Why does everyone wants DSLR?

aerobandit

aerobandit

Suspended / Banned
Messages
2,487
Name
Piotr
Edit My Images
Yes
Another shift and another person at work asking me: "Piotr, can you help me to choose DSLR?". Fine. As usual, I've recommended Canon 550D. To much he said. Ok, Canon 1100D will do the job for you. In particular deal I found there was an extra lens. I've highlighted that to the colleague but he said: "Oh. Don't worry about extra lens. I will not be changing it anyway. I just need it small and simple". Why do you need DSLR then? He said: "Apparently you can take really nice photos with DSLR".

Why people want to buy DSLR cameras not willing to take full advantage of them? You can take nice photos with compact camera as well. Spending money on something you don't understand and don't want to understand:bonk:
 
Maybe it's the "I've got a bigger one than you" syndrome. There are those types who like to feel superior to mere "snappers" with their toy compacts.
 
Same reason people will buy high performance cars and hardly ever drive faster than 80MPH, or spend £100 or more on a pair of jeans, I suppose.
 
I don't think you need to keep changing lenses to get the most out of a DSLR (or SLR) - I'm pretty much happy to stick with a basic 50mm, and just find them easier and more ergonomic than a typical compact.
 
It's funny you should mention the 550D to start with as friends out here in Korea have the same idea after seeing the shots me and the missus have taken with our 550D.

At least 4 friends have purchased a 550D since we bought ours specifically because we had that model! They've all gone from cheaper point and shoots and all except one use the 550D like a point and shoot, in Full Auto with the kit lens. One friend had a 55-250 lens included in the package she bought and had never taken it out of the box. She didn't know the difference between that and the 18-55 kit lens!

I can understand that initially why you'd use a DSLR in auto mode, get used to it and how it works, before moving on to more manual control when you get more confidence.

All the friends out here still shoot in Full auto after taking thousands of shots and I wonder if they'd be better off with a decent, simple point and shoot. Cheaper and not as much effort to carry around :)
 
Yes you can take nice photos with a compact, but you can take nicer photos with a DSLR. The DSLR is generally nicer to hold, better button layout, faster etc,. etc,.

There is nothing wrong with using it in auto and just because you can change lenses doesn't mean you have to.

My wife got given an A700 with a 50 lens and uses it for everything. Sometimes on Aperture priority, sometimes on Auto. She loves using it and takes very good photos with it. She has a good eye for composition and the camera does the rest.

For the same price, the only reason for buying a compact is if size is an issue.
 
yes, you can take nicer photos with DSLR if you're creative and know how to use it or willing to learn. I'm thinking here about people who are using it on auto mode all the time as mentioned above and don't even want to think about changing the settings as it gives them headache. I don't see a difference between photo taken with P&S and DSLR in auto mode. I love all those blurry photos taken under the Eiffel Tower at night with DSLR:)
 
ernesto said:
Are you being serious?
Click to expand...

In some circumstance this is correct. If conditions are good and within the capabilities of the camera, even the cheapest can give an excellent result. Certainly such a shot posted on a smallish screen will be indistinguishable from the same shot taken on a better camera. But do a big print and the difference is likely to show.
 
well the larger APS-C sensor in DSLRs make it pretty easy to get a better photo, even in full auto mode.

but if i was to go full auto, then i'd have bought a Sony NEX camera. it's smaller, it still have a APS-C sized sensor. only reason i went with DSLR was because of the ergonomics, the fact it's designed to be used in manual mode.
 
I haven't used my DSLR (god i hate that abbreviation) for ages!
Been bitten by film lol
In my experience, other than the ability to change lenses then an entry level digital single lens reflex will provide you with no better picture than a compact of relative value, most compacts even have similar settings these days, hell! Even my phone can change iso, white balance and whatever else.
Its all just camera envy, they feel like plebs sightseeing, shooting with something the size of a pack of fags when other people are striding around with a 300 Telemonster over their shoulder, get over it. If people really only want to take better pictures then a new camera isn't the answer, sure i single lens reflex will open new avenues of creativity with lenses and more settings but get the basics right and you can achieve some lovely shots with compacts
 
I think the biggest revelation for me when changing over from years of compacts to DSLR was the fact that the camera could take a picture when I pressed the shutter the button. That's quite a revelation when you've got used to trying to shoot moving objects and invariably shooting an empty scene. Would agree with the sentiment about image quality though. In the right conditions there is not a lot wrong with most modern compacts.
 
In the right conditions and with a competent photographer, it's possible to get some stunning photos from compact cameras. Equally, it's possible to take some right dross with a DSLR. I've got a link somewhere to a gallery on photo.net of some amazing pictures taken on an old Olympus or something, I'll post it later if I can find it. Clearly, for some things compacts are pretty useless, but for many people, a compact camera is more than adequate for what they need it for.
 
gad-westy said:
I think the biggest revelation for me when changing over from years of compacts to DSLR was the fact that the camera could take a picture when I pressed the shutter the button. That's quite a revelation when you've got used to trying to shoot moving objects and invariably shooting an empty scene. Would agree with the sentiment about image quality though. In the right conditions there is not a lot wrong with most modern compacts.
Click to expand...

I echo that sentiment, although compacts have gotten a ton better and are now pretty quick with taking the shot.
 
I've blown this particular trumpet before, buy hey, any excuse :)

All the photos in this article were taken on a €88 FujiFilm A180.
 
sthwild said:
yes. remember, we are talking about ordinary people who are not making enlargements, who dont know what photoshop is and only uploading their shots to facebook etc.
Click to expand...

where in the OP does it state all of those things or have you just made them up?

And even ordinary people have computers these days and look at their images on large screens. I have owned a few high end compacts and not one, repeat not one, has come close to my old DSLR with a 50 lens on it.

These compacts cost the same as an entry DSLR so really not sure what the problem is with somebody buying a DSLR. As I said, much nicer to use, consistently better results, better functionality, faster etc, etc,.

The size and weight are the only factors that could possibly go against them.
 
jon ryan said:
I've blown this particular trumpet before, buy hey, any excuse :)

All the photos in this article were taken on a €88 FujiFilm A180.
Click to expand...

They look okay but are largely static subjects in very good light. Have you got the direct comparison shots taken with an SLR as on their own they don't prove anything.

I am not saying compacts are not good (I use one as my main camera!) I am just saying their is nothing wrong with wanting a DSLR if budget allows it.
 
For a lot of people, a DSLR is more comfortable to hold and, for many people, an optical viewfinder is also preferable. It's hard to keep steady when you're holding the camera out in front of you and an LCD screen can be a pain to see in bright light.

At the end of the day though, it's their money and they should be able to spend it as they see fit. We souldn't see the DSLR as only for enthusiasts, after all, it's only a tool.
 
this is true, i went to a wedding at the weekend as a guest and decided to leave my DSLR at home and use the compact, however all shots inside the church were pants but had i had used my SLR then i would have got the shots i wanted.

Go outside in the sunshine and the compact took photos of the same quality as the dslr would have done, so swings and roundabouts, its a size vs feature etc situation unless you have a super compact like say the fuji pro1

Oh and on a side note there were loads of guests with dslrs and from the ones i could get a glimpse of were in auto, it seems that is the trend now.
 
boliston said:
I don't think you need to keep changing lenses to get the most out of a DSLR (or SLR) - I'm pretty much happy to stick with a basic 50mm, and just find them easier and more ergonomic than a typical compact.
Click to expand...

Back in 't olden days many people only had one lens anyway so changing lenses was not an option.

Even if you only have a DSLR+kit lens you're still (probably...) going to get images with higher DR so there'll be less highlight clipping, better mid to higher ISO images and more scope to play with DoF.

With many if not all compacts you're limited to pretty limited DR, pretty much front to back DoF and much degraded IQ as the ISO rises. So, even on full Auto I'd expect a DSLR to have clear advantages over the vast majority of compacts.
 
ernesto said:
where in the OP does it state all of those things or have you just made them up?
Click to expand...

ok. I've got your point. I should have stated in the OP that my colleague is a nurse and has got no clue what viewfinder is and doesn't really care about it as long as he knows which button to press to take picture.
and yes, I've started this thread, so I could have made all those things up. so?:)
 
I used to think it was silly for someone to buy a DSLR and then leave it on auto mode and not want to learn what Av and Tv does.

