DSLR startup costs

[MarkBarbieri]

I notice that we get a lot of posts from people thinking about moving from a p&s to a DSLR to improve their pictures. I wonder if they understand that the total system cost of a DSLR is often much more than the cost of the body and a kit lens. What are the things you think a typical DSLR user is likely to want to buy within the first year and about how much will they pay for them? Feel free to point out where someone suggests something that you think is more of a nice-to-have rather than a must-have.

1) Second lens - In order to get anything like the zoom range on a p&s, most people are going to need to have the kit lens and a longer zoom lens. What's a consumer telephoto zoom run these days? $250?

2) More memory cards - Most people upgrading to a DSLR are likely to also move from shooting JPG to RAW, thereby increasing their memory usage about six to eight times. If you were filling a 512 meg card on your trip, you'll be filling a 4 gig card now. Fortunately, memory prices have dropped a lot. I'd plan on spending an extra $50 bucks.

3) Circular Polarizer. OK, many or most DSLR users won't get one, but they darn well should. A budget one will run about $50.

What else did you get when you made the switch? Tripod? External flash? Better camera strap to handle the weight? Camera bag? Lens hood(s)? RAW processing software? Photo editing software?

[Miss Kelly]

I don't think many newbies ;) realize the need for some sort of photo editing program. Those Raw files won't process themselves. :)

[gruZ]

Mark,

Ah, the DSLR slipperly slope. I bought a Canon DRebel a few years ago, body only, and have since...

...added a prosumer Tamron 18-200 telephoto (about $450)
...sold the DRebel and upgraded for a Canon 20D (incremental $450)
...added a Canon 50mm F1.8 ($70)
...added a Sigma 24-70 F2.8 and Sigma 70-200 F2.8 (more more more)
...added a Sigma 2x Teleconverter
...added a 430EX external flash
...went the Strobist route and added light stand, umbrella, etc.
...bought the cheapo eBay remote triggers
...sold the Sigma 2x Teleconverter
...realized I now need better editing software (currently used PSE 2.0)
...realized in order to run the better software, I need a new computer (currently using a 4 year old XP PC w/ 512mb of RAM)
...am now consistently trying to talk myself out of upgrading the 20D to either a 40D or (hushed voice) going to the dark side (Nikon).

Sure, some of the new DSLR's look attractively priced - the manufacturers don't want you to know they are the gateway drug to more expensive toys!

To those considering the purchase - run while you can!

[Master Mason]

Must haves.

1. Editing Software
2. Tripod
3. Extra lens(es)
4. Camera Bag

Nice to have
1. More extra lens(es)
2. really good tripod
3. External Flash
4. Extra memory
5. Memory Card Reader
6. Various filters

Here is my biggest piece of advise to give though. Get the camera with kit lens and use the crap out of it, learn what it will do, learn what it will not do, learn what types of pictures you like to take, and what types of pictures you will likely never take. Then and only then start purchasing the extras.

My reasoning on this, is if you just go buy something, you really don't know what you need, so your either guessing, or listening to someone else, most likely a salesman that wants to sell you something. If you haven't learned your camera, you will likely buy a cheap zoom. It may or may not be the zoom you really needed, and if not, then your going to have to buy another zoom. You might go out and get an external flash, and find out you never take flash photos. You will definately buy a bag and wish you had something different.

I probably have $1k in equipment that I never use anymore, because I didn't understand this lesson. If I knew then what I know now, I could have that last lens I need to complete the set I have decided that fits what I need, instead of lenses sitting around collecting dust.

In my case not all is lost, as those extra lenses will be pulled out when I upgrade and my son will begin putting them to use, which is why I haven't sold them yet. It isn't that they are not good, they just didn't fit my shooting style.

[webshark3]

Oh you guys exaggerate.. Why since I bought my discounted 300D, all I bought was a ..... few.... lenses.... maybe a flash... some slaves......3 bags....filters.....backdrops, straps, batteries, a card or 2, readers.....

oh @#$!... I'm broke. :sad1: :scared:

[MICKEY88]

I
2) More memory cards - Most people upgrading to a DSLR are likely to also move from shooting JPG to RAW, thereby increasing their memory usage about six to eight times. If you were filling a 512 meg card on your trip, you'll be filling a 4 gig card now. Fortunately, memory prices have dropped a lot. I'd plan on spending an extra $50 bucks.



I respectfully disagree with point number 2, I don't think MOST people will switch to raw, the majority of new dslr users are quite happy with the jpeg results and won't want to invest the extra time and work of raw conversion..

[webshark3]

I don't think many newbies ;) realize the need for some sort of photo editing program. Those Raw files won't process themselves. :)A

I gave my sister a disc full of RAW images from her wedding. She doesn't even know what RAW is...

I was shocked when she came back a few days later with a stack of printed photos from Walgreens. Turns out, the latest RAW Viewer from Windows has a easy converter. She never knew she was dealing with RAW. LOL

I warned her that if she printed anything over 4x6 or for framing, PLEASE, let me post-process.

[jann1033]

i agree with all of the above which is why imo a dslr isn't for everyone. I think sometimes people get caught up with the thinking that if it isn't a dslr you can't take a decent shot which of course for the most part isn't true...and then don't want to carry anything heavier than a p&s so leave the dslr home and get a p&s anyway( which is fine if that's what they want to do, just kind of expensive imo)

plus with my old slr i had 2 lenses( crummy ones but that is beside the point) and covered 18-300...not sure if my pickiness has progressed or dslr lenses are just more expensive and enticing but i've added more "stuff" than i ever did with my slr...maybe it's the internet's fault since i didn't know as much stuff was out there till i went on the internet:rotfl2:

i do agree with master mason though, get an "all purpose" basic lens till you know how you like to shoot which might be a while after you get the camera. then imo get the best reviewed lens you can afford so you'll want to keep it

[MICKEY88]

..maybe it's the internet's fault since i didn't know as much stuff was out there till i went on the internet:rotfl2:



it is the evil of the internet and message boards like this one,

the average person would be happy with pics from a p&s or a dlsr with a 50mm lens, which is the way it was years ago with 35mm slrs.


but now people go online and see awesome pictures posted by really good photographers, and realize that their good pictures aren't as good as they could be..

so all of you are to blame for the boom in dslr sales...:cool1: :cool1:

shame shame you evil people....:rotfl2:

[extreme8]

Must haves.

1. Editing Software
2. Tripod
3. Extra lens(es)
4. Camera Bag

Nice to have
1. More extra lens(es)
2. really good tripod
3. External Flash
4. Extra memory
5. Memory Card Reader
6. Various filters


Pretty close to my list but I have made a few edits.

Must Have
1. Editing Software
2. Tripod
3. Extra lens(es)
4. Camera Bag
5. External Flash
6. Cable Release

Nice To Have
1. More extra lens(es)
2. really good tripod
3. Extra memory
4. High Speed Memory Card Reader
5. Various filters
6. Hardware Monitor Calibrator (Huey, Eye One, etc)
7. Extra Batteries

[blestmom]

I really appreciate all the help I've gotten here. I was one who was considering starting in dSLR. But several here suggested that I go the Fuji s6000fd route, and I feel that was the right decision for me. I'm not ready for the expense, and the learning curve, of a dSLR. My pictures are turning out very good for what I want them for...so THANK YOU!

[Nikel]

Oh man, I have spent a fortune!

My must-haves:
1. extra body (for those paying gigs, just in case of equipment failure)
2. several lenses (for me 85mm 1.8, 70-200mm 2.8, and 28-75mm 2.8)
3. external flash (+ back-up)
4. reflectors
5. editing software
6. good walk around camera bag, plus a monster bag for carrying it all while traveling
7. lots of batteries and memory cards
8. battery grip
9. card reader
10. external hard drive for storing it all
hmmmm, there's probably more I couldn't live without that I'm forgetting...... There's def. plenty I like having but could get by without.

FWIW, I skipped the kit lens and never missed it. My first lens was the 50mm 1.8. I do have a "cheap" zoom lens though - the 28-105mm just for vacations when I don't want to carry around all the expensive and bulky stuff. ;)

I do have a camera bag I hate though. Fortunately it was relatively inexpensive. And it's the only equipment purchase regret I have.

[H.E. Pennypacker]

What about a good UV filter for each lens? I always buy one when I buy a lens, so for me it's on the must have list. $60, $70 or more for a good multi-coated UV filter can be a significant additional expense for some and I'll bet a lot of people overlook it. But it's a small price to pay for a little extra lens protection on that $750 18-200mm VR Nikkor you just picked up.

[mikamah]

I'm an new dslr owner. Got the Canon xti in june with the kit lens, and a small carrying case. I wanted to get a longer zoom and wanted something I could use all the time, and just got the canon28-135 is lens. I picked up the 50/1.8 along with it since it is such a bargain.

I need a bigger bag, and tripod, and for now that's all I'm planning on getting.
Oh, and photoshop at some point. I now use picture-it for minimal post-processing.

I only bought one compact flash 2gb ( I think) and that holds about 360 pics.

I only shoot in Jpeg, and am still learning how to shoot in more manual modes. I've never had an slr, and initially I took better pics with my p+s, but now I can really see the difference, and am thrilled with my investment. I don't think I will be shooting in RAW for quite some time.

I think I've spent about $1200. But I'm capturing priceless memories.

[MICKEY88]

What about a good UV filter for each lens? I always buy one when I buy a lens, so for me it's on the must have list. $60, $70 or more for a good multi-coated UV filter can be a significant additional expense for some and I'll bet a lot of people overlook it. But it's a small price to pay for a little extra lens protection on that $750 18-200mm VR Nikkor you just picked up.

that is one that is highly Debatable , UV filters are pushed highly by salepeople only to up their sales and commission.,

any extra piece of glass in front of your lens, can cause degradation of the image and increase the chances of flare...,, a good lens hood offers the same protection, possibly more so, if you drop the lens with a metal filter their is no softening of the impact, with a plastic lens hood the blow is softened..plus in a situation such as hitting head on against a door or something similar, the filter is very close to front lens element and might offer no protection, again the lens hood sticking out farther prevent anything from hitting the glass..

if you take a poll of professional photographers, most will never use a filter unless it will somehow improve the image, but never just for protection.... that's what good insurance is for...

[MarkBarbieri]

I respectfully disagree with point number 2, I don't think MOST people will switch to raw, the majority of new dslr users are quite happy with the jpeg results and won't want to invest the extra time and work of raw conversion..
Perhaps you're right. I have a tendency to overestimate people's computer skills and their interest in photography. Shooting RAW seems like a natural thing for someone interested enough in photography to upgrade to a DSLR, but I bet it's still intimidating to some and seems superfluous to others.

I really appreciate all the help I've gotten here. I was one who was considering starting in dSLR. But several here suggested that I go the Fuji s6000fd route, and I feel that was the right decision for me. I'm not ready for the expense, and the learning curve, of a dSLR. My pictures are turning out very good for what I want them for...so THANK YOU!
I wasn't trying to scare people off from DSLRs with this post. I just worry when people talk about upgrading to a DSLR that they underestimate the total system cost because they don't realize that there are many extra items that they'll almost certainly buy once they upgrade.

As for complexity, you really could buy a DSLR and leave it in full auto mode and still see significant benefits over a P&S.

What about a good UV filter for each lens? I always buy one when I buy a lens, so for me it's on the must have list. $60, $70 or more for a good multi-coated UV filter can be a significant additional expense for some and I'll bet a lot of people overlook it. But it's a small price to pay for a little extra lens protection on that $750 18-200mm VR Nikkor you just picked up.
This is one of those suprisingly divisive subjects. There is no optical need for UV filters with digital cameras. Some people find that the prophylactic benefits outweight the risk of image degredation and others feel the opposite. Oddly, a great many people feel that the conclusion that they reached is the one and only correct decision and that others must be taught the error of their ways.

My thoughts are:
* I always use a lens hood because they help protect the lens and they help significantly in the reduction of stray light entering the lens.
* Using a lens hood, I have never scratched a lens and have heard of few cases where people having meaningfully scratched their lenses.
* I understand how UV filters can degrade image quality (generally by reflecting bright lights in the picture frame) but I've rarely seen it happen.

So the choice is whether to prevent a rare occurrence (scratching your lens) by spending money and adding the risk of another rare occurrence. Neither option sounds like a disaster, but I'm cheap and lazy so I pass on the UV filters. I'd also be concerned that I'd have to take it off to use a polarizer or risk vingetting when zoomed out.

On the subject of polarizers, am I the only one that feels that is a "must have" or very close to a "must have?"

I only shoot in Jpeg, and am still learning how to shoot in more manual modes. I've never had an slr, and initially I took better pics with my p+s, but now I can really see the difference, and am thrilled with my investment. I don't think I will be shooting in RAW for quite some time.
It's really pretty easy to deal with RAW files. You can use the software that came with your camera to convert them to JPGs. Even if you don't do anything special with them now, you'll have them in the future when you learn more about RAW processing. Someone here once posted the analogy that shooting JPG is like keeping your prints and throwing away your negatives. It's OK if you're happy with the prints, but if you ever want to go back and process it differently (correct the white balance, adjust the exposure, etc), you'll be happy that you have the RAW file. To be fair, I practically live on computers and hang out with some hard-core photo geeks, so what seems pretty easy to me might actually be a challenge for more normal people.

[mikamah]

It's really pretty easy to deal with RAW files. You can use the software that came with your camera to convert them to JPGs. Even if you don't do anything special with them now, you'll have them in the future when you learn more about RAW processing. Someone here once posted the analogy that shooting JPG is like keeping your prints and throwing away your negatives. It's OK if you're happy with the prints, but if you ever want to go back and process it differently (correct the white balance, adjust the exposure, etc), you'll be happy that you have the RAW file. To be fair, I practically live on computers and hang out with some hard-core photo geeks, so what seems pretty easy to me might actually be a challenge for more normal people.
That does sound challenging and time consuming to me. I'm sure down the road I will probably feel differently. Especially if it means I'll take pictures like you some day!!:worship:

[MICKEY88]

Shooting RAW seems like a natural thing for someone interested enough in photography to upgrade to a DSLR, but I bet it's still intimidating to some and seems superfluous to others.

.


it seems natural to you, but your skills and interest in photography are way above the average person upgrading to a dslr..

it's kind of like back when i worked for ritz camera, people would decide to buy an slr because a friend or family member took such great pics with one.

then they would insist on buying the cheapest film they could find, and wouldn't believe us when we tried to explain the concept of grain and, the value of spending a little more for good film..

[Nikel]

Perhaps you're right. I have a tendency to overestimate people's computer skills and their interest in photography. Shooting RAW seems like a natural thing for someone interested enough in photography to upgrade to a DSLR, but I bet it's still intimidating to some and seems superfluous to others.

Depending on what I'm shooting, it definitely seems superfluous to me. A wedding or other paid gig? Sure, I'm shooting in raw. Snapshots of family events? Jpeg all the way baby. No flipping way am I dealing with processing all those images just so my mil can scrapbook them.

[Khokhonutt]

I think the whole RAW debate can come down to how you use the camera. For me, a huge part of the reason I went to a DSLR was to improve my ability to take shots of my kids marching. Most of the games/contests are at night, which meant, with my P&S, that I almost never got decent pictures.

The DSLR gives me greater flexibility, but a RAW image in a decent post processing program (I use Lightroom) can yeild amazing results. Yes, it's more work than the average person is willing to do, but for me, it means I get shots of my kids in action that I never could get before.

Now I realize this is a highly specialized reason for doing what I do. My point, though, is to think about what you want to get out of the DSLR purchase and why you're making that purchase. What you plan to do with the camera will be an important part of the decision making process.

Jeff

[Groucho]

I have to disagree with all the "must have" lists here. How about this:

Must have:
DSLR with lens (kit lens will suffice), battery(ies), memory card

Everything else is not a must-have. RAW converter? Your camera comes with a perfectly functional one (except maybe Nikons, but not 100% sure). External flash, battery grip, cable release, CP filter, extra lenses? Nice but certainly not necessary.

Tripod, editing software, bag, batteries, memory cards, etc - those are all things that are just as important (or unimportant, depending on your opinion) with a PnS.

Yes, it can be a slippery slope, but there's no law saying that you can't use a DSLR like an oversized PnS and enjoy the sharper photos without needing to go nuts with accessories.

[Furgus]

I have to disagree with all the "must have" lists here. How about this:

Must have:
DSLR with lens (kit lens will suffice), battery(ies), memory card

Everything else is not a must-have. RAW converter? Your camera comes with a perfectly functional one (except maybe Nikons, but not 100% sure). External flash, battery grip, cable release, CP filter, extra lenses? Nice but certainly not necessary.

Tripod, editing software, bag, batteries, memory cards, etc - those are all things that are just as important (or unimportant, depending on your opinion) with a PnS.

Yes, it can be a slippery slope, but there's no law saying that you can't use a DSLR like an oversized PnS and enjoy the sharper photos without needing to go nuts with accessories.

