Has anyone regretted getting a dlsr?

[ajwomic]

I had just about made up my mind to upgrade my Canon s3 to a d90. But now I am getting cold feet. Here is the dilemma. I really enjoy my 12x zoom and, believe it or not, my swivel screen. Lately, I have been reading that sometimes the jpegs from the dlsrs do not look as good straight out of the camera as some p&s due to the expectation of post processing. I have photoshop and can use it fine, but do not want to have to post process every image. I am not a professional and 90% of my pics are of my kids. I had planned to upgrade in order to learn more, have a shallower depth of field and sharper pics. I just don't want to spend that much and be at least initially disappointed in the reults. Anybody experience a letdown? Also, as far as picture quality, is there really much difference b/w d40 and d90? For less that half, I could pick up a few more lenses with the difference. Thanks for the advice!
Aliia

 

[Frantasmic]

The good thing is that you can still use your S3. I have an S5 and upgraded to a Canon XSi. I carry my S5 with me in the car just to have a camera. I also use it for just about any thing I think I may want a picture but don't want to risk the XSi. For example, I went to spend the night at the USS Lexington in Corpus Christi last month. I took the S5, knowing that if something happened, it would happen to my less expensive camera.

I have not regretted adding the XSi. That camera and a new lens I just got make indoor shots (gym sports, choir concerts, recitals, etc) 10 fold better than my S5 could ever do inside.

If you do expect to truly replace your S3, you will miss the automatic 12x zoom. However, I am very happy with sharp, indoor shots without flash. I do shoot in RAW and post-process with the dslr, but the shots are worth it in my opinion.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

No, just the opposite. I love it.

It's not to say it's been an easy road. It hasn't been. From choosing which one to buy, to learning to use it, to agonizing over the missed shots, etc, it's been downright frustrating at times.

But now that I've had it for over a year and have finally learned how to use it pretty well, I'm really glad I got it.

I still keep my S3 in my purse and use it on occasion. But I miss using my dSLR if I don't have it.

 

[zackiedawg]

My thoughts, for what they're worth:

I had just about made up my mind to upgrade my Canon s3 to a d90. But now I am getting cold feet. Here is the dilemma. I really enjoy my 12x zoom and, believe it or not, my swivel screen.

You could always consider a DSLR that has a swivel or tilt screen and live view option! As for the lens - no worries there - though a little pricey, you can get a decent 'all purpose' lens like an 18-250 that will give you 14x or so of zoom, with a telephoto end a little less than you're current cam, and a much more useful wide end.

Lately, I have been reading that sometimes the jpegs from the dlsrs do not look as good straight out of the camera as some p&s due to the expectation of post processing.

Honestly, I have a very hard time believing this. A DSLR's jpg output should be just as good as that from any P&S, if not better. What you probably are hearing are two different things - one is from the folks who like RAW processing and don't mind the effort, so they tend to be very critical of jpgs from the camera...but they are really pixel-peeping down to a level most average people never would. The other thing may be folks comparing the 'punchier' output from P&S cameras - but that can be achieved on a DSLR too - all DSLRs allow you to set the saturation, color, sharpness, and contrast of the jpgs to tune the output to the way you like it. Once you get those settings adjusted, you should be plenty happy with the results.

I have photoshop and can use it fine, but do not want to have to post process every image. I am not a professional and 90% of my pics are of my kids. I had planned to upgrade in order to learn more, have a shallower depth of field and sharper pics. I just don't want to spend that much and be at least initially disappointed in the reults.

I have spent the past year with a DSLR - before that I had a superzoom like you. I am not a serious pro photographer, but I have become very familiar with manually controlling cameras and do sell some work. I also shoot 90% of my DSLR output directly to jpg, and process probably less than 30% of my shots. Those are processed mostly by personal choice - like cropping, or going for a post-processing style, not because the photos needed it.

Anybody experience a letdown? Also, as far as picture quality, is there really much difference b/w d40 and d90? For less that half, I could pick up a few more lenses with the difference. Thanks for the advice!
Aliia

To the average amateur shooter, who won't be stretching the limits of a camera...not much difference image-quality wise. In fact, you'd be hard pressed to find a difference between the output of any DSLR by any manufacturer for normal daytime snapshots, assuming equal lenses. There are feature differences between the 40 and 90...and the 40 cannot accept some lenses that the 90 can...so make sure the lenses you are considering are compatible with the D40. If you are going to shoot to extremes, such as using continuous frame shooting for action sports, shooting indoor or dark handheld environments requiring very high ISOs, etc...than the D90 definitely has advantages...it just depends on if you need the faster continuous burst or higher ISO capabilities in your photography.

I'd strongly recommend making one of your first lens purchases an 18-200, or 18-250 from a non-mfr brand. This will make the DSLR less of a compromise in zoom range from what you are used to, and give you reasonable image quality and flexibility.

 

[MICKEY88]

1.Lately, I have been reading that sometimes the jpegs from the dlsrs do not look as good straight out of the camera as some p&s due to the expectation of post processing. 2.I just don't want to spend that much and be at least initially disappointed in the reults. Aliia

1. point one istrue to a point.. the amount of processing in camera varies from one brand to the next and even one model to the next,

however in most if not all dslrs you can adjust suchthings as sharpness, saturation etc... so when you first get one it's best to play around a little , making these adjhustments so you get the results you like, then all jpegs will be processed with your specs..

2. is quite possible depending on your expectations, if you realize there is a learning curve and are prepared to practice and learn basics you will find the results much better than with a P&S especially in extreme lighting conditions..

3. to sum it up... what zackiedawg said..LOL

 

[annnewjerz]

Like all others said, I have not regretted taking the plunge into the world of the dSLR at all. Like Linda, it's been a hard road---not always getting the exact picture that I had hoped to get and having my mind draw a complete blank when I need the information most (mostly regarding shutter speeds, it's still a little confusing), but all in all the quality of the photos that I take now are so much better than those I used to get with my p&s.

I purchased a D60 in October of last year and upgraded to a D90 in February(ish) of this year because I wanted the in-body focus motor and the higher ISO capabilities. Both were/are great cameras that I don't regret getting one bit. It's an expensive hobby right out of the gate, but I can only hope that as my collection of equipment grows, my desire to continue purchasing more pricey equipment will wane.

Before I started shooting RAW, I shot JPEG in "auto" with no PP and was still VERY happy with what I got. Now that I have learned a little about PP and gotten PSE6, I am much happier shooting in RAW and doing a little editing to my shots, but I wouldn't consider it necessary for every shot I take.

Here is an example of one of the first shots out of the box in full auto (and at ISO 1600 none the less) with the D60. In terms of composure, not necessarily great---but the colors are bright, the picture is sharp and the DOF isn't too bad for a kit lens. While this photo is just a snapshot of one of our pets, this shot alone was what sealed the deal on the fact that I knew I would never go back to a p&s. It's a shot that I knew I wouldn't have gotten with my p&s for the simple fact that it would have still been powering on when the cat started to walk towards me.

 

[ajwomic]

Thanks for so many replies! I knew I could count on yall! I wish I could skip the learning curve part, but anything worth doing is worth doing right. Now the d40 or 90. Oh the dilemmas. I bet I will go with the 90, just to not have the regret factors of I wish I would have.... Thanks again and more opinions welcome!
Alicia

 

[jann1033]

most i have heard that complain of/ regret going the dslr route, the problems they note are , expense( lenses cost money, sometimes a lot of money), weight ( a few oz for a p&s vs multiple lbs due to lenses, body and all the other junk you end up buying ) difficulty/time in learning to use.. imo just use auto for anything important and practice with speeds, dof etc in shots you don't care if they are keepers or not since they are just a learning experience.

imo, if you just want quick "snapshots" of vacations etc and don't want to mess around with the camera much, stick with a good quality p&s , if you want studied "photographs" and maybe to branch out in greater depth of photograhy get a dlsr

 

[VVFF]

Thanks for so many replies! I knew I could count on yall! I wish I could skip the learning curve part, but anything worth doing is worth doing right. Now the d40 or 90. Oh the dilemmas. I bet I will go with the 90, just to not have the regret factors of I wish I would have.... Thanks again and more opinions welcome!
Alicia

Honestly 90% of the "learning curve" people associate with DSLR's exists on bridge cameras as well. For some reason people feel that when they get a DSLR they HAVE to learn manual controls whereas with a bridge camera auto is ok. On the contrary, a DSLR can be used in auto all the time with little to no learning curve or a bridge camera can be used in manual control all the time with a high learning curve. So just because you don't have a DSLR now doesn't mean you can't prepare for it.

I don't own a DSLR yet but I've used a number of cameras, the most recent being the Canon S3 and I find the only learning curve I have when I pick up a DSLR is finding which wheel controls what. I already know what I want to change...just got to find out where it is. This generally takes me a few minutes and I'm good to go.

So don't feel that you have impending doom coming. Go out and learn the controls on your bridge camera and you should be 90% there with a DSLR.

Also I wanted to disagree with a PP that said you will miss the 12+X zoom. At first, I thought zoom was so rediculously important. True, it can be when your only way to capture your subject is by zooming(think sports). However, for almost everything else I have been finding that zooming "flattens" the depth too much and creates a boring image. As I've explored being more creative I find I use the wide-mid range of my camera more. In addition, I am very excited at some day getting a very wide angle lens for a DSLR.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

For me, I think the learning curve involved more than just learning to use manual controls.

It was about lenses (of which I knew absolutely nothing), focus points, white balance, metering, in-camera sharpening, noise reduction, image stabilization, other equipment like external flashes, tri and monopods, how to carry everything, post processing, photography basics, how all of these things relate to eachother, picking out the right controls in any given setting, etc, all of which I had to learn or at least expand my limited knowledge on.

I found it pretty mind boggling, actually, as someone who'd pretty much mastered the S3 (and rarely used auto), but had never used an SLR before.

I definitely have a healthy respect for those who aren't sure if it's right for them.

 

[YesDear]

No

 

[Pea-n-Me]

it's been a hard road---not always getting the exact picture that I had hoped to get and having my mind draw a complete blank when I need the information most (mostly regarding shutter speeds, it's still a little confusing)

This was HUGE for me also! (But not something that wasn't eventually overcome.)

 

[VVFF]

For me, I think the learning curve involved more than just learning to use manual controls.

It was about lenses (of which I knew absolutely nothing), focus points, white balance, metering, in-camera sharpening, noise reduction, image stabilization, other equipment like external flashes, tri and monopods, how to carry everything, post processing, photography basics, how all of these things relate to eachother, picking out the right controls in any given setting, etc, all of which I had to learn or at least expand my limited knowledge on.

I found it pretty mind boggling, actually, as someone who'd pretty much mastered the S3 (and rarely used auto), but had never used an SLR before.

I definitely have a healthy respect for those who aren't sure if it's right for them.

This is exactly my point though. Looking at your list, and having only owned a Bridge camera before I've:

Researched Lenses to find out their flaws and differences
Adjusted white balance in camera and in PP
Altered metering
Used RAW and did my own noise reduction
Image stabilization is available on bridge cameras so this is nothing new(although its implementation may)
Used a tripod and any various device that may serve as a tri/bi/monopod
Post Processed plenty of photos(RAW and JPG)
Learned plenty of photography basics
What controls to adjust per the setting

As you can see, most everything on your list is not exclusive to DSLRs. It just seems that people FEEL that it is. Like I said, its entirely up to the user how in depth they want to go with their camera. 90% of the complexity of a DSLR is in a bridge camera.

 

[annnewjerz]

No

Very to the point, John. Leave the long-winded incoherent ramblings to the rest of us.

 

[Code]

No

+1

Though my wallet probably regrets it. Beware GAS (Gear Acquisition Syndrome)

 

[zackiedawg]

Honestly 90% of the "learning curve" people associate with DSLR's exists on bridge cameras as well. For some reason people feel that when they get a DSLR they HAVE to learn manual controls whereas with a bridge camera auto is ok. On the contrary, a DSLR can be used in auto all the time with little to no learning curve or a bridge camera can be used in manual control all the time with a high learning curve. So just because you don't have a DSLR now doesn't mean you can't prepare for it.

Quite true - it was the same for me. With my ultrazoom, I had long since learned to use the camera's manual controls, understanding aperture/shutter relationships, properly exposing for higher ISOs to avoid noise, controlling depth of field, adjusting white balance, and using tripod and manual controls for night shots. When I needed to move to a DSLR to expand into some areas of photography where the P&S camera was actually a limitation, I already was comfortable manually controlling the camera and all the features, and to understanding lens specs to get what I needed...I just needed to adjust to the new button and control locations. All of these things are no more necessary on a DSLR than they are on a P&S - it's a matter of which folks really want to learn more about photography and how to manually control a camera to get what they want.

Also I wanted to disagree with a PP that said you will miss the 12+X zoom. At first, I thought zoom was so rediculously important. True, it can be when your only way to capture your subject is by zooming(think sports). However, for almost everything else I have been finding that zooming "flattens" the depth too much and creates a boring image. As I've explored being more creative I find I use the wide-mid range of my camera more. In addition, I am very excited at some day getting a very wide angle lens for a DSLR.

While true that zooms can flatten the composition when relying on the longer reaches of a telephoto for landscape style shots...there are definitely situations where one is very useful to have, especially those where foot-zoom is not an option. You mention sports...add wildlife and birding to the list. Or safari/tour/ride where the subject is distant but you cannot control your proximity. Or where a subject is distant and across a body of water or across an untreadable expanse. I am definitely a fan of wides, and primes. I've got 2 primes myself, and am dying to add a superwide to my collection. At the same time, I've got an 18-250 as a very convenient all purpose walkaround lens for those times when I need one lens that can do it all, for trips, lightweight travel, and the odd distant situations where only a big telephoto will do. And I've got a 200-500mm big zoom which is a complete requirement for birding and wildlife. Remember that many people coming over from an ultrazoom may not really want to expand their artistic capabilities and learn to shoot primes from closeup angles - they are just on vacation and want a quick and convenient way to get the shot. For those folks, an ultrazoom is a fantastic choice, and a convenient DSLR lens that can do the same type of thing is a great addition to a camera bag.

BTW - OP mentioned how much they liked the zoom, so I was giving them a lens option that would satisfy that need. (I see that another poster mentioned missing the zoom, not me - my response was sort of to them both)

If you want to become a better photographer, you don't need a DSLR. You really need to learn about photography, and controlling your camera as well as understanding the abilities, controls, and limitations so that you can use the camera to the best of its ability. And you need to understand composition, metering, and what makes a photo interesting. There are plenty of excellent and skilled photographers shooting with advanced P&S cameras that could put a majority of DSLR users to shame...and there are skilled photographers who could pick up a cheap automatic compact camera with no manual controls and outshoot an average snapshooter armed with a D300.

So I agree - learn how to control that S3 now, while you wait for the DSLR - once you become familiar with the basic tenets of photography and understand the basic relationship of various settings and controls with the image output, you will find moving up to a DSLR to me much easier.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

VVFF, I agree with you. You can do many of the same things on a bridge as you can on a dSLR, to a degree.

I think the difference is whether most bridge users have the skill and/or desire to do so. (Based on my experience on the S3 thread - things may have changed, not sure; and real life with people I know who use bridge cameras.)

I think many who do hunger for more move on to a dSLR. Thinking of Kevin, Andy, Gregg, myself, Justin, Anne, bob100, Sam, yourself, and many others, etc. If I didn't want to really get into this to the degree that I have, I would have just stuck with my bridge. Life would have been a lot simpler, LOL.

I think you hit the nail on the head here.

its entirely up to the user how in depth they want to go with their camera.

I also think something like this may be oversimplifying a bit.

Image stabilization is available on bridge cameras so this is nothing new(although its implementation may)

I had to learn about IS a bit more than when I took it for granted on my S3.

As in, do I want to buy a dSLR that has IS in-body or one that uses IS lenses. What's the difference? Is one better than the other?

And once I got my camera, how is IS affected by lens focal length? Or which lens you use for that matter - prime vs zoom. And exposure - low light or bright settings, etc? Can I use it with Live View? Vertical vs horizontal IS, is there a difference in actuality? Remember to change settings, etc. How is in-body IS affected by using a tripod?

With my bridge, I never concerned myself with any of these things. It was just there. Now, I have to take these all into consideration if I want to get the best pictures I can.

