What are some negative things to consider with dSLRs?

[Contriver]

I already understand the obvious:

1. Heavier and larger than PS.

2. No Movie mode.

3. No 'live' composure via LCD screen (except for on those new Olypmus models).

4. Have to have atleast 2 lens to do what a PS can do.

5.It appears that you must manually post process your photos.



What else am I missing? Am I missing anything else?

BTW, I am NOT trying to imply any opinion about dSLRs here...I am just trying tounderstand all of the cons with dSLR cameras.

[DrChris]

Heavier and larger?...True, but you learn to plan ahead.

No movie mode?...True, but a DSLR is a very specialized piece of equipment, not a jack-of-all-trades.

No live LCD?...True, but most people prefer composition in a good quality viewfinder once they get used to it.

Need 2 lenses?...Maybe. I have a 28-300mm all purpose lens which will out-perform most PS. More lenses are for different situations that the individual photographer is interested in. Once again...specialized lenses=better performance.

Manually process?.....Absolutely not true, but you have that option if you want to.

[eric s]

- Cost. Kinda obvious, but the lenses are often not cheap.
- Vendor lockin. You buy all the extras (a flash, a few lenses, a spare battery) and your next purchase is probably a camera of the same brand... not because it's is "Better" than other vendor's cameras, but only because its better than the one you have.

And to second the part about manually editing the images. All the DSLRs that I know can shoot in JPG, and they have built-in settings (just like P&S cameras) that let you increase saturation, contrast, sharpness (and maybe others.)

So if you *don't* want to manually adjust the images you don't have to, but you loose flexability if the settings you chose were not appropriate to the scene you're shooting (same problem that a P&S has.)

Eric

[JimC]

Contriver wrote:

What else am I missing?

You have a shallower Depth of Field with a DSLR for any given subject framing and aperture.

That's because the actual focal length of the lens you can use for a given angle of view is much shorter on a non-DSLR model due to their smaller sensors. So, you may need to shoot at f/11 on a DSLR to match the depth of field you have at f/2.8 on a Point and Shoot.

That can be a pro or a con, depending on your perspective.

For example, it can be difficult to isolate your subject from distracting backgrounds with a Point and Shoot model (because they have too much depth of field with a larger subject to blur the backgrounds in many conditions).

But, if you wanted more depth of field (closeups and more), you could get away with using a wider aperture (smaller f/stop number) with a Point and Shoot model at a much lower ISO speed without a tripodcompared to a DSLR.

That's because you'd need to use a much smaller aperture (higher f/stop number)with a DSLR for equivalent depth of field, and you may need a much higher ISO speed to help prevent blur due to the smaller aperture if you can't use a tripod or you're shooting non-stationary subjects where more versus us less depth of field is desired.

More depth of field can also make focus accuracy much less critical with a non-DSLR model. For example, I don't even bother to use Autofocus indoors with a little Konica Revio KD-510z (a.k.a., Minolta DiMAGE G500) I still use when shooting at parties, etc. I just set the focus to 2 Meters and shoot at f/2.8, leaving it's lens set to a 35mm equivalent focal length of 39mm (8mm actual focal length with this camera). Then, everything from about 3 feet to 14 feet is in focus with it (about what the flash range is on this model). lol

Of course, most DSLR models can shoot at higher ISO speeds compared to most non-DSLR models. So, that helps to even out the differences when more Depth of Field is desired.

[msantos]

1. Heavier and larger than PS.

Sure it is



2. No Movie mode.

DSLR is a professional photographic equipment, not an amateur video equipment.



3. No 'live' composure via LCD screen (except for on those new Olypmus models).

As you said, Olympus have live LCD screen, is that's what you want. And the optic viewfinder is a positive point (you can see the real life, and under brigth sun you can still see what are you going to photograph).



4. Have to have atleast 2 lens to do what a PS can do.

This is not true; you can have a 18-200 (11x) , 28-300 (11x) or the new 18-250mm (14x) lens, and that is more than any Point & Shoot.

Beside, you can change the lens for each specific need.

Then, this is a positive point, not a negative.



5.It appears that you must manually post process your photos.

Of course not. You can shoot in JPEG mode and postprocess on-camera (sharpness, saturation, contrast, etc.) exactly as any Point & Shoot. Beside, you havethe positive point of shooting in RAW. RAW files need to be postprocessed, but give you more control than any other format.



What else am I missing? Am I missing anything else

Are you looking for negative things?:

• Cost of equipment, lens and accesories [/*]
• Dust on the sensor [/*]
• Shallower Depth of field (as Jim explained)[/*]

[bill.guenthner]

msantos wrote:

And the optic viewfinder is a positive point (you can see the real life, and under brigth sun you can still see what are you going to photograph).

By the same token in low light when you can't see a darn thing through the viewfinder on your DSLR the LCD on your P&S will still be very usable as it incorporates the exposure compensation and ISO sensitivity in the preview.

[Lesbs]

bill.guenthner wrote:

msantos wrote:

By the same token in low light when you can't see a darn thing through the viewfinder on your DSLR the LCD on your P&S will still be very usable as it incorporates the exposure compensation and ISO sensitivity in the preview.

I have never found a need to take pidtures in situations where it is so dark you can't see throughthe viewfinder. If it is that dark, more than likely the P&S picture will come out horrible or will be near to impossible to focus anyway so why bother?

[Ronnie948]

Well, I really can't find anything at all I don't like about digital photography.

Ronnie

[slipe]

Lesbs wrote:

bill.guenthner wrote:

I have never found a need to take pidtures in situations where it is so dark you can't see throughthe viewfinder. If it is that dark, more than likely the P&S picture will come out horrible or will be near to impossible to focus anyway so why bother?

Most cameras anymore have assist lamps that will focus out to around ten feet in the dark. And the flash lights the picture. I've taken lots of pictures where it is too dark to see the subject through an optical finder.

[mtngal]

I can add a few things to your list of things to consider when getting a dSLR:

1. Larger and heavier is relative. It depends on the p&s and the dSLR/lens - some are lighter or heavier than others. If you are comparing a compact p&s then definitely. If you are comparing a Pentax DS with a pancake lens and the Sony R1 - maybe not. I didn't think the DS with the kit lens was all THAT much heavier than the FZ30.

2. Yes.

3. I never used the LCD screen anyway - too hard for me to figure out which way to tilt the camera to get straight lines.

4. Again, depends on the p&s and the dSLR lens.

5. You don't have to pp your photos. I used to always pp my p&s pictures, and I do about the same things to my dSLR shots as I did with my Sony's pictures (could be not much or it might be lots, depends on the shot).

The biggest thing you missed as a possible "con" to the dSLRis that there's a much bigger learning curve. Yes, all of the budget dSLRs have auto settings but to get what you want out of the camera takes learning about the basics of photography. There are tons of possible changes, variables etc. to consider when you take a picture and it takes practice for all of that to become instinctive.