Do you non professionals still use DSLR's? And why?

Started Feb 14, 2013 | Discussions thread
Midwest
Forum ProPosts: 14,193
Like?
Re: Do you non professionals still use DSLR's? And why?
In reply to Hatstand, Feb 15, 2013

Hatstand wrote:

Nope. For travel and everyday I've been using a superzoom for the last few years instead. I still clung to a DSLR for airshow and action/sports photography (Canon 600D)... until I discovered the Panasonic FZ150 superzoom which gave me the same levels of performance in the critical areas of autofocus speed, shot-to-shot speed, continuous/burst shooting rates, low shutter lag, and optical image stabilisation. After that, I finally sold all my DSLR gear.

I moved TO a DSLR because I wanted good action shots (I shoot junior rodeo). Actually I've seen FZ150 shots of rodeo-type action and they were really poor but one poster on the forums has taken some really fine kids' soccer shots with his. I expect that the FZ200 will be even better for action because its fast lens will negate some of the disadvantages of the small sensor - almost certainly it will beat any other bridge camera out there for action. That said, the large sensor of my DSLR gives me a lot more exposure latitude and better high ISO, while the manual zoom and optical viewfinder are very important to me for framing and composition of rapdily moving subjects.

I lost a chunk of image quality, but as non-pro who doesn't pixel-peep, views mainly on a computer screen, prints A4 or less, and reduces photos for web forums... I don't miss it. I lost an optical viewfinder, but don't miss that either - I use a red dot sight for action photography, and I'm comfortable with the screen/EVF for everything else. And I lost the really tight depths of field that DSLRs are capable of - well, I can live with that.

If that's what you are photo'ing then the FZ may well do the job to your satisfaction. You should look into the FZ200 though - that fast lens is proof to me that Panny is trying to actually do something to improve bridge camera IQ and not just cram stupid ever-longer zoom lenses onto their camera.

On the other hand, the gains were enormous in versatility, size, weight, convenience and video capabilities. I have no regrets on the compromises I made. If I wanted to duplicate what my superzoom can do (I'm on a Panasonic FZ200 now), using a DSLR... I reckon I'd need about 3 different lenses (one of which would have to be monstrously big), it would cost me in excess of 15,000 UK pounds, I'd need an extra rucksack on top on of my "day bag" to carry it all, and I'd have to start working out in a gym to wield it.

I also have a 600D (well, Rebel T3i, same thing) and I don't do video really. I do have the impression that this camera is actually quite good at it - what was the gain in the FZ for video?

The argument about needing a zillion dollars worth of lenses however is definitely beyond bounds. The ability of the DSLR to allow cropping while maintaining good IQ makes it unnecessary to put an enormous expensive zoom or tele lens onto it, and for that matter even a kit zoom will probably allow cropping sufficient to compensate.

As a non-pro, and given the type of photography I do... DSLR's have simply stopped making sense for me.

Quite possibly they have, and that's fine. Once again I suggest checking out the FZ200, IMO the best bridge camera out there for image quality.

-
You don't TAKE a photo, you MAKE a photo.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
YesNew
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow