Why digital SLR?

[tmoreau]

"In fact, many have found on thier own after following all sorts of varying advice, that anything short of an SLR is not good enough for general creative photography."

There are many different types of photographers and many styles of photography, but the people who come to an internet forum and ask for advice on buying equipment, usually citing "General use in any/all types of photography", are people who lack the expirience and knowledge to make thier own informed equipment decisions. These people often are excited to start exploring all that is availible in photography and will try to create images similar to the ones they see and like.

Its a real bear to find that your new P&S is absolutely incapable of creating that blurred to oblivion background, and you have to start completely over with all new equipment if you want to do that. Its a real bear to show up at a local concert and try to grab a couple interesting shots, only to find through later research that your equipment is totally incapable. Its real hard to learn the effects of aperture, focal length, and shutter speed with a P&S.

I dont find them a suitible style of camera for a beginner or advanced photographer, and the over-given advice that they are a great place to start or a cheaper alternaitve to a DSLR is wearing thin on me. Posts like yours support that misconception, giving someone confidence that a P&S can Do It All.

Its not the details, its the message I disagree with. There is the right tool for the job, and there is the one that will kind of work if you really try. I don't see any problem with that compromise so long as its an informed one, but judging by the sheer volume of people who quickly discard thier advanced P&S prosumer digicams for a DSLR I think there is obviously a lot of mis-information going around.

Things might have been different several years ago, but with the $500 DSLR's today it can be downright stupid to buy a $900 fixed lens camera if its not the right tool for you. Its hard to know that a niche product like a fixed lens camera is right unless you are familiar with the alternatives. Too many who are, or claim to be, totally ignore or downplay the weaknesses of these cameras and its costed a lot of people money and frustration. You are more-or-less regurgiting that drivel and perpetuating the myth without having any first hand expirience yourself. Excuse me if that rubs me the wrong way.

[BenjaminXYZ]

Its a real bear to find that your new P&S is absolutely incapable of creating that blurred to oblivion background

If I am not mistaken, the R1 with it's large APS-C size CMOS image sensor will be capable of that. It is true that other fix lens have much greater D.O.F..

Its a real bear to show up at a local concert and try to grab a couple interesting shots, only to find through later research that your equipment is totally incapable.

Hmmm, the R1 have ISO 160 - ISO 3200. The quality levels range from ISO 160 to ISO 800. TheISO 1600 is still qualitative under brighter lightings. (All A.F.A.I.K.) [As Far As I Know]

Its real hard to learn the effects of aperture, focal length, and shutter speed with a P&S.

I agree that with a normal P&S, itcan betrue. Butthe R1 might not be included.

Its hard to know that a niche product like a fixed lens camera is right unless you are familiar with the alternatives.

What does that really mean?

You are more-or-less regurgiting that drivel and perpetuating the myth without having any first hand expirience yourself.

Yup, I can't say that I really have much real life experiences. (But I have read plenty of reviews though...) Now, you canask me about most cameras and I'll probably be able to answer them all confidently. (Things like ISO performance, image qualities, and feature set etc...)

So, what experiences do you have with R1 like fix lens camerasand (or) dSLRs? (To say that dSLRs are more capableand creative etc...)

[JohnG]

tmoreau wrote:

I dont find them a suitible style of camera for a beginner or advanced photographer, and the over-given advice that they are a great place to start or a cheaper alternaitve to a DSLR is wearing thin on me. Posts like yours support that misconception, giving someone confidence that a P&S can Do It All.

Its not the details, its the message I disagree with. There is the right tool for the job, and there is the one that will kind of work if you really try. I don't see any problem with that compromise so long as its an informed one, but judging by the sheer volume of people who quickly discard thier advanced P&S prosumer digicams for a DSLR I think there is obviously a lot of mis-information going around.

Too many who are, or claim to be, totally ignore or downplay the weaknesses of these cameras and its costed a lot of people money and frustration. You are more-or-less regurgiting that drivel and perpetuating the myth without having any first hand expirience yourself. Excuse me if that rubs me the wrong way.

