Should I get a dSLR?

[insertnamehere]

I've just got a Sony Ericsson k750i phone and have been messing around with the digital camera built in. It is 2 megapixels and takes good photos, considering that it's a phone. But compared to a real camera, it's not great.

One of the things that I like about digital photography as a concept is that cameras don't eat film and produce photos that you can do a lot with - store virtually, edit, distribute, print (as opposed to 6x4 printouts only with film). And seeing as my Canon film SLR seems to be unwell for a variety of reasons I was going to get a digital camera.

Initially, I was looking at ultra compacts that I could slip in a pocket and take everywhere, but I realised that my phone does that anyway and takes acceptable, spontaneous photos. And I have become increasingly fussy and perfectionistic about photo quality, mainly because a bad photo really irritates me and I am starting to find taking good photos more and more satisfying.

So I have now, unfortunately for my wallet, started looking around at digital SLRs. This leads me on to the first of my questions:
How dramatic is the difference in photo quality between a dSLR and a compact and is it worth the significant ($500) price hike?

Secondly, if I were to get a dSLR, which would you recommend? From what I've read, I'm leaning towards the Olympus E-500, plus I'm also feeling less that magnanimous towards Canon as a manufacturor seeing as my current SLR is less than well. But any comments would be greatly appreciated.

Sorry for a rather laborious first post...

:)

Anthony

[TenD]

If you are all about getting the absolute best quality photos, and having the most control over that quality, then a DSLR is the way to go. The photographs taken by the higher end P&S cameras rival the quality of a DSLR with much more convenience. You have to decide whether you'll want to put up with some of the incovenience to have the best quality. I for one think the extra inconvenience is worth it.
If your current SLR is an EOS model then the lenses used with that camera will work with any Canon Digital SLR. You'll be money ahead going with Canon. The Olympus looks like a nice system and should meet most peoples needs. Nikon and Minolta also offer some good looking systems. It all comes down to what you are looking for in your photography experience, and what system you want to make an investment in.

[Rhys]

Any of the major SLR systems should be OK. They're all pretty good save for the Sigma SD-10 which is pretty outdated and awful.

Pentax doesn't seem to be interested in producing more than a 6mp camera - which should be sufficient for almost all amateurs and many professionals.

Canon offers a nice range of sensor sizes and lenses.
Nikon offers a single sensor size and plenty lenses.
Olympus is short on lenses but is a neat system.
Minolta has just stepped into the fray with a neat camera.

I'd be happy using any of the systems.

[Rex914]

If you're a Canon user already, I might suggest sticking with Canon, especially if you have EF-mount lenses. You will be more familiar with the ergonomics and the layout of a Canon camera, and you'll be able to get up to speed and get more out of your camera from the get go. I would suggest getting a Digital Rebel XT. If you order now, you can still take advantage of the rebate program and get anywhere between $75 and $500+ off your purchase.

[wxcloud9xw]

The photographs taken by the higher end P&S cameras rival the quality of a DSLR with much more convenience.

I disagree with this idea because the point and shoot cameras all have very small sensor sizes accept for the sony h1. Excluding the h1 its hard for the small high mp sensors to gather in enough light and detail. skin tones are more blended and less dynamic on a P&S than larger sensored DSLRs. It takes a large enough sensor size to capture true-to-life colors and detail. This is where DSLRs really take the lead over even the top of the line point and shoot digital cameras. I noticed this discrepency between my Nikon coolpix 8800 8mp portrait images over my new Rebel XT 8mp camera's images right away.

This is why so many professionals use Medium format film, because it captures so much more true-to-life colors and detail. Of course it also allows them to make large detailed prints as well.

[George Riehm]

I disagree with this idea because the point and shoot cameras all have very small sensor sizes accept for the sony h1. Excluding the h1 its hard for the small high mp sensors to gather in enough light and detail. skin tones are more blended and less dynamic on a P&S than larger sensored DSLRs. It takes a large enough sensor size to capture true-to-life colors and detail. This is where DSLRs really take the lead over even the top of the line point and shoot digital cameras. I noticed this discrepency between my Nikon coolpix 8800 8mp portrait images over my new Rebel XT 8mp camera's images right away.

This is why so many professionals use Medium format film, because it captures so much more true-to-life colors and detail. Of course it also allows them to make large detailed prints as well.

The Sony model is the R-1. The rest... I dunno, but an interesting set of observations.

[Jason25]

I bought the Sony H1 at the end of september, and just got a Nikon D50. If I could go back in time, I would have gotten the D50 to begin with. The speed and low-light performance are exactly what I was looking for from the start, I just didn't know it at the time. I never really cared about the size of the camera. I'm actually considering selling the Sony, still not sure though. In short, if you think you'll eventually get a DSLR, just do it now!

[ktixx]

Plus a huge advantage of SLR's is the ability to shoot in RAW. (I am not sure if P&S can shoot in raw, I tried looking but couldn't find the info) With SLR's you can shoot RAW and tweak the photo's any way you like - virtually retake the photo, plus you can capture more Dynamic Range when shooting RAW allowing you to get more realistic photos. In addition (as previous posters mentioned) you have Faster/cleaner ISO's as well as quicker shutter speeds and less camera lag. Finally, with a DSLR, get a new lens and you basically have a new camera, go from a SUPER wide angle to a SUPER zoom in no time. As stated previously, it all comes down to money and use. If you have the money to spend, and you want to start photography as a serious hobby, then I would suggest nothing but an SLR, if you are just the casual photographer, who wants to take their camera out with friends and take pictures without thinking, then go with a P&S. Just be warned, purchasing an SLR is not a one time thing, there will always be lenses, flashes, cards, cleaners etc. etc. etc that you will want to purchase. I remember when I first got my 20d, I was so concerned about spending $1000, now I am more concerned with how to get the $1000 so I can spend it on my camera :D

Good Luck
Ken

[insertnamehere]

Thank you all for your thoughts. I think it is going to ultimately come down to priorities; a dSLR will ultimately take the best photos, but, for me at least, requires some justification in comparison to something like a Panasonic FZ30; to spec up a Rebel XT, or E500 with a similar lense is going to cost at least $1000 more, and it will be unwieldy, and does not have OIS. Against that, the FZ30 has overall worse photo quality - in particular high ISO noise. I think that to try to help resolve this, I should go down to a camera store and tryout various high end ultrazooms/P&S and dSLRs, but again, thanks for your input.

Anthony

[Jason25]

You're absolutely right. That's the only real way to figure out what's best for you :) I hope you find what you're looking for after that!

[jeisner]

Pentax doesn't seem to be interested in producing more than a 6mp camera - which should be sufficient for almost all amateurs and many professionals.


At PMA in feb there will be a 9mp version of the DL and most likely a 14MP version of the D2 announced.... That said I am still happy with 6mp, I may upgrade as my GF wants my DS, but as you say 6mp has so far been enough for my needs... people worry too much about numbers like MPs ;-)

[George Riehm]

Plus a huge advantage of SLR's is the ability to shoot in RAW. (I am not sure if P&S can shoot in raw, I tried looking but couldn't find the info) With SLR's you can shoot RAW and tweak the photo's any way you like - virtually retake the photo, plus you can capture more Dynamic Range when shooting RAW allowing you to get more realistic photos. In addition (as previous posters mentioned) you have Faster/cleaner ISO's as well as quicker shutter speeds and less camera lag. Finally, with a DSLR, get a new lens and you basically have a new camera, go from a SUPER wide angle to a SUPER zoom in no time. As stated previously, it all comes down to money and use. If you have the money to spend, and you want to start photography as a serious hobby, then I would suggest nothing but an SLR, if you are just the casual photographer, who wants to take their camera out with friends and take pictures without thinking, then go with a P&S. Just be warned, purchasing an SLR is not a one time thing, there will always be lenses, flashes, cards, cleaners etc. etc. etc that you will want to purchase. I remember when I first got my 20d, I was so concerned about spending $1000, now I am more concerned with how to get the $1000 so I can spend it on my camera :D

Good Luck
Ken

Ken, Just out of curiousity where did you read that shooting in RAW increases dynamic range?

