Honest question...DSLR worth the money?

Fat Matt · Oct 28, 2004

I had created and deleted this post (because of the predictable criticism) before I decided I just had to post this question and take the consequences...."Are the images taken with your DSLR (assuming 10D or 20D) worth all the money we've tied up in camera, lenses/accessories? Believe me, I'm not trying to start any trouble, I just want you to review some galleries w/Sony 828 or Nikon 8800 pics and tell me that yours are considerably better. I have spent a small fortune on a 10D and 4 lenses, 550EX, etc., and I have to be honest with myself...the pics I take....AND (gulp)..the pics some of "you" take, don't look any better than the digicam pics. There! I said it....let the venom fly. I'm not going to argue about it, it is just my observation. Disclaimer; some of your DSLR pics are stunning, but some of the Sony 828 pics are stunning too, portraits in particular, SHARP as a tack. My point is....if I can take equal pics with the Sony 828, why did I spend $thousands on semi-pro photo equipment? Shutter lag, startup times and incidentals aside.... I wonder if anyone else feels an eerie indigestion in their stomach after making their expensive jump from the do-it-most digicam? AND.....did you tell your WIFE/husband like I did?
--
Fat Matt

eherrmann · Oct 28, 2004

brahm · Oct 28, 2004

I think so. Sure I've seen some Great digicam pics.. But can I print them out and have them look just as good? Can I take a great macro shot a great telephoto? Can I capture the moment of an action shot without having to play the "shutter lag game" Can I play with my settings to control how I want my pictures to look not how the camera thinks my pictures can look..

I've had the Powershots, Sony whatever, and.. If somebody said here is Digicam, give me your camera and all your lenses and I'll pay you the diffrence.. I would say no..

I like having options, I like having to learn to use my equipment. I like knowing that when I take the a shot of soemthing it's the best it can possibely be with what I can afford.. Not just point shoot and hope my digicam makes it look how I feel it should

and..lucky, or un-luckly (depends on how long you've been married for

I don't have anybody to justify my expensives to

Diane B · Oct 28, 2004

I used to shoot film and then a fair number of years ago I got sucked in by digital--first a number of digicams (the last digicam was a G1), then an Oly E10 which confirmed that I was going in the right direction. BUT--I wanted more creative control over DOF for one thing--just really difficult with anything but a DSLR. I wanted less noise, higher ISOs, 'that look' LOL--I coveted the D30 first BTW--and now sit with 3 DSLRs (the D30, D60, 10D), the lenses that work for me for the commercial and personal shooting I do---and a digicam just can't do what I want.

For others, it may be just the ticket--there's nothing wrong with admitting that and settling on what serves you best. If you feel that a DSLR isn't 'it'--then sit down, do a 'what I need/want' on paper and be really really critical about this. No pie in the sky--what others THINK I should want, etc. Do a pro/con--not just money, but how you actually use a camera--and what would do the best job for you. Then---act (or not LOL).

Diane
--
Diane B
black and white lover, but color is seducing me
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries

Fat Matt · Oct 28, 2004

Brahm,

I think you actually made me realize something about myself....I'm a digicammer who purchased DSLR equipment!!. I'm dead serious. I don't think I want to take all the time and money experimenting. I just want to take good solid sharp pics. I think I can accomplish that with a prosumer digicam. I don't think I would miss many tele-shots, the Nikon 8800 has 10X optical zoom. Thanks for the response.
--
Fat Matt

Fat Matt · Oct 28, 2004

Diane,

As was the case with Braham's response, yours was insightful and correct.
--
Fat Matt

Rob V. · Oct 28, 2004

I think it's worth it, if your photography is that important to you. If it's just a fun hobby, then probably a Sony 828 might be a better option. BUt if photography is more than a hobby and you truly take pride in your work then I believe a DSLR IS worth it. Digicams are too limited in DOF control, Dynamin Range, lense options, etc. I had a Fuji S602 for some time and though the macro feature was so impressive that it couldn't get any better. Until yesterday when I got my 100m Macro and was blown away! It all depends on how much importance you put into your photography. To me, it's worth it.

--
Robert V. - 300D, FinepixS602
http://www.pbase.com/rob_v

Karl R. Josker · Oct 28, 2004

A fair question. For some people, who aren't "into" photography, but are interested in obtaining quality photos, no, a DSLR is probably not worth the money.

For those who are more creative, and are interested in doing more photographically, the DSLR is worth it, especially for the vesatility.

I would suspect that those of reading and posting to this forum have and use both, depending on circumstances, situations, and intended results.

Jeff Peterman · Oct 28, 2004

1. Depth of field. The small sensors on regular digicams mean that they have wide depth of field even when at maximum aperture. This makes it very hard to isolate the subject in a shot.

2. Response time. Even the fastest digicam takes much more time to respond to pressing the shutter and more time between shots than most of the current DSLRs.

3. Image quality. Because of the larger sensor, an image from a 6 MP SLR will be smoother than that from a digicam. Not noticeable on a 4x6 print, but a big difference if you make big prints or do a lot of cropping.
4. Flexibility.

I switched to digital in 1999, after 20 years with film SLRs. I loved many aspects of digital, but missed all those above. I was very happy with my 10D, and I'm even happier with my 20D.
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.

lisafx · Oct 28, 2004

To me anyway. I took some great photos with my f707. I was very proud of them and some of them are still among my favorite photos. However, as a tool, it really is worlds behind my 10D.

I had the opportunity to recompare the two cameras on a portrait session two days ago. The client wanted infrared portraits, so I used my 707 instead of the 10D. The portraits came out very nicely and she is thrilled with them. However, these are the differences I noticed when shooting with the 707 after using DSLR's for a year:

The lcd preview and evf are garbage compared to seeing through the lens. The sense of intimacy with your subject and the clear view through the lens is worlds better than having to rely on evf or the lcd. Night and day.

Noise was much higher with the 707 pics. And it is ugly, chunky noise, not the film grain-like noise from the 10D.

No ability for shallow DOF. No decent bokeh.

Wicked shutter lag. I tried some pics of the little boy sliding down the slide and it was torture trying to capture a clear shot of that.

The 707 is still great for IR shots and that's the reason I haven't gotten rid of it, but it's usefulness is limited. The 10D is really so much more capable and smoothly operating an instrument for capturing photos. Also, even though some of my 707 pics look great, there is a smoothness and and a 3 dimensional quality to the photos I have taken with the 10D that the 707 is just not capable of producing.

Can you get great photos with a digicam? Definitely. In my case, I get much better ones with a DSLR.

Lisa

--
LisaFX
http://www.pbase.com/lisafx

Rob van Hoorn · Oct 28, 2004

the tool that suits their needs, style and budget. For some that is a p&s, for others slr and for some even medium (or big) format.

You answered your own question, great work can be made with every tool. That's because photography is not about hardware.

Compare it with other arts: One can make a great statue in wood, rock or marble. A great painting in oil, waterpainting or pencil.
Do you really have to justify your choice to others?

Rob.

--
shoot!

butachan · Oct 28, 2004

You are correct in that an 828, etc. is capable of stunning pictures but...
Only in the right circumstances.

Forgetting about the interchangeable lenses, faster operation, greater level of control, better flash systems, etc. the 10D has one BIG advantage:

Low noise at high ISO settings. You can still take great pictures with the 10D in less than ideal lighting conditions.

--
'There is no conversation more boring than the one where everybody agrees.'

Jeff Peterman · Oct 28, 2004

I have three digitals:
A 20D with selection of lenses
A Canon S1 IS
A Canon S400

I use them all. When I can, I take the 20D. But if I'm just heading out the door and want to throw something in the car "just in case", I take the S1. If I'm going somewhere that a camera might get in the way, I take the S400 (I have this camera with me most of the time, in my briefcase for work, or in a jacket pocket otherwise.)

I've taken nice photos with each of them. But the best come from the DSLR.

(Actually, I have four - I still have my 10D, that I need to put on eBay so I can buy more lenses!)
--
Jeff Peterman

Any insults, implied anger, bad grammar and bad spelling, are entirely unintentionalal. Sorry.

SJN2004 · Oct 28, 2004

Agreed you can get very nice pics out of a Digicam. The small chip gives you a very deep depth of field. However, you'll be stuck at ISO50,100, go above this and the noise will kill your image. Secondly , just forget any action shots, the subject will have walked out of the frame before your camera has decided what to do.

--
http://www.pbase.com/sjn2003

Rob V. · Oct 28, 2004

Keep in mind that you are asking this question on a forum where people have not only already spent the money, but have experimented with photography past the limits of a digicam. For those have, it's an easy question...of course it's worth it. Consider this: I've made some deliscious ly mean dinners in my microwave but I'll never be a gourmet chef if I limit myself to just that.

--
Robert V. - 300D, FinepixS602
http://www.pbase.com/rob_v

Ann McRae · Oct 28, 2004

That was the only place that my 'digicam' (I really don't like that word!) could not perform. I am sure the 20d is worth it for indoor sports. Absolutely. I like it alot for other things as well.

I am trying to at least pay for the lenses with team and individual shot sales, as well as action shot sales. Will see where that goes.

The 828 is a great camera, and there is nothing like the swivel lens! It, of course, has its foibles, and sometimes the pf would drive me mad. But then all cameras do(have their own limitations).
ann
--
Canadian Ann
Under construction:
http://canadian-ann.smugmug.com
http://www.pbase.com/canadian_ann
http://www.cs.duke.edu/~parr/photography/faq.html
I like to call it menopause mauve!

Fat Matt · Oct 28, 2004

I guess my disappointment with my mediocre lens assortment that had me considering "L" lenses to take sharper pics has caused me to rethink the whole thing. I sure don't want to spend $3000 and still be unsatisfied.

Fat Mat

brahm · Oct 28, 2004

hahah,thats cause you haven't tried my microwaved nacho's!

jk, good comparison.

brahm · Oct 28, 2004

glad I can be of help.

SJN2004 · Oct 28, 2004

There are good cheaper lens out there.

I have a 28-135IS, the shots with this lens are very close to my L photos.

You could also get primes, these are cheaper and sharp. eg 85mm 1.8

The ISO is the biggest deal maker, my Canon G5 was JUST usable at ISO 100, my 10D can push 400 without a sweat. Thats at least two extra stops.

--
http://www.pbase.com/sjn2003

Honest question...DSLR worth the money?

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Leading Member

Forum Enthusiast

Senior Member

Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Keyboard shortcuts