 657
Kurtis writes, "If you're planning on getting a digital camera for yourself this holiday season, here's 10 reasons why you should choose a Digital Single Lens Reflex camera instead of a point-'n'-shoot. DSLR cameras are obviously not perfect for everyone. This article also has a couple of small blurbs about who shouldn't buy a DSLR, and a few things that could be deemed negative aspects of DSLR cameras."
Go Digital SLR! (Score:5, Informative)
If you are going to make the move to a digital SLR, I also highly recommend the Canon 20d/30d cameras as a good system to begin exploring a variety of different photographic styles from outdoors to action to macro and still life. You really cannot go wrong with some of the other manufacturers like Nikon with their D70/D80 and Sony, but Canon, like Apple tends to build the entire widget from the glass to the camera to the imaging chips. Additionally, I tend to like the color representation from the Canon Digic imaging chips. If you are planning on shooting less outdoor work or in less rigorous environments, I'd suggest introducing yourself to digital SLRs with the lower end Rebel (or Nikon D50) series which is still pretty nice hardware, just not as ruggedly built. (I've also heard rumors that Nikon is going to introduce a new lower cost D40).
For a sample of some of the images possible with the Canon 20d/30d, almost all of the images on my blog [utah.edu] that were taken by me have been captured with the Canon 20d and associated hardware. I also have a Canon hardware list at the top of my FAQ here [utah.edu] that may be helpful for those that are interested in some of the lens options.
The negatives that the author of the linked article writes about are also true. Hauling around all of your camera gear to various spots on the globe does get a bit harder with more (and heavier) gear. I just got back from a trip to Argentina at the foot of the Andes (pics to be posted tomorrow morning) and it does take a bit more effort to pack everything you need to take with you. The gear addiction and associated costs do not stop at the camera body and lenses either. You will find yourself buying tripods, monopods, backpacks, filters, flashes, books, more books etc...etc...etc....
Re:Go Digital SLR! (Score:5, Informative)
The one caveat on the Pentax is finding good lenses for it is a bit more difficult. While you can use pretty much any lens ever made for a Pentax camera, I found that the selection of modern lenses for the canons and nikons is a bigger. Having said that, the lens it comes with is a good all purpose lense and I picked up a 50-200mm zoom that works really well.
Pentax K100D Seconded but most importantly.... (Score:5, Informative)
One point I think the article skipped over though is the proprietary (RAW) format of most DSLRs. Unless you plan to take and save JPEGS, in which case you're better off using a digicam, you gotta use RAW. RAW's problem is it's a PITA to process. gphoto, etc for Linux sometimes deal with RAW, but others, like my model of the Pentax aren't even accomodated by Photoshop yet. So, beware you can't just take pictures out of these and upload them to flickr or do the other things you might be used to.
Good quality pictures, the sort of thing you see in the galleries of highly rated photos on www.photo.net, come from RAW photos that are processed in gphoto, GIMP, Photoshop, etc to bring out the best of the shot. It's not a quick process and you should aim more for the few good shots sort of scenario and leave the lot of candid photos to digicams or DSLRs on auto/jpeg mode.
The RAW format isn't the only proprietary trap of DSLRs. I bought a Pentax primarily because of the ease of lens interchange but it also uses standard old SD cards and regular AA batteries. I use rechargeables but the point is I don't have to buy those VERY expensive proprietary batteries or flavor of the month memory formats as you may if you don't watch out.
Re:Pentax K100D Seconded but most importantly.... (Score:5, Informative)
RAW's problem is it's a PITA to process. gphoto, etc for Linux sometimes deal with RAW, but others, like my model of the Pentax aren't even accomodated by Photoshop yet
Check out Bibble and Bibblepro from Bibble Labs [bibblelabs.com]. They're neither free nor Free, but they're reasonably-priced, excellent tools and they run on Windows, Mac and Linux (x86). I just looked and they support your camera [bibblelabs.com]. You should get the 15-day trial and see what you think.
BTW, I have no affiliation with Bibble Labs, other than being a very satisfied customer.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Except that AA's - even rechargables - suck ass for powering cameras.I have a D50 and the kit battery lets me take somewhat in the area of 1700 pictur
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Go Digital SLR! (Score:5, Insightful)
Or you actually want to adjust settings. It's no comparison.
I disagree. I have an XT and I've used a 30D. The 30D's controls do make adjusting settings a little quicker and easier, but with a little practice you can do it nearly as quickly with the XT/XTi. Chances are that your photographs will benefit more from taking the price difference between the 30D and the XTi and spending it on a better lens. 30D+decent lens == XTi+very nice lens. Unless you're regularly taking shots where the faster continuous shooting mode is important, or where you really need to be able to very quickly adjust exposure (and you're experienced enough at it to twiddle aperture and shutter speed simultaneously), I think you're better off spending the cash on glass.
