Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

dSLR over P/S HELP

Why I want a dSLR.

First I will tell you what I will use the camera for. I am not a pro. I do not have a specific category of photography like sports or close up etc. I will use the camera for general photography for family stuff and after that I will be improving my photography skills. I might go for classes if I can find some.

The reason why I want a dSLR over a P/S is because:

dSLRs dont get out dated as quickly so I can spend some time without the ads continuously bugging me that I should upgrade because of some great feature which improves photo quality noticeably.

Ergonomics. Maybe my hands are big or I am spoilt, but it seems a bit had for me to handle P/S cams.

Shake-P/S are so small that shake becomes quite a big problem for me.

Manual control as mentioned above, I want to be able to control the camera. With P/S I have been in may situations where I just cant take the picture (s;ow shutter speed?). I hate it when the camera doesnt do what I want it to.

Low light. I will be taking quite a few low light pictures and dSLRs are good with that. The 350d is known to have almost no noise at all and very little at ISO 1600 and it can b removed using NR.

Lag. P/S lag a lot and that also puts me down. When I am in the car and some exotic whizzes past, I cant wait all day for my camera to turn on. As I will be taking low light pics also, when I use flash, P/S cameras take time to "recover".

With P/S to improve my photography, all I can improve on is on composing. I cant take creative control and change settings and experiment.

Now you want me to pick a typical subject and walk u thru the process of both cams.

Low light Scenery- I live in the UAE and the worlds most luxurious buildings and sweestest places are over here. When I want to take a pic in the night, I am dead meat with a P/S. No manual control, high noise, and shake.

Quick pics-I am traveling in my car, a exotic car goes by (its UAE we have plenty of those), witha P/S it will take ages to start up, there will be shutter lag, it might focus incorrectly and I dont have any manual control so I end up with a low shutter speed.

Objects- I like taking pics of objects like vases and plants etc. I have tried a lot but I cant seem to get rid of shake with a P/S. a dSLR will be heavier and will allow a faster shutter speed.

Creativity-As I improve my photography skills, I will need the manual control even more. Sometimes I see pics that look fascinating. I try to imagine how the photographer got it done. I figure out the settings but I am stuck witha P/S. e.g I saw this picture where I guess a beach had been captured witha slow shutter. It looked awesome but I couldnt imagine doing that with a P/S.

@sjl. Yes u r right. I know of all those things that a dSLR can do but not a P/S.

When I was trying to figure out which cam to uy, I had a choice of the D40, K100d, E500 and 350d.

I had chosen the k100d OVER the d40 because of auto focus, shake reduction and price.

Then I dropped the e500 because it was a bit too expensive for me and its low light wasnt that great, it was a bit too advanced.

I liked the 350d but that was also a bit too expenisve. I put off the purchase for some time. Now that the summer is here, I want to start taking pics again. Luckily there was a price drop on the 350d and they were throwing in a around $120 lens which might come in handy some time.

So I chose the 350d because of its speed, low light, size/weight and that it was an advanced cam when it came out(compared to the d40 or k100d).

Now I can get a k100d for around $600 but it comes without the extra lens and I dont know if it is better than the 350d or not. Over here we do not have taxes, just a flat price so please take that in mind.

The k100d is almsot the same price as some high end P/S cams like the g7 which is for around $575. Maybe I can tell my dad that a high end P/S costs just about the same money but in the long run the dSLR will trump the P/S.

So plz ask whatever you want to ask and plz tell what to do.:)
 
Lenses

OK I wont be buying lenses in the near future like for 2 years I guess. But if I improve my skills in that time then why not?

I will be buying lenses I guess after 2 years or so.:)
 
dingdongbubble said:
Hi


I really need help cuz my dad thinks that the 350d is only for pros and I dont NEED it, and I can get the job done with a normal P/S.:(
Click to expand...

Don't feel bad. I have to hear this from my wife!:p :eek:

Tell your dad that you're not just buying a camera - you're investing in priceless memories and you don't want blurry, washed out memories.:cool:
 
Everyone, give the kid a break - he actually wants to make an honest effort to improve his photographs, and some of us here snap back with the ideas that a DSLR is ostentatiously out of his needs. I disagree, and think a SLR is a necessity in order to improve ones photography skills, and if it turns out he doesn't like photography, having an entry level DSLR won't be something he or his family will regret. A DLSR on auto mode will still usually kick the butt out of a good point and shoot on auto mode anyway, even if the photographer stinks, and clearly the OP knows a tad more than the basics of photography. :)
 
I still say you should go for a Pseudo-SLR which has all the manual features that you want, and save up for a new camera in 2 years time when you will be buying new lenses. By then, there'll be better DSLR's than the 350D and if you did have the 350D you'd probably be due for an upgrade anyway.
 
Now What

OK So now what should I do?

On one hand a high end P/S would give me a practice.

On the other hand, a dSLR wont let me down, costs just a bit more than a high end P/S and can grow with me.

So now what?:confused:
 
Depends what you're dad is willing to buy for you?

My advice above still stays though. Practice with your expensive P&S now and save up for a really good DSLR in 2 years time, when you've decided that you like photography. :)
 
Price difference

When the price difference between a high end P/S (G7) and a dSLR (k100d) is almost negligible, then why should I go for a P/S?
 
dingdongbubble said:
When the price difference between a high end P/S (G7) and a dSLR (k100d) is almost negligible, then why should I go for a P/S?
Click to expand...

Something you should understand about DSLRs is that they are modular. You buy the camera and the kit lens, and you decide you want a telephoto lens, then a macro lens, then a super wide angle lens, and an external flash and a... and your $500 camera becomes a $1500 camera.

Point and shoots are in a way more complete out of the box. The G7 comes with a 35-210mm (equiv) lens. The kit lens for most DSLRs covers 27-83mm (equiv). The G7 comes with a proprietary battery and charger. The K100d leaves you to buy batteries and a charger on your own.

All these things add up.
 
bocomo said:
in the 35mm film size, film is definitely dead
Click to expand...

So not! A film frame as a medium can hold information comparable to about 19MP. How many dSLR's can do that? As a medium, film is still superior to most digital chips — hell, you would have to buy a Canon top of the line 1Ds-markII to get a comparable 16.7MP medium!!

Naturally, extracting that 19MP from an analog frame is a process that requires a top of the line scanner which is something not many of us have access to. In that regard, a 5-8MP dSLR can easily produce better output than film frame scanned with a 100 dollar consumer scanner. It's all about the weakest link, but my point is that it isn't a film frame.

And you can't beat the digital workflow ;)

miloblithe said:
Something you should understand about DSLRs is that they are modular. You buy the camera and the kit lens, and you decide you want a telephoto lens, then a macro lens, then a super wide angle lens, and an external flash and a... and your $500 camera becomes a $1500 camera.
Click to expand...

And the first point you should understand is that the quality of picture is mostly about OPTICS. Practically, it's all about the lens. The camera is only a device that captures the image your lens produces. Sure, there are differences in features and the image sensor, but still the technical quality is mostly dependent on the lens. Good optics on an old camera likely produce better picture than bad optics on a new top-of-the-line pro camera.

Buy a great lens and take great care of it. The thing will outlast many camera bodies you will eventually upgrade.
 
JFreak said:
And the first point you should understand is that the quality of picture is mostly about OPTICS. Practically, it's all about the lens. The camera is only a device that captures the image your lens produces. Sure, there are differences in features and the image sensor, but still the technical quality is mostly dependent on the lens. Good optics on an old camera likely produce better picture than bad optics on a new top-of-the-line pro camera.

Buy a great lens and take great care of it. The thing will outlast many camera bodies you will eventually upgrade.
Click to expand...

True. I wouldn't mean to imply otherwise.

On the other hand, I think this mantra is less true than it used to be with film (as you note). With film the camera boy had nothing to do with the image quality, which was an interaction between the lens and the film. The camera body was all about speed, convenience and durability. With digital, the camera body makes a much more significant difference.

On the other hand, this isn't really a key questions for the OP. He's not debating between getting an entry level DSLR with a great lens vrs a mid-level DSLR with a crappy lens, where the lens priority advice is so important. In his price range, this kind of advice actually makes the P/S cameras more appealing, because getting a DSLR and only using it with the cheapest lenses available is obviously not taking full advantage of the camera. Still, I suppose the crappy DSLR lenses are better than most P/S lenses.
 
If you want to show you are serious, forget about digital and ask for a used Nikon F90 + a couple of used manual AI-S lenses instead of the P&S.
 
I know you don't want to go for film, but it also has advantages.

If you don't make prints but just scan it, there's very little you need to develop it yourself.
 
Nope

NO WAY!:D

Theres not preview to check if I got a proper shot, cost, developping times, scanning times. NO NO N O
 
JFreak said:
So not! A film frame as a medium can hold information comparable to about 19MP. How many dSLR's can do that? As a
Click to expand...

An 8x10" frame can hold more information than a 35mm frame- Just like megapixels, there's more than just the numbers to the game.

JFreak said:
medium, film is still superior to most digital chips — hell, you would have to buy a Canon top of the line 1Ds-markII to get a comparable 16.7MP medium!!
Click to expand...

But you still get shoulder and toe tonal compression with film that you don't get with the linear response of a chip. I don't think it's always better or worse, but just different.

You also get reciprocity failure with film and finally you get massive grain at high ISO. In both of these ways, film isn't superior to digital. When was the last time you got acceptable color images at ISO 800 from 35mm film that'd enlarge to better than 11x14?

JFreak said:
Naturally, extracting that 19MP from an analog frame is a process that requires a top of the line scanner which is something not many of us have access to. In that regard, a 5-8MP dSLR can easily produce better output than film frame scanned with a 100 dollar consumer scanner. It's all about the weakest link, but my point is that it isn't a film frame.

And you can't beat the digital workflow ;)
Click to expand...

I'm getting better and bigger prints out of my 12.4MP digital than I ever did analog prints from 35mm. Heck, it's close enough to 645 output-wise (not in direct comparison, but in general quality compared to 35mm) that I'll probably never shoot MF again.

Weakest links in film are difficult to account for unless you're controlling the development too. Did the lab replenish their fixer at the right time? Was the rinse really clean? Was the stop bath still good? Add those to the workflow issues, not having to deal with toxic chemicals and a pretty close tonal range between E6 and digital and it starts to become difficult to make a good case for shooting film outside of some niche utilizations or artistic vision issues.

Anyway, my main point is that film and digital share similarities, but they're not identical and both have different advantages and disadvantages. For people printing 5x7 and smaller, those differences really generally don't come into play though.

Let's look at the economics though- because that's where things get interesting:

20 pack of RVP 100 $111.00 for 720 shots (B&H price today)
10 rolls single $5.25 each 52.50 (B&H price)
5L E-6 Kit $49.95, B&H (won't ship, must pick up) - good for ~30 rolls

Assuming reels, tanks, heated water source and timer already exist, you're looking at $213 in film and processing costs if you were to do it yourself, for 980 shots. If you didn't have the equipment, you could do it on the cheap for about $60-80.

If we switch to a non-pro C41 film like Kodak Gold 200, then we're at $3.19/roll or $95.70 for 30 rolls. With development around $5/roll at a cheap mini-lab you're looking at about $245.70.

If I go out shooting for a whole day, I'm shooting 3-7G depending on the shoot, 3 1G cards and 2 2G cards is normal, though I'm trending towards bigger cards. 2G cards are under $30 at this point, so you can spend say $90 and be set for 2-3 years at the least. If you did 2 outings a month, that's 24 outings, if you shot just 3 rolls/outing you'd be looking at about $588/year in film costs. Over three years, if you chose the bundle the OP was looking at, you'd pay for the digital camera, Photoshop, media and still have money left over.

You can substitute local pricing and how much you shoot to get an idea of what it takes to ROI a digital camera, and ignoring the ability to proof the exposure in camera, delete bad shots, etc. it's still a pretty quick ROI unless you simply don't shoot very often, or very many shots when you do.
 
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/330/35mm_Film_35mm_Print.html

Those are just the negative films. If it were dead, there wouldn't be 140 items in that list. There's 50 in the slide film list.[/QUOTE]



just because there are a lot of film choices available doesn't mean it's a good option my friend. i am an artist and teacher (photography) and have a master's in photography so i feel i can speak from direct experience. when i said 35mm film is dead, i didn't mean to imply that it had gone away, simply that it is being left behind. it is an inferior option as far as resolution and workflow and cost are concerned
 
The only acceptable DSLRs for me are full frames (so Canon), and I'm on Nikon, so that's why I stick to the F100.
 
cube said:
The only acceptable DSLRs for me are full frames (so Canon), and I'm on Nikon, so that's why I stick to the F100.
Click to expand...
Cleary the OP isn't looking for a FF camera, and he doesn't want film -It's slightly ignorant to continue to "offer" advice when it's not in the parameters of the topic or question at hand.
 
dingdongbubble said:
I DONT want to go for film, it has too many disadvantages for me.
Click to expand...
You might want to seriously consider something like the Panasonic FZ50. I went from a Kodak 5 mp p+s to this as a stepping stone, wanting better pictures with more adjustable settings, but not willing to spend $$$$ thousands on dSLR bodies and quality lenses just to have options beyond a 10x zoom digital p.o.s... There are alot of plusses, convenience, portability, no need to change lenses for different environments. I shoot tons at the beach, near water, salt spray... changing lenses constantly could cost me a dSLR camera body in no time! The glass is superb in my Panasonic. You can get one for around $550 and save the dSLR investment for when you have a good job and are paying for your own toys. In the mean time, 35mm - 420mm equivalent zoom and 10 megapixels will get you some extremely excellent photos until you are sure you want to spend serious money on a dSLR ( which will blow the Panasonic FZ50 away when it comes to alot of other features like noise at high ISO and frames per second continued shooting, etc...)
 
Zooom

Right. So I buy a FZ50 or somethign like that just because of the zoom? Just because it has a wider zoom range, which would cost a lot on a dSLR? Otherwise if I can get some cheap old lenses or be ahppy with my kit lens, then you recommend sticking with a dSLR.
 
dingdongbubble said:
Right. So I buy a FZ50 or somethign like that just because of the zoom? Just because it has a wider zoom range, which would cost a lot on a dSLR? Otherwise if I can get some cheap old lenses or be ahppy with my kit lens, then you recommend sticking with a dSLR.
Click to expand...

What's the situation with your dad?? Does he know of your findings?

This post is by Plymouthbreezer. I'm on my friends laptop and forgot to log him out. Woops.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back