iPhone and superzoom more useful than DSLR

I have owned a D7k and some good glass for not far from 18 months. I had about 18'000 shots on the meter in the 1st year. It DOES deliver.

But.

But it's heavy, bulky, inconvenient in many ways. It's incompatible with business trips, with commuting, with the odd errand, with biking, with mountaineering (oh sure I realise there are a few heroes out there who go for that extra bulk and weight, but that's a minority and they're losing in flexibility)

So what happens?

I increasingly get more (most?) of my shooting done with my iPhone, or at the limit with my Panasonic pocketable superzoom.

• The iPhone is always with me (though the battery life stinks it is way too short).
• The superzoom helps for those distant subjects or macro.
• one can kept at hand in a chest pouch, the other in the same pocket or a belt pocket. So both HELP my creativity, where a DSLR would HINDER it

So what gives?

• these tools don't get my nice shallow DOF for a portrait. So what, I mostly only care about portraits of the kids which I can do at home anyway
• these tools deliver quite decent IQ at least in good light. Of course that IQ is indeed lower than that of my 7k with good glass (and it better be, given that the 7k w good class costs several times more and weighs several times more too)
• these tools cannot do continuous shooting with AF, BUT they can film action (which the D7k cannot)

one recent example of a mountain tour where the DSLR once more stayed home

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1936939160889.56042.1764685919&type=1&l=1d179ded76

antoineb said:

I have owned a D7k and some good glass for not far from 18 months. I had about 18'000 shots on the meter in the 1st year. It DOES deliver.

But.

But it's heavy, bulky, inconvenient in many ways. It's incompatible with business trips, with commuting, with the odd errand, with biking, with mountaineering (oh sure I realise there are a few heroes out there who go for that extra bulk and weight, but that's a minority and they're losing in flexibility)

So what happens?

I increasingly get more (most?) of my shooting done with my iPhone, or at the limit with my Panasonic pocketable superzoom.

• The iPhone is always with me (though the battery life stinks it is way too short).
• The superzoom helps for those distant subjects or macro.
• one can kept at hand in a chest pouch, the other in the same pocket or a belt pocket. So both HELP my creativity, where a DSLR would HINDER it

So what gives?

• these tools don't get my nice shallow DOF for a portrait. So what, I mostly only care about portraits of the kids which I can do at home anyway
• these tools deliver quite decent IQ at least in good light. Of course that IQ is indeed lower than that of my 7k with good glass (and it better be, given that the 7k w good class costs several times more and weighs several times more too)
• these tools cannot do continuous shooting with AF, BUT they can film action (which the D7k cannot)

one recent example of a mountain tour where the DSLR once more stayed home

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1936939160889.56042.1764685919&type=1&l=1d179ded76

Click to expand...

Um, HUH? The point of this "posting"?

WOW. There are so many ridiculous ideas in this, I'm baffled.

Oh, crap, sorry, I fed the troll. My bad.

Yes, it's true, taking a point and shoot doesn't weigh as much as a DSLR and, indeed, doesn't take as good pics as a DSLR or have the same features, but, yes, a point and shoot will take pretty snapshots.

There, that about sums it up.

Yup, you have found that DSLRs are bulky/heavy/inconvenient. If you're willing to compromise on IQ, there are much more convenient solutions available.

I find it fascinating that smartphones (you own an iPhone, I own a win7 phone) have eaten into the compact camera realm. One of the points of compact cameras was to have a camera that you could have if you didn't want to mess with the weight/bulk/cost of a better camera.

Supposedly, smartphones are well on the way to becoming the #1 camera type in the world.

Personally, I dislike the rather severe IQ degradation that I get with a cell-phone camera (even the better ones).

To get around that, I recently picked up a Canon G1X to have when I don't want to carry my D7000. It gives me IQ about as good as my D7000 (even in low light situations), in a much more portable package. It's still huge compared to my phone, but I don't lose out on IQ. I do lose out on functionality (much slower to take photos, slow at longer focal lengths, no real telephoto or macro).

IMO, one needs to decide how much they are willing to compromise on IQ for convenience. In your case, it sounds like cell-phone-quality IQ and super-zoom-compact IQ is enough. For me it wasn't (thus the G1X). For some, only an FX body with pro-level glass is sufficient.

And if all you care about is pretty snapshots, then why have a DSLR in the first place. The P&S cameras are "good enough" for a lot of photography. However, I don't think I will ever give up my DSLR, "good enough" as far as P&S cameras is NOT "good enough" for me.
--
As far as possible, without surrender,
be on good terms with all persons.
-- Max Ehrmann

antoineb said:

I have owned a D7k and some good glass for not far from 18 months. I had about 18'000 shots on the meter in the 1st year. It DOES deliver.

But.

