Please help me decide if a DSLR is right for me

[WanderlustNZ]

OP, congratulations on your purchase.

Thanks Pea-n-Me. I still haven't bought it yet and after buying MNSSHP tickets and paying off my cruise this week, it might need to wait until next pay. But I can't wait now to get my hands on it and start playing around.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

OP... know that 90% of getting those great shots is the photographer. You can get them with any camera with the exception of extreme situations like low light Disney rides. Those take a fast aperture and solid ISO performance, which the RX100 has at wider focal lengths. Learn about the basics of photography and in time you'll be able to get those kinds of shots too.

I agree that 90% of the battle is in the strengths of the photographer. I think I have an okay eye for composition, but as stated in my original post, it's low-light pics that have constantly frustrated me. Everyone has been really helpful and I think I now have enough information to start trying to combat this issue.

 

[havoc315]

Tell me something I don't know. I've posted this information and graph for people myself.

I use both 4:3 and micro 4:3 cameras and have for many years.

You often refer to Micro 4:3 as "dSLR like", and myself and other 4:3 users have pointed out to you that dSLRs come in the 4:3 standard as well, the "SLR" part referring to the mirror mechanism. These types of dSLRS - and their mirrorless counterparts - use the 4:3 sensor format (isn't that what I said ??) and not APS-C. Do not mistake my uncaring attitude about specs as unknowing. I have explained 4:3 terminology to you in the past when you've referred to micro 4:3 as having "micro 4:3 sensors", which, as I've explained above, is incorrect.

The "compact camera" description I don't agree with at all, as mirrorless are anything but. They are still quite large, come with a lot of equipment and lenses, and pretty much require a bag to carry around. (Although I have stuck my PEN in my purse many times.)

I still say, havoc, that you should try one sometime. You might be surprised.

I often use the term "dSLR" along with what most laypeople are thinking when they hear the term. As I stated and later explained, technically it is not correct. I wasn't trying to correct you, I was trying to provide accurate information in the thread for other readers. So they would understand that my earlier statements were merely shorthand, and not misunderstand your statement to imply that Micro 4/3rds is the same type sensor as their friend's Canon or Nikon.

Compact as well, is a relative term. I have shot with mirrorless -- I've used the Nex system briefly. And yes, I consider it "compact" -- as a relative term compared to my dSLR. Mirrorless cameras -- 1 of the advantages, is that they comes in various shapes and sizes. Some are larger, with more dSLR-like layouts. Some are more compact-like layouts. I found the layout of the Nex 3 to be very similar to a compact camera.
For example, the Olympus P1 is barely bigger in size than the Sony RX100. The GF2 is about the same size as the RX100. Meanwhile, the GH2 is more like a dSLR in appearance. This isn't a criticism though it made you defensive -- this is a positive about the technology.

You seem to get very defensive when anybody says anything other than total praise for micro 4/3rds. I didn't even say a single negative word about the system in this thread, nor did I say anything the least bit false. (Unless you want to crucify me for referring to APS-C as dSLR).

 

[havoc315]

Thanks Havoc. I think I'll be happy too. I did notice that the RX100 hasn't gone down much in price since it was released and agree that that's saying something.
Interestingly, not many main stream electronic places in NZ sell it. Without understanding it's value, I think most people see the price and balk.

I'm going through my iPad App and can't see your signature at present, but will definitely check your Flickr out. Will also check out Gorilla Pods. I have actually ordered a MeFoto Roadtrip from Amazon and are waiting for it to arrive. I thought if I'm serious about improving with night shots, I'll need a tripod. But it'll probably just be something I carry around in the evenings when I'm at Disney. With all my practicing lately, I've discovered that even my Panasonic can take okay (as opposed t
o awful) fireworks shots when I keep it perfectly still.

Epcot fireworks from World Showcase by Havoc315, on Flickr

Stick the RX100 on a gorillapod... set ISO to 125, 8 second exposure, F11.... and have fun .

