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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 30, 2004, 10:11 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
marokero's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 769
Default

A p&s doesn't give you the flexibility of a (d)slr, but then again, many well to do folks use dslr's like expensive p&s :-)

I do weddings, shoot with both D100 and F100 (a film, yes film, slr for those who don't know), and have plans to add a third body to the mix once Nikon comes out with D2x. Photography can be an expensive hobby, or you can amortize the cost of the equipment by going pro :|

I also enjoy shooting landscapes and flowers, although I don't get to do it as often as I'd like.
marokero is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2004, 10:14 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
photosbyvito's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 5,710
Default

i think equipment helps...my camera is getting old..but i can still take good shots (if i may say so myself ) with it....buuuut, i'd have to work twice as hard to get a close up shot of a wild great blue heron, then if i had a Canon 1d mark II with a 400mm prime lens...

i guess the equipment matters more in different parts of photography...

but yes....it's the photographer behind the camera, that takes the picture..

Vito
photosbyvito is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2004, 11:26 PM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 269
Default

I got my first true DSLR (D70) in mid-June, shoot almost exclusively sports, mainly auto racing. Usually the shots are for publications or websites, but a number of shots are also to have mug shots in case a pic is needed in the future.
As others have said, it gets pretty expensive and I doubt there will be a point where I say "OK, I don't need any more gear." There will always be some other item that you know will make things easier, if you could just afford it. Having said that, if I get a 70-200 2.8 lens I should be set for the forseeable future. Really. Hopefully. Maybe...:lol:
murphyc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 3:58 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
ferny's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,866
Default

An SLR allows you to take better photos in more circumstances. But you can take great photos with disposables and point and shoots. It's the user who takes the photo, they just have to know how to use the camera in their hands. The best example of this? How about the box of a disposable or point and shoot? They normally contain outstanding pictures and they are taken with the camera inside the box. They have to be by law. Sure they're taken by a professional. But all a professional is is someone who takes money for taking pictures. There are users on this forum who surpass many professionals. They just don't get paid.

Sorry for posting in this thread, JoeB_UK. I don't have a DSLR. Even though I want one. I have an old digital point and shoots and a few film SLRS though. It doesn't mean I'm any good, just that I like to hold them. :lol:
ferny is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 6:49 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

Interesting discussion, apparently there are still some people who believe that good pictures originate in the camera bag. A DSLR is an indisposable tool for most professional, digital, photographers because of their rugged construction, flexability and far quicker shutter response, but they do not make bad photographers good. Good images come from the creativity of the photographer.

I have used high quality film SLRs for over 20 years and I have produced a few images that I was proud of. Except for the instant feedback of digital, my SLRs are easily capable of results as good as a DSLR, however I now use my p&s digital almost exclusively, and I am getting a far higher percentage of good images, because of the instant feedback. I didn't need a DSLR for that.

DSLRs offer far more choices for the photographer, the larger imaging sensors offer very low noise at high ISO settings,the control ofdepth of field offered by the longer focal lengths required by the larger sensors,and the range of available lenses will fit so many different situations (at a cost, lenses are not cheap, at least good ones aren't). The accuracy of the viewing system, the extremely low shutter lag and the fast handling of DSLRs make them thenatural choice for action photography. Having said all that it should be noted that any camera, in the hands of a talented photographer, will produce winning images. The cheap Diana and Holga cameras, with their distortion-prone plastic lenses, are favourites of some fine art photographers, Leicas are expensive, high quality cameras, but it is their rangefinder M-series that is most popular, not their SLRs, Henri Cartier-Bresson used a rangefinder Leica, usually with just a 50mm lens, to produce some of the greatest images in 35mm history.

With names like Leica, Zeiss, Nikon, Canon, and Pentax showing up on the lenses on high end p&s cameras, and internal processing systems which are cutting shutter lag times, the non SLR digital is quickly becoming a bargain alternative to a DSLR. It would require a very large, and very expensive,DSLR kit to match one of the new 8MP compacts, especially when we factor lens speed (max aperture) into the equation. Yes I know they have high noise at high ISO, but f/2.0-2.5 zoom lenses are faster and smaller than anything available for a DSLR, yes I know that they are not as fast as a DSLR, but for most of us that is rarely an issue.