I'm afraid I have to agree with most of this.

A digicam may be the right tool for the job, but despite marketing and photo mag reviews (that make every product released sound like the greatest thing ever) there is still a gap between the two. There are times when a digicam is the right solution, no question. But there are times when it simply will fall short.

The problem is - it is experience and not just reading that is going to help figure that stuff out.

Yup, I can't say that I really have much real life experiences. (But I have read plenty of reviews though...)

Benjamin - you've had this discussion with several folks now. Some day (believe me or not) you will realize how laughable that statement is. Photography is an APPLIED art/science (and yes it is a bit of both). You can't just read, you need to DO. You continually get into arguments with others when they are providing opinions based not only on what they read but on years or decades of photography experience.

It's like me recommending a car to som6eone for amateur racing. Well, have you driven that car or a car similar to it? No, I haven't but I've read a lot about it. Now comes a person who has been racing for 20 years and offers an opinion based upon his experience driving similar cars IN A RACE. Doesn't it seem a bit foolish that I argue with him that his experienced opinion disagrees with articles I've read?

The problem isn't that you have an opinion - everyone is entitled to one. The problem is how you present it - as if it's fact-based. When, in reality it's based purely on conjecture and no or little practicle experience. When you start doing this, you become a dangerous resource for people on this forum.

I hope you continue to pursue photography and learn, but you've got to accept sooner or later that reading is not even close to equivelent to DOING. I mentioned to you a couple months ago this approach reminded me of people recently graduating from college and entering the work force. They had 4 years of classes - they had to know everything there was to know about their profession. I tried the private approach before. And, I tried a public approach in another thread and your behavior backs off for a few days but then rears up like this again.

Sorry if this stings - I'm sure it does. But, consider it a life lesson - you are apparently someone who has to learn the hard way so you're going to continue to be called to task for speaking beyond your experience so be ready for it. The alternative is to tone down until you do have the experience to back up your strong opinions. You'll then find your opinions get better respect.

It's one reason why I post my photographs here - so people can judge for themselves whether my opinions have merit in the only real way that counts - photography. People can say my work isn't good and that's their rite or they can say - John, why are you blathering on about MACRO photography I don't see any macro work out of you - and they'd be right.

So, if you want to get some more respect from folks, then earn it. Start building a body of work that shows you have done field work and not just library work. You'll find that makes a huge difference - not only in how others perceive you but you will likely also find that some of your opinions based solely on research may change as you actually apply them.

[tmoreau]

Thanks John, glad to see I was clear.

I recently bought an old manual focus film SLR, a Konica Autoreflex TC, and wish I would have started with it instead of a digicam. Wow does it ever present the basics of photography in a CLEAR and easy to grasp manner. Aperture ring on the lens with full stops labeled, and you can take the lens off and watch it close as you adjust it. That really gets the point across! Shutter speed dial on top marked in full stops, and a meter that tells you what it thinks is right, but you have to make the call yourself. Focus is totally up to you. There are no other controls.

I've used quite a few digital cameras in the last nine years, and the only ones that come anywhere near comunicating the basics of photography to me as well as that TC are digital SLR's (go figure). The best place to start, in my opinion and based on my learning expirience, would be with a digial camera as close to that old basic SLR as possible. Pentax makes a real nice product by that description, cheap too.

Technical differences between cameras, quality differences, and feature set variations are... oh... I'd estimate 20-30% of the real-world difference. The rest, the majority, are much harder to quantify. I had a minolta 5D DSLR and recently upgraded to the 7D because of a clearance sale, while both cameras perform all the same fuctions there is a massive difference between them. I'll just have to call it 'handling' and leave it at that, because I dont know how else to explain the ergonomics, subjective fit, and the fact that I havent gone into the menu since I got the camera at all except to format the memory card! I can change almost any setting with my eye at the viewfinder, and I do. Without thinking about it. That surprised me the first couple times I did it, but its just one of those little things thats not so little really. Until now, I had no idea that there was so much difference between the 5D and 7D, because on paper and in the reviews, 'handling' is about the only major difference cited.

