My conclusion on dSLR cameras

[jophassa]

OK, ever since my interest in photography began a few years back I have used portable cameras, namely the Casio EX Z850 and my, dare I say it, my phone's 5MP camera. I have also briefly used what is known as a bridge camera (i think) which has a fixed 'mega' zoom lens and has a slightly larger CCD (i think)...my favourite being the Casio. 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)?

 

[Socrates]

OK, ever since my interest in photography began a few years back I have used portable cameras, namely the Casio EX Z850 and my, dare I say it, my phone's 5MP camera. I have also briefly used what is known as a bridge camera (i think) which has a fixed 'mega' zoom lens and has a slightly larger CCD (i think)...my favourite being the Casio. 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 shoot Nikon so I can't address your issue with Canon. However, 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.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

The Rebel is the smallest DSLR you can get and you still think it's too big?!

Well, you just learned that equipment doesn't make photographers, which is good that you know that now.

The only reason that you think the casio's images look pretty much the same is because (and this might be a stretch) you're shooting JPEG and doing little or no post production at all.

You don't buy a DSLR and not do post production. Unless you need to shoot JPEG and get the images in and out as fast as possible, you do PP. Otherwise it defeats one of the main purposes of using one to begin with.

 

[Emerana]

I think its the shooter, not the camera

 

[Socrates]

You don't buy a DSLR and not do post production.

Well, maybe you don't but I do.
I do my best to avoid mistakes that result in a need for PP.

Otherwise it defeats one of the main purposes of using one to begin with.

Gee, why did photographers ever buy SLRs that used film?

 

[eterrisinCYQX]

Well, maybe you don't but I do.
I do my best to avoid mistakes that result in a need for PP.


Gee, why did photographers ever buy SLRs that used film?

+100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000.
​

 

[Arch]

Well, maybe you don't but I do.
I do my best to avoid mistakes that result in a need for PP.

Not all PP is because mistakes have been made.
For many people (including myself) a RAW file is a digital negative. Therefore i want to take it to photoshop and develop it. If PP was all about mistakes then that would mean that film darkroom processing is all about 'fixing mistakes' which we all know its not.

 

[Socrates]

Not all PP is because mistakes have been made.
For many people (including myself) a RAW file is a digital negative. Therefore i want to take it to photoshop and develop it. If PP was all about mistakes then that would mean that film darkroom processing is all about 'fixing mistakes' which we all know its not.

That's your preference but there's absolutely no need for it. The vast majority of 35mm SLR photographers did not do their own darkroom work for pretty much the same reason. Yes, some photographers did dodging, burning, air-brushing, etc. but that's all related to fixing mistakes and/or making the photograph less than real.

Don't get me wrong. I've seen some beautiful photos that have been processed by PS but that's not the norm and it's by no means the primary reason why persons buy SLRs. Heck, if RAW is the important aspect of photography, why not save a buck and buy a $200 P&S that produces RAW?

 

[Arch]

well i wouldn't say RAW solves everything thats too far... and of course nor digital for that matter... but well, we will have to agree to completely disagree about processing. To me the art of processing an image can be just as important as taking one... it certainly doesn't only exist because of mistakes made while shooting.

 

[photogincollege]

I have to agree that it's probably that the casio processes the images more then the 350d in jpeg. Did you look at your settings and if you want turn up sharpening and saturation if thats what your looking for? Also as to the size problem, did you take that into consideration before buying the camera? I don't mean to sound rude by that, but dslr camera's are big, and if you knew this before buying, and didnt want one that big, why did you buy it?

 

[Alex_B]

just to end this silly postprocessing debate:

There are no unprocessed images. neither digital, nor film.

p&s and bridge cameras just do a lot of automatic processing, which is left to the photographer when he shoots with a dSLR. often this automatic processing spoils the images though, since it is targeted at standard blue sky and snapshot photography. Often when you try to be a bit more creative, then the auto processing goes the wrong way.

Images from a dSLR are much less processed, hence they need more processing after the image is taken. As a rule of thumb, the more expensive your dSLR is, the worse (soft, low contrast, and all) your images straight from the camera appear at first sight, but the more you can do with them and the more versatile they are. If you do not use this potential, however, then your images in many situations will look poor compared to p&s images.

 

[Sw1tchFX]

Well, maybe you don't but I do.
I do my best to avoid mistakes that result in a need for PP.

Good for you.

Gee, why did photographers ever buy SLRs that used film?

Where did I say anything about film?

 

[usayit]

just to end this silly postprocessing debate:

There are no unprocessed images. neither digital, nor film.

What Alex said!!!

RAW files are intended to be post-processed. There are different types of film available to a photographer depending on their final intent (low saturation, B&W, high saturation, high contrast etc...). DSLRs accomplish this through RAW files that allow the photographer to choose different workflows to arrive at the final intended print. RAW files allow the most flexibility to the photographer at final post-process and were never intended to be the final print.

If your intended purpose is to snap away and have the shortest workflow to a final print, then you should be shooting JPEG and allow the internal camera process perform the final sharpening, adjustments to contrast and saturation. I personally think this is a case when expectations between equipment and photographer are not realistic.

 

[Socrates]

Where did I say anything about film?

You didn't. I was just wondering how we got along all those years when PP was pretty much non-existent for the vast majority of photographers.

 

[frXnz kafka]

The vast majority of 35mm SLR photographers did not do their own darkroom work

You think the only place to control the look of an image is in-camera or in the darkroom? What about film choice? What about developing time? There are plenty of variables in the film process that change the way an image looks. This doesn't make the image any less real.

dSLR users can't change sensors to adjust contrast, they can't change the upload time to adjust contrast. They can't push their sensor to gain a few extra stops or to really get a lot of contrast. All of this stuff that film users had at their disposal must be done in post. If none of this interests you, whatever, no big deal. But to say PP ruins the reality of an image is ridiculous.