| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/20/2007 05:54:18 PM · #1 |
I have several questions about photo quality and about possibly purchasing a DSLR, but I'm not sure how to ask them succinctly. The short versions are "What can I expect when I upgrade to DSLR?" and "How can I create photos like _____?"
(1) Conventional wisdom says it's mostly the photographer that makes a good photo, not the camera. Still, people want those top cameras. So at what skill level of photography does one have to be for the equipment to make a difference? For amateurs, are there immediate benefits to upgrading to a DSLR? Immediate drawbacks?
(2) I'm amazed by the clarity in some photos. Here's one example. 
Putting aside artistic considerations (composition, subject), what is the most important factor (or factors) for this kind of quality. Is it the camera body, the lens, or a combination of both? Can it be achieved with a point-and-shoot camera, like my FZ20? Is it about knowing which camera settings to use? Getting perfect focus? Or does such high quality depend more on expert post processing?
Also, I may have some misconceptions. I like to take street candids, low light shots, etc., but my photos often lack clarity or are blurry. I've been thinking a DSLR could overcome some of these problems. For example, I could dial up the ISO and shoot at higher speeds in lower light. Is that true, or am I way off base?
I realize I'm kind of all over the place with these questions, but your insights would be appreciated.
-- Larry in NYC
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 06:02:25 PM · #2 |
The photographer makes the photo, but the equipment can enhance or limit the execution.
Lens quality is much better on the SLRs if you buy the good lenses. Although, on DPC you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference most of the time.
For DPC, it's the post processing ability in addition to the photographic ability that makes most the difference. There have been several muliple ribbon winners with P&S cameras. As people get more serious about hteir photography they are drawn to the flexibility that dSLR system gives them. So, naturally you'll see great images taken by these people. There is also no shortage of below average images taken with very expensive gear.
For you candids and low light photography, a dSLR will allow you to get lenses with wider apertures, more options on ISO settings on the camera, wider angles and longer telephotos. Any of which could make the difference between a so-so shot and a ribbon winner.
But as I said earlier, post processing is where you can make the greatest impact on your entries. Even in basic editing.
I hope this helps
Message edited by author 2007-08-20 18:03:35. |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 06:10:25 PM · #3 |
(1) Conventional wisdom says it's mostly the photographer that makes a good photo, not the camera. Still, people want those top cameras. So at what skill level of photography does one have to be for the equipment to make a difference? For amateurs, are there immediate benefits to upgrading to a DSLR? Immediate drawbacks?
Well, lets say a good craftsman know what tools he needs and how to use them. You won't find a good roofer using a Sheetrock hatchet to do his craft. Likewise you won't find a worldclass photographer shooting with a cellphone.
For an amateur the immediate benefit is control, which can be the drawback.
(2) I'm amazed by the clarity in some photos. Here's one example.
Putting aside artistic considerations (composition, subject), what is the most important factor (or factors) for this kind of quality. Is it the camera body, the lens, or a combination of both? Can it be achieved with a point-and-shoot camera, like my FZ20? Is it about knowing which camera settings to use? Getting perfect focus? Or does such high quality depend more on expert post processing?
At web-size he could have produced that image with almost any camera/lens combo. He nailed the focus, and then sharpened it just the right amount after he resized it. Also, the contrast and lighting of the image has a lot to do with it's perceived clarity.
Also, I may have some misconceptions. I like to take street candids, low light shots, etc., but my photos often lack clarity or are blurry. I've been thinking a DSLR could overcome some of these problems. For example, I could dial up the ISO and shoot at higher speeds in lower light. Is that true, or am I way off base?
A dSLR and a fast lens (wide aperture) will definitely help you overcome obstacles in that type of work.
Message edited by author 2007-08-20 18:11:13.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 06:17:59 PM · #4 |
I'd make the following analogy: a dSLR is like a car with manual transmission whereas a point and shoot would be like a car an automatic transmission. Both cars get you to where you want to go. The automatic is easier to operate and does a decent job. Its where you want to have full control you'd go with a manual transmission.
Same thing with a dSLR. When you want to have full control you'd use a dSLR. What are you controlling? Well you can usually set aperture and shutter speed on a point and shoot buts its not so easy and usually has to be done through menus etc. With a dSLR the control is right there at your finger tips. Point and shoots tend to do in camera sharpening, color correction etc automatically. With a dSLR you usually take full control of this either in camera or in Post processing or both.
Manual focus too on a P&S can be a nightmare on some cameras. On my Canon A60 it was buried somewhere in the menus and pressing up/down buttons to adjust focus is not nearly as easy as turning a focus ring.
There aren't a lot of things going against a dSLR but they are significant to some. Weight is usually the biggest factor even over cost. You can put a lot of point and shoots into your pocket or into a small bag. You can't quite do that with dSLR.
Your initial cost of a dSLR is more than a point and shoot but the add-ons also add up quickly. Many (most?) lenses will cost more than a low end point and shoot camera. Higher quality lenses can cost a small fortune.
