what made you move from a point and shoot to a DSLR? [Archive] - The DIS Discussion Forums

View Full Version : what made you move from a point and shoot to a DSLR?

MichelleB

07-05-2010, 10:46 AM

KCmike

07-05-2010, 11:19 AM

$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Found an Canon XTI w/ kit lens which was an IS and the price fell to $399 a few years ago. Couldn't pass it up.

mrcricket

07-05-2010, 11:52 AM

I am trying to decide if a DSLR is the right choice for me. I want to be able to get very good quality pictures, take good pics in low light (ie. school sports, concerts, etc.), and quick speed between pics. My budget is maybe up to about $6-700 but can push a bit (maybe $100) if needed. I know nothing about manual settings on a camera but am interested in taking a photography class to learn. I love to take pictures! Please tell me what made you decide to make the move or what you think the smart choice for me is. Thanks!

Your first 3 reasons are why I went to DSLRs. I became extremely frustrated with the slow shutter response of the point and shoot digital cameras. I can't tell you how many shots I missed because of that frustrating delay built into those point and shoots. Also, I became sick and tired of the dreaded "red eye". With a good DSLR and a fast lens, I can shoot in low light without the need for a flash most of the time. My pics look SO MUCH BETTER now. DSLRs take some getting used to, but during the ramp-up time, you can use the Program or Auto setting to get some very nice shots. Of course learning how to manually take pics will only make your photos better still. Go ahead and take the plunge. Most entry level DSLRs are a good value. I'm a Nikon guy myself and I'd recommend the D5000. But Canons are really nice cameras too. You'll find that once you commit to a brand the lenses are what will keep you loyal. I have way more money tied up in lenses than in my camera body.

One warning — this can become a very expensive obsession/hobby, as my bank account can testify to. But it is fun and fulfilling.

MichelleB

07-05-2010, 12:13 PM

ukcatfan

07-05-2010, 12:34 PM

I upgraded for the things mentioned and also for the better control of depth of field (DOF). That is the area of the shot in focus. It is almost impossible to get a background with the nice blur on a p&s. That is called bokeh.

I would say that most situations do not call for constantly switching lenses between the standard zoom and the tele zoom. There are lenses that cover broad ranges, but there are problems with that. You lose some control over the aperture (and therefore DOF), those lenses are not as sharp, and they are typically expensive lenses. Look for something like 18mm-250mm for examples of these lenses. They are typically available in any brand's mount.

As for the camera, you really cannot go wrong with any of them as they are all much better than a p&s. I personally suggest the Pentax K-x because it is a whole lot of camera for the money. It has one of the best high ISO performances in the class, probably the fastest burst rate in the class, in body IS, a lot of flash options, uses AAs, comes in different colors, etc. etc. For me it was too much to resist. I already had another Pentax and was going to wait until the next generation to upgrade but the K-x sold me.

mrcricket

07-05-2010, 12:37 PM

Another newbie question....not knowing anything about the different lenses, is there a lens that is a good normal distance and slight zoom lens that you use most? I figure when I'm going to the kids sports or concerts, I'll know to change lenses for the distance but normal everyday things have me envisioning changing lenses for every picture (zoom vs distance). I am sure I'm wrong and there's a good everyday lens I just don't knwo what it is.

Depending on which route you go, most introductory DSLRs come with a kit lens or two. Of course, the great debate among shooters is what is the best lens. It really is the shooters choice and what they are comfortable with. I heard Jay Maisel, world famous photographer, say once that every photographer sees the world differently. Some see through a telephoto lens, some through a wide angle and others through the standard 50mm. So, you'll need to find out what you are comfortable with at first. A simple zoom, say 18 - 55 or a 18 to 105 would be two places to start. I do believe as you learn you will start relying on a particular lens more and more. I really like to shoot fairly wide. I'm saving up for a 10 - 24 wide angle zoom, because I like to shoot landscapes. But for portrait work, I love my 70 to 200 f2.8. It really flatters the subjects and the bokeh (that's fancy photographer speak for out-of-focus background) is beautiful.

I just ordered a Nikon 18 - 200 VR II as a travel lens. I really don't want to lug around a bunch of lenses on vacation and this lens will give me a huge focal range in one lens. Of course there are tradeoffs with a lens like this, but I have researched extensively and know what those limitations are and I'm comfortable with them.

