Digital SLR question..

[KentT]

N80

I don't know how you can say that I'm recommending a credit-card sized P&S when I've been specifically recommending the newer super-zooms with image stabilization. I haven't mentioned the "pocket-sized" P&S cameras at all...

Just so happens that in addition to the zoom lens, these newer cameras provide almost all the manual control over the camera that a DSLR does, so if the user wants to get "more serious" about photography they certainly can do so... and they have the critical image stabilization for those long lens, allowing use of them handheld. They can learn the relationships between ISO, shutter-speed, and F-stops. They can use macro, telephoto and wide angle lens (or adapters). They can learn how to shoot for clarity, depth-of-field or softness. They can learn how to deal with light sources, motion, filters... etc., etc., etc.

Bottomline is that they can learn photography much easier, and much less expensively (if they so desire) than what I went through in the days of match-needle manual 35mm's... and they don't need a $1000 DSLR to do so.
Meanwhile, they're not carrying around a 15-20 lb camera bag, so the likelihood of having the camera with you and ready to take a photo when the opportunity arises if far greater...

BTW, how many DSLRs are used as "glorified (and expensive) P&S cameras?" Probably the vast majority, and for most people, they won't produce significantly different results from these super-zooms...

Moore's Law (related to computers, where computing "power" doubles every 18 months while price is cut in half) applies to digital cameras now also. That $1000 DSLR body will likely be outdated in 2-3 years, just as the $300-$400 super-zooms will be... The DSLR will likely depreciate more than the entire cost of the super-zoom. The DSLR body itself will have a higher "cost of ownership."

So, MAYBE meanwhile you can hold onto some of your "legacy glass" with DSLRs, but maybe not. Due to Nikon's very slow digital camera product development/introduction cycle, an investment in Nikon glass may be a bit safer, but personally I've sold probably well over $2000 worth of lens for older Minoltas and Canons for about 10 cents on the dollar I paid for them... and that's after trying to "make do" for a while with different mounts and adapters that didn't support all the functions of the newer camera body... In my experience, the lens didn't hold their value much better, if any, than did the camera body.

I used to chase the "latest and greatest" computers also -- but now having bought over a dozen in the last 20+ years, I now consider them a "disposable tool" and plan on replacing them every couple of years. I set myself a strict budget of what's the most I can get for $XXX and have saved some serious $$ by doing so... I started my search for a new digital camera the same way -- I set myself a $500-600 target budget, and ended up spending far less, and am quite pleased with the value of the package I bought.

IMO, digital cameras NOR camera lens are a good investment -- unless you're using them to make your living, or you can afford quite expensive hobbies... My recommendation for anyone is to buy the correct digital tool for THEIR needs -- and plan on replacing it.

Meanwhile, these new super-zooms have carved out a niche that bridges the traditional gaps between P&S and DSLRs -- at an affordable price...

 

[BillyP]

All this is good reading but let's get back to thatguys' question.

"I am researching getting a digital SLR, I am tired of taking pictures of the dogs tail because he moved before our digital point and shoot camera took the pic."

Is there a less expensive P & S zoom that will capture a quality image of this elusive dog? On second thought, (because I know where this will head) I'll substitute good for quality. My definition of good is if you had this picture printed at Wal Mart and showed the family, friends or total stranger, could they actually tell it wasn't taken by a DSLR?

 

[KentT]

Is there a less expensive P & S zoom that will capture a quality image of this elusive dog? On second thought, (because I know where this will head) I'll substitute good for quality. My definition of good is if you had this picture printed at Wal Mart and showed the family, friends or total stranger, could they actually tell it wasn't taken by a DSLR?

Haven't tried taking a picture of the dog's tail -- I don't have a dog -- but will birds (pelicans) in flight come close enough?

Pelican in flight on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

pelican_flying3 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

pelican_flying2 on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Click on All Sizes above the photos, pick the largest size, and see if the detail is sufficient for your needs. My 14 year old took these on "automatic" mode...

