Is DSLR the right choice for me --- please give me your opinion

[old photography man]

I consider myself an intermediate amateur in film photography - I have used Elan IIe, EOS-3 and Minolta Maxxum 7. IN digital, I have an older Kodak DC260 for many years, used mostly for my work in real estate. I have no PS experience, except for some other simple editing softwares.

Money is of no object in considering the D100. However, I have heard many people in this forum stating that the D100 has such a steep learning curve, and that "out of the box" results would be disappointing. I might have got the wrong impression, but I feel that the pictures from D100 must first be edited through some sort of software to be presentable?! (I don't think I have too much time to spend on P.S. with 3 kids to take care of after work -- in other words, I can do some simple editing, but nothing fancy). The dilemma is: am I better off getting camera like: Nikon 5700, Dimage 7i, Canon G2 or G3, Finepix S602, etc...? What I mean is: would the "out of the box" performances of these cameras be able to save me hours of work on computer editing?

the bottomline is: Do you think I would be getting a better balance using those other cameras instead of the D100? (Sorry, if my presentation becomes confusing to all of you) Thank you.

 

[Jim K53618]

the bottomline is: Do you think I would be getting a better
balance using those other cameras instead of the D100? (Sorry, if
my presentation becomes confusing to all of you) Thank you.

If I understand you correctly, you are looking for the best out of camera experience with the best quality available. And it seems you would prefer a DSLR but are concerned about processing images. If this is correct, then you may also want to consider the S2. It can easily be set to produce stunning images right out of camera. The S1 was a favorite for wedding photographers because they did not have to adjust any images in PS and they could go straight to printer thus speeding up their workflow! Since you did say money is no object, and not trying to take anything away from the D100, you may find the S2 is better suited for you.

Regards.

--
Every Camera Has Short Comings,
some camera's fall short of coming!
http://digitalphotonews.ws

 

[old photography man]

I did look quite deeply into the S2. I have the impression (from reading in message board) that S2 has a better "out of the box" performance than D100, but I haven't yet been convinced (not sure what will convince me). O... the other major reason that I don't like those non-DSLR cameras is that they all have some kind of "shutter delay." To my understanding, shutter delay is non-existent in DSLR, correct?

the bottomline is: Do you think I would be getting a better
balance using those other cameras instead of the D100? (Sorry, if
my presentation becomes confusing to all of you) Thank you.

If I understand you correctly, you are looking for the best out of
camera experience with the best quality available. And it seems you
would prefer a DSLR but are concerned about processing images. If
this is correct, then you may also want to consider the S2. It can
easily be set to produce stunning images right out of camera. The
S1 was a favorite for wedding photographers because they did not
have to adjust any images in PS and they could go straight to
printer thus speeding up their workflow! Since you did say money is
no object, and not trying to take anything away from the D100, you
may find the S2 is better suited for you.

Regards.

--
Every Camera Has Short Comings,
some camera's fall short of coming!
http://digitalphotonews.ws

 

[fusionid]

I think you should first of all consider what will be the main use of this camera. next you should see if you are willing to commit to nikon glass.

I personally don't own a DSLR. I do lots of photoshop work when scanning my slides and negatives and already own some nikon glass.

I am at this point saving to buy a DSLR, which looks more like it is going to be a S2.

what I wanted to say is that my sister owns a Coolpix and I do all of her work in photoshop. She doesn't care, she doesn't want to worry about the hassle. But I enjoy working in Photoshop, I think it is part of the creative process. It is no secret that the straight out of the camera jpgs from the coolpix are pretty good.

At any rate, maybe you will be better suited with a P&S. Maybe this way you can also lets the kids also do the shooting and entertain them a bit. I hope I make some sense.

best regards.

I consider myself an intermediate amateur in film photography - I
have used Elan IIe, EOS-3 and Minolta Maxxum 7. IN digital, I
have an older Kodak DC260 for many years, used mostly for my work
in real estate. I have no PS experience, except for some other
simple editing softwares.