As you can tell, the more you learn the more you'll want to try new lenses out. Again, this is why DSLRs become expensive if you aren't careful.

Pea-n-Me

07-05-2010, 01:21 PM

1) Picture quality

2) Personal goal - I always wanted to learn how to use an SLR

Did you know that you don't need to use Manual settings on a dSLR? There are full Auto and semi Auto modes in addition to Manual. Most modern camera and lens combinations also have Auto Focus. It doesn't mean it'll necessarily take great pics for you by itself, but it does mean it may not be as hard as you think. It takes a while to get the hang of it, but once you do, it becomes pretty easy.

Lenses were a mystery to me also, having never used them myself. What one person likes best may not necessarily be what you like best. You kind of have to experiment around with them a bit to see what it is each does. Generally, it's good to have a couple that will cover different focal lengths (distances). So you might have a 14-54mm and a 60-150mm, for example, to get started. (You might even find one that covers that whole distance; and you might also want to go wider or longer, etc.) But the next thing you learn is that the less expensive lenses don't do well in low light, so you'll probably want to invest in some that do (thought it's not absolutely necessary). Those generally have apertures that are big, ie they let lots of light in, as opposed to kit type lenses that only open so far. Then you might find lenses that are really fun, like a fisheye, or a large aperture prime (doesn't zoom). This is when you're hooked and your wallet starts taking a big hit. :lmao:

If you search for a thread here called The Learning Curve, I chronicled my first year with a dSLR. You can go under my username and find threads I've started if you can't find it using search.

The one thing you really need to ask yourself besides whether it's something you want to invest in, is whether you really don't mind carting a bag of camera equipment around with you all the time.

MichelleB

07-05-2010, 01:31 PM

Pea-n-Me

07-05-2010, 01:52 PM

I don't mean this to sound bad, but I'm a mother.....we get used to carting things around! Seriously we're past the diaper bag stage (kids are 14, 12, and 8) but instead of carrying a purse, I carry a tote bag! Not sure about toting it all on vacations but if I could get a lens that works for most situations, I could probably fit it into the current tote I carry.
I am a mother too, but there's no way I would have been able to do what I do now when my twins were little - I had way too much stuff already (I even stopped carrying a pocketbook myself in those days). Putting lenses into a tote bag is risky - you'll hear people do it but they should be protected with the padding that comes in a bag made specifically for carrying dSLRs and lenses. (I recently bought a lens that retails for $1100, though I got it used on Craigslist for half that. I'd had it less than 24 hrs when my DH placed it on the counter and it rolled off onto the tile floor. :scared1: I was careful with my equipment before, but I'm even more careful now that my equipment is getting better more expensive.) You also wouldn't want to get it wet or smeared with sunscreen, etc.

I did realize they have auto settings but my DH says that defeats the purpose! I think I'd be on that mode for a bit but would enjoy experimenting. He used to have a really good camera and has a lot of lenses that are manual only. We found that with an adaptor, they'll fit a canon. Not sure about nikon but I am going to check into it.
Yes and no. Aperture Priority is a semi Auto mode, and it's what many people (including me) use for most of their shooting. I believe that Manual mode is the only full "manual" mode, and most people wouldn't use that all of the time. There are people that stay on full Auto (though there aren't many who admit to it, lol) and that's ok too. It'll yield you better pics than a point and shoot will. I was shooting one day by the beach and a woman came by to chat and look to see my pics. She told me she was a professional photographer. I asked her a question about something I was trying to figure out and she couldn't answer it, saying she "only uses Auto". :confused3 It happens.

http://digital-photography-school.com/digital-camera-modes

Maybe others here who've previously used film SLRs can speak to the OP's husband's concerns.

photo_chick

07-05-2010, 02:01 PM

I was a film SLR user (I have 110, 35mm and medium format SLR cameras) so a DSLR was a natural progression for me. I had a few point and shoots for a few years, still using film for most things. I had to wait to get a DSLR because they were out of my price range back then.

Full on manual is not the end all be all setting of photography. And even if it were, you have a meter in your camera to guide you. I do think keeping the camera on auto forever is a waste of a good DSLR, but there is no shame in starting out there.