The bottom line is this, I want a DSLR as much as anyone, but I realise that I don't need one to produce great images (not that I produce great images anyway). The small sensor 8MP prosumer models (or even the 5-6MP models) have their drawbacks, but offer far more advantages (I rarely used film faster than 400 ISO anyway, too grainy). Huge depth of field, light weight, fast lenses, wide zoom ranges, no sensor dust, and the bonus feature of movie clips make these cameras far more attractive to me all the time.

It is the photographer who must see the image, the camera merely records it for him/her. Can a DSLR be an aid in this process, of course, is it required to make great pictures, of course not. If I could afford a DSLR would I buy one, in a heartbeat.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 9:34 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
atlantagreg's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 243
Default

There are of course, correct answers on both sides of the equipment argument. I do not feel that a good photographer can take an award-winning photo under normal circumstances with "just any camera". At the same time, it does not take an expensive DSLR in order to take that award-winning photo, either.

Using a Canon 10D with a Canon 50mm macro lens, I can take some stunning floral shots that are suitable for gallery sized prints that show a great amount of detail. I simply could not do this regardless of my experience level, with a 640 x 480 digital camera, or a disposable film camera. So yes, the equipment used DOES help, but the person behind it also too, has to have a certain eye for photography. A DSLR is not necessary, but at least a decent consumer-level camera is.

Back to answering the original post however: I use a Canon 10D DSLR, and for what I do, everything is covered with four lenses... A Canon 50mm macro, Canon 28-135 IS, 75-300 IS, and a Sigma 18-55 DC lens for basic interior shots. I have my own web site for newbies about digital cameras (www.digitalcamerabasics.com) but on the side I do some portrait work, and catalog product photos for some local folks.

Greg


atlantagreg is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 12:24 PM   #17
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default

cowboy43 wrote:
Quote:
Any camera? c'mon Kaylspo get real.. If all cams were the same we would buying them for a $1 and then going for the next one. Go buy a disbosible and get the shots you do.. You sound like Hemingway when he said "all is needed is a pencil and a little luck" ( I agree with the luck)...sure you have to have a bit of an eye to be a photog.. but the technology sure helps to learn..Sure, was Lipmons photos great, yes, Ansels yes, but imagine what they could do with todays technology.. knowing how to use the most recent advancments is part of the game.. If you don't you will be left behind.. Any Cam ? Show me!! and I will stand corrected!!

Dale
Here ya go Dale:


This picture was made with a 35mm, P&S Olympus Stylus Epic (non-zoom version).
  Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 12:38 PM   #18
Zal
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 78
Default

cowboy43 wrote:
Quote:
Any Cam ? Show me!! and I will stand corrected!!

Dale




Hi Dale,

I couldn't disagree with you more regarding "needing" a DSLR to do, in your words, "REAL Photography". Perhaps you think the photos below stink, but as the photographer of these images, I can tell you that they have been very sucessful.

Not a single one was taken with a DSLR.

In my opinion, a camera is to a photographer as a typewriter is to a novelist. It's the tool used to record the artist's vision and creativity. No tool, no matter how expensive, will create art on its own.




























Zal is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 12:47 PM   #19
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 29
Default

Kalypso wrote:
Quote:

This picture was made with a 35mm, P&S Olympus Stylus Epic (non-zoom version).
Kalypso - i know the point you're trying to make but i think that your example proves the opposite. You are hoisted by your own petart (or whatever the phrase is) because the shots that you have posted elsewhere and which have been taken with an SLR are so much better than the shot posted above.

Equipment will never make someone a good photographer but it will help a good photographer take better pictures.

Someone above used golf clubs as an analogy but again it does not address the point. Tiger Woods could play against me using a set of Wal-mart bargains clubs, in fact he could use just the putter, and he would cruise to victory. But if he was against Montgomery using those clubs he would lose every time. He is a better golfer than most of us irrespective of the equipment, but the equipment sure helps when the going gets tough.

There is another reason for using SLRs rather than sheer quality - some of us view the process of taking the photograph as an artistic experience which goes betyond recording what we see. An SLR gives you more scope to influence the result than a point and shoot.
Timeless-161 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 31, 2004, 12:54 PM   #20
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 29
Default

Hi Zal, those are truly great images. Maybe you are Tiger Woods playing (excellently) with a putter??!! (see my post above)

Out of interest - do you ever use an SLR? If not, are there specific reasons for not doing so?
Timeless-161 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 1:22 PM.