Money is of no object in considering the D100. However, I have
heard many people in this forum stating that the D100 has such a
steep learning curve, and that "out of the box" results would be
disappointing. I might have got the wrong impression, but I feel
that the pictures from D100 must first be edited through some sort
of software to be presentable?! (I don't think I have too much
time to spend on P.S. with 3 kids to take care of after work -- in
other words, I can do some simple editing, but nothing fancy). The
dilemma is: am I better off getting camera like: Nikon 5700,
Dimage 7i, Canon G2 or G3, Finepix S602, etc...? What I mean is:
would the "out of the box" performances of these cameras be able to
save me hours of work on computer editing?

the bottomline is: Do you think I would be getting a better
balance using those other cameras instead of the D100? (Sorry, if
my presentation becomes confusing to all of you) Thank you.

 

[SpinThis!]

the other major reason that I don't
like those non-DSLR cameras is that they all have some kind of
"shutter delay." To my understanding, shutter delay is
non-existent in DSLR, correct?

Nope... it's still there, it's just not as much of an issue. It depends on how critical you are. Some lower-end non DSLRs may suit your needs just fine. Check out you local shop before you make a decision on any camera.

The other thing is, resolution. What do you want to do with the camera? What kind of prints will you be making, etc. Most DSLRs are pretty high-res; if you're just e-mailing pictures it might be overkill. Also you have to be willing to invest in lenses as well which is the big reason to buy a SLR. If you like this ability, than go for it. But if you only see yourself using 1 or 2 lenses, maybe you might be better off with a digital non-SLR.

--
Dave

 

[Leon Obers]

Money is of no object in considering the D100. However, I have
heard many people in this forum stating that the D100 has such a
steep learning curve, and that "out of the box" results would be
disappointing.

[snip]

(I don't think I have too much
time to spend on P.S. with 3 kids to take care of after work -- in
other words, I can do some simple editing, but nothing fancy).

If no time to spend to editing, better to use "old-fasioned" film using camera's and let the print do by photolaboratory. They do take the time to get best results.

I know someone who has a bunch of the best Nikon glass as well as Canon, still using film, has good scanners, big Mac computer and even a Fuji Pictograph printer. Has no time to do the learnig curve, so most of the equipement is "sleeping". What a disaster and money trough away.

--
Leon Obers

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi!

Money is of no object in considering the D100. However, I have
heard many people in this forum stating that the D100 has such a
steep learning curve, and that "out of the box" results would be
disappointing. I might have got the wrong impression, but I feel
that the pictures from D100 must first be edited through some sort
of software to be presentable?! (I don't think I have too much
time to spend on P.S. with 3 kids to take care of after work -- in
other words, I can do some simple editing, but nothing fancy). The
dilemma is: am I better off getting camera like: Nikon 5700,
Dimage 7i, Canon G2 or G3, Finepix S602, etc...? What I mean is:
would the "out of the box" performances of these cameras be able to
save me hours of work on computer editing?

I understand your dilemma and I struggeled somehow similar here... On one hand I wanted the speed of a D-SLR, good AF, quick shot-to-shot performance, interchangeable lenses etc. on the other hand I didn't like the idea of postprocessing all stuff myself.

Well, I jumped in because I have some analogue lab and digital experiences. It needs some time to get used of the full potential of this camera. I think it is best to learn by shooting RAW and manipulating in NC3 software first. After a time you know the setting you like most and then you can set them on the camera directly, shooting JPG, with few compromising.

I compared G2 and D100 shots myself (I own both) and I have to say, it is simpler to get something looking pleasant from a G2. Exposure is more difficult with D100, no preview and reading the histogram is the best way to go. But the D100 is so quick and flexible I can do shots impossible with a G2, simply because of speed. The DOF is very different between a P&S and a DSLR too, so you get other imaging possibilities. It is not only a question of the imagers qualities.

