Why do people buy (d)SLRs ???

[Alex_B]

... if they do not change lenses??

On my last trip to Paris I realised this quite drastically: Over a couple of days I saw hundreds if not more people with cameras and of those at least 10 % with (d)SLRs. But I never ever saw anyone changeing lenses, whereas I did change frequently. I know there are people who do change lenses on their SLR, but those must be a small minority ...

 

[EOS_JD]

Sometimes (just sometimes) I can't be bothered taking out 2 or 3 or more lenses. My 24-105 f4L IS does for many purposes. Sometimes I wished I'd taken the 10-22 or the 70-200 f2.8L IS or the 100 f2.8 Macro but then my back would have been aching!!

Depends on where I am and what I'm doing.

f I'm out purely to take images.... the bag goes with me. If I'm out wityh the girlfriend, I've got to make sure I pay her attention and I just take one.... well maybe 2

It's all those that have bought the Canion XT or Nikon D50 and only use their kit lenses and nothing else and the camera is in auto mode that I wonder why did they do it?!

JD

 

[xfloggingkylex]

Well, with the price of an entry level DSLR being very close to some point and shoot cameras, the larger DSLR's simply look more capable and provide high quality shots, even with the kit lens. I remember when I first got my DSLR everyone was like "oh wow thats a nice camera" simply because it was big and black like what people think of when they think of pro level cameras. In fact I was using an *ist DL, possibly one of the cheapest DSLRs evar.

To go back even further, when I bought a Minolta Dimage Z1, a 3.2mp slr style point and shoot, everyone said "wow that looks nice" or "that looks expensive". Basically what I have come to understand is that for most people, looks are in fact everything when it comes to photo gear.

Combined with looks is price. Most people think that their 1000 dollar D80 is going to take incredible pictures, and certainly better than other cheaper and smaller cameras. In reality these people may not even understand the idea of changing lenses to get a different effect, and it's sad.

 

[Big Mike]

I think the marketplace is at a point where a lot of consumers are starting to realize that DSLR cameras are better than the 'point & shoot' cameras they are used to. (A higher price is usually all that it takes to convince them). So they go out an get a DSLR because they know it's better. Many may never get another lens and will therefore never change the lens.

Or, maybe they just don't like to tote all their lenses around. I have a big bag for my main kit...but it's big and heavy. Many times I take just the camera and one lens.

 

[Alex_B]

don't get me wrong, I am not accusing anyone of any wrongdoing if they only take one lens with them. And there are (rare) occasions when I do only take one lens with me (e.g. when I exactly know I will not need any second lens desperately, or when weight/packing does not allow for it).

But I believe many only use and have one lens ... wouldn't it be wise for them to buy capable bridge cameras with some multi purpose lens built in? But maybe the camera makers do not want this to happen, since they would be probably sold cheaper than SLRs.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

I never ever saw anyone changeing lenses, whereas I did change frequently. I know there are people who do change lenses on their SLR, but those must be a small minority ...

If you're anywhere in downtown Seattle, by yourself, changing lenses generally is not a good idea. Especially when you have thousands of people running around you. That's why I bought the Nikkor 24-120 VR, so if I need to pack light and don't/can't change lenses, I'll be ok. It's only when I'm shooting with another person where I bring more than one lens.

I know people who have gotten gear stolen in the middle of Pioneer Square, Space Needle, and Pikes Market while their bags were open. When I go out to shoot in downtown, I usually bring either my 17-55 f/2.8 or my 24-120 VR. I've gone into downtown alone with a full bag before, and it's not exactly a comfortable situation.

 

[Don Simon]

I'm guessing most of the people you saw had the kit lens. Sure if you have a good 24-105mm or something similar, it would make sense to stick with that and reduce the amount of gear you have to carry. But I do think it's rather a waste of money to by a dSLR and then stick with a kit lens. No they're not all that bad, but they're still slow. If you only ever use the dSLR with a kit lens, is it really going to be better than one of the high-end Canon, Sony or Panasonic fixed-lens models?

 

[Jeff Canes]

That’s no different that a film SLR with a 50mm f2.8 . No one would ever say that was an odd camera setup.

