Alright thanks for the advice. I simply used the T3 for about a week to see the difference with a DSLR and P&S. I really liked the feel and features, and now, since I've returned it, it really feels awkward using the Coolpix L110.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Do I need a DSLR?
- Thread starter I AM THE MAN
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Alright thanks for the advice. I simply used the T3 for about a week to see the difference with a DSLR and P&S. I really liked the feel and features, and now, since I've returned it, it really feels awkward using the Coolpix L110.
You must read this to understand why.....
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html
http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2010/05/letter-to-george.html
The only difference between a SLR and a regular point and shoot are the controls. A person shooting SLR can control speed/aperture/ISO where a P&S does it automatically.
If you shoot a SLR in automatic mode it's the same as a P&S. The only real logical reason to move to a SLR is if you have interest in learning how to really control speed/aperture/ISO settings. Else, the SLR on auto is an expensive P&S.
If you shoot a SLR in automatic mode it's the same as a P&S. The only real logical reason to move to a SLR is if you have interest in learning how to really control speed/aperture/ISO settings. Else, the SLR on auto is an expensive P&S.
Wrong. SLRs have:
- faster autofocus (almost no shutter lag),
- less noise at any given ISO (hence better image quality overall),
- optical viewfinders (not counting the tiny ones in the G12 et al),
whereas some compacts (G12, S95, LX5, XZ-1, etc) have controls that are on a par with many DSLRs.
The benefits of DSLRs are enough to justify purchasing one over a compact.
Obviously a SLR is a better camera than a P&S. But, if you're talking about $400-600 more money the above features you listed don't (in my opinion) matter much. These days P&S are pretty good in terms of focus speed, etc. I get many people shoot SLRs in auto, and that's great if it works for them.
But, some people think if they just buy a SLR camera they will become great photographers. The main difference between a SLR and P&S are my original points. If you don't use the main features that come with a SLR then it's just a glorified P&S. Also, it's clear the OP doesn't clearly understand the differences and features of a SLR. If that's the case he doesn't need one.
I never took to the "buy it because it's better" mentality. To each either own.
Why is everybody presuming that because the OP doesn't know much about dslr's that means he can't have one?
Why can't he buy one and learn? I mean someone said before 'If you don't know why you need one, then you don't need one'.
What a load of rubbish!! He might take some awesome photos with a p&s, or at least ones he likes.
Why can he not think....'hmmmm, I like this, I want to learn about it."?
You lot are mainly saying unless he knows all about a dslr then he shouldn't get one, and should spend years learning about composition on a p&s. This is fine, but if he's ready to experiment, then he's ready.
I can't seriously believe that everybody is trying to put him off! You can't do anywhere NEAR [with a p&s] what you can with a full featured dslr. Or with as much ease.
Sure you can take a nice... or amazing...or even award winning picture. People have been doing that for years though with a box with a hole in it!
This guy is thinking about photography seriously. You can tell cos of all his recent threads. What he knows about cameras is irrelevant. He will learn 10x more with a dslr than a p&s, and if he can afford it, buy it!
Get something like a body only 50d plus a niftyfifty. Cost you about 600 quid or less on ebay. You'll grow into it, it's quite professional looking, it's robust, you can buy more lenses as and when you can afford it.
I'm a canon guy, so that's why. I'm sure there's a nikon equivalent.
A bunch of 'photogs' should surely be trying to support a budding photographer?
I was in the same boat as you OP. I've had my Canon P&S for quite some time now and really liked it. I'd always wanted to pick up a DSLR since I'd have more freedom to change settings like aperture, shutter speed, ISO, etc that I wasn't able to do on the P&S, thus, allowing me to take better pictures. Sure the P&S shoots are great but if you have the desire (and money) to get a DSLR, I say go for it.
I picked up a T3i and see just how much more capable it is over my P&S as well as the variety of different settings I can adjust to get those artsy photos you see in magazines or whatever. I guess it's all a matter of your situation and your needs but I don't regret my purchase one bit and look forward to maxing out the potential of the camera.
My P&S has now been demoted to "crap" camera and is now mainly used for taking pictures of items I'm selling on eBay
I picked up a T3i and see just how much more capable it is over my P&S as well as the variety of different settings I can adjust to get those artsy photos you see in magazines or whatever. I guess it's all a matter of your situation and your needs but I don't regret my purchase one bit and look forward to maxing out the potential of the camera.
My P&S has now been demoted to "crap" camera and is now mainly used for taking pictures of items I'm selling on eBay
I agree with cupcakes. When I first bought my DSLR (D80), I knew very little about SLR photography. Not that I know it all now, but it was a valuable learning experience that I value even today.
That's how I learned. Bought a used DSLR on the cheap with a kit lens and just had at it!
No one is saying the OP "can't have one", the OP is asking if he needs one. If he doesn't know what a SLR can do and is 100% new to taking photos (check OP posting history) then he does not need one. If wants one fine, go get it. But, that's not what he's asking.
Just because a 16 year old can drive a car doesn't mean he needs an Audi. The kid will do just fine with a Honda.
Need and want are very different, at least for me.
If you're serious about learning photography, just get a DSLR. There's nothing wrong with jumping in head first in this case.
