Slashdot Mirror
10 Reasons To Buy a DSLR
Kurtis writes, "If you're planning on getting a digital camera for yourself this holiday season, here's 10 reasons why you should choose a Digital Single Lens Reflex camera instead of a point-'n'-shoot. DSLR cameras are obviously not perfect for everyone. This article also has a couple of small blurbs about who shouldn't buy a DSLR, and a few things that could be deemed negative aspects of DSLR cameras."
I can't agree with this article more. Since moving from film to digital SLRs my photography has really grown because shooting digital blows away all of the risk and gives you much more creative freedom when it comes to experimental exposures such as low light photography, action photography and more. I find myself taking far more pictures and experimenting more with digital and then simply throwing away the bad experiments than I did with film because of the costs associated with film. The other thing about Digital SLRs is that in addition to the higher quality optics, the actual imaging sensors on the CCD are physically larger leading to much higher quality images than are possible with point and shoots that may possess higher megapixel counts, but have smaller physical sensor sizes.
If you are going to make the move to a digital SLR, I also highly recommend the Canon 20d/30d cameras as a good system to begin exploring a variety of different photographic styles from outdoors to action to macro and still life. You really cannot go wrong with some of the other manufacturers like Nikon with their D70/D80 and Sony, but Canon, like Apple tends to build the entire widget from the glass to the camera to the imaging chips. Additionally, I tend to like the color representation from the Canon Digic imaging chips. If you are planning on shooting less outdoor work or in less rigorous environments, I'd suggest introducing yourself to digital SLRs with the lower end Rebel (or Nikon D50) series which is still pretty nice hardware, just not as ruggedly built. (I've also heard rumors that Nikon is going to introduce a new lower cost D40).
For a sample of some of the images possible with the Canon 20d/30d, almost all of the images on my blog that were taken by me have been captured with the Canon 20d and associated hardware. I also have a Canon hardware list at the top of my FAQ here that may be helpful for those that are interested in some of the lens options.
The negatives that the author of the linked article writes about are also true. Hauling around all of your camera gear to various spots on the globe does get a bit harder with more (and heavier) gear. I just got back from a trip to Argentina at the foot of the Andes (pics to be posted tomorrow morning) and it does take a bit more effort to pack everything you need to take with you. The gear addiction and associated costs do not stop at the camera body and lenses either. You will find yourself buying tripods, monopods, backpacks, filters, flashes, books, more books etc...etc...etc....
Visit Jonesblog and say hello.
It will cost you at least $1000 to get a unit with decent dust-prevention equipment, maybe as much as $1200. That will get you a sexy 10MP DSLR, but I know that if I had that kind of money, I'd have more important places to spend it.
I recently looked at some Digital SLRs, and if anyone is considering buying a current-generation one for personal use, I'd say buy the cheap one (the Canon.) This is the third generation and they finally added a dust removal technology (to remove dust from the image sensor) ... and it's $200 cheaper than the competion.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
One thing that can help is to shoot in RAW mode. With the Canon DSLRs, RAW will capture 36-bit color rather than 24-bit. The disadvantage is that you then need to postprocess the images to get decent results - but you can bring out details that would be lost in the shadows if you were shooting in JPEG mode.
Oh, no! You have walked into the slavering fangs of a lurking grue!
I also have a Pentax K100D and really like it's ability to use about every lens ever made. I wouldn't go back to a digicam. Just being able to adjust the depth of field and manually focus are huge advantages. It's really feel frustrated to use a point and shoot once you've used an SLR. This assumes of course that you are as infatuated with perfection and willing to read up, study and practice to perfection as I assume most readers of slashdot are.
One point I think the article skipped over though is the proprietary (RAW) format of most DSLRs. Unless you plan to take and save JPEGS, in which case you're better off using a digicam, you gotta use RAW. RAW's problem is it's a PITA to process. gphoto, etc for Linux sometimes deal with RAW, but others, like my model of the Pentax aren't even accomodated by Photoshop yet. So, beware you can't just take pictures out of these and upload them to flickr or do the other things you might be used to.
Good quality pictures, the sort of thing you see in the galleries of highly rated photos on www.photo.net, come from RAW photos that are processed in gphoto, GIMP, Photoshop, etc to bring out the best of the shot. It's not a quick process and you should aim more for the few good shots sort of scenario and leave the lot of candid photos to digicams or DSLRs on auto/jpeg mode.
The RAW format isn't the only proprietary trap of DSLRs. I bought a Pentax primarily because of the ease of lens interchange but it also uses standard old SD cards and regular AA batteries. I use rechargeables but the point is I don't have to buy those VERY expensive proprietary batteries or flavor of the month memory formats as you may if you don't watch out.
For Canon, I would strongly recommend the 50mm f/1.8, it's under 100 bucks and will let you take most indoor shots without a flash.
Absolutely. Fantastic little lens, great for indoor portaiture, and you can actually get it on-line for about $70, sometimes $60 if you watch a little. It's extremely sharp, has good color, no significant vignetting... really it has no flaws other than its cheap plastic construction, which is also what makes it really light.
Another great lens I've had experience with is the 28-135 IS - it's got an image stabilizer which isn't quite as useful as I had hoped, but it's a very good range of zoom for typical walkabout photography
I looked at that, and at the Canon 17-85 f/4-5.6 IS lens, but ended up buying a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8 instead. It's sharper than either of the other two (even sharper than the 50mm f/1.8 at 50mm!) and the wide f/2.8 fixed aperture (doesn't narrow as you zoom in) makes it very good indoors and in dim light. Not only that, it's also slightly cheaper than the Canon 28-135 and much cheaper than the 17-85. No IS, but the larger aperture makes up for that.
The XT kit lens isn't horrible either, it lets you get down to 18mm for 100 bucks
Yeah, but that's its only positive. It's a pretty good $100 lens. Lots of photographers would say that the best use for the kit lens is holding down papers on a windy day. It beats the crap out of a P&S lens, of course, but that's all it really is, a better P&S lens.
"Good" (L) Canon lenses start in the neighborhood of 1000 bucks.
Yeah, I've got my eye on a Canon 100-400mm f/4-5.6L. $1400-$1600. Ouch. Man is it a nice lens, though...
There are cheaper knock-off lenses, but in general, the higher quality stuff is single vendor.
That I can't agree with. Tamron and Sigma make some very high quality lenses. They also make some absolute trash. Read some reviews and it's easy to find out which is which. I know a serious pro (1Ds Mk II) who won't buy anything but Sigma for wide angle. And my Tamron is a really sweet lens. At the really high end -- those L series lenses -- Canon's lenses are unmatched by any third party lenses AFAICT, but in the under-$1K market the third parties have some very compelling options.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.