# My conclusion on dSLR cameras



## jophassa (Mar 22, 2008)

OK, ever since my interest in photography began a few years back I have used portable cameras, namely the Casio EX Z850 and my, dare I say it, my phone's 5MP camera. I have also briefly used what is known as a bridge camera (i think) which has a fixed 'mega' zoom lens and has a slightly larger CCD (i think)...my favourite being the Casio. Then last month I took the plunge and bought my first dSLR (a Canon 350d) and a nice £250 lens...but I can't tell you how underwhelmed I am by its performance. I know that it's not a professional SLR, but I have to say that it's photo quality is no better than my Casio's and its size is just really inconvenient - as is the need for multiple lens. I have 'reverted' to using my Casio yet again and have taken many pics I would never have taken with my Canon 350d partly due to its size...has anyone else decided that the benefits of dSLR performance are just not worth the price/hassle (especially when the Casio is loaded with manual features)?


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

jophassa said:


> OK, ever since my interest in photography began a few years back I have used portable cameras, namely the Casio EX Z850 and my, dare I say it, my phone's 5MP camera. I have also briefly used what is known as a bridge camera (i think) which has a fixed 'mega' zoom lens and has a slightly larger CCD (i think)...my favourite being the Casio. Then last month I took the plunge and bought my first dSLR (a Canon 350d) and a nice £250 lens...but I can't tell you how underwhelmed I am by its performance. I know that it's not a professional SLR, but I have to say that it's photo quality is no better than my Casio's and its size is just really inconvenient - as is the need for multiple lens. I have 'reverted' to using my Casio yet again and have taken many pics I would never have taken with my Canon 350d partly due to its size...has anyone else decided that the benefits of dSLR performance are just not worth the price/hassle (especially when the Casio is loaded with manual features)?



I shoot Nikon so I can't address your issue with Canon.  However, I suspect that a lot has to do with the type of pictures that interest you (snapshots) and very possibly an SLR is inappropriate for you.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 22, 2008)

The Rebel is the smallest DSLR you can get and you still think it's too big?! 

Well, you just learned that equipment doesn't make photographers, which is good that you know that now. 

The only reason that you think the casio's images look pretty much the same is because (and this might be a stretch) you're shooting JPEG and doing little or no post production at all.

You don't buy a DSLR and not do post production. Unless you need to shoot JPEG and get the images in and out as fast as possible, you do PP. Otherwise it defeats one of the main purposes of using one to begin with.


----------



## Emerana (Mar 22, 2008)

I think its the shooter, not the camera


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> You don't buy a DSLR and not do post production.


Well, maybe you don't but I do.
I do my best to avoid mistakes that result in a need for PP.



Sw1tchFX said:


> Otherwise it defeats one of the main purposes of using one to begin with.


Gee, why did photographers ever buy SLRs that used film?


----------



## eterrisinCYQX (Mar 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Well, maybe you don't but I do.
> I do my best to avoid mistakes that result in a need for PP.
> 
> 
> Gee, why did photographers ever buy SLRs that used film?


 
+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.​


----------



## Arch (Mar 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Well, maybe you don't but I do.
> I do my best to avoid mistakes that result in a need for PP.



Not all PP is because _mistakes_ have been made.
For many people (including myself) a RAW file is a digital negative. Therefore i want to take it to photoshop and develop it. If PP was all about mistakes then that would mean that film darkroom processing is all about 'fixing mistakes' which we all know its not.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

Arch said:


> Not all PP is because _mistakes_ have been made.
> For many people (including myself) a RAW file is a digital negative. Therefore i want to take it to photoshop and develop it. If PP was all about mistakes then that would mean that film darkroom processing is all about 'fixing mistakes' which we all know its not.



That's your preference but there's absolutely no need for it.  The vast majority of 35mm SLR photographers did not do their own darkroom work for pretty much the same reason.  Yes, some photographers did dodging, burning, air-brushing, etc. but that's all related to fixing mistakes and/or making the photograph less than real.

Don't get me wrong.  I've seen some beautiful photos that have been processed by PS but that's not the norm and it's by no means the primary reason why persons buy SLRs.  Heck, if RAW is the important aspect of photography, why not save a buck and buy a $200 P&S that produces RAW?


----------



## Arch (Mar 22, 2008)

well i wouldn't say RAW solves everything thats too far... and of course nor digital for that matter... but well, we will have to agree to completely disagree about processing. To me the art of processing an image _can be_ just as important as taking one... it certainly doesn't only exist because of mistakes made while shooting.


----------



## photogincollege (Mar 22, 2008)

I have to agree that it's probably that the casio processes the images more then the 350d in jpeg.  Did you look at your settings and if you want turn up sharpening and saturation if thats what your looking for?  Also as to the size problem, did you take that into consideration before buying the camera?  I don't mean to sound rude by that, but dslr camera's are big, and if you knew this before buying, and didnt want one that big, why did you buy it?


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 22, 2008)

just to end this silly postprocessing debate:

There are no unprocessed images. neither digital, nor film.

p&s and bridge cameras just do a lot of automatic processing, which is left to the photographer when he shoots with a dSLR. often this automatic processing spoils the images though, since it is targeted at standard blue sky and snapshot photography. Often when you try to be a bit more creative, then the auto processing goes the wrong way.

Images from a dSLR are much less processed, hence they need more processing after the image is taken. As a rule of thumb, the more expensive your dSLR is, the worse (soft, low contrast, and all) your images straight from the camera appear at first sight, but the more you can do with them and the more versatile they are. If you do not use this potential, however, then your images in many situations will look poor compared to p&s images.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Well, maybe you don't but I do.
> I do my best to avoid mistakes that result in a need for PP.


 Good for you. 




Socrates said:


> Gee, why did photographers ever buy SLRs that used film?


 Where did I say anything about film?


----------



## usayit (Mar 22, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> just to end this silly postprocessing debate:
> 
> There are no unprocessed images. neither digital, nor film.



What Alex said!!!

RAW files are intended to be post-processed.  There are different types of film available to a photographer depending on their final intent (low saturation, B&W, high saturation, high contrast etc...).  DSLRs accomplish this through RAW files that allow the photographer to choose different workflows to arrive at the final intended print.  RAW files allow the most flexibility to the photographer at final post-process and were never intended to be the final print.

If your intended purpose is to snap away and have the shortest workflow to a final print, then you should be shooting JPEG and allow the internal camera process perform the final sharpening, adjustments to contrast and saturation.  I personally think this is a case when expectations between equipment and photographer are not realistic.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Where did I say anything about film?


You didn't.  I was just wondering how we got along all those years when PP was pretty much non-existent for the vast majority of photographers.


----------



## frXnz kafka (Mar 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> The vast majority of 35mm SLR photographers did not do their own darkroom work


You think the only place to control the look of an image is in-camera or in the darkroom? What about film choice? What about developing time? There are plenty of variables in the film process that change the way an image looks. This doesn't make the image any less real.

dSLR users can't change sensors to adjust contrast, they can't change the upload time to adjust contrast. They can't push their sensor to gain a few extra stops or to really get a lot of contrast. All of this stuff that film users had at their disposal must be done in post. If none of this interests you, whatever, no big deal. But to say PP ruins the reality of an image is ridiculous.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

usayit said:


> What Alex said!!!
> 
> RAW files are intended to be post-processed.  There are different types of film available to a photographer depending on their final intent (low saturation, B&W, high saturation, high contrast etc...).  DSLRs accomplish this through RAW files that allow the photographer to choose different workflows to arrive at the final intended print.  RAW files allow the most flexibility to the photographer at final post-process and were never intended to be the final print.
> 
> If your intended purpose is to snap away and have the shortest workflow to a final print, then you should be shooting JPEG and allow the internal camera process perform the final sharpening, adjustments to contrast and saturation.  I personally think this is a case when expectations between equipment and photographer are not realistic.



Gee.  Interesting that Alex NEVER used a reference to RAW or jpg yet you explain his position that way.  Perhaps you should allow him to speak for himself.

By the way, I'm wondering...  If RAW has that much importance over every other reason why someone would buy an SLR, why don't you save money and buy a P&S that produces RAW?


----------



## usayit (Mar 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> You didn't.  I was just wondering how we got along all those years when PP was pretty much non-existent for the vast majority of photographers.



I consider simple things like using contrast filters part of post-processing.... including burning, dodging, etc..


----------



## Tasmaster (Mar 22, 2008)

Didn't film photographers develop their films? I believe they did.

Not only that, but most of today's digital processing tools directly reproduce the results of traditional film processing methods. Unlike shooting film however, using them is entirely optional.

Yes, developing and processing is the same. In fact, shoot JPG and digital processing (standard contrast, brightness, saturation adjustments and so on) changes the "out of the camera" photo far less than developing a negative film. Not to mention that film photographers applied a primitive batch processing before even taking their photos by chosing certain types of film.

Don't even get me started on photo labs - if you ever sent your photos to a photo lab for developing, you obviously aren't a true photograper since you have no creative control whatsoever. You let others decide how your photos look.

If you want to continue debating an utterly meaningless arguement, shooting JPG is the "purest" form of photography. Oh, and auto-focus and built-in metering suck.

Are we done yet? Can we hug and kiss and go about taking pictures and processing them, each however they like?


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 22, 2008)

the only thing which counts in the end is the result anyway


----------



## usayit (Mar 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Gee.  Interesting that Alex NEVER used a reference to RAW or jpg yet you explain his position that way.  Perhaps you should allow him to speak for himself.



>>p&s and bridge cameras just do a lot of automatic processing,<<

Generally means JPEG.

>>which is left to the photographer when he shoots with a dSLR.<<

Generally means RAW

>>Images from a dSLR are much less processed, hence they need more processing after the image is taken. As a rule of thumb, the more expensive your dSLR is, the worse (soft, low contrast, and all) your images straight from the camera appear at first sight, but the more you can do with them and the more versatile they are. If you do not use this potential, however, then your images in many situations will look poor compared to p&s images.<<

This is basically a comparison of RAW right out of a DSLR sensor (soft, low contrast) and JPEG that has been processed internally by P&S cameras.  Alex doesn't have to say RAW and JPEG specifically for us to know what he is talking about.





> By the way, I'm wondering...  If RAW has that much importance over every other reason why someone would buy an SLR, why don't you save money and buy a P&S that produces RAW?



Not too many P&S have RAW capabilities... there is a small market for them.... One example is the Canon G series (excluding the G7).


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

frXnz kafka said:


> You think the only place to control the look of an image is in-camera or in the darkroom? What about film choice? What about developing time? There are plenty of variables in the film process that change the way an image looks. This doesn't make the image any less real.
> 
> dSLR users can't change sensors to adjust contrast, they can't change the upload time to adjust contrast. They can't push their sensor to gain a few extra stops or to really get a lot of contrast. All of this stuff that film users had at their disposal must be done in post. If none of this interests you, whatever, no big deal. But to say PP ruins the reality of an image is ridiculous.



First, I object to your major misquote.  I NEVER once used the word "ruin."

Back in the film world, the P&S users had the same ability as SLR users to select film so there were obviously other reasons why SLRs became so popular.

Please go back to the beginning of this thread.  I objected to the allegation that the ability to do PP is the main reason why photographers buy SLRs.  That's simply not true.  In a subsequent post, acknowledged that some individuals prefer to use PP.  I have no problem with that.  I agreed that I have seen many manipulated photos that look beautiful.  My point is simply that PP is not the main reason why photographers buy SLRs.  Period.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

usayit said:


> there is a small market for them.... One example is the Canon G series (excluding the G7).



Why don't you buy one?  Why did you waste your money on an SLR?


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 22, 2008)

ok, just to set this straight. yes, i do shoot raw. and if i was shooting jpg, i would turn down in-camera sharpening and in-camera push in contrast to the lowest possible and would then get the maximum out of those jpegs.

however, i do not shoot jpeg since 8 bit per colour channel are in some cases just not enough, in particular when today's sensors' narrow dynamic range makes exposure complicated.


----------



## usayit (Mar 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Why don't you buy one?  Why did you waste your money on an SLR?



* I have one... what is your point?  Different tools different purposes
* My main camera isn't an SLR...

To get the most out of PP, I prefer to shoot RAW... the most flexibility over JPEG.  In order to get RAW, the choice is generally a DSLR as most P&S cameras do not have RAW with the exception of the Canon G-series.  RAW might not be the main reason (never said anything counter to that) but it is one of many reasons to use an SLR including a better/wider selection of lenses.

I shoot RAW when i'm really shooting seriously for a project or pure enjoyment... most control. WHen I'm out with friends and family just taking snaps, I switch to JPEG... shorter workflow.   I also mix in film in there as well.. of course with post processing (I haven't done slides in years now).


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

Tasmaster said:


> Didn't film photographers develop their films? I believe they did.


Some did.  Most did not.  Those of us that preferred Kodachrome couldn't, even if we wanted to.



Tasmaster said:


> Not only that, but most of today's digital processing tools directly reproduce the results of traditional film processing methods. Unlike shooting film however, using them is entirely optional.


Absolutely.  If you would have read the entire thread, you will realize that that is my point.  I objected to the allegation that PP is the "main reason" why photographers buy SLRs.



Tasmaster said:


> Yes, developing and processing is the same. In fact, shoot JPG and digital processing (standard contrast, brightness, saturation adjustments and so on) changes the "out of the camera" photo far less than developing a negative film. Not to mention that film photographers applied a primitive batch processing before even taking their photos by chosing certain types of film.


Snapshooters with P&S cameras could choose their own film.  Why did so many photographers spend the cash for SLRs?



Tasmaster said:


> Don't even get me started on photo labs - if you ever sent your photos to a photo lab for developing, you obviously aren't a true photograper since you have no creative control whatsoever. You let others decide how your photos look.


  I didn't do it.  Did you?



Tasmaster said:


> If you want to continue debating an utterly meaningless arguement, shooting JPG is the "purest" form of photography. Oh, and auto-focus and built-in metering suck.


  Please identify where I ever made such a statement.  I object to being misquoted.[/QUOTE]



Tasmaster said:


> Are we done yet? Can we hug and kiss and go about taking pictures and processing them, each however they like?


  No.  You misquoted me and that disturbs me.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 22, 2008)

i do use SLRs (digital AND film) since they are more versatile and give me more creative options (in particular lens-wise). and i like to see through the lens, optically. it is much easier to adjust everything the way i want it to be. with other cameras it is always more of a lottery


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

usayit said:


> * I have one... what is your point?



Read the posts in the thread.  You'll understand my point.


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> i do use SLRs (digital AND film) since they are more versatile and give me more creative options (in particular lens-wise). and i like to see through the lens, optically. it is much easier to adjust everything the way i want it to be. with other cameras it is always more of a lottery


That's all I was trying to say.  I objected to the allegation that PP is the "main reason" to buy an SLR.

Many users like RAW.  Fine.  Many choose not to use it.  Also fine.  However, don't try to tell me that PP is the "main reason" why photographers buy an SLR.  That's simply untrue.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 22, 2008)

i suggest everyone calms down, re-reads, and tries the calumet of peace 

photographers should be judged by what they produce, not by their vocabulary, their philosophy or their online discussions


----------



## usayit (Mar 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Read the posts in the thread.  You'll understand my point.



Geee.. I posted in regards to RAW versus JPEG and your response included "why SLR over P&S".

I responded stating that the P&S market w/ RAW is very small...

and now you are telling me to re-read your posts?  You just turned me around in circles for absolutely no reason.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> That's all I was trying to say.  I objected to the allegation that PP is the "main reason" to buy an SLR.
> 
> Many users like RAW.  Fine.  Many choose not to use it.  Also fine.  However, don't try to tell me that PP is the "main reason" why photographers buy an SLR.  That's simply untrue.



no, but with most SLRs you can only unlock their potential in PP. and the better the SLR, the more PP you need since less processing is usually done in-camera (to keep more control on the photographer side).

to me this all just appears very logical.


----------



## Arch (Mar 22, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> i suggest everyone calms down, re-reads, and tries the calumet of peace




i disagree with this....




(j/k) i agree really... yea lets do that.... please?


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 22, 2008)

sometimes, on the internet, people just get hooked up in misunderstandings ... and then they think they are fighting, but they really are not


----------



## usayit (Mar 22, 2008)

uuummmmmmmmmm  <<relaxing>> uuummmmmmmmm

ok..where's the beer and wine?


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 22, 2008)

Arch said:


> (j/k) i agree really... yea lets do that.... please?




but hey, i was talking drugs here in a way ... and you should disagree hence! :lmao:


----------



## Arch (Mar 22, 2008)

Alex_B said:


> sometimes, on the internet, people just get hooked up in misunderstandings ... and then they think they are fighting, but they really are not



lol that happens in real life too...... especially my ex-girlfriend... 


Ok as you where...


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 22, 2008)

usayit said:


> ok..where's the beer and wine?




to be honest, i had a lot of the latter tonight ...


----------



## usayit (Mar 22, 2008)

Family get together tomorrow... that's when the drinks and cigars come out!

<<sorry... I instinctively try to turn a thread into a off topic banter when things get heated.. lol.


----------



## Alex_B (Mar 22, 2008)

and i am off to bed now  good night everyone!


----------



## Tasmaster (Mar 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Some did.  Most did not.  Those of us that preferred Kodachrome couldn't, even if we wanted to. *I didn't mean themselves, i meant that films were being developed one way or another.*
> 
> Absolutely.  If you would have read the entire thread, you will realize that that is my point.  I objected to the allegation that PP is the "main reason" why photographers buy SLRs. *See below.*
> 
> ...



Socrates, you are not the only person in this forum, on the internet, or in the world who sees things that way. I never quoted you or intended to misquote anyone. Chill out.

Oh, and there are no unprocessed photos. I used to think like that too, until i learned about photography. There can be underprocessed, well processed, and overprocessed photos, subject to taste and semantics. Either you process them, or someone else does it for you (eg JPG "out of the camera" = processed by Nikon). The point is, do you like the end result?


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

usayit said:


> Geee.. I posted in regards to RAW versus JPEG and your response included "why SLR over P&S".
> 
> I responded stating that the P&S market w/ RAW is very small...
> 
> and now you are telling me to re-read your posts?  You just turned me around in circles for absolutely no reason.



You obviously have not read the posts in the thread.  I was objecting to the allegation that PP is the "main reason" to purchase an SLR.  If that is, in fact, true, then I would want to know why anyone would waste money on an SLR when there are P&S cameras that support RAW and allow PP.  Please read next time.


----------



## usayit (Mar 22, 2008)

and I never mentioned anything counter to your statement.....

Simply answered your question....


----------



## Socrates (Mar 22, 2008)

usayit said:


> and I never mentioned anything counter to your statement.....
> 
> Simply answered your question....



Go here and help Sarah:
http://thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=116459


----------



## kundalini (Mar 22, 2008)

I crop, adjust levels, curves, saturation, contrast on all my keepers.  If I knew how to do more I would.

I intended to be a purist and forego any post processing.  The reality is that some tweaking is necessary to bring out the full potential of your image.

Although everyone is entitled to their opinion, digging in your heels on one side of the fence or the other may make humorous reading but does little to the OP's original post.  Has anyone notice he/she hasn't added to the thread?


----------



## Emerana (Mar 22, 2008)

how did this disinagrate into the most retarded argument in the history of this forum?


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 22, 2008)

Methinks the OP opened up the camera, took some shots with the 18-55 and wondered why he wasn't shooting professional shots.

The answer, by the way, is NOT post processing.

The answer is much much more complicated than that. Mostly, I think at least, in this case, it's the glass. The user probably slapped on the kit lens, set the dial to "AUTO" and took off - which makes it a clunky P&S camera! 

DO yourself a favor, buy a cheap 50mm 1.8 lens and learn about aperature priority mode... you'll do wonders with that. 

Then start learning about the rest of the camera, the other modes, try out some OTHER lenses (even I haven't gotten this far yet, I find the 50mm does 70% of what I need or more), and in time you'll see why a DSLR camera is a much better tool.

Of course, this should ALL be predicated by learning what Aperture is, what a f-stop means, how to control lighting to your advantage, etc etc etc.

But, all that aside, if a new DSLR owner asked me what he/she could do to make their pictures just a bit better I'd still go back to the 50mm lens, Aperture Priority and never ever using the on camera flash.


----------



## RMThompson (Mar 22, 2008)

Emerana said:


> how did this disinagrate into the most retarded argument in the history of this forum?


 
I didn't read it, but I've read similar arguments before. Here is my guess:



> Person A: blahblahblah DSLR means you only shoot in RAW and PP your work! :x
> 
> Person B: blahblahblah Back in my day we didn't have nothing RAW and we didn't post process! :madmad:
> 
> ...


 
That's about the long and the short of it.

Oh, for the record: I mean no offense to persons A, B, C or D... you know who you are!


----------



## frXnz kafka (Mar 22, 2008)

Socrates said:


> First, I object to your major misquote.  I NEVER once used the word "ruin."
> 
> Back in the film world, the P&S users had the same ability as SLR users to select film so there were obviously other reasons why SLRs became so popular.


I was arguing the notion that since it wasn't done in the film days, it needn't be done now. If this was not your argument, please correct me. But I do believe it was.

As for the "misquote".....get over it. It's the ****ing internet, not the Associated Press.


----------



## jophassa (Mar 22, 2008)

well, i left you guys alone for one moment and this happened. tut tut. i like the point that no photo is undeveloped, even raw and non-digital shots. there are no rules in photography, just good photos - that much i know. i think that dSLRs give a lot of people the comfort of thinking they have a good eye for photography, but i also think that a photo needn't be of the most impeccable quality to be viewable or acceptable. These are not very alternate views but i so tired right now.


----------



## Sw1tchFX (Mar 23, 2008)

Socrates said:


> I objected to the allegation that PP is the main reason why photographers buy SLRs.



Who said that? Who said the PP was "the main reason"? 

Now it certainly is *A* main reason, but it's not *THE* reason.

You're misconstruing what people are saying. Please, you're getting all bent out of shape about nothing.


----------



## RacePhoto (Mar 23, 2008)

jophassa said:


> Then last month I took the plunge and bought my first dSLR (a Canon 350d) and a nice £250 lens...but I can't tell you how underwhelmed I am by its performance. I know that it's not a professional SLR, but I have to say that it's photo quality is no better than my Casio's and its size is just really inconvenient - as is the need for multiple lens. I have 'reverted' to using my Casio yet again and have taken many pics I would never have taken with my Canon 350d partly due to its size...has anyone else decided that the benefits of dSLR performance are just not worth the price/hassle (especially when the Casio is loaded with manual features)?



I think your thinking is flawed. I'm not going to dive into the PP debate, which doesn't address most of your original post.

Performance of the DSLR vs the P&S should be judged in side by side photos of the same subjects. First look at your shadow area for CA and you should see the first reason why the 350D is better. Then overall sharpness, edge to edge quality and pretty much all aspects of having a bigger sensor. Look for lens distortion. In fact just take two of the same subject, with the same lighting and ask someone else to judge which is the best.

What you call inconvenient, is part of the reasoning for most people buying a DSLR. You can pick a better lens to match the situation and not be forced to use one fixed lens. The lenses are also higher quality than most everything you will ever find on a P&S. People like to shoot with faster lenses and quality prime lenses, and you can't do that with a P&S. You can't even change the lens!

If size is an issue with the "toy" DSLR I can't imagine what you would say about carrying and shooting with a pro model. The size and feel of a full size DSLR is an advantage and it balances nicer with those big lenses.

Maybe for your purposes a pocket camera is best, but your biased conclusions about DSLRs are somewhat misguided and in some instances, plain wrong.

On the other hand, if what you have discovered is true, all of us shooting those large sensor DSLRs, that are about six times larger than the P&S with $1000-2000 lenses, are really a bunch of fools, because we could be using a cheap, little P&S and get pictures that are just as good? 

Does that make you wonder why there are so many idiots like me who spend all that hard earned cash for a DSLR when I could get great photos with a 1/1.8" P&S, under $200 and it takes movies too, which the DSLRs don't do. Or does it make you wonder if you gave DLSRs a fair evaluation before concluding that "it's photo quality is no better than my Casio's".


----------



## Socrates (Mar 23, 2008)

RMThompson said:


> Methinks the OP opened up the camera, took some shots with the 18-55 and wondered why he wasn't shooting professional shots.
> 
> The answer, by the way, is NOT post processing.
> 
> ...



:hail:

Quoted from my original post in this thread:
_"I suspect that a lot has to do with the type of pictures that interest you (snapshots) and very possibly an SLR is inappropriate for you."_


----------



## usayit (Mar 23, 2008)

Sw1tchFX said:


> Who said that? Who said the PP was "the main reason"?
> 
> Now it certainly is *A* main reason, but it's not *THE* reason.
> 
> You're misconstruing what people are saying. Please, you're getting all bent out of shape about nothing.



Exactly... 

Some how my post about RAW and JPEG turned into an argument of DSLR versus P&S.. an argument that I didn't even argue.. just got dragged into it.


----------



## jophassa (Mar 23, 2008)

RacePhoto said:


> I think your thinking is flawed. I'm not going to dive into the PP debate, which doesn't address most of your original post.
> 
> Performance of the DSLR vs the P&S should be judged in side by side photos of the same subjects. First look at your shadow area for CA and you should see the first reason why the 350D is better. Then overall sharpness, edge to edge quality and pretty much all aspects of having a bigger sensor. Look for lens distortion. In fact just take two of the same subject, with the same lighting and ask someone else to judge which is the best.
> 
> ...


 
Yeah, I hear what you're saying but my views are not biased in any way. In fact, they couldn't be more unbiased. I have compared photos of the same scene, with the same natural light and the same camera settings with both cameras and I honestly feel the Casio's images are near-identical to the 350d's. There might be some slight differences but those differences don't necessarily mean that the 350d's images are better. Another reason that I am not biased is I just spent over £500 on equipment which I enjoyed using and produced some great results, but I feel the convenience of just slipping the Casio into my pocket and keeping it with me all the time is just an invaluable benefit, do you not think?


----------



## patrickt (Mar 23, 2008)

Back to the original topic. Your position is not unreasonable. It simply depends on what you enjoy.

I have friends who love doing photo work on the computer and will spend hours on one shot. I have never done that and never will.

Another friend loves shots of birds. His passion is the finished product or even taking the picture. It's finding the bloody bird. He loves tramping in the early morning and finding that one little bird who has eluded him and getting a picture. His super-zoom camera suits him just fine.

For me, I love the taking of the photo and taking the photo in unusual light appeals to me. So, I shoot a DSLR and I post-process less than a minute per photo. With some photos, or with batch runs, the time spent in processing is really negligible. If I'm going to print a 11x14 or larger print, I'll get the raw file and spend a few minutes with it.

But, it's really all about what part of the process you enjoy and what you expect to do with the output.


----------



## jols (Mar 23, 2008)

Back to the original poster.

If you dont think the dslr is for you could you send it to the folowing address ...............................
,........................................
........................................

I promise to look after it and treat it well.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Mar 23, 2008)

jophassa said:


> well, i left you guys alone for one moment and this happened. tut tut. i like the point that no photo is undeveloped, even raw and non-digital shots. there are no rules in photography, just good photos - that much i know. i think that dSLRs give a lot of people the comfort of thinking they have a good eye for photography, but i also think that a photo needn't be of the most impeccable quality to be viewable or acceptable. These are not very alternate views but i so tired right now.




if thats your main question, return the dslr. problem solved.


----------



## ladywings (Mar 23, 2008)

jophassa said:


> well, i left you guys alone for one moment and this happened. tut tut. i like the point that no photo is undeveloped, even raw and non-digital shots. there are no rules in photography, just good photos - that much i know. i think that dSLRs give a lot of people the comfort of thinking they have a good eye for photography, but i also think that a photo needn't be of the most impeccable quality to be viewable or acceptable. These are not very alternate views but i so tired right now.



I think having a dSLR makes people think that their photos will somehow be better than they were with their point and shoot, when in reality, it's not the camera that is the biggest determining factor in the outcome of a photo, but the photographer himself.  I can take some pretty great shots with my point and shoot... better than some people with dSLRs could ever dream of taking.  I can also take the same shots with my dSLR.  You need to know your camera, and realize that having a dSLR isn't suddenly going to improve your photographs, unless you know how to use it.


----------



## lifeafter2am (Mar 23, 2008)

I agree that one could take good pictures with a P&S, but will they be as good as a good DSLR with a good (Canon L or Nikon Gold ring) lens, no way.  I highly doubt the MTF figures would be anywhere near what a good lens could put out, not to mention the appeal of the bokeh, any distortions and chromatic aberrations.  Now I am only talking QUALITY wise, true quality.  How appealing the picture will be is up to the person taking it, not the camera itself.


----------



## jophassa (Mar 23, 2008)

ladywings said:


> I think having a dSLR makes people think that their photos will somehow be better than they were with their point and shoot, when in reality, it's not the camera that is the biggest determining factor in the outcome of a photo, but the photographer himself. I can take some pretty great shots with my point and shoot... better than some people with dSLRs could ever dream of taking. I can also take the same shots with my dSLR. You need to know your camera, and realize that having a dSLR isn't suddenly going to improve your photographs, unless you know how to use it.


 
so true...so true. i am constantly impressed by Canon P+S cameras...I wonder if they are making their P+S cameras almost TOO good...there isn't as big a gap between the quality of dSLR and P+S as there was a few years back.


----------



## skieur (Mar 23, 2008)

jophassa said:


> well, i left you guys alone for one moment and this happened. tut tut. i like the point that no photo is undeveloped, even raw and non-digital shots. there are no rules in photography, just good photos - that much i know. i think that dSLRs give a lot of people the comfort of thinking they have a good eye for photography, but i also think that a photo needn't be of the most impeccable quality to be viewable or acceptable. These are not very alternate views but i so tired right now.


 
That is the greatest amount of misinformation and perhaps fantasy in the shortest paragraph that I have even seen. 

Get some experience, then communication with you might be possible. :thumbdown:

skieur


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 23, 2008)

I have a number of cameras I use, depending on where I am, what I'm doing and what mood I'm in.
I have a DSLR, and a point & shoot digital, and a cheap little weenie thing.
I am the same with film. I used to have a 10x8. I still have a 5x4, a 6x6, 3 35mm SLRs, an Advantix, two P&S, a half-frame with fixed focus, and several interesting plastic jobs (one of which I found in a bin).
They all have things going for them as well as drawbacks but they are all fun.
The difference is that I realise that it is the person who uses the camera, not the camera itself, that makes a picture. 
If you want to have a camera as a status symbol, or you want to rubbish someone else's - it's fine by me.
You take your pictures your way and I'll take my pictures my way


----------



## DSLR noob (Mar 23, 2008)

Whyy I like my SLR

-Instant power up
-no shutter lag
-fast drawn out bursts
-fast autofocusing
-great color replication
-un-tampered RAW files to keep the creative options there
-WYSIWYG viewfinder (what you see is what you get)
-vast quick controls
-the ability to expand in terms of lenses, flashes, and filters
-they feel good in the hand, and they're durable
-long battery life in terms of # of photos taken


----------



## skieur (Mar 28, 2008)

DSLR noob said:


> Whyy I like my SLR
> -WYSIWYG viewfinder (what you see is what you get)
> -vast quick controls


 
If you are talking about film SLRs that is certainly the case, but NOT true with DSLRs.

skieur


----------



## Iron Flatline (Mar 29, 2008)

How is that not true skieur?


----------



## Clutch (Mar 29, 2008)

Hertz van Rental said:


> I have a number of cameras I use, depending on where I am, what I'm doing and what mood I'm in.
> I have a DSLR, and a point & shoot digital, and a cheap little weenie thing.
> I am the same with film. I used to have a 10x8. I still have a 5x4, a 6x6, 3 35mm SLRs, an Advantix, two P&S, a half-frame with fixed focus, and several interesting plastic jobs (one of which I found in a bin).
> They all have things going for them as well as drawbacks but they are all fun.
> ...



I must agree completely with this gentleman. If you've never used a Graflex 4x5 or shot a few rolls with something like a Mamiya C330 or felt the wonderful mechanics of the film advance lever on a Nikon F2 you just don't know what you're missing!

Use what you like - if there's one thing that can be said about photography in the 21st century... it's a VERY broad, wide open discipline!


----------



## skieur (Mar 29, 2008)

Iron Flatline said:


> How is that not true skieur?


 
Well, I suppose it is open to interpretation but DSLRs have optical viewfinders so you do not see the effect of changing exposure or contrast etc. in the viewfinder. You may see what is in your frame if you have a 100% viewfinder but most DSLRs don't even have that.

skieur


----------



## usayit (Mar 29, 2008)

skieur said:


> Well, I suppose it is open to interpretation but DSLRs have optical viewfinders so you do not see the effect of changing exposure or contrast etc. in the viewfinder. You may see what is in your frame if you have a 100% viewfinder but most DSLRs don't even have that.
> 
> skieur



- DSLR and FIlm SLRs both have optical viewfinders
- Neither modern Film nor Digital SLRs show the effect of changing exposure or contrast.  This is unless the camera itself allows for manual stopping down of the lens aperture which is possible on many SLRs both film and digital
- THe viewfinder of both DSLRs and Film SLRs are rarely 100%. 

I will agree.. that most consumer level DSLRs do not have as high of a quality view finder as OLDER manual Film SLRs which were a necessity for manual focus.

I think what Iron was thinking is that DSLR design (the camera itself not the electronics) are/were based on existing Film SLR design.  For example, the 1v EOS was the basis for the 1 series Digital SLRs.  So in regards to your post, there is more in common between FSLRs and DSLRs than you think.. the differences you pointed out are simply not true.


----------



## skieur (Mar 29, 2008)

Point taken.  I was thinking electronic viewfinders rather than optical viewfinders and of course both FSLRs and DSLRs have optical viewfinders.

skieur


----------



## RyanLilly (Mar 31, 2008)

DSLR noob said:


> Whyy I like my SLR
> 
> -Instant power up
> -no shutter lag
> ...



+1

and, may I add the *convenience* of using different lenses for different situations.


----------



## Hertz van Rental (Mar 31, 2008)

DSLR noob said:
			
		

> WYSIWYG viewfinder (what you see is what you get)





skieur said:


> If you are talking about film SLRs that is certainly the case, but NOT true with DSLRs.





skieur said:


> Well, I suppose it is open to interpretation but DSLRs have optical viewfinders so you do not see the effect of changing exposure or contrast etc. in the viewfinder. You may see what is in your frame if you have a 100% viewfinder but most DSLRs don't even have that.



No DSLR viewfinder shows 100% of what is being taken - but then, the best that 35mm SLRs ever managed was about 95% so not really much difference there.
35mm SLRs often had the option to manually operate the aperture so that an assessment of the depth of field could be made at the selected aperture but in practice it made the viewfinder so dark you couldn't really see a thing and I don't know anyone who ever used it.
I know of no viewfinder that shows the effects of contrast - this is an assessment that is normally made with a light meter or a density viewer.
With 5x4 and 10x8 depth of field could be checked accurately by stopping down and going over the ground glass with a magnifier - and you could shoot of some polaroid using a polaroid back.
The advantage of DSLRs is that you can instantly see what you have shot, magnify it to check focus, use the histogram to check exposure and then delete it if you don't like it. With film you had to wait for it to come back from the labs before you found out you had cocked up


----------



## TheOtherBob (Mar 31, 2008)

Hertz van Rental said:


> 35mm SLRs often had the option to manually operate the aperture so that an assessment of the depth of field could be made at the selected aperture but in practice it made the viewfinder so dark you couldn't really see a thing and I don't know anyone who ever used it.


 
Don't some current DSLR's have that? I think the 20D/30D has a "Depth of Field Preview" button, which sounds like what you're describing. (And, yeah, I rarely use it -- not because it makes the viewfinder too dark, but because I just don't find it that useful. )


----------



## Socrates (Mar 31, 2008)

TheOtherBob said:


> Don't some current DSLR's have that? I think the 20D/30D has a "Depth of Field Preview" button, which sounds like what you're describing. (And, yeah, I rarely use it -- not because it makes the viewfinder too dark, but because I just don't find it that useful. )


 
My D80 has it.


----------



## MX962 (Mar 31, 2008)

TheOtherBob said:


> Don't some current DSLR's have that? I think the 20D/30D has a "Depth of Field Preview" button, which sounds like what you're describing. (And, yeah, I rarely use it -- not because it makes the viewfinder too dark, but because I just don't find it that useful. )


 It has its place i still use it,I can set my camera to manual focus and such on a particular jump at the moto cross track focus check to see with the D-preview button that all will be in focus at a given spot then just wait for ther racers to hit this spot and shoot away


----------



## 68Whiskey (Mar 31, 2008)

After buying a DSLR, I will never go back to a POS Point and Shoot camera. I have yet to see a camera that takes just as stunning pictures with a person who knows what they are doing behind it. I would put a DSLR against a PS any day of the week without fear.

Bring a Point and Shoot camera to the gym I take basetball pictures in and lets go at it, I will be victorious.

I have believed that it is a 50/50 effort, 50% Equipment and 50% Knowledge. I am going on the basis of sports photography when I make comments, every point and shoot I have ever touched has had too much delay. The lenses are a big plus and is a major selling point for DSLRs, so whoever posted that complaint or what ever about that can run out and buy a point and shoot whenever they want more focal length.


----------



## shorty6049 (Mar 31, 2008)

if someone has already said this stuff, i appologize, but these are MY personal reasons for buying a DSLR

1- RAW
2- you can get very different looks by changing lenses, so its worth the extra hassle for me.
3- A DSLR just feels better in my hands than most point and shoot cameras and has a more solid build.
4- Noise at high ISOs is much lower on most DSLRs , plus the larger sensor allows for more light to get in as well
5- Dslrs are almost always faster than point and shoot cameras at pretty much everything.

You dont buy an SLR camera for the size or weight. Maybe you didnt need one after all...

you dont buy


----------



## Mike_E (Mar 31, 2008)

With a camera phone you can order pizza.

But then you already knew that.


----------



## CanAm (Apr 1, 2008)

TheOtherBob said:


> Don't some current DSLR's have that? I think the 20D/30D has a "Depth of Field Preview" button, which sounds like what you're describing. (And, yeah, I rarely use it -- not because it makes the viewfinder too dark, but because I just don't find it that useful. )



My 10D has it.

I have a DSLR because I have creative control at my fingertips. I don't need to go into a menu to change the settings I want to change. I simply move a dial or hit a button or two and I can make a bad shot a good one.


----------



## frXnz kafka (Apr 1, 2008)

Mike_E said:


> With a camera phone you can order pizza.
> 
> But then you already knew that.


With a view camera you can anchor your boat.


----------



## THORHAMMER (Apr 1, 2008)

learning to weild my dslr as nimbly as a small P&S thats what I want.


----------



## Tiberius47 (Apr 1, 2008)

Show me a bridge camera that can open up to f2.8 at an 80mm efl and I'll start to consider that a bridge camera is as good as a dSLR.  Not that bridge cams are bad, but a dSLR gives you so much more freedom.  I'll never turn back.


----------



## shorty6049 (Apr 1, 2008)

is a bridge camera just a point and shoot with SLR-like features?


----------



## skieur (Apr 1, 2008)

A pocket camera that you can use manually as well as in automatic mode that can shoot as low as F. 2.8 is perfect for shooting where cameras are not allowed or when you are carrying a camera just in case a photo opportunity presents itself.

A superzoom 28mm 2.8 to 200mm with a fixed lens,  still camera  that also has the ability to shoot 800 x 600 video is ideal for travelling light and producing CDs that mix stills and video.

A DSLR can be ideal for low light work (depending on picture noise), continuous shooting with no shutter lag and good control of contrast, shadow and highlight detail.  Lens however should include a wide angle zoom at 2.8 and a telephoto zoom at 2.8 to have more range than the other cameras.

All these types of digital cameras fit different shooting situations and I would certainly not give up using any of them.

skieur


----------



## schumionbike (Apr 1, 2008)

Tiberius47 said:


> Show me a bridge camera that can open up to f2.8 at an 80mm efl and I'll start to consider that a bridge camera is as good as a dSLR. Not that bridge cams are bad, but a dSLR gives you so much more freedom. I'll never turn back.


 
I have a Kodak Z710 that could give 80 efl at like f3.1.   The stat for it is 38-380, f2.8-f3.7.  The camera is crap at high ISO though, I think that where DSLR really have an advantage.


----------



## schumionbike (Apr 1, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> is a bridge camera just a point and shoot with SLR-like features?


 

Yes, bridge camera PASM settings so you can use it manually. You can also choose what kind of metering, white, balance and think like that. Most bridge camera won't do well at over 400 ISO though.

As to the OP, I have a bridge camera, Kodak Z710, and I shoot it completely in manual mode with it and I get some pretty decent pictures. I had a chance to shoot a D70 the other day and I had it on automatic because I didn't really know how to use it and the control just look confusing, that ,and I didn't have all day to play with it. Anyhow, the pictures from the D70 didn't come out any better than when I was shooting the Kodak in manual mode. it's also important to note that the conditons that I shot the D70 was darker than what I was use to before. The point is, you have to know how to use the camera. Granted, the automatic mode in the D70 is better the automatic mode in the Kodak but both of them are still pretty bad. I can't wait until I get my own DSLR and play with it.


----------



## shorty6049 (Apr 1, 2008)

so that'd be a "pro-sumer" point and shoot?


----------



## schumionbike (Apr 2, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> so that'd be a "pro-sumer" point and shoot?


 

I guess you can call it that, Walmart considered them "serious amateur" camera.  The image sensor in the bridge camera isn't bigger than a normal p&s, just the manual controls that people attracted to.


----------



## shorty6049 (Apr 2, 2008)

apparently nobody knows what they're called then. lol. I was told in a different thread on this forum that it was callled a pro-sumer, but then i've also heard that term applied to things such as the rebel, or the canon 40d.


----------



## Socrates (Apr 2, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> 1- RAW


Some P&S cameras provide RAW. I had one several years ago. On the flip side, many of us see little benefit to RAW.



shorty6049 said:


> 2- you can get very different looks by changing lenses, so its worth the extra hassle for me.


I agree.



shorty6049 said:


> 3- A DSLR just feels better in my hands than most point and shoot cameras and has a more solid build.


So what? How does that relate to better pictures?



shorty6049 said:


> 4- Noise at high ISOs is much lower on most DSLRs , plus the larger sensor allows for more light to get in as well.


The lower noise is _because_ of the sensor size (large sensor means large pixels). The sensor does not "allow" more light; rather, it _needs_ more light. The lens is the item that "allows" the light.



shorty6049 said:


> 5- Dslrs are almost always faster than point and shoot cameras at pretty much everything.


I disagree completely. Strictly one example out of many: I just finished taking my flash head and cable off the bracket and the bracket off the camera. I'm in process of removing the portrait lens so that I can install my all-purpose walk-around lens. My wife shouts "Quick, take a picture of [whatever]" Well, needless to say, she fires off four shots with her Casio before I can bring my Nikon up to my eye.


----------



## shorty6049 (Apr 2, 2008)

Socrates said:


> Some P&S cameras provide RAW. I had one several years ago. On the flip side, many of us see little benefit to RAW.
> 
> 
> I agree.
> ...



Ok, i'll try to cover all the points where i disagree with you quick...

RAW- as for RAW, it was just ONE thing that i wanted from a camera, not the ONLY thing. If it weren't for the other points, i wouldn't have bought it. What i'm saying , is that i didnt buy it JUST for RAW capability, its just part of the package.

The Feel- on this point, I wasn't saying that it made for better photos, just a better user experience for me.

Sensor size- From my knowledge , the larger a sensor is, the more light  gets in. Thats because its bigger and therefore has more surface area. This also means that you get brighter images at lower ISOs than with a point and shoot.

Speed- This one is kind of down to how fast YOU can change lenses, and it wasn't what i was referring to. dSLRs are not really SUPPOSED to be a general all-purpose family photo camera. I've been in the same situation, where i was at a family barbecue, and someone said to take pictures of them. I was stuck with my 50mm on, so i had to switch lenses. Its kind of a hassle, but thats what variable focal length lenses are for. DSLRs were made (originally) for only the professionals, and they suited them perfectly. It wasn't until recently that they became affordable enough for just average people to start buying (and get talked into buying by greedy camera salesmen working on commission) them as a reasonable alternative to point and shoots.



i mean, come on, are you REALLY trying to argue that a point and shoot is *better* than an SLR???


----------



## Socrates (Apr 2, 2008)

schumionbike said:


> I have a Kodak Z710 that could give 80 efl at like f3.1. The stat for it is 38-380, f2.8-f3.7. The camera is crap at high ISO though, I think that where DSLR really have an advantage.


 
It's not really 38-380mm focal length.  Because of the small sensor size, it's the _apparent_ focal length or the _equivalent_ focal length but not the _real_ focal length.

The camera is crap at high ISO because of the sensor size.  Small sensors mean small pixels and small pixels are conducive to electrical noise.


----------



## schumionbike (Apr 3, 2008)

Socrates said:


> It's not really 38-380mm focal length. Because of the small sensor size, it's the _apparent_ focal length or the _equivalent_ focal length but not the _real_ focal length.
> 
> The camera is crap at high ISO because of the sensor size. Small sensors mean small pixels and small pixels are conducive to electrical noise.


 
I know the 38-380 mm is the equivalent focal lenght but only the equivalent lenght will determine how far you can reach and not the real focal lenght.  The 380mm will go pretty far too.   I know the 1/2.5in sensor and make a lot of noise but hey, at $150, you can't complain.


----------



## Mystwalker (Apr 3, 2008)

I switched to DSLR 10 months ago.  For the first 3-4 months I felt the same way as OP.  For stationery shots, my wife's SD8xx IS (I still can't remember which one) seem to take better pictures in any situation - very very sad.  Wanted to toss 30D through wall, but wife knew price of camera and would've killed me.

10 months later ... my pictures are getting "better" (defined as not embarrassing), BUT most important is that I also know I can take certain shots that a P&S can't take in a million years (you can prove me wrong in a million years).  I'm talking about the speed and clarity of zooms, the ability to shoot in lower light situations (okay, external flash counts, I'm cheating), ability to take shot after shot after shot after shot (low shutter lag was primary reason I switch to DSLR) ... AND a P&S would look plain absurd mounted to a white "L" lens.  As recent as last week, wife's shots in low light with flash still looked better because my understanding (lack of) of flash was embarrassing - just kept reading  threads here, and experimenting until something worked. 

A lens that helped change my view of DSLR is the 50mm f/1.8 for ~$90 (think Canon increased price to that).  Lens is flimsy, feels like a toy, blah blah blah ... BUT it works very well.  At f/1.8 it is very forgiving in low light situations.  Do not know if any of the recent P&S have lens that is f/1.8 - only ones that come to mind are Olympus 3040 and 4040 which were discontinued a number of years ago.

If you want to be really convinced, invest in an "L" lens - me think the 70-200 f/4L IS or the 70-200 f/2.8L IS will have you singing a different tune.

I haven't even started to mess with RAW files yet - cropping in Elements is as far as I go and you can do that with photo from any camera.


----------



## skieur (Apr 5, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> so that'd be a "pro-sumer" point and shoot?


 
Some of you guys, don't know your cameras! :er:

In digital, there are small point and shoots, same size cameras that have both automatic and manual settings (f stop, shutterspeed etc.), and compact superzooms that have all the features of most DSLRS except the lens is fixed.  However with a wide angle to telephoto fixed lens, that is all that some people need.  Moreover these cameras can also do video as well as stills and you can use filters etc. just like on a DSLR.  The final kind is of course the DSLR.

I have all types with settings, except the point and shoot.

skieur


----------



## shorty6049 (Apr 5, 2008)

i know cameras, but i sure know the cameras that i USE better than i know the ones that i really don't care about... thats like saying that everyone who drives a toyota should know everything about racing trucks or something.


----------



## skieur (Apr 5, 2008)

shorty6049 said:


> i know cameras, but i sure know the cameras that i USE better than i know the ones that i really don't care about... thats like saying that everyone who drives a toyota should know everything about racing trucks or something.


 
The big difference however is that I can get the shot by having the right camera in my hands while you are fiddling with lenses.  I can also get the shot where cameras are not allowed, and my superzoom allows me to take photos from waist level as well as eye level which makes street photography easy as well.  Instantly switching to video is also perfect in some situations.

Don't get me wrong, I love my DSLRs too, but one camera type is not the best for all photo situations.

skieur


----------



## shorty6049 (Apr 5, 2008)

skieur said:


> , but one camera type is not the best for all photo situations.
> 
> skieur




never said it was


----------



## Wozza (Apr 6, 2008)

The term 'prosumer' is hard to define and match to paticular camera's. It's a buzz word which has been used to describe goods for hobbyists. Generally a grey area between professional and general consumer goods. Speaking as such, a 'bridge' camera or an entry level 'DSLR' could easily be labelled prosumer.

As for DSLR's, I love mine. If I go out somewhere with the intention of taking photo's, I will take my DSLR. If I'm going somewhere that I may or may not use the camera, or will have long peroids of needing to stash the camera, I will take my little Canon IXUS. Again if I'm off Mountain Biking or Hiking, I will probably take the IXUS. However if I wanted o shoot someone else mountain biking, I'll take the DSLR because of the shutter speeds.

There are many, many other circumstances that the DSLR is handy in, not to mention I prefer the feel and having the controls on the surface of the camera instead of having to dig through menus.

The op stating that a smaller camera suits their style of photography is fine - each to their own, but a compact vs dslr debate is pointless as everyone has differing needs.


----------



## abraxas (Apr 8, 2008)

I like looking through the little view-hole and seeing the picture before I push the button-thing.  And all the other stuff and knobs and switches--amazing!


----------



## shorty6049 (Apr 8, 2008)

haha, agreed....


----------



## JerryPH (Apr 8, 2008)

jophassa said:


> ...but my views are not biased in any way. In fact, they couldn't be more unbiased.
> 
> I have compared photos of the same scene, with the same natural light and the same camera settings with both cameras and I honestly feel the Casio's images are near-identical to the 350d's.
> 
> Another reason that I am not biased is I just spent over £500 on equipment which I enjoyed using and produced some great results, but I feel the convenience of just slipping the Casio into my pocket and keeping it with me all the time is just an invaluable benefit, do you not think?


 
Nope. (lol) Amount of money spent on a camera is NOT a guarantee that you will get good pics, not even if you added another zero or 2 to that amount that you spent. 

Here we have a GLARINGLY obvious case of someone that has no idea about the fundementals of photoraphy, has no idea of how to get the best out of a camera that they paid over £500 on and thinks that all they need to do, to get a quality picture... is to press the shutter.

None of that is wrong in anyway... for you. You have no interest in investing in your education, at least not at this point. You have no understanding of what it takes to get a good picture out of your camera.  Of course you will not see a difference.

A comparable example is that you used to drive a 300,000km yugo, bought a new £50,000 Cadillac and now complain that your Yugo is more comfortable becuase you did not even take the time to learn how to adjust the seats in the Caddy.

Whether your £500 purchase entices you to learn or not is totally up to you, and its neither a fast or easy path for some to walk, but it sure is fun.

Once you learn how to squeeze the best pics out of that camera, you will start to see how good things can get... and maybe place that Casio where it belongs, on the shelf collecting dust.


----------