Thanks.

[coldrain]

George, you do not have to read it anywhere. The only big plus of RAW is dynamic range. A CCD or CMOS usually captures values between 12 and 14 bits per pixel. This is either red, green or blue. Then this gets interpolated to get 12 to 14 bits red, green or blue per pixel (using values of neigbouring pixels). This 12 to 14 bits per colour per pixel does have quite a bit more dinamic range than the 8 bits per colour per pixel pixel that you store in a JPEG or TIFF.

Simple, RAW gives a much bigger dynamic range, very important when post processing.

Wxcloud9xw, I believe you mean the Sony R1, not the H1.... and the R1 is not sooo much better than the new Fuji line btw.

jeisner, who will be the manufacturer of those sensors for Pentax??
If that is Panasonic, that will be laughable.... We will see what 2006 will bring.

[wxcloud9xw]

I meant R1 ...I was thinking of Hasselblad's H1 and H2 for some reason I guess....I'd love to get my hands on one of those.

RAW does give more dynamic range and allows for more editing before you convert it back to 8bits for printing.

The smaller point n shoot sensors skins tones get blended way too much after I just looked at some older photos. I never noticed this until I took my first few portraits with my Rebel XT, which displays much for dynamic and natural looking skin tones. I believe though once you get to the sensor size of a a medium format DSLR like the mamiya ZD and hasselblad H2 you reach a point to where you can't get much better "true-to-life" colors and dynamic range from a larger sensor. This is from what articles I've read about them.

From what I've herd the 1ds-Mark2's makes medium format film quality prints up to 16x20. The new medium format DSLRs Mamiya ZD and h2; actually produce better than medium format film at all print sizes. They even rival large format drum scans. But I'm geting way off track!

[ktixx]

Ken, Just out of curiousity where did you read that shooting in RAW increases dynamic range?

Thanks.

Coldrain definitely did a great job of explaining. Specifically, I believe I read this information somewhere on www.luminous-landscape.com, the phenomenal site operated by photographer Michael Reichmann. I don't exactly remember where I read this, but it was somewhere on there, probably in the article on photoshop CS2's HDR function. I also remember reading it somewhere on the internet in an article on why to shoot RAW.
Ken

[jeisner]

jeisner, who will be the manufacturer of those sensors for Pentax??
If that is Panasonic, that will be laughable.... We will see what 2006 will bring.

Why would it be panasonic they have partnered with Olympus?

Pentax is now partnered with Samsung (well known as plenty of press releases to that effect) and I believe they will eventually (when Pentax are happy with the results?) be developing sensors for both of their cameras...

Although apparently the D2 will have the same sensor as the Nikon D200... And Samsung are releasing their own branded version of the DL (still pentax K mount) with a cypress 9mp sensor, I have no idea whether Pentax will put that in too, or go for something different...

P.S. I have to agree I ONLY shoot RAW...

[ReF]

Ken, Just out of curiousity where did you read that shooting in RAW increases dynamic range?

Thanks.

it's also all over dpreview's reviews of dslrs.

to answer one of your old questions about where it's mentioned that canon dslrs are about 1/3 stop more sensitive than the indicated ISO, look here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp

[George Riehm]

it's also all over dpreview's reviews of dslrs.

to answer one of your old questions about where it's mentioned that canon dslrs are about 1/3 stop more sensitive than the indicated ISO, look here:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5d/page21.asp

I would appreciate specific comments about higher dynamic range as it relates to stops of improvement using RAW vs. JPEG. Don't get me wrong, as I shoot in RAW, most of the time, for other reasons, but a large gain in dynamic range is not one of them.

As for the older question: I wasn't questioning sensitivity, but image quality. I think the old question was: Where is it written specifically that the 350D image quality is superior to the E-500 and the 7D?