 

[VVFF]

While true that zooms can flatten the composition when relying on the longer reaches of a telephoto for landscape style shots...there are definitely situations where one is very useful to have, especially those where foot-zoom is not an option. You mention sports...add wildlife and birding to the list. Or safari/tour/ride where the subject is distant but you cannot control your proximity. Or where a subject is distant and across a body of water or across an untreadable expanse. I am definitely a fan of wides, and primes. I've got 2 primes myself, and am dying to add a superwide to my collection. At the same time, I've got an 18-250 as a very convenient all purpose walkaround lens for those times when I need one lens that can do it all, for trips, lightweight travel, and the odd distant situations where only a big telephoto will do. And I've got a 200-500mm big zoom which is a complete requirement for birding and wildlife. Remember that many people coming over from an ultrazoom may not really want to expand their artistic capabilities and learn to shoot primes from closeup angles - they are just on vacation and want a quick and convenient way to get the shot. For those folks, an ultrazoom is a fantastic choice, and a convenient DSLR lens that can do the same type of thing is a great addition to a camera bag.

All your examples are definitely other situation where a ultrazoom/large prime is necessary. I just feel that a lot of people don't realize that 90% of the time they aren't using that zoom and/or could take the same picture by walking closer. I admit I have fell victim to this before I realized the perspective difference it makes to the final picture. But should a person really want to capture wildlife or sports, then the ultrazoom may be something very important. I just think its important to point to someone that may not know, as I didn't when I started that taking a picture at a long focal length is not the same result you would get as walking closer and using a shorter focal length.

Sorry about confusing you and the OP in regards to the importance of zoom though! That's what I get for skimming.

 

[DisneyFairytale]

Like all others said, I have not regretted taking the plunge into the world of the dSLR at all. Like Linda, it's been a hard road---not always getting the exact picture that I had hoped to get and having my mind draw a complete blank when I need the information most (mostly regarding shutter speeds, it's still a little confusing), but all in all the quality of the photos that I take now are so much better than those I used to get with my p&s.

I purchased a D60 in October of last year and upgraded to a D90 in February(ish) of this year because I wanted the in-body focus motor and the higher ISO capabilities. Both were/are great cameras that I don't regret getting one bit. It's an expensive hobby right out of the gate, but I can only hope that as my collection of equipment grows, my desire to continue purchasing more pricey equipment will wane.

Before I started shooting RAW, I shot JPEG in "auto" with no PP and was still VERY happy with what I got. Now that I have learned a little about PP and gotten PSE6, I am much happier shooting in RAW and doing a little editing to my shots, but I wouldn't consider it necessary for every shot I take.

Here is an example of one of the first shots out of the box in full auto (and at ISO 1600 none the less) with the D60. In terms of composure, not necessarily great---but the colors are bright, the picture is sharp and the DOF isn't too bad for a kit lens. While this photo is just a snapshot of one of our pets, this shot alone was what sealed the deal on the fact that I knew I would never go back to a p&s. It's a shot that I knew I wouldn't have gotten with my p&s for the simple fact that it would have still been powering on when the cat started to walk towards me.

Look at that photo. Thank you for sharing that shot, it's outstanding

 

[H.E. Pennypacker]

Nope. No regrets here. But then I grew up shooting film SLR's, so DSLR was a natural progression. That said, I think anyone considering a DSLR should take a minute to think about why they want one. And "just because" can be a valid reason, but what I really mean is to think about what kinds of photos you want to take and what it is that you could do with a DSLR that you can't (or think you can't) do with a P&S or bridge. Most people I know with DSLR's don't really know how to use them. They shoot in programmed auto mode all the time, they never ever experiment with different apertures or shutter speeds or play around with white balances or the different metering modes, or have any idea what the EV button is for. Their only lens is the kit lens. For all intents and purposes, it's just an expensive point and shoot with a bigger sensor and a bigger lens. There's nothing they're shooting that they couldn't shoot with a P&S or bridge.

Nothing wrong with having a DSLR "just because." If you want a DSLR, go get one. Just don't be afraid to experiment with it! It won't explode if you put it into manual mode once in awhile and try to set aperture and shutter speed yourself. Take baby steps if you need to and start slowly by using aperture priority mode and play around with DOF. The real fun of owning a DSLR (and even bridge cameras) begins when you turn that little dial away from "P" and start experimenting. So turn that dial to "A" or "S" or *gasp* "M" and go have some fun!