Good digital SLR camera?

[RobertN]

Just to add to this discussion, is keeping pictures vs throwing some. I find when I point and shoot, I keep everything, while when I am paying more attention, I am picky about getting "the" picture.

I pay much more attention now to keeping good pictures, and getting rid of mediocre ones. Which is a lot of "snapshots". Focus, things sticking out of peoples heads ect.

When my wife and I went to Alaska a few years ago, we took almost 3600 frames. If I were to show you the presentation/slideshow, there are about 120 great pictures in there. We discarded images by the hundreds. Now, part of that was because we did a lot of low-light stuff, and lots of brackets. So we took multiple frames at different exposures, depth of field ect. We have many more than the 120, but those are the really good ones. Especially the humpback whale I got in full breach.

 

[RobertN]

I like the Nat Geographic field guide. Great info in there, from beginning, to advanced stuff.

I think it is worthwhile for anyone who takes pictures to know some basics. Even just a couple moments of composition can make an ok photo a good, and sometimes, really great one.

NSBound, you should buy the book Kodak's How To Take Good Pictures. Everything anyone needs to know about photography is in there.

 

[EddieWalker]

Especially the humpback whale I got in full breach.

I'd love to see this picture!!!!!

Eddie

 

[IslandTractor]

... the kit lens that comes with the SLR often produces FAR worse pictures than a decent P&S. The P&S has software to enhance the picture to your expectations. The SLR software expects to be told what to do. And with a crappy kit lens, you'd better know exactly what you need to tell the SLR or you'll wonder why you even bothered.

I understand your point about learning to use a SLR before creating great photos but I think you've overstated this a bit. No way is a typical P+S lens going to resolve as well or have as good contrast as even the cheapo standard zoom that comes with the digital SLR packs. I agree those kit lenses suck compared to the real lenses that cost at least several hundred bucks each but they are still better than the point and shoot lenses. I haven't looked it up buy I imagine some photo website has the lines of resolution/mm figures on this sort of stuff if anyone wants to nail this question down.

Debates on cameras often focus on features and gizmos but I love the old that "it's the glass stupid!" Lens quality more than anything else determines photo quality. Yes, point and shoots can be configured to make photos vivid or even shoot only when a smile is detected but almost all the electronic manipulation done by the P+S can be done in a more controlled fashion with something like Adobe Elements after the exposure. Virtually all new digital SLRs also have the same types of automatic exposure settings and special features found on P+S cameras too. I think they mostly use the exact same digital processors as well.

 

[buckeyefarmer]

You might want to double check your information. I have a Cannon SX20 that most certainly has a viewfinder. I rarely open up the screen and prefer the view finder for taking most of my pictures when I'm out for a walk.

Just to make sure, I have a Cannon PowerShot SX20IS in case there are different versions.

Eddie

I was commenting on the SX120 not having a viewfinder (see the quote), then I switched conversation to the SX20, sorry about that. The model numbers look the same at a glance. The SX120 is 10MP, 10x zoom, 3"LCD screen, no viewfinder for $200 opposed to the SX20 which is 12MP, 20x zoom, 2.5" flipout LCD, with viewfinder for $370.

 

[arrabil]

I think you've overstated this a bit.

Try it and find out for yourself. I have and I don't believe I'm overstating it at all. It takes a trained hand to produce the same pictures with the kit lens and an SLR as a P&S will produce without knowing anything.

I think they mostly use the exact same digital processors as well.

They use the same DSPs but not the same firmware and instruction sets.

The difference is that P&S camera figures out how to expose the sky for you, figures out where people are standing, figures out what should be exposed when shooting directly into the sun, more "intelligent" processing in general. While the SLR auto mode is far more simplistic. So while you could correct all this with Adobe Elements, most people do nothing of the sort and find they take better pictures with a P&S than with an SLR and kit lens.

 

[IslandTractor]

I tend to agree with the suggestion of the high-end zoom P&S vs. the DSLR. Here's why...

I should clarify that my comment on quality of lenses is not intended as ragging on the P+S. I use a pocketable Canon SD870 for at least half the photos I take and would never want to be without something simple and convenient. Also, I don't really consider cameras like the Canon SX-1 IS to be point and shoots. They have much "bigger" and more sophisticated optics than the typical point and shoot. The cameras like the SX-1 IS really just lack interchangable lenses in comparison to entry level DSLRs. Cameras like the SX-1 IS have much better lenses than the cheap zooms found on the Rebel or other entry level DSLR packages so my comments are not referring to those "super point and shoots".

I did spend a couple of hours last night looking at the formal lens testing sites that give technical comparisons on SLR lenses but found none that have tested the various point and shoots with that level of sophistication. So, I could not find any relevant data to back up my point. I do however stand by the statement that even a good pocketable Canon point and shoot zoom does not provide lens resolution, contrast or levels of distortion comparable to say the "cheap" Canon 50mm f1.8 lens for sure or even the cheapo zooms that are packaged with the Rebel these days. For photos that will only be looked at on a computer monitor or printed at typical sizes like 5x7 it probably is not so noticable but for larger prints I'm pretty sure you could distinguish P+S lenses from decent primes or zooms.

I will always carry a pocket sized digital camera and find that even cell phone cameras are pretty good these days but there are still technical advantages to having a larger chunk of glass in front of the image sensor. "It's the glass, stupid!"

 

[Sigarms]

If you are on here and asking about what camera to buy, then you are not the type of person who is going to realize the advantages of a SLR camera, or spend the money on the types and quality of lenses that will make it superior to a really good point and shoot camera.

Eddie, by your own logic per a digital SLR, if you don't know anything about an object you'd like to purchase, you might as well not purchase it?

You can pay allot more money for a better camera, but if you don't know how, and honestly never will learn how to take advantage of what you are paying for, then why spend the money on something that you won't use?

That is why you take a class.

I probably paid as much for my low end DSLR as I did for my old PAS, and as mentioned, both my wife and I are in agreement that the pictures seem to be of better quality right off the start.

For myself, part of the fun of photography when I was younger was "creating" a picture. Honestly, the not so fun part back then was writing down all the information per the pic you took in your notebook, delvelope the film and see where you needed to make adjustments to improve the picture (less composition). Heck, with the new DSLR camera, I'm finding it amazing to play with the camera.

So guess which one I use more?

That's right, the Canon SX-1.

Ironic isn't is? I have a couple of rifles I built that will easily give your Nikon a run for the money, and guess what my favorite gun to shoot is? Under $300

 

[riptides]

And after the camera is selected, to complete the package, a quality editor software suite and printer are must haves.

Taking pictures is only one part of the equation.

I am sure most of us spend more time looking at refinements and printing/sharing than the actual shot itself.

 

[IslandTractor]

And after the camera is selected, to complete the package, a quality editor software suite and printer are must haves..

I certainly agree a photo editor is necessary to get the most out of your digitial camera. Whatever the latest version of Photoshop is seems to be the standard pro level software but I find the "dumbed down" Elements version of Photoshop to be more than adequate for my uses.

I used to buy very good quality color printers but gave up a few years ago as it was 1) way too expensive to purchase new printers and supplies compared to sending the photos out and 2) the quality of digital labs is great for both cheap (Costco etc) and high quality (Pro level labs) so that there just isn't bang for the buck in owning my own printer anymore.