what is so great about a "d"slr? & should i get one

[jann1033]

background i have a canon rebel slr eos 2000 that some how the auto focus and flash got messed up so usable but kind of a pain and probably not worth fixing

so i was impressed with the pic quality of my daughters 4 mp( vs the last older 2 mp digitals i had seen yrs ago and therefore figured "digital" was synomonous with "garbage") and thought hey maybe i should get out of the film rut and give a "cheap" digital a chance.then of course i wanted more control/zoom than a cheap digital, saw the canons2, wanted that, then the s3, wanted that so now i wonder....am i making a mistake not getting a dslr...

more background..husband will use it some( rarely) so it has to have some type of auto program ( like my slr did) and i have some neurological problems so sometimes my memory goes on vacation for a while so i would use them too at those times. but i am also a control freak if the brain is working so i would like to have control if i wanted it. mostly it is a hobby although occasionally i take some shots for my husband's work.

not really sure i could remember all the tiff raw stuff anyway and not really sure how slr is different than dslr (one is digital vs film, guessing both through the lens but other than that....) but now i am totally confused about which is better to get for me, dslr or S3

sorry this is long but i feel like i am on the quest for the holy grail of cameras and money is unfortunately an object so unlike some of you more fortunates...this will the the last one for a while

 

[manning]

Maybe the article on this site may help you.

http://digital-photography-school.com/blog/should-you-buy-a-dslr-or-point-and-shoot-digital-camera/

 

[Kelly Grannell]

1. MP count means nothing if you don't have decent glass (lens). I've seen 10 MP cameras looking worse than my original dRebel (6 MP)
2. If the price of RebelXT body vs S3 in the US is like in Canada (about US$250 difference) and I can only have one camera, I'll get the RebelXT body. Shutter lag drives me insane. With dSLR, just like SLR, there is virtually no shutter lag
3. You can change ISO like there is no tomorrow (see my other post on your other thread).

However, if you currently don't have decent lens, then dSLR may not be the answer to you. The only reason I got into SLR in the first place is because of work. If not, I would be happy with P&S (because ignorance IS bliss... no sarcasm here. I'm dead serious).

What lenses do you already have?

 

[captaincrash]

Manning...

Nice article link you posted. It covers plenty - however I would like to add some emphasis on some aspects.

With a DSLR you get usable ISO speeds from ISO 800-1600 depending on your tolerance for noise. Which makes one aspect of shooting a faster experience. Pocket digicams with the tiny sensors and sensor points can only shoot at ISO 150 or 200 before the image breaks up. DLSRs shooting at 1600 and 3200 are comparable to pocket digcams at ISO 200 or 400 on some of the better ones.

Then with the speed of the autofocusing and fast lens focusing systems - plus the near instant shutter trigger AND the flip of the wrist to zoom and compose - all combine to make for a very fast system for taking a shot compared to most pocket digicams. Add to that the rapid firing follow up shots by virute of the sizable buffers. Now if you are not interested in taking one or more shots quickly then this should not matter to you. But if you have active kids or grand children, or if you're a sports enthusiast who would like to have a few memorable photos then a DSLR is the only way to go.

Add to that the potential of adding state of the art lenses to a DSLR - then this would be another consideration (with generally extreme cost) - but even middle of the road lenses can be rather good with in most cases with no differences to the AVERAGE naked eye at or below 11x14 print size. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - with some minimum technical requirements. Almost any DSLR/lens combination delivers more technical power - and the most expensive DSLR/lens combinations deliver tremendous technical performances. Now - nobody go and jump on my case here by quoting a Kodak DCS420 with a 3rd party, 3rd world knock off lense (body = 12 years old, 1.5 megapixels, originally $8000 ~ body alone!).

NOW - if speed is not an issue - and if shooting near perfect images with a focusing sharpness that is eye POPING is NOT an issue - then a point and shoot will serve admirably. Point and shoots can achieve some great results. I have an old G-1 with a f2.0-3.8 zoom and 3.0 megapixels. I had pretty good results - but with my good ol' 10D and 70-300 IS and a humble 20-35 zoom I get 5-10x the number of perfect images... plus I can shoot under circumstances that otherwise the G1 could never be used.

There is probably no harm in getting a good pocket digicam 1st. By the time you get used to personally processing images at home prior to shipping - and by the time you get up to speed on using your images for slide shows, emailing to frineds and family, and after having gotten your feet wet with the creative flexability at your finger tips with the processing options after taking the shots - a year or three would have passed. And then DSLR will have dropped in price another 20-25% and the power for the money will proably improve another 10-20% in general. SO no harm there in deferring the larger expense until you verify your true needs and desires.

When I was initially exposed to digicams and started - the first things I was struck with were 1) the near zero cost after initial equipment costs; 2) the near zero shooting cost allowed me to shoot at will and in the process get a lot of junk but also a few totally "perfect" shots. 3rd) The flexability in sharing huge albums at near zero cost was an eye opener. I could email a password protected link to a hundred images to a hundred friends and family at zero cost after learning how to do it and set it up. TO have done the same with film and prints would have cost a ton! This leads to keeping in closer touch with more people at a low financial cost - the time involved can be a killer though depending on your production and exhibition standards. ANd 4th) I became sort of re-addicted to the hobby and the costs can mount.

With deference to #4 above - I borrowed a 1.25 mega pixel camera that at the time cost $300. On that first experience with a digital camera I shot 800 keepers out of about 950 images over a 10 day cruise in Tahiti. To have generated 800 photos that were keepers (maybe 100-150 were sweet) on FILM would have probably required I shoot 30-40 rolls of 36 at a cost of about $20 each. That was like having spent $600-800 on FILM photos! I was hooked - so I went out and spent $1,500 on a Canon G-1 the week it came out - and a hot new technology storage gizmo called a 1 Gig IBM microdrive. About 3 years later they came out with the first under $1000 DSLR ~ the Canon Digital Rebel ... so I got one of those for $900 90 days after it was introduced. I was happy as a lamb with the greater power and speed. Then a year later I learned of the power and handling differences from that DSLR compared to the 10D, 20D, and so on. Well... I had since observed my G-1 depreciate from about $850 to about $150 in 4 years. My D-rebel could still fetch $500 without the KIT lense - so I sold it. And since I was sort of annoyed with the rapid erosion in resale AND the total amount I had spent on equipment (at the time near $4000 in total) I decided I needed to side step a generation or two of digicam DSLRs while taking a small step forward. SO having sold the Digital Rebel - bought a used 10D for only $100 more out of pocket. That was not bad considering my rebel was used and the 10D had an original intro price of $2100 when my Rebel had an intro of $1000 and the G-1 debuted at $850. I bought the G-1 at the peak of cost new... and the D-rebel 90 days after intro at 10% off.... and the 10D was bought approximately 26 months after it was introduced at about 70% off it's intro price.

I am extremely happy with the 10D - even though there are 2 models that have replaced it... the 20D and the 30D. Maye when the 40D is introduced in about 18-24 months I will look for a used 30D at half it's inital price of $1500. My 10D may only fetch $200-350 ... and if that were the case I would keep it as a back up body.

I also have a pocket digicam for convenience and backup... it's an SD400. A nice and tiny digicam - that is inferior to the 10D in image quality and speed - but it is one of the ultimate tiny digicams that fit in a pocket like it was not there!

If you get a digicam - try borrowing one to get a feel for what can be done - then take your first step accordingly.

TTFN!


Don't try this hand held in a dimly lit theater (no flash, of course!) with a point and shoot from 25+ yards out!

And these 3 are probably challenging shots with a pocket digicam and the usual shutter lag...

Of course, you can overcome pocket digicam shutter lag by prefocusing with a half press prior to shooting.​

 

[WillCAD]

Let's make it simple:

DSLR is an SLR with a digital sensor and image processing system instead of a film plane.

The camera controls on a DSLR (focus, flash, exposure modes, etc.) work exactly the same as a film SLR.

Added onto the film controls are extra controls to work the digital aspects of the camera, such as file type (TIF, JPG, RAW, etc), ISO selection, white balance, resolution (megapixel size), and of course viewing and deleting images. There are more; in fact, a DSLR has more fine control over how the digital image is saved than almost all point and shoot digitals.

If you know how to work a 35mm SLR, and know how to work a point and shoot digital camera, you will be able to start shooting right out of the box with a DSLR.

In many ways, the current crop of DSLR cameras is overtaking 35mm SLRs in image quality and in sheer flexibility. Film is still superior in some instances, but the balance has shifted to digital.

A DSLR will cost you more than a point and shoot digital, and more than a 35mm SLR, but the differences in price are not nearly as great as they once were.

Get a DSLR. It's worth the extra money and the extra time it will take to learn the basics, and a good DSLR will last you for many years to come.

 

[manning]

Jan1033 Two cameras come to mind. I have seen pictures taken with both and they are about the same. They are both about 500- 600 dollars and are superzoom cameras. They would be the

Canon s3 is with a zoom range of 36 - 432 mm (12x zoom

This link is the beginning of the review of the s3 showing a picture of the camera
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/


This link gives the pros, cons and overall conclusion of the s3 in the review
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canons3is/page14.asp

and the

Panasonic FZ30 with a zoom range of 35 - 420mm (12x zoom)

This link is the beginning of the review of the FZ 30 showing a picture of the camera
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz30/

This is the conclusion of the review giving the pros, cons and overall conclusions
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz30/page17.asp


The links are from www.preview.com

 

[Greg K.]

