Why does everyone wants DSLR?

Simon photo said:
I know its no comparison to a digital compact but the idea is the same, its more portable.
Click to expand...

There is no argument that a compact is not more portable (which is the exact reason I use one). Be silly for even me to argue that a compact is bigger than an SLR :)

However, portability is not a factor that has been mentioned. It was about getting better pictures.

Another topic but I still wish somebody would make a simple (read not ridiculous price) digital rangefinder as I would love one.
 
ernesto said:
There is no argument that a compact is not more portable (which is the exact reason I use one). Be silly for even me to argue that a compact is bigger than an SLR :)

However, portability is not a factor that has been mentioned. It was about getting better pictures.

Another topic but I still wish somebody would make a simple (read not ridiculous price) digital rangefinder as I would love one.
Click to expand...

True, true. But sometimes, just being ready for the shot is more important than what camera is hanging around your neck, spontaneity rules over settings in the arena most people use their cameras and this can lead to better pictures. Capability is an issue however and there are times that more "dedicated" cameras will win hands down but in the original post it seems like the friend wants better pictures, so why not suggest a compact in the same price range as an entry level digital single lens reflex?
Affordable digital rangefinder's might be a little way off but the manufacturers are getting there.
Can't wait to see what olympus have up their sleeves for next year, rumors of a new pro level camera and a shake up of the pen series
 
I used to use point and shoot cameras (35mm film moving onto APS then digital), I used to love experimenting with the m anual features of my Canon A60, then whilst in Paris some tourist guy asked me to take a pic of him and his missus with his DSLR. First time I used one and it was just power in my hands. Held off buying one for about 2 years due to price, but so glad I did get my DSLR, so much more versatile (although at the cost of bulk) than a P&S. The quality of the pics from a P&S is no match for a DSLR, although there are occasions when a P&S will be so much easier to process on auto.
 
I've had quite a few ask me about purchasing a DSLR - often they are put off when I start describing (after prompting) the exposure triangle and Av,Tv,M modes. Otherwise they usually get put off when I explain the cost/size/weight of lenses that will get them the same range of '20x zoom' that they know they can get with some compacts.

One friend, after buying his first DSLR, was quite miffed on discovering that the camera by default expected him to frame his shot with a (low-tech) optical viewfinder instead of the big snazzy LCD screen on the back. He came round to my house after getting it and I explained the semi-auto and manual settings and gave a few pointers about the controls/handling. We went to a local nature reserve the following weekend which he really enjoyed but he hasn't even taken it out of the bag since (two months down the line). He had the money burning a hole in his pocket, he had seen my camera (and some of my 'keepers' ;)) and he was determined to get one more than he was determined to learn how to use it. I think he will make the effort eventually (and slowly) but the driving factor was thinking of the DSLR as a 'serious' camera that would magically transform his pointing and shooting results.
 
weybourne said:
I've had quite a few ask me about purchasing a DSLR - often they are put off when I start describing (after prompting) the exposure triangle and Av,Tv,M modes. Otherwise they usually get put off when I explain the cost/size/weight of lenses that will get them the same range of '20x zoom' that they know they can get with some compacts.

One friend, after buying his first DSLR, was quite miffed on discovering that the camera by default expected him to frame his shot with a (low-tech) optical viewfinder instead of the big snazzy LCD screen on the back. He came round to my house after getting it and I explained the semi-auto and manual settings and gave a few pointers about the controls/handling. We went to a local nature reserve the following weekend which he really enjoyed but he hasn't even taken it out of the bag since (two months down the line). He had the money burning a hole in his pocket, he had seen my camera (and some of my 'keepers' ;)) and he was determined to get one more than he was determined to learn how to use it. I think he will make the effort eventually (and slowly) but the driving factor was thinking of the DSLR as a 'serious' camera that would magically transform his pointing and shooting results.
Click to expand...

for a while I was thinking that you're talking about one of my friends. the same mentality. "wow! thats a nice photo! I want the same camera like yours."
 
As previously mentioned a DSLR should produce better images in "auto" than any other camera. OK, I may be able to produce outstanding images in manual mode with a DSLR, but it is common knowledge that a DSLR will perform better in any setting, be it manual or AV or auto or whatever than a "point and shoot" in a lower price bracket. With the new compact and bridge cameras the line is somewhat fuzzy, but that is only known to the keen photographer.
 
I think this shows photographers snobbery more than anything else. It's almost a how date that person has a camera like mine, he doesn't even understand iso, wb, shutter speed and aperture!

Does this mean that anyone with a computer should have tip know how to program it these days?

Sane sort of reasoning.
 
Davec223 said:
I think this shows photographers snobbery more than anything else. It's almost a how date that person has a camera like mine, he doesn't even understand iso, wb, shutter speed and aperture!

Does this mean that anyone with a computer should have tip know how to program it these days?

Sane sort of reasoning.
Click to expand...

ideally, they should. back in times when computers were something new, people had to learn how to use and maintain them properly. these days it's not necessary because if something happens we can call service guy who will come to our house snd fix it. the same thing with cameras. DSLRs are cameras with great potential but why learn how to use it if someone will set it up for us and we are becoming "great photographers".
most people these days are nothing but consumers(and mostly stupid/lazy ones). we are being flooded by technology that we don't understand and we're "consuming" it just because we can and not necessary because we need it.
 
If a dslr newcomer actually makes use of their new 550D then as far as I'm concerned it's a worthwhile purchase. I say this because I have a number of friends and family who have jumped onto the dslr bandwagon over the last 3 years, all of whom have been avid photographers for a total of about 2 months. Then, after the 'new kit' period has worn off, the dslr goes into it's bag an only ever comes out at the next wedding because it's either too big or too heavy or too cumbersome.

