DSLR Syndrome - an opinion

[DonSchap]

One of the things that I have noticed in the past five years is that when a person (whomever) chooses to own a DSLR, they actually tend to become a “more interested” person in creating better art. I’m not sure what it is with the convenience of a P&S camera, but it tends to make the shooter less critical and a bit more cavalier in what they shoot. Now, this, of course, is not a “broad brush paint job”, there are people who definitely do not fit this mold and I am not speaking to that segment of the community.

But, when a person actually makes that transition to a DSLR … I think it comes with a certain ‘maturity’, if you will, that it is going to take more than just lifting the camera and pressing the shutter release. That person is in it for more than just a casual memory, but more for the actual improvement of what event is being photographed and eventually represented.

Again, this is not a paint job, but just an observation. Consider a casual “Joseph Blow” walking towards you … who has a P&S dangling from his wrist. Ask yourself : “Serious or not?”

Now, same dude … has a DSLR strapped up around his neck and a lens bag on his shoulder. “Serious or not?”

C’mon, be honest. Okay, Scene change. You’re at a wedding … seems like everyone had a “purse camera” with them, right? But what happens when someone breaks out a DSLR? People back up, don’t they? Questions pop from people who are just amazed at what they are seeing. A certain level of respect is created … because people know that an investment in quality has taken place. When is the last time you saw someone lean over and ask, "Uh, what kind of Point & Shoot is that?"

In the end … who takes the better shot? Personally, I don’t know … but, my money is probably on the DSLR shooter. I’ve seen some work from a few of those cameras and the people who are behind them … and I am kind of impressed. :cool:

[JTL]

One of the things that I have noticed in the past five years is that when a person (whomever) chooses to own a DSLR, they actually tend to become a “more interested” person in creating better art. Really? It's been my experience that when most people decide to own a DSLR it's a supreme waste of money that winds up sitting on a closet shelf collecting dust after the novelty wears off...or when the realization sets in that a DSLR isn't some sort of "magic" picture taking machine that suddenly causes the user to start producing great images and that it will, in fact, require a quantum leap of commitment over their previous P&S camera...

But...please...keep on buying, folks...because as long as you continually keep funding the camera companies, people like me get to have better and better tools...:D:D:D

[DonSchap]

But...please...keep on buying, folks...because as long as you continually keep funding the camera companies, people like me get to have better and better tools...:D:D:D

Man, you have that right. A "controlled flow", reducing the overall costs. A cynically honest approach to consumerism. Screw the art, eh?

[jedinite]

With the relatively lower cost of owning a DSLR nowadays, I believe there's a lot more people that buy one thinking that it will dramatically increase the quality of images they take and some believe they will become amazing photographers. For some this is true, for many it is not. Sadly, like JTL said, many DSLR owners tend to leave their cameras in the closets collecting dust until a big event comes up, then magically they transform into these great photographers that will be catching spectacular images. I know because I have tried to get many of my friends that own DSLRs out for photo-walks, to go out for a day on the weekend to shoot a topic or subject, and mostly people seem uninterested or too busy to make time to do it.

I on the other hand carry my camera nearly EVERYWHERE I go. I don't care that body, two lenses, accessories and flash weigh me down an extra 10lbs. To have my camera with me so I can shoot something I see inspiration in is what I live for. I've not yet taken my 10,000 photos so I'm very much still in the process of learning to become a very good photographer. But when I look at my images I can tell you what I did wrong, how I can improve it next time and what my intentions were. I'm not an accidental artist, nor do I carry a DSLR around for attention (many DSLR owners do). I have a real passion for images, I could spend days looking at photos and reading photography books and never get bored of it.

Next time a friend or family member asks you about picking up a DSLR ask them, what do they really want out of it? If it's to get sharper images, more vibrant colors in family event photos or even just stuff they want to take pictures of, recommend them a really good P&S. If they tell you that they are looking to get into the business of photography, or want to hang stuff on the wall, recommend them to a class and lend them a DSLR if you can. If they have a true passion for taking photos and want to invest time and money to learn not only how to take photos, but to post-process them, then recommend them a good kit within their budget and software to go along with it. If they are merely planning on taking a photo then printing it or publishing it on then they don't need a DSLR, they need a good point and shoot and guidance on how to improve their skills at taking images.

[GaryS]

I'm kinda with JTL on this.... I have friends who have looked at my photos, then ask what kind of camera I have and then plan to run out to buy one. I'm always saying "STOP! It takes an incredible amount of work and effort to take good photos. If you want to learn, bring the camera you have out Sunday morning at sunrise, and I'll help you take some great photos". But of course, they never come out at sunrise and the next time I see them they have a dslr. Which I never see again after they show it off to me.

Everyone things it's the camera...

[Csae]

That might of been true a while ago, but there are alot of P&S who look like dslrs, so now this only applies when the dslr owner also pulls out a big fat L lens.

Considering the amount of people buying low-end dslrs, i think most are interested in just taking shots at a better % then their P&S.

What i've noticed is alot more people who are interesting in photography are focusing more and more on the technical aspects of it then the artistic aspect.

You'll see about 100 guys critically working on their focus, sharpness, and about 5 working on an artistic photo with feeling or a message to it.

Lol garry its so true, i think the example that jumped to my mind the soonest after reading that is how i did a couple partys and everyone was telling me my flash was pointing the wrong way, and of course after the pictures came out everyone congratulated my camera. XD

[JTL]

Man, you have that right. A "controlled flow", reducing the overall costs. A cynically honest approach to consumerism. Screw the art, eh?Leave the art to the artists. An artist knows they are an artist and doesn't need a DSLR or any specific "thing" to know it. A DSLR has nothing in and of itself to do with creative ability. A DSLR is just a tool, a means of expression to an artist. People who buy a DSLR thinking it will make them an "artist" and turn them into a "creative" person need therapy, not a DSLR. It's the other way around...the artist/creative individual finds a means of expression...for some that may be a DSLR...

But why bring up "art" anyway? There are plenty of people who use and love cameras and picture taking who have no artistic aspirations whatsoever. They want to record the moments of their lives and their loved ones lives. And that's just as important as "art". For some of them a DSLR is the right tool...for those high school gym shots...for those quickly moving toddler shots. But, the sad truth is for every one person who gets good at it, there are dozens...perhaps hundreds who never will. And for them, maybe it doesn't matter that their "disposable income" went toward a twice-yearly used, never fully understood DSLR.

And yes, I'm glad for rampant consumerism. And I'm glad that the camera companies confuse the $hit out of consumers and talk them into buying things they think they need. I'm just a selfish bastard in the end. As far as I'm concerned, the more money to the camera companies, the better. But, don't delude yourself into thinking that the current DSLR wave is creating "artists". All it's doing is creating a bigger avalanche than ever of poorly taken photographs and a lot of dust collecting cameras!

Cynical honesty? Reality bites...hard! ;)


C’mon, be honest. Okay, Scene change. You’re at a wedding … seems like everyone had a “purse camera” with them, right? But what happens when someone breaks out a DSLR? People back up, don’t they? Questions pop from people who are just amazed at what they are seeing. A certain level of respect is created … because people know that an investment in quality has taken place. When is the last time you saw someone lean over and ask, "Uh, what kind of Point & Shoot is that?" We've all seen this happen...in fact it's happened personally to a fair amount of folks on this very site...but, the fact is, the reaction and "respect" is delusional and based on mythology and ignorance, not reality.

Let me ask this, which do you think would be better...to have someone like Dennis Reggie or Jerry Ghionis with an instamatic camera photographing your wedding or Joe Newbie with his spanking new DSLR?


Now, same dude … has a DSLR strapped up around his neck and a lens bag on his shoulder. “Serious or not?”Well, that depends. If it's a Sony...I start rolling on the floor laughing...

[TheWengler]

Lol garry its so true, i think the example that jumped to my mind the soonest after reading that is how i did a couple partys and everyone was telling me my flash was pointing the wrong way, and of course after the pictures came out everyone congratulated my camera. XD

From www.whattheduck.net
43627

[GaryS]

Or:

Your computer writes really great software....

[JTL]

LOL! I'm reminded of my first real job...as a copy writer...trying to explain it to people...

"You mean you draw the pictures?"
"No, I write the words."
"What do you mean?"
"Do you see all these words?"
"Yes."
"Well, someone has to write them."
"And that's it?"