Agree 100% (Score:5, Interesting)
For Canon, I would strongly recommend the 50mm f/1.8, it's under 100 bucks and will let you take most indoor shots without a flash. It is extremely easy to use and will let you get used to a prime lens. The autofocus is slow and noisy, but it gets the job done. Another great lens I've had experience with is the 28-135 IS - it's got an image stabilizer which isn't quite as useful as I had hoped, but it's a very good range of zoom for typical walkabout photography, it's not too hefty, and the image quality is quite good in my admittedly uncultured opinion! You can get the new XTi, both of these lenses and still walk away paying less than getting a 30D with no lens at all. The XT kit lens isn't horrible either, it lets you get down to 18mm for 100 bucks... I'm not sure if there are that many options that wide without either being fish-eyes or over 700 bucks.
A couple provisos - getting into the DSLR habit is like getting into musical instruments, car tuning, or home theater, or high end PC gaming. You're going to get addicted to it and start spending absurd amounts of money (if you're not careful). "Good" (L) Canon lenses start in the neighborhood of 1000 bucks. I haven't bought into that level yet, because I know it'd be throwing my money away at my current skill level. However, like good musical instruments, the stuff you buy has the potential to last a very long time, and from what I've read the Canon EF lens series has been going strong for quite a while now. But you're still pouring money into what will some day be obsolete technology, or worse, something you're not interested in anymore. Secondly, when you get "serious" about it, you look like a total nerd. I still feel very very awkward carrying a camera bag around - but if you're going to do anything useful with your camera you just about have to. Even without the bag, the camera is very obtrusive in the best of times, with small lens on. If you're reading this far into a comment on Slashdot, you probably don't care, but hey, fair warning. =) In the long run, I will probably buy a point and shoot so I can have something I can stick in my pocket and take places I wouldn't feel comfortable/interested in lugging my real camera around to. Once you start the hobby, you really start thinking about photographing everything interesting you see, in my experience.
Oh, and the other thing that sorta bites about the whole hobby is vendor lock-in. Your camera vendor is your lens vendor is your accessory vendor. There are cheaper knock-off lenses, but in general, the higher quality stuff is single vendor. If you're interested in Canon, or if you're a DSLR initiate like myself, I've found this page to be very, very useful:
Re:Agree 100% (Score:4, Informative)
For Canon, I would strongly recommend the 50mm f/1.8, it's under 100 bucks and will let you take most indoor shots without a flash.
Absolutely. Fantastic little lens, great for indoor portaiture, and you can actually get it on-line for about $70, sometimes $60 if you watch a little. It's extremely sharp, has good color, no significant vignetting... really it has no flaws other than its cheap plastic construction, which is also what makes it really light.
Another great lens I've had experience with is the 28-135 IS - it's got an image stabilizer which isn't quite as useful as I had hoped, but it's a very good range of zoom for typical walkabout photography
I looked at that, and at the Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS lens, but ended up buying a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 instead. It's sharper than either of the other two (even sharper than the 50mm f/1.8 at 50mm!) and the wide f/2.8 fixed aperture (doesn't narrow as you zoom in) makes it very good indoors and in dim light. Not only that, it's also slightly cheaper than the Canon 28-135 and much cheaper than the 17-85. No IS, but the larger aperture makes up for that.
The XT kit lens isn't horrible either, it lets you get down to 18mm for 100 bucks
Yeah, but that's its only positive. It's a pretty good $100 lens. Lots of photographers would say that the best use for the kit lens is holding down papers on a windy day. It beats the crap out of a P&S lens, of course, but that's all it really is, a better P&S lens.
"Good" (L) Canon lenses start in the neighborhood of 1000 bucks.
Yeah, I've got my eye on a Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6L. $1400-$1600. Ouch. Man is it a nice lens, though...
There are cheaper knock-off lenses, but in general, the higher quality stuff is single vendor.
That I can't agree with. Tamron and Sigma make some very high quality lenses. They also make some absolute trash. Read some reviews and it's easy to find out which is which. I know a serious pro (1Ds Mk II) who won't buy anything but Sigma for wide angle. And my Tamron is a really sweet lens. At the really high end -- those L series lenses -- Canon's lenses are unmatched by any third party lenses AFAICT, but in the under-$1K market the third parties have some very compelling options.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
What makes it such a nice lens? It seems very slow for the money. f4 at 100mm? I don't think I could bear that.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Mainly because this lens will be much sharper at f/4 than faster comparably-priced lenses at the same stop. To get comparable sharpness out of most other lenses you'd have to stop them down to f/8 or so anyway. In dim light you can often get more detail with a very sharp lens and a high ISO (especially with today's DSLRs which aren't very noisy at even 800) than with a faster but softer lens. For still subjects, the IS gives you another stop or two, which can also help.
Re:Go Digital SLR! (Score:5, Interesting)
Switching to a DSLR (in my case a Nikon D200) has completely altered my approach, entirely for the better. I'm still thoughtful about what I'm doing, but I experiment a lot more, and can adapt what I'm doing, based on the results, while my subject is still right in front me. I shoot gigabytes at a time and then trash the majority of it. The 6 fps and huge cache on the camera allow me to capture lots of things that a normal digicam or (not-insane) film SLR would never help me get, and I'm way ahead in productivity.
The added bonuses (like, Nikon's essentially miraculous, built-in remote strobe control stuff) still have me actually smiling everytime I contemplate a shoot.
But this stuff is NOT for the casual photographer - the digicams are just too good, and too reasonably priced, and too easy to use. A big ol' DSLR is not the right companion on a romantic hike or trip to a favorite restaurant. But I'm so happy to be able to put my collection of Nikon lenses to work on a new camera body, and to shoot stuff I simply never would have managed before. Seriously thinking about a D80 as a backup body (I tend to bang around in the field a lot).
Re: (Score:2)
I still shoot film though, at least when the image counts. I can still peg a digital Vs film print pretty quickly and the rigidity of the CMOS/CCD sensors used in digital bugs me.
-nB
Exposure latitude? (Score:4, Informative)
One thing that can help is to shoot in RAW mode. With the Canon DSLRs, RAW will capture 36-bit color rather than 24-bit. The disadvantage is that you then need to postprocess the images to get decent results - but you can bring out details that would be lost in the shadows if you were shooting in JPEG mode.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
With the Canon DSLRs, RAW will capture 36-bit color rather than 24-bit. The disadvantage is that you then need to postprocess the images to get decent results - but you can bring out details that would be lost in the shadows if you were shooting in JPEG mode.
I think shooting RAW is a good idea anyway. Not only does it capture greater contrast, but it provides you with control over the conversion process, getting the color, sharpness, white balance, etc. the way you want it, rather than accepting the cam
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not true. I've used AI lenses, and modified F lenses from as far back as 1968 on D50s and D70s .
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
12-bit per channel RAW from most SLR sensors actually has a similar dynamic range to most common negative film, and is quite a bit more linear.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Not entirely sure I'm following your question, but:
With Nikon's recent DSLRS (certainly the D200, D80), the seemingly unimpressive built-in pop-up strobe (which actually works really well as a fill flash, and is really helpful when you don't feel like mounting a larger strobe) also serves as a "controller" for devices like their SB-600 and SB-800 strobes. You can have 20 of them, if you want, sitting in various places around your space, withe strobes assigned to three dif
Why I switched from SLR (Score:4, Insightful)
Since my teen years, I've had an SLR. For my wife's 30th bday I bought her a reasonable quality (Pentax) weatherproof aoto load auto focus auto flash PAS. Of course I turned my nose down and continued to use my SLR with clunky lenses and flash etc. So, often, my camera stayed at home in the closet while hers was handy in a pocket, handbag etc. I still have the SLR but I have not used it for over 8 years now.
About 4 years ago we decides digital was worth it. Got a Canon PAS + Zoom. It does a great job and is always handy. A DSLR would just get left behind.
The only time you want a DSLR is if you want to take professional pics. Professionals only account for a few % of the camera toting population.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you just want snapshots get the point and shoot, if you want photographs get the DSLR.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
This is a common misconception. While it does of course depend on the camera, lots of compacts output very decent pictures.
What it *does* boil down to, is that the camera that you have with you is the one that gets the best pictures.
SLR cameras have a nu
Re:Why I switched from SLR (Score:5, Insightful)
In good light, though, I don't think SLRs have much advantage in image quality.
Yes, they do, actually. The larger sensors and larger, higher-quality lenses produce much sharper images. Take an SLR with a good lens and a P&S that have the same number of pixels and look at the images at 1:1 zoom. The P&S will be fuzzy, have chromatic aberrations like color fringing on all of the high-contrast lines, and will generally have much less fine detail, even in the center. The corners will be much worse than the SLR. Some P&S cameras also have pretty severe vignetting problems.
And that's just image quality. The other thing an SLR gives you is control. Depth of field control, in particular, can make a huge difference in the perceived quality and emotional impact of a photo. Even people who don't know anything about photography perceive a portrait with a shallow DoF (subject in focus, background blurred) as being better and more professional than one with a deep DoF, even if they can't say what makes it better. I've actually taken the same shot both ways and showed them around to get reactions. Better P&S cameras give you some aperture control, but they simply can't match an SLR.
Other important advantages of a DSLR are in the accessories: Lenses, filters, flashes, etc. By changing some attachments, a DSLR can become different kinds of cameras for different kinds of photos... including many kinds which simply don't exist in the P&S market. Some of those advantages are in poor light, but many are not. I can use a 400mm zoom lens for wildlife shots, for example, or a 90mm macro for pictures of flowers and insects. I can throw on a polarizing filter to cut the haze in landscape shots, or filter out unwanted reflections on water. I often use a flash even in full daylight, to fill in shadows on faces and soften the harsh glare of sunlight -- P&S flashes don't have the power to do that, even if the camera will let you.
I'm really just a novice [photo.net] photographer, just beginning to learn how to take good pictures, but even I can already get far more out of my DSLR than I can out of my high-end P&S camera.