But it's heavy, bulky, inconvenient in many ways. It's incompatible with business trips, with commuting, with the odd errand, with biking, with mountaineering (oh sure I realise there are a few heroes out there who go for that extra bulk and weight, but that's a minority and they're losing in flexibility)

So what happens?

I increasingly get more (most?) of my shooting done with my iPhone, or at the limit with my Panasonic pocketable superzoom.

• The iPhone is always with me (though the battery life stinks it is way too short).
• The superzoom helps for those distant subjects or macro.
• one can kept at hand in a chest pouch, the other in the same pocket or a belt pocket. So both HELP my creativity, where a DSLR would HINDER it

So what gives?

• these tools don't get my nice shallow DOF for a portrait. So what, I mostly only care about portraits of the kids which I can do at home anyway
• these tools deliver quite decent IQ at least in good light. Of course that IQ is indeed lower than that of my 7k with good glass (and it better be, given that the 7k w good class costs several times more and weighs several times more too)
• these tools cannot do continuous shooting with AF, BUT they can film action (which the D7k cannot)

one recent example of a mountain tour where the DSLR once more stayed home

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1936939160889.56042.1764685919&type=1&l=1d179ded76

Click to expand...

Welcome to the rapidly expanding segment of the photographic market that values convenience, connectedness, and flexibility over ultimate image quality and control and the size and weight penalties that exacts. For most purposes, a DSLR is overkill, especially when you are travelling fast and light. The writing is on the wall for such devices, as well as for lower-end point and shoots. If you are brave, sell your D7K and get a V1 for the shots where you'd like a skosh more IQ than your superzoom can deliver. You'll probably never miss your big DSLR brick. But if you're into the highest quality photography, you have to prioritize its use over whatever else you're doing to justify carrying it. You sound like you're into enjoying your activities and occasionally documenting them photographically. For that, you're using the correct tools.

What about a D3100 or D5100? With some light lenses like a 35mm f1.8g and a superzoom like the Sigma 18-200mm f/3.5-6.3 II DC OS HSM. You're getting a package that not that much bigger or heavier than a compact superzoom, but 10x the IQ. Personally right now on my vacation, I bring my wife D3100, 18-105mm vr, 35mm 1.8g, and a sony Tx10 water proof point and shoot. Light, fun, and great IQ.

If you´re happy with the IQ, or lack of it, you´re doing the right thing!

I´m always traveling for business... that´s pretty much all I do unfortunately. And I can understand what you are saying. We just have different views on portability and IQ. Right now I´m in a, uh... business trip in Spain. All I brought was a d3100 with a 35mm prime. That´s portable enough for me and I´ll come back with some decent photos to show off to my family and friends.

".....but that's a minority and they're losing in flexibility..."

So you have all that "good glass" and your P&S still offers more flexibility? Hell, this is a no brainer...your D7000 is being wasted!

My phone has a 5 GB camera in it. I'd never taken pics with it till yesterday. I shoot real estate and have to convince brokers to use me with my tripod/strobes/DSLR rather than them using their own camera phones. So I went back to places I'd shot before and did the same shots with my phone.

In a word...yuck. I'm working up a slideshow with "before and after" shots and if they don't "get it" from that they never will.

antoineb said:

I have owned a D7k and some good glass for not far from 18 months. I had about 18'000 shots on the meter in the 1st year. It DOES deliver.

But.

But it's heavy, bulky, inconvenient in many ways. It's incompatible with business trips, with commuting, with the odd errand, with biking, with mountaineering (oh sure I realise there are a few heroes out there who go for that extra bulk and weight, but that's a minority and they're losing in flexibility)

So what happens?

I increasingly get more (most?) of my shooting done with my iPhone, or at the limit with my Panasonic pocketable superzoom.

• The iPhone is always with me (though the battery life stinks it is way too short).
• The superzoom helps for those distant subjects or macro.
• one can kept at hand in a chest pouch, the other in the same pocket or a belt pocket. So both HELP my creativity, where a DSLR would HINDER it

So what gives?

• these tools don't get my nice shallow DOF for a portrait. So what, I mostly only care about portraits of the kids which I can do at home anyway
• these tools deliver quite decent IQ at least in good light. Of course that IQ is indeed lower than that of my 7k with good glass (and it better be, given that the 7k w good class costs several times more and weighs several times more too)
• these tools cannot do continuous shooting with AF, BUT they can film action (which the D7k cannot)

one recent example of a mountain tour where the DSLR once more stayed home

https://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.1936939160889.56042.1764685919&type=1&l=1d179ded76

Click to expand...

I'm doing more and more shooting with my iPhone as it's always with me. Have you downloaded the app "Camera +"? It's less that $1 and really enhances the camera functions.

But I agree with others that when it comes to "the hobby" and quality time with it, my D40 or LX5 comes out to play.