Here's some I took on the bird-feeder when I was first putzing with it, learning the controls.

Album: Bird Feeder

 

[IslandTractor]

Haven't tried taking a picture of the dog's tail -- I don't have a dog -- but will birds (pelicans) in flight come close enough?

Whoa there Kent...do you have a thing for pelican butts? These photos seem to indicate that super zoom fever can overpower aesthetics. I'm half teasing but there is a tendency to over use telezooms that is only encouraged by these new digital superzooms. Zoom and long telephoto have their place for sure but I bet those photos would have been more interesting if they were wide angle rather than proctoscopic shots of the birds.

To address the original poster's question: yes, there are several companies that make quick digital SLRs that could reliably get the dog's face rather than tail. Canon and Nikon are the two market leaders and some of us think you don't really need to look much further. I believe a decent starter outfit can be had for about $700 bucks, perhaps $1000 if you opt for a higher quality starter zoom lens. There are also newer point and shoots, including the new super zoom enhanced function cameras that are also MUCH faster focusing than the older digital cameras. If you really just want to decrease the shutter lag phenomenon, you can either go to a DSLR or a new high quality P+S style camera. However, the DSLR will be four or five times faster to go from off to ready as it doesn't have to get the lens organized and the shutter press to photo time is also instantaneous with the DSLR but is about half a second on a typical (even high end super zoom) P+S.

 

[BillyP]

Thanks, Kent! I already knew the answer I was just trying to get the thread back on track. By the way, those are some good clear pics. Attached is one of some neighbor kids riding across the pasture. It's not all that clear but it was at 10X and freehanded.

 

[KentT]

Whoa there Kent...do you have a thing for pelican butts? These photos seem to indicate that super zoom fever can overpower aesthetics. I'm half teasing but there is a tendency to over use telezooms that is only encouraged by these new digital superzooms. Zoom and long telephoto have their place for sure but I bet those photos would have been more interesting if they were wide angle rather than proctoscopic shots of the birds.

Well, it was my adolescent son at the controls, and the original poster wanted a picture of tails, so what can I say?

Seriously, here's my favorite set from our recent vacation -- and it is almost entirely wide-angles:

St John (USVI) Sunrises & Such - a photoset on Flickr

Thanks, Kent! I already knew the answer I was just trying to get the thread back on track. By the way, those are some good clear pics. Attached is one of some neighbor kids riding across the pasture. It's not all that clear but it was at 10X and freehanded.

Nice shot! I like all those shades of yellow and green. Is that wild mustard in bloom?

 

[IslandTractor]

Well, it was my adolescent son at the controls, and the original poster wanted a picture of tails, so what can I say?

Seriously, here's my favorite set from our recent vacation -- and it is almost entirely wide-angles:

That's more like it.

 

[N80]

I don't know how you can say that I'm recommending a credit-card sized P&S when I've been specifically recommending the newer super-zooms with image stabilization. I haven't mentioned the "pocket-sized" P&S cameras at all...

You misunderstand me. You were making a point that it isn't the tool that matters. I just took that point to an extreme. Tools do matter. I've used cheap Chinese tools, Craftsman tools and Snap-On tools. Each one was a step better (in my opinion).

Meanwhile, they're not carrying around a 15-20 lb camera bag, so the likelihood of having the camera with you and ready to take a photo when the opportunity arises if far greater...

That's a generalization that just doesn't fly. I can pop a 12-24mm lens on my DSLR and it is hardly larger than the type of P&S you are discussing, take far wider shots than any P&S, with higher image quality to boot. I never carry a camera bag at all when I'm out shooting. So let's put the notion aside that because you have a lot of gear that you must carry it all at the same time. I think you base that on the fact that one would have to do that to get the zoom range you seem to think so important. Again, the one lens I mentioned above gives a field of view not even available for a P&S (and those adapters you mention are just more gear to tote and don't yield great results.