Man, I tell you, nothing makes you want to choke the life out of someone more than that! See, they know they can't draw, so that must take some magic "talent". But, heck, anyone/everyone can write down words! Right?

So, because of all those who couldn't distinguish between typing and writing...it's no surprise to me that people believe the camera does all the work...;)

[GaryS]

"And that's it?"

LMAO at that.... Well phrased, JTL!

[DonSchap]

Following this line of logic, if you have a tool that you use that does excellent work ... and one that has mediocre ... you're grabbing the latter, because ???

[JTL]

Following this line of logic, if you have a tool that you use that does excellent work ... and one that has mediocre ... you're grabbing the latter, because ???No, Don.

Following your line of logic, Joe Newbie and his DSLR would have respect automatically, yet wrongly, conferred upon him for the mere fact of the equipment he has while photographic genius Jerry Ghionis would not be taken seriously for not having as good gear. That is...in a word... ASSININE.

All that your wedding example illustrates is that people are morons. So, what else is new?

While we're at it...I guess Shakespeare’s greatness was because of the pen he used...and anyone who used the same pen is deserving of the same level of respect! "Oh, look dear! He's using a Quill 3000! He invested in quality so he must be very serious! Clear some space for him to write!" :rolleyes:

[jedinite]

Before this turns into a burn session, I'd like to kindly mention to Don that a DSLR may be a far superior "tool" than a point and shoot, but it's also a much more precise and finicky tool.

I can't even say the percentages lean towards the DSLR taking better images in the hands of the unqualified because of the nuances of shooting on an SLR platform. In fact, I'd argue that P&S take better pictures in the hands of the untrained photographer because they don't need to worry about ISO, Shutter speed, Aperture, Exposure, White balance etc. And if you're buying a DSLR and shooting in one of the pre-set modes like Automatic, Creative, Portrait, Night time, Sport etc. more than even 1% of the time you need to seriously reconsider your decision to go with an SLR platform.

DSLRs are good for people that have time and passion to shoot creative shots, have a vision and learn the art.

Like JTL said, regarding two photographers, the trained professional with a disposable point and shoot or an untrained photographer with a DSLR, I'd pay the professional with the lesser camera to take pictures of my wedding any day of the week over the untrained photographer with a DSLR in his hands. I suspect that 90% of the shots taken by the untrained person on a DSLR would end up to be garbage.

But like I've heard it said, 99% of the equipment available is better than 99% of the people taking photos. Skill is always better than hardware.

[JTL]

Before this turns into a burn session, I'd like to kindly mention to Don that a DSLR may be a far superior "tool" than a point and shoot, but it's also a much more precise and finicky tool.

I can't even say the percentages lean towards the DSLR taking better images in the hands of the unqualified because of the nuances of shooting on an SLR platform. In fact, I'd argue that P&S take better pictures in the hands of the untrained photographer because they don't need to worry about ISO, Shutter speed, Aperture, Exposure, White balance etc. And if you're buying a DSLR and shooting in one of the pre-set modes like Automatic, Creative, Portrait, Night time, Sport etc. more than even 1% of the time you need to seriously reconsider your decision to go with an SLR platform.

DSLRs are good for people that have time and passion to shoot creative shots, have a vision and learn the art.

Like JTL said, regarding two photographers, the trained professional with a disposable point and shoot or an untrained photographer with a DSLR, I'd pay the professional with the lesser camera to take pictures of my wedding any day of the week over the untrained photographer with a DSLR in his hands. I suspect that 90% of the shots taken by the untrained person on a DSLR would end up to be garbage.

But like I've heard it said, 99% of the equipment available is better than 99% of the people taking photos. Skill is always better than hardware.Excellent points. And to follow up in this vein and to clarify regarding the point Don made in his last post: In the hands of a "skilled" photographer, it's probably reasonably safe to assume that the better tool will produce the better result. But, there's no basis whatsoever to assume that Joseph Blow Newbie with the best camera in the world can even get his lens cap off.

And, that's "skilled"... bolded, italicized, and in quotes so there's no confusion as to intent and meaning! :D

[DonSchap]

Look, I'm not debating the point that a "skilled" photographer can do marvels with a simple camera. That's part of the reliance aspect. You are the "painter of light" ... the camera, your brush.

I offer the Nikonian-perceptions of some goofy TV-geek showing his clever shot to the "fair maidens:" and getting the "CHIMPING" effect out of them ... well, it only perpetuates this image that people have concerning a DSLR. Better camera, better work.

I do note an air-of-authority being given to people with DSLRs, despite their respective capability. Idiocy or simple falsely presumed respect ... I use it to my advantage ... and when I whip out the big, white one ... I get a whole 200mm of respect. Have lens bag, will travel. LOL ;)

[JTL]

and when I whip out the big, white one ... I get a whole 200mm of respect. Have lens bag, will travel. LOL ;)Now that's stylin'. :D

I need to get some of your confidence! I've got to admit, I'm a very self-conscious photographer and am not comfortable even street shooting sometimes. I don't like people looking at the camera (they're my props, don't they realize?:D) and I don't like being approached and questioned. I guess that's a skill that needs to be learned and mastered like any other! Looks I've got some work to do...:)

[Honest Gaza]

One of the things that I have noticed in the past five years is that when a person (whomever) chooses to own a DSLR, they actually tend to become a “more interested” person in creating better art.

...But what happens when someone breaks out a DSLR? People back up, don’t they? Questions pop from people who are just amazed at what they are seeing. A certain level of respect is created …

I'm with you Don.
Yes, since moving to DSLR I now look at the "creative" side of photography.....and yes, it does come with a new found "aura". Twice in the last 3 weeks I've been asked if I'm a professional (once at the beach and yesterday at the Tennis).

[JTL]

...and yes, it does come with a new found "aura". Twice in the last 3 weeks I've been asked if I'm a professional (once at the beach and yesterday at the Tennis).And that "aura" may be deserved...or not. But, before you get too carried away, just remember that so called aura is a product of others' ignorance...not your mystical powers...

[Csae]

Wrengler... you just made me discover something great, and i thank you for it :D

[K1W1]

I can see the point of this. Us DSLR snobs should look down on those wannabes with P&S toys. Only the other day I came across this guy, I mean really what sort of images can he expect to get with a toy camera like that.

http://media.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2004/aug/cartierbresson/bresson200.jpg

:D:D:D:D

Joke alert!

[Beowulff]

.....When is the last time you saw someone lean over and ask, "Uh, what kind of Point & Shoot is that?".....

To answer this particular question:

At my nephew's wedding I attended in October last, when someone said to me "Do you work as a professional — with that sort of gear?"

My camera?

A Fuji S8000fd.

I really think you're letting the superficial appearances (of the photographer and/or his kit) cloud your usually perceptive observations here Don.

"The tool alone does not a craftsman maketh."

Cheers :)

[jedinite]

I get asked all the time if I'm a professional and I guess DSLRs are, if not anything more, a good marketing tool for aspiring professional photographers (i.e. portrait/wedding work). There is an air about DSLRs that non-photographers don't understand and it brings a particular mystic to seeing someone with a DSLR. But after owning my first DSLR a few months ago these myths were all debunked.

DSLRs do not make your average picture that much better, they actually make it more difficult to capture in many cases if you do not know how to use the camera. And I know I've said this before, but it's true.

Well with that re-iterated, I remember seeing some of my friend's and their DSLRs and I knew they weren't professionals, I wouldn't even consider themselves artistic, but I was thinking that perhaps their pictures were turning out better than mine. And in actuality, after seeing what they had posted online, their pictures were no better than my own on my P&S, and often times less creative or artistic. There are obvious limitations to a P&S, such as zoom or reach of the lens and that was apparent in some of the longer shots we took which were similar. But the general population perceives DSLR owners as fantastic photographers, just as one might assume someone driving a Mercedes Benz S550 as being rich, when in fact that car owner is about to foreclose his home and is drowning in the debt he put himself to appear that way.

Moral of the story, never judge a photographer by his camera. :D

[erichlund]

I can see the point of this. Us DSLR snobs should look down on those wannabes with P&S toys. Only the other day I came across this guy, I mean really what sort of images can he expect to get with a toy camera like that.

http://media.npr.org/programs/atc/features/2004/aug/cartierbresson/bresson200.jpg

:D:D:D:D

Joke alert!

Really, K1W1. A film camera???? It's not even an SLR. And you certainly can't take a good photo if it's not digital. How would you photoshop it?