My recommendation would be to try a dSLR though. That is what finally made me switch. That feeling in your hands is just something you have to experience first hand. The other thing I found is that initially my pictures were worse than what I did with a P&S but I also could see why and as I corrected my mistakes my pictures have steadily been getting better. I just find that a dSLR allows you to learn the art of photography and not just how to take pictures. Important difference...
Edit: corrected typos
Message edited by author 2007-08-20 18:20:35.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 06:43:19 PM · #5 |
The biggest problem newcomers to DSLRs have is focus. Focus is a lot more critical because of the longer focal lengths.
You say your P&S has a 4x zoom. Yeah that's about 200mm on a full frame sensor BUT... the actual focal length of a average P&S camera is under 20mm even at 4x. The longer a lenses focal length the more critical focusing becomes. Ofcourse it allows you to get those nice blurred backgrounds that were damn near impossible with that P&S.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 07:19:13 PM · #6 |
Thanks, gentlemen! I'm sure my questions have been asked many times before, so I appreciate your considerate replies. Obviously I'm considering making the move to DSLR, but I want to do so without unrealistic expectations.
I thought about renting a good camera for a trial but the prices are high and it would be a waste of money. I'll keep reading and researching and take photos with my p&s in the meantime.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 07:22:57 PM · #7 |
 jjbeguin uses a Sony DSC-F828...
Nuff said :)
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 07:25:49 PM · #8 |
| Remember that here at DPC with 72 dpi at 640 the photo can be severely cropped and the difference between a 3 mp and a 8 mp camera is not as important as if you are trying to actually print a 12x16 inch photgraph. I'm not saying that many pics here at dpc are not print quality but many great dpc pics probably print not too good at a large format size. If you want to really print then a great lens on a good camera is wanted. If all you want to do is 4x6 inch or even 8x10 photos and internet posting, a good P&S is more than adequate. Yes I upgraded from a 4.5 mp Nikon to a 8.2 mp Canon and now to the Canon 5D with "L" lenses. Yes I can see a difference especially with sharpness and contrast with more enhanced colors. A 20 to 30 inch photo looks much better from 13 mp than it does from a 4 mp camera. Best of luck. |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 07:35:22 PM · #9 |
-Any DSLR will almost certainly be better in low light conditions than a point and shoot, even without a super fast lens. Though I'm sure there are some high end point and shoots that can give great low light performance.
-Focusing, for me, is much much easier with a DSLR than it ever could be with a point and shoot. Right from the start, my first time trying out my DSLR I could focus like never before. It's still not really easy though and requires a trained eye to make small adjustments. Of course, there are a few point and shoots with a focus ring now, but the focus rings aren't real focus rings, they just electronically tell the camera to focus in or out.
-It will give you room for tons of upgrading in the future with lenses, flashes, etc.
-Don't expect it to immediately make your pictures look like ribbon winners on DPC. It will most likely, however, make that a bit easier to achieve.
But if you're serious about photography, go for it.
Edited to say: I've had a DSLR for a month now and I still don't have any ribbons, but I do have a new personal best score and my first top 20 finish. (Thanks posthumous for pointing that out, I didn't even notice!)
Message edited by author 2007-08-20 19:39:11. |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 08:38:29 PM · #10 |
Hi Larry,
First off, quit beating yourself up for not having one of the big cameras. Have you looked at the images that were taken with the same camera that you own??
Take this one for instance. It'a fabulous and won a blue ribbon.
So, ok, I was like you. I owned a Panasonic FZ3 first, and then upgraded to a Panasonic FZ7. I was feeling pretty good about my photography and joined this site to better my photography, but ended up feeling inferior to all the Canon's and Nikons...so I gave into the pressure of NOT owning one, and bit the bullet and purchased a Canon 30D. Well, I can tell you from experience that it has been a huge and costly learning experience for me...I do love my new camera, but it has its drawbacks too.
I now look back on my photos (with the Panasonics) and find that I LOVED them AND they have those fabulous Leica lens. Which by the way NEVER shows sensor dust....(and don't EVEN get me started on that problem....)
The funny thing is tho, I have gone and spent all this money and I STILL find myself going back to my two Panasonics.
You just keep shooting with your present camera. Your photos are great. You'll know when the time is right to make that move into DSLR world. I wish I had listened to my inner self more....
Becky
Edit to say...look at most of the winning photos. They have been digitally enhanced so much, it's very hard to tell what reality is anymore. (But that's another topic for another forum and I ain't opening THAT can of worms!!)
Message edited by author 2007-08-20 20:41:41. |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 09:12:50 PM · #11 |
Noise reduction is also a big factor. Hotpasta's photo looks slick because the smoothness due to the noise reduction he applied with noise ninja as well as the good exposure makes the sharp areas pop.
Speaking of exposure, to minimize noise in-camera don't shoot at a high ISO and also expose to the right of the histogram. That improves the signal to noise ratio that is captured. As long as you don't blow out the highlights you are fine. There's a thread going on called Zero Noise Photography that touches upon this.
Message edited by author 2007-08-20 21:13:34.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 09:17:57 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by doctornick:
jjbeguin uses a Sony DSC-F828...
Nuff said :) |
point taken but that is DEFINITELY not your typical p&s
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 09:19:50 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by smardaz:
point taken but that is DEFINITELY not your typical p&s |
Nah, sure ain't it has Zeiss written on the side of it :-)
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 09:29:41 PM · #14 |
| Glad you raised the question. Also thinking of upgrade to SLR. However, I still have a lot of respect for the Leica lens on our Panas, and I am still amazed at what my Z10 (not me) can do; because of the greater options on these cameras, and the zoom, there is still a lot that can be learned/exploited. Biggest beef is the EVF though - more so than the noise at higher ISOs. |
|
|
|
08/20/2007 09:33:10 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Thanks, gentlemen! I'm sure my questions have been asked many times before, so I appreciate your considerate replies. Obviously I'm considering making the move to DSLR, but I want to do so without unrealistic expectations.
I thought about renting a good camera for a trial but the prices are high and it would be a waste of money. I'll keep reading and researching and take photos with my p&s in the meantime. |
The Camera Store (thecamerastore.ca) rents out cameras and if you purchase within 30 days they will actually apply your rental fee to your purchase price. You may want to see if a store near you would be willing to do something similar.
|
|
|
|
08/20/2007 09:34:29 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by citymars:
Obviously I'm considering making the move to DSLR, but I want to do so without unrealistic expectations. |
I'm about to buy some L glass, so I know exactly what you mean. I'm hopeful, but don't want to be disappointed.
Here's the way I think about it. I totally agree with the post-processing thoughts above - very important to know when and how much to use. Sharpening and color balance are my weapons of choice. Hang around PPChallenge.com and see what others do.
As a photographer, I take the shots I take, and that only improves with practice. But I think the expensive equipment, in the end, will help you get the shot more often. How?
Fast power-on times, fast and accurate focusing, fast glass, large apertures for low-light and creativity, fast shooting (fps).
It's about statistics. The expensive equipment helps you nail the shot more often.
Message edited by author 2007-08-20 21:35:32. |
|
|
|
08/21/2007 11:00:11 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by smurfguy:
... Fast power-on times, fast and accurate focusing, fast glass, large apertures for low-light and creativity, fast shooting (fps). |
Yes, all important considerations. I especially seem to have trouble with accurate focus on my present camera, and the manual focus is awfully hard to see, though some of that may be my eyesight.
Originally posted by Bosborne:
... I have gone and spent all this money and I STILL find myself going back to my two Panasonics. |
I haven't exhausted what I can do with the FZ20, and I'm not sure I want to deal with sensor dust -- not to mention RAW files. Making large prints is only a moderate consideration right now, though who knows in the future.
Yanko, thanks for your heads-up on the noise reduction thread.
Everyone, thank you all for your comments. I'm sure I'll refer to this thread many times in the weeks ahead. |
|
|
|
08/21/2007 11:07:00 AM · #18 |
A good tripod, great lighting and better technique will make an amazing difference in quality with almost any camera.
Most people limit their cameras, not the other way around.
The majority of pictures you see on here could be taken with almost any mid range P&S. There are a few that require the extra capabilities that an SLR can provide, but only a few.
An SLR gives you more options and more control that lets you push the boundaries of what you can do - but not many shots really need those boundaries to be pushed. |
|
|
|
08/21/2007 04:02:38 PM · #19 |
Larry my good friend, good to hear from you again :)
I upgraded from a Powershot A85 to my current camera back in April. I think the biggest 'upgrade' part of it is the face that you can interchange lenses. I've played around with my friends Finepix thing that has 10x optical zoom and its nowhere near as sharp as a decent SLR lens- granted that's not what they're going for, they're aiming for versatility rather than beautiful bokeh and highly detailed shadows, but when I first played around with my kit lens out of the box to my eye the pictures look a lot better. However, with the advent of Photoshop you'd be hard pushed to tell the difference after they've both been edited.
Also, durability is a big issue with DSLRs. My powershot began to die and crumble after about 7 months of use- shutter curtain wouldnt close, couldnt navigate down on any of the menus etc- and my DSLR feels a lot stronger and so far have no probs (touch wood).
But like Gordon said, since this site is only 640 pixels in most cases you really don't need an SLR unless you want the option of added versatility and interchangeable lenses. For example, I am yet to see a compact with a bulb function, or one that can support a remote control, or one that I can fit EF lenses too.
From personal experience I can tell you that buying my camera turned me onto an endless road of learning and betterment. I can look at my pictures from 6 months ago, and look at my profile now and think I've gotten better because I now have mroe control over what i've been shooting and realise the effect that aperture and shutter speed have on a picture.
But hey, if youre happy with your camera there's no reason to change, i just felt limited by mine (lack of ISO, crappy lens, and it fell apart).
|
|
|
|
08/21/2007 04:07:58 PM · #20 |
| Focus and lighting. That's it. |
|
|
|
08/21/2007 04:15:40 PM · #21 |
And, make sure you point it the right way. Blurry nostrils aren't attractive, tho Slippy will tell you different!!
Just experiment with your camera, have fun and don't be put off by the ribbon winners on here, cos they are just showoffs! |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/28/2025 07:47:52 PM EDT.