Re:Go Digital SLR! (Score:4, Insightful)
Compare the point-n-shoot with what you consider an entry level camera (the Canon 20D) and we're looking at 2 completely different users. This $1000+ camera (after lenses, accessories, etc.) is far from simple to use, is less forgiving in automatic/autofocus mode, doesn't offer video, and could never fit in a pocket (or in most cases not even a backpack). It doesn't meet the needs of your average user
I have met so many average users who get sweeped into the marketing hype around DSLRs and then are highly disappointed. In the end, they often end up taking their point-n-shoot everywhere, while using the DSLR on a tripod for Christmas pictures. Hardly an effective use of $1000.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Personally, I think the question is not whether to have a P&S or a DSLR, it's whether to have just the P&S or a P&S *and* the DSLR. All those reasons that a P&S is more convenient for a casual photographer are just as true for a serious photographer when he's not on a shoot. He mentions in the article the idea that the photographer, not the camera, makes the picture. There's a corollary t
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Apple builds intel processors? To me, apple always says less versatility - not more. You should maybe tone down the fanboism lest people get the wrong idea.
One more negative, one BIG positive (Score:4, Insightful)
Problem is that at any kind of event, as soon as you walk in with an SLR with a flash, you always get "Oh, the photographer is here" comments. You just can't be discrete toting one of those things around.
But, drunk girls at 3 frames per second never fails to yield interesting results. The 'model instinct' naturally comes out and nasty sh$t starts to happen....
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
You just can't be discrete toting one of those things around.
You mean you just merge into one blob of flesh?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I would like to get a digital back for my old manual-focus Canon A-1, but there aren't enough of us out there to get a product made. I prefer manual foc
Re: (Score:2)
I had to sell off all my 35mm gear for tuition money when I was an undergraduate. And even though I had one of the first digital cameras made for consumers, the Apple Quicktake 100, its not been until the last couple of years though that I've been getting back into photography seriously.
Those film SLR lenses will also serve well (after fa
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Since I was on a cruise ship and didn't really want to send my camera off for however long, I found a TV repair shop in Puerto Vallarta and bought a spool of coil
Re:Go Digital SLR! (Score:5, Informative)
Apple makes the entire widget? That's new news. Canon is like Apple in that it has a rabid fan base, but (like Apple) its products aren't as differentiated as they would have you believe. Canon had a head start on sensor technology because it developed its sensors in-house and had the funding to do it. Nikon was nearly bankrupt at the start of the digital SLR revolution and couldn't fund development on its own. Canon's digital technology lead has largely evaporated though they certainly don't take a back seat to anybody.
"Additionally, I tend to like the color representation from the Canon Digic imaging chips."
Digic is the branding of Canon's image processing processor, not it's imaging chips. Color superiority is another aspect of the Canon lore in spite of the fact that, properly calibrated, color rendition between current SLR's is not that great. Superior color quality is something more generally attributed to Canon's L lenses although I feel that's also overblown.
Anyone interested in investing in a DSLR needs to realize that they are investing in a system and, over time, will tie up more money in lenses than digital camera bodies. Since lens families actually differ more that the DSLR's themselves at this point, it would behoove new buyers to consider how they intend to use their systems and read up on the various brands at serious photography sites. The choice between Canon and Nikon (or any other brand) is more properly made by understanding the system rather than considering comparisions to Apple or dubious statements about color rendition.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Most photographers I talked to, told me if I ever wanted to buy a DSLR to buy the lens(es) _first_ then buy the body. A good lens will set you back a couple thousand...
I am actually a fan of Pentax and already pre-ordered the new K10D and ordered some lenses (I like my set of primes) and then I'll wait for the new set of zoom lenses coming in spring. Along with the macro and some wide angles I already have from the P
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
However if you're an absolute beginner or don't use your camera often and don't need the features of an SLR, the compacts have never been better value. What you won't get out of a compact is fast shutter speed (if you're shooting anything moving quickly like wildlife or sports, go for the DSLR), light sensititivity. With the DSLR you don't get movie mode
10 reasons NOT to buy a DSLR (Score:4, Interesting)
2 - price
3 - price
4 - price
5 - price
6 - price
7 - price
8 - size
9 - power requirements
10 - no Kodachrome or T-max 3200
Don't get me wrong: I'd love to have a DSLR (especially one compatible with my old K-mount SLR lenses), but so far, the reasons not to buy one have out weighed the reasons to buy one. I'm sticking to my compact battery-sipping 35mm SLR and my "prosumer" non-SLR digital for now.
Re: (Score:2)
11th reason (Score:2)
My brother has both, I got him a cheap point & shoot for £50 (post xmas, great time to buy), being a photo snob he later got himself an £N00 DSLR. Guess which gets by far most use. The point&shoot is tiny so its always there.
BTW, THE most important aspect of a digital camera is... battery life. There are loads of cameras with decent lenses, millions of pixels yada yada yada but they never tell you the battery is only going to last 20 minutes.
D40 (Score:5, Insightful)
By dropping the sensor resolution way down and ditching the bells and whistles you wouldn't find in similarly priced compacts either, they're looking at launching the first sub $500 DSLR.
For digital compact users who think DSLRs are too expensive - it's no around the price of a decent digital compact, no more.
For film SLR users who think DSLRs are too expensive, it's down to a few dozen rolls of film price difference and far less than the cost of a single great lens. Shoot clear of about a thousand shots, you'll save money with a DSLR.
As for power consumption, I'm not sure what's holding you back?
Batteries are rechargable so there's no real cost.
They last a reasonable length of time. A battery grip like the "big ED" holds a pair of batteries so it's down to one change every couple of hours.
Changing batteries is no more painful than changing film. If you shoot at any kind of speed you'll have to change rolls of film far more frequently than you'll have to change batteries. If you don't shoot that fast, your camera will go to idle mode and you'll get many hours of use out of a single battery.
Finally, yes, great film is still great. But, aside from its price, there are two main arguments against it:
1) No instant feedback. Say you're using ISO 3200 film to capture fast falling water droplets. Until you develop the film, you've no idea if you actually caught the instant. With digital, the proof's right there for review. It kind of sucks to finally develop film only to realize you didn't catch what you thought you did and have no way to practically recreate the shoot.
2) OK, you've loaded your camera with ISO 3200 film for a specific shot. The building rumbles, a plane has crashed outside. You spend the next couple of minutes trying to wind your film through, get it out without ruining your existing shots, searching for the ISO 200 that you didn't think to bring with you anyway. By the time you're ready to shoot, the drama of the once in a lifetime shot has long since past. Your buddy with a DSLR slides the dial to ISO 200, steps outside and gets the award winning shot. Sure, planes crashing are extreme examples - but life's filled with amazing unexpected moments that DSLRs let you get whilst changing film will miss many of them.
The world's moved on. Those arguments were fair enough for the first couple of generations of DSLRs. Honestly, it's now reached the point where it's like saying, "Steam gives better torque than internal combustion engines. I'm not going to buy one of those new fangled cars when my stanley steamer car works just fine." If you're determined to reinforce your preconceptions, you can probably just about find justification - but the rest of the world's moved on and for good reason.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
You sound like a Windows XP user bragging about how long he can go without rebooting. :)
I have a late-80's-vintage 35mm SLR that runs on a single button cell (i.e. no huge-ass "battery grip") for... hell, I can't even measure it in hours. Even when I was using it heavily, I'd go for months wit
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Well, how many pictures were you planning on taking? If you were going to take 500 pictures, then you'd need 500/36 = about 13 rolls of film. My DSLR can take about 500 pictures on one battery. So, you'd need no extra batteries and no film. The weight between my SLR and DSLR is not significantly different. So, if you were to choose between a DSLR and an SLR, then for a tw
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
For one, shooting at ISO 3200 gives you razor-sharp results in almost any light conditions. Shooting digital at ISO 1600 in low-light produces noisy images, of which 3/4 are normally unusable. Film grain is preferable over sensor noise any day.
As far as films go, T-Max is pretty odd stuff. The range of light frequencies it responds to is quite d
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I thought I'd never end up going digital, but I can't find any good 35mm labs here any more. It's pretty depressing spending minutes sometimes setting up exposures, apertures, etc., only to see JPEG artifacts on the prints.
Took them back to the lab, yelled "WTF", and while he agreed there were noticable artifacts on the images, they were 'good enough for most people' because nobody before me had noticed.
For me, while digital has lowered the price plenty, it's also lowered the bar.
Tags are interesting (Score:3, Insightful)
They forgot to use collaborative filtering (Score:2)
Re:Tags are interesting (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
So, in other words, in Soviet Russia, itsatrap tags YOU!
Another reason not to get one. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Another reason not to get one. (Score:5, Insightful)
Separate Shutters, Translucent Mirrors (Score:2)
There's another interesting technique that's been discussed - using a translucent mirror/prism that's locked in position with a separate shutter behind it. By doing so, x% of the light can be sent up to the eye piece while the other y% can be sent to the sensor.
If you then pull this out of the way and use the old method for stills, you still get
Re: (Score:2)
I guess it's a possibility, but the DSLRs do typically allow long exposures and such.
One thing I found amusing on one of the new cameras (the Nikon maybe?) was that it supported multiple exposures. Why the hell would I want to do that on the camera when I can do it in photoshop? I mean, I understand the idea of doing it in film, that's very different to me...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is like saying "Don't buy screwdrivers because they don't drive nails very well."
Best reason not to buy a DSLR: (Score:4, Informative)
It will cost you at least $1000 to get a unit with decent dust-prevention equipment, maybe as much as $1200. That will get you a sexy 10MP DSLR, but I know that if I had that kind of money, I'd have more important places to spend it.
