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

Started Feb 14, 2013 | Discussions
Fazal Majid
Fazal Majid Senior Member • Posts: 1,658
Re: Do you non professionals still use DSLR's? And why?

Yes. My Canon 5DmkIII with 24-70mm f/2.8L II locks AF on my very wriggly 1 year old in a way none of my mirrorless cameras can (Leica X1, Fuji X100, Fuji X-Pro1, Sony RX1). The optical quality from the 24-70mm is also absolutely stellar.

-- hide signature --

Fazal Majid (http://www.majid.info)

 Fazal Majid's gear list:Fazal Majid's gear list
Sony RX1R II Ricoh GR III Fujifilm X-T2 Leica M10 Nikon Z7 +28 more
Bill Force
Bill Force Veteran Member • Posts: 6,607
Re: What is a dSLR?

I have both of the old Minoltas and use them occasionally, one for IR like you say BUT if you want an action photo such as a "bird in flight" then you better NAIL the bird to a tree to be able to find it for a shot. I have 2 DSLR's for anything above a slow walk.

-- hide signature --

' You don't have to have the best of everything to get the best out of what you do have'.

aja2
aja2 Veteran Member • Posts: 3,657
Yessir: Do you non professionals still use DSLR's? And why?

Yup - because I like the size & quality. And once it's dead, I"m buying another one - this time, weather-sealed. Thanks for asking.

declan79
declan79 Regular Member • Posts: 366
Re: Do you non professionals still use DSLR's? And why?

Yes i'm a non prof using DSLR for capture moment and also having ILC for the same purpose, because i'm still comfortable using both system depend on the photo spot,situation,condition and purposes

 declan79's gear list:declan79's gear list
Olympus E-3 Olympus OM-D E-M5 Samsung NX300 Olympus Zuiko Digital 14-54mm 1:2.8-3.5 II Panasonic Leica D Summilux Asph 25mm F1.4 +6 more
Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,309
Re: Living in the past?

Hatstand wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Hatstand wrote:

Shutter response: 600D 0.1 sec, FZ150 0.05 sec
Focus - wide, shutter response: 600D 0.2 sec, FZ150 0.15 sec
Focus - telephoto, shutter response: 600D 0.25 sec, FZ150 0.25 sec
Shot to shot - without flash: 600D 0.4-0.5 sec, FZ150 0.6 sec (~)
Shot to shot - with flash: 600D 0.6-0.7, FZ150 0.8 sec (~)
Continuous shooting - JPEG: 4fps, FZ150 5.5 fps
Continuous shooting - RAW: 600D 3fps (6 shots), FZ150 5.5 fps

This list missed one of the most important criteria for Action shooting - high iso quality.

600D can maintain "an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits" at iso 793 while FZ150 can only do the same at iso 132.

I didn't put it on the list because a) I consider that a factor for image quality, not action photography and b) I don't consider it important.

It has not stopped me taking photos of high speed action, and the FZ150's image quality is sufficient for my (modest) needs.

Allowing of course that your needs and others' needs will often be different, here's how I see it:

Shooting action requires dealing with the eternal triangle of f-stop vs. shutter speed vs. ISO setting. If you have a faster lens (like the FZ200), or if you have a sensor that handles higher ISO's cleanly, either of those takes pressure off the other two settings, making it easier to get action stopping shutter speed combined with a quieter / lower ISO setting.

There are two things that ruin an action photo for me - noise, and motion blur. A good high ISO is instrumental in reducing both of those. It's why I moved TO a DSLR and I haven't been disappointed. Besides, going the DSLR route in the long run can be cheaper than repeatedly buying bridge cameras as some people do. But for those who prefer to stay with a bridge, the FZ200 is going to be clearly the leader among bridge cams for action shooting.

-- hide signature --

You don't TAKE a photo, you MAKE a photo.

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,309
Re: Living in the past?

RedFox88 wrote:

Hatstand wrote:

These figures are from tests by ephotozine.com. I don't know how they measured those, but I can say subjectively, that I found little difference in performance between 600D and FZ150 for action photography. The image stabilisation on the FZ150 (subjectively again) is as good as I got from Canon lenses.

Those are nice numbers, but the quality of focus, image sensor/lens clarity are much different from an SLR to a P&S superzoom.

Hmm, are you sure you shoot action photography? Image stabilization is of little to no use for action photos because shutter speed are needed to be fast enough to freeze action which will also eliminate camera shake.

I would disagree with that. Image stabilization, especially at zoom distances, makes it easier to compose your shot with a stable image - assuming optical stabilization - and also lets the autofocus and metering work with a stable area of the shot instead of a jittery view that is harder for the camera to base its settings on.

I shoot action and I leave the IS turned on all the time - not to prevent camera shake in the images, but to give both me and the camera a better quality image to work with prior to the shot.

And you can always slap a better, higher quality lens on an SLR but with a P&S camera you are stuck with the lens that's on it. A teleconverter on a P&S isn't worth it for the results.

Very true.

-- hide signature --

You don't TAKE a photo, you MAKE a photo.

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,309
Re: Do you non professionals still use DSLR's? And why?
1

chopsteeks wrote:

Midwest wrote:

gooseta wrote:
Most DSLRs are pretty small, so don't play the "compact" card. Even an EP series camera wont fit into a coat pocket because it has a big-*ss lens on it!

I get such a laugh out of the people with their compact sized cameras (as opposed to what they call big, bulky, oversized etc. DSLR's) who then post pictures of their little cameras with enormous lenses hanging off the front, topped off by a lens hood that looks like a toilet plunger.

Looks like a Munchkin who took an overdose of Viagra.

I had seen folks during some of my hikes with a 'compact' camera with a 80-200mm size lens attached to it mounted on a big tripod really to support the lens...

Kinda hilarious ..

It really is. And it does seem to me that the more the user (on some of these forums) insists that a DSLR is 'too big', the more likely they are to trot out an absurdly large lens / toilet plunger combo to show us their pride and joy. As a bonus there may be a hinged add-on EVF, taking up the hot shoe (sorry, no flash...) and the end result is as sexy as one of the Frankenstein monster's shoes.

But it's compact! So much better than a bulky DSLR!

-- hide signature --

You don't TAKE a photo, you MAKE a photo.

ultimitsu
ultimitsu Veteran Member • Posts: 6,650
Re: Living in the past?

Hatstand wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

Hatstand wrote:

Shutter response: 600D 0.1 sec, FZ150 0.05 sec
Focus - wide, shutter response: 600D 0.2 sec, FZ150 0.15 sec
Focus - telephoto, shutter response: 600D 0.25 sec, FZ150 0.25 sec
Shot to shot - without flash: 600D 0.4-0.5 sec, FZ150 0.6 sec (~)
Shot to shot - with flash: 600D 0.6-0.7, FZ150 0.8 sec (~)
Continuous shooting - JPEG: 4fps, FZ150 5.5 fps
Continuous shooting - RAW: 600D 3fps (6 shots), FZ150 5.5 fps

This list missed one of the most important criteria for Action shooting - high iso quality.

600D can maintain "an SNR of 30dB while keeping a good dynamic range of 9 EVs and a color depth of 18bits" at iso 793 while FZ150 can only do the same at iso 132.

I didn't put it on the list because a) I consider that a factor for image quality, not action photography and b) I don't consider it important.

High iso IQ is indeed very much a requirement for action photography. Almost all my action shootings are done at iso 400, many at iso 1600 to 3200, here is are a few just to give you the idea.



It has not stopped me taking photos of high speed action...

It probably did, because in practice what happens with FZ150 is once ISO hits 1600 ( maybe even 800), it simply is not worthwhile taking them because the IQ would be too low for a keeper. If you dont agree then why dont you show us 5 iso 1600 keepers you got from FZ150?

Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,925
Re: Do you non professionals still use DSLR's? And why?

Yes.  Mostly because for the time being - while my daughter is young and busy and not off at college yet - my most important photography involves capturing action, often in low light, and the tool that gets the job done is an APS-C DSLR with a fast focusing 70-200/2.8.

From ice hockey practices to school plays and talent shows to cheerleading competitions to dance recitals, I'm often at or above ISO 1600, typically wide open at f/2.8 to get shutter speeds I want.  And tracking focus.

Outside of that, I could see myself getting along nicely with a Fuji XE1 kit or something along those lines.

I have a NEX-5 that I don't enjoy much, and am looking to pick up a premium compact (we have a regular jpg-only p&s now) ... LX7 or RX100 or XZ2 most likely.  I miss having a really good compact at times, but the NEX-5 hasn't reduced my DSLR usage and a good p&s will only cut into it a little.  I could replace most of the shooting that doesn't require the 70-200/2.8 with a really good ILC, but I really don't want to work with two systems.

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
Dennis Forum Pro • Posts: 18,925
Re: uhm, why not?

tko wrote:

So I can save a few pounds? Do you pick your golf clubs based on how much they weigh, or by how much they improve your game?

A hobby shouldn't be based on convenience. It should be based on passion.

I attended a "Nikon School" seminar years ago (before I became a Nikon user).  They did a 15-min presentation on what you can do with a 600/4.  At the end, they said that a couple years prior, they were criticized by an attendee for wasting valuable time talking about a lens that "costs more than a small car".  Their reply: "Do you NEED a small car ?"  They went on to explain their point, which is that while the 600/4 is extreme and not for most people, if it's important enough to your photography, then you prioritize.  Drive that old car a few years longer, etc.

So yeah, sometimes we're "tourists" according to Kevin Spacey, but it really would be sad to settle just because of how we think we look when using our cameras.  (Heck, we're outnumbered by people who don't seem to be bothered by how they look photographing with iPads !)

- Dennis

-- hide signature --
Donald B
Donald B Forum Pro • Posts: 12,002
Re: Living in the past?

RedFox88 wrote:

Hatstand wrote:

These figures are from tests by ephotozine.com. I don't know how they measured those, but I can say subjectively, that I found little difference in performance between 600D and FZ150 for action photography. The image stabilisation on the FZ150 (subjectively again) is as good as I got from Canon lenses.

Those are nice numbers, but the quality of focus, image sensor/lens clarity are much different from an SLR to a P&S superzoom.

Hmm, are you sure you shoot action photography? Image stabilization is of little to no use for action photos because shutter speed are needed to be fast enough to freeze action which will also eliminate camera shake.

And you can always slap a better, higher quality lens on an SLR but with a P&S camera you are stuck with the lens that's on it. A teleconverter on a P&S isn't worth it for the results.

going to disagree with this statement,  a high end bridge for starters attaching a canon 500d macro filter on the fz150 wil out perform any slr macro combination at any price point and give you 500mm working distance. secondly attaching the canon dc58b teleconvertor to the 150 has no loss of light like on an slr which looses 2 stops. ever shot with a 1000mm f5.2 hand held with one hand ? and an off camera flash in the other. try it you will leave you slr at home, i have. a good friend shoots nikon even with the $7000 300vr112.8 and have seen comparrisions he has sent me with both and i have many a time got the cameras wrong.

cheers don

-- hide signature --

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

Martin.au
Martin.au Forum Pro • Posts: 13,248
Re: Do you non professionals still use DSLR's? And why?

Nope. I use m4/3s.

The original reason why is because I was using 4/3s and was able to use my adapted lenses on m4/3s.

Since then I've found a few more reasons why I'm happy to be using m4/3s.

The main one if versatility. If I want to go and "do photography" then I can take everything in a fairly small bag. This gets me lenses from 12-300mm (24 - 600 in FF fov), a macro lens, flashes, a fish eye lens. A spare body (The old E520) and enough food and water for a good day.

If I want to take the camera to university, or work, then that also becomes an easy option. In an STM Scout I can take my iPad, papers and pens and the OM-D, 60mm Macro, 12-50mm kit lens, 8mm fisheye, and a flash.

I have ended up using the OM-D almost exclusively. I thought I'd use the DSLR for BIF and other action shots, but now I've set the OM-D up like the DSLR I'm happier using that. It feels like there's less lag between focus to shutter. Mostly subjective. I haven't tried to measure that, but I did notice that with BIF the DSLR would focus just behind them, in S-AF mode, if the bird was flying straight at me, whereas the OM-D seemed to do better.

 Martin.au's gear list:Martin.au's gear list
Olympus OM-D E-M5 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 9-18mm F4.0-5.6 Panasonic Lumix G Fisheye 8mm F3.5 Olympus M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-50mm 1:3.5-6.3 EZ +7 more
Janoch
Janoch Veteran Member • Posts: 4,227
Re: Living in the past?

Hatstand wrote:

If they don't ring any bells, how does it matter, what they are capable of...?

That's exactly my point - they are ringing the bells now!

Well, not my  bells!

IQ-wise, I'm of course nothing but impressed. That's some fine samples shown here.

 Janoch's gear list:Janoch's gear list
Nikon D800 Nikon AF-S Nikkor 17-35mm f/2.8D ED-IF Sigma 105mm F2.8 EX DG Macro Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm F4G ED VR +2 more
Freneticburn Regular Member • Posts: 200
Re: Do you non professionals still use DSLR's? And why?

I'm no pro but I have been paid for photography work and would love to do more paid work in the future.  The main reason I use a DSLR is for the performance and even then my camera is a bit outdated in that aspect compared to other DSLRs but still light years ahead of any compact.  Fast autofocus and good low light capabilities are becoming very important to me as I get more into photography.  I'm actually considering moving on up to a 6D or 5D3.  I've had a blast shooting weddings, indoor sports, and concerts and I strongly believe anything less than a proper DSLR just will not do in those situations.

I did buy a pocketable superzoom for those moments where lugging around a DSLR isn't an option and while it works wonderfully in good light it falls flat on its face when presented with any challenging situation.  Aside from the slow AF and smudgy high ISO it also has batteries that die way too quickly.  I haven't dabbled in the m4/3 format because it just does not appeal to me.  The camera either fits in my pocket or it doesn't.  I don't need an inbetween.  I've never been too concerned about the weight of my gear.  I've shot sports tournaments for hours with my canon 70-200 2.8 IS II USM as well as a wedding and it hasn't been an issue.  I can understand people with back problems having an issue but is that really a large enough market to introduce a whole new format for?  Maybe, but it's not my scene I guess.

 Freneticburn's gear list:Freneticburn's gear list
Canon PowerShot SX260 HS Canon EOS 550D Canon EOS 6D Canon EF 50mm f/1.4 USM Canon EF 135mm F2L USM +3 more
Hatstand Senior Member • Posts: 1,566
Re: Living in the past?

RedFox88 wrote:

Those are nice numbers, but the quality of focus, image sensor/lens clarity are much different from an SLR to a P&S superzoom.

Hmm, are you sure you shoot action photography? Image stabilization is of little to no use for action photos because shutter speed are needed to be fast enough to freeze action which will also eliminate camera shake.

And you can always slap a better, higher quality lens on an SLR but with a P&S camera you are stuck with the lens that's on it. A teleconverter on a P&S isn't worth it for the results.

Yes, I shoot action photography

A lot of it is at airshows. It's outdoors and there is typically good light for fast shutter shutter speeds without needing to bump the ISO much. And regarding IS (in addition to what Midwest and Donald B said above) - when shooting propellor-driven planes rather than jets, high shutter speeds are a No-No anyway: You get a frozen propeller, which looks unnatural - as if the plane's engine stopped and the plane is about to fall out of the sky. It needs slow shutter speeds (no more than 1/320, and preferably a lot slower) to get a pleasing motion-blur on the propeller, and this requires developing a good panning technique more than anything, instead of relying on a fast shutter speed.

Having said that, I also shoot other types of action including indoor ice skating - and I have not had problems freezing action, keeping to about ISO800 and still getting decent (by my standards!) shots. But again, it could be that lots of practice on my panning technique is helping with that... versus just P&S after setting a high super shutter speed.

Although I find I can freeze the action, I'll often deliberately slow the shutter to add a little motion blur in the background, feet or hands, to get a more "dynamic" shot that preserves a sense of the speed and motion of the subject. Of course, that's not to everyone's taste though.

Hatstand Senior Member • Posts: 1,566
Re: Living in the past?

ultimitsu wrote:

High iso IQ is indeed very much a requirement for action photography. Almost all my action shootings are done at iso 400, many at iso 1600 to 3200, here is are a few just to give you the idea.

It has not stopped me taking photos of high speed action...

It probably did, because in practice what happens with FZ150 is once ISO hits 1600 ( maybe even 800), it simply is not worthwhile taking them because the IQ would be too low for a keeper. If you dont agree then why dont you show us 5 iso 1600 keepers you got from FZ150?

You're still talking about IQ.

And I have never claimed that my superzoom can match a DSLR's IQ (quite the contrary).

My FZ cameras do not prevent me shooting action. Previous superzooms I owned (eg. Fuji HS10), DID literally stop me shooting action, because they just didn't have enough performance in the areas I mentioned (plus HS10 blacked out EVF/screen when saving to card :-P).

My image quality doubtless wouldn't meet your standards, but if it prints OK at 6x4 it's good enough for me. As I keep saying - I'm not a pro, and I don't need pro-standard IQ.

Donald Duck
Donald Duck Regular Member • Posts: 308
Re: Living in the past?
1

Hatstand wrote:

My image quality doubtless wouldn't meet your standards, but if it prints OK at 6x4 it's good enough for me. As I keep saying - I'm not a pro, and I don't need pro-standard IQ.

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

Hatstand Senior Member • Posts: 1,566
Re: Living in the past?

Donald Duck wrote:

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

No.

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

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

Donald Duck
Donald Duck Regular Member • Posts: 308
Re: Living in the past?

Hatstand wrote:

Donald Duck wrote:

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

No.

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 $$$?

What do pros do with their photos? Sell them to no-pros for a lot of money. So the non-pros deserve "pro IQ" after all, but it would be bizarre if they try to get that "pro IQ" by themselves?

Midwest Forum Pro • Posts: 18,309
Re: Living in the past?

Hatstand wrote:

ultimitsu wrote:

High iso IQ is indeed very much a requirement for action photography. Almost all my action shootings are done at iso 400, many at iso 1600 to 3200, here is are a few just to give you the idea.

It has not stopped me taking photos of high speed action...

It probably did, because in practice what happens with FZ150 is once ISO hits 1600 ( maybe even 800), it simply is not worthwhile taking them because the IQ would be too low for a keeper. If you dont agree then why dont you show us 5 iso 1600 keepers you got from FZ150?

You're still talking about IQ.

And I have never claimed that my superzoom can match a DSLR's IQ (quite the contrary).

My FZ cameras do not prevent me shooting action. Previous superzooms I owned (eg. Fuji HS10), DID literally stop me shooting action, because they just didn't have enough performance in the areas I mentioned (plus HS10 blacked out EVF/screen when saving to card :-P)

I understand where you're coming from, you're not being too picky and you're satisfied with what you get. That's good. (I think the FZ200 will be significantly better though..:) )

I used to have an FZ50. Okay, it was known for having a noisy sensor past ISO200 and sometimes I used it to take photos of action; the sensor didn't stop me from trying. But I was always disappointed with the results because there are two things that wreck an action photo for me - noise, and motion blur. Unless I can get away from both of those in the shot, I'm not happy with it. Unfortunately with my FZ50 - a wonderful camera in so many ways - the only way to escape the noise was to stay low on ISO and that meant slow shutter and motion blur. Freezing the motion meant high ISO and noise. With the FZ50, LOTS of noise and you can't de-noise that much without killing the details.

Your FZ150 works better for action shots in terms of ISO performance than my FZ50 did, no doubt.

For me high ISO is very important to getting action shots that not only look good on the screen but printed up to 13x19. For you, not so much, and that's fine.

-- hide signature --

You don't TAKE a photo, you MAKE a photo.

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads