Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Aug 30, 2006, 2:31 PM   #21
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

Thanks, Mary. You've made some really good points. Here's the way I see it: My current P&S is too big to carry everywhere now, so the size of the DSLR wont bother me. The only two "must haves" for me in my next camera are manual focus and manual zoom (both on lens rings). With that said, even if I went with a good P&S, it would be about the same size and close to the same price. I would hate to spend that kind of money and be dissapointed by the high noise levels reported on many of the Super Zoom P&S models. Oh, and the Pentax K100D DSLR that I am considering does have true optical image stabilization in the camera body.

My main concern with going DSLR is the whole multiple lens thing. I don't want this to become a money pit hobby. A "once-and-done" digicam has appeal for that reason, but like was discussed earlier, I'm not sure if I'd ever be totally happy.
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2006, 2:47 PM   #22
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

MaryRose wrote:
Quote:
I also found that the depth of field is a lot different in DSLR's than point and shoots! I really miss those macro shots where everything was in focus automatically!

Unless I misunderstand you...I don't understand how come you can'tget everything in focuswith the DSLR byusingthe right aperture? Having said that, for shots of flowers and stuff like that, most shooters only want the subject in focus.
meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2006, 2:50 PM   #23
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

gadgetnut wrote:
Quote:
Thanks, Mary. You've made some really good points. Here's the way I see it: My current P&S is too big to carry everywhere now, so the size of the DSLR wont bother me. The only two "must haves" for me in my next camera are manual focus and manual zoom (both on lens rings). With that said, even if I went with a good P&S, it would be about the same size and close to the same price. I would hate to spend that kind of money and be dissapointed by the high noise levels reported on many of the Super Zoom P&S models. Oh, and the Pentax K100D DSLR that I am considering does have true optical image stabilization in the camera body.

My main concern with going DSLR is the whole multiple lens thing. I don't want this to become a money pit hobby. A "once-and-done" digicam has appeal for that reason, but like was discussed earlier, I'm not sure if I'd ever be totally happy.
You can get fairly reasonable lenses that cover a wide range. I decide up fron what I need for the day. If I am outdoors in an environment where I need an ulltrazoom type lens, I carry a 28-300mm Tamron. Covers most od what I need with few exceptions.


meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2006, 2:59 PM   #24
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

"This is not gospel, but most consumers on the fence about buying DSLR verses Point and Shoot Ultrazoom cameras who end up buying a Point and Shoot end up buying a DSLR shortly thereafter or end up regretting their purchase. "

I've made the same observation, and done the same thing myself. If I had to make generalizations, I'd say go for the better of the two catagories of camera your considering (ie, thinking about pocket compact vs. superzoom with manual controlls, buy the superzoom with manual controlls.... if thinking superzoom vs dslr, you'll probably really want the slr).

The superzoom cameras seem to be a better fit with the people who like point and shoot snapshots and only occasionally care to really "get into it". If you want the control, flexibility, and quality (including during demanding conditions) that an SLR offers, the superzoom compromise might not be for you.

The more you compromise on your gear, the more you must compromise in your photography. Not a bad thing, unless that concept is as incongruent with your personality as it is for me. If I visualize a picture I darn well better be able to capture it with my gear, or fail because of my own shortcomings. Some people really work better with more limitations, and that goes for some very talented pro's as well as beginners.

Specifically, football outdoors in daylight probably isnt THAT demanding (at least were not talking basketball!), but a dslr kit will be more flexible at the cost of being bigger/heavier/more expensive.


BTW, One reason I didnt find the superzoom compromise to be the right one is because the camera is still big enough to need its own case and wont fit in a pocket. At that point, I told myself, why not carry an slr? (Answer: an slr kit is bigger and heavier than it might first appear. I dont mind it, though).