I recently looked at some Digital SLRs, and if anyone is considering buying a current-generation one for personal use, I'd say buy the cheap one (the Canon.) This is the third generation and they finally added a dust removal technology (to remove dust from the image sensor) ... and it's $200 cheaper than the competion.
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say the ONLY reason not to buy one (other then lack of funds, or no interrest in phot
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Best reason not to buy a DSLR: (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, basically everyone with a DSLR without dust removal has complained about this. See, in a normal camera you have hardly any moving parts. An SLR has a huge shutter, a moving mirror, and most importantly, a removable lens. This all adds up to many many opportunities for dust to land on the sensor. You cannot safely clean the sensor if the dust does not blow off with gentle air, and many people have sent their cameras in for cleaning many times. This has definitely been a big deal among the DSLR crowd, which is why every DSLR camera in this generation has dust removal.
If I'm spending a thousand-plus dollars on a 10MP camera, I don't want to deal with dust issues. Some of the current-generation cameras go so far as to not only provide a vibrating dust removal scheme, but they also have software dust removal built into the camera - you point it at a solid wash of color (like a well-lit white wall) and it will identify dust spots and store them for later reference, automatically removing their influence (to some degree) from the images.
In other words - and this is becoming my mantra on slashdot lately - You don't know what you're talking about.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You need both (Score:5, Insightful)
It is better to have some slightly less snazzy snapshots of you and your friends with a compact camera then to miss out on photographing the occasion altogether because the camera is too big to lug around.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
really? I guess I am no-one then. because not only do I carry one of my Fuji S2 DSLR's on hikes on boats, even when I go skiing... But I have also carried a Canon XL1 $4500.00 video camera with a $1000.00 lens on it while riding backwards on a snomobile careening down a ski slope filming.. Oh, the camera also had $2500.00 worth of wireless audio recievers on it as well. No I am not a pro, yes this is my p
Re: (Score:2)
Jesus, of course they would. What, you think Ansel Adams had some mutant teleport power that he used to just *poof* himself into position to take his shots? No, he had to *hike* out to those locations, and he did it with a lot more than an SLR, he was hauling along oodles of medium and large-format stuff. People take photos up on Everest, and they don't do it with point-and-shoots.
It is better to have some
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The difference between a "photographer" and some one who just ownes a camera is the photographer thinks of the activity as "making images" and he just happens to be on a hike because that is how you get to the wildflowers or whatever his subject is. While the
Please, don't tag this "itsatrap" (Score:3)
The tag was already overused when it was remotely relevant, but today's usage is idiotic.
And yes, I acknowledge that this will be modded off-topic. I have some karma to spare.
A fairly pointless article (Score:3, Informative)
Most digicams are plastic, plastic, and more plastic. They feel flimsy and they're not all that hard to break. DSLRs are built to much higher standards
then you can tell that it is not particularly helpful at all. A great many 'digicams' are very nicely constructed. For example, the rather lovely Lumix [panasonic.com] range from Panasonic/Leica, one of which I am lucky enough to own, are extremely well constructed and are largely made from metals and special composites which do not feel 'plastic' in the least. They also have excellent ergonomics and performance. Many smaller cameras are also very nicely constructed, often from metal - the Canon Ixus [canon.com.au] range comes to mind.
I agree that DSLRs are nice, and I plan to acquire one myself. But it is not helpful to publish a list of 'reasons' which are little more than vague assertions that A is better than B, without taking into account either reality, or the very valid reasons why B might be preferable for many people.
Re: (Score:2)
the rather lovely Lumix range from Panasonic/Leica, one of which I am lucky enough to own
Leica have always been a quality based brand for the minority who appreciate them. They are not however, even close to common.
The statement remains true that, for the majority of consumer compact digital cameras, construction is generally cheap plastic that's liable to break if dropped or at least have zoom mechanisms lose alignment.
It is true to say, "Most people are not that well educated in
SLR and make sure it is a CCD (Score:2)
1. Quality of images.
2. Better control of parameters
3. Choice of lenses for the variety of situations.
4. Speed - often point and shoots take a while to recylce the flash.
5. Ability to use professional flash.
6. Women like to pose for DSLR then to teensy point and shoot.
7. Batteries last longer, usually.
8. Speed of focus, at least on nikons it is excellent, so you don't loose the moment.
9.
10.
What? (Score:2)
You seem to be confuse the image sensor type (CCD vs CMOS) with the mirror / lens arrangement (S
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
I'm sold!
Number one reason not to go DSLR (Score:5, Insightful)
I love my Nikon D70 (especially since I used hotel points to buy it), but for every shot I get that others don't have a chance because of shutter speed or ability to use another lens, there's one that I missed because I didn't consider lugging out my camera bag for some event. With compact cameras being as small as ipods these days, I'd recommend that you start with one of those first, and when you want to take it to the next level, get a second camera as a dslr.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, sorta. Guess it depends on your camera heritage, as it were. People who've been shooting a film SLR already have the size thing ironed out, and will be in the best position to leverage all of the fantastic stuff that a modern DSLR can do for them. Once you've experienced a camera like a recent Nikon DSLR, the spe
Re: (Score:2)
Heck, if size weren't an issue, I'd walk around with a View Camera.
Bottom line: the more convenient it is to carry a camera, the more likely you are to use it, and camera size inversely relates to convenience.
Re: (Score:2)
I think his point is that his D70 with a half-decent lens on it means he's carrying a fairly large item. You're either going to want a shoulder bag for it, or a belt-hanging, nose-down style holster. Some social occasions just aren't a good fit for that sort of thing, or you just don't want the payload along when you're, say, dancing or something. One of each flavor camera is really the thing,
Snapshots = Tiny camera (Score:2)
Wrong discussion forum, sir. (Score:2)
Viewfinder (Score:3, Informative)
Another key point is that you're not just buying a camera, you're buying in to a system, so the lens range needs to be taken in to account, in the long term. You're not going to be happy with the "kit lens" for very long.
My reason not to buy a DSLR camera (Score:2)
Seriously, I'm normally a gadget freak. I love anything I can tinker with, especially if it appeals to my creative side. But I somehow managed to call up enough restraint a few years ago to get the tiniest decent-quality camera I could find (a Minolta Dimage Xt, just a little larger than an Altoids tin), and I couldn't be happier. When I'm at a party, family event, wandering a random city on vacation, etc. I can just stick it in a shirt pocket, enjoy myself, and pull it out to tak
Problem... (Score:3, Informative)
Granted, the most expensive DSLR is cheap compared to a good lens, and that trap can bleed you dry on your new hobby.
But, if you get a DSLR I strongly reccomend that you get a 60mm prime (I reccomend a 1.8 or faster but most people cringe at a $600.00 or more lens) and see what your DSLR camera can really do.
Re: (Score:2)
The real reason (Score:2, Informative)
Got a Nikon D70, absolutely astonishing pictures, even though they say it's not the camera, but the person behind it...
As one who has a Nikon D70 DSLR... (Score:3, Informative)
Please, check out http://www.dpreview.com/ [dpreview.com] before you purchase a camera. No, seriously. When I was a salesdroid, I recommended -everyone- check that site at least once before spending $money on camera.
I saw the D80, and I looked at "What does it offer?" well, okay, its 10mp vs 6mp. But thats not enough to make me buy it. The D80 uses SD cards vs the CF/MD cards of the D70. No benefit there. I have $500 in microdrives. The extra resolution is nice, but not -by it self- enough. A 4x6 image only needs a "3mp" area to be displayed at "80% of humans will never discern it from film"
As a former salesman, you need to ask "What is my end result?" if the answer is "To send pics to grandma" Then -ANY- digital camera will do it. DSLR's bring forth the power of film cameras. If you don't need that power, you don't need a DSLR.
I have a half dozen lenses for my camera. But I'm a semi-pro photographer. A situation that inspires me to get a $400 lens, you might not feel the same on.
Go, Decide for yourself. I can lay out ten thousand reasons why I love my rig and gear. The will -NOT- apply to you. Such is art.
Comment removed (Score:3, Funny)
Switched to Nikon D200 from Nikon N8008 (Score:2)
I do disagree with the author on a minor point. Not all DSLRs are built to the same quality. Even within the Nikon family the D80/70
Talk about timing (Score:3, Funny)
Drat you slashdot!!!
Points against the dSLR (Score:3)
Take for example the Nikon Coolpix 8800, or the Panasonic FZ30. They both have good glass: the 8800 has a zoom range of, in 35mm equivalence, 35-350mm. The Panasonic is 35-420mm. Both have optical image stabilization built in, and both can do macro photography too. You also get dSLR style complete manual control if you want it. (Lots of non-dSLRs have good controls, I think the article flops out a red herring there. You just have to do your homework.)
The 8800 isn't made anymore, but it was about $800-900 new, about as much as the original Nikon d70 with kit lens I think. The Panasonic must be on the way out, as it is now about $400. (It is speculated that these types of cameras are a lot less profitable than dSLRs and so are getting erased from the lineups. I dunno.)
So why would I have bought an 8800 instead of a d70? Easy. The cost of a Nikon LENS that can hit 300mm of zoom seems to be about $500--and it still won't let you do macro. When you buy that affordable dSLR kit camera, you aren't buying a complete solution... you are buying a starting point unless your only interests fall in that ~28-105mm range the kit lens covers.
I must grant that the dSLR is superior in many ways, particularly quality of the sensor. A bigger sensor is less prone to noise at high ISO, so your DSLR can shoot cleaner at 1600 than my 8800 can at 200. That is a big deal! But to take full advantage of that, you need to carry around a bag of lenses. (The article didn't mention battery life, another big win for DSLRs by the way.)