In two months, you can have one of these:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/0605/06052205pentaxk100d.asp

Pentax makes a very good DSLR camera at an astonishing price. One of the above has the added value of "shake reduction," which is a must with longer lenses and low light. Since you're already accustomed to using an SLR -- I have the same Canon film SLR as you, btw -- you should be able to master this very quickly. And you'll be mighty happy with the results.

Once this model is released, you will probably be able to buy a kit for around $600, maybe less. (I bought the predecessor, the *ist DL, with a lens and SD card for just over $500 from buydig.)

Having said that: the Canon S2/S3 takes extraordinarily good pictures -- many have been posted here that would rival or exceed an SLR. (Under most circumstances, the average observer would have a hard time telling the difference, I think.) The S3 is running $400-450 right now, depending on where you look.

 

[YEKCIM]

As Greg K suggested, if you can wait on the new Pentax, you might be advised to do so. Also, Sony is reported to be coming out with the first of their new dslr line in the near term, which will incorporate the "old" Konica/Minolta body-integral anti-shake and the K/M lens mount. Once the new Sony and the new Pentax models are on the market, there will be two viable options with image stabilization built right into the body so that *every* lens you have will be stabilized. With other manufacturers, the stabilization is a function of the lens, not the body. Some lenses have it, some don't. Guess which ones cost more?

~YEKCIM

 

[jann1033]

thanks for the great and very helpful responses!

right now i have a sigma aspherical 28-80mm lens ( the one i think is messed up) and a promaster ( can't find any other name so not sure this is right, i lost one of my lens caps and have one that says promaster, one that say quantaray( i think that is the replacement cap i got, but both lens say "promaster" on them) tele macro lens that is 100-300mm, infinity to 1.5 m that weighs a ton( and i think the guy at Dodd camera might have had on the "shelf for a while" before my husband bought it for me ) so i have to use a tripod for every shot with it or pretend i took it during an earthquake. truthfully i hate the lens since it is so heavy and limiting. i would really need one camera for normal shooting and 1 for the tele lens or it's switch back and forth so much it is annoying .at the time i kind of was looking for a more general purpose lens but with a better zoom but he bought this one for me.

the articles were all helpful. the panasonic and canon were the two p& s i considered. i kind of decided on the canon cause it felt better in my hand.

steve's digicam says the price for the is Pentax will be around $700( guessing without a lens???) although the canon s3 has come down in what a month but don't know if that will also.. will have to check out the sony. however since most of the money i am using is free web certs. i won, it'll take about another month to get them anyway.

Kelly basically the "ignorance is bliss" factor is my fear... will i regret the money spent on the s3...true my daughter's is an easy share( so the canon might be better) but it drives me nuts missing shot after shot due to the lag time..i really don't need 300 shots of the top of my granddaughter's head going down a slide ...the only way i could get a shot at all was depress the shutter before she started down and since i'm not psychic ... and my husband's work is usually not in the best lighting conditions.....i guess i could conceivably get a new lens for the slr &flip up the flash when i need it and use that for fast shots but i think by the time i get a new lens( can't try it out again since the batteries died. oh course) i don't know if it's worth it or not.

i have seen some very good s2 shots on here but it's hard to decide

guess i'll go read up on dslr but thanks again for the help

 

[Kelly Grannell]

will i regret the money spent on the s3...true my daughter's is an easy share( so the canon might be better) but it drives me nuts missing shot after shot due to the lag time..i really don't need 300 shots of the top of my granddaughter's head going down a slide ...

You've got your answer there... you need a dSLR. You can get a RebelXT with kit lens for $799 with $100 Canon rebate right now.

 

[geetey]

Jann1033,

Your fears are the exact reason I went with the Rebel XT versus the Canon S2 or S3. I went from a film SLR to a digital P&S and was unhappy everyday for 2 years with that camera. The Rebel XT is exactly what I "need" (want) to get the kinds of shots I was used to being able to take.

If I wasn't taking pictures of sports or moving kids, I think I would have been able to make the S2 or S3 work, but not with these moving targets!

Of course, now that I have the XT, I am developing lens fever. I want more! LOL! I think the 50mm prime will be my next purchase.

 

[captaincrash]

Canon dominates the DSLR market for ... what reasons?

Who knows?... is it that they have a winning forumla in the so called trinity of DIGIC ICs ~ the proprietary CMOS sensors ~ and the superb lense selection. It's been said Canon has 60% of the DSLR market. Others cite how major professional sporting events are shown with Canon equipment totally dominating with use by the vast majority of pros working these events. Even an fameous name like Nikon is barely represented ~ and that's coming from me who used to e a Nikon snob 2 decades ago!

I'm sorry but you won't see many pros working events which demand unfailing equipment performance using anything but Canon equipment, and the ocassional odd Nikon. Knowing that, most folks who take their photography seriously (especially for a living) are likely to go with the flow - or they might say they will go where there is the least uncertainty with their equipment choices.

No offense to the Pentax, Minolta or other non-Canon enthusiasts. Their equipment undouted works fine - except possibly any 2/3rds system (those systems never impressed me - except in the apparent value they delivered for the $).

I know CAnon costs a little more - and I know they get trumped in wiz bang features by some of the other DSLRs (weather sealing, in body IS, and value for $, etc...) but you can sleep easily knowing your equipment and output potential are truly the BEST in core competances.... enough so as to dominate the market to the extent that all competitors combined cannot match Canon's market share or prescence among working professionals.

Choose a Canon DSLR and a "good" Canon lense and you'll never have to justify or explain your decision(s). At least - not in THIS decade at least. In the next decade maybe another manufacturer will edge out Canon to be #1 with Canon and the others unable to match THEIR market share. But it will take many many years to reverse or challenge Canon's leadership position.

Oh well...

Here's a fun image I snapped during one of the shows on the Disney Magic last September (05) in the Carribean.... no IS .... hand held!

 

[spoon2003]

As your grandaughter gets older, you'll want to capture the dance, sports and birthday party events as well. I got tired of capturing back of ponytails at my daughter's soccer games and just ordered a Rebel from Dell. Currently there's a coupon for 20% off at Techbargains, get another stackable $35 off $300 on eBay and it'll bring the price down to $684 b4 the $100 rebate. If you want to get another 2% off, open a Dell financial account, 6 months free financing too.

Sue

 

[boBQuincy]

I was firmly in the Minolta camp with three bodies and almost a dozen lenses but when it was time to go digital about the only option was Canon's D30. Everyone else's dSLR was either too expensive, too quirky or too vaporware. I waited for Minolta to release their often rumored but never announced dSLR and finally sold all my Minolta equipment on eBay after switching to Canon. Now that Minolta has quit the camera business I know it was a good decision.

By offering the first reasonably priced dSLR Canon scooped the market and now after another bunch of lenses I doubt I would switch to another brand even if the price/features were a little better. And my D30 still uses the same batteries and memory cards as the latest 5D and 30D.

Stability is a good thing if you have substantial $$$ tied up in lenses. I don't trust some of the manufacturers to be in this market too long and would not invest much in their systems only to be stuck with an orphan in a year or two. Big S is really bad about doing this.

It would be Nikon or Canon for me.


boB

 

[captaincrash]

Big S is .... ?


.... Samsung?

 

[Kelly Grannell]

Sony.

but Samsung is the close second.

Regardless, they are in bed together anyway.

 

[captaincrash]

Since when does Sony make a DSLR? I know they make hybbreds with EVF - and a fixed lense and direct view LCD... I read about it somewhere as a DSLR "alternative". It did not compete well at higher performance levels (ISO pushed). The output was not competitve even remotely as I recall.

Now Samsung is the only "S" manufacturer with a DSLR coming out. And if this is who was being referred to by boB then I must say I am not familiar with this company starting a product line only to abandon it and it's customer base.

Or boB, were you really referring to Kodak with their SCHNEIDER-KREUZNACH lenses? Oh yeah, Kodak is out of the DSLR business so they couldn't qualify as a DSLR competitor now.

 

[jann1033]

well husband really wants the s3 so i think he's going to buy it and i'll save my free certs and my pennies, dimes ,nickles and sofa "change" & get a dslr in a few months. that will give me a couple months to get used to using digital and be sick enough of the slowness that i will be willing to pay what i need to to get a dslr... I really appreciate all the good information

 

[captaincrash]

The S3 is a good digicam. You are not making a bad start - it is a fine start!

I started with an old G1 with only 3MP. I was just looking at some pix from the G1 earlier today - and they were not bad at all. If and when you move to a DSLR you will have a comfortable shift.

 

[Anewman]

Since when does Sony make a DSLR? I know they make hybbreds with EVF - and a fixed lense and direct view LCD... I read about it somewhere as a DSLR "alternative". It did not compete well at higher performance levels (ISO pushed). The output was not competitve even remotely as I recall.

Now Samsung is the only "S" manufacturer with a DSLR coming out. And if this is who was being referred to by boB then I must say I am not familiar with this company starting a product line only to abandon it and it's customer base.

Or boB, were you really referring to Kodak with their SCHNEIDER-KREUZNACH lenses? Oh yeah, Kodak is out of the DSLR business so they couldn't qualify as a DSLR competitor now.

Well isnt Samsung really the big "P"?

I mean Pentax.

But yes Sony does not Sell DSLRs yet but they have announced a new line featuring their ALPHA mount with in body AS.

And Sony does have a long history of abandoning its customers.

Beta
Minidisc
DAT
UMD
Clié

Just off the top of my head.