Advice on new camera, P&S or DSLR?

[JohnG]

I think we're all talking about a3 lens setup:

something like th 17-55

something like the 50-200

a fast prime - whether a 23mm, 50mm or 85mm depends on the types of shots - I like Peripatetic's choice of a wider prime - more useful for indoor shots. The longer primes I use can produce shallower DOF but they're a bit tight for non-portrait type shots. But I'm not sure of the cost. The nice thing about a 50mm 1.8 is it's cheap.

[mtclimber]

TC-

One of the reasons I grab an all in one camera such as my S-6000/S-6500 is that it has to go into my purse, and frankly there is not enough room in there for a DSLR camera and several lenses. So, when I shoot with my DSLR's, I mount the lens that is appropiate to what I think that I will need for that day's shooting. if I know that the lighting conditions will be rather variable I will take the DSLR camera with one extra lens in a conventional camera bag.

At least from my own personal point of view, I prefer to minimize the weight of my camera kit. So there is certainly an element of picking and choosing based on the conditions that you expectin your shooting environment.

MT/Sarah

[peripatetic]

I suppose for balance it's worth pointing out that sometimes there are shots you can take with a P&S that you can't easily take with a DSLR.

Like when you really want a very large DOF. The shot below would have been very difficult to take with the big camera.

This was focal length of 4.6mm @ f5.6. ISO 80. To get an equivalent DOF I would have needed to use at least f16 or probably even f22 with the SLR. Which would have meant using ISO 1600 at the same shutter speed.

The light as it happens was good enough that I could have lost a few stops on the shutter, but the very short focal length of the P&S lens does have its advantages.




John,

I love the Canon 28mm f1.8 - and to my mind is a perfect demonstration of the advantages that Canon has in its extensive lens system. Nikon lenses are every bit as good (or better even), but the range is smaller and the lenses often more expensive. Nikon doesn't have a very fast 28mm lens. They do have a 35mm f2.0 but it's not quite as wide or as fast. My ideal snapshot lens would actually be the 24mm f1.4 L on a 1.6 crop.

And the Pentax by comparison has a much smaller range. Unfortunately the 3rd party range is smaller for Pentax too.

Sigma make a nice 30mm f1.4 EX HSM but it doesn't come in Pentax mount, something to do with the HSM motor I think.

For babies the 50mm f1.8 is nice, but once they grow up a bit, and as a general snapshot lens something that comes in with an effective focal length of 35-50mm is ideal, and the 50mm is too long, giving an effective focal length of 75-80mm. It works quite well as an outdoor portrait lens though, or where you have room to step back a bit.

Teecee,

I think a 3-lens setup is ideal too.

First lens and the one you will use the most is a zoom that covers at least 18-50mm, could go a bit longer e.g. 17-70 or 17-85.

Second is a telephoto zoom, should cover at least 100-200, could start as low as 50 and go up to 300.

Finally a nice prime "snapshot" lens. Something like 28mm, 30mm, 35mm, with as wide a maximum aperture as possible, f1.4 to f2.0.

There are many different price points and those lenses could cost as little as $500 for all three or as much as $8000, and everywhere in between.

[Teecee]

peripatetic wrote:

Teecee,

I think a 3-lens setup is ideal too.

First lens and the one you will use the most is a zoom that covers at least 18-50mm, could go a bit longer e.g. 17-70 or 17-85.

Second is a telephoto zoom, should cover at least 100-200, could start as low as 50 and go up to 300.

Finally a nice prime "snapshot" lens. Something like 28mm, 30mm, 35mm, with as wide a maximum aperture as possible, f1.4 to f2.0.

There are many different price points and those lenses could cost as little as $500 for all three or as much as $8000, and everywhere in between.

Can you give me some examples of the $500 range, $1000 range, and the $1500 range?

[Teecee]

mtclimber wrote:

TC-

One of the reasons I grab an all in one camera such as my S-6000/S-6500 is that it has to go into my purse, and frankly there is not enough room in there for a DSLR camera and several lenses. So, when I shoot with my DSLR's, I mount the lens that is appropiate to what I think that I will need for that day's shooting. if I know that the lighting conditions will be rather variable I will take the DSLR camera with one extra lens in a conventional camera bag.

At least from my own personal point of view, I prefer to minimize the weight of my camera kit. So there is certainly an element of picking and choosing based on the conditions that you expectin your shooting environment.

MT/Sarah

Sarah.

That is exactly what I had in mind. Take the lens that I think will be best and put one more in my bag. I can handle that, I just do not want to carry 5 lens, two tripods, etc.

[mtclimber]

Peripatetic-

Thanks for the "balance" photo. It really does take advantage of that digicam DOF.

I have used the Sigma 30mm F 1.4 with my Nikon D-50, and it is quite a good lens. Here is a sample photo, made using that lens.

MT/Sarah

[peripatetic]

In the Canon system:

1. ~$500 total

Kit lens EF-S 18-55mm ($100)
Canon EF 35mm f2.0 ($230)
Sigma 70-300 DG APO ($220)

2. ~$1000 total
[Spend the extra money on the lens you will use the most.]
Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM ($500) or Tamron 17-50 f2.8 ($450)
EF 35mm f2.0 ($230)
Sigma 70-300 DG APO ($220)

3.~$1500 total
Canon EF-S 17-85 IS USM ($500)
Canon EF 28mm f1.8 USM ($400)
Canon EF 70-300 IS USM ($560)

You can do similar exercises for Nikon and Pentax, though as I say the options for Pentax are a little more limited.

[Prices from the B&H website.]

[mtngal]

Here's a Pentax example - took the prices off of B&H's website:

K100D body only - after mail-in rebate, $469.95
Kit lens - $109.95 (the rebate on the body only makes it cheaper to buy it this way)
DA 50-200mm lens - after mail-in rebate $179.95
Add in a 50mm 1.4 or 1.7 from ebay - around $250 for an autofocus lens.

If you really want to save money, the manual versions (manual focus, manualaperture)of these two lenses cost between $60-100.

I have all 3 lenses and have been very happy with them (the two pictures posted above were taken with manual 1.4 and 1.7 lenses, with the top one being taken by the K100).

[julianne]

teecee

just wanted to let you know, that i am in the same boat as you. i could have wrote all of your posts. word for word.

i, for the most part have been happy with my current P&S. but i think i want and need the challenge of a DSLR. so i understand your confusion.

if you are like me. the size and lens worry you. but the feel of it gave you goosebumps.

thank you every body this sure was an interesting read

i do have one question though everybody talks about the work that has to be done on the computer after . my question is why ???? why aren't they good just out of the camera ... it does not bother me as i love to play with photoshop. but i keep wondering why?

[JohnG]

julianne wrote:

teecee

just wanted to let you know, that i am in the same boat as you. i could have wrote all of your posts. word for word.

i, for the most part have been happy with my current P&S. but i think i want and need the challenge of a DSLR. so i understand your confusion.

if you are like me. the size and lens worry you. but the feel of it gave you goosebumps.

thank you every body this sure was an interesting read

i do have one question though everybody talks about the work that has to be done on the computer after . my question is why ???? why aren't they good just out of the camera ... it does not bother me as i love to play with photoshop. but i keep wondering why?

Well, the first reason is most DSLRs are default to do less processing in-camera - less color, contrast and less sharpening. You can change that, but the idea is that the photographer is better able to apply these adjustments in post processing - i.e. not all images should have the same sharpening applied - sometimes you need to apply different amounts of sharpening to different parts of the image.

But typically levels or curves adjustments (adjusting light areas and dark areas and color tones) can improve a photo. It's not that the images out of a DSLR are bad - it's just that they can be improved with post processing.