-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Honest question...DSLR worth the money?
- Thread starter Fat Matt
- Start date
Todd Walker
Veteran Member
There are two big reasons that I bought my 10D:
1. Low noise at high ISOs
2. Depth of field control
If it's at all possible to do so, available light will almost always give you much better (more pleasing) results than using a flash. With my 10D, I routinely use my 50/1.8 at ISO 800 and get excellent available light shots. A "digicam" can't do that because high ISOs kill image quality. The noise at 400 on my F707 is atrocious and even at 200, it's quite offensive.
On the DOF issue, I take portraits and you have to be able to blur the background and get nice bokeh so that the background won't be distracting. P&S digitals can't do this.
I guess you need to understand the advantages that SLRs have over digicams then determine if those advantages are important enough to you to spend the extra money. If they aren't, stick with the digicam. They are so good now there's certainly no shame in that
--
Todd Walker
http://www.toddwalker.net
http://www.twphotography.net
http://www.pbase.com/twalker294
J Thompson
Senior Member
--
To over-expose is human...
Al Kaponen
Forum Enthusiast
Absolutely! I could never manage to take such pictures with my Minolta DiMAGE 7 than I take with 10D/20D! Just for an example see here:
http://personal.inet.fi/private/pekhaa9/zap/battle/index.htm
The pictures were taken with ISO 800, 400mm, f6.3-7.1, 1/320-1/400 secs during 5 seconds time. No way a prosumer camera could do this.
Freeman-Jo
Senior Member
I mean, there were games back in the Nintendo/SNES days that are still good, and most people haven't play. Why get a new console? Is it because of the new 3D graphics/sound? many games have the same story line, just improve graphics, some even worse than original games. But why people spend more money to get the latest game console/games? These are as valid as the questions you asked. Do you consider yourself a hardcore gamer? Do you feel the need to play certain games 20 times so you can see all the ending, and get all the bonus and get the perfect score? Or you just want to finish the games?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixel is it?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.jotographer.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
--
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
If picture worth a thousand words, how many megapixel is it?
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
http://www.jotographer.com
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
brahm
Leading Member
..I consider myself a hardcore gamer.. and I still whip out Zelda on NES every once in a while to save Link from Ganon.
Fat Matt
Member
I am not "old" yet, 48 in a few days....and yes, I was satisfield once I captured the Princess many years ago. I have never played a video game since.
--
Fat Matt
--
Fat Matt
Juli Valley
Forum Pro
--
I keep trying to find an artist's eye in the B & H catalog.
http://www.pbase.com/julivalley/galleries
http://www.photosig.com/go/users/view?id=19579
Canon OneD mkII, Canon 2oD, Olympus C-3o4oZ.
Juli
Fat Matt
Member
Juli,
I am honored to by replied to by the poster who is held in the highest esteem by all in this forum. I think what I'm gonna do is do a little more research and buy a prosumer digicam. I can use the excuse that it is replacing my Olympus 2100uzi (which still works good). That way, if I grow weary of it's limitations, I can let my wife keep it. Her optical/photographic image requirements are not nearly as grand as mine.
--
Fat Matt
I am honored to by replied to by the poster who is held in the highest esteem by all in this forum. I think what I'm gonna do is do a little more research and buy a prosumer digicam. I can use the excuse that it is replacing my Olympus 2100uzi (which still works good). That way, if I grow weary of it's limitations, I can let my wife keep it. Her optical/photographic image requirements are not nearly as grand as mine.
--
Fat Matt
I have mixed Canon Ls with Canon consumers plus Sigma and TAmron lenses (in fact, my WA range under 24mm is all shot with Sigmas--Sigma 15-30, 20 f/1.8 and 15 f/2.8 FE). Then again my favorite lens is the 24-70L, but I also own the 28-135IS and can recommend it also. You don't have to have L lenses to benefit from a DSLR.
Diane.
--
Diane B
black and white lover, but color is seducing me
http://www.pbase.com/picnic/galleries
Bob Murching
Forum Enthusiast
Coming from a 717 to a 20D, I have learned that,
- Shooting RAW can be a huge advantage in certain situations and RAW shooting is much less burdensome in the various midrange DSLRs.
- Postprocessing isn't for everyone and it ISN'T always necessary, no matter what they say. However, if you feel the need to do it, low-noise images (often from DSLRs) definitely seem to handle digital manipulation more easily.
- The responsiveness is very enabling. Granted responsiveness has nothing to do with DSLRs, it's just that the DSLRs today tend to be more responsive.
Juli Valley
Forum Pro
I went from the UZi to a Canon D60, then a 10D, and now a 20D and 1D mkII. I'm a little nuts. Maybe a lot. LOL.
If you shoot action, get a 20D. It clicks off 5 fps and focuses well. If you don't shoot sports, you might not need a DSLR if the shutter lag and noise of your UZi has not bothered you. Keep in mind that you will have to do more post-processing with a DSLR. You will also need several lenses for different purposes. There is no really good equivalent of your 28-280 zoom in one lens in my humble opinion.
If you shoot action, get a 20D. It clicks off 5 fps and focuses well. If you don't shoot sports, you might not need a DSLR if the shutter lag and noise of your UZi has not bothered you. Keep in mind that you will have to do more post-processing with a DSLR. You will also need several lenses for different purposes. There is no really good equivalent of your 28-280 zoom in one lens in my humble opinion.
damonff
Forum Enthusiast
Both take great photos. When I need to take photos in a low light situation, I need my 10D with one of my low light lenses. I have a 200mm Canon L and a Sigma 20mm EX. Both are great in low light. My 828 photos in low light are ok, but nothing like the ones I take with the low light, fast lenses and the 10D. I use both cameras...
There are some very good replies in this thread. I am a 35mm SLR convert, first to an S40 which I still have, then a 20D. Both cameras will stay in my bag. The S40 is a perfect grab and go camera when you don't intend to go out and take pictures but might want to anyway. Full controls in creative mode including RAW at 4mp. Small, smooth "lozenge" shape with nicely rounded corners, it slips into a pocket easily on rides in a small camera bag on a belt loop. Lovely images and good AE and AF and WB performance.
The 20D is more serious. Advantages have already been given, but for me the ability to use specific lenses, the far better macro capability (I use a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX macro), nearly instant on and shutter response, the ability to lock AF and AE, manual focus (a joke on the S40's little LCD, but possible), and a far better viewfinder for composition and depth of field.
Depends entirely on what you intend to use it for, and how much you are willing to spend on lenses.
The 20D is more serious. Advantages have already been given, but for me the ability to use specific lenses, the far better macro capability (I use a Sigma 50mm f/2.8 EX macro), nearly instant on and shutter response, the ability to lock AF and AE, manual focus (a joke on the S40's little LCD, but possible), and a far better viewfinder for composition and depth of field.
Depends entirely on what you intend to use it for, and how much you are willing to spend on lenses.
brahm
Leading Member
..You gotta beat the game twice to really save the princess... Ghost 'n' Golbins you gotta do it 3 times!
Karl Mueller
Well-known member
... the most important component - YOU - to take great pictures.
The "digicam" type cameras are more braindead and out of camera. If you point a DSLR at somebody, even in the fully automatic modes, it requires some knowledge of what is going on (often) to take an above-average shot. Talent will work with any camera to make the shot, but you also need to know the technical details to make the shot great. Digicams are more configured for point & shoot.
Then, after taking a decent picture, the DSLR needs you usually to do a bit of work on the processing end to really bring out the great qualities of the photo. With the digicam pictures, you often don't have much to work with - it's all processed for you.
When I first got my DSLR, the pictures looked the same (or worse) than my digicam photos. Now that I've shot it for a while, they are far beyond what I could do with them. Part of that is better lenses, but a lot of it is knowing what I'm doing with the better equipment.
