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

Started Feb 14, 2013 | Discussions thread
Donald B
Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 11,868
Re: dSLR can be themost cost-effective route

Midwest wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

Hatstand wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

Do you have to be a pro musician to own a quality stereo system?


Does every non-musician have to own a quality stereo system?

This thread is NOT about every person on the planet owning a dSLR.

Now define "quality"... you see where this is going?

The equivalent of dSLR? A system worth thousand of $$$?

I like to bring this up when the subject of dSLR cost comes up... it does relate back to the thread topic so I hope you'll bear with me.

My first dSLR, a Canon XSi, was bought two years after introduction as a closeout at a department store. I think I paid $575 at the time including the 18-55 IS kit zoom. I bought a pair of new/unused lenses on Ebay that the buyer must have gotten with a 'kit' and didn't need (55-250 IS zoom, and 50mm 1.8). That was another $250 for a total of $825.

(I'll leave off the cost of a spare battery, a couple of polarizers, etc.)

Last fall I snagged a deal with a Canon T3i, the 18-55 and 55-250 kit zooms, and a pro level Canon photo printer (plus another $100 worth of extras - 13x19 photo paper, SD card, spare battery, extra cable). Everything was new, no refurbs or anything. It cost me $999 and came with a $400 rebate, making the actual cost $599, no tax, no shipping. I sold off those two kit lenses (I already had them in perfect shape), sold my XSi camera body on Ebay (almost like new with box and all materials) and the net cost of upgrading my camera body and acquiring the printer, paper, and etc. ended up being $137 - including providing free shipping and paying seller's fees on Ebay. I've left nothing out. $137.

My total investment after three years, in a dSLR system that I am very happy with, is under $1000 and I'm set for this year and probably next and maybe even the year after. I watch the bridge zoom and 'compact' users racing to get on line for the next $500 or $600 release of their camera, over and over (hoping for "dSLR-like" image quality they're not going to get) and it becomes clear to me that the dSLR is not always the expensive route in photography. It seems to me it's mostly the new-model-chasers who are the ones saying 'dSLR's are too expensive, you have to buy thousands of dollars and lug a bag of glass, etc. etc.' And while some poo-poo the kit lenses, Canon's are actually quite good performers.

And, for some reason, the Canon Rebel series (T3i, T4i, 600d, 650d, whatever) even appears to be less expensive than the indisputably less-capable M mirrorless model.

Back to the thread topic, that's one reason why this non-pro is using a dSLR and will gladly continue doing so.

you seem to constanly refer to the image quality of a p&s to an slr . here is an example of a xz1 againt the 5dmk2 at an event iwas shooting ,just for fun i ripped out the xz1. buy the way the 5dmk2 is pretty ordinary to say the least. these are crops of original.

-- hide signature --

Pentax K7, Panasonic fz150, Olympus XZ1, my main toys.

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