why only nikon and canon???

[redhed17]

If you are a business person, then keeping up appearances is going to be a big factor in your choice, if like me it is only for pleasure, then you might think about what will please you the most for the least outlay and be less influenced by what others say.

So, reading between the lines, if I'm reading you correctly, having a DSLR is mostly for appearances for a lot of non Pro's, and/or because they have been influenced to buy one?

 

[mart77]

As someone else said once, I am waiting for Apple to make DSLRs

 

[Phil V]

If you are a business person, then keeping up appearances is going to be a big factor in your choice, if like me it is only for pleasure, then you might think about what will please you the most for the least outlay and be less influenced by what others say.

so if you're a business person you just need to look the part?

All of those poseurs at the cricket matches with their massive lenses? Wedding photographers with their spare kit? Just for appearance?

As a business we only buy gear that makes business sense. Kit is replaced for reliability. We buy new gear for economic advantage.

As far as non pros shooting DSLRs rather than agreeing with your view? I believe they'll have their reasons. And those reasons would be valid.

There are people who are naturally acquisitive, but if I could do everything I need with a bridge camera, I'd take it tomorrow. But there's no crop sensor bridge with a 10-200 1.8 macro zoom. I'm not asking much compared to many. I have no fisheye or super tele or f1.0 desires..

 

[heidfirst]

I ndidnt actually realise sony had the 24-70 and 70-200
When i sold my a200 it was due to the lack of lenses and the vast amount offered by nikon.

the thing is that apart from a few exotics like t/s (available from 3rd parties) or an mpe-65 (& there is the old Minolta 1-3x) they have everything that 99% of people need (want is another thing). I see there is now a rumour of a 400/2.8 coming.
When you take stabilisation into account there are actually more options for Sony than for Canon & Nikon put together.
& the optical quality is very competitive.

Plus the bloody annoying hotshoe they had/have... do they still use the weird hotshoe?

Thing is you'll find that for those that use the system the majority like it - it mounts & dismounts easier than any other & the plastic base is designed as sacrificial & is available as a replacement part.
& as the system has sold more there are more & more 3rd part manufacturers launching accessories for it.

A massive bonus i see to sony is that they have anti shake inside the camera.
Was such a good feature of the a200... i see they have it with the a900, couple that with the 24-70 ziess i see that as being a very good combination.
Although thats discontinued now if they keep it with the next ff camera that should be a good thing, they just need to bring the price down to a realistic level.

the price is competitive. look at how much a Nikon D3x with the same sensor is.
Look at the price of the Nikon 24-70 (& it's a toss up as to whether the Nikon or the Sony is the class leader).
The outgoing Canon definitely isn't as good & have you seen the price of the new Canon 24-70?
& neither the Canon or Nikon are stabilised.
There is the new Tamron but even that is £1000.

 

[Faldrax]

The main issue with their proprietary hotshoe is that it precludes the use of Pocket Wizards or similar without an adapter.

I use Pixel Kings, which are available in Sony / Minolta hotshoe mount. I've only used them with my standard flashguns, but they have connectors (and come with cables for) studio strobes if I needed to use them for that.

I think this is another example of the real 'problem' with using something other than Canon or Nikon - it is not that you cannot get what you need (or want, not always the same ), but that you may have to spend more effort to do so.

A friend of mine who shoots motorsport switched from high end Sony to the equivalent Canon - not because the gear was any better, but because he needed the security of knowing that if something happened to his gear the day before a race he could, if he had to, drive to a nearby large town and buy replacements 'off the shelf'. With Sony, it would be a 2-3 day wait for a courier to deliver from a supplier who had what he wanted in stock.

 

[ernesto]

Those speculating where things are going, or what manufacturers might be planning need only ask the question of themselves, "If I invest any more of my money in Camera Equipment, what will it be"

If you are a business person, then keeping up appearances is going to be a big factor in your choice, if like me it is only for pleasure, then you might think about what will please you the most for the least outlay and be less influenced by what others say.

I have settled on DSLRs. This has nothing to do with outside influence or cost, it is because over the last 6 months I have tried all the options and a DSLR is what I am happiest with (IQ, handling, speed of use etc,.)
This tells me nothing about where things are going as it looks to me they are generally moving away from DSLRs (half the threads on this forum are people asking 'which compact, my DSLR is too big and heavy' )
The best way of knowing which direction the industry is going is it to look at current sales and product offerings compared to 2 years ago. It has little to do with what I happen to be purchasing...