[coldrain]

I would appreciate specific comments about higher dynamic range as it relates to stops of improvement using RAW vs. JPEG. Don't get me wrong, as I shoot in RAW, most of the time, for other reasons, but a large gain in dynamic range is not one of them.

As for the older question: I wasn't questioning sensitivity, but image quality. I think the old question was: Where is it written specifically that the 350D image quality is superior to the E-500 and the 7D?
That question was in another thread ;)

[George Riehm]

George, you do not have to read it anywhere. The only big plus of RAW is dynamic range. A CCD or CMOS usually captures values between 12 and 14 bits per pixel. This is either red, green or blue. Then this gets interpolated to get 12 to 14 bits red, green or blue per pixel (using values of neigbouring pixels). This 12 to 14 bits per colour per pixel does have quite a bit more dinamic range than the 8 bits per colour per pixel pixel that you store in a JPEG or TIFF.

Simple, RAW gives a much bigger dynamic range, very important when post processing.

Again, as discussed before, I know how imagers work.

Actually I do need to read it somewhere, as the whole reason I asked this is because I have never read that there is an "actual" large DNR impact using RAW.

So, I am asking that someone document and quantify the "much bigger" value in stops of dynamic range. For instance: JPEG = 10.5 stops and RAW = 12 stops... I like documentation, so I would appreciate it versus hearsay, and speculation.

Also, It doesn't seem that I can print RAW images directly, as they need to be processed first (JPEG, TIFF, etc), so if there is a MUCH greater dynamic range with RAW imagines, and much smaller DNR for JPEG and TIFF, how can I retain that range when printed?

Thanks.


Wxcloud9xw, I believe you mean the Sony R1, not the H1.... and the R1 is not sooo much better than the new Fuji line btw.

jeisner, who will be the manufacturer of those sensors for Pentax??
If that is Panasonic, that will be laughable.... We will see what 2006 will bring.

[coldrain]

When you print them I do not think there still is the dynamic range advantage, unless you use 16bits per colour in photoshop instead of 8 bits per colour. But in post processing in 16bit instead of 8bit of course you will have the benefit of the added dynamic range still, more gradations of dark and light really help when you shift things either way. Same as with if you convert your images from 8 bit to 4 bit per colour... not only do you lose a lot of colour variety but also a lot of dynamic range to play with when you are post processing and adjusting, and you can NOT get the lost info back. So, 12 or 14bits of RAW info really can matter, even if you then convert it to 8bit formats after post processing.

Look at it like this:
32bits images use 8 bits per colour (and maybe the rest for alpha channel).
This gives only 255 steps from black to white.
12 bits give 4095 steps from black to white (!!!), imagine what that does to information in shadows or very bright areas.
14 bits give 16383 steps between black and white, you can see how big the theoretically possible dynamic range difference is.

Where this comes mostly into play is when you need to lighten dark areas, or when you have over exposed a photo. When you need to adjust a photo in those ways, RAW has a HUGE advantage, just because there is so much more information about the too light or too dark areas still there, and in 8bit JPEG it is gone for ever.

[MrForgetable]

Thank you all for your thoughts. I think it is going to ultimately come down to priorities; a dSLR will ultimately take the best photos, but, for me at least, requires some justification in comparison to something like a Panasonic FZ30; to spec up a Rebel XT, or E500 with a similar lense is going to cost at least $1000 more, and it will be unwieldy, and does not have OIS. Against that, the FZ30 has overall worse photo quality - in particular high ISO noise. I think that to try to help resolve this, I should go down to a camera store and tryout various high end ultrazooms/P&S and dSLRs, but again, thanks for your input.

Anthony

with the Rebel XT, you will probably be able to use ISO 800/1600 easily and still have relatively low noise to the Pany's ISO 200/400. That is easily 2-3 stops right there.
with the E-300/E-500, you will be able to use ISO 400 and push the ISO to 800 and still get very good 8x10in prints (with cropping and all)

so i only have experience with the olympus cameras, and i can tell you that i'd much rather have the 2 lens kit that comes with the E-500 than the Panasonic. i'd even take an XT over the Panasonic.