 

[WanderlustNZ]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/havoc315/7912502200/
Epcot fireworks from World Showcase by Havoc315, on Flickr

Stick the RX100 on a gorillapod... set ISO to 125, 8 second exposure, F11.... and have fun .

Beautiful shot. Thanks for the advice on settings. I've been practicing with shutter speed and had figured somewhere around 8 seconds would work quite well. But ISO is still like another language to me, so giving me that setting is really useful.

Do you have any advice for good places to take fireworks shots both in Epcot and at MK? I get claustrophobic in extreme crowds, so would prefer a spot where there's perhaps only a few hundred people surrounding me as opposed to a few thousand. I also would like some space to set up my tripod. A shot with the castle in it would be nice, but I'm not adverse to taking something a bit different. Although, for the sake of my DH and son, I'd still like to be able to hear the Wishes (and Hallowishes) music.

Thanks again

 

[havoc315]

Beautiful shot. Thanks for the advice on settings. I've been practicing with shutter speed and had figured somewhere around 8 seconds would work quite well. But ISO is still like another language to me, so giving me that setting is really useful.

Do you have any advice for good places to take fireworks shots both in Epcot and at MK? I get claustrophobic in extreme crowds, so would prefer a spot where there's perhaps only a few hundred people surrounding me as opposed to a few thousand. I also would like some space to set up my tripod. A shot with the castle in it would be nice, but I'm not adverse to taking something a bit different. Although, for the sake of my DH and son, I'd still like to be able to hear the Wishes (and Hallowishes) music.

Thanks again

Haven't really done Magic Kingdom.

Epcot -- The gorilla pod attaches right to the railing of World Showcase. The area isn't always open but when open, there is a little area that juts out right behind the English pub. Not very crowded, with a great view.

 

[Pea-n-Me]

I often use the term "dSLR" along with what most laypeople are thinking when they hear the term. As I stated and later explained, technically it is not correct. I wasn't trying to correct you, I was trying to provide accurate information in the thread for other readers. So they would understand that my earlier statements were merely shorthand, and not misunderstand your statement to imply that Micro 4/3rds is the same type sensor as their friend's Canon or Nikon.

Compact as well, is a relative term. I have shot with mirrorless -- I've used the Nex system briefly. And yes, I consider it "compact" -- as a relative term compared to my dSLR. Mirrorless cameras -- 1 of the advantages, is that they comes in various shapes and sizes. Some are larger, with more dSLR-like layouts. Some are more compact-like layouts. I found the layout of the Nex 3 to be very similar to a compact camera.
For example, the Olympus P1 is barely bigger in size than the Sony RX100. The GF2 is about the same size as the RX100. Meanwhile, the GH2 is more like a dSLR in appearance. This isn't a criticism though it made you defensive -- this is a positive about the technology.

You seem to get very defensive when anybody says anything other than total praise for micro 4/3rds. I didn't even say a single negative word about the system in this thread, nor did I say anything the least bit false. (Unless you want to crucify me for referring to APS-C as dSLR).

You seem overly defensive yourself.

I don't have total praise for 4:3 or micro 4:3 myself so I wouldn't expect it from anybody else. As the OP of Olympus, 4:3/m4:3 and Mirrorless threads here, I have acknowledged and openly discussed their shortcomings as well.

I would like to see them get a fair shake, and acknowledged for what they can do, but often what I see here, especially lately, is people being steered away from them when opinions are asked. My intent is to correct information I see is incorrect or misleading, since they are unfamiliar territory to many, and to comment if I can add something to the conversation.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

I just wanted to add that I appreciate any information given to me even if it's a tiny bit wrong. I'm not saying anyone is wrong (as you can surely tell by now, I don't have the knowledge to back it up), but I do think that when explaining things to beginners like myself a degree of ambiguity is often needed.
Had someone explained all these cameras to me in 100% technical language it would have gone completely over my head. Whereas, saying something is a bit like something else is a language I understand.

I read a thread where a person tried to explain to a beginner how lens size with DSLRs compares to zoom on p&s's. All these 'experts' jumped on the poster and the OP saying that the question wasn't that simple to answer. Even if the helpful poster wasn't 100% correct, their answer was 10x more useful than anyone else's.

This is not a dig at anyone. Just a chance to say thanks again for any and all advice/opinions given.

 

[havoc315]

Had someone explained all these cameras to me in 100% technical language it would have gone completely over my head. Whereas, saying something is a bit like something else is a language I understand.

I read a thread where a person tried to explain to a beginner how lens size with DSLRs compares to zoom on p&s's. All these 'experts' jumped on the poster and the OP saying that the question wasn't that simple to answer. Even if the helpful poster wasn't 100% correct, their answer was 10x more useful than anyone else's.

There have been some big fights around here, about the "correct" use of terms like perspective, compression, etc.

There is a certain language set used by those with certain photography sophistication. There is a very different language set often used by beginners and laypeople. No reason to let jargon get in the way of a legitimate understanding.

For example - Sony no longer makes dSLRs. They don't make any. They do make dSLTs. If you, or 95% of people were to look at the camera, you would think it was a dSLR. Even after all the differences were explained, you'd probably say to yourself, "ok.. so basically it's a dSLR with a different type of viewfinder?"

So if someone asks about dSLR options.. I'll group Sony in with the other options.

Similarly, laypeople often think of zoom as in 5X or 10X.
Now, I have a 70-210 telephoto lens. It offers a lot of reach. Technically, mathematically, it is a 3X lens. (210 is three times 70). But this would bewilder alot of people, "thought you said it had a lot of reach! 3x is nothing!)
So to me, the more accurate description for a layperson, is that ends up giving you as much reach as a 14X point and shoot.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

There is a certain language set used by those with certain photography sophistication. There is a very different language set often used by beginners and laypeople. No reason to let jargon get in the way of a legitimate understanding.

Agreed. I read a blog yesterday where the writer compared aperture to the eye-ball. As someone with a Science background, I understand eyeballs considerably better than I do cameras, so when I read this simply written post it was like a lightbulb went on.
Now, obviously I'm not going to get upset if my camera doesn't behave the exact same way as my eyes, but having this comparison to draw on made things quite a bit easier to understand.

 

[photo_chick]

There have been some big fights around here, about the "correct" use of terms like perspective, compression, etc.

There is a certain language set used by those with certain photography sophistication. There is a very different language set often used by beginners and laypeople. No reason to let jargon get in the way of a legitimate understanding.

There actually are correct terms. Read some photography textbooks. It's pretty standardized. And it doesn't have to get confusing to learn the correct terminology. I've taught Cub Scouts the 4 variables and how to make an exposure. But bringing advanced technical ideas into a discussion with a beginner... that can get unnecessarily confusing.

Agreed. I read a blog yesterday where the writer compared aperture to the eye-ball. As someone with a Science background, I understand eyeballs considerably better than I do cameras, so when I read this simply written post it was like a lightbulb went on.
Now, obviously I'm not going to get upset if my camera doesn't behave the exact same way as my eyes, but having this comparison to draw on made things quite a bit easier to understand.

Actually it's almost exactly like your eyes. In low light your pupils have to open to let in more light. In bright light they have to close down to let in less. Just like shutter speed can be related to blinking. Go watch a fan spin. Blink fast and it freezes motion. Blink slowly and you see some motion.

 

[PythonFan888]

Beautiful shot. Thanks for the advice on settings. I've been practicing with shutter speed and had figured somewhere around 8 seconds would work quite well. But ISO is still like another language to me, so giving me that setting is really useful.

Do you have any advice for good places to take fireworks shots both in Epcot and at MK? I get claustrophobic in extreme crowds, so would prefer a spot where there's perhaps only a few hundred people surrounding me as opposed to a few thousand. I also would like some space to set up my tripod. A shot with the castle in it would be nice, but I'm not adverse to taking something a bit different. Although, for the sake of my DH and son, I'd still like to be able to hear the Wishes (and Hallowishes) music.

Thanks again

If you would like to avoid crowds while shooting fireworks and would like some space to set up your tripod:

Wishes

The Transportation and Ticket Center near the ferry boat dock. You can still hear the soundtrack at this location.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/6086235029/in/set-72157627344397028

The Rivers of America with the Liberty Belle in frame
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/8554680456/in/set-72157627344397028

At the New Fantasyland
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/8576948974/in/set-72157627344397028
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/8621995910/in/set-72157627344397028

I have been able to set up my tripod at all these locations without any problems and with minimal crowds. At the TTC just watch out when the ferry boat is unloading.


Illuminations

Outside Teppan Edo Restaurant at the Japan Pavilion - Try to "reserve" the corner early and set up your tripod as soon as you can. Most of the crowd will be on ground level.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/8056371479/in/set-72157627344397028

From the Imagination Pavilion with the fountain in the foreground. No crowds in sight.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/6603018717/in/set-72157627344397028

From the Odyssey Bridge
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/8032522172/in/set-72157627344397028


Regarding fireworks settings: Remember that Disney fireworks shows are precisely choreographed. Familiarizing yourself with the show, the burst sequence, and the music by watching youtube videos is a good way to prepare yourself for the long exposures needed.

I recommend using bulb mode (and a remote shutter release if possible) and not just a set number of seconds for each exposure. You will be missing a lot of trails and bursts if you set your exposure to just 8 seconds. By using bulb mode you can time the exposures precisely when the upward trails and the bursts are set to appear. I find most of my fireworks shots are from 12 to 30 seconds depending on the sequence of trails and bursts.

The other issue with long exposures is the distinct possibility of blowing out the highlights. This is why we use neutral density filters when we shoot fireworks. I think ND filters are available for the RX 100 as well as adapters for remote shutter releases (although anyone should correct me on this).

Good luck!

 

[boBQuincy]

There have been some big fights around here, about the "correct" use of terms like perspective, compression, etc.

There is a certain language set used by those with certain photography sophistication. There is a very different language set often used by beginners and laypeople. No reason to let jargon get in the way of a legitimate understanding.

No reason except "correct" is facts, anything else is incorrect and nonfactual. We would do a disservice to anyone asking questions to give them a "lowest common denominator" answer. Give people the facts and let them make decisions based on what is correct.

Similarly, laypeople often think of zoom as in 5X or 10X.
Now, I have a 70-210 telephoto lens. It offers a lot of reach. Technically, mathematically, it is a 3X lens. (210 is three times 70). But this would bewilder alot of people, "thought you said it had a lot of reach! 3x is nothing!)
So to me, the more accurate description for a layperson, is that ends up giving you as much reach as a 14X point and shoot.

A 70-210 *is* a 3x zoom, nothing more or less. It may or may not (usually not) have as much reach as a 14x P&S. Many on this board used to try to educate those asking questions, that is how many of us learned. It is sad to see that level of helpfulness be discarded because some of us think people need more simple answers. Give people the facts, they will be ok with them.

 

[havoc315]

No reason except "correct" is facts, anything else is incorrect and nonfactual. We would do a disservice to anyone asking questions to give them a "lowest common denominator" answer. Give people the facts and let them make decisions based on what is correct.





A 70-210 *is* a 3x zoom, nothing more or less. It may or may not (usually not) have as much reach as a 14x P&S. Many on this board used to try to educate those asking questions, that is how many of us learned. It is sad to see that level of helpfulness be discarded because some of us think people need more simple answers. Give people the facts, they will be ok with them.

If someone wants a technical explanation, I give a technical explanation.
If they want it broken down to understandable language without needing a PhD, then I give an easily understandable answer.
And my apologies, the 210mm is more equivalent to 13x in p&s terminology.

 

[mikegood2]

Wow people are really going at Havoc315! I know everything he said might not have been completely "factual" but he was trying to help the OP and also gave her a great deal of useful info.

No reason except "correct" is facts, anything else is incorrect and nonfactual. We would do a disservice to anyone asking questions to give them a "lowest common denominator" answer. Give people the facts and let them make decisions based on what is correct.

But did he give a "lowest common denominator" answer? I guess I didn't think he did.

A 70-210 *is* a 3x zoom, nothing more or less. It may or may not (usually not) have as much reach as a 14x P&S. Many on this board used to try to educate those asking questions, that is how many of us learned. It is sad to see that level of helpfulness be discarded because some of us think people need more simple answers. Give people the facts, they will be ok with them.

I thought he did a fairly good job of describing zoom ranges on multiple posts. I actually found them useful. Trying to explain the zoom range of a p&s to a lenses mm amount can be difficult to explain and understand. Yes A 70-210 *is* a 3x zoom, but there is more than "nothing more or less". If someone were to just give that answer than they would also be doing a disservice to a poster. Also, sometimes people are just looking for simple answers.

 

[boBQuincy]

If someone wants a technical explanation, I give a technical explanation.
If they want it broken down to understandable language without needing a PhD, then I give an easily understandable answer.
And my apologies, the 210mm is more equivalent to 13x in p&s terminology.

No apology expected or needed. You have not done anything to me or said anything against me, we are having a discussion. Understandable is not the same as nonfactual. I do not have a PhD but I do not expect to be given incorrect information under the guise of "easily understandable". If I do not understand something I can ask for further clarification or look it up. Everyone on this board is on the internet, they can easily look for more information. We assume too much when we assume they want or do not want a technical explanation.

210mm is not equivalent to *any* amount of "x" on a P&S, it depends entirely on what the shortest focal length is.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

If you would like to avoid crowds while shooting fireworks and would like some space to set up your tripod:

Wishes

The Transportation and Ticket Center near the ferry boat dock. You can still hear the soundtrack at this location.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/6086235029/in/set-72157627344397028

The Rivers of America with the Liberty Belle in frame
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/8554680456/in/set-72157627344397028

At the New Fantasyland
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/8576948974/in/set-72157627344397028
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/8621995910/in/set-72157627344397028

I have been able to set up my tripod at all these locations without any problems and with minimal crowds. At the TTC just watch out when the ferry boat is unloading.

Illuminations

Outside Teppan Edo Restaurant at the Japan Pavilion - Try to "reserve" the corner early and set up your tripod as soon as you can. Most of the crowd will be on ground level.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/8056371479/in/set-72157627344397028

From the Imagination Pavilion with the fountain in the foreground. No crowds in sight.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/6603018717/in/set-72157627344397028

From the Odyssey Bridge
http://www.flickr.com/photos/allen_castillo/8032522172/in/set-72157627344397028

Regarding fireworks settings: Remember that Disney fireworks shows are precisely choreographed. Familiarizing yourself with the show, the burst sequence, and the music by watching youtube videos is a good way to prepare yourself for the long exposures needed.

I recommend using bulb mode (and a remote shutter release if possible) and not just a set number of seconds for each exposure. You will be missing a lot of trails and bursts if you set your exposure to just 8 seconds. By using bulb mode you can time the exposures precisely when the upward trails and the bursts are set to appear. I find most of my fireworks shots are from 12 to 30 seconds depending on the sequence of trails and bursts.

The other issue with long exposures is the distinct possibility of blowing out the highlights. This is why we use neutral density filters when we shoot fireworks. I think ND filters are available for the RX 100 as well as adapters for remote shutter releases (although anyone should correct me on this).

Good luck!