Too bad it took me three years to get into a camera where I could expiriment and figure out, begin to understand intuitively, what affect the aperture has. Some poor fool had me convinced that I should eat my desert first, and boy what a setback that was.

[BenjaminXYZ]

The bottom line is; "Reviews are not to be trusted" True or False?

If the answer is to be a false, I guess I would have to start a new "Recommend me a camera"thread at the "which camera to buy section" again, since Ican'tbe considered tohave anymore "qualified"knowledgeof the variouscamera modelsanymore. (Iwould assumethat all that I have learned from the camera reviews before, wouldnot be qualified for decision making)

However, If the answer is to be atrue; then everything I have said so far should still stand; since allofthe infos I haveprovidedabout the cameras so far,were all from the countless camera reviews I have read so far. (Some of themI have read overmultiple timesbefore) You should query those reviews.

Tell me your thoughts about this matter.

Regards.

[tmoreau]

Man, your thick.

If you could pour all the data into a computerized 'meat-grinder' and have it spit out the 'best-camera', then there would only BE one camera. Thats a laughably illogical simplistic view.

Someday when your wiser, you'll see that internet discussions, labratory measurements, and acedemic theories can only predict and quantify a small portion of the real world. Especially when it comes to things like art, sports, and fine wine. The first two are relevent here. You can only measure and quantify PART of whats important.

If you'd buy a real camera and use it for a year or two, this would all be so very clear to you. Its very clear to most anybody else, that your talking out your a__.

[BenjaminXYZ]

It's like me recommending a car to som6eone for amateur racing. Well, have you driven that car or a car similar to it? No, I haven't but I've read a lot about it. Now comes a person who has been racing for 20 years and offers an opinion based upon his experience driving similar cars IN A RACE. Doesn't it seem a bit foolish that I argue with him that his experienced opinion disagrees with articles I've read?

John, what do you think? Perhaps that young inexperienced guy had read a very good magazine article about the matter; wouldn't he be able to tell the experienced guy some facts? (I meant, that experiencedguy might not even know some things that the young guy might have known from the magazine. [probably the magazine could be written by someone with experience as well])

[BenjaminXYZ]

If you'd buy a real camera and use it for a year or two, this would all be so very clear to you. Its very clear to most anybody else, that your talking out your a__.

I know what you intended to say inyour "a__."

D___ racist. I had already been using two real digital cameras for about 4 years (The later one being about a year)

[tmoreau]

BenjaminXYZ wrote:

John, what do you think? Perhaps that young inexperienced guy had read a very good magazine article about the matter; wouldn't he be able to tell the experienced guy some facts? (I meant, that experiencedguy might not even know some things that the young guy might have known from the magazine. [probably the magazine could be written by someone with experience as well])

No, not really. Thats the point.

I didnt really answer your question in that last post, either.

You have no basis on which to compare all these cameras, the reviews give you very little useful information unless you have a keen eye. In order to gain this neccasary expirience, many people (including myself) would have to recomend that you buy an entry-level DSLR that 'looks neat' to you. Maybe the recomendations could be narrowed down a little if we knew some specifics about you, but at this point I dont believe you have a style, shoot any specific type of image regularly, or have any other distinctive quality on which to sort the availible options. Just start somewhere, and the ignorance [that were all born with] will fade.

[Bob Nichol]

Reviews are neither true nor false. They are just someone's feelings about the subject.

Many of the comments are subjective and may or may not apply to you. For example the reviewer may like the ergonomics of the camera but you have larger or smaller hands and it doesn't fit as well. Colour rendition is another subjective, your taste may vary and you feel the colours are too saturated or not, or too red, green or blue.

There are photographic tests that can be scientifically standardized so as to give consistent results but the results will only apply to the samples tested. Sample variations exist and your milage may vary.