If you don't want or need interchangeable lenses I would think twice too. With average glass you won't get really much sharper, better contrasted images. Some P&S cameras would blow you possibly away here too... In addition good P&S cameras do have really speedy small lenses and it will be hard, heavy and expensive you find such a match for a DSLR. It is simply the different imager size that makes the differences here...

If you decide for a D100, you decide not only for a camera but a total system and if you don't need the system idea (or the system does not provide what you like), think again.

To finish with an answer to your initial question, yes, it will be more effort to use a DSLR compared to a P&S to get the same or better quality, there are more things that can possibly go wrong. You get a system that is simply different, but a camera that gives you more comfort and speed as well...

the bottomline is: Do you think I would be getting a better
balance using those other cameras instead of the D100? (Sorry, if
my presentation becomes confusing to all of you) Thank you.

This depends and maybe the question helps what you currently missed most. To buy a D100 simply because of some more pixels might be the wrong view. But if you missed a good viewfinder, a quick AF, better shot-to-shot performance or interchangeable lenses, maybe it is for you...

Regards, A. Schiele.

 

[Rolf Jägers]

Money is of no object in considering the D100. However, I have
heard many people in this forum stating that the D100 has such a
steep learning curve, and that "out of the box" results would be
disappointing.

[snip]

(I don't think I have too much
time to spend on P.S. with 3 kids to take care of after work -- in
other words, I can do some simple editing, but nothing fancy).

If no time to spend to editing, better to use "old-fasioned" film
using camera's and let the print do by photolaboratory. They do
take the time to get best results.
I know someone who has a bunch of the best Nikon glass as well as
Canon, still using film, has good scanners, big Mac computer and
even a Fuji Pictograph printer. Has no time to do the learnig
curve, so most of the equipement is "sleeping". What a disaster and
money trough away.

--
Leon Obers

--
Hello Leon,

first let me tell that I'm from Germany and my "school-English" is more than twenty years ago. But I hope to tell you my point of view in an understandable way.

We also have three children and so my time to work with PS is also limited. As i liked to do more digital photography I decided to give away all my Nikon-equipment on Ebay (F100 with 3 glasses). I decided to buy a Coolpix 5700 and thought to be very lucky not to carry all the equipment with me.

But this wasn't true, because I miss many features of an SLR. I made hundred of photos with the Coolpix, they were very nice in still photography but terrible when taking photos of our children, especially in low light conditions. AF was much to slow for this or didn't lock. I never produced so much blurred photos and was really frustated. So I decided to sell the 5700 on Ebay and spend some money on a DSLR.

In my opinion the most difficult decision is the direction, you want to go. The decision for Nikon, Canon or Fuji is - in my opinion - personal preference. Each camera will produce nice photos.

Best regards

Rolf

 

[DavidMillier]

An interesting question.

I think differences and difficulties (and benefits for that matter) often become exaggerated in these forums. This can lead people to overly worry about faults and also perhaps to get an over exaggerated view of benefits.

I have been a film user (35mm, medium format and large format) for more that 25 years and made the move to digital just over a year or so ago. I started with a Coolpix 950, then got an E10 SLR and now a D100.

I found the E10 to be vastly superior to the coolpix simply because it handled more or less like a film SLR. But people in the Oly forums said that the there was a big learning curve and people used to p&S cameras would find it hard to use... I didn't find this to be the case. Apart from the size and bulk I found it superior to the 950 not just in image quality and features but also in practical handling and just about everything else. Getting decent pictures was easier with the E10 than the 950, not harder...

I find the experience of using the D100 so far is much the same as using E10 but with the benefits of a number of incremental improvements.

When people talk about the difficulty of getting good results I think they are really talking about that last 5% of image quality where you strive for fine art quality.

For more casual work the D100 image doesn't need any more work than the E10 image which didn't need any more work that the CP950 image. As a matter of course I always do a little post processing - just to crop, adjust contrast, saturation and add a little unsharp masking before printing.

Probably takes a minute or two per picture.