Thank you so much. Your photos are beautiful. If I can take pics even half as good as this I'll consider it a success

I love the Japan position for the Epcot pics and the Fantasyland and liberty Bell positions for the MK pics. Can you hear the music from both of them?
I think I will watch Hallowishes from somewhere with a castle view and then pick one of your locations for Wishes the following week.

 

[havoc315]

No apology expected or needed. You have not done anything to me or said anything against me, we are having a discussion. Understandable is not the same as nonfactual. I do not have a PhD but I do not expect to be given incorrect information under the guise of "easily understandable". If I do not understand something I can ask for further clarification or look it up. Everyone on this board is on the internet, they can easily look for more information. We assume too much when we assume they want or do not want a technical explanation.

210mm is not equivalent to *any* amount of "x" on a P&S, it depends entirely on what the shortest focal length is.

I'm reminded by one poster who owned a 20x p&s... And wanted to get a dSLR for more reach... And believed a 55mm lens would give 55x.

For most p&s cameras, 1x falls between 24-28mm.
On a crop body, a 210mm lens will give a reach equivalent of 325mm. Or a similar zoom you would get at a p&s at 11-13x.

Now, when someone asks for a Simple explanation of "how much zoom"-- I could give a long explanation of focal lengths and crop factors, dependent on sensor size. Teach them to convert the p&s focal length, how to calculate the crop factor of a 1/2.3" sensor.
Or, I can give a straightforward understandable and accurate answer. (Such as the 210mm would be like 13x on their p&s)

 

[WanderlustNZ]

I know everything he said might have been completely "factual" but he was trying to help the OP and also gave her a great deal of useful info.

Thanks Mikegood, I agree.

The purpose for my post was to find out if a DSLR is for me. I needed a rough understanding of how they function so I could decide whether the investment would suit my needs. A rough understanding is what I have achieved. I certainly did not expect to become an expert from one thread.
So far Havoc is the only person I've come across who owns the rx100 and is happy to discuss it with me. The fact that he has owned DSLRs and can make some comparisons was an extra bonus.

I've noticed that zoom is a contentious issue in many photography forums and perhaps one day when I'm more of an expert I'll understand why. But right now, I was just keen for a rough comparison between lens capabilities and p&s zoom. Rest assured that while my camera intelligence is not great, I'm generally a pretty on to it person. I can usually tell the difference between 'rough' and 'exact', 'fact' and 'opinion'. I understand that a lot of what was given in his thread was opinion or rough estimates. That's okay, it's been useful anyway. A starting point (even if a little bit misguided) is better than no starting point at all.

If there is something that would be useful for people like me to know (even if it contradicts others), please by all means share it. But please can we not turn this thread into a debate. At the end of the day, everyone here is just trying to be helpful and that is something to be appreciated.

 

[mikegood2]

I've noticed that zoom is a contentious issue in many photography forums and perhaps one day when I'm more of an expert I'll understand why. But right now, I was just keen for a rough comparison between lens capabilities and p&s zoom. Rest assured that while my camera intelligence is not great, I'm generally a pretty on to it person. I can usually tell the difference between 'rough' and 'exact', 'fact' and 'opinion'. I understand that a lot of what was given in his thread was opinion or rough estimates. That's okay, it's been useful anyway. A starting point (even if a little bit misguided) is better than no starting point at all.

Zoom definitely is one of those contentious issues. It's one of those areas that shouldn't be difficult to understand but is, in part because p&s cameras use X times instead of mm. Then of on the DSLR side you have to deal with crop sensors and mm are used instead of X time zoom. So when you try to compare the two it can become complicated. Sadly zoom is like megapixels to a lot of people, the higher the number the better, even though that is not the case (most of the time).

It's not that uncommon for people to start threads asking about ultra zoom p&s cameras, and they can create arguments. I remember posting a response one one of them, posting pros/cons. One con being the fact that you may get more "blurry" photos especially when you are zoomed in indoors or in low light. I had a few people who had issues with that statement. Funny enough havoc315 might have been one of those people!