Please help me decide if a DSLR is right for me

[havoc315]

I said earlier it's probably wise to shoot RAW if it's a one time event.

But really, we have thousands of pictures of our kids, don't we? I've sat through hundreds of baseball games and gotten dozens of great action shots - at every age. I've got tons of pictures of my kids at Disney, etc. I don't need to shoot every outing in RAW to not miss out on great images.

But as I said, if others want to, then go right ahead! If that works for you, then great! I am saying this not to convince anyone who enjoys shooting RAW of anything. I'm saying this primarily for people who may want the freedom to shoot in JPEG to know that it's ok to do - if that's what works for them.

Why are people getting so defensive about this? It's just a discussion!

No defensiveness here. I think you're right.

I don't think shooting in either format is ever an absolute necessity.
There may be a small handful of times where I think 1 format may be slightly superior, but most of the time I think it's purely personal preference.

 

[nvtsallo]

I am sure tons of great advicehas been given. I personally found the greatest jump in image quality and creative possibilities was when I moved to a dslr. I would normally recommend the sony nex 3n as a starter (better IQ and nearly the same size as the rx100) but i would look into the canon eos sl1. It has a optical viewfinder and all the features for a beginner dslr. Also the touch screen is easier to adapt to since most have a touch screen device of some sort. Finally you have the whole excellent catalog of canon ef/ef-s lenses from entry level to pro level. So if you never add a lens then you will still have a great camera. If you want to add then you have options down the road if you want to move up in bodies as your skills or needs develop. Again just a suggestion.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

I'm posting a Trip Report from my last trip to WDW, which was in 2011. Obviously, that was 2 years ago, and if I were going today, I imagine my photos, once again, would be different, since I've grown since then and also added some other cameras to my gear list. I doubt they'll wow you at any rate. (Nor would that be my intention.) But maybe you'll like them nonetheless, keeping in mind what you now know about me, and what I say in the TR. http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2665820&referrerid=70088

Cool TR Pea-n-Me. I haven't had a chance to read it all yet, but I've been enjoying the pics - particularly the ones of the Boardwalk. I'm staying at the Boardwalk, so getting a night-time lake reflection photo is high on my list.

 

[WanderlustNZ]

I am sure tons of great advicehas been given. I personally found the greatest jump in image quality and creative possibilities was when I moved to a dslr. I would normally recommend the sony nex 3n as a starter (better IQ and nearly the same size as the rx100) but i would look into the canon eos sl1. It has a optical viewfinder and all the features for a beginner dslr. Also the touch screen is easier to adapt to since most have a touch screen device of some sort. Finally you have the whole excellent catalog of canon ef/ef-s lenses from entry level to pro level. So if you never add a lens then you will still have a great camera. If you want to add then you have options down the road if you want to move up in bodies as your skills or needs develop. Again just a suggestion.

Thanks nvtsallo. I think I've decide to go for the rx100, but I will take a look at the camera you mentioned.

 

[photo_chick]

Very valid point, but at the same time it's easier to become lazy or complacent. Don't get me wrong, I much prefer the ability to shoot, adjust, chance angles and shoot, shoot, shoot. Back in the film days you had 24 - 36 shots on a roll, so a shooter tended to spend more time setting up or visualizing a shoot. That said and no point have I missed the film days.

I too love the ability to change my mind after the fact on things when shooting digital. When I shoot film it's usually 4x5 these days. That's maybe 8 or 12 sheets at a time so everything for each one has to be right in camera. There's not much room for error when the film costs several dollars a sheet, not including processing.

I am with Allen on this. IMO every shot needs some sort of pp. shooting in RAW just allows you the freedom to make more adjustments if necessary. I don't go super heavy on most of my shots but I think it's almost a must to do lens correction, adjust WB and a few other things. Shooting in JPEG would greatly limit my options and that has nothing at all to do with not getting it correct in camera. I don't get that argument.

This goes down another path, but there is nothing you can do to a RAW file that cannot be done to a jpeg. It's all pixels with assigned values. Granted, it's generally much easier to make global changes to a RAW file and the jpeg may require some serious detail work to get the same results. But you can get there with a jpeg. And I'm not trying to advocate shooting jpegs here. I shoot RAW for the easy global changes that I can make after the fact. Just pointing out that it's a fallacy to believe that you must shoot RAW or your editing options are limited. They're only as limited as the time and editing skills you have to put into the image.

But as far as getting it right in camera... if you nail everything in camera there is far less to do in editing. If you hit that white balance and exposure right you don't have to mess with those. And really, the ability to change those things specifically are what many photographers cite when they say why they shoot RAW.

Again, not trying to advocate one way or another here. I think everyone needs to use what works for them. But going on about one being better than another or one offering more than another... both formats have advantages and disadvantages. They have different working methodologies when you use them. And both are equally capable of producing a great print in the right hands.

 

[nbaresejr]

Danielle,


I think that was extremely well said!

 

[DebºoºS]

Thanks pea-n-me.
I've been shooting in jpeg to date. My reasons for doing so? There was functionality in my camera that I wanted to learn how to use and I didn't really want to be tied to a PP program for the bazillion shots that I take. It is a personal choice and I'm glad I've take the time to do so.

I went to a talk given by Ken Duncan earlier this year. He's an Australian photographer. He was effectively saying the same thing. He does shoot in RAW but he was advocating that as photographers, we should be aiming for getting the best shot we can using the camera and not relying too heavily on post production. Yes, he agreed that everyone should be using PP to touch up their pictures; but it is more about developing your craft with your equipment and extending your photography skills; rather than your desktop skills. Having said that, he also pointed out that he does use the programs and that there is nothing wrong with that either.

Wish there was a like button