But then I remembered that Canon/Nikon/Sony made a profit from their purchase. So it's helping to fund the development of my next camera :D
 
sthwild said:
ok. I've got your point. I should have stated in the OP that my colleague is a nurse and has got no clue what viewfinder is and doesn't really care about it as long as he knows which button to press to take picture.
Click to expand...

what the hell does she want with a DSLR :)
 
woof woof said:
Back in 't olden days many people only had one lens anyway so changing lenses was not an option.

Even if you only have a DSLR+kit lens you're still (probably...) going to get images with higher DR so there'll be less highlight clipping, better mid to higher ISO images and more scope to play with DoF.

With many if not all compacts you're limited to pretty limited DR, pretty much front to back DoF and much degraded IQ as the ISO rises. So, even on full Auto I'd expect a DSLR to have clear advantages over the vast majority of compacts.
Click to expand...

thats very true. however it only matters to people who know what DR, DoF, ISO etc. means, I think. I'm not saying that simple folks who have never heard about those things, don't see them. I think that it doesn't really matters that much to them. If you only "point and shoot" then most of todays compacts are capable of taking equally good photos as DSLR.
I think that previous posters are right saying that most of the people are buying DSLR just to "show off". Fine. If you can afford it, go for it by all means. It just makes me wonder why? you can get easily embarrassed if somebody will ask you how many megapixels your camera has got and you won't know. that's all.
 
I want the best image quality possible with DOF control, AF speed and accuracy etc. if I could get that in a compact size I'd buy one
 
sthwild said:
ok. I've got your point. I should have stated in the OP that my colleague is a nurse and has got no clue what viewfinder is and doesn't really care about it as long as he knows which button to press to take picture.
and yes, I've started this thread, so I could have made all those things up. so?:)
Click to expand...
if she doesn't understand view finder, then she might have a bit of problem with idea that you have to look through a tiny opening rather than at the LCD screen like other P&S.

as i said earlier, mirrorless camera is the way forward for those people who want better full-auto camera.
 
"thats very true. however it only matters to people who know what DR, DoF, ISO etc. means, I think. I'm not saying that simple folks who have never heard about those things, don't see them. I think that it doesn't really matters that much to them. If you only "point and shoot" then most of todays compacts are capable of taking equally good photos as DSLR."

But if someone who isn't a camera geek sees a compact shot next to a DSLR shot they may notice a difference if in the compact shot the sky is completely blown or the image is largely destroyed by noise.
 
Last edited:
jon ryan said:
I've blown this particular trumpet before, buy hey, any excuse :)

All the photos in this article were taken on a €88 FujiFilm A180.
Click to expand...

ernesto said:
They look okay but are largely static subjects in very good light. Have you got the direct comparison shots taken with an SLR as on their own they don't prove anything.
Click to expand...

Quite so. Because a/ that's about all a camera of this type is capable of and b/ that was the sort of shot called for in the article. If I had used a better camera, given the size of reproduction (I knew this was a web-only piece. If it had been for print I'd've got a dSLR), I doubt if the difference, for those shots, would have been noticeable. I did it out of curiosity and as an example for my students, knowing I had enough time in Nice to re-shoot if they turned out to be too poor.

The point is the one I made up there: any camera is capable of decent shots if you know its limitations.

Have you seen Asha's fantastic shots of Nice, taken with a selection of vintage cameras. That's real photography that is, getting the best from limited kit.
 
woof woof said:
"thats very true. however it only matters to people who know what DR, DoF, ISO etc. means, I think. I'm not saying that simple folks who have never heard about those things, don't see them. I think that it doesn't really matters that much to them. If you only "point and shoot" then most of todays compacts are capable of taking equally good photos as DSLR."