The trick with lenses is learning which one is best for the way you shoot a given situation. Then you don't have to change often. But everyone shoots differently and just because I love my 28-105 on hikes doesn't mean you wouldn't want something different on a hike, know what I mean?

jmskinner

07-05-2010, 03:10 PM

Shutter speed was my main reason. Missed some great shots of my son playing soccer. Sadly the only time he has played since getting my DSLR, I coached and couldn't take pictures.

I love this camera, took one class, but enjoy just learning on my own a lot more...reading message boards like this and also checking out books at the library.

Also, something to look into is a personal articles floater on your home insurance. $20 a year, my camera and lens' are insured up to $1000 against any kind of loss. I worry more about losing what is on the memory card than the actual camera.

Janell

07-05-2010, 03:15 PM

I wanted to upgrade after we went too Tokyo Disneyland. All my night photos didn't come out well and I was so upset. Its not a trip of a life time, due DH work will take him back there again someday. But its not like i can go re-take those night photos again anytime soon. :upsidedow
I had always enjoyed seeing others great photos and wanted to learn myself how to use a SLR. So that is why I upgraded. I have really enjoyed my DLSR. It can get pretty pricey, so know what you want before buying. I knew I wanted a zoom and a 50mm. I didn't buy a kit, I bought it all separately, but kits are good too. I have bought a few bags, trying to find one that worked well for me. Its trial and error. And that is about all I have bought so far. I have a long wish list. :rotfl: But that is okay. Master what you have and over time you will find the money to buy the things that would make your life easier or better. It is a lot of fun.

zackiedawg

07-05-2010, 04:15 PM

I took the slow train, which is not as common nowadays, but I don't regret it one bit. Most folks seem to jump to DSLRs pretty quickly in my opinion...I'm often rather surprised at how many folks with DSLRs don't really know photography very well - often having no idea even what some camera terms mean, let alone how to control them. And while there is nothing 'wrong' with this - people can do what they want - I always had the old-fashioned sense that one should start basic, learn everything they can, and move up only when their skills and abilities exceed what the tool can do. It isn't just cameras - I was just as surprised at how many kids in my school had brand-new BMW 3-series and Mustang GTs when they didn't even know how to drive well yet - I started by borrowing my mother's Honda, and eventually working my way up to a $6,000 Hyundai...we had the money for better, but it didn't seem right to stick a kid in a nice car until he learned to drive properly and respectfully, and earned the nicer car.

So for me, I started with an ultrazoom P&S. I really loved it, and I learned just about everything there was to learn about photography. I learned composition, manual controls, exposure principals, shutter-speed relationship to the movement in the scene, depth of field control, slow shutter technique, etc. I took just about every type of photograph - wildlife and birding, portrait, landscape, night scenics, detail/closeup, macro, flower, travel, candids...I shot with the camera, and a replacement ultrazoom, for 4 years, learning all I could and pushing the limits of the camera. Only when I found my skills, knowledge, and desire for different types of shots being limited by the camera - literally not being able to do the shots I wanted - did I feel it was time to make the move to a DSLR. When I moved up to a DSLR, and started off with 3 lenses that covered the range I needed initially, there wasn't any learning curve for me - I was able to jump right in and feel at home with the camera, as I had already learned all the photography principals and techniques - it was only a matter of getting familiar with the different settings for the DSLR to get the same results - the larger sensor, narrower focus field, shallower depth of field, and the speed of the continuous shooting modes just had to be adapted to.

I still try to recommend that approach to anyone willing to listen, but it is becoming increasingly rare and unpopular - DSLRs are so cheap, so available, and automatically recommended even for complete beginners...and sure, they can work in fully automatic mode too...I guess for me it's just a disconnect with the way the current world works with technology and high-end goods. I always grew up believing you had to earn something nice, and prove your worth before getting the top of the line...now I guess everybody just gets the new BMW with their driver's license, or the DSLR when they're just learning how to take a photo! I just roll with it...I'll still be the old fogey and do it the old fashioned way...starting with a basic tool and learning the roots and principals, then upgrading the tool only when the tool hinders my growth. While I know my way around a DSLR and have a healthy collection of lenses, I still have a long way to grow and learn and I'll stick with the current tool even if something fancier and more advanced comes along...at least until I hit the wall and know I need to move up to move on.

DawnM

07-05-2010, 04:40 PM

I used to use an SLR WAY back in the day of film.

Then when that camera died (Olympus OM10), I stuck with P&S film and then digital.

About 2 years ago I started to realize I really wanted to get back into photography and my P&S, no matter how good it was, was not going to do what I needed it to do. Plus, even the nicer P&S are in the $500-$700 range, so why bother? May as well get the real deal and enjoy!

Dawn

handicap18

07-05-2010, 05:40 PM

I did realize they have auto settings but my DH says that defeats the purpose! I think I'd be on that mode for a bit but would enjoy experimenting. He used to have a really good camera and has a lot of lenses that are manual only. We found that with an adaptor, they'll fit a canon. Not sure about nikon but I am going to check into it.

Do you still print your pics at Snapfish, Costco, Walgreens, etc. or do you do them yourself? I have to say I don't have an interest in printing them at home.

I used a film SLR for about 15 years and almost never took it off AUTO mode. I liked the quality of pictures they took and that I could change lenses (though back in those days I only had 2 lenses). I took photography in high school and learned all about shutter speed, f/stops, film speed, etc... After high school when I got my first film SLR I promptly forgot everything I learned and kept it on auto.

Back in '02 I switched to a digital PnS. After using that for 3+ years and spending a week at Disney seeing all the dSLR's and then seeing the difference in quality between that digital PnS and my film SLR, I broke down and got my first dSLR in Jan '06 and re-learned everything i forgot I learned in high school.

I don't use Manual very often, mostly for night shots. I use Aperture Priority probably 90-95% of the time. Many people use Program, AUTO or one of the pre-programed Icon modes and there's nothing wrong with that.

For printing, I'll print a few 4x6" prints here and there, but for the vast majority of my printing I just order them from my smugmug account.

mrodgers

07-05-2010, 05:57 PM

Sorry, I'm going to go the opposite way. You certainly can get better pictures from a dSLR over what you would get with a point and shoot, but it isn't as cut and dry that a dSLR will get better pictures than a point and shoot.

A coworker and I bought cameras at the same time. I bought a $200 superzoom point and shoot that has all the controls. He spent $1500 on a dSLR and various lenses. I've seen his pictures, they can't compare to mine.

No matter what camera you have, you have to have an understanding of basic exposure and how a camera measures exposure. I have fantastic photos of my kids out playing in the snow with brilliant snow and brilliant colors on my girls' clothing that they were wearing. My coworker with his "expensive nice" camera as he calls it, showed me pictures of his new house he was building that was in winter and it looked like he took them after the sun went down. My snow, brilliantly white. His snow, dull and gray. My photo, taken in manual mode with me understanding how a camera meters light and compensating for that with the chosen settings. His photo, taken in auto mode where all the bright snow caused the camera to underexpose horribly.

A good example. The first is a dSLR letting the camera create the exposure, photo from a friend who wanted me to try to fix it. The 2nd photo is one of my photos out in the snow with a cheap camera with me creating the exposure. Not the one I want though, because the one I want is inaccessible on a hard drive I need a new cable for....

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3534/3879508059_586bb3137c.jpg

http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b74/NightHawk83/Photography/Nature%20and%20Pets/20090110DSCF8771.jpg

Bstanley

07-05-2010, 06:12 PM

I returned a Canon G11 for a Rebel XS (kit) immediately after I learned here on the DIS Photo Board the details of why a 15x23mm Sensor (Rebel) is significantly superior to the little G11 sensor.

The price was virtually identical ($499 vs $519), I was not put off enough by the extra size and weight of the DSLR to stop me from carrying one and I figured why spend the same money for something that isn't as capable? So I guess I'm Zackiedawg's worst nightmare :-) If I could have returned the G11 for a D5 Mk II I would have done it in a heartbeat!

I had a 35mm Canon with a couple of lenses years ago and have taken some courses (including developing film and making prints), but when the 'ol FTb bit the dust I was more interested in the convenience of a point and shoot 35mm - chasing kids around and such - than I was in a new SLR. Plus the heart of the system - the film - still had the same size/capability no matter which camera I bought (you had to be careful and choose the cameras with actual glass lenses though ;-)

Even though I use 'P' mode at least half the time I am absolutely happy with my choice. Yes I'm going to be learning for quite some time, but there's no reason not to have good tools while you are learning.

photo_chick

07-05-2010, 06:36 PM

mrodgers... I totally agree. The photographer is far more important that the equipment. DSLR's have their advantages, but you certainly don't have to have one to get great shots.