I'm not slamming dSLRs. No flames, please. I'm just saying that there is an argument for buying a camera that can do a good job on a little bit of everything, even if it isn't the BEST at any of it. Like any other complex gadget, do your homework--there are a lot of really good cameras available these days. And this is a complicated hobby so you won't get everything you need to know from one top-10 list article (or snarky forum post). Figure out what you want to shoot and the choice of camera will become more clear.
ok, here come the haters, I know it...
Watch out for the "lens factor!" (Score:3, Insightful)
However, if you are a longtime film-SLR user and have an investment in SLR lenses for some platform, then watch out!
In a nutshell, most of the lenses in your collection will not be really usable with your shiny new DSLR! This is because most DSLR use an imaging sensor that has a different size than the 35 MM film size. What this means is that the effective focal lengths of all your lenses are going to be different from what they are when fixed to a film camera. Nikon has a multiplication factor of 1.5. Depending on the model, Canon has a multiplication factor of 1.5 or 1.6. [Some of Canon's Very Expensive cameras have a 35-mm size sensor and have no multiplication factor]
What this means is that your 50mm lens will have an effective focal length of75 mm, reducing its utility considerably. You will find that you will have to replace pretty much all your stock lenses with new "digital-ready" lenses, a pretty significant investment overall. I am surprised that the article did not mention it.
Why is this? The camera companies say that full-frame sensors are expensive, and that they don't contribute much to image quality anyway. The former might be true, but not something that investment and time won't fix. The latter is completely bogus. They said the same thing about the APS system, but the marketplace quickly figured out that this was not right and rejected the system.
Here is the real reason: Companies like Canon and Nikon make far more money on their lenses than they do on their cameras. They are always looking for ways to make you buy more lenses. If their old-line lenses could work with the new DSLRs, they have lost a huge profit opportunity! But they cannot change the format of the camera-lens connector without a huge backlash from the customers. So this is a way by which they can force the adoption of an entirely new line of lenses, at the same time maintaining plausible deniability.
If you regularly use an external flash, you will have to buy a new external flash as well. The flashes that used to work with film cameras are not fully compatible with the DSLRs.
Magnus
11 Reasons to Buy a Digital PHD Camera (Score:3, Insightful)
Counter argument (Score:3, Informative)
DSLRs have lots of problems, even ignoring the technical ones (dust being the biggest). Pull one out in public and you'll get treated differently (usually negatively). Pull out a good quality compact and everyone will ignore you. The one above, they're just NOT everyday-portable.
I see his point, but just to rebuff some of them
Creative Control:
Not seen the Casio Z1000 or Z800, the Canon S70 or S80, the Panasonic LX1, LX2, the Leica Digilux 1 or 2 or many more then? There are quite a few very small cameras that give you lots of camera control.
Accessories Galore:
Plenty of cameras either have after-market add ons to give them a standard fitting, or even manufacturer add-ons. However, try getting a manageable underwater case for your new D80 - it'll cost a fortune and act as it's own personal float.
No Shutter Lag
Instant Startup
Sure, but there are plenty of the DSLRs that are pretty crap in this respect too. The latest generation are the first you can reasonably rely on.
Higher Build Quality
See above list for pretty well constructed, metal bodied cameras.
Viewfinder
I'm not sure you'll get many Electronic View Finders in the smallest compacts, but there are increasing numbers as the size increases. Other than that, you often get reasonable rangefinders. Not SLR, but you get used to it very quickly
Ergonomics
Seriously? It's not always better to have a huge luggable camera to hold.
Price
Seriously? No really, SERIOUSLY? The price of the compacts is lower than the DSLRs. End of story.
One thing that deserves mentioning (Score:3, Interesting)
The "auto" WB mode does ok for most stuff if I'm using a flash or outdoors. When I move inside though, it becomes apparent how poorly the camera recognizes Incandescent light bulbs or flourecent lighting. Granted when I go do post processing of the RAW images, I have the option to correct these, but if you're just an average guy taking family snaps you could really be disappointed that your 600$ super camera is making Aunt Helen look jaundiced, like an Ooompa Loompa, or a Smurf. With film, what you see has usually been what you get. With digital, it's been my experience that if you don't pay attention, you may not always get what you see.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure, you have your DSLR cameras. You also have your point-and-shoots. However, just because a camera isn't a DSLR does NOT mean that you can call it a point-and-shoot. Take for example this [canon.com] camera. It classifies as neither. Just to keep everybody informed! (There still is a middle ground.)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd say there are a few other flavors of folks. Mostly, it's non-photographers who still have a pressing need for either speed or special glass. For example: someone whose kid is a very busy athlete will probably really appreciate the ability to use a quality long lens with serious stabilization - and will definitely appreciate being able to shoot several frames per second. Likewi
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are lots of wankers with equipment fetishes* on sites like that. Many of them have more money than sense, and shouldn't be taken seriously. Many SLRs with basic zoom lenses produce very good results.
And with the point and shoot digital LCD to review pictures immediately, looking thru the lens doesn't matter as much.
There's no comparison between an LCD preview and actually looking through the lens. It's a poor substitute.
* Hey, I