My conclusion on dSLR cameras

[RMThompson]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[RMThompson]

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

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

Person A: blahblahblah DSLR means you only shoot in RAW and PP your work! :x

Person B: blahblahblah Back in my day we didn't have nothing RAW and we didn't post process! :madmad:

Person C: blahblahblah Yes you did by putting vaseline on your lens, and what film you used!

Person D: blahblahblah I want to make a valid yet uninteresting and unwanted point just to prove my worthiness as a camera holder!!!

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

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

 

[frXnz kafka]

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

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

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

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

 

[jophassa]

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

 

[Sw1tchFX]

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

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

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

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

 

[RacePhoto]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Socrates]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

:hail:

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

 

[usayit]

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

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

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

Exactly...

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

 

[jophassa]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[patrickt]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[jols]

Back to the original poster.

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

I promise to look after it and treat it well.

 

[THORHAMMER]

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

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

 

[ladywings]

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

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

 

[lifeafter2am]

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

 

[jophassa]

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

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