 

[Rankbadyin]

So, reading between the lines, if I'm reading you correctly, having a DSLR is mostly for appearances for a lot of non Pro's, and/or because they have been influenced to buy one?

What advantage does a DSLR have over a CSC that a pleasure only Photographer would find attractive, bearing in mind I have a choice of lenses ranging from 16mm to 500mm. and can see exactly the picture I'm going to take, or as real Pros would say "Make"

And please, no waffle about "it feels better in the hand" or "its better balanced"

 

[heidfirst]

And please, no waffle about "it feels better in the hand" or "its better balanced"

to be fair though the majority of CSCs don't have viewfinders meaning that you have to hold them out some to see the rear screen.
Now stick a 500/4 on it & try holding the combo ...
I don't think many people buy CSCs to do that though .

Of course try sticking a DSLR in your coat pocket ...
They both have their place.

 

[ernesto]

What advantage does a DSLR have over a CSC that a pleasure only Photographer would find attractive, bearing in mind I have a choice of lenses ranging from 16mm to 500mm. and can see exactly the picture I'm going to take, or as real Pros would say "Make"

And please, no waffle about "it feels better in the hand" or "its better balanced"

It feels better in the hand and is better balanced. Waffle to you but what makes a difference to me.
It also has a decent viewfinder, generally works faster, has better battery life the list goes on.
No doubt you will have an opposing list but I don't care about that - you asked what I would find atttactive as a pleasure only photographer

 

[big soft moose]

It feels better in the hand and is better balanced. Waffle to you but what makes a difference to me.

- I have big hands and struggle to hold a xxxD DSLR (unless i put a grip on it) I don't want to think about trying to hold something as small as a CSC with a heavy lens attached (with a compact i generally hold it between thumb and forefinger but thats not a good way to hold anything with much weight out front.

Also DSLRs have considerably more intuitive controls than most CSCs with important functions available at the flick of a finger, without taking your eye from the viewfinder - rather than having to take your eye off the subject and look through menus

 

[Phil Young]

What advantage does a DSLR have over a CSC

They're faster to operate in full manual mode.

They can be much better weather sealed.

They have a optical viewfinder.

...I wouldn't like to shoot a wedding with a CSC...I "could"...but I wouldn't want to.

 

[Rankbadyin]

to be fair though the majority of CSCs don't have viewfinders meaning that you have to hold them out some to see the rear screen.
Now stick a 500/4 on it & try holding the combo ...
I don't think many people buy CSCs to do that though .

Of course try sticking a DSLR in your coat pocket ...
They both have their place.

I think the tilting rear screen means you don't have to hold it out, you can shoot from the waist.

So I guess, so far, apart from the waffle the DSLR has no advantages for the Pleasure photographer.

 

[Moreorless]

I'd say that alot of the problem is that the FF DSLR market depends heavly on optics. Unlike the crop DSLR or mirrorless markets 5-10 lenses are not nearly enough to satisfy the market and both Canon and Nikon have invested massively over the last decade building up there current lineup.

 

[Rankbadyin]

They're faster to operate in full manual mode.

They can be much better weather sealed.

They have a optical viewfinder.

...I wouldn't like to shoot a wedding with a CSC...I "could"...but I wouldn't want to.

I said in the beginning, those who want to earn money as a sales person will have reasons why they will buy a DSLR.

 

[redhed17]

What advantage does a DSLR have over a CSC that a pleasure only Photographer would find attractive, bearing in mind I have a choice of lenses ranging from 16mm to 500mm. and can see exactly the picture I'm going to take, or as real Pros would say "Make"

And please, no waffle about "it feels better in the hand" or "its better balanced"

Firstly,

"it feels better in the hand" or "its better balanced"

is important. What is the most common thing said to people choosing between a few cameras? Go and feel the options in a shop to see which you prefer. :shrug: People keep on citing size as reason to go down the CSC route, but I don't want a small camera, and if I do, I want it to be very small like I have with my compact. If you do want smaller options, they are there, but I don't think something whose main selling point is size, should be at the expense of quality. Yes, CSCs are getting better at a fast rate, but for general working speed they are not as fast as DSLRs. But we may get to a point where all cameras are small, because that has been what has been selling the most, so all cameras should be small. :bonk:

Some more reasons? What I see through the viewfinder is what is actually in front of me, it is not a video representation of what was in front of me which. Yes, there are benefits of a EVF, brightening dark scenes, but I prefer the optical version of what I'm looking at. I can always use the Liveview if I want an electronic version. And that is if a CSC camera has a viewfinder in the first place. :shrug:

Having a viewfinder aids in taking a better picture at slow shutter speeds because it helps with a steadier posture, which granted, EVF CSC's do too, but EVFless cameras don't, because they are mainly at arms length. The same with compacts too of course. And generally with one hand to boot.

Focusing, my camera has one of the better AF systems. When I press the shutter to focus, I want it to focus as quickly and accurately as possible. Having something in focus is one of the most important, if not the most important things, and I want a camera that does that the best.

I sometimes take pictures of sport, and CSC cameras are not the best option for sport, or even anything fast moving that needs to be focused on quickly. And are not the best for subjects that need to be continually focused on either.

Not every 'pleasure' photographer may capture fast sports I know, but they may have kids running round a garden, and CSC's are not very good. Most DSLRs are very good focusing quickly, and continuously. Even the most basic DSLRs focus in low light better than most CSC cameras too. :shrug:

The great thing about this hobby, is that there is something for everyone, and hopefully everyone will find what suits them, but to imply that people are choosing DSLRs because they are influenced by 'people' or are worried about their appearance is very condescending. :nono:

'I've made this choice, which of course is the right choice, and anyone who does something different is an easily led person following fashion'.

Never mind the irony that CSCs are the most 'in fashion' sector of the market, and that many of the camera designs either hark back to older designs, (it looks like Leica, it looks like an old ....) or something you've never seen before, or that it looks like a compact. :shrug: Yes it does, right up till you put that stonking big lens on it.

I chose a DSLR for the reasons I've said above, but also because of the versatility, and because I want the highest quality image I can afford. Image quality used to be the deciding factor in buying a DSLR, that may not be the case in a lot of situations now, but a DSLR is still a quality option, and I would say that is the main reason people buy them imho. And I do it for pleasure too, and part of the pleasure is also the user experience, which shouldn't be underestimated or discounted.

I don't care what people may be thinking when I use it, or that I bought it because it was fashionable. :shrug: It is the best camera and system for me to help me achieve all that I want to do, and to enjoy what I do. It may not suit everyone, but there are a myriad of options to choose from for those that don't want a DSLR. :shrug:

 

[arad85]

What advantage does a DSLR have over a CSC that a pleasure only Photographer would find attractive,

It has a better picture quality for a given print size, has better (i.e. lower) depth of field for any given shutter/F number combination, handles higher ISO better, has a better range of high quality lenses, higher quality focusing system - especially for moving objects, better battery life, better in the hand for those with larger hands (like me)...

Should I go on?

Note: I own (and intend keeping) a full frame DSLR and a couple of CSCs...

 

[ernesto]

So I guess, so far, apart from the waffle the DSLR has no advantages for the Pleasure photographer.

You really are not listening are you.

 

[Flash In The Pan]

You really are not listening are you.

Is there an audio version of this thread available?

 

[ernesto]

Is there an audio version of this thread available?

I somehow doubt that would make any difference. Not sure if there is a special pedantry version available either

 

[heidfirst]

I think the tilting rear screen means you don't have to hold it out, you can shoot from the waist.

not all CSC have tilting screens.
& even with one I wouldn't like to shoot a 500/4 from the waist

I said in the beginning, those who want to earn money as a sales person will have reasons why they will buy a DSLR.

& those who have genuine need (& even those with just a want) for those features will have reasons why they will buy a DSLR.

 

[Phil Young]

I said in the beginning, those who want to earn money as a sales person will have reasons why they will buy a DSLR.

I just think you're blowing got air for the sake of it now.

...I do genuinely wonder if you actually own a camera or just read about them and join an internet forum because lots of what comes.out doesn't have much substance.

