Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Sep 19, 2010, 4:42 PM   #1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: tr
Posts: 224
Default what is the point of getting DSLR?

Hello,

I recently saw some pictures which are Dustin's and they were excellent, after i see that he edited them with PS CS4, i asked myself as a FZ38 owner. Why should i buy a DSLR if it can be done with photoshop? Why should i spend 1500 dollars for pentax k-x, 70-300 mm lenses, flashes, hoods, extra things you already know.

What is the point of having DSLR, if my machine takes photos in RAW mode so i can edit it easly?

What DSLR gives me that PhotoShop couldn't? i need a reason to spend that money.

If i can create a shallow dof with PS CS5 why shoudl i have a camera which can take picture at f/1.2?
imut is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Sep 19, 2010, 4:49 PM   #2
Super Moderator
 
Hards80's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Cleveland, OH
Posts: 9,046
Default

I think you got the wrong information or interpreted what was said wrong.

Everyone uses photoshop to some extent, but we use that for minor tweaks only. For most of my images, all that I do is the standard stuff, minor levels adjust, curves to add a bit of contrast, and then resize and unsharp mask.

you will never see me try to fake depth of field in photoshop, etc. because it looks fake, the only way to get true shallow dof is to use a larger sensor camera and control the depth of field during the shot.

photoshopped P&S images can never replicate what you get from a larger sensor camera (be it an EVIL or a DSLR).

that is not to say everyone needs a DSLR either. you can get great images from a bridge camera, and sometimes their greater dof can be a positive (think macros, landscapes etc).

in the end you use the camera that best fits what you need and what size camera you are willing to carry with you.

but please, don't get the misinterpretation that what you see from my photos is from photoshop, because that is just plain wrong.
__________________
MyFlickr
Hards80 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2010, 4:53 PM   #3
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

it depends on what you intend to photograph. In some instances, as you noticed, you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between whether the camera was a digicam or a DSLR. Good luck getting these shots with any digicam on the market:


There are other instances where digicams just aren't capable. But, there's also the point about in camera vs. software. Take shallow depth of field shots. Yes you can try to do the same with software. But people often fail when doing that. And when they do it right it can be time consuming. Doing it in-camera when you're taking dozens of photos is certainly beneficial:






And, of course, software can't make up for small sensors when you need ISO 6400:


To be sure, there are instances where digicams do quite well. But DSLRs exist for a reason too.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2010, 5:00 PM   #4
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

A dSLR will provide much better raw material for Photoshop to work with, than a P&S could. Photoshop can touch up some things, perhaps more than a few, and perhaps more than just touch them up, but it can't make a silk purse from a sow's ear.

The advantage of a dSLR is the amount of customization you can do with it. You may be able to accomplish some of those same things with your FZ38, but not to the degree and not up to the standards that you can with almost any dSLR.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 19, 2010, 5:24 PM   #5
Super Moderator
 
Mark1616's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 7,452
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hards80 View Post
I think you got the wrong information or interpreted what was said wrong.

Everyone uses photoshop to some extent, but we use that for minor tweaks only. For most of my images, all that I do is the standard stuff, minor levels adjust, curves to add a bit of contrast, and then resize and unsharp mask.

you will never see me try to fake depth of field in photoshop, etc. because it looks fake, the only way to get true shallow dof is to use a larger sensor camera and control the depth of field during the shot.

photoshopped P&S images can never replicate what you get from a larger sensor camera (be it an EVIL or a DSLR).

that is not to say everyone needs a DSLR either. you can get great images from a bridge camera, and sometimes their greater dof can be a positive (think macros, landscapes etc).

in the end you use the camera that best fits what you need and what size camera you are willing to carry with you.

but please, don't get the misinterpretation that what you see from my photos is from photoshop, because that is just plain wrong.
Sorry Dustin, that was probably me writing posts too late at night or some other excuse. I wasn't meaning that you were a major manipulator, but that you knew how to bring the best out of what the camera captures.

The same goes for getting the detail out of a P&S if you really want the best then a little PP is needed. It was done in the film days as well so editing isn't new, just our tools are no longer a darkroom but photoshop (or similar).
__________________
[SIZE=1][SIZE=2]Any problems with a post or thread please use the report button at the bottom left of the post and the team will help sort it out.
Mark1616 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2010, 3:01 AM   #6
Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 68
Default

JohnG,

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but to get those shallow depth of field pictures you posted above, what lens do you need to use? Can you get shots like that with the Canon 50mm 1.8?
dj76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2010, 5:51 AM   #7
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dj76 View Post
JohnG,

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but to get those shallow depth of field pictures you posted above, what lens do you need to use? Can you get shots like that with the Canon 50mm 1.8?
better than digicams, but not quite like the photos above. They were taken with an 85mm 1.8 on an aps-h (1.3x) crop sensor camera. On a full frame I'm not sure how close the 50mm 1.8 would come to the DOF aboe but not on aps-h or aps-c. Not sure whether dof would be similar for 50mm 1.4 on aps-c or not.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 20, 2010, 9:03 AM   #8
Senior Member
 
JustinThyme's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princeton, NJ
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dj76 View Post
JohnG,

Sorry if this is a little off topic, but to get those shallow depth of field pictures you posted above, what lens do you need to use? Can you get shots like that with the Canon 50mm 1.8?
Not getting a smooth bokeh like that on a nifty fifty. The 5 flat blade aperture makes the bokeh a bit choppy.

And yes John you are right about several things. A DSLR will do everything a P&S can do and most of the time far better. The inverse is not true, You cant use a P&S for anything that requires quick response or action. Too much lag time.

JustinThyme is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Sep 23, 2010, 3:38 AM   #9
Senior Member
 
RioRico's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: In mountainous California or Arizona or Guatemala or somewhere.
Posts: 224
Default

A dSLR provides flexibility and responsiveness. A P&S provides convenience. Your choice. I use both. I'm on my third 5mpx Sony DSC-V1 (I wore out the first two) with NightShot (infrared), 4x Zeiss optics, full manual controls etc, and it's still in my pocket constantly. But I'm also rarely without my Pentax K20D and any of its ~100 lenses, mostly cheap old manual primes but a few choice manual and AF zooms also. IBIS (in-body image stabilization aka SR, shake reduction) means they're ALL stabilized if I want, no matter how old or short or long or weird.

The truth about DOF - a simple formula: Shorter focal length (FL) or narrower aperture --> thicker DOF. Longer FL or wider aperture --> thinner DOF. Most P&S's, with their tiny sensors, have VERY short FL lenses, and often not-very-wide apertures. Thus the DOF is very thick, deep. Almost all parts of an image are in-focus; you don't get the out-of-focus (OOF) rendering called bokeh. You can adjust DOF and thus the look of a picture on a SLR by changing FL, aperture, distance. You can't get this level of control with any P&S or bridge camera except in very limited ways, like with a close-up adapter (which will somewhat lower the IQ, image quality).

I think a Kx + DA18-55 II kit goes for around US$550. That's a good place to start. Incredible fast manual primes can be had on eBay for US$5-50. Still bargains: SEARS lenses, some made by Pentax or Ricoh or Samyang or Cosina. Last week I bought a legendary Auto Sears (Tomioka) 55/1.4 for US$16. Many 28-35-135mm f/2.8 Sears lenses go for under US$20. If you want ultra-sharpness, go wide or macro -- the Zenitar 16/2.8 is under US$200, many macro lenses (quite usable for general work) are under US$100. The small, slow, superb Tele-Takumar 200/5.6 is often under US$50. Any of this glass will give results impossible without a SLR.

Good luck and have fun!
__________________
Too many film+digi cams+lenses, oh my -- Pentax K20D, ZX-M, M42's, P&S's, more
The opposite of LIBERAL is not CONSERVATIVE, but ENSLAVED.

Last edited by RioRico; Sep 23, 2010 at 3:41 AM.
RioRico is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 AM.