I must say I agree with that....but I don't follow much of that. I have NAS really really bad, but Groucho is correct, you don't NEED a lot of stuff, but once you get a dSLR, you sure are going to WANT a lot of stuf. It is bad, I need help...... :)

[MICKEY88]

I have to disagree with all the "must have" lists here. How about this:

Must have:
DSLR with lens (kit lens will suffice), battery(ies), memory card

Everything else is not a must-have. RAW converter? Your camera comes with a perfectly functional one (except maybe Nikons, but not 100% sure). External flash, battery grip, cable release, CP filter, extra lenses? Nice but certainly not necessary.

Tripod, editing software, bag, batteries, memory cards, etc - those are all things that are just as important (or unimportant, depending on your opinion) with a PnS.

Yes, it can be a slippery slope, but there's no law saying that you can't use a DSLR like an oversized PnS and enjoy the sharper photos without needing to go nuts with accessories.

excellent points,, years ago, most people sufficed with a 35mm slr and the 50mm lens it came with, before the development of zoom lenses, the average person certainly couldn't justify investing in a bag full of telephoto lenses of varying lengths..:thumbsup2 :thumbsup2

[Nikel]

I have to disagree with all the "must have" lists here. How about this:

Must have:
DSLR with lens (kit lens will suffice), battery(ies), memory card

Everything else is not a must-have. RAW converter? Your camera comes with a perfectly functional one (except maybe Nikons, but not 100% sure). External flash, battery grip, cable release, CP filter, extra lenses? Nice but certainly not necessary.

Well that definitely depends on what your intended use is. ;) No way would I take on a wedding without a flash, plenty of extra memory and batteries, several lenses, and a back-up body. And a kit lens certainly wouldn't be fast enough for most weddings. The battery grip, not really unnecessary, but I'd sure hate to be without mine. Even just for a portrait shot, I bring my flash, reflectors, and a couple of different lenses.

For just taking pictures on vacation and of family, my must have list would be much much smaller - the camera, a decent "all purpose" zoom, a 50mm lens, a couple of batteries, and a couple of 1 gb cards. Oh, and something decent (durable and comfortable to carry for extended periods of time) to carry it all around in.

[handicap18]

I have to disagree with all the "must have" lists here. How about this:

Must have:
DSLR with lens (kit lens will suffice), battery(ies), memory card

Everything else is not a must-have. RAW converter? Your camera comes with a perfectly functional one (except maybe Nikons, but not 100% sure). External flash, battery grip, cable release, CP filter, extra lenses? Nice but certainly not necessary.

Tripod, editing software, bag, batteries, memory cards, etc - those are all things that are just as important (or unimportant, depending on your opinion) with a PnS.

Yes, it can be a slippery slope, but there's no law saying that you can't use a DSLR like an oversized PnS and enjoy the sharper photos without needing to go nuts with accessories.

I think I fall more into this way thinking. For years I used a film SLR and had 2 lenses, an external flash and a tripod. On top of that I mostly used it as an oversized PnS and was VERY happy with the sharper photos.

I also agree with Jann,,,, this internet thing has cost me more money than anything else,,,, EVER. I've learned more being part of this board than at any other time. In addition to that I've spent more money on equipment because of this board to. There's just too much information out there these days. The fact that I've gotten back into the photography side of picture taking again has nothing to do with how much more equipment I now want. :rolleyes1

[jann1033]

i think the digital age has made people more camera savvy anyway..how many people had a P&s that could zoom to 400mm and have manual controls until fairly recently? it seems to me those people wouldn't be happy with anything less than a dslr if they want to upgrade . but the guy who takes 6x snapshots of the wife and kids at the beach once a yr doesn't need (or maybe really want) a dslr to do it imo:lmao:

it reminds me of this guy i saw buying a $$$$$heavy duty backpack for backpack camping at an outfitter store...and no offense to the guy it was pretty obvious he probably never set foot on a trail in his life( i don't hike much any more either so i'm not making fun of his physical abilities) he just wanted a nifty backpack that was way more than he needed( he was buying it really fast as well cause he told the sales guy his wife would flip if she caught him:rotfl: ) sometimes you just want something you don't really have any "use" for:rotfl2:

[Groucho]

Well that definitely depends on what your intended use is. ;) No way would I take on a wedding without a flash, plenty of extra memory and batteries, several lenses, and a back-up body. And a kit lens certainly wouldn't be fast enough for most weddings. The battery grip, not really unnecessary, but I'd sure hate to be without mine. Even just for a portrait shot, I bring my flash, reflectors, and a couple of different lenses.
Well, that really has nothing to do with DSLR vs PnS, that has to do with being a professional photographer.

it reminds me of this guy i saw buying a $$$$$heavy duty backpack for backpack camping at an outfitter store...and no offense to the guy it was pretty obvious he probably never set foot on a trail in his life( i don't hike much any more either so i'm not making fun of his physical abilities) he just wanted a nifty backpack that was way more than he needed( he was buying it really fast as well cause he told the sales guy his wife would flip if she caught him :rotfl:
You mean like the average SUV buyer? :lmao: :rotfl2:

(Just a joke, for the easily-offended SUV drivers out there!)

I think I fall more into this way thinking. For years I used a film SLR and had 2 lenses, an external flash and a tripod. On top of that I mostly used it as an oversized PnS and was VERY happy with the sharper photos.
Same here (except not a PnS as my SLR was all-manual.) I used my K1000 with a cheap junky 28-75mm lens and an almost as cheap 70-210mm lens and later a Sigma 28mm F2.8 for many years and was able to produce, IMHO, some really nice-quality photos. I had a cheapie external flash (no internal) and no tripod to call my own, though I borrowed my father's a couple times. Oh, I did have a decent Tamrac bag (still using it) and a cable release - and most amazing, I was very happy with all my gear and had no interest in upgrading! I didn't even care (and still don't, when I use it) that it's manual focus and I need to manually set the shutter speed and aperture. (Heck, using the exposure needle generally is more reliable than any built-in automatic exposure meter IMHO, since it's got a human verifying the correct setting.)

Now I'm excited about upgrading at some point to get Hyperprogram and customizable program line, weathersealing, etc...

[AndrewWG]

I would almost specify this as a need although it really is more of a want, but the shortcourse book for whatever camera you are using is fantastic! This has shown me things that my 30D could do that I just never knew. The user manuals for most cameras show you how to get to different things, but don't show you actually how or why you should use that thing when you get there. This book shows all the hows and whys. It also has online video animations that show you too. It is published for MANY types of cameras (DSLR's and P&S) and is a great supplement to the user manual. $25 for a pdf download, more if you want a bound copy. I just wish I had bought it when I was using my S2IS more.

http://www.shortcourses.com/store/

Andy

[tyedye]

This is all very informative and helped me decide to not go the dSLR route at the present but learn how to use my current camera (Panasonic Lumix FZ20 which is similar to the Canon S2 or S3) more with the manual features.

I don't think that I want (nor do I have the time with active kids) to spend alot of time post processing photo's and reading all the comments here it seems as though the point and shoot camera's do a better job at that in camera than a dSLR does.

So since I've been using all auto settings, it's time to learn about shutter speed, exposure, etc.

[muphoto]

I would have to disagree with Mickey88 about the use of filters. I have been a professional photographer for over 30 years now and I always use a UV filter on front of my glass. I can't tell you the number of filters I have tossed over the years because of scratches and other blemishes that have found their way onto the filter. If not for the filter those things would be on the front element of the lens.
I agree they don't offer much in the way of protection from dropping or bumping a lens, although I have an 80-200 that I dropped about six months ago, the filter shattered, the lens is fine.

[DVC Jen]

You mean like the average SUV buyer? :lmao: :rotfl2:

(Just a joke, for the easily-offended SUV drivers out there!)



HEY!!! :mad:


OK OK so it is really a mini van - I can pretend though can't I?

;)

[Khokhonutt]

This is all very informative and helped me decide to not go the dSLR route at the present but learn how to use my current camera (Panasonic Lumix FZ20 which is similar to the Canon S2 or S3) more with the manual features.

I don't think that I want (nor do I have the time with active kids) to spend alot of time post processing photo's and reading all the comments here it seems as though the point and shoot camera's do a better job at that in camera than a dSLR does.

So since I've been using all auto settings, it's time to learn about shutter speed, exposure, etc.

I'd agree that learning the whole manual thing is a cool deal and probably what I've spent the most time with since moving to a DSLR.

I don't, however, agree with the perspective that point and shoots do a better job and allow for less post processing. I think the more accurate statement is that a DSLR, using RAW files, allows for a greater ability and better results when you do post process.

It's also probably true that the average point and shoot users simply does less after taking the shot than the average SLR user. But I think that is more a function of the increased options and perhaps level of interest in photo specifics. Again, I'm just talking averages here, I know there are exceptions to nearly every rule.

I spent far more time post processing with my point and shoot trying to recover dark pictures. The post processing I do now is mainly to tweak pictures. The difference for me now is that I get pictures I would have never gotten with my point and shoot. Especially in low light situations. This is not just because I make more use of the manual settings, it also has to do with a greater flexiblity in lens options and the ability to manually focus, which I didn't have on my non slr cameras.

Believe me, I get the whole time and kids thing and I don't disagree with your decision, I just thought it was worth clarifying a couple of those points.

[Groucho]

HEY!!! :mad:


OK OK so it is really a mini van - I can pretend though can't I?

;)
Hey, I'm a big minivan supporter, don't worry about me giving you a hard time. The biggest SUV you can buy has less room than a minivan... but that's a whole separate discussion. :teeth:

Back on topic, I'd agree that DSLR's generally produce better jpgs out of the box than PnSs, the thing with post-processing is that you can make them even that much better again! But you can post-process JPGs from a PnS too and there's no law against using a DSLR as a fancy PnS for the higher quality. But again, they're not for everyone, due to size and weight and cost.

[Rob R]

that is one that is highly Debatable , UV filters are pushed highly by salepeople only to up their sales and commission.,

any extra piece of glass in front of your lens, can cause degradation of the image and increase the chances of flare...,, a good lens hood offers the same protection, possibly more so, if you drop the lens with a metal filter their is no softening of the impact, with a plastic lens hood the blow is softened..plus in a situation such as hitting head on against a door or something similar, the filter is very close to front lens element and might offer no protection, again the lens hood sticking out farther prevent anything from hitting the glass..

if you take a poll of professional photographers, most will never use a filter unless it will somehow improve the image, but never just for protection.... that's what good insurance is for...

well said. let's not forget that adding a 25$ filter turns your 800$ lens into one with $25 optics. not to mention, small scratches on your front lens will not show up on your pictures anyway, depth of field is usally pushed way past that.

[Rob R]

Great post. big items are a gadget bag that will hold all of your stuff, a small bag that you can keep just the essentials in. and a GREAT tripod. Great tripods are generally not available anywhere you can purchase soap or bikes. Most come from companies that many folks won't be able to say. plan to spend at LEAST 125 or more on a tripod and head.

extra batteries are a must too. they can add up pretty quick, unless you can find a replacement online. i have used sterlingtek and had good luck with them.

don't forget a few good books to learn all the stuff(go to your library. if you check out a particular book 3-4 times, then buy it...not before, many photography books seem great, but offer little in real value down the road.)

FWIW

rob

[Master Mason]

Hey, I'm a big minivan supporter, don't worry about me giving you a hard time. The biggest SUV you can buy has less room than a minivan... but that's a whole separate discussion. :teeth:



But the mini van will not pull my boat

[Rob R]

But the mini van will not pull my boat

i think you'll find such great handling and excitmemt with minivan ownership, that extra vehicles will be unnecessary.

plus on our mini, we put the boat on top--a canoe.


:cool1: :cool1: :cool1: :cool1: :cool1:

[AndrewWG]

This is all very informative and helped me decide to not go the dSLR route at the present but learn how to use my current camera (Panasonic Lumix FZ20 which is similar to the Canon S2 or S3) more with the manual features.

I don't think that I want (nor do I have the time with active kids) to spend alot of time post processing photo's and reading all the comments here it seems as though the point and shoot camera's do a better job at that in camera than a dSLR does.

So since I've been using all auto settings, it's time to learn about shutter speed, exposure, etc.

Before I bought my 30D, I made an effort to take photos with my S2IS in all manual or Av mode only and I used the viewfinder instead of the LCD to compose my shots. I think that this really helped me get a better idea of what the camera actually does and got me over the whole "needing" an LCD to compose. I probably did this for about 3 months before buying the new camera.

I was happy that I had decided to do this when I got the 30D as I felt a bit more confident with the camera at that point. The only thing I would have to say is that overall, I think the learning curve has still been tough on me. There is still ALOT to learn once you make the jump to the DSLR, but if you start with the p&s in manual modes, you'll be a bit ahead of the game.

