Have you noticed the increase # of ppl with dSLR cameras?

[mrodgers]

fact of the matter is there is room for all of us in this hobby world. Most people I see with the dslr in auto are people that either just wanted the best pics they can get and blindly thought more megapixels and higher dollar amount is a good way of insuring you get that...

...fact of the matter is 90% (picking numbers out of my butt to make a point, not an official number) of the people who will buy a dslr won't EVER make it past auto, or the other auto modes, and wont EVER progress past the "noob" level. It takes a LOT of work, research, and learning to get better in photography, and most people just dont think its important enough to dedicate themselves to.

This is the whole point in these threads that pop up all the time. Every single one that has come up, the arguement has eventually turned to "buying a bigger camera does not make you a photographer." The problem with this is, people are not trying to be photographers, as far as I see out in my neck of the woods. People take snapshots. I don't care who you are, if you have a dSLR and a P&S and take the same shot the same way in any mode, the dSLR is going to be better. If you want snapshots of your kids playing soccer, the dSLR is going to get a better image. It has nothing to do with photography, the hobby, professionals, or anything. It is simply a matter of a better camera will produce a better quality image. A better camera will produce a sharper image. A better camera will take a shot better indoors at the kid's birthday party in low light.

My aunt sports a Nikon D40 with the kit lens. She uses it in auto mode. She has it for family photos. Her snapshots are fantastic now, far better than she ever did previously with point and shoots. Is there artistic qualities to the shots? No, that's not what she is using the camera for. It's not a hobby, she doesn't use it professionally, and she does not consider herself a "photographer". She shoots photos at family functions and on vacation, same as she would with any other camera. But the D40 produces better quality in the shots and thus her photos have better quality now than they did previous to having the D40.

They are not trying to be "photographers". They are just trying to shoot pictures.

 

[Dao]

I think the bottom line is, if someone can afford a nicer better equipment, they can buy it and use it. Even it may not produce a better picture for them, but at least they feel better.

Buying expensive photo gears can be a hobby. Someone will buy cars that are 60/70 years old and cost as much as an expensive modern cars. A person may buy a painting that cost more than a house. (I wish I can do that )

So, DSLR is affordable nowadays and they are very convenience to use. People will buy them. That is market that the camera equipment companies created and promoted. If you really have questions on why people buy them, I think we should ask why Canon/Nikon/Sony/Pentex/Olympus ... create such market for us.

Or should I ask, "Have you noticed the increase # of ppl with bottle water?"

 

[DexGtr]

They are not trying to be "photographers". They are just trying to shoot pictures.

yup....i have friend that bought a new nikon and i was explaining to him aperture and shutter speed..and his eyes wwere glazing over....

i told him to put it in AUTO and it should be fine. :mrgreen:

 

[TheUndisputed]

This is the whole point in these threads that pop up all the time. Every single one that has come up, the arguement has eventually turned to "buying a bigger camera does not make you a photographer." The problem with this is, people are not trying to be photographers, as far as I see out in my neck of the woods. People take snapshots. I don't care who you are, if you have a dSLR and a P&S and take the same shot the same way in any mode, the dSLR is going to be better. If you want snapshots of your kids playing soccer, the dSLR is going to get a better image. It has nothing to do with photography, the hobby, professionals, or anything. It is simply a matter of a better camera will produce a better quality image. A better camera will produce a sharper image. A better camera will take a shot better indoors at the kid's birthday party in low light.

My aunt sports a Nikon D40 with the kit lens. She uses it in auto mode. She has it for family photos. Her snapshots are fantastic now, far better than she ever did previously with point and shoots. Is there artistic qualities to the shots? No, that's not what she is using the camera for. It's not a hobby, she doesn't use it professionally, and she does not consider herself a "photographer". She shoots photos at family functions and on vacation, same as she would with any other camera. But the D40 produces better quality in the shots and thus her photos have better quality now than they did previous to having the D40.

They are not trying to be "photographers". They are just trying to shoot pictures.

I agree in some cases, and disagree in some with that point.

Here are my reasons. The quality of dSLR versus a point and shoot really has to do with lighting. That's really about it. My girlfriend owns a Canon PowerShot SD750, and the only 2 things you can't do on that camera, that you can on my dSLR is adjust the aperture and shutter speed. That is the ONLY thing you can't do on my girlfriend's point and shoot, that you can on my dSLR.

In fact, the PowerShot's pictures look almost identicle to mine when both are used on auto and with a flash. The only time you see a difference, is when lot's of light is involved. Her maximum aperture is f/4.8, which is not nearly high enough to cancel out some of the light coming in. In fact, I shoot a lot of times with her cam, and people on networking sites I am a member of think it is my dSLR.

It all comes down to this. Do you know how to use a camera, or don't you. If you REALLY KNOW how to use the full capability of a camera. It doesn't matter whether I give you a powershot, cybershot, coolpix, or a D40, you will be able to optimize the camera to shoot very well for the circumstances. I have a friend who has a Powershot S5IS with a lens adapter that shoots better with it than most people I know that own D40's.

 

[DexGtr]

I agree in some cases, and disagree in some with that point.

Here are my reasons. The quality of dSLR versus a point and shoot really has to do with lighting. That's really about it. My girlfriend owns a Canon PowerShot SD750, and the only 2 things you can't do on that camera, that you can on my dSLR is adjust the aperture and shutter speed. That is the ONLY thing you can't do on my girlfriend's point and shoot, that you can on my dSLR.

In fact, the PowerShot's pictures look almost identicle to mine when both are used on auto and with a flash. The only time you see a difference, is when lot's of light is involved. Her maximum aperture is f/4.8, which is not nearly high enough to cancel out some of the light coming in. In fact, I shoot a lot of times with her cam, and people on networking sites I am a member of think it is my dSLR.