P.S. I wonder if that lens is one of the one's that costs more than my entire kit? I suppose, given the holder, that it doesn't really matter. Though, I'd guess that I can take a better picture today than he can...today.

[cdifoto]

I don't care what the reasons are for people showing me respect. I'll take it where I can get it.

[DonSchap]

Perception is everything ... which is the real point of this thread.

It does not even matter if you can produce a darn thing with your rig ... you just look good carrying it.

43664

Good ahead and tell this guy he can't shoot a lick!

[K1W1]

Perception is everything ... which is the real point of this thread.

Absolutely.

Are these girls posing for the guy with the big tools or the wannabe who is trying to gate crash the party? I rest your case. :D

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/79/244333762_22e6d21e6e_b.jpg

[John_Reed]

You say that a photographer with a DSLR is accorded a good deal of respect just because he/she is carrying the big camera and associated fine glass. My observations of many DSLR-bearers is that because they carry the DSLR, they are somehow a cut above others? Even if it's only the DSLR that sets them "apart?"

I find this a lot out on the Palo Alto Baylands, a haunt I habituate because I love to catch the roosting and flying shorebirds. I've been carrying Panasonic long zooms for some time now (since 2003), and often I'm aiming over 1000mm of focal length at my fleeting subjects, with some pretty decent results on occasion. But out there, the league of "white lens" shooters seems to be a group unto themselves (with some exceptions), that if you're not in their league, they don't want to talk to you, or even answer questions.

Just a little anecdote: A couple of years back, I was out there in the late afternoon, and I ran across a friendly guy with a big Canon and large lens mounted on what he said was the greatest tripod (I don't carry one). He said it had "carbon fiber" legs (I think), and that "you need those vibration-free legs if you're going to have any luck at bird photography." Well just then, a Black-Crowned Night Heron stuck out his head across the slough, and I whipped around and snapped a shot of the bird. Upon reviewing the taken image, I turned to the Carbon Fiber guy and showed him the bird's left eyeball, very sharp and clear. (blown up on my LCD) He just shook his head, and the conversation ended.

I have to admit that lately I've "jumped ship," have gotten one of those EVIL Panasonic G1 cameras (EVIL = Electronic Viewfinder Interchangeable Lens), but still no white lenses. I can shoot up to 400mm EFL with this rig, and even with the "big" telephoto mounted, it's quite lightweight and easy to hold, which prompted me to buy it.

[K1W1]

That's all very well John but do the girls pose for you? :D:D

[pianoplayer88key]

Girls run away when I whip out my SX10. :(

[TheWengler]

Girls run away when I whip out my SX10. :(

Is that why you need the spy cam?

[Honest Gaza]

And that "aura" may be deserved...or not. But, before you get too carried away, just remember that so called aura is a product of others' ignorance...not your mystical powers...

Ah but when the "aura" begins to fade....I'll just buy a monopod to stick onto the big lens.....that will gain an even higher level of respect :p :D

[Rooz]

we are all subject to perceptions based on what we see. if you see a guy at an event with a D3 and a 300/2.8 on the end of it most of us would think its a pro. it very well could be that he's just a hack with a shitload of money. we see the same guy, same location, same outfit with an rebel xti and an 18-200 sigma lens on it, we'd think he was a tourist.

[kgosden]

Forget this DSLR envy. Watch the pros on the sidelines part when you walk onto the field in a beret with an 80 lb wooden tripod and a view camera to cover a football game. Of course, they are parting as they fall to the ground laughing.

[pianoplayer88key]

Is that why you need the spy cam?

No, I think I just need to learn better combination people+photography skills.

And, knowing how long it took me to find my next point-and-shoot / ultrazoom, I've already started looking at dSLR specs, lenses, etc. One major concern is I don't want to get one system, just to have to jump systems within a few years. I'm ready to rule out 4/3 because of lack of full-frame body availability (I'll want to upgrade to that later), and have narrowed it down to Canon or Nikon (and am slightly leaning toward Canon). It'll probably be at least 2010-2011 before I'm ready to buy anything though, unless I extremely carefully watch my spending in the meantime AND get a used basic 3-year-old model and kit lens or 50mm F/1.8.

Is there any resource I could take advantage of, in the meantime, that might help me improve my photography skills (and making people comfortable with me taking photos)?

[DonSchap]

Well, you could always buy one of those screw lens adapters and fake it, with a bridge camera. LOL :D

[JTL]

we are all subject to perceptions based on what we see. if you see a guy at an event with a D3 and a 300/2.8 on the end of it most of us would think its a pro. it very well could be that he's just a hack with a shitload of money. we see the same guy, same location, same outfit with an rebel xti and an 18-200 sigma lens on it, we'd think he was a tourist.But viddy this well my brother...you see some melanky malchick at an event with xti and an 18-200 and we see another with an SX10. Do you automatically bow down to kiss the fuzzy yarbles of the sod with the xti? :cool:

[cdifoto]

Is there any resource I could take advantage of, in the meantime, that might help me improve my photography skills (and making people comfortable with me taking photos)?
This might work:

43676

[kgosden]

The book looks interesting, but I am waiting for the movie.

[Rooz]

But viddy this well my brother...you see some melanky malchick at an event with xti and an 18-200 and we see another with an SX10. Do you automatically bow down to kiss the fuzzy yarbles of the sod with the xti? :cool:

yes, you make a valid point. to photographers, the differences are clear. but you and i know the difference between a rebel and a D3. alot of pundits just see...."ooohhh big lens". (ie: bugger than an ixus90).

does that mean that the onlookers will somehow bow to the dslr person ? shit no. nowadays, you're more likely to get looks of derision thinking your a pervert. not knowing that a little s3 can zoom in a shitoad more.

it gets back to your fitst post...most people are stupid...why else would you buy an xti anyway ? :D

[Csae]

Maybe with this recession we'll see less nonphotographers with white lenses?

I can only hope :(

To make it clear: I dont care whether your "pro" "semi" or "advanced amateur" aslong as you care about the photos you produce, if some shmuck pulls out a white lens that impresses everyone and then delivers some shitty pics, it'll stick on them and they'll think "Hey, i can do better with my P&S"....

No, no you can't, not if that lens is used properly god dammit.
And then i produce a quote and i get a "WTF I can do better!" No, no you can't, you damn schmuk. Man i really love that WTD comic.

[pianoplayer88key]

This might work:

43676

Uhh... most of the chicks I'll be photographing will be in a church-like setting... so I think that book's title doesn't reflect the types of pictures I'm trying to get....
That said.. sometimes I've wanted the fast focus (for example, full AF + record in 0.2") and fast shooting frame rates (like at least 4-5fps) of a good quality (not entry-level) dSLR, for photographing during basketball games, etc, but having a mirror slap louder than 0.1dB (measured at the lens mount with the lens detached and the cap removed) would be a deal breaker. (and the micro 4/3 can't do ISO 25600 like the Canon 5D2 or Nikon D700 can. Even that's still several stops too slow. I'm still waiting for the day when I can get 1/4000" under starlight, no noisier than a FF at ISO 1600 and the DOF of a landscape photograph at hyperfocal, under $5k.)

[Csae]

Yes you will, don't lie to us.

Eventually, we all do, for a while at least.

[John_Reed]

That's all very well John but do the girls pose for you? :D:DNormal girls without "hidden agendas" seem to have no problem; however, a few years back in New Zealand, I naively tried to take a snapshot of a "lady of the street," but she came at me so violently that I think she might've killed me if I'd actually snapped the shot. So, yes and no. :rolleyes:

[ELA]

I haven't read all the posts so forgive me if this has already been covered. Whatever happened to taking pictures for fun? Why does one have to be creative or semi-pro in order to have a DSLR? Not everybody who loves to tinker on cars and has a great set of tools has to be a Master Mechanic.

I went from a P&S because I wanted better image quality, and have more control over my shots, not because I had dreams to become the next Ansel Adams.

Does my camera come out of the closet that often? Nope. Not near as often as I like do to life's other commitments but when it does come out of the closet I am please to be able to have total control over my shots in regards to depth of field, apeture and speed. Also with the full confidence that none of my shots will look like crap due to limitations of the P&S. It will only look like crap cause of my lack of skill. :)

[devin]

Good post ELA. I agree completely! :)

[Honest Gaza]

Yep...not a bad point of view :)

[Margus]

Again, this is not a paint job, but just an observation. Consider a casual “Joseph Blow” walking towards you … who has a P&S dangling from his wrist. Ask yourself : “Serious or not?”
Answer: Clearly not serious at all about photography. Could be very serious and respectable about something else, the description above does not say.