Take no notice of those who say you have to do masses of post processing or shoot in RAW to get an image that can equal a disposable camera. They're exaggerating - the D100 is perfectly capable of giving A4 prints that are essentially indistinguishable from those from a 35mm film camera with minimal post processing work. Put a little more care into it and you can get A3 prints that are close to the best film can do (depending on the subject, film etc).

I consider myself an intermediate amateur in film photography - I
have used Elan IIe, EOS-3 and Minolta Maxxum 7. IN digital, I
have an older Kodak DC260 for many years, used mostly for my work
in real estate. I have no PS experience, except for some other
simple editing softwares.

Money is of no object in considering the D100. However, I have
heard many people in this forum stating that the D100 has such a
steep learning curve, and that "out of the box" results would be
disappointing. I might have got the wrong impression, but I feel
that the pictures from D100 must first be edited through some sort
of software to be presentable?! (I don't think I have too much
time to spend on P.S. with 3 kids to take care of after work -- in
other words, I can do some simple editing, but nothing fancy). The
dilemma is: am I better off getting camera like: Nikon 5700,
Dimage 7i, Canon G2 or G3, Finepix S602, etc...? What I mean is:
would the "out of the box" performances of these cameras be able to
save me hours of work on computer editing?

the bottomline is: Do you think I would be getting a better
balance using those other cameras instead of the D100? (Sorry, if
my presentation becomes confusing to all of you) Thank you.

 

[Rich Gibson]

I disagree. Having owned essentially every Nikon DC since the 900, the D100's delay is statistically insignificant in comparison to the pro-sumer models. I've taken numerous action shots with the D100 which would have yielded an empty frame with my 990 and 5000 (the child had already diapppeared).

The move to DSLR is up to your needs. If you shoot still images in lots of light they all probably will serve you well. If you have found yourself deleting many many blurred action and low light shots taken with the pro-sumer models then the DSLR will most definitely meet your expectations. Only you can make that choice.
Good luck, Rich

the other major reason that I don't
like those non-DSLR cameras is that they all have some kind of
"shutter delay." To my understanding, shutter delay is
non-existent in DSLR, correct?

Nope... it's still there, it's just not as much of an issue. It
depends on how critical you are. Some lower-end non DSLRs may suit
your needs just fine. Check out you local shop before you make a
decision on any camera.

The other thing is, resolution. What do you want to do with the
camera? What kind of prints will you be making, etc. Most DSLRs
are pretty high-res; if you're just e-mailing pictures it might be
overkill. Also you have to be willing to invest in lenses as well
which is the big reason to buy a SLR. If you like this ability,
than go for it. But if you only see yourself using 1 or 2 lenses,
maybe you might be better off with a digital non-SLR.

--
Dave

 

[Rich Gibson]

Rolf,

I'm sorry you had to find out the very expensive way about the 5700. I went in the other direction, gradually buying the next model "up" in the Nikon line. I thought the 5000 would meet my needs but I also found that low light and children's action shots were all blurred. In addition I've been processing a bunch of pictures taken at the Waterford Ireland Crystal factory. When I began working in Photoshop I found that every one had some degree of blurring due to camera motion. I'll probably never get to visit that place again and I am disappointed that although no one else will notice, I'll know I had to do a lot of USM to get them to look acceptable.

I finally made the jump to the D100 and am I happy! My first picture was of my little grand daughter Elizabeth sleeping in very low light. It was perfect!

I hope things go well for your search.

Rich

Money is of no object in considering the D100. However, I have
heard many people in this forum stating that the D100 has such a
steep learning curve, and that "out of the box" results would be
disappointing.

[snip]

(I don't think I have too much
time to spend on P.S. with 3 kids to take care of after work -- in
other words, I can do some simple editing, but nothing fancy).

If no time to spend to editing, better to use "old-fasioned" film
using camera's and let the print do by photolaboratory. They do
take the time to get best results.
I know someone who has a bunch of the best Nikon glass as well as
Canon, still using film, has good scanners, big Mac computer and
even a Fuji Pictograph printer. Has no time to do the learnig
curve, so most of the equipement is "sleeping". What a disaster and
money trough away.