Mosca

07-05-2010, 09:13 PM

Sometimes I wonder. I think for most people, it is a desire to take better photos, but not for me.

I've never really "burned" to take pictures. I like taking them, and I like having them, but I always feel like I'm missing the moment when I stop to capture the moment; it's like measuring quantum particles. You can either be part of the event, or take the photograph of the event, but not both.

As I got older, I felt that my mind was turning to mush. I needed something to learn, something that was kind of hard but masterable. So I decided that I would teach myself photography, just for something new to learn. And since I'm a guy, it helped that it involved cool gear, with intricate electronics and finely toleranced machinery. I've always bought point and shoots and set them to "green box"; for my next point and shoot, I wanted one that took good photographs, but had all the adjustments of the big cameras so that I could learn what all that stuff meant. So I got a Canon G9. And when I started using it, I found that all the adjustments were there, but they were tucked away in menus, not easy to find. And I kept bumping up against limitations; I'd miss shots because of shutter lag, or an evening shot or deep woods shot was grainy due to poor ISO performance. So I did some research, handled some cameras, agonized for a while over an XSi or a 40D, and finally sucked it up and got the 40D.

I still don't burn to take photographs, but when I do decide to go on a shoot I truly enjoy going out and taking them. I enjoy solving the puzzles that are involved in taking them, and I especially enjoy the praise I get when I take a good one. Like many guys, I have a bit too much gear for my needs and talent level; 99% of what I do can be done with the 40D and 17-55 lens. And recently the Olympus E-P1 has made me question the use of a DSLR; the E-P1 has maybe not made me burn to shoot, but has made it fun to shoot in a casual way, has given me the fun feel of the point and shoots with the sense of close control I have with the DSLR. It's allowed me to get more of the moment while capturing the moment, if that makes sense; it's gotten me closer to the quantum impossibility of both being in the moment and also documenting the moment, even if still not really there.

polkadotminnie

07-05-2010, 09:40 PM

I chose to move up to a DSLR to get better pictures of my girls during competition all-star cheerleading. Many times the venues are very dark and combined with the fast tumbling, I was not getting the shot I needed. I wanted better low light capability and a much faster shutter speed. I am so glad I upgraded.

Master Mason

07-05-2010, 10:31 PM

Another film SLR user, went to p&s when the kids were little, film then digital. When I stopped coaching, I wanted to take some shots of the kids sports, was frustrated with the p&s digitals capablities, so needed the DSLR.

NLD

07-06-2010, 02:13 AM

My husband bought me a DSLR as a surprise birthday present.

Once I had it, I figured I'd better learn to how to use it.

Still learning. :) Always will be. :)

MarkBarbieri

07-09-2010, 02:54 PM

I started with a film SLR. When I went digital, I went straight to a DSLR. The single biggest factor for me was control over DOF. It was a deal breaker for p&s cameras for me.

Since I went digital, I've added a p&s (G9 and my son's D10) to my collection, but I rarely use them. The performance difference is huge in almost every situation. The only time I used the p&s is when it will be too inconvenient to carry a DSLR. That isn't very often for me.

rtphokie

07-10-2010, 08:45 AM

I am trying to decide if a DSLR is the right choice for me. I want to be able to get very good quality pictures, take good pics in low light (ie. school sports, concerts, etc.), and quick speed between pics. My budget is maybe up to about $6-700 but can push a bit (maybe $100) if needed. I know nothing about manual settings on a camera but am interested in taking a photography class to learn. I love to take pictures! Please tell me what made you decide to make the move or what you think the smart choice for me is. Thanks!

For me a DSLR was retuning to a SLR.

I'd used a film Minolta SLR with zero automation on it and a hand held light meter years ago before going through a couple of P&S digital cameras. Started with the a really basic digital P&S that produced 640x480 images. Even had one of the original Apple digital cameras back in the day. My last P&S Canon had a good amount of manual functionality for several years and had pushed it to its limit. Shutter speed and available ISO settings were really limited.

I also wanted to get back to an SLR to have access to multiple lenses. Like others it took the Canon Rebel coming down in price to get me over to it. My Canon XL is going on 5 years now and I have no immediate plans to replace it. It still takes great pictures.