I feel sorry about your attitude, include rude language.

Frankly, I DO love photography. I DID invest in some serious equipment, it's only APS-C but still, and the 85mm f1.4 is a great lens and it's not my only one either.

HOWEVER, I was surprised how much more convenient some much simpler tools like the iPhone, or a pocketable superzoom, such that someone like me would come back to them so often, EVEN AFTER having shelled a couple thousand on some serious gear.

I think if would be more constructive if instead of dismissing, people like you also wondered. I DO hope the DSLR makers ARE wondering - well I guess Nikon came out with the V1 but I doubt that passed the initial marketing wave this is going to convince many people, and neither am I convinced by the large sensor fixed zoom lens of the Canon G.

• the DSLR is so big and heavy that it regularly misses a LOT of opportunities
• the IQ gap is MUCH smaller than it used to be, at least in good light

Just negatiing, or making fun, including of someone who actually DOES own the big bulky expensive (and often less useful) gear, serves no constructive purpose.

I DO hope, for their own sake, that DSLR makers are indeed questioning their future in a more constructive, no taboos, way, than what you seem ready to discuss.

most reviews I've read complain about slow general operation, and slow focus, commenting that it kind of puts you back to what compact cameras were capable of a few years back.

they all love the IQ though

thanks for your constructive thoughts

I know the occasions where the D7k has an advantage, and I've grown to accept that this will largely be limited to places where I have both hands free for the camera, and can get to those places by car, or at most a short walk.

I get nice shallow DOF portraits of the kids with the great 85mm f1.4 G for one.

so it doesn't mean I want to sell my D7k - why would I take a paper loss? It just means I'll use it less, and so it will last quite a few years and I won't care a bit when the next model comes out, and the next model after that.

as for the 1? I hate the looks of it, I hate its ergonomics, and it's quite heavy also. It's responsive but the IQ isn't that great, you can't do shallow DOF, the lenses are nothing to write home about. So basically you get the inconvenience of a system camera (bag of lenses and all, extra charger, etc) but you also get a lower IQ than my D7k delivers. I personally don't see the point ;-)

totally agree

if you're going to sell real-estate, one of your competitive advantages is good pictures

a DSLR can deliver good IQ including in difficult, or low, light.

and you probably get to most of these places by car so the bulk / weight / tripod is not an issue.

the only thing that's too bad, is that quite a few of the bulkier models of superzooms correct most distorsions quite well, actually better than a lot of DSLRs do in-camera - and for real-estate I would imagine it to be an advantage to have right angles looking like right angles.

I wasn´t being rude nor was I making fun of you... I was dead serious that a d3100 with a small pirme is more than compact enough for me.

Thank God for a variety of equipment preferences.............what a dull hobby (and forum content) this would be if everyone had the same equipment and attitude.

Sorry, Antoineb: the photographic gallery you linked, here, compromises your opinion.

Your photographs suffer from terrible dynamic range (shadows are almost completely black / detail in snow is almost entirely gone). The color (at least on my calibrated monitor) is muddy near the dark end of the spectrum, brassy and thin near the light. There's noise and JPEG compression artifacts everywhere.

I'm not saying "your photography sucks." These issues are all compromises I'd expect from the gear. (Though, to be fair: you haven't taken any extraordinary steps to work around said issues or to "use" them with particular creative flair. I've seen some extraordinary work from cell phone cameras that really embraces the character of their output--your gallery isn't on that list.)

So the natural question, then, is this: if you're arguing that the iPhone and your super zoom are more useful than your D7K + pro glass, then I've got to ask "more useful for what?" Yes: they are more useful for making lackluster photographs.

It sucks to carry professional photographic gear up a mountain. It always has. And the quality / convenience trade-off has been with us for a while, too. Thirty years ago, you'd have been comparing small film formats (110? Kodak Disc? 35mm?) with medium format or 4x5. And the trade-offs were identical: 110/Disc/35mm was more convenient, but medium format / 4x5 was so much prettier, in terms of color, detail, dynamic range, etc. Inconvenience didn't stop Ansel Adams from hauling a 4x5 field camera around Yosemite. No one in their right mind will argue that a Vivitar 110 or a Kodak Disc camera would've been "more useful" to Ansel. Give me a break!

I suggest, then, that you revise your argument's thesis to this:

antoineb said:

I'm not really committed to good photography, so equipment that produces lackluster results is more useful to me.

Click to expand...

Makes much more sense--and I'd agree with you, completely.

I would love a tiny camera that takes better photos than my Nikon system. I keep wanting to venture into m43, EVIL, or 1. None of them are there yet, and the small interchangeable systems still wind up pretty large once you start a lens collection.

The G1X is the "smallest" camera that I would consider to replace my DSLR if I can't lug it around, and I'm still unhappy with it.