--
Leon Obers

--
Hello Leon,

first let me tell that I'm from Germany and my "school-English" is
more than twenty years ago. But I hope to tell you my point of view
in an understandable way.
We also have three children and so my time to work with PS is also
limited. As i liked to do more digital photography I decided to
give away all my Nikon-equipment on Ebay (F100 with 3 glasses). I
decided to buy a Coolpix 5700 and thought to be very lucky not to
carry all the equipment with me.
But this wasn't true, because I miss many features of an SLR. I
made hundred of photos with the Coolpix, they were very nice in
still photography but terrible when taking photos of our children,
especially in low light conditions. AF was much to slow for this or
didn't lock. I never produced so much blurred photos and was really
frustated. So I decided to sell the 5700 on Ebay and spend some
money on a DSLR.
In my opinion the most difficult decision is the direction, you
want to go. The decision for Nikon, Canon or Fuji is - in my
opinion - personal preference. Each camera will produce nice photos.

Best regards

Rolf

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi

I think differences and difficulties (and benefits for that matter)
often become exaggerated in these forums. This can lead people to
overly worry about faults and also perhaps to get an over
exaggerated view of benefits.

Well, my personal impression is that many unexperienced photographers have a look on DSLR's now and a little warning that a different device does not make images implicitly better than before is worth noting...

I have been a film user (35mm, medium format and large format) for
more that 25 years and made the move to digital just over a year or
so ago. I started with a Coolpix 950, then got an E10 SLR and now a
D100.

I think looking at pure imaqe quality even a D100 is a big step back to your 4x5" and MF work. Another point is if this quality is needed for your work.

I found the E10 to be vastly superior to the coolpix simply because
it handled more or less like a film SLR. But people in the Oly
forums said that the there was a big learning curve and people used
to p&S cameras would find it hard to use... I didn't find this to
be the case. Apart from the size and bulk I found it superior to
the 950 not just in image quality and features but also in
practical handling and just about everything else. Getting decent
pictures was easier with the E10 than the 950, not harder...

Well, if I refer to myself my learning curve using the D100 took 2 days, very short I think... then I knew most I liked to know about every detail.

But I don't know much about posters asking quastions or their background or how they judge themselves. I myself wouldn't tell me much experienced while some of my friends would call me a photo-guru, which I am definitely not...

I find the experience of using the D100 so far is much the same as
using E10 but with the benefits of a number of incremental
improvements.

Well, a D100 is just another 35mm based SLR camera, so what should be the general surprise? (-:

When people talk about the difficulty of getting good results I
think they are really talking about that last 5% of image quality
where you strive for fine art quality.

About the last 5%? Possibly, but not fine art. I think trying to do this is far more (or am I too picky about what may be "fine-art"?).

For more casual work the D100 image doesn't need any more work than
the E10 image which didn't need any more work that the CP950 image.

As a matter of course I always do a little post processing - just
to crop, adjust contrast, saturation and add a little unsharp
masking before printing.

Referring to the original post I thought the question was what to get with no manual postprocessing (or possibly a batch that needs no manual control).

I disagree, that you can not get good prints without using an image processing software. I can set up sharpening in my printer driver and in conjunction with images from G2 prints are mostly good.

I can not say that this would be possible the same way with my D100 shots... but maybe you are right that I expect more from these and have a more critical look on them...

Probably takes a minute or two per picture.

Lots of work and time needed if you have some hundreds of holiday shots... Well, no fine art you said? (-;

Take no notice of those who say you have to do masses of post
processing or shoot in RAW to get an image that can equal a
disposable camera.

If you are absolutely sure what happens you don't absolutely need RAW, that's true. But it is great to learn all the tiny details with RAW.

Definitely the D100 images are much better than from disposable cameras but the same is true for G2 or some other better P&S camera shots...

They're exaggerating - the D100 is perfectly
capable of giving A4 prints that are essentially indistinguishable
from those from a 35mm film camera with minimal post processing
work. Put a little more care into it and you can get A3 prints that
are close to the best film can do (depending on the subject, film
etc).

I will not go into this as I think slightly different.

For me your key statement is the better the results the more YOU did put in it, wasn't it? (-;

Regards A. Schiele

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi!

The other thing is, resolution. What do you want to do with the
camera? What kind of prints will you be making, etc. Most DSLRs
are pretty high-res;

Sorry, but I think current 6MP is a good entry level when you want good photorealistc prints. Postcards? Wow, no problems at all! Ideal up to A5 without any restrictions as well. A4 ok to my eyes but no blazting details. A3? possibly for portraits that do not need very fine detail... or when prints are not watched form normal reading distances.

But of course, 6MP is enough to distinguish a bad from a superiour lens. On the other hand it is not enough to bring a fine prime to its limits...

if you're just e-mailing pictures it might be
overkill.

Possibly, but there is a low res mode too and the benefit of using a very quick comfortable camera remains.

Also you have to be willing to invest in lenses as well
which is the big reason to buy a SLR.

One good reason, Agreed! But there are others too.

If you like this ability,
than go for it. But if you only see yourself using 1 or 2 lenses,
maybe you might be better off with a digital non-SLR.

If you speak of 2 or more lenses it depends which type of lens you think of... hope not the 2-zoom set often preferred... but even with only one lens DOF looks totally different to a smaller P&S...

There are other arguments too like speed. If only one applies to your needs a DSLR is worth a second look. But expense is huge too and actuallity is low for such a camera. For private use such a decision should be done with care... and not in a hurry.

Regards, A. Schiele

 

[Rolf Jägers]

Rolf,
I'm sorry you had to find out the very expensive way about the
5700. I went in the other direction, gradually buying the next
model "up" in the Nikon line. I thought the 5000 would meet my
needs but I also found that low light and children's action shots
were all blurred. In addition I've been processing a bunch of
pictures taken at the Waterford Ireland Crystal factory. When I
began working in Photoshop I found that every one had some degree
of blurring due to camera motion. I'll probably never get to visit
that place again and I am disappointed that although no one else
will notice, I'll know I had to do a lot of USM to get them to look
acceptable.

I finally made the jump to the D100 and am I happy! My first
picture was of my little grand daughter Elizabeth sleeping in very
low light. It was perfect!

I hope things go well for your search.

Rich

Rich,

thanks a lot for your kind reply. It's nice to see that also other people make the same decisions. So I don't feel as a complete idiot. But it's really regrettable when thinking about the shots missed.

Your answer strengthens my decision for a D100. I gave the 5700 to Ebay. It works really well, so I think to loose only a small amount of money on it. Now I have to save some money but I think it's worth it.

Rolf
--
Rolf

 

[alfred_schiele]

Hi

thanks a lot for your kind reply. It's nice to see that also other
people make the same decisions.

Well, you have to do decisions for yourself, find a match for you. What does it help if others are satisfied but you are not... This is just a kind hint that you should not trust everything told here - in terms beeing useful for you - of course not to miscredit others sharing their personal opinions and experiences.

So I don't feel as a complete idiot.

(-: Is there any reason for that? I don't think so. Possibly some of us here switched to DSLR's for speed and other comfort. 6MP is not the main point I believe.

But it's really regrettable when thinking about the shots
missed.

Definitely.

Your answer strengthens my decision for a D100.

Go on, the D100 is a nice camera and the N* system is very flexible. I like my D100 versy much too.

I gave the 5700 to
Ebay. It works really well, so I think to loose only a small amount
of money on it. Now I have to save some money but I think it's
worth it.

Well, hope you already have some lenses? Otherwise you will get some additinal stuff to save some bucks for... SLR stuff is really expensive in my eyes... 8)=

Regards, A. Schiele