-Karl
The "digicam" type cameras are more braindead and out of camera. If you point a DSLR at somebody, even in the fully automatic modes, it requires some knowledge of what is going on (often) to take an above-average shot. Talent will work with any camera to make the shot, but you also need to know the technical details to make the shot great. Digicams are more configured for point & shoot.
Then, after taking a decent picture, the DSLR needs you usually to do a bit of work on the processing end to really bring out the great qualities of the photo. With the digicam pictures, you often don't have much to work with - it's all processed for you.
When I first got my DSLR, the pictures looked the same (or worse) than my digicam photos. Now that I've shot it for a while, they are far beyond what I could do with them. Part of that is better lenses, but a lot of it is knowing what I'm doing with the better equipment.
-Karl
Joe Reilly129599
Senior Member
In fact, the best kind: An honest question seeking an honest answer. Here's my installment...
Yes, for a variety of reasons, the sum-total of which is I enjoy it more and do it better. My images are nothing to write home about, but they are better composed with far greater attention to lightening, framing, DOF, and focal length. To be sure, some of that is just experience (an incremental, never-ending journey), but a lot of it is inherent to SLR photography. I find that optical viewing, mechanical zooming, and near-instantaneous response yields a more organic and "connected" experience. By "connected", I mean with my subject. When shooting with a digicam, I feel there is a layer of abstraction between me and my subject, something that hampers my ability to capture its character.
Yes, because I love playing with focal lengths and the differing perspectives they offer. I love focal range not because of where it lets you stand, but how it lets you control perspective and the overall relationship of subject to ground. Want expanse? Use a wide angle. Want intimacy/isolation? Use long-telephoto. My collection of 4 lenses (most consumer-grade) stretches from 18mm to 500mm. That's a lot of room to play.
Yes, because I like the shallower DOF inherent to SLR photography. I read once that, all other things equal, f/2.8 on a digicam is comparable to f/11 on an SLR. I favor simple, isolated subjects and, thus, love shallow DOF. It can be hard to truly grasp the concepts of figure and ground when almost everything is in (or near) focus.
Yes, because I am a self-diagnosed pixel-peeper and I love crisp, clean images. I print very little so, practically speaking, it makes little sense for me to shoot an 8MP 20D. I don't care. I love the brutal sharpness without digital crunchies and the smooth, relatively noiseless blur of the background.
Perhaps I'm self-justifying a level of expense I never planned (it just kinda happens), but I don't think so. My grass is greener because I shoot a dSLR. I also own a Canon PowerShot S1 IS, but "little brother" is a carry-about and a change of pace only. My 20D is the varsity squad and my digicam is happy just to carry the clipboard now and then.
Great question. Sorry if I bored you with a long-winded response.
Joe
http://www.pbase.com/misterpix
Yes, for a variety of reasons, the sum-total of which is I enjoy it more and do it better. My images are nothing to write home about, but they are better composed with far greater attention to lightening, framing, DOF, and focal length. To be sure, some of that is just experience (an incremental, never-ending journey), but a lot of it is inherent to SLR photography. I find that optical viewing, mechanical zooming, and near-instantaneous response yields a more organic and "connected" experience. By "connected", I mean with my subject. When shooting with a digicam, I feel there is a layer of abstraction between me and my subject, something that hampers my ability to capture its character.
Yes, because I love playing with focal lengths and the differing perspectives they offer. I love focal range not because of where it lets you stand, but how it lets you control perspective and the overall relationship of subject to ground. Want expanse? Use a wide angle. Want intimacy/isolation? Use long-telephoto. My collection of 4 lenses (most consumer-grade) stretches from 18mm to 500mm. That's a lot of room to play.
Yes, because I like the shallower DOF inherent to SLR photography. I read once that, all other things equal, f/2.8 on a digicam is comparable to f/11 on an SLR. I favor simple, isolated subjects and, thus, love shallow DOF. It can be hard to truly grasp the concepts of figure and ground when almost everything is in (or near) focus.