In this case, a p&s would have been a far better purchase because it might at least get some use.
 
Trixster said:
If a dslr newcomer actually makes use of their new 550D then as far as I'm concerned it's a worthwhile purchase. I say this because I have a number of friends and family who have jumped onto the dslr bandwagon over the last 3 years, all of whom have been avid photographers for a total of about 2 months. Then, after the 'new kit' period has worn off, the dslr goes into it's bag an only ever comes out at the next wedding because it's either too big or too heavy or too cumbersome.

In this case, a p&s would have been a far better purchase because it might at least get some use.
Click to expand...

I agree - and if we are asked for advice, we shouldn't try to 'sell' a DSLR but should instead get the person to seriously think what they want and what they expect and then maybe suggest a type of camera.

Going back to the "anyone with a computer should have tip know how to program it these days" conjecture - this analogy doesn't work - but (as well as the ipad analogy previously mentioned) it would be more accurate to use the example of recommending SAP for someone who wants to catalogue their thimble collection rather than suggesting an office package instead - or, more relevant, suggest the full adobe creative suite (or whatever it is called) for someone who wants to organise the family snaps they take with their phone when they have no intention of editing other than in-phone with some whacky special effect app.
 
I don't think those analogies work either. A good analogy was one using cars, where people buy a car that they will never make use of the potential. But as I said it is still a nicer car to drive and gives better results for the same input. Okay they don't technically need the better car to get them from A - B but it makes it a better experience.
 
I think a good analogy is a high end sports car with "tiptronic" transmission.

A lot of sports car enthusiasts who like a fully "manual" driving experience probably think people are mad paying serious money for an "automatic" transmission yet people are prepared to pay for the convenience of not having to constantly change gear yet get good performance.

The same with a DSLR - true die hards would never consider anything but fully manual exposure and fully manual focus and think people are mad to spend loads on a high end camera that basically makes all the decisions.
 
boliston said:
I think a good analogy is a high end sports car with "tiptronic" transmission.

A lot of sports car enthusiasts who like a fully "manual" driving experience probably think people are mad paying serious money for an "automatic" transmission yet people are prepared to pay for the convenience of not having to constantly change gear yet get good performance.

The same with a DSLR - true die hards would never consider anything but fully manual exposure and fully manual focus and think people are mad to spend loads on a high end camera that basically makes all the decisions.
Click to expand...

Hmm.

I'd say it's the cheapest cameras that make all the decisions - the ones that don't allow much control.

Buying a camera with full manual capability and not using this is a bit pointless, but most (guess) people who have these will want to learn how to utilise at least some controls to get better results. I mostly use auto-focus, usually shoot in full manual, but will use varying degrees of auto when I think these options will bring a better result.
 
I was trying to keep my analogies within the IT realm already postulated by Davec223 (though I'm not sure why) and the point I was trying to get to with my analogies was simply that there are horses for courses (doh! another analogy!) and that some solutions are too expensive, too difficult to implement and total overkill for what the end-user will actually need or want (real want for purpose - not gear lust). I wasn't attempting an analogy that would stand up to rigorous testing as an operating model - I was just trying to illustrate a point.
 
This doesn't really make sense, this isn't about people choosing DSLR cameras for their auto modes, they're choosing them because they believe it will make their pictures 'better'.
boliston said:
I think a good analogy is a high end sports car with "tiptronic" transmission.

A lot of sports car enthusiasts who like a fully "manual" driving experience probably think people are mad paying serious money for an "automatic" transmission yet people are prepared to pay for the convenience of not having to constantly change gear yet get good performance.
Click to expand...
and this is just funny,
boliston said:
The same with a DSLR - true die hards would never consider anything but fully manual exposure and fully manual focus and think people are mad to spend loads on a high end camera that basically makes all the decisions.
Click to expand...
:lol::lol::lol::lol:
 
It is purely down to perception of value and marketing. The P&S market is dying. Phones are capable of taking great shots. I never use my compact now and almost all non photography friends don't either. Sales in this sector have dropped massively.

The manufacturers have decided that the way to sell cameras is to encourage people up to a DSLR as they can sell the image quality and flexibility, even though most won't need it. Also the "It's massive, it must take good photos, my wedding photographer had one like this" will factor into things too.

The marketing machine has kicked in and people are buying it because they believe it will make them take a great photo.

A phone camera is suitable in a majority of conditions for an everyday user, but manufacturers won't make money saying that will they.
 
Last edited:
weybourne said:
I was trying to keep my analogies within the IT realm already postulated by Davec223 (though I'm not sure why) and the point I was trying to get to with my analogies was simply that there are horses for courses (doh! another analogy!) and that some solutions are too expensive, too difficult to implement and total overkill for what the end-user will actually need or want (real want for purpose - not gear lust). I wasn't attempting an analogy that would stand up to rigorous testing as an operating model - I was just trying to illustrate a point.
Click to expand...

A lot of the controls may be more than required but not much choice really - if the IQ, sensor size, lens quality of a DSLR is required then all the manual control comes with it. Not sure you can buy a DSLR with only an auto setting.

A lot of people use Excel but only use 10% of what it can do, doesn't make using Excel a poor choice though does it and Excel is still a great product for doing what they need it for.
 
simonblue said:
Does it matter,the more they sell keeps the prices down :D
Click to expand...

A few people seem to be assuming this but have you got any evidence of this?
It could be that the more they sell the more they put the price up...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top