Perhaps it's the thrill of the conflict, who knows...but to say DSLR's have no benefit over CSC is a but ridiculous...almost as much as saying people with DSLR's do it to look the part.

 

[big soft moose]

I just think you're blowing hot air for the sake of it now.

...I do genuinely wonder if you actually own a camera or just read about them and join an internet forum because lots of what comes.out doesn't have much substance.

Perhaps it's the thrill of the conflict, who knows...but to say DSLR's have no benefit over CSC is a but ridiculous...almost as much as saying people with DSLR's do it to look the part.

Personally i think the need to justify the CSC (and slate any other option) comes from insecurity that he's made the right choice. At the end of the day a camera is just a tool , its the images that matter and a decent photographer (pro or am) will use whatever the right tool is to get the job done

arguing the one is better than the other is like arguing that a hammer is better than a saw - yes if you want to drive a nail, no if you want to cut some wood.

Personally I have

film: 2 medium format cameras, and 2 SLRs - I am also contemplating buying or building a large format

Digital : 2 compacts (not counting my phone), a bridge camera and 2DSLRs
I may buy a CSC to replace the bridge camera , but I equally may not as i wouild then need to acquire a second set of lenses. I'm certainly not going to replace the DSLR with a CSC as they are good for different things

 

[big soft moose]

Also this line between pleasure photographer and pro is completely artificial - just because someone isnt getting paid doesnt necessarily mean that they don't want all the same attributes that a pro wants from his kit

If by a pleasure photographer you mean someone who just wanders arround with one body and one lens and doesnt really set out to take photographs , then yes a DSLR has no real benefits for them , but neither does a CSC - they'd be best off with a compact or a bridge

 

[Phil Young]

Just for the benefit of rankbadyin:

The only difference between the pro and the hobbyist is that the hobbyist doesn't get paid.

In terms of IQ, often the hobbyist turns out better photos because they have more time in PP.

Both can potentially have the same.level of skill.

 

[FourRingCircus]

An interesting thread with some very informed comment. However, nobody knows what the future will bring and one thing is for sure, you can probably expect the unexpected.

Twenty years ago, I was heavily into filming wildlife. I utilised the best gear available from Canon - namely the EX1 Hi8 cameras with the VL lens mount which allowed me to use all the EOS lenses from my wifes EOS100 film camera. It was a fantastic piece of kit and I still have a few of them today. I can still take my latest EF lenses and stick them on the EX1 to produce an awesome machine. If you had told me twenty years ago that my film kit would become worthless and that a typical mobile phone would be capable of similar or better results I would have laughed. Look where we are now.....

The fact that I would still prefer to hold/use the EX1 over a mobile phone holds little water in the days of YouTube clips and Facebook pictures.

Truth is that proper photography is ultimately a dying market when the consumers are using digital picture frames and Terra-byte hard drives to store their (disposable?) images. On a PC screen, it simply doesn't matter much if a shot is taken with an iPhone or a 1D. The point is that the people who want the pictures really can't tell the difference and likely don't care either. Even wedding photography is a dying business as probably fewer people will get married.

We can all produce great shots with whatever we have available to us these days. EMI can probably still produce a fantastic vinyl LP too.......

Perhaps in twenty years, we will all have corneal implants which store everything we see on a brain-chip. Photography will be a thing of the past. Who knows?.......

To answer the OP, it's like asking "Why only Ford and Vauxhall" twenty years ago? The answer is, at the time of asking, there is nothing spectacularly better and there is certainly nobody who does such a good commercial job of maintaining their market share. That said, there isn't anything mainstream that is spectacularly worse in terms of the product itself either - just corporations who choose not to enter the big arena. Bear in mind, the bigger the success - the easier it can be to loose everything with one false move.

 

[woof woof]

In terms of IQ, often the hobbyist turns out better photos because they have more time in PP.

On another forum I used to chat to someone who's partner is a very well known professional photographer and one thing that surprised me was to learn that the photographer doesn't process the shots, that's done by a team and may take three weeks. God knows what that would cost but one thing I do know is that I'd have to spend a lot to match their gear and software and even then I know I could never ever match their skill in post capture processing.

 

[woof woof]

Ref DSLR's being bigger, heavier and better... One thing that I often suspect is that men just like big heavy things and like saying that they need these big heavy things as they themselves are big and manly with big manly hands.