Why? The picture quality for sure is better, but there is something about that mechanical click-whirr of the shutter that gets me going every time I push that shutter button. The camera seems to read my mind when I want a picture and take the picture before my finger fully depresses the shutter button. It is quite amazing. Quite an experience.

But also quite expensive.

[ReF]

I would appreciate specific comments about higher dynamic range as it relates to stops of improvement using RAW vs. JPEG. Don't get me wrong, as I shoot in RAW, most of the time, for other reasons, but a large gain in dynamic range is not one of them.

As for the older question: I wasn't questioning sensitivity, but image quality. I think the old question was: Where is it written specifically that the 350D image quality is superior to the E-500 and the 7D?

addressing the first paragraph: the info is there, just read the reviews. they pretty much always mention being able to recover info beyond what the histogram shows when processing RAW.

paragraph 2: what the heck are you talking about? i don't know where in the world i mentioned "that the 350D image quality is superior to the E-500 and the 7D". it was a long time ago but you still asked where someone else got that info about canon ISO being 1/3 stop more sensitive. i'm just giving you the link. if you didn't have so many posts i'd look it up and show you. you remember asking that question?

[George Riehm]

addressing the first paragraph: the info is there, just read the reviews. they pretty much always mention being able to recover info beyond what the histogram shows when processing RAW.

paragraph 2: what the heck are you talking about? i don't know where in the world i mentioned "that the 350D image quality is superior to the E-500 and the 7D". it was a long time ago but you still asked where someone else got that info about canon ISO being 1/3 stop more sensitive. i'm just giving you the link. if you didn't have so many posts i'd look it up and show you. you remember asking that question?

Just asking for one or two documented references, where a reviewer says "RAW increases dynamic range by "x" stops over JPEG". I just don't see where it makes that big of a difference in the final print.

Paragraph 2: Sorry, and thanks, but this was not addressed the 1/3 stop statement. Yes I do remember the question and the answer. It just appeared that you were answering the E-500, 7D, vs. 350D question with the wrong answer (but not the case). Again sorry for the confusion and thanks for the link.

[ktixx]

From what I have read (only from other online discussions/articles - not directly from a sensor manufacturer) RAW captures about 2 stops more DR then JEPG, all depending on the camera/sensor (JPEG = ~7 RAW = ~9). The specific advantage with the improved DR is that RAW can extract more detail from blown highlights
Ken

[murrays]

IMHO, the biggest advantage of a dSLR is the speed; with a P&S you have to wait...

Wait for the camera to turn on.

Wait for the motorized zoom.

Wait for the camera to take the photo after you press the shutter release.

Wait for the camera to write data to the card.

My D70s has none of this. I pick up the camera, turn it on (if it's not just sleeping) and hit the shutter release, all in less time than it takes most P&S cameras to turn on.

Because of this speed, I actually find a dSLR to be more convenient than a P&S other than the size.

-murray

[George Riehm]

From what I have read (only from other online discussions/articles - not directly from a sensor manufacturer) RAW captures about 2 stops more DR then JEPG, all depending on the camera/sensor (JPEG = ~7 RAW = ~9). The specific advantage with the improved DR is that RAW can extract more detail from blown highlights
Ken

Thanks Ken and coldrain. My knowlege and background lead me in a similar direction, and while bit-depth can certainly make a difference in tonal range (which is why I like shooting in RAW/NEF) the actual dynamic range is more a function of sensor pixel efficiency and noise floor.

So here are my thoughts on this and why I asked for a published specification showing the relative difference:

While I agree that there is certainly more total information in RAW images, higher bitrate storage does not always equal greater dynamic range.

If I have 2 image sensors and one has an analog dynamic range of 0-2 and the other has an analog dynamic range of 0-3, and both have 14 bit converters, the second sensor will still have greater dynamic range.

On the other hand using two equaly sensitive sensors, if one has a 14 bit converter and the other has 12, then the 14 bit converted sensor will have better tonal range, but dynamic range stays the same.

Keep in mind that dyanamic range is the difference between the brightest and darkest sensitivity of the sensor, not how many steps are in between.

That said here is an interesting "published" graphic that is part of the E-500 review on Imaging resource. The DNR table can be found toward the bottom of this page:

http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/EV500/EV500IMATEST.HTM

From this table it looks like it's time to retire the D70, and get a D200 (not yet on this table) or even a D50... the D200 is in the planning stage.

[erichlund]

My first college degree was in management, where I had several courses in statistics. The courses should have been named "Lying with Numbers". The problem with statistics, and these measurements are just another form, is that while they contain useful information, out of complete context they don't necessarily draw the correct picture. The D2X, as they mentioned, rated very low, yet they are (I paraphrase) - 'amazed at the amount of detail you can get from the shadow areas'. So, the test has limits. Look at your photos. Take the same photos with a newer camera. If the output shows enough difference, then it's time to upgrade.

Cheers,
Eric

[George Riehm]

My first college degree was in management, where I had several courses in statistics. The courses should have been named "Lying with Numbers". The problem with statistics, and these measurements are just another form, is that while they contain useful information, out of complete context they don't necessarily draw the correct picture. The D2X, as they mentioned, rated very low, yet they are (I paraphrase) - 'amazed at the amount of detail you can get from the shadow areas'. So, the test has limits. Look at your photos. Take the same photos with a newer camera. If the output shows enough difference, then it's time to upgrade.

Cheers,
Eric

Thanks Eric. I actually won't be upgrading anytime soon. The D70 may be at the bottom of the dynamic range list, but it has several off-setting redeeming factors, takes great photos, and I know the work-arounds.

The idea of posting access to the chart is to show which cameras are on the theoretical "top-of-the-heap" in dynamic range at ISO100/200. Kind-of surprising in some cases.;)

[phatkid77]

i wish i knew the numbers meant....i was debating between rebel XT and the d70s, on some reviews the pics do look better from the rebel, BUT i do like the better focusing with the D70s, and there was something else??


faster shutter speed (do u really need quicker than 1/4000?) on the nikon

i kinda hate the strobe AF in low light..

spot metering.....better for action/sports?

like the LCD on the top, not back of screen.. and it has a lamp?

i do have to say, as slow as i am, i can fly around the settings on the D70s (not sure what im doing, but im flying!) dual wheel and all

frig, have 14 days to make final decisions i guess

cory

[phatkid77]

as per chart the D50 even looks better then the xt, not that i know how to interpret the numbers!!

[George Riehm]

i wish i knew the numbers meant....i was debating between rebel XT and the d70s, on some reviews the pics do look better from the rebel, BUT i do like the better focusing with the D70s, and there was something else??


faster shutter speed (do u really need quicker than 1/4000?) on the nikon

i kinda hate the strobe AF in low light..

spot metering.....better for action/sports?

like the LCD on the top, not back of screen.. and it has a lamp?

i do have to say, as slow as i am, i can fly around the settings on the D70s (not sure what im doing, but im flying!) dual wheel and all

frig, have 14 days to make final decisions i guess

cory

The numbers are dynamic range in stops. Please note that post processing methods also have a big impact on results as well, which says a lot for the Adobe camera RAW plug-in. Without the plug-in you can see a noticable drop in DNR performance.

Also make sure that you read the text following the chart, as there is some hesitation as to the validity of the data. After reading and re-reading these notes it's not clear how they explain the D50 vs. D70/70s results as all three have a bottom ISO level of 200.

Overall the D50 seems to be the better choice for cost/performance, and even has me wondering if I should trade. You might want to seriously consider the D50, as it appears to be one of the best cameras Nikon or anyone else is offering. Makes me wonder why they didn't make those same changes to the D70s.:(

[phatkid77]

dumb d50 no LCD light and only one command dial too:mad:

[George Riehm]

dumb d50 no LCD light and only one command dial too:mad:

What do you expect for $550? With the KM 5D and E-500 you don't even get the info LCD...;)

P.S. I do like the 5D. Nice camera.