Yes, because I am a self-diagnosed pixel-peeper and I love crisp, clean images. I print very little so, practically speaking, it makes little sense for me to shoot an 8MP 20D. I don't care. I love the brutal sharpness without digital crunchies and the smooth, relatively noiseless blur of the background.
Perhaps I'm self-justifying a level of expense I never planned (it just kinda happens), but I don't think so. My grass is greener because I shoot a dSLR. I also own a Canon PowerShot S1 IS, but "little brother" is a carry-about and a change of pace only. My 20D is the varsity squad and my digicam is happy just to carry the clipboard now and then.
Great question. Sorry if I bored you with a long-winded response.
Joe
--
http://www.pbase.com/misterpix
trijicon
Leading Member
Dont feel bad about your post. I was in the same situation. But after having the 10D and now the 20D, it really opened up a whole new world. The most obvious was the use of primes, awesome DOF, faster lenses, super tele's and WA's, and a view finder. Sure the back screen is cool but its just not the real thing. With (D)SLR's I can now shoot more creative wedding photography as well as serious sports.
trijicon
Leading Member
Julio
Senior Member
This is a good question and it touches on a lot of intersting points.
One of the biggest disadvantages of the P&S cameras is the sensor size: size matters with resolution, quality, freedom from aberrations and most of all noise. DSLRs have bigger sensors with sophisticated noise reduction that allows hand-held shooting in conditions that are almost impossible with a camera where the noise becomes excessive at 400. I can shoot and have at 800, 1600 and with the 20D even at 3200 with great results. Small cameras will always have small sensors because otherwise the lens size requirements would increase in size tremendously.
Secondly, there is lens quality. There is no lens that is made as a "one-size-fits-all" solution that can match the quality of specialized lenses. This even applies within the expensive Canon L line - the 38-300 L zoom is no match at 300 for the 300 f2.8 or the 300 f4; and there is no P&S macro capability that will match the 100 f2.8 macro that you can swap onto a DSLR body, or even what you can get with a good prime lens and extension tubes.
Can you take great shots with a P&S? Of course you can - as long as you know your tool and use it in a way that emphasizes its strengths and not its weaknesses.
I have had 3 co-workers - all casual photographers - approach me about digital cameras advise recently and I steered all 3 of them towards either the Canon S1 IS or the Panasonic KZ line. They are all thrilled with their cameras... If and when they find their camera limiting in some way and ask me to recommend something to overcome whatever this limitation is THEN I'll steer them towards a DSLR. I think that this is a natural progresion for some but definitely not all.
One of the biggest disadvantages of the P&S cameras is the sensor size: size matters with resolution, quality, freedom from aberrations and most of all noise. DSLRs have bigger sensors with sophisticated noise reduction that allows hand-held shooting in conditions that are almost impossible with a camera where the noise becomes excessive at 400. I can shoot and have at 800, 1600 and with the 20D even at 3200 with great results. Small cameras will always have small sensors because otherwise the lens size requirements would increase in size tremendously.
Secondly, there is lens quality. There is no lens that is made as a "one-size-fits-all" solution that can match the quality of specialized lenses. This even applies within the expensive Canon L line - the 38-300 L zoom is no match at 300 for the 300 f2.8 or the 300 f4; and there is no P&S macro capability that will match the 100 f2.8 macro that you can swap onto a DSLR body, or even what you can get with a good prime lens and extension tubes.
Can you take great shots with a P&S? Of course you can - as long as you know your tool and use it in a way that emphasizes its strengths and not its weaknesses.
I have had 3 co-workers - all casual photographers - approach me about digital cameras advise recently and I steered all 3 of them towards either the Canon S1 IS or the Panasonic KZ line. They are all thrilled with their cameras... If and when they find their camera limiting in some way and ask me to recommend something to overcome whatever this limitation is THEN I'll steer them towards a DSLR. I think that this is a natural progresion for some but definitely not all.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum