| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/17/2005 10:29:03 PM · #1 |
| Don't get me wrong. I do find that I have an awesome camera. I like it a lot. I think it do take incredible picture with very good definition. It have a lot of features. I can play with a lot of parameter when shooting. It's my third camera within 2 years and a half and it's by far the best one I had. The point is: Every time I look at a DSLR in an advertisement, everytime a new model come out i become frustrated of not having one. I dream of being able to REALLY play with DOF, shoot candids or take action shot at high ISO!! The problem I see is where will it stop. When you guys bought your DSLR did you start dreaming of a better one? How much do you REALLY need to spend on lenses to cover many type of photography? Is the picture quality really that better? Are there really a lot of photography that you can't shoot if you don't own a DSLR? |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:32:11 PM · #2 |
Are these rhetorical questions?
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:36:49 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Are these rhetorical questions? |
Well you can consider the first part of the post as a rant for being jealous of not having a DSLR. The last 4 sentences are actual questions that when answered would sureley help me decide to make the move and buy one or to live with my camera and be happy with it once and for all. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:48:34 PM · #4 |
When you guys bought your DSLR did you start dreaming of a better one?
Nope I'm happy with what i have
How much do you REALLY need to spend on lenses to cover many type of photography?
You can spend lots or if you're careful and watch you can save lots too. A lot of the dslrs come with very good lens on them and you can buy 2nd hand for some lens if you are careful
Is the picture quality really that better?
Depends on the photographer. You can have the very top camera but if the photographer doesn't have the ability...?
Are there really a lot of photography that you can't shoot if you don't own a DSLR
cant do MAJOR telephoto without one, you can still do telephoto with most cameras tho. Its difficult to push the limits with a non-slr camera but its possible. Look at all the great pictures from non-dslr camera on this site!
Would I buy my camera over again if i didnt have it? You betcha
Message edited by author 2005-03-17 22:52:37. |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:55:34 PM · #5 |
Of course you dream of having something better. I would love to have the Canon 1Ds Mark II (16.7MP) DSLR. But I don't have $8000 to spend on it. I'm very happy with my 20D. I had to sacrifice a little to get it, but after the research that i did, I knew that I would be happy with it for a long time.
As far as lenses go, I did alot of research on those too. IMO Canon "L" lenses are the cream of the crop. There are 3rd Party lenses out there that come close optically (Tamron), but I would love to have a full line of "L" lenses, such as:
Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L
Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L IS
Canon 16-35mm f/2.8L
Canon 14mm f/2.8L
Canon 85mm f/1.2L
Canon 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6L IS
Unfortunately I don't have $11,000 to spend on lenses either.
Ultimately you will need to decide what camera fits your needs. If it is a DSLR, then by all means research until it hurts. It's a big investment and an exspensive one at that. Make sure that you will be satisfied with what you purchase.
BTW, canon lenses have a very high resale value. Check eBay and see!! |
|
|
|
03/17/2005 10:56:40 PM · #6 |
When you guys bought your DSLR did you start dreaming of a better one?
My first digital camera was a 1Ds, so no, it was almost a year before I wanted a better one.
How much do you REALLY need to spend on lenses to cover many type of photography?
Spend what you like. I'm of the oppinion that you only really need or will use 3 or 4 good lenses. Of course 3 or 4 good lenses could run a bit over $12,000.
Is the picture quality really that better?
Yes
Are there really a lot of photography that you can't shoot if you don't own a DSLR
Yes
Would I buy my camera over again if i didnt have it?
Yes
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:00:50 PM · #7 |
Get a 300d or 350d. Save the money -- it's more than enough camera for a loooooooooong time. My guess is this one will last me until it fails and then I'll get another canon.
As far as lenses, get a kit lens (that comes with the camera) and a reasonable telephoto zoom lens like the canon ef 75-300 f4-5.6. That will give you PLENTY of stuff to shoot, I GUARANTEE it. If you're not happy with that stuff, then get out of photography while you're ahead.
I have the 300d, 18-55 and the 75-300 and I don't dream every day of a newer, better camera or a newer, faster lens. I'm quite happy where I am -- and I'm a hard person to please. Sometimes I miss the simplicity of a P&S where you just grab the camera out of your pocket and start shooting. There is a vast amount of gear that you will acquire when you jump into a DSLR -- and you have to be prepared to carry it all when you want to go out or you might miss that opportunity (if say you left your telephoto at home or vice versa).
Everyone's different -- there's one way to find out -- and that is to jump in and try it out. Some may say that if you're not happy with what you have you won't be happy, but I wasn't really happy until I got my 300d and I could start doing the things you mentioned (have full control of DOF and actually have an ISO that mattered).
The DSLR world is definately a totally new experience -- if you feel you're ready, then go for it.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:02:30 PM · #8 |
I doubt my opinion counts much on this one; I am the user of a very low level camera for this site. But I did go through some serious questioning myself, and for me the answer was that I still had/have plenty to learn with what I have, the things I can't do now I can look forward to doing someday, and I love the fact that mine can go nearly everywhere with me. I could afford to get a DSLR if it were really that critical I suppose, but I need to get my money's worth out of what I have first. I tend to always want the latest/greatest anything that is "techy", so I have had to really look at my priorities. If I keep using and learning with this camera now (which I love), just think of what they will have when I am ready to upgrade next time! I think there are some folks on this site that should have slowed down some, and some who really need that upper-end best. Only you know yourself well enough, but my personal advice is to really listen to yourself and not just what others have needed or been able to get. I honestly don't think I am rady for what a DSLR offers and what it takes to make it worth it. You may be ready - and if so, I hope you will really enjoy every moment using it.
|
|
|
|
03/17/2005 11:05:26 PM · #9 |
One more point I thought I'd make...
It's easy to get the DSLR and at first produce crap photos -- you have to learn photography all over again (in a sense). You are no seeing as is through your viewfinder. You have to compose shots differently (you can't just look at your LCD and click the shutter).
It's even easier to get the DSLR, and fall into the trap of thinking "well, my next ribbon (or my next print sale) is just that one lens away". Get the camera and learn it. Learn to produce high quality photos with the lenses you decide to start with. When you're ready for a newer, better, faster lens, you'll know it.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 08:48:43 AM · #10 |
[quote=nsbca7] Is the picture quality really that better?
Yes
The picture quality on some of the non-slr digital cameras is as high or higher. Take a look at the types of cameras under the learn menu. You'll see what type of pictures each camera is able to take. There are photographers who dont have and cant afford a dslr and have taken much much MUCH better picture than those who do have a dslr. |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 08:55:41 AM · #11 |
I upgraded from my beloved Coolpix4500 to a Canon 10D last fall and it was well worth the effort. I won't be shopping for a new camera anytime soon - the 10D is more than enough camera for my still-developing skills (though I will buy some new glass).
Does it take better pictures? Absolutely. The additional pixels are good but the superior noise control of the Canon are what really sold me. I can take shots at ISO800 that have virtually no noise at all, giving me much more control over shutter speed, etc.
Still, I note that I have won no ribbons since upgrading my camera. Good photography is still ALL about the photographer, IMO, and not the camera.
-J |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 09:20:13 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by di53:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Is the picture quality really that better?
Yes |
The picture quality on some of the non-slr digital cameras is as high or higher. ............There are photographers who dont have and cant afford a dslr and have taken much much MUCH better picture than those who do have a dslr. |
That's nice, but the answer is still yes.
Message edited by author 2005-03-18 09:20:54.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 09:20:57 AM · #13 |
When you guys bought your DSLR did you start dreaming of a better one?
yes & no -- there are few things that bug me about my camera
but i figure it has a 5 yr life & after that i have to convince my wife that i can spend the $$ - if it died tomorrow i would have to 'do something' -- maybe even shoot film ;)
How much do you REALLY need to spend on lenses to cover many type of photography?
-- depends -- what are you taking pictures OF? 100$ to start with a 50mm f1.8 & use your feet to zoom - if that will cover 90% of your shots
don't worry about others till you 'really' need them
Is the picture quality really that better?
yes & no -- a dslr allows you to make much worse photos ... or much much better .. they are not better out of the box just because the box is more $$
Are there really a lot of photography that you can't shoot if you don't own a DSLR?
with modern digital point & shoots without adapter - extreem telephoto , extreem macro, perspective (PC), but most of those will cost you in for extreem $$ in glass -- and of course - artistic DOF ..
Message edited by author 2005-03-18 09:21:41. |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 09:29:25 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by di53:
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Is the picture quality really that better?
Yes |
Take a look at the types of cameras under the learn menu. You'll see what type of pictures each camera is able to take. There are photographers who dont have and cant afford a dslr and have taken much much MUCH better picture than those who do have a dslr. |
Not to be pedantic but your use of "much much MUCH better" should be qualified by (A) purpose of the photographer and (B) use of the original image. Using images on this site as any type of definition of what can be produced by either point-n-shoot cameras or DSLR cameras isn't a strong case for either the photographer or the equipment. Evaluating photos on DPC can demonstrate the creativity and dedication to details that a photographer possesses. Its easy to see that heida has a vision and works to produce moving art or that Jacko is a craftsman in terms of his detail and work on macros (or Samuel). JJBeguin is exceptional at composition and execution (in my opinion). Conversely, it would be difficult to make an authoritative statement about the quality of the prints (if that was what any of them wanted to do with their work) without actually seeing the original image. I can take a HUGE photo with my equipment now, crop a small section and work it up to use on DPC. That image may score well with the viewers but if my intent was to print a billboard for a client and the original print had too much noise or wasn't large enough to produce the output I needed then the equipment I used and/or approach to processing really would fall short.
As far as DPC goes, a 2mp camera or a 6 or an 11 all pretty much produce the same results with "L" glass or with a plastic lens. You can produce work that'll win ribbons on DPC regardless of the equipment you use for the most part. Outside DPC there are functional differences in what a piece of equipment can enable a photographer to do.
Kev
Message edited by author 2005-03-18 09:31:27.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 09:33:49 AM · #15 |
When you guys bought your DSLR did you start dreaming of a better one?
Not right away. I bought the digital rebel in September because it was what I could afford at the time.
In the next few months I will upgrade (once I'm sure that I'm going to school), likely to a 20d.
I'll always dream about 1ds mk II, but overall I'm very happy with the rebel for now.
How much do you REALLY need to spend on lenses to cover many type of photography?
This depends. To start, the kit lens will give you an idea of what you would like to buy next. Don't buy everything right away, you'll end up wasting money.
Is the picture quality really that much better?
Sure, of course it is, with the right lenses. People are always saying "it depends on the photographer" which is true, but isn't that a given? If I tell you that a Ferrari is 'better' than a Pontiac I don't have to qualify it by saying "it depends on the driver", do I?
Are there really a lot of photography that you can't shoot if you don't own a DSLR?
Sure...but there's a lot that you can shoot without one as well. With the right equipment, you will have what people call "creative control". That is, if you have the equipment, you are only limited by your skills and creativity. That is a nice position to be in, as it allows you to focus on developing your skills and creativity if you have the right attitude. It sucks being limited by equipment. I went out to shoot birds with a 50mm lens (no kidding!) because I don't have anything better. Birds are faster than I am. I could have gotten much better shots with the 70-200 I have my eye on. I was limited by my equipment, which sucks. Once I buy the 70-200, I can start to learn to use it and I'll have opened new doors in my photography. Some doors will always be closed. I'll never ever own Canon's 1200mm f/5.6L lens. The decision on which doors to open is yours....but you should wait until you approach the door and say "crap, I'd love to get in there" before you fork out money for a DSLR. Don't buy one just for the sake of seeing doors open.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 09:39:00 AM · #16 |
When you guys bought your DSLR did you start dreaming of a better one?
No, there are days where I find myself dreaming about a D2X, but there is no consideration to buy one, my next camera (unless I suddenly have a very large influx of money) will be another D70 so that I have a back-up body.
How much do you REALLY need to spend on lenses to cover many type of photography?
Not a lot, apart from the kit lens I bought a 50mm 1.8 (a must have) and a 70-210 for telephoto stuff, I bought both cheap from ebay. I would like to do more macro stuff so I've bought a set of close-up filters and a reversing ring - very cheap way of doing it.
Is the picture quality really that better?
Hmmmmm, yes (mainly because of the sensor size), although you should have 'good' lenses. Remeber though that dSLR's as standard produce high quality images and it's for you to do the post processing, non dSLR's tend to do a bit of in-camera adjustments to make the pics look 'nice'.
Are there really a lot of photography that you can't shoot if you don't own a DSLR?
There is certainly much more potential and flexibilty with a dSLR (at a cost of course), the biggest differences that I have found are the high ISO capability making low light and action shots so much more feasible and the elimination of shutter lag means that you can actually get that shot (to begin with I found myself shooting too early as I was used to compensating for the lag)
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 09:55:12 AM · #17 |
Im glad that colda posted, otherwise I thought only Canon owners where "happy married" with their cameras.
I've bought mine over the Fuji S5000 that I loved. I'm thinking in doing wedding photography with it although some people say that it is an amateur camera (indeed I'm an amateur, but certainly not the camera).
Yes I bought it again, and again and again amd again. In a year, if I have the cash for it I hope to buy the D2X or in the an alternative plan the Fuji S3Pro. If I get realy lot's of chash inflow I would prefer something near a medium format digital camera, like Phase one or Hasselblade or even the new Mamya ZD, so I can provide really big prints to my future clients. But only for that. Because in image qualaty I love the D70, and my only if is that good Nikon (like Canon) lenses are really expensive, like the 50-400 VR that I would like to have.
YES, BUY A DSRL IF YOU CAN!!!!
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 10:32:20 AM · #18 |
Oh yeah, I forgot about the shutter lag on my old Canon A40! Yuck.
The following are reasons enough to buy a DSLR, if your non-DSLR does any of the following like mine did:
1) Waits for a 'moment' to be over before taking the photo
2) Makes every photo taken above ISO 100 noisier than a Buzzcocks show
3) "in camera sharpening" really means "sanctification " - that is, everything and everyone gets their own halo
4) refuses to focus on any object that has the audacity to actually move
5) has a continuous shooting (or "burst" - ha!) rate of 1fp2s
6) has a "video" function that, when you watch it, makes you feel like a kid watching a scrambled porn channel waiting for the right 'moment' when the satellites align
7) creaks when you press the shutter
Of course, I could go on...this is all in jest. The A40 was a great purchase at the time, but some of those things drove me crazy and it was so nice to regain control when I got back to SLR photography.
Message edited by author 2005-03-18 10:33:10.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 10:38:38 AM · #19 |
I am a total gearhead. I have owned many many cameras in my life (as well as other sorts of gadgets). Buying a dSLR was great because it opened up a whole new world of other gadgets and gizmos to acquire and play with. I am so far happy with my D70 and I have achieved some kind of equilibrium with my current set of lenses and filters and attachments - but someday the bug will bite again.
This is my nature - I like toys. I save up for them and don't feel guilty about spending the dough.
To answer the question of "Will I ever be happy?" you need to know your nature as well. If you like gizmos and gadgets, you will never be happy to not get any more new ones. If you want to take better pictures then a DSLR may or may not make you happy.
A DSLR will give you flexibility more than anything. If you are frustrated because you can't get your DOF as wide or narrow as you want, or you can't zoom in as much as you need (or zoom out/fish-eye) - if you are frustrated because you can't increase or decrease a setting on your current equipment, then I think the odds are good that you will be happy with a DSLR. If your frustration is more nebulous then it may be that a good book or a class at a local community college will ultimately be more satisfying.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 10:39:53 AM · #20 |
| I'd say that it really depends on what your goals are as a photographer. If you're trying to really get better at it and to expand your creative possibilities, then by all means go for a DSLR. If you're looking to take casual pictures here and there and not particularly looking to experiment or further your technique or anything, then point and shoot is fine. An SLR just gives you a lot more options to be creative. That being said I'm amazed at the amount of people who will buy a $1000 or more camera and shoot in "P" mode regularly. |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 10:46:45 AM · #21 |
It depends on what you want to do but if you want a DSLR now because you think you can do better than your current camera then your answer is going to be no, you'll never be happy.
When you find yourself comparing your work to others you will always want what they have or better. Everything has limitations. You'll be better off than what you have now in terms of using depth of field (which blew me away when I first got my cam - "look ma, it's blurry!") but the wanting just begins anew.
My camera is old and has a fair amount of noise and other limitations. I want the new D2X (because Nikon hasnt replaced the D100 YET!) because it is a better camrea. My current wide-angle lens is 24mm and I shoot landscape so I need a wider lens. My current telephoto is a crappy 75-300 and I shoot wildlife so I need a longer lens, preferably the 600mm prime. My shots are also a little blurry due to my crappy tripod so I need a new 600 dollar one. The needs go on and on and you'll find that your images are crap unless you have those toys. so it's always a case of 'I'm good, but I could be better if.......' If you have the money you may be very happy but broke. Of course there are lots of people with more money than sense who buy a lot of expensive equipment and still have no talent. I wonder if they're happy?
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 11:02:32 AM · #22 |
| I have been using the d70 with the 18-70 lense and 70-300 and can cover any situation. I dont need another camera but I always dream of a high end dslr. A disease I have. Grass is always greener. Definately get your self a DSLR even if you start off with a film slr. :) |
|
|
|
03/18/2005 11:10:36 AM · #23 |
I would happily have stuck with my FZ10 for the majority of my photography until I decided to specialise in gig photography.
Now, I can see the difference is like day and night... the difference is most obvious in low light conditions where my FZ10 would be noisier at ISO200 to the Minolta 7D's ISO 3200. The speed of AF is what made me swap to a DSLR after assisting a model shoot with my FZ10... I didn't want the model to have to keep waiting for the camera to focus lock! The increase in sharpness (even with budget lenses) of a DSLR over a prosumer is incredible. And it's great to feel less defensive about one's camera when surrounded by pros.
However, if I was remaining an amateur who liked to take lots of landscapes, I would definitely say that my FZ10 is more than good enough for the job. If you mainly want to take landscapes, think long and hard about whether a DSLR upgrade is worth it for you... especially if you're not planning on printing larger than 10x12.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 11:15:26 AM · #24 |
I just bought the Rebel XT and the sales guy explained EVERYTHING to me in such a way to make me understand better. I went in for the 20D but dollar for dollar and my needs. My suggestion is to buy it. Just buying it gives you a high.
|
|
|
|
03/18/2005 11:49:49 AM · #25 |
The important thing to do is to use your current camera to its max. Try to employ all of its features. Find shots which will use them. Once you do this, you will have gotten a good portion of its worth.
Eventually, a yearning will develop for the next step. Remember, many people start with the SLR and take it for granted. Those that work up to it appreciate more when it arrives. Do not be in great hurry, your developing skills will tell you when you are ready, the main thing is to exploit what you currently have and take the best images possible. |
|