Now, same dude … has a DSLR strapped up around his neck and a lens bag on his shoulder. “Serious or not?”
Answer: Clearly serious about photography. Otherwise could be a total...

Just wanted to bring out the point that photography is not everything ;)

Otherwise I totally agree with your reasoning. It would be totally impossible to accept a professional photographer with a fancy stylish compact at your wedding or some other important event. No matter how good quality pictures the fancy boxes will be able to produce.

[DonSchap]

'Margus', I do appreciate your insight into this rather mundane approach to "first contact." Often, we find ourselves confronted with trying to determine what capabilities are from what we have identified as "above the line" technology and a perceived standard.

Obviously, it is not always correct ... hence, a really appropriate example would be the current US Political environment -> An absolute novice has been uplifted to the highest office in the land and the world teeters on a financial precipice of a scale never before experienced. Which way will it go? I know, let's ask the guy with the fancy calculator and the open checkbook. He's playing the stock market ... which is, in turn, now playing with financial ruination. Who's the expert? Who can lay claim to knowing it all? Even the so-called "experts" cannot agree ... so the number crunching continues and the "world" waits to see where it all goes from here.

I tell ya, this is a hell of a time to judge on first impressions ... and have no experience at the helm. You want to talk about serious? That's getting pretty serious.

You might ask, "Where does photography fit in?"

Did you happen to count the number of cameras running around Washington, D.C. on Inauguration Day? I did. There were ... many, on first impression, of course.

[Csae]

I haven't read all the posts so forgive me if this has already been covered. Whatever happened to taking pictures for fun? Why does one have to be creative or semi-pro in order to have a DSLR? Not everybody who loves to tinker on cars and has a great set of tools has to be a Master Mechanic.

I went from a P&S because I wanted better image quality, and have more control over my shots, not because I had dreams to become the next Ansel Adams.

Does my camera come out of the closet that often? Nope. Not near as often as I like do to life's other commitments but when it does come out of the closet I am please to be able to have total control over my shots in regards to depth of field, apeture and speed. Also with the full confidence that none of my shots will look like crap due to limitations of the P&S. It will only look like crap cause of my lack of skill. :)

Nothing wrong with that, but if you have thousands of dollars to blow on "for fun", i will need you to prove it by writting me a check.

The current discussion is about people seeing people use high-end gear. ie White lenses.

You can easily get the same focal range and even maybe a better focal range on cheaper lenses, which is where most people who do it for fun will go.

But i'll admit, if i see some guy pull a 1ds m3, with a 70-200 f2.8, i will expect him to have some sort of business related to it, wherehas the guy next to him with an Xti and a 18-55 IS will be expected to just be having fun.

I will classify someone with an interest in photography without a business necessary if he pulls out an XT with a 70-200 f2.8.

[ELA]

Nothing wrong with that, but if you have thousands of dollars to blow on "for fun", i will need you to prove it by writting me a check.

The current discussion is about people seeing people use high-end gear. ie White lenses.

You can easily get the same focal range and even maybe a better focal range on cheaper lenses, which is where most people who do it for fun will go.

But i'll admit, if i see some guy pull a 1ds m3, with a 70-200 f2.8, i will expect him to have some sort of business related to it, wherehas the guy next to him with an Xti and a 18-55 IS will be expected to just be having fun.

I will classify someone with an interest in photography without a business necessary if he pulls out an XT with a 70-200 f2.8.

I can totally respect that. My 2 cents were thrown in cause I read a couple of post's that seemed to start leaning towards elitism. Cheers. :)

[europa]

Does my camera come out of the closet that often? Nope. Not near as often as I like do to life's other commitments but when it does come out of the closet I am please to be able to have total control over my shots in regards to depth of field, apeture and speed. Also with the full confidence that none of my shots will look like crap due to limitations of the P&S. It will only look like crap cause of my lack of skill. :)
I agree with you. Your reason of getting a DSLR was my reason for getting mine and I have been enjoying my camera since then, experimenting and being more creative.

But then, I have a feeling that many new DSLR owners are not even that. They use their DSLR in full auto mode and expect the camera to produce significantly better images than their P&S. You know, those who think that owning and using a DSLR alone will significantly improve their photos.

[kasjun]

I agree with you. Your reason of getting a DSLR was my reason for getting mine and I have been enjoying my camera since then, experimenting and being more creative.

But then, I have a feeling that many new DSLR owners are not even that. They use their DSLR in full auto mode and expect the camera to produce significantly better images than their P&S. You know, those who think that owning and using a DSLR alone will significantly improve their photos.

What are the advantages of an slr as opposed to a good point and shoot? I really don't see that much unless of course you are willing to spend $1500. in lens for the really good ones and then one has to question the wisdom of that. Could someone enlighten me?

[ELA]

What are the advantages of an slr as opposed to a good point and shoot? I really don't see that much unless of course you are willing to spend $1500. in lens for the really good ones and then one has to question the wisdom of that. Could someone enlighten me?

Okay, how about shutter and processing speed? I used to have delay in between me pressing the button and the shot actually being taken with my old P&S, no longer an issue.

IMHO I don't think you need a $1500 lens to see the difference in quality between a P&S and a DSLR. I ended up taking the pictures for my kids schools Christmas program because the Year Book person was taking the photos with a P&S and her camera just wouldn't perform in the low light. After a 1/4 of the way through the program and endless fiddling with her camera when she saw the quality of my pictures she immediately assigned me shooting duties. What was I using? A Xsi with 18-55mm IS kit lens and plain old manual mode. No flash.

Anyway I think this thread has been hijacked from what the original poster intended. For that I apologize to the original poster. If we want to continue with the differences between a DSLR and a P&S we could start another thread.

Cheers,
Ed

[DonSchap]

No ... No ... as the "OP", I fully support this exchange of thoughts on that argument. It is perfect. Here we have a perfect example of someone actually having the ability to take decent stuff with a DSLR ... and is not a pro! Let's do the math:

DSLR hanging around the neck
Not a "pro"
Anticipated "better" results
Actually gets "better" results
P&S is exposed for the limitations it has ... despite the user.


P&S - 0 DSLR - 5

Our DCRP member does not shoot with a P&S because it simply doesn't cut it. It wouldn't matter if it were Ansel Adams pushing the shutter, the P&S camera simply was not designed to perform in the aforementioned environment in which it was cast (pardon the pun).

Another point that was brought up is do not expect top drawer performance out of a DSLR camera if you use crappy glass on the front of it. Most lenses under three hundred dollars are simply designed for outdoor use (you need the bright sun to provide you light or a flash), unless you slap a tripod under the camera and set the shutter speed to one-second or longer. If your subject moves ... you are screwed and tatoo'd. :p It's just a fact and I defy the rest of you to make it otherwise. If you could, you would put the entire high-end glass industry out of business.

Of course, there is ALWAYS this option ...

44177

If you have this feature ... all the other rules are out the door! :D

That is one of the reasons they don't have high-ISO INTRO DSLR cameras ... because if they did ... you could almost live with using a f/4 "kit" lens ... but, back to reality, you cannot. You can "X" that option off your list.

As so many have found, even using an f/2.8 lens is a struggle indoors. There is only so much light to go around ... and the further you are away from your subject ... the less you have. It's a natural thing. :cool:

The best suggestion for most beginning photographers is to spend the three hundred or so bucks and get your hands on a 50mm f/1.4 lens. It may not look like much, but it can deliver an indoor shot better than any zoom can ... because, even high-end zooms widest aperture stops at f/2.8 and that ... as they say, "is all she wrote."

When you need more light, break out a prime, step up or back, and frame your shot. The penalty then becomes Depth of Field, but you will just have to learn to live with that. Everyone else does. Another "gift" of Nature.

[devin]

Oh man, I can't tell you how many times I wish I had that darn "stop time" feature on my camera. F2.0.....low light.....1/30 shutter speed and damn it the person just had to move :D

[kasjun]

If you usr a dslr with a cheap lens you may just as well use a good p/s and not have to deal with wondering what lens to buy next cause the one you have now is not getting the job done. Am I right or am I right?

