DSLR - dumb question

[Nana2Callie]

I know this is probably a dumb question before I ask - but at what point do you decide that a DSLR is the next step for you. I have point and shoot which is fine; though I would like to get a little more into photography as a hobby (not people) but landscape, nature, etc - so when does a DSLR seem like a good idea?

 

[wdwmom2]

For me, it was when my camera limited my progression. I wanted to do more, but there wasn't a button/option for that .

Basically my camera limited my abilities. That said, I am still not without my Canon SX40 and my SD780. They all have a place

 

[Pixel Dust]

Not a dumb question at all! First of all it is education. "Understanding Exposure" is a great book to get started with. You have to understand how each camera setting controls your final exposure. Once you realize that it is the camera that is limiting your creativity, then it's time to upgrade. But this is only after education.

As for a camera, you don't necessarily need a DSLR. There are many options out on the market now. The main thing you want on a camera is manual control of the shutter speed, aperture and ISO. Mirrorless cameras are another option. While it allows you to change lenses, it is much smaller than a DSLR. Even smaller still, there are high-end point-and-shoots that have manual controls and take excellent photos. The Sony RX-100 is a great example of that.

 

[havoc315]

The lines between camera types have blurred recently. Where a photography "enthusiast" no longer needs a true dSLR. To varying degrees, you can advance in photography with mirrorless cameras and some advanced compacts like the rx100.

But overall, the benefits of a dSLR for an aspiring photographer:
-- the ability to take more manual control.
-- larger sensor giving higher image quality, especially in low light.
-- larger sensor allowing for better control of background blur.
-- ability to change lenses, right lens for the right job.

 

[boBQuincy]

Back in the days before digital a SLR was the only handheld camera that allowed us to see in the viewfinder exactly what would be in the frame, through the lens (although many only showed about 90 percent). This was critical for slides where there was no cropping. Most SLRs had a stop down control so we could see the effects of aperture as well.

Fast forward to today, and almost any camera has a LCD that shows exactly what we see through the lens. Still, very few (other than SLR or similar) can show the effects of aperture. By "similar" I mean those that are technically not SLR (which means they have a mirror to reflect the image from the lens into the viewfinder) but have similar function. This includes some with a partially reflective mirror, an electronic viewfinder, or other device that functions like a SLR viewfinder.

The ability to choose an appropriate lens is big. Although lenses do not control perspective they do allow us to get the perspective we want while controlling the size of the subject in the frame. In this manner a wide angle lens is often a good choice for landscapes (although any lens from wide to long can be used effectively for landscapes).

Specialty lenses like fisheye or low-light further extend the capabilities of a SLR over non-interchangeable lens cameras. If any of these ideas sound like they would extend your creativity then a SLR or similar may be in your near future!

 

[photo_chick]

I think there is this huge misconception that you need a DSLR to be a serious photographer. Granted, when digital cameras first became mainstream options there wren't many options in-between DSLR's and full auto point and shoots. But now there are so many options on so many levels it's hard to narrow down. Though that idea is still out there that one needs a DSLR to be a serious photographer.

I'd start by asking what it is you really want out of a camera? What do you want to do with it? How much control do you want to have over the image making process? Do you want to change lenses or is that something you really don't want to get into? Is size a factor? And if you don't have basic technical photography knowledge already, how much are you willing to learn? (keep in mind the more you know the more you will get out of any camera).

 

[Nana2Callie]

Thanks for all the great responses and it seems that for now - I need more of an education than I do a new camera. Then, I can decide what I really want to accomplish.

 

[wiigirl]

I think there is this huge misconception that you need a DSLR to be a serious photographer. Granted, when digital cameras first became mainstream options there wren't many options in-between DSLR's and full auto point and shoots. But now there are so many options on so many levels it's hard to narrow down. Though that idea is still out there that one needs a DSLR to be a serious photographer.

I'd start by asking what it is you really want out of a camera? What do you want to do with it? How much control do you want to have over the image making process? Do you want to change lenses or is that something you really don't want to get into? Is size a factor? And if you don't have basic technical photography knowledge already, how much are you willing to learn? (keep in mind the more you know the more you will get out of any camera).