Obviously he doesn't "need" a DSLR. I think the only people who would fall into that category are professional photographers (excepting those who shoot medium/large format etc) or others who require one for work. Anyone else who owns one is a hobbyist/enthusiast, and doesn't need it any more than he/she would need a Macbook Air, an iPhone 4, or an iPad 2.
A DSLR is nothing special. The OP is obviously enthusiastic about photography, so the discouragement to buy one based on some imaginary skill prerequisite is unfair at best. So long as it isn't a financial burden (e.g. a full Leica S2 system), there's no reason not to buy a DSLR.
Last edited:
Just because you put everything in bold, doesn't mean suddenly everybody will agree with you. I have seen his posting history. You'd know if you read my posts too.
He: wants to know about been a pro, wants to know about lenses, wants to know about bodies, want to know the difference between raw and jpeg and has even posted on POTD.
He is obviously into it, or at least wants to be, so of course he needs(wants) it. You're being ridiculous.
It's hardly the same comparing a sport car with and hatchback is it.
Whatever camera you buy you should get Real World Camera Raw to understand what RAW is and what it can do for you: http://www.amazon.com/Real-World-Ca...3095/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1306870370&sr=8-2.
For the basics of photography, albeit a book about black and white, you can't beat Henry Horenstein's Black and white photography: http://www.amazon.com/Black-White-P...3052/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1306870673&sr=8-2.
Have fun.
For the basics of photography, albeit a book about black and white, you can't beat Henry Horenstein's Black and white photography: http://www.amazon.com/Black-White-P...3052/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1306870673&sr=8-2.
Have fun.
Thank you
I wondered where you'd gone! Starting wars...........!!
What is your decision??
I wondered where you'd gone! Starting wars...........!!
What is your decision??
Im looking forward on buying a cheap DSLR- maybe the T3i or T2i.
Good stuff, enjoy it. I was going to say only you know if you NEED an SLR, but I would assume reading your posts in this thread you probably would benefit from one.
Even if you learn nothing about the technicalities of photography and stick everything on Auto (like my wife does) you will still get a better photo than with an ultra expensive compact camera.
Of course your investment will hopefully inspire you to learn about the technicalities of photography, and then you can take your shots to the next level.
And then the gap between the SLR and compact widens even deeper.
Ignoring the startup cost, the cost of running the camera and geting shots is a hell of a lot cheaper than it was years ago with film, hopefully a GOOD startup camera will last you many many years.
Even if you learn nothing about the technicalities of photography and stick everything on Auto (like my wife does) you will still get a better photo than with an ultra expensive compact camera.
Of course your investment will hopefully inspire you to learn about the technicalities of photography, and then you can take your shots to the next level.
And then the gap between the SLR and compact widens even deeper.
Ignoring the startup cost, the cost of running the camera and geting shots is a hell of a lot cheaper than it was years ago with film, hopefully a GOOD startup camera will last you many many years.
Would you expect a T2i to last me for the next 5 years? Of course I will be purchasing additional lens, etc.
I mean that does sound like an odd question, but I thought I'd ask anyways.
But an amazing camera with crap lenses can be upgraded in the future with better lens.
I'd definitely go with a DSLR. You can get a used one for a great price. I don't know much about the Canon's, but the Nikon D5100 will also be around the same price as the t3i. A used D80 or D70s could be had on the cheap.
In my mind, if you're gonna go with canon, maybe trace a second hand 50d, and couple it with a new niftyfifty.
This way, although you're gonna get an older camera, you'll also be getting one with more advanced features.
The 50d has over the 600d.....
It has a sealed, durable, much more pro body.
pentaprism v pentamirror.
1/8000 v 1/4000 shutterspeed.
6.3 v 3.7 fps.
the 600d has over the 50d...
It's newer.
Video recording v none.
Articulated screen (if that's what you want I suppose).
Has digital zoom.
18 mp v 15.1.
More screen pixels.
I think the 50d has more growing room, with semi pro specs. The 600d, whilst very nice, is much more consumer spec'd.
Also a 50mm f/1.8 lens v's The standard kit lens of the 600d. The difference is incomparable. It's a nice cheap fast prime. Every review raves about it. I have had several (they're a little breakable), and it's one of the lenses that's on my camera a lot. I think you could ask anyone and most would agree.
Using it, you'll be able to judge what lenses you require next.
If you did get good quickly, and you decided to freelance (re another post of yours). You could get away with a 50d way more than a 600d in looks and professionalism alone. Plus have more creative breathing room.
Heres a comparison table.......
http://www.dpreview.com/products/compare/side-by-side?products=canon_eos350d&products=canon_eos400d&products=canon_eos450d&products=canon_eos500d&products=canon_eos550d&products=canon_eos1100d&products=canon_eos600d&products=canon_eos50d
I'm actually considering a DSLR myself. I'm not hugely into photography, but due to my job I'll probably be travelling quite a lot in the next few years and would love to take pictures.
I love photos taken with a nice depth of field or Bokeh effect and have tried these many times with my point-and-shoot but quality is nowhere near comparable to DSLRs I've seen due to the smaller sensor size.
Would a DSLR help much in this regard? (nice DOF and Bokeh etc.)
I love photos taken with a nice depth of field or Bokeh effect and have tried these many times with my point-and-shoot but quality is nowhere near comparable to DSLRs I've seen due to the smaller sensor size.
Would a DSLR help much in this regard? (nice DOF and Bokeh etc.)