I've never agreed with that. Part of being manly for me is that despite my manly hands I can quite easily use smaller controls which obviously require a higher level of accuracy and dexterity than some other men can cope with.

Being accurate and dexterous are very manly qualities IMVHO.

 

[redhed17]

Ref DSLR's being bigger, heavier and better... One thing that I often suspect is that men just like big heavy things and like saying that they need these big heavy things as they themselves are big and manly with big manly hands.

I've never agreed with that. Part of being manly for me is that despite my manly hands I can quite easily use smaller controls which obviously require a higher level of accuracy and dexterity than some other men can cope with.

Being accurate and dexterous are very manly qualities IMVHO.

What, I would be more 'manly' because I could handle smaller buttons on a smaller camera! :bonk: You buy the camera that feels comfortable in your hands, and that doesn't matter how 'manly' you are, just how gig your hands are. :shrug:

If you can't physically hold the camera without your knuckles rubbing the lens, then the camera is too small. Happened for me when I was choosing my first DSLR between a Canon 350D and a Nikon D70. :shrug: The 350D was a slightly (feature wise) better camera, but if my hands couldn't comfortably hold the camera, then it wasn't right for me. :shake:

If you regularly use very long zoom lenses, a more substantial camera can balance the weight of the lens. I've had a play with the Sony Nex 7 in a local shop, but with any lens larger than the one that comes with it. Get the adapter to put Aplha lenses on it, and I think it may be quite uncomfortable to hold imho.



I forgot to add earlier that having dedicated buttons for features is another reason the DSLR was for me.

 

[ernesto]

I am very accurate at hitting the buttons on my big manly DSLR thank you.

To me the shape and size (and position of shutter button) is more ergonomically suited to my hands than a camera that I have to 'pinch' between my thumb and a finger.

Would I prefer it if it weighed 100 grams, absolutely. Do I want it to be smaller - no.

 

[woof woof]

What, I would be more 'manly' because I could handle smaller buttons on a smaller camera!

I made a tongue in cheek post, sorry you (mostly) missed the importance of that bit.

Let me be more serious for a moment. Real men should have skill and accuracy as well as strength. The skill, accuracy and strength I would have used 200,000 years ago to make a flint arrow and bring down a gnu is today translated into my surgeon like ability to manly repair state of the art equipment to component level and work my digital camera.

I personally feel that the big manly magnesium alloy argument is a little overblown. Big fat kit does nothing for my self image. But each to their own. As you said, it's just a tool.

PS. Between my 5D and G1, the G1 is much closer in size and weight to the cameras I used years ago, including 35mm SLR's. I don't remember anyone complaining about the size of SLR's back then, although admittedly cameras do have more buttons these days.

 

[evilonion]

Reading this thread more has made me actually think about switching back to sony.
I dont use ttl so the nikon lighting doodaa wotsit isnt needed as i use triggers.

I really like the idea of having a 24-70 2.8 with vr built into the body.
I see this as a massive advantage over both nikon and canon.

Sony will be releasing a FF camera which is basically the D800 with a sony badge. It will be interesting if this has vr in the body as well as if it does i see that as being a massive thing. Especially as they have lkenses that cover all the major focal lengths for most people.

Macro may be lacking but even though they dont have an mp-e65 neither do nikon.

People argue that nikon and canon have mass marketing and its promoted in stores... anyone that know marketing knows that any company can make a push. Just look at how sony muscled in against olympus with the 4/3 cameras such as the NEX.

I dont have a great deal of nikon kit and im looking to go for an upgrade.
Im at that cross roads... do i go for the d700 with 24-70 as i already have a sb900

Or, do i get myself the a900 with the sony 24-70 which seems like a great bit of kit... and if its in the class of the d3 instead of the d700 which i was comparing it to then its even better...

I think it will be very interesting to see what happens with sony dslrs next after the next dslr batches are launched.

Oh and thanks for clearing up about the flash mount. It was always a pain for me as like i said i started with sony when they were new. Nothing was available and i considered it a complete arse. The fact it is a replaceable part is another bonus.

I guess going back to the original post things are over for the likes of fuji in the dslr market?

 

[Phil V]

I think the tilting rear screen means you don't have to hold it out, you can shoot from the waist.

So I guess, so far, apart from the waffle the DSLR has no advantages for the Pleasure photographer.

You're absolutely right - the fact that you find no inconvenience in menus instead of buttons, shorter battery life, electronic viewfinders wtc. means that everyone else is just plain wrong.

If I'd have known I could get the answer to everything for free on here I could have saved a fortune by staying single.

When I was looking for Miss Right, I never realised her first name would be Always.

 

[Rankbadyin]

You're absolutely right - the fact that you find no inconvenience in menus instead of buttons, shorter battery life, electronic viewfinders wtc. means that everyone else is just plain wrong.

If I'd have known I could get the answer to everything for free on here I could have saved a fortune by staying single.

When I was looking for Miss Right, I never realised her first name would be Always.

Dear Sirs, I didn't say anyone was wrong or that DSLR Cameras were inferior,
you and the rest are reading lines I did not write, I merely asked

" What advantage does a DSLR have over a CSC that a pleasure only Photographer would find attractive, bearing in mind I have a choice of lenses ranging from 16mm to 500mm. and can see exactly the picture I'm going to take, or as real Pros would say "Make"

And please, no waffle about "it feels better in the hand" or "its better balanced"

Up to here all I have had is the Waffle about the size of hands and number of buttons, plus offensive comments from those who feel slighted that anyone would even think that a DSLR is a quite ordinary Camera.

I still have to read an informed comment which answers my question, I am trying to join the debate about where Photography might be heading in the future, if you all think that the DSLR which has grown to enormous proportions, which still retains the outdated SLR designs of the original, is the future, then tell me who apart from yourselves will still be buying them in 5 years time.

I well remember the Film Camera buffs adopting the same attitude when the early Digital Cameras came along.

 

[mart77]

Dear Sirs, I didn't say anyone was wrong or that DSLR Cameras were inferior,
you and the rest are reading lines I did not write, I merely asked

" What advantage does a DSLR have over a CSC that a pleasure only Photographer would find attractive, bearing in mind I have a choice of lenses ranging from 16mm to 500mm. and can see exactly the picture I'm going to take, or as real Pros would say "Make"

And please, no waffle about "it feels better in the hand" or "its better balanced"

Up to here all I have had is the Waffle about the size of hands and number of buttons, plus offensive comments from those who feel slighted that anyone would even think that a DSLR is a quite ordinary Camera.

I still have to read an informed comment which answers my question, I am trying to join the debate about where Photography might be heading in the future, if you all think that the DSLR which has grown to enormous proportions, which still retains the outdated SLR designs of the original, is the future, then tell me who apart from yourselves will still be buying them in 5 years time.

I well remember the Film Camera buffs adopting the same attitude when the early Digital Cameras came along.

IMO mirrorless is the way forward, I think in the next 2-3 years it will be the case, the days of DSLRs are numbered it seems. Its going the be the equivalent of record players soon.
However, where we are at right now with the number of lenses/flashes etc that there are and the overall speed of use. And speed of use is a big difference are the main benefits pros will choose this mostly.
If i were a non pro starting out i would prob go mirrorless. Ive really been thinking about the xpro 1 a lot. Although cant help loving the look of the 5d mark 3. Im waiting now to see what canon and nikon do at pro level. I think its all too new partly as id like to see what teh others bring out yet.

 

[big soft moose]

IMO mirrorless is the way forward, I think in the next 2-3 years it will be the case, the days of DSLRs are numbered it seems. Its going the be the equivalent of record players soon.
.

only if the CSC systems can overcome all the other issues raised in this thread - which they can't becauise some of them like the small size are inherent in the system

I could see CSC replacing the bridge camera and the high end compact , but not the DSLR (although that said you might get DSLR type cameras with all the DSLR features but a mirrorless operation - that would be quite interesting , especially for long exposures and low light performance where mirror slap is an issue)

 

[mart77]

cant yet, thts why i say give it a 2-3 years. the technology will meet the demands of the users. right now id say no and i agree with you.

 

[big soft moose]

I still have to read an informed comment which answers my question,.

Actually there have been a number of informed comments that answr your question , it is just that you seem to have no interest in anyone elses opinion but your own and are determined to believe that the CSC is superior in everyway despite evodence to the contrary. To take it from the top one more time the DSLR currently offer the following advantages over the CSC

More advanced focussing systems including continuous focus- of interest to anyone who photographs any kind of action (wildlife, sport, even their kids running arround)

Better Burst (FPS) and faster buffering - ditto

More accurate metering and more choice of metering modes

The ability to alter ISO, focus point selection, exposure compensation etc without taking your eye off the subject - as these can be accessed buy intuitively placed buttons and dials rather than via menus displayed on the rear screen - again ditto

Longer battery life , and the ability to take a battery grip for even more power.

Actually having a viewfinder and thus the better handling and stability that this gives in posture when shooting with a long or heavy lens (and also the ability to compose a shot when shooting with you back to bright light - in which circumstance you will struggle to see the screen on many CSCs

Available range of autofocus lenses

Better weather sealing

On the other hand The CSC currently has the DSLR beat in

Size - if you want a small or discrete camera (only assuming you don't put a long lens on it) - ie for candids

Price - arguably depending on which model you pick on each side of the equation.

So the basic answer to your question is that currently the DSLR will appeal to anyone who needs or wants the various features mentioned above - of course you will dismiss this as 'waffle' because it doesnt agree with your viewpoint - but giving a toss about that would require more effort than i can be bothered to invest.

 

[Phil V]

Dear Sirs, I didn't say anyone was wrong or that DSLR Cameras were inferior,
you and the rest are reading lines I did not write, I merely asked

" What advantage does a DSLR have over a CSC that a pleasure only Photographer would find attractive, bearing in mind I have a choice of lenses ranging from 16mm to 500mm. and can see exactly the picture I'm going to take, or as real Pros would say "Make"

And please, no waffle about "it feels better in the hand" or "its better balanced"

Up to here all I have had is the Waffle about the size of hands and number of buttons, plus offensive comments from those who feel slighted that anyone would even think that a DSLR is a quite ordinary Camera.

I still have to read an informed comment which answers my question, I am trying to join the debate about where Photography might be heading in the future, if you all think that the DSLR which has grown to enormous proportions, which still retains the outdated SLR designs of the original, is the future, then tell me who apart from yourselves will still be buying them in 5 years time.

I well remember the Film Camera buffs adopting the same attitude when the early Digital Cameras came along.

I'm afraid that your attitude drips from your posts, you might not have said 'anyone is wrong' but you've described many crucial facts as 'waffle', because they don't support your assertions

I have no desire to go FF, but I do realise that there are incremental advantages over APSC size sensors. I don't need a fully pro level body, but I understand that to some people it's crucial. The difference between you and I is that I can see beyond my own needs and opinions.

CSCs are creating a niche market that'll take customers who would have bought DSLRs, and even some DSLR owners looking for something small and light. Theyve grown in popularity quickly and will continue to do so, but they aren't a total alternative to a DSLR for actual physical reasons. Bigger sensors are better, physical dials and switches are better, theres a lower size limit to making these things available.

We'd all love a pocketable camera with a high quality super zoom, but it's an impossible dream due to physics, not waffle, Physics.

 

[big soft moose]

physics, not waffle, Physics.

You can't drench physics in maple syrup and honey though phil - wafffllle yummm :nuts:

 

[ernesto]

Actually there have been a number of informed comments that answr your question , it is just that you seem to have no interest in anyone elses opinion but your own and are determined to believe that the CSC is superior in everyway despite evodence to the contrary. To take it from the top one more time the DSLR currently offer the following advantages over the CSC

More advanced focussing systems including continuous focus- of interest to anyone who photographs any kind of action (wildlife, sport, even their kids running arround)

Better Burst (FPS) and faster buffering - ditto

More accurate metering and more choice of metering modes

The ability to alter ISO, focus point selection, exposure compensation etc without taking your eye off the subject - as these can be accessed buy intuitively placed buttons and dials rather than via menus displayed on the rear screen - again ditto

Longer battery life , and the ability to take a battery grip for even more power.

Actually having a viewfinder and thus the better handling and stability that this gives in posture when shooting with a long or heavy lens (and also the ability to compose a shot when shooting with you back to bright light - in which circumstance you will struggle to see the screen on many CSCs

Available range of autofocus lenses

Better weather sealing



.

tsh, that is just more waffle.