[Prospero]

If you usr a dslr with a cheap lens you may just as well use a good p/s and not have to deal with wondering what lens to buy next cause the one you have now is not getting the job done. Am I right or am I right?

You are wrong.
Cheap lenses are really not all that bad anymore these days. Even cheap glass will probably outperform the lenses found on most P&S cameras.
Furthermore, high ISO, AF performance and the lack of shutter lag, are much better on a DSLR than on a point and shoot camera.

Also, I feel that having to wonder which lens to purchase next is one of the advantages of shooting with a DSLR. Using specialized glass available for DSLRs you can get shots that you would never beable to get with a P&S.

[kasjun]

well the p/s I'm using now seems to fit me better than my former slr. I formerly had a d80 nikon with an 18-200 lens. It was not very sharp especially in the middle of its focal range and I tried everything I could think of to improve it's performance but finally decided it just wasn't that sharp of a lens. The p/s I have now has every bit as sharp of lens and I bought it for less than what I sold my 18-200vr lens. So I am not at all sold on these slrs. After all it is the image quality that I'm most interested in.

[cdifoto]

My P&S is awesome.

[kasjun]

Although my p/s camera is awesome in some respects it comes up short in some things. The evf is no where near as good as the d80 that I sold but it is effective for bright sunshine when the lcd can not be used for framing the shot. However the exposure system seems to work better. Also I can use one lens for 28-400 mm focal range so I have no need to change the lens when it is warranted. It is all a trade off except that the slr costs so much more to offer the same versatility as my p/s. That is the thing that bothers me the most. Just the other day my wife spotted a bald eagle in a tree. The perfect photo op. I had no need to change the lens or anything. Just point and shoot. It would be the difference of a good shot or none at all. I'm not sure you can put a price on that. Plus no worries of dust on the sensor. I'm probably just one of the guys that went from slr to p/s and very happy that I did. No regrets.
By the way cdiphoto what brand is your p/s? I have a fuji s100 fs. Very happy with it too.

[kasjun]

so I may be the perfect example of the guy running around with a slr hung on his neck acting like he knew what he was doing. I should say formerly, because I have now sold the slr and am back to using a p/s. I really don't see it as a big step down, mainly because the p/s does just about everything that the slr I had did. It has full manual control,shutter priority, aperature priority, and program modes on the dial. It also has a command dial, exposure compensation and a long list of other options. All in all a very nice set of features. I don't know what more an slr has to offer that I would need. Plus the lens starts at 28mm wide angle all the way up to 400mm telephoto and very sharp throughout the range. When I compare it to the 18-200 vr, the fuji lens is quite a bit sharper. The 18-200 lens was not what I would call bad it just was not real sharp. So I'm just going to keep on using my p/s camera and not have to worry about trying to live up to the standards of the slr users who have an image to live up to. I'm already relieved from the weight off of my shoulders- and I don't just mean the weight of the camera.

[DonSchap]

So, are you saying you changed cameras so people will have "lowered expectations" of your results?

I guess there is that. Thanks

[cdifoto]

By the way cdiphoto what brand is your p/s? I have a fuji s100 fs. Very happy with it too.
I have a Fuji F40 and a Fuji F60. Both are very nice cameras. I really do think they're awesome. Just not at everything. I don't have them to replace the SLRs by any stretch though...they're simply a pocketable do-most alternative (I don't shoot super-tele with the SLRs either) to being a turbo-wanker when out with family or doing things where images are secondary.

As for dust...it still happens. My F40 has dust and water spots on the sensor thanks to Mexico.

[kasjun]

I guess you could say that but I'm also getting better pics at the same time. But really I changed because I was not happy with the Nikon.

[kasjun]

I have a Fuji F40 and a Fuji F60. Both are very nice cameras. I really do think they're awesome. Just not at everything. I don't have them to replace the SLRs by any stretch though...they're simply a pocketable do-most alternative (I don't shoot super-tele with the SLRs either) to being a turbo-wanker when out with family or doing things where images are secondary.

As for dust...it still happens. My F40 has dust and water spots on the sensor thanks to Mexico.

I'm not real familiar with those models. My boy has the f-20 which would be a little lower on the food chain but he gets good pics from it. Good day.

[FLiPMaRC]

While looking for a Valentines gift for the wifey, I almost bought the Fuji F60, but found a better deal with the Canon SD880IS. It's going to replace her old SD630 :)

[europa]

If you usr a dslr with a cheap lens you may just as well use a good p/s and not have to deal with wondering what lens to buy next cause the one you have now is not getting the job done. Am I right or am I right?
I haven't been on the forum for some times and I guess your initial response to my post has been answered by other members.

With your post above, I disagree. A 'cheap' DSLR lense, if we know how to use our DLSR feature, will produce a significantly more beautiful photo. Play with the aperture, shutter speed, focus points, metering, iso, and we'll get images which our P&S cannot achieve.


well the p/s I'm using now seems to fit me better than my former slr. I formerly had a d80 nikon with an 18-200 lens. It was not very sharp especially in the middle of its focal range and I tried everything I could think of to improve it's performance but finally decided it just wasn't that sharp of a lens. The p/s I have now has every bit as sharp of lens and I bought it for less than what I sold my 18-200vr lens. So I am not at all sold on these slrs. After all it is the image quality that I'm most interested in.
If I need a super quick snap, my P&S will be a better device as it's small :D. Although if I don't have my IXUS with me, I probably just quickly switch my 450D to the green square mode and snap the pic!

But God, oh I love playing with the settings in my camera, producing images which I could not produce with my IXUS! :o

[Beowulff]

.....A 'cheap' dSLR lens, if we know how to use our dSLR feature, will produce a significantly more beautiful photo. Play with the aperture, shutter speed, focus points, metering, iso, and we'll get images which our P&S cannot achieve.....

Sorry, but I have to disagree with your comment about a "significantly" more beautiful photo. No amount of "features" on a camera will compensate for a cheap 'n' nasty lens — even on a dSLR. Your glass is the ultimate defining parameter of the final image quality. No amount of tweaking is gonna magically produce details that a cheap lens has missed or distorted (ignoring the possibility of achieving some improvement with RAW and/or Photoshop).



.....Although if I don't have my IXUS with me, I probably just quickly switch my 450D to the green square mode and snap the pic.....Switching to fully AUTO mode using a dSLR body is NO better than using a top quality point 'n' shooter! Particularly with a cheap lens on the dSLR. Your comments seem (to me, at least) to be self-contradictory? You're saying that your IXUS isn't good enough to capture the best image, but at the same time, your 450D — set to AUTO — will capture the best image?

If you're gonna use your 450D on AUTO, and get a degraded image, why not simply carry your IXUS with you at all times for shots 'on the run'?

Or am I reading this wrongly? :D

Cheers.

[r3g]

One of the things that I have noticed in the past five years is that when a person (whomever) chooses to own a DSLR, they actually tend to become a “more interested” person in creating better art. I’m not sure what it is with the convenience of a P&S camera, but it tends to make the shooter less critical and a bit more cavalier in what they shoot. Now, this, of course, is not a “broad brush paint job”, there are people who definitely do not fit this mold and I am not speaking to that segment of the community.

But, when a person actually makes that transition to a DSLR … I think it comes with a certain ‘maturity’, if you will, that it is going to take more than just lifting the camera and pressing the shutter release. That person is in it for more than just a casual memory, but more for the actual improvement of what event is being photographed and eventually represented.

Again, this is not a paint job, but just an observation. Consider a casual “Joseph Blow” walking towards you … who has a P&S dangling from his wrist. Ask yourself : “Serious or not?”

Now, same dude … has a DSLR strapped up around his neck and a lens bag on his shoulder. “Serious or not?”

C’mon, be honest. Okay, Scene change. You’re at a wedding … seems like everyone had a “purse camera” with them, right? But what happens when someone breaks out a DSLR? People back up, don’t they? Questions pop from people who are just amazed at what they are seeing. A certain level of respect is created … because people know that an investment in quality has taken place. When is the last time you saw someone lean over and ask, "Uh, what kind of Point & Shoot is that?"

In the end … who takes the better shot? Personally, I don’t know … but, my money is probably on the DSLR shooter. I’ve seen some work from a few of those cameras and the people who are behind them … and I am kind of impressed. :cool:


I think its just like any other hobby. One who is serious about boxing will buy top of the line gear where as one who is just casual about it wont spend the big bucks and will instead get usable but affordable gear. I think youd be hard pressed to find a person who is willing to pay the big bucks we spend on our photo gear and not be serious about photography. IMO the sense of "fun" (vs serious) that comes with P&S cameras comes from the fact that thats what they were made for. To be small, convinient, fun tool that people can use to capture their favorite moments. For some like me its a gateway. I remember when I got my first point and shoot I just used it when I went out to events and such. But by the time I was on my 3rd camera I noticed that for some reason when I took a picture it just wasnt complete. Thats when I started looking into DSLRs and I guess you can say thats when I began maturing as a photographer.

I also think the maturity/seriousness that comes with a DSLR comes from the fast that your pictures becomes much more personal. Your no longer just pointing it at something, clicking the shutter, and hoping its in focus. Now all of a sudden your in control of the majority (if not all) of the aspects that will decide the final result of your picture. From a lot of conversations I've had with friends of mine, some photographers some not. From those convos I get that sense that when someone takes a shot with a P&S its a picture. A picture to be kept, shared, etc. But when someone who is more serious about their work clicks the shutter they are creating art. I guess in the end you can just say SLR cameras were made for perfessional work so those who use them will be a lot more serious about their stuff.

[kasjun]

I think its just like any other hobby. One who is serious about boxing will buy top of the line gear where as one who is just casual about it wont spend the big bucks and will instead get usable but affordable gear. I think youd be hard pressed to find a person who is willing to pay the big bucks we spend on our photo gear and not be serious about photography. IMO the sense of "fun" (vs serious) that comes with P&S cameras comes from the fact that thats what they were made for. To be small, convinient, fun tool that people can use to capture their favorite moments. For some like me its a gateway. I remember when I got my first point and shoot I just used it when I went out to events and such. But by the time I was on my 3rd camera I noticed that for some reason when I took a picture it just wasnt complete. Thats when I started looking into DSLRs and I guess you can say thats when I began maturing as a photographer.

I also think the maturity/seriousness that comes with a DSLR comes from the fast that your pictures becomes much more personal. Your no longer just pointing it at something, clicking the shutter, and hoping its in focus. Now all of a sudden your in control of the majority (if not all) of the aspects that will decide the final result of your picture. From a lot of conversations I've had with friends of mine, some photographers some not. From those convos I get that sense that when someone takes a shot with a P&S its a picture. A picture to be kept, shared, etc. But when someone who is more serious about their work clicks the shutter they are creating art. I guess in the end you can just say SLR cameras were made for perfessional work so those who use them will be a lot more serious about their stuff.

I think you are correct with your analysis. But I also feel that there are a huge number of people who are using a dslr that are not using it any where near its potential. I was one of those people until recently when I sold my dslr equipment. If you use the entry level slr and a kit lens the chances of getting a significant improvement in image quality is pretty slim. I know that I had about $1400. invested with camera, lens, and external flash. Was I getting better quality pictures? No. I was so disappointed at first that I almost returned it. Looking back I probably should have but I decided it was the way I was using it. So I kept trying to make chicken soup out of chicken p_ _ p. Eventually I realized that the lens I had purchased was never going to give me the results I was expecting. I am much happier with my new setup now and I've reduced my investment by nearly $800. The camera I am using now is giving me pictures like I was hoping for when I purchased the slr and at a reduced cost so I'm happy as a "clam in mud".

[DonSchap]

I originally offered this thread as a kind of reminder of "First Impressions." We all have them and make quick judgments based on them. When I'm sitting at a table and pony up my DSLR, alongside the other table participants, with their P&S cameras, you have to know the kind of questions I get. Yep, the same silly ones we encounter when walking along, in the park, by people who wouldn't know a prime from a zoom. Maybe that's even being generous.

The fact is, it is extremely rare that I cannot get a shot with DSLR. I kind of chuckle when I see them struggle with their P&S's ... knowing the ambient light will never allow for a non-flash image, but they still try.

So, the question becomes... is a DSLR capable of rendering an image better than your normal P&S? Of course. But, that is based on you having the "proper lens" to do the job. While walking around with a 500mm f/8 Reflex lens on your DSLR may look impressive ...

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/500-1000mm-a100-1.jpg

but, chances are ... nothing impressive will come of it, indoors, with the lights down low.

Guys, it's photography ...not rocket-science. It's a heck of a lot harder.

[r3g]

I think you are correct with your analysis. But I also feel that there are a huge number of people who are using a dslr that are not using it any where near its potential. I was one of those people until recently when I sold my dslr equipment. If you use the entry level slr and a kit lens the chances of getting a significant improvement in image quality is pretty slim. I know that I had about $1400. invested with camera, lens, and external flash. Was I getting better quality pictures? No. I was so disappointed at first that I almost returned it. Looking back I probably should have but I decided it was the way I was using it. So I kept trying to make chicken soup out of chicken p_ _ p. Eventually I realized that the lens I had purchased was never going to give me the results I was expecting. I am much happier with my new setup now and I've reduced my investment by nearly $800. The camera I am using now is giving me pictures like I was hoping for when I purchased the slr and at a reduced cost so I'm happy as a "clam in mud".


Just out of curiosity, what camera did you end up getting?

I agree with you there definately are those with DSLRs who arent training in the "art" of photography. Hell I once came across a guy holding using a Rebel at a sporting event I was shooting. When I approached him, introduced myself, and began "talking camera" he had an expression on his face as if I was speaking a language he had never heard before. He then told me he used his camer on AUTO and had absolutely no clue how to work any of its functions besides the popup flash. I was stunned.. When I asked him how he could have such a nice camera but have no clue how to use it hes response was "I bought it because I heard it was a good camera and I wanted to take good pictures.".

I dont know if its just me but I noticed when they D40 came out it was almost fashionable to have one. Id often see teens in stores and just out in public with them and by hearing the things theyd say I could tell they didnt buy it to do "serious" photography they bought it because they heard it was a good camera. Those moments never seese to amaze me. And it is something I will never really get. I do however feel like this group of people is by far the minority of SLR owners.

[kasjun]

Just out of curiosity, what camera did you end up getting?

I agree with you there definately are those with DSLRs who arent training in the "art" of photography. Hell I once came across a guy holding using a Rebel at a sporting event I was shooting. When I approached him, introduced myself, and began "talking camera" he had an expression on his face as if I was speaking a language he had never heard before. He then told me he used his camer on AUTO and had absolutely no clue how to work any of its functions besides the popup flash. I was stunned.. When I asked him how he could have such a nice camera but have no clue how to use it hes response was "I bought it because I heard it was a good camera and I wanted to take good pictures.".

I dont know if its just me but I noticed when they D40 came out it was almost fashionable to have one. Id often see teens in stores and just out in public with them and by hearing the things theyd say I could tell they didnt buy it to do "serious" photography they bought it because they heard it was a good camera. Those moments never seese to amaze me. And it is something I will never really get. I do however feel like this group of people is by far the minority of SLR owners.

I bought a fuji s100fs. Been having excellent results with it. The other nite I used it on my tripod to take some moon shots and they turned out real well. I was shooting shutter priority and varied my shots between 1/125 sec and 1/320 sec to get the results I liked. I'm looking forward to shooting next week when the moon is full. Hopefully the weather will cooperate. I really think this camera suits me better than the slr I had because I'm not a professional and never will be.
kasjun

[Beowulff]

IMO the sense of "fun" (vs serious) that comes with P&S cameras comes from the fact that that's what they were made for.....

That's when I started looking into DSLRs and I guess you can say that's when I began maturing as a photographer.....

I also think the maturity/seriousness that comes with a DSLR comes from the fast that your pictures becomes much more personal......

But when someone who is more serious about their work clicks the shutter they are creating art.....

I guess in the end you can just say DSLR cameras were made for professional work so those who use them will be a lot more serious about their stuff.

With all due respect, I have to say that as a lifelong photographer who's lost count of the number of cameras I've owned, I'm starting to get really sick of this "thing" some people have about owning a dSLR and — apparently — somehow qualifying as "serious", "professional" or "artistic" or "mature" (whatever that means LOL) photographers!

Why this differentiation?

Is it not okay for a true "amateur" to use a $3000 dSLR if he so chooses? Does it matter?