But if someone who isn't a camera geek sees a compact shot next to a DSLR shot they may notice a difference if in the compact shot the sky is completely blown or the image is largely destroyed by noise.
Click to expand...

But that may depend more on the quality of the photographer, rather than the equipment.
 
jon ryan said:
The point is the one I made up there: any camera is capable of decent shots if you know its limitations.
Click to expand...

Agree, and as I have said I am happy to use a compact as my main camera (because I like to carry it around all the time and have it in my pocket).

However this thread is about someone who knows nothing about cameras so would they know the limitations and how to get the best out of their compact?

Speaking from experience - my wife knows nothing about cameras and has no wish to. The shots she takes with her SLR (often on Auto) are noticeably better than the shots she took on previous compacts.
 
broadway said:
But that may depend more on the quality of the photographer, rather than the equipment.
Click to expand...

To a point, but however good the photographer - the image on the compact will still be more compromised.
 
"But that may depend more on the quality of the photographer, rather than the equipment."

I can't see how really.

No matter how good a photographer you are you can't alter the DR or ISO performance of a camera and with some, maybe many, compacts you're really fighting a losing battle here.

You can try and live with these limitations by doing things like altering the composition so that it doesn't include sky (exposing for the sky and boosting the shadows could well result in a noisy mess) and simply not shooting above ISO 200 but I don't think you can "do" anything to fix them no matter how good a photographer you are.
 
ernesto said:
To a point, but however good the photographer - the image on the compact will still be more compromised.
Click to expand...

Exactly. It is what it is and you can live with the limitations but those limitations do limit IQ.
 
jon ryan said:
The point is the one I made up there: any camera is capable of decent shots if you know its limitations.

.
Click to expand...

ernesto said:
Agree, and as I have said I am happy to use a compact as my main camera (because I like to carry it around all the time and have it in my pocket).

However this thread is about someone who knows nothing about cameras so would they know the limitations and how to get the best out of their compact?

Speaking from experience - my wife knows nothing about cameras and has no wish to. The shots she takes with her SLR (often on Auto) are noticeably better than the shots she took on previous compacts.
Click to expand...

I refers the gennlman to the point I makes in Post Three:

jon ryan said:
Same reason people will buy high performance cars and hardly ever drive faster than 80MPH, or spend £100 or more on a pair of jeans, I suppose.
Click to expand...

People like toys. :shrug: All people. Most living in cities would be better off commuting in a Smart. But you see lots of BMWs in the daily queue.
 
jon ryan said:
People like toys. :shrug: All people. Most living in cities would be better off commuting in a Smart. But you see lots of BMWs in the daily queue.
Click to expand...

They sure do. Same point applies really though, the BMW is better to drive than the Smart even for someone who is not interested in learning how to get the best out of it. And no I am not now looking for a discussion on cars :)

It is all about having the headroom in your purchases...
 
jon ryan said:
People like toys. :shrug: All people. Most living in cities would be better off commuting in a Smart. But you see lots of BMWs in the daily queue.
Click to expand...

unfortunately it's true. then some of them will crash the car because it was too fast or too big for them. those with DSLR however, will be disappointed with their photos comparing them to more experienced person with similar gear and come and ask: "can you set up my camera, so my photos will be more like yours?"
"of course. come I'll show you how to do it."
"oh. don't bother. just set it up for me."
I speak from experience here.
 
Last edited:
Some of it could be for machismo? I've no stats to back this up, but I seem to see more women with compacts than men.
 
jon ryan said:
Some of it could be for machismo? I've no stats to back this up, but I seem to see more women with compacts than men.
Click to expand...

Because women have their heads screwed on right.
Especially when travelling, i spent three days in London last week and decided to take just my olympus 35rc an orange filter and 5 rolls of film. I develop my own film so that's not an issue, its full frame and fits in my pocket, takes wonderful sharp images and the meter never fails, and it looks cool to boot! Had i taken my E3 then there would have been the bag, batteries, lenses and whatever else i would be tempted to take along and from past experience i can say i took more photos, enjoyed myself more and was not burdened by carrying a lump around all day every day.
I know its no comparison to a digital compact but the idea is the same, its more portable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top