One thing you must know and no one is saying is that your dSLR photos may not look as good as your Point and Shoot photos. That is because the images coming out of the dSLRs are intended to to be post processed. When you start shooting with your new dSLR the photos may not look as sharp and the better the dSLR, the more likely that technique will make a world of difference. Said another way, with a dSLR you're going to get crappy pictures unless you know how to use it and photo-editing software. If you end up shooting everything on auto, you haven't gained anything.
Well... technically not true.
First, he has gained the ability to interchange equipment ... lenses, flashes, etc. (yes, a few P&S cams have external flashes) So even if he shoots forever on auto, he
has gained something.
Also... while I know this isn't exactly what you said, you have somewhat implied that if it comes off a P&S it doesn't need post processing work, whereas coming off a DSLR it does. I'm concerned at how others might interpret this as well, so I want to clarify this a bit.
P&S cameras are geared more towards the average everyday consumer. Therefore they tend to be programmed to try very hard to make as many interpretations as necessary to make the picture "look nice" at the time of capture.
DSLRs, as a class, are geared more towards an enthusiast. Enthusiasts are more concerned about capturing an image in the way
they interpreted it, and don't tend to want a camera to make decisions for them because, depending on the camera and the photographer, the camera will often be wrong. DSLRs, therefore, tend to make fewer interpretations than an average point and shoot.
That being said, many/most DSLRs have
some amount of automatic "P&S-style" capabilities on-board. The less expensive ones tend to be considered what I like to call "bridge cameras" and, therefore, have more of these features than the pro and semi-pro bodies. (for example, D40,D50,D60,D70,D80 all have "Auto" in addition to "Program" and tend to have modes like "Macro" and "Landscape"... D100,D200,D300 have Program mode, but that's it for the "automatic" modes)
I would personally argue that nearly every digital image would need at least a little bit of post-processing work (sharpen, tweak contrast, etc.), but that has essentially very little to do with the class of camera and more to do with how good the photographer is using it, and how much the photographer using it cares about the end result.
P&S or DSLR, if the photographer is very good, the need for post-processing work is reduced. P&S or DSLR, if the photographer doesn't care too much about the quality of the image other than it's a lovely holiday snap or something, the need for post-processing work is reduced.
Don't be fooled by the glitz of "real" photography. For $1000 there are some incredible P&S cameras that may be all you ever need.
As for a lens: glass does make a difference; especialy if you don't know what you're doing. The cheap Nikon lenses (and canon too I expect) will give bad results if you use them wrong; yield barrel distortion, chromatic aberations, soft images, or pin-cushining (or all of the above in the same image). The Nikon 18-135mm lens is cheap and cheap is as cheap does. Most Nikon D80 shooters seem to eventually try to sell most of their kit lenses and buy the more expensive 18-200mm. It's still not "quality" galss but it may be the only lens an amateur ever needs.
I agree with everything you say, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with going with inexpensive kit lenses to start. I still take the bulk of my pictures on an absolute piece of crap Nikor 28-100. In fact, some of my best pictures were taken using that lens. I have one of them printed (enlarged to 24"x36") and up on my wall and it looks fantastic.
The simple truth is that, generally:
- People new to photography will not notice weak points in cheap lenses.
- People more advance in photography will be able to largely get around weak points in cheap glass.
- Cheap lenses are cheap, so there's nothing wrong with using them until you realize you hate them and buying new ones. Very little lost.
- Cheap lenses will give you much tighter restrictions on a "perfect" image, so you will bump into the limitations of the lens faster, allowing you to learn more quickly.
- If you are new to photography, using a couple cheap lenses for a bit will let you get a clearer sense of what kind of photography you lean towards and what kind of quality lenses you would like to invest in first. (Why spend $1600 on that 80-200VR when it turns out what you really needed was the $500 10-20... this, btw, was exactly what I wound up doing.)
- Really expensive lenses suck too!
This last point is a critical one to understand.
All lenses have limitations, quality issues, distortions, etc. That 18-200VR you mentioned... it's probably 5-6x as expensive as most of the typical kit lenses, and still has some issues. The 80-200VR I mentioned is 3x the cost of that and has some issues (not to mention it weighs 800lb), etc.
To some degree, lenses are an excercise in balancing what you can afford to spend with the quality you need or want, and understanding that there is a VERY harsh cost curve as you get closer to the theoretical "perfect".
BTW, as a footnote to that... prime lenses (fixed focal length)
drastically reduce that cost curve. Everyone talks about the "nifty fifty", which is basically a F1.8 50mm lens with awesome optics for $109. However, that cost curve
still exists in that space, as the F1.4 version of that lens is nearly 3x as much.
I hope this is helpful.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/37/37124-e3a7364a555409b3504415a982f9dfe0.jpg?1734169833)