It all comes down to this. Do you know how to use a camera, or don't you. If you REALLY KNOW how to use the full capability of a camera. It doesn't matter whether I give you a powershot, cybershot, coolpix, or a D40, you will be able to optimize the camera to shoot very well for the circumstances. I have a friend who has a Powershot S5IS with a lens adapter that shoots better with it than most people I know that own D40's.

umm not really....sensor size matters...having better lens matters.....and dslr and a point and shoot shooting a similar object will have different outcomes....with the dslr having better images.

 

[TheUndisputed]

umm not really....sensor size matters...having better lens matters.....and dslr and a point and shoot shooting a similar object will have different outcomes....with the dslr having better images.

I think you are over analyzing what I am saying. I am not talking about on a professional grade or to do the things that we do, with a point and shoot. That is not what I am saying at all. My comparison is an auto versus auto deal.

Nikon D60 dSLR on auto:

Canon PowerShot SD750:

Both of those images were taken on the same night, with different cameras. One is a dSLR, one is a point & shoot. You can't tell the difference between either/or if they are used on Auto with a flash.

 

[Overread]

I can (exif reader in opera)
also comparing the two next to each other its clear that the DSLR even in auto mode, has given an (in my eyes) improved result over the point and shoot.

This is not to say the point and shoot result is bad, but the better tool has given a better performace

 

[TheUndisputed]

The only thing I can see is it looks like the flash from the point and shoot is a little more harsh. Other than that, I really don't see what you are talking about as far as clarity is concerned. i thought it may have been this monitor, but then I dragged it through my other 2 (I have 3 hooked up to this computer, one is HDMI), and still coudn't see a clarity difference.

 

[DexGtr]

I think you are over analyzing what I am saying. I am not talking about on a professional grade or to do the things that we do, with a point and shoot. That is not what I am saying at all. My comparison is an auto versus auto deal.

Nikon D60 dSLR on auto:

Canon PowerShot SD750:

Both of those images were taken on the same night, with different cameras. One is a dSLR, one is a point & shoot. You can't tell the difference between either/or if they are used on Auto with a flash.

actually i tried it during a wedding...with my friend dslr and my p & s....the took shots of people with both cameras with both at auto....my p & s failed....i guess because it was also a cheap fuji j10....

 

[Overread]

but the flash performance is a part of the camera - even more so with a point and shoot as they generally can't use an external flash like a speedlite - and thus can't change flash angle and power controls are limited.

Again I am not saying that the point and shoot is a poor performer, its getting good shots - but its still a lesser tool then a DSLR for the purposes of taking still images. This difference becomes more noticable as you push the limits of the camera

 

[TheUndisputed]

but the flash performance is a part of the camera - even more so with a point and shoot as they generally can't use an external flash like a speedlite - and thus can't change flash angle and power controls are limited.

Again I am not saying that the point and shoot is a poor performer, its getting good shots - but its still a lesser tool then a DSLR for the purposes of taking still images. This difference becomes more noticable as you push the limits of the camera

DELTA - Point & Shoot Flash Diffuser
PUFFER - dSLR Pop Up Flash Diffuser

a flash is fixable.

 

[jwsciontc]

i have also noticed many many people with dslr's. there's just too many people out there that want to "Buy better pictures"

 

[manaheim]

I think you are over analyzing what I am saying. I am not talking about on a professional grade or to do the things that we do, with a point and shoot. That is not what I am saying at all. My comparison is an auto versus auto deal.

I don't think he was. You said the only difference was light... but it's not the case.

If your point is that you can get equally crappy images from both types of camera, then yes, I agree.

If your point is that you can get good images from both types of camera, then yes, I agree.

If your point is that you can do everything with a P&S that you can do with a DSLR, then not only do I not agree, but you are actually incorrect. There are shots that you cannot get with a P&S, period. In some cases you just might not have the SPEED to get it, but in some cases you literally just can't.

Doesn't mean that P&S cameras are bad... it just means they are a bit more limited than a DSLR.

Oh and, btw... some DSLRs are even less limited than the base level ones.

How did we get on this tangent?

 

[TheUndisputed]

In fact, the PowerShot's pictures look almost identical to mine when both are used on auto and with a flash.

I don't think he was. You said the only difference was light... but it's not the case.

If your point is that you can get equally crappy images from both types of camera, then yes, I agree.

If your point is that you can get good images from both types of camera, then yes, I agree.

If your point is that you can do everything with a P&S that you can do with a DSLR, then not only do I not agree, but you are actually incorrect. There are shots that you cannot get with a P&S, period. In some cases you just might not have the SPEED to get it, but in some cases you literally just can't.

Doesn't mean that P&S cameras are bad... it just means they are a bit more limited than a DSLR.

Oh and, btw... some DSLRs are even less limited than the base level ones.

How did we get on this tangent?

You aren't saying anything that I disagree with. I did quote where I said that the images I get from my g/f's point and shoot on auto and the images I get from my dSLR on auto look the same.

However, observe the following:

I would just like to take the time to point out, that every single one of the above, are taken with point and shoot digital cameras.

Does my point become clear at this point?

 

[MikeBcos]

You aren't saying anything that I disagree with. I did quote where I said that the images I get from my g/f's point and shoot on auto and the images I get from my dSLR on auto look the same.

However, observe the following:

I would just like to take the time to point out, that every single one of the above, are taken with point and shoot digital cameras.

Does my point become clear at this point?

You actually went to a Tom Jones concert?

:mrgreen: