Has anyone regretted getting a dlsr?

[handicap18]

I'm sure there are people out there in this great big world of ours that has regretted getting a dSLR. I am not one of them. I love BOTH of my dSRL's (D50 and D300).

 

[Evad]

Only when I spend money on new lenses.......

 

[boBQuincy]

No regrets, a SLR is a necessity for getting the photographs I want. How many P&S have a wide angle lens that is the 35mm equivalent of 16mm? How many allow an instant and accurate view of the effect of a polarizing filter?
On and on, with exposure bracketing, quick exposure compensation, precise manual zoom, fast focusing, etc. Some P&S have some of these features but very few (none?) have all of them.

I may leave my SLR on P for 90+% of my photos but when I need another mode it is there, and without going through menus!

 

[NateNLogansDad]

This website as a whole is going to kill my bank account. I found Disboards while trying to sell a couple of extra DVC points my mom wouldn't be able to use. Now, hundreds of hours later surfing the different topics, I want to make Disney a yearly trip (if possible) and upgrade to Something like the D80 or (gasp) D90. You guys out there astonish me with your knowledge of photography and I've seen the pics to back it up. I guess I just wanted to say thanks for helping out us Non-DSLR guys.

(Sorry to Hijack!)

 

[handicap18]

This website as a whole is going to kill my bank account. I found Disboards while trying to sell a couple of extra DVC points my mom wouldn't be able to use. Now, hundreds of hours later surfing the different topics, I want to make Disney a yearly trip (if possible) and upgrade to Something like the D80 or (gasp) D90. You guys out there astonish me with your knowledge of photography and I've seen the pics to back it up. I guess I just wanted to say thanks for helping out us Non-DSLR guys.

(Sorry to Hijack!)

Ha!

I'm going on my 4th trip since joining this board almost 4 years ago. Also in that time I've bought 2 dSLR's, 8 different lenses, 5 batteries, 12 SD cards, 4 CF cards, battery grip, 2 diffusers, 3 remotes (2 wireless and 1 wired), signed up for a pro level account on an online photo storage site, bought 3 external hard drives, filters, clearners, software programs and who knows what else.

It never ends. Never...... EVER!

 

[spinetnglr]

No regrets here either .. I skipped the p&s phase altogether and jumped right into a DSLR when I went digital. I had experience with film slr's though and so the choice was an easy one. I now have 2 DSLR's (Nikon D40 and D300) and enjoy both immensely. For me the fun of it all never ends either so the expense whatever it ends up being is more than worth it!!

 

[bob100]

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

I went from a Canon S5 to a Canon XSi (450D) - no regrets. I wouldn't worry about jpegs not looking good because (with Canon) you can adjust picture styles for sharpness, saturation, etc. but you should shoot in RAW for best results. If you have kids I think the video feature of the Nikon D90 (or Canon T1i) would be a big plus. earlier DSLRs may be cheaper but I would consider a newer model, megapixels and other features are worth it

 

[jann1033]

I went from a Canon S5 to a Canon XSi (450D) - no regrets. I wouldn't worry about jpegs not looking good because (with Canon) you can adjust picture styles for sharpness, saturation, etc. but you should shoot in RAW for best results. If you have kids I think the video feature of the Nikon D90 (or Canon T1i) would be a big plus. earlier DSLRs may be cheaper but I would consider a newer model, megapixels and other features are worth it

just to play devil's advocate.....http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/digitalphotography/a/raworjpeg.htm

 

[Gdad]

I got my first Digital SLR in 2006 and immediately knew it was the right choice. I love everything about them- aside from the obvious thing I love which are the pictures I just love the way it feels- I love the way the shutter sounds- I love looking through the viewfinder- no regrets whatsoever.

 

[rossb]

I shot film SLRs for about 20 years before getting a D-SLR so I did not regret it at all. Go to your local library and take out a book on general SLR photography and see if the concepts appeal to you. You do not need to take out a digital specific book, the same concepts apply to film and digital.

The most apparent difference you will see is DOF.

 

[MICKEY88]

just to play devil's advocate.....http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/digitalphotography/a/raworjpeg.htm

but most of what he is talking about is studio work where you have precise control over lighting, exposure and white balance..

in real everyday situations you don't have the same control, which is why I shoot raw, then batch process to jpeg with my sony software, which gives me the same results as if I shot jpeg, then any pics I'm not satisfied with I can fine tune starting with the raw file

 

[VVFF]

just to play devil's advocate.....http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/digitalphotography/a/raworjpeg.htm

"No, Raw files will not be sharper than the JPG files, and anyone who says they will doesn't know what they're talking about. "

Now that's just condescending there(of the author of that article). I've compared JPEG to RAW files as many reviewers do and absolutely RAW is sharper. Is it apparent when printed at 4 x 6? Probably not. But whenever I have the choice of keeping an image that is more accurate I'll do what it takes to get it. The case where I most often notice the difference is in hair.

He also says that image quality is not lost each time you save and reopen. Problem is...it is. If you edit a JPG after its taken...you compressed it twice. This is not the case with a RAW where when you edit the RAW file it is only compressed into JPG at the end of your edits.

 

[YesDear]

just to play devil's advocate.....http://graphicssoft.about.com/od/digitalphotography/a/raworjpeg.htm

If you notice what that author said, he said jpgs are great as long as you take a proper exposure with custom white balance. The expo disc is a great tool but how many of us are going to take the time every time we start taking pictures to pull out the old disc and set the custom white balance. How many of us even know you can do that or how to do that! It only takes about 2minutes to do so, but..... who is going to unless you have the time. If I were going to be shooting in the same light for an event, etc I would but otherwise... The author is a 30+ yr pro. He makes these calculations and decisions in his head like we decide to open a door!

I have said several times on threads that the problem with RAW is not RAW but those that think it can solve their inability to take a proper exposure.

So I agree with everything he says but for 99% of us, we are not capable of doing what he does. We do not have the benefit of 30yrs of practice.

 

[boBQuincy]

Like many others on this board I *do* have the benefit of 30 years of practice, having started getting serious about photography in the early '70's. What the writer is missing or is not acknowledging is: the best is just that, anything less is… less.

Perhaps he and his clients can't see the difference, perhaps it does not really matter in his situations. Perhaps it does not really matter in mine either *but* I want the best my camera can give and RAW is it. There are diminishing returns in going for the gold and many times we can't notice or appreciate the difference but I am glad Ansel Adams and O. Winston Link did not say "oh, that's good enough, no one will notice". To me, that's the attitude the writer is taking with his photography and that is not someone I care to learn from.

 

[jann1033]

"No, Raw files will not be sharper than the JPG files, and anyone who says they will doesn't know what they're talking about. "

Now that's just condescending there(of the author of that article). I've compared JPEG to RAW files as many reviewers do and absolutely RAW is sharper. Is it apparent when printed at 4 x 6? Probably not. But whenever I have the choice of keeping an image that is more accurate I'll do what it takes to get it. The case where I most often notice the difference is in hair.

He also says that image quality is not lost each time you save and reopen. Problem is...it is. If you edit a JPG after its taken...you compressed it twice. This is not the case with a RAW where when you edit the RAW file it is only compressed into JPG at the end of your edits.

actually i read and posted an article a few months ago with egs of re-saved jpegs and there were very minimal changes for( i think) it was the first 6-8 saves then you couldn't tell any difference what so ever( they had tested them by re-saving a number of times) the end result really was indistinguishable after more saves than i can image anyone doing in real life. and you can always rename the edited file anyway and really not have a great problem (which i do even with tiff files that i don't save as jpegs just to keep them straight). personally i would normally just work on a file till i finished it ( rather than open and close it repeatedly) but maybe others don't

could be wrong but i was under the impression jpegs are sharpened in camera, raw are not so if you are talking sharper straight from camera i don't know how that could be( from what i have read even the settings you might set in camera for raw are basically just added to the photo part of the file and only really added after processing but then again that would be something you adjusted ,not the basic raw file. I'm not sure when they are applied in post processing ie, if you are batch processing or your converter might add them before it puts up the thumbnail you may see those settings applied to the "raw" file but that wouldn't really be the "raw" file anymore,it would be an adjusted raw file) if you are talking after processing, well that is something you are doing also. I've also heard complaints from some that they don't shoot jpeg since they feel they are oversharpened, which of course would depend on what camera you are using and that would include dslrs. and so the jpeg/raw battle rages on....

imo raw covers a multitude of sins and for me, i don't see any reason not to shoot in it but i know of a number of seasoned veterans that shoot in jpeg so i don't think the statement that "you should shoot in raw" necessarily is true...I'd change it to "you should learn enough to be able to use jpeg in some situations even if you choose to shoot in raw in others" really i find the more i am used to shooting digital the less i need to adjust the raw file. mostly i adjust exposure sometimes( i purposely have it set slightly under since imo my camera overexposes ) and apply sharpening, maybe crop. sometimes i apply a preset like grayscale or adjust saturation if i am going for a certain effect. but i have found that the more experience I get the less I have to adjust.

not that this has anything to do with buying a dslr.....