I myself have made the transition back to a point 'n' shooter simply because I couldn't be bothered anymore carting around 20kg of lenses and adaptors and tripods and battery packs etc etc. I'm more than happy with my S8000fd, but does it mean now that my pics are somehow less professional or mature or artistic? Well, I certainly hope not, and none of my friends or family have commented negatively.

And why can't dSLRs still be "fun" to use? Aren't we allowed to have fun using a dSLR? Or, once you get hold of a dSLR, is our picture-taking meant to be all serious business?

There's really no place for these sorts of preconceived ideas about the status of, or skills or artistry of a photographer dependant on — or defined by — what format of camera they're using. It's just camera snobbery.

And I'm quite sure that someone using a Hasselblad H3DII-50 worth around $45K will describe your wonderful EOS 5D MkII as only "a bit of a toy" for just "playing around" with — it's not really a "serious" camera.

Or, maybe not?

:p

[Ken.]

Great thread here. I have an Olympus E-510 kit and an old Panasonic FZ8. I carry the Panasonic everyday. It's far more convenient. I carry the E-510 kit when my shooting is planned. Granted I could pick up a long range zoom for the Olympus but it would still be a big kit. The great equalizer between the two cameras is RAW.

The rest, is as they say, details. It's what you do with what you have that makes or breaks a great shot.

[r3g]

With all due respect, I have to say that as a lifelong photographer who's lost count of the number of cameras I've owned, I'm starting to get really sick of this "thing" some people have about owning a dSLR and — apparently — somehow qualifying as "serious", "professional" or "artistic" or "mature" (whatever that means LOL) photographers!

Why this differentiation?

Is it not okay for a true "amateur" to use a $3000 dSLR if he so chooses? Does it matter?

I myself have made the transition back to a point 'n' shooter simply because I couldn't be bothered anymore carting around 20kg of lenses and adaptors and tripods and battery packs etc etc. I'm more than happy with my S8000fd, but does it mean now that my pics are somehow less professional or mature or artistic? Well, I certainly hope not, and none of my friends or family have commented negatively.

And why can't dSLRs still be "fun" to use? Aren't we allowed to have fun using a dSLR? Or, once you get hold of a dSLR, is our picture-taking meant to be all serious business?

There's really no place for these sorts of preconceived ideas about the status of, or skills or artistry of a photographer dependant on — or defined by — what format of camera they're using. It's just camera snobbery.

And I'm quite sure that someone using a Hasselblad H3DII-50 worth around $45K will describe your wonderful EOS 5D MkII as only "a bit of a toy" for just "playing around" with — it's not really a "serious" camera.

Or, maybe not?

:p


You misunderstand what I was getting at. I was not saying that only pros/serious/mature people own DSLRs. Nor am I saying that DSLRs are only for serious business and nothing else. All Im saying is those who own DSLRs tend to take their work more seriously. No one is saying DSLR owners dont have fun with their cameras because Im sure we wouldnt own them if we didnt get some sort of satisfaction out of using them. However Im pretty sure most would agree that SLR owners in general have a difference mind set about photography than P&S owners do.

[DonSchap]

When I accepted the burden of a DSLR ... I knew, deep in my heart, that I would probably not be able to return to a lowly P&S. I made a vain attempt at it with a Canon S3 IS ... and wound up so sorely disappointed ... I almost lost hope. I could feel the hope just draining out of me ... so, I quickly cast the P&S camera back into the Sea of Other Aspiring People (SOAP) ... and returned to the land of DSLR ... where I, again, shouldered the yoke of responsible photography.

Am I happier for it? Having any fun? I suppose not, as I watch all these younger people just irresponsibly snap and shoot whatever they want, without any concern for the quality of their images or composition. It is a vast sea of disorder and chaos. They certainly seem a whole lot happier than I am about it ... but, I also realize that appearances can be deceiving ... and I wonder who I can fool with my DSLR, today! Muahahahahahaha :cool:

[D70FAN]

Interesting thread. Kind of like the Brownie vs. FE discussion 40 years ago.

Like Don I flirted with regresssion to a P&S, but it was frustrating as hell. After a fling with a D80, I still love my D70, but have spent some quality time with a D700... Oooh, ahhh... next!

Being published, selling a few prints, and making a few bucks is a big ego booster... kind of endorses your efforts.:)

[Gopher]

...

I myself have made the transition back to a point 'n' shooter simply because I couldn't be bothered anymore carting around 20kg of lenses and adaptors and tripods and battery packs etc etc. ...

Well said, me too.

I use my wife's P&S for outdoor, 30D + IS L zoom + 580 Flash for indoors.

My goal has changed from an art form to simply a dad making family photos.

On occassion; the diversion of pursuing photograph "the art" is enjoyable.

At other times; I've enjoyed pursuing "photography, the money-pit" and that's also been a stimulating pleasure. Not a hobby suited for the current economy, unfortunately; ergo my waning interest. :D

[Ken.]

I buck the trend here. Any camera you will carry and use is the right camera. There's a vast difference in what's right for the studio and for photojournalism or even print and the internet. Granted a pro dSLR can do it all but it's like using a cannon to swat mosquitos.

To my thinking, and I don't want to fan up the fires of debate here, a pro can shoot with anything. We have the experience and knowledge of the science and techniques to work with the range of possibilities or limitations to create an optimal shot. For me it's all about RAW and the lenses. I can work out the rest.

I've gone back to my "roots" after some four decades. I'm keeping it simple and re-enjoying the challenges. Sure, I can shoot with a full kit. It's as simple as running down the block and renting it. I'm not finding the challenge there.

[D70FAN]

Gopher... you'll be back. I occasionally take a hiatus to refresh my brain. I can tell when I start repeating shots and delete more than I keep. This malaise was especailly true last year after heart surgery.

IMHO...

If you are commited to taking the very best shot you can get, 100% of the time, technically and artistically, I just don't think a point and shoot is up to the task, for a miriad of reasons including the sensor and in-camera processing.

Yes I know there are seasoned pros using P&S cameras as part of their kit, but they are the exception, and the P&S is generally used for stealth, rather than a full time choice.

As for lugging a kit around... I have 3 lenses I carry everywhere. Only the 24-70 f/2.8 is a burden (but worth the effort). The 50mm f/1.8 and the 18-125 f/3.5-5.6 are no burden at all.:)

[Joe Fisher]

I bought my DSLR to shoot dog agility. In Montana, it's mostly indoor in dark horse arenas. I sell the files, don't print them or have any sort of a storefront for that. I do have a web page whereby people can look at the pictures I took.

NOTE: Even though I make some $ out of it, it's still just a hobby.

Your question as to advantages. There is *no way* that I could get the shots I get with a P & S. (Although I do have a $1500 lens.:p


What are the advantages of an slr as opposed to a good point and shoot? I really don't see that much unless of course you are willing to spend $1500. in lens for the really good ones and then one has to question the wisdom of that. Could someone enlighten me?

[Gopher]

Gopher... you'll be back.
.
.
.
If you are commited to taking the very best shot you can get, 100% of the time, technically and artisitically, I just don't think a point and shoot is up to the task, for a miriad of reasons including the sensor and in-camera processing.
.
.
.
As for lugging a kit around... I have 3 lenses I carry everywhere. Only the 24-70 f/2.8 is a burden (but worth the effort). The 50mm f/1.8 and the 18-125 f/3.5-5.6 are no burden at all.:)
Hey; thanks for noticing.

DSLR reigns supreme in artistic control and performance. No question.

However; taking a P&S to a family outing is like having a 7 year old off your shoulders after 30 minutes of hiking. Liberatingly light. If quality creative photography isn't my goal I leave the DSLR at home. For full daylight events; the DSLR advantage is too narrow to be worth the trouble - for me.

As for new DSLR owners thinking photo quality will improve instantly; it is true. IMHO, composition and opportunity are still the #1 aspects of a great photo. DSLR doesn't help either - even hinders the latter in most cases.

[DonSchap]

I believe you can make opportunity sing for you, if you are prepared. The basic aspect of carrying a DSLR, much like the photographers of yesteryear carried the tripod attached land cameras, was knowing kind of what you were walking into.

When Kodak developed their little camera ... it was convenient as all get out ... but you still had to mail it off to get developed. That took a week or two and entirely relied on the mail system. It's images were ... well, images ... and I doubt many are mounted in the Guggenheim Museum.

The DSLR is today's high-end camera ... for the common man and I still contend that if you are serious about the kind of images you create, you will "plan" them when you can. The chances of just walking along and whipping up your camera, with the absolutely correct focal length lens on it, as some woman jumps out of a burning building is ... well, hard to say. Aw, no it's not ... it's about less than 1%, even if you were armed with a camera. Things in life just aren't that predictable.

44286
Photo by Arnold Hardy, during Winecoff Fire, Dec, 7, 1946

I doubt you would be able to capture a "Kodak Moment" like that, with a P&S, either, mainly due to the lack of "instant response" the P&S usually suffers from. Anyway, the photograph won the Pulitzer Prize. Arguments of this nature do not serve this thread. The fact is that man, machine and the moment must blend seamlessly to make a real difference. You need all three ... working together ... and then the fun begins.

BTW: That woman, Daisy McCumber, did survive her "jump."

[Gopher]

A good friend borrowed my Nikon SLR for the LA riots.

She got a photo of a gang pitching a teen into a fire (surely killing him) with the LAPD just standing around in the background - protecting the fire dept.

10 minutes later; 4 big black dudes stepped from a BMW and stole the camera at gunpoint.

A simple P&S would have captured the same photo nicely (now THAT would have been the poster for Chief Gate's abandonment of civil protection). The BMW crooks wouldn't have cared less about a P&S.

Content, composition, opportunity.

Performance matters sometimes, but too often a bulky rig means you have nothing to photo with.

[raven15]

This goes back to CDI photo's "turbo-wanker" comment, with which I agree. In many situations, if someone pulls a DSLR out, I can't take them seriously. I just got back from a "business" trip to Las Vegas, and I saw several people walking the strip with a DSLR and large tripod. A few seemed to know what they were doing, but lots of them apparently had no clue, wouldn't they have been better of with a point and shoot? At the convention I was attending there were several people walking around with D300's that were apparently unncessary. I mean, it's a trade show, under decent lighting or even outdoors. Pretty boring affair. What do you need a camera like that for, when you are not getting paid to take pictures? I think that in many cases a DSLR is like an expensive car, many people own one just because they can.

[kasjun]

I originally offered this thread as a kind of reminder of "First Impressions." We all have them and make quick judgments based on them. When I'm sitting at a table and pony up my DSLR, alongside the other table participants, with their P&S cameras, you have to know the kind of questions I get. Yep, the same silly ones we encounter when walking along, in the park, by people who wouldn't know a prime from a zoom. Maybe that's even being generous.

The fact is, it is extremely rare that I cannot get a shot with DSLR. I kind of chuckle when I see them struggle with their P&S's ... knowing the ambient light will never allow for a non-flash image, but they still try.

So, the question becomes... is a DSLR capable of rendering an image better than your normal P&S? Of course. But, that is based on you having the "proper lens" to do the job. While walking around with a 500mm f/8 Reflex lens on your DSLR may look impressive ...

http://i147.photobucket.com/albums/r289/donschap/camera%20stuff/500-1000mm-a100-1.jpg

but, chances are ... nothing impressive will come of it, indoors, with the lights down low.

Guys, it's photography ...not rocket-science. It's a heck of a lot harder.

Don ,
How do you know the guy with the p/s isn't chuckling right back at you thinking- look at that guy who thinks you have to spend $1500. to take a picture??? Who is to say- "who's right" :-)

[ELA]

This goes back to CDI photo's "turbo-wanker" comment, with which I agree. In many situations, if someone pulls a DSLR out, I can't take them seriously. I just got back from a "business" trip to Las Vegas, and I saw several people walking the strip with a DSLR and large tripod. A few seemed to know what they were doing, but lots of them apparently had no clue, wouldn't they have been better of with a point and shoot? At the convention I was attending there were several people walking around with D300's that were apparently unncessary. I mean, it's a trade show, under decent lighting or even outdoors. Pretty boring affair. What do you need a camera like that for, when you are not getting paid to take pictures? I think that in many cases a DSLR is like an expensive car, many people own one just because they can.

Ya know I can just never wrap my head around this kind of thinking. A lot of people have what are called hobbies. It gives them enjoyment and some pleasure away from the daily grind most of us call life. Who cares whether or not "you" take them seriously? "Who" are "you"? Ya know what I mean?

Seriously, my other hobby is playing guitar. Been playing for about 20yrs. I have a Gibson Les Paul, Fender Strat, and a high end Ibanez. Also play through a tube amp. Now, do I make money playing to "justify" my gear? Nope. Do I even play in a band? Nope. Can I play? You bet your ass I can. So what.

See, anytime a person gets into a hobbie they come to learn that different levels of gear give different results. Like my previous comment in my first post, if you like to tinker on cars on the weekend you don't have to be a certified master mechanic to own a awesome set of tools.

So some guys are walking around with D300's. So what? Maybe they're trying to find a challenging shot in as you say a boring affair. Maybe it gives em a little thrill to tinker with the apeture or shutter speed to take an otherwise just point an shoot moment.

Just because one individual doesn't find a reason to use a DSLR in a situation doesn't mean nobody can find a reason. If a P&S is good enough for you than kudos. Really I mean that. But don't look down on others just because you assume they bought a DSLR just because they can. Not everybody who owns highend gear does so because they have outrageous disposible income. Some of us work very hard and save for the toys we have for our hobbies. Just saying. Cheers.

[kasjun]

Ya know I can just never wrap my head around this kind of thinking. A lot of people have what are called hobbies. It gives them enjoyment and some pleasure away from the daily grind most of us call life. Who cares whether or not "you" take them seriously? "Who" are "you"? Ya know what I mean?

Seriously, my other hobby is playing guitar. Been playing for about 20yrs. I have a Gibson Les Paul, Fender Strat, and a high end Ibanez. Also play through a tube amp. Now, do I make money playing to "justify" my gear? Nope. Do I even play in a band? Nope. Can I play? You bet your ass I can. So what.

See, anytime a person gets into a hobbie they come to learn that different levels of gear give different results. Like my previous comment in my first post, if you like to tinker on cars on the weekend you don't have to be a certified master mechanic to own a awesome set of tools.

So some guys are walking around with D300's. So what? Maybe they're trying to find a challenging shot in as you say a boring affair. Maybe it gives em a little thrill to tinker with the apeture or shutter speed to take an otherwise just point an shoot moment.

Just because one individual doesn't find a reason to use a DSLR in a situation doesn't mean nobody can find a reason. If a P&S is good enough for you than kudos. Really I mean that. But don't look down on others just because you assume they bought a DSLR just because they can. Not everybody who owns highend gear does so because they have outrageous disposible income. Some of us work very hard and save for the toys we have for our hobbies. Just saying. Cheers.

I think you hit the nail right on the head. It's different strokes for different folks. Coming from a small rural community with rather conservative values it was a huge decision when I went to a dslr. I'm not too sure that might have been the reason I didn't like owning a dslr. I always felt it had to be a major event or else I would tend to leave the dslr home. I probably missed out with some good photo ops because I hadn't brought it along. Still I like to take pictures and I want good quality pictures so I'm kind of in a very narrow band of camera choices. I want long zoom and a lot of features. I want to be able to take pictures at high ISO. I want a lot of mega-pixels so I can crop and still have enough to work with to make a good print. I guess you could say I want it all and yet not have too much invested. Don't get me wrong I would still be just sick if I dropped my $500 camera and damaged it but when I had my slr I was nearly scared to death of dropping it or bumping into something with it. And also having 14 grandchidren around does not settle the nerves.
But not only should the person with p/s not belittle the person with the slr, the person with the slr should not belittle the person with p/s. Actually the the p/s has come quite a ways in the last few years. Take my camera it has a fast shutter, 1/4000, and can shoot at high iso with very good noise reduction, it can shoot RAW in burst mode at 3 frames /sec and these are 23 meg files too. It has bracketing for film simulation,dynamic range, and AE. It can also shoot high speed-7frames/sec for 50 frames. It can shoot from wide angle (28mm) to full telephoto (800mm) with digital zoom and still has good image quality. So even though it is a p/s it is not a "weeny". I would not be afraid to put it up against a lot of entry level slrs and I feel it would do very well. Maybe not not in everything but overall it does pretty well. Sure there is always going to be something better but you're going to be spending a heap more to get it. Even the entry slrs with that kind of focal range would cost double.
So I guess you could say that I'm happy where I'm at. :-)
kasjun

[fionndruinne]

I own a DSLR because I kinda like 'em.