Please help me decide if a DSLR is right for me

[photo_chick]

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!

p&s cameras actually do use mm's, they're just a different scale most of the time. But it's usually pretty easy to find the 35mm equivalents for them. Most people just don't want to look that far. Manufacturers have driven the X zoom factor in so deep with marketing, with each super zoom point and shoot trying to outdo the rest, that it's all people look at.

 

[mikegood2]

p&s cameras actually do use mm's, they're just a different scale most of the time. But it's usually pretty easy to find the 35mm equivalents for them. Most people just don't want to look that far. Manufacturers have driven the X zoom factor in so deep with marketing, with each super zoom point and shoot trying to outdo the rest, that it's all people look at.

Your correct they do use different scale of mm. I probably should have said that, but they mainly promote the X factor. I think that the average point and shoot shooter have very little idea or care what the mm scale is. My brother is one of those super zoom p&s people. It was definitely in his top 3 of wants. He was only looking at 16x or more for his last camera and it is a feature he doesn't use that often and when he does its usually in situations he shouldn't be, like indoors or low light situations. Then he wonders why most of his photos are blurry. It doesn't matter how many times I've explained to him why that happened, he still doesn't really understand.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

with each super zoom point and shoot trying to outdo the rest, that it's all people look at.

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).

Lol, I must admit that I was once one of those people. It's easy to get caught up in all the hype.
I'm a bit wiser these days and are also all to aware of the useless low-light shots the superzooms create. But I must admit, I still like having some zoom. My favourite type of photography is landscapes, and it's unfortunately not always easy to get up close to the interesting parts of the scene without crossing some rough terrain. Until recently, I also couldn't be bothered doing much editing or cropping afterwards.
I guess every camera has a time and a place, it just depends on your needs.

 

[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!

I hope you don't mind but I've just been taking a nosey at you Flickr photos and all I can say is wow, wow, wow! You are very talented. I particularly love the ones of the castle with the sunset above them.
I have 3 WDW photographers giving me serious photo envy at present and you have just become the fourth

 

[havoc315]

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!

Lol. If so, I apologize but I don't actually remember that. If that was your statement, I would have agreed with it.

 

[mikegood2]

Lol. If so, I apologize but I don't actually remember that. If that was your statement, I would have agreed with it.

No reason to apologize havoc315, your post made me go back (early January) and check who it was and it wasn't you. It was actually photo_chick, but she misread my original post as an attack on all super zooms, which was by no means what I intended. Of course we worked that issue out in the thread and all is good. It did remind me how easy it is to miss interperate what someone types, something I have also done on more than one occasion, (iPhone vs. p&s camera thread) . Ever since that thread I have used more emoticons which I think have actually helped.

 

[photo_chick]

Lol, I must admit that I was once one of those people. It's easy to get caught up in all the hype.
I'm a bit wiser these days and are also all to aware of the useless low-light shots the superzooms create. But I must admit, I still like having some zoom. My favourite type of photography is landscapes, and it's unfortunately not always easy to get up close to the interesting parts of the scene without crossing some rough terrain. Until recently, I also couldn't be bothered doing much editing or cropping afterwards.
I guess every camera has a time and a place, it just depends on your needs.

You got caught up in the hype because they meant for you to. I honestly think that the people who do marketing for most camera lines have never in their life learned the least little bit about photography. It works that way for so many other things, why not cameras?

That last line... that's it exactly. It's about finding what works for you. It's really easy on a message board to get tied up in the suggestions of others. Learning what you need out of a camera is the best way to figure out which one is right for you.

 

[PythonFan888]

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.

Thanks! You will hear the soundtrack from both MK locations.

I've never seen Hallowishes in person but there are youtube videos out there. The sequence of bursts is different and I would also prefer a Main Street view if I get a chance to see this.

 

[havoc315]

You got caught up in the hype because they meant for you to. I honestly think that the people who do marketing for most camera lines have never in their life learned the least little bit about photography. It works that way for so many other things, why not cameras?
.

Just saw a really annoying ad for the Sony NEX system. Shows a bumbling fool tripping over himself with a dSLR, taking blurry photos. Suddenly handed a Sony NEX, starts taking magnificent photos. With the narrator saying something like "dSLR quality is a compact easy to use body."

As if the size of the body has anything to do with whether the photos are in focus or not. And playing on the conventional wisdom that a compact camera is easy to use, and that a dSLR is hard to use. When the reality is, the "auto" system on the NEX is no different than "auto" on a dSLR. And taking manual control is no easier on the NEX than it is on a dSLR. So the only part of the ad that was true was that the NEX is significantly more compact.

But yes, there is a conventional wisdom, used by marketers as well, that smaller cameras are "easier" and dSLRs are harder.
Switch from a true dSLR to a mirrorless camera, and you're suddenly Ansel Adams!

The ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ep31FnaaeHA

 

[havoc315]

Thanks! You will hear the soundtrack from both MK locations.

I've never seen Hallowishes in person but there are youtube videos out there. The sequence of bursts is different and I would also prefer a Main Street view if I get a chance to see this.

I love Python's fireworks photos --- And I think they really demonstrate the benefit of getting a different perspective on the fireworks, instead of just setting up in the middle of Main Street. Why not go someplace less crowded, with plenty of room for your tripod and gear, where you can get a "fresh" perspective of the fireworks.

Kills 2 birds with 1 stone -- less crowded, AND a unique fresh look.

 

[photo_chick]

Just saw a really annoying ad for the Sony NEX system. Shows a bumbling fool tripping over himself with a dSLR, taking blurry photos. Suddenly handed a Sony NEX, starts taking magnificent photos. With the narrator saying something like "dSLR quality is a compact easy to use body."

As if the size of the body has anything to do with whether the photos are in focus or not. And playing on the conventional wisdom that a compact camera is easy to use, and that a dSLR is hard to use. When the reality is, the "auto" system on the NEX is no different than "auto" on a dSLR. And taking manual control is no easier on the NEX than it is on a dSLR. So the only part of the ad that was true was that the NEX is significantly more compact.

But yes, there is a conventional wisdom, used by marketers as well, that smaller cameras are "easier" and dSLRs are harder.
Switch from a true dSLR to a mirrorless camera, and you're suddenly Ansel Adams!

The ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ep31FnaaeHA

My husband has worked in advertising and fields related to advertising for most of the last 20 years. So yeah, there are strategies. And they also really do have people who are clueless to the product trying to sell them. Case and point... a man is responsible for the "Have a happy period" tagline that didn't sit well with millions of women and cost a company part of it's marketshare.

But back to cameras... Panasonic had a similar kind of ad. WIth a guy at a gallery reception unable to answer technical questions about his shots. Trying to show how awesome their point and shoot was.

Although some cameras most definitely will do better on auto than others. To say their auto systems are the same is like saying all sensors are the same. But then we all know there is also more involved than just the auto system to get those shots. Things like maximum aperture, image stabilization and ISO performance all come into play to determine the quality of the shots you'll get in auto mode.

 

[havoc315]

Although some cameras most definitely will do better on auto than others. To say their auto systems are the same is like saying all sensors are the same. But then we all know there is also more involved than just the auto system to get those shots. Things like maximum aperture, image stabilization and ISO performance all come into play to determine the quality of the shots you'll get in auto mode.

Of course. I'm not talking quality of "auto" shots... I'm talking the "ease of use."
And while there are still slight differences, at least every camera I've seen over the last few years--- if placed on full auto, is about equally "easy" to use.
The ad suggests that a bumbling moron won't get a single decent shot with a dSLR, but the bumbling moron can practically be a pro with the Nex.

In fact, the marketing and reinforcement of public perception could help them misleadingly sell the different products to different segments:

"oh... you want to be a *serious* photographer, then you must have a true dSLR"
"oh.. you want to take great pictures easily, then you need an easy to use mirrorless or compact."

And as Pea repeatedly yells at me, we do know that a very serious photographer can use a mirrorless. And may opt for a mirrorless over a true dSLR. (In fact, according to all current rumors, Sony is going to transform their dSLR-body into a "mirrorless" camera, and they were already half-way there with the translucent mirror). And I do know plenty of people very very happy with their dSLRs, who still don't know anything about manual control who use their cameras in auto all the time.

 

[mckelvey72]

Hi Everyone, I just read thru this post as i too am trying to find a new camera (mine was stolen at Great Wolf Lodge on New Years day )....anyway....so the RX100..from what i read will be...

Easy(er) for a novice to use?
Will get good nightime shots? (we are headed to Disney in December0
BUT...doesn't zoom very well? Is that what i am getting??

So I love the camera but want to make sure...if i am sitting on the sidelines of my son's football games...am I going to be able to zoom enough to get good shots?

Sorry....REALLY a novice here but want a better camera as the kids are getting bigger and doing more and my camera was a sucky 200.00 Sony point and shoot that I hated. So maybe it was good that it got stolen??? HAHA

Anyway, the price is not an issue for me....just want to check on the zoom thing. I want a compact...not looking to carry around one of those DLSRs if possible.

Thanks

 

[havoc315]

Hi Everyone, I just read thru this post as i too am trying to find a new camera (mine was stolen at Great Wolf Lodge on New Years day )....anyway....so the RX100..from what i read will be...

Easy(er) for a novice to use?
Will get good nightime shots? (we are headed to Disney in December0
BUT...doesn't zoom very well? Is that what i am getting??

So I love the camera but want to make sure...if i am sitting on the sidelines of my son's football games...am I going to be able to zoom enough to get good shots?

Sorry....REALLY a novice here but want a better camera as the kids are getting bigger and doing more and my camera was a sucky 200.00 Sony point and shoot that I hated. So maybe it was good that it got stolen??? HAHA

Anyway, the price is not an issue for me....just want to check on the zoom thing. I want a compact...not looking to carry around one of those DLSRs if possible.

Thanks

The rx100 is no easier or harder than any other camera.
As with any modern camera, it has a pretty effective full auto mode, and scene modes.
As with a dSLR or other advanced camera, the user can exercise a great deal of precise Manual control for better photographs.

Yes, it's specs allow for excellent night time shots.

The telephoto reach is limited. Slightly more reach than most dSLR basic kit lenses, less than a typical dSLR telephoto lens.

It can really only shoot sports if you're very close to the action.
Typically, it takes a very good camera -- usually a dSLR for sports.
Sports requires very fast focusing--- dslrs have the best focus mechanisms. The rx100 and some other advanced mirrorless cameras are -almost- as good.

Sports requires very little shutter lag or else you will never keep up with the action. That takes an excellent camera.
Sports requires a very fast shutter speed-- if you want to catch the ball in midair just as it's being caught. Compacts don't typically have super fast shutter speeds. Top speed on the rx100, I believe, is 1/2000. Not bad, but I usually used 1/2500-1/4000 to shoot sports.

I use a Sony SLT for kids sports. Couldn't do this with the rx100 or any other compact:


baseball-86.jpg by Havoc315, on Flickr

 

[photo_chick]

Easy(er) for a novice to use?

On auto, yes. But this is true for any camera on auto.

Will get good nightime shots? (we are headed to Disney in December)

Yes and no. It has the ability to get really nice night time shots. However, you might have to take it off auto to get those.

BUT...doesn't zoom very well? Is that what i am getting??

It doesn't have as much reach as some super zoom cameras. And the aperture is variable, that means it will let in less light when you zoom out all the way. THis means it's low light abilities are hampered when you zoom out.

So I love the camera but want to make sure...if i am sitting on the sidelines of my son's football games...am I going to be able to zoom enough to get good shots?

I use the 35mm equivalent focal length of 300mm often when shooting football (we talk in 35mm film camera equivalents to keep the same scale). Even though you're on the sidelines you could still be a long way from the action. The RX100 has a 35mm focal length equivalent of 28-100mm. So it might be enough for some when they shoot football but for most of us it will come up short.

 

[nbaresejr]

I have been reading alot of this thread and I think they are great because we all have come from different beginnings in photography. Alot of our suggestions or answers are based on what we have or mistakes we made when starting out. I dont have really anything else to add to what has already been said.

What i would like to add is that often people see pictures that are posted and get really excited about them (for good reason, there are alot of very talented photographers on this board). What i dont think people realize is that it is next to impossible for a beginner to get any of those terrific images. I say this because most of these amazing night shots are layered and heavily worked on in photoshop or lightroom or photomatix ect, ect. Understanding software in this day and age is just as important as any other factor in photography (IMO).

thoughts?

 

[havoc315]

I have been reading alot of this thread and I think they are great because we all have come from different beginnings in photography. Alot of our suggestions or answers are based on what we have or mistakes we made when starting out. I dont have really anything else to add to what has already been said.

What i would like to add is that often people see pictures that are posted and get really excited about them (for good reason, there are alot of very talented photographers on this board). What i dont think people realize is that it is next to impossible for a beginner to get any of those terrific images. I say this because most of these amazing night shots are layered and heavily worked on in photoshop or lightroom or photomatix ect, ect. Understanding software in this day and age is just as important as any other factor in photography (IMO).

thoughts?

In some cases, shots are heavily edited but not always.

But I agree that most of the best shots have a lot going on... Skill and equipment beyond pointing a camera on auto.
Many of the night photos and especially fireworks... Were taken with tripods, often with manual settings.
Often, we're seeing shots with upgraded lenses. All successful dark ride pics are with manual settings.

And let's also remember that experienced photographers make take a ton of pictures and post only the best.
Sharing the 1 pic that came out great, not the 99 failures to get the shot.

So nobody should expect to just point their camera on auto, and get great shot after great shot.

I've been taking little league pics of my son on weekends. I leave the game with 200+ shots, but less than 10 good shots.

 

[nbaresejr]

In some cases, shots are heavily edited but not always.

But I agree that most of the best shots have a lot going on... Skill and equipment beyond pointing a camera on auto.
Many of the night photos and especially fireworks... Were taken with tripods, often with manual settings.
Often, we're seeing shots with upgraded lenses. All successful dark ride pics are with manual settings.

And let's also remember that experienced photographers make take a ton of pictures and post only the best.
Sharing the 1 pic that came out great, not the 99 failures to get the shot.

So nobody should expect to just point their camera on auto, and get great shot after great shot.

I've been taking little league pics of my son on weekends. I leave the game with 200+ shots, but less than 10 good shots.

Completely agree with everything you just said. I just think sometimes people see these images and are then disapointed with the DSLR (or any other camera purchased) when they dont get the same images.

As for fireworks. Yes a tripod is used but its not possible (again, in my limited experience) to get the proper exposure on the burst and also the castle, liberty bell, and so on in 1 exposure.

 

[mikegood2]

Completely agree with everything you just said. I just think sometimes people see these images and are then disapointed with the DSLR (or any other camera purchased) when they dont get the same images.

Agree, and I'm afraid to admit I've thought the same way more than a few times. Far too often people make the mistake of thinking that a "great" camera is all they need. Actually I deal with that with one of our clients who think the can shoot most of there product shots because they have a DSLR. Sadly, I think they shoot everything in the auto zone, and for some reason send us unedited photos in PDF format. We ask them to send us RAW, but haven't had luck getting them to send them. It would be cheaper for them to have us shoot for them because we spend far more time trying to make theirs usable.

 

[photo_chick]

That is a good point... many people don't realize that it takes some know how in processing to really make most images shine. It's no different than when we toil away at the enlarger in the darkroom.