 

[Pea-n-Me]

not that this has anything to do with buying a dslr.....

Yes, I had to check the name of the thread to make sure I was on the right one.

 

[VVFF]

actually i read and posted an article a few months ago with egs of re-saved jpegs and there were very minimal changes for( i think) it was the first 6-8 saves then you couldn't tell any difference what so ever( they had tested them by re-saving a number of times) the end result really was indistinguishable after more saves than i can image anyone doing in real life. and you can always rename the edited file anyway and really not have a great problem (which i do even with tiff files that i don't save as jpegs just to keep them straight). personally i would normally just work on a file till i finished it ( rather than open and close it repeatedly) but maybe others don't

could be wrong but i was under the impression jpegs are sharpened in camera, raw are not so if you are talking sharper straight from camera i don't know how that could be( from what i have read even the settings you might set in camera for raw are basically just added to the photo part of the file and only really added after processing but then again that would be something you adjusted ,not the basic raw file. I'm not sure when they are applied in post processing ie, if you are batch processing or your converter might add them before it puts up the thumbnail you may see those settings applied to the "raw" file but that wouldn't really be the "raw" file anymore,it would be an adjusted raw file) if you are talking after processing, well that is something you are doing also. I've also heard complaints from some that they don't shoot jpeg since they feel they are oversharpened, which of course would depend on what camera you are using and that would include dslrs. and so the jpeg/raw battle rages on....

imo raw covers a multitude of sins and for me, i don't see any reason not to shoot in it but i know of a number of seasoned veterans that shoot in jpeg so i don't think the statement that "you should shoot in raw" necessarily is true...I'd change it to "you should learn enough to be able to use jpeg in some situations even if you choose to shoot in raw in others" really i find the more i am used to shooting digital the less i need to adjust the raw file. mostly i adjust exposure sometimes( i purposely have it set slightly under since imo my camera overexposes ) and apply sharpening, maybe crop. sometimes i apply a preset like grayscale or adjust saturation if i am going for a certain effect. but i have found that the more experience I get the less I have to adjust.

not that this has anything to do with buying a dslr.....

In regards to resaving JPGs, your assertion is most likely correct. I bet you could save a few times depending on the quality setting you are using and have very little loss. The problem is I am picky in this regards. I try to avoid any situations where you are recompressing an already lossy compressed file. Just like how I bet if I made a 320kpbs MP3 and needed to put it on a portable player and wanted to reduce the file size most people would just convert to 128kbps. I however prefer to have FLAC files on my computer and convert from there to whatever format I need. That's just me and knowing that I am losing information each time I save it(or having to deal with multiple copies)

In regards to sharpening I am not talking about in camera sharpening. Most of the time, you are going to sharpen the RAW image in post process. I am talking about the blurring due to the compression of the JPG file. A raw file simply has more detail to work with that hasn't already been blurred due to compression. You can see this in multiple camera reviews as the lines of detail resolved by RAW vs. JPG. In some models, the difference is pretty significant depending on the JPG processing.

I agree that RAW is not always necessary. Problem is, I don't usually know if it is necessary until I load the pictures up back home on a screen that accurately shows the image. Then I can judge whether or not I clipped any small area of important highlights, or slightly underexposed the image. While sometimes apparent on a histogram, sometimes its difficult to discern exactly what the image looks like on a 3" screen. So I prefer to have the RAW there just in case it is necessary rather than regret it later.

I love topic deviations!

 

[oogieboogieman]

The question was do you regret getting a dslr? Well my answer is yes and no. I say this because I was disappointed with the first results of photos. I'm still learning by reading and taking ALL this information and putting it to use. It really didn't click until several thousand photos later.

As of today, there's no regrets on my part. Now I can't answer for my wife. With owning a dslr there's a problem that was mentioned before. It's called "G.A.S". Gear Acquisition Syndrome is contagious!!! The only cure for me is to just buy it and worry about how to hide it from the wife. I always get caught!!! Right now I don't have any major attacks of G.A.S.! However, I do feel that there "Will Be" another attack before my trip in two months. The only cure is a Sigma 30mm!!! Isn't Father's Day coming up? I might just have to make sure wife gets the correct lens.

Off to go shoot at something!

 

[Pea-n-Me]

oogieboogieman, it's those dang email purchase confirmations that get you into trouble.

Figure out how to solve that, and you're golden.

 

[NateNLogansDad]

The trick is to make it boring to her, that way she won't be familiar with the equipment. The next time she says "is that a new....." you reply "huh? remember I used this at...."