[Khokhonutt]

i think you'll find such great handling and excitmemt with minivan ownership, that extra vehicles will be unnecessary.

plus on our mini, we put the boat on top--a canoe.


:cool1: :cool1: :cool1: :cool1: :cool1:


So am I getting this right? A mini-van is part of the DSLR startup costs? Hmmm. Til they make one in a diesel that will pull $14k+ lbs, I'll stick with my F250.

... but that's not required for a DSLR unless you buy LOTS of accessories ...

:thumbsup2

[tyedye]

Back on topic, I'd agree that DSLR's generally produce better jpgs out of the box than PnSs, the thing with post-processing is that you can make them even that much better again!
That comment has me wanting a DSLR again.

But again, they're not for everyone, due to size and weight and cost And then there's the cost which I'm not sure I'm ready to invest in yet since there's still so much I can learn to use with my current camera.

But you can post-process JPGs from a PnS too and there's no law against using a DSLR as a fancy PnS for the higher quality. Here again, that would be a big plus. I usually just print my pictures without any post processing. But sometimes when I do I will use the auto correct feature and I'd say it's about 50-50 whether I like the corrected image better than the original. Perhaps I have alot to learn about photo processing too. :headache:

[Groucho]

But the mini van will not pull my boat
Yeah, but most people aren't pulling anything.

tyedye, I agree on the "auto correct" features, they rarely give you what you'd really like. Even the "auto tone" in Adobe Lightroom usually looks lousy. (Though the Auto white balance in Lightroom is generally quite good.) The majority of the time, any color issues are corrected with proper white balance, beyond that it's mainly a matter of cropping, rotating, and setting the exposure to slightly higher or lower. Lightroom adds the very useful "recovery" (for highlights) and "fill light" options, which can really help a photo pop, especially a night shot where certain areas are quite bright and others are very dark, and you want to bring in the very bright or dark areas without losing the other.

[webshark3]

well said. let's not forget that adding a 25$ filter turns your 800$ lens into one with $25 optics. n

I've run this test a million times... low end filter, high end filter, no filter, and can't find any evidence to support this claim. Search on Dpreview where 2 pics are thrown up next to each other (filter and none, or high-end low-end) and you'll see immediately that even professionals had trouble telling them apart.

If you have some references with examples, I'd love to see them.

[Groucho]

This is an issue that'll never be resolved, and with photos, you can always find photos to support any side of a debate.

I'm sure that someone can produce a sharp, very detailed daylight photo out of a 12mp PnS and declare that that it's just as sharp as a 12mp photo from a DSLR (especially when resized to web-viewing area.

We've seen plenty of times where someone will say "this lens isn't substandard, look at the great photo I got" where it was taken at F8 or a similarly high aperture where nearly every lens will produce sharp results.

And we can see examples of lenses with and without filters. I suspect one of the prime ways you'd notice a subpar lens is with flare, and a photo not in danger of flaring is unlikely to be much different. And again, higher apertures will make it difficult to notice any differences.

Even if it didn't make any optical difference, I still wouldn't bother as 1) I'm a cheap SOB and am not going to buy UV filters for all my lenses, 2) I simply don't believe that it'll give me much in the way of real-world protection. That's what lens hoods are for. (Well, and to reduce flare, but they do a great job of protecting the lens, too!)

[MarkBarbieri]

i think you'll find such great handling and excitmemt with minivan ownership, that extra vehicles will be unnecessary.

plus on our mini, we put the boat on top--a canoe.


:cool1: :cool1: :cool1: :cool1: :cool1:

We've been known to put two canoes (18'6" and 23') and a kayak on the roof of our minivan and another kayak inside. Good fun.

[MarkBarbieri]

I've run this test a million times... low end filter, high end filter, no filter, and can't find any evidence to support this claim. Search on Dpreview where 2 pics are thrown up next to each other (filter and none, or high-end low-end) and you'll see immediately that even professionals had trouble telling them apart.

If you have some references with examples, I'd love to see them.

In good conditions with anything but a disastrous filter, I doubt you'll see a difference. The problem with added glass elements in flare. See this article (http://www.luminous-landscape.com/columns/sm-feb-05.shtml).

In my opinion, your chances of either scratches with a hood and no filter or flare problems with a filter are pretty small. Do whatever makes you happy.