BTW, how many DSLRs are used as "glorified (and expensive) P&S cameras?" Probably the vast majority, and for most people, they won't produce significantly different results from these super-zooms...

That is probably true, but I'm not sure what that proves. There are surely an equal number of people with advanced super zooms like yours that don't use or need the features that it has either. That doesn't mean it isn't a great camera.

Moore's Law (related to computers, where computing "power" doubles every 18 months while price is cut in half) applies to digital cameras now also. That $1000 DSLR body will likely be outdated in 2-3 years, just as the $300-$400 super-zooms will be...

I don't buy my gear for resale. And given the disposable nature of all camera bodies that you suggest, it would be unwise to do so. But you make it sound like that's an argument against the DSLR. Yes, the initial investment is higher but as a tool, it is much more versatile and capable of better results. Of course the initial investment will be higher.

The other problem I have with this idea of ongoing improvement is that just because the next camera is better, it doesn't change what mine can do. My current DSLR can outresolve most film and most of Nikon's extraordinary glass. I can make huge prints with these images. A better camera on the market does not change that. So I won't be forced to upgrade and the camera won't cease to function just because there is something new out there.

So, MAYBE meanwhile you can hold onto some of your "legacy glass" with DSLRs, but maybe not. Due to Nikon's very slow digital camera product development/introduction cycle, an investment in Nikon glass may be a bit safer

Well, that's just a brand issue. As I mentioned, I'm using a 25+ year old Nikon manual focus lens on my DSLR. I could sell it now for more than it was originally priced in the early 80's. I'm not too worried about my lens investment. Nikon could, and might, change their lens mount tomorrow. But again, the investment side of the discussion doesn't hold much water for me. A $7000 lens gives you $7000 worth of quality and function. You get what you pay for. It isn't a myth for tractors or photo equipment. (For the record, I buy a lot of used gear and I've never spent more than $1000 on a lens. I do not do, or want to do much telephoto work. Just keeping thigs in perspective)

I started my search for a new digital camera the same way -- I set myself a $500-600 target budget, and ended up spending far less, and am quite pleased with the value of the package I bought.

I think part of the problem is that you seem to think that I'm knocking your camera. I'm not. It sounds like it is perfect for you. I could probably do most of what I want to do with it. Again, all I'm trying to say is that there is a reason that SLR's exist and a reason that they cost a lot.

My recommendation for anyone is to buy the correct digital tool for THEIR needs -- and plan on replacing it.

I think that is fine. And I apply that philosphy to some things. Typically things I'm not deeply into. For cameras, I don't replace stuff until it dies. My DSLR is my first digital camera (I've shot 35mm for years) and being the complicated beast that it is, it may die at anytime. But I conservately expect to use it for at least five years. Probably more. There are very few things that a better body can tempt me with. I don't want or need more megapixles, frames per second, etc. I have no interest in a full 35mm sensor. Better noise at higher ISO's will be the new frontier. And I'm still shooting film (and doing my own developing) with my old manual focus Nikon FA which will function with all of my AF lenses as well.

Here is my pelican, captured with a D200 and 80-200 2.8 lens:

And here is a B&W film image made (the same day as the pelican) with my old FA on film I processed at home:

 

[KentT]

N80...

OK, I'll use your analogy. Craftsman tools are just fine for 90% plus of the market... and SnapOns are used primarily by those who make a living with them... (You obviously know what you're doing, BTW.) I wouldn't recommend them to most consumers, though. My point is that people can learn photography using a superzoom -- if they so desire -- and can produce affordable high-quality "snapshots" if they don't.

No, I don't necessarily think you're criticizing my camera. I do think you've likely never used one of the new super-zooms very much, and I don't think your experience is "the norm" for most people...

 

[Alan L.]

Wow, George, a great display of superior equipment on the bird picture, and more just photographic talent on the bottom one. Looks something you'd see in Life magazine.