 

[panocho]

I normally take only one lens with me, so that I don't have to carry a bag. Only when I can afford it (not too often) I take more of them and change them according to the situations.
(not a dSLR, though, still at film)
That being said, I do get what you mean: people who just have one lens and no intention to get any other. I would agree suspecting that it happens very often. I guess a dSLR just gives people more confidence (??!!) -you know, a lot of people who think that the more expensive and bulky the camera, the better photos it takes (not: it allows you to take). This people won't post at TPF, though...

 

[table1349]

Sadly, for some people it is simply a matter of the "Cool" factor. An SLR or a DSLR just looks more, for a lack of a better word, "professional." Not like just a tourist with a P&S. It's like living in the USA and buying a high performance sports car. In Germany they have the Autobann and speed is acceptable. In the USA, its a waste of macheinery, unless you are ugly, 60, horney, divorced and looking for a young thing. :lmao:

I'm not sixty yet and I'm not divorced. 2 out of a 4 ain't bad.

 

[Garbz]

How do entry level SLR cameras compare for the upper range point and shoot? Surely a D40 with kit lens would still outperform most P&S cameras on the market?

But I agree the best thing about SLRs is the ability to change lenses. It is fine if you only have one, but if you have multiple lenses, take them with you in a small carry bag.

 

[Mike_E]

They are simply poor misguided souls in need of an example (the more obvious and over the top the better ).

I typically carry a 28mm f2,8 prime for hyper-focal shots, (OK so I'm old school but I really like the look of everything in apparent focus), an 18-70mm and a 70/80-200 mm (which depends on the light and whether or not I want to use a multiplier). I carry these in an extra large fanny pack which makes changing lenses much easier and also gives me room to carry one of my older lenses if I just want to shoot retro. I also tend to carry a major-cheapo Wal-Mart super light weight tripod slung over a shoulder like a quiver of arrows (it's a lousy tripod but it beats the heck out of nothing and I wouldn't miss it if I have to leave it behind). When I really want to be annoying I carry an old Weston light meter around my neck and point my camera with the biggest lens- flash attached- at people until they go away!. LOLOLOL

mike

(btw i think the term is upscale )

 

[DSLR noob]

Well, with the price of an entry level DSLR being very close to some point and shoot cameras, the larger DSLR's simply look more capable and provide high quality shots, even with the kit lens. I remember when I first got my DSLR everyone was like "oh wow thats a nice camera" simply because it was big and black like what people think of when they think of pro level cameras. In fact I was using an *ist DL, possibly one of the cheapest DSLRs evar.

I get that all the time with my XT.

Also I am one of those people who only has 2 lenses and I don't plan on replacing them any time SOON but that's because of owning an Rx-7 (car not too praised for its reliability) and lack of money.

Not to threadjack but to gryphonslair99 I hate when people diss me for having a sports car and say "why, it's not like you can speed." I didn't get it for the image, I got it because it can go fast. Does every non-car person not realise you can buy track time without being a pro, and driving near the limit on a track is quite fun(and if you know what you're doing, safe).

 

[Layton]

I am sure this has been said. But for example, some days I may only take the one lens with me. I only have 3, yet may only want my camera and nothing else. So depending where i am going and what I 'think' i will be shooting, i chose the lens to fit that.

 

[xfloggingkylex]

DSLR noob, you own an FD? RX-7's are some of the coolest looking cars IMO.

(EDIT: just looked through your threads, not an FD. Still turbo'd though? Also is that a MS 3 or 6? The silver one from your first gallery)

I get the whole speed thing too, I have a saturn Ion Redline (supercharged) that stock for stock runs the 99-04 mustang GT's. people always act like its a waste to have a fast car, but when I want to have a good time I hit the backroads with a vengence.

but yeah, a full day at the drag strip is what, 20 bucks? 30 bucks to enter the test and tunes for SCCA auto X. doesn't seem like a waste to me.


To stay on topic though, I'm not sure how a D40 with the kit lens compares to a top end point and shoot. For low light I would think some of point and shoots would hold their own, now that IS is becoming the norm. I'd bet that for many shots you wouldn't be able to tell the top end point and shoots from an entry level DSLR with kit lens. We need to get some examples.