The optical viewfinder is a HUGE improvement of the lcd. I didnt expect to love it, but I cant even think what it would be like to go back!
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2006, 3:54 PM   #25
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

tmoreau wrote:
Quote:
"This is not gospel, but most consumers on the fence about buying DSLR verses Point and Shoot Ultrazoom cameras who end up buying a Point and Shoot end up buying a DSLR shortly thereafter or end up regretting their purchase. "
I agree completely, the best EVF camera out there is still giving you a viewfinder display that is a fraction of a second out of date. This means that you must leran to keep both eyes open and follow the action with the free eye while the EVF eye si just used for basic framing purposes. This is not easy at first but is necessary because the typical EVF is responsible for a lag of up to 1/10 sec (even the absolute best are at 1/60th sec, this may not sound like much but it will still cause lost pictures).

I own a Fuji S7000 which I truly love, however I would never trade it for my Pentax *istDL DSLR. I can capture fleeting moments that I would miss with the Fuji.

For my pocket camera I have an old 3.2MP Pentax Optio 33L. It is fairly responsive for such an old camera and gives good results in interior low-light flash pictures (read party shots), because if it cannot focus it goes into a "fixed focus" (actually hyperfocal is the correct word I believe) mode where a very high percentage of shots are still quite sharp. 3.2MP is enough for passable 8" X 10" prints so it serves me well. It is a little large compared with the latest pocket models but I use a little belt pouch to carry it.

MaryRose makes some excellent points about how pictures look. Everytime I have upgraded to a better camera (Pentax Optio to Fuji S7000 to Pentax *istDL) I was initially dissappointed with the results. Better cameras generally use default settings which result in less acutance (edge sharpening). This is probably because oversharpening can result in halos and other undesireable image artifacts that cannot be corrected, but a softer image can be sharpened. It is not soft because of focus, just because of the acutance issue I mentioned. USM (unsharp mask) in any good editing program can fine tune the result the way you like it, or you can change the camera settings to do more onboard processing.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2006, 4:18 PM   #26
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: The Villages, Florida, USA
Posts: 128
Default

I have a Sony f707 and just ordered the K100D. I love the Sony and have no intention of selling it. It is great at what it does best (macro, close ups, near flash, night focus, and outdoor daylight). And the dSLR is great at doing what it does best (greater flexibility, better high iso, quicker response). I'm already plotting and prioritizing my lens purchases for the next 5 years - but my needs and wants will mature over this period. I purchased the .7 wide angle lens for the Sony - it acts like a prime - its not zoomable. I will be shooting interiors and greater flexibility is good. I'll be drooling over the 12-24mm f4.0Pentax lens.

And Sarah, I took your advice and ordered the Pentax flash (AF540FGZ) for the more assured compatibility (knowing if I got lousy results, its because of me, not the flash/camera combo),a slightly more directly accessible set of controls, andI reviewed both manuals andpreferred the Pentax manual (theEnglishportion of the Sigma manual is 20 pages; the entire 100+ page Pentax manual is in English. (Viva laAnglais!:loveI will appreciate the completeness - I'm still learning - minimal guessing is a good thing.
gfmucci is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2006, 6:13 PM   #27
Senior Member
 
Morag2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 820
Default

I can't answer that question for you but I answered it already for myself. I DO NOT want a DSLR.

I paid around $300 for my Kodak P850. It has 432mm zoom (and upwards of 700mm with a $100 attachement). The image quality is not perfect, but it is very good. It is 5MP and unless you plan to blow the pictures up VERY big, the quality is fine.

Now if you want to do everything the Kodak P850 does with a DSLR, you will end up paying at least 6x the price for the camera body/lenses/etc. and thats if you get good deals on lenses that arn't the best.

If I were to upgrade my camera right now, I would get the very best prosumer camera on the market, but not go up to DSLR. It just isn't worth the money to me. In my opinion, a DSLR is either for professional photographers or for people to whom money is simply no object. If you can get something for $500 that can do close to everything a $2000+ DSLR does, then I am taking the $500.

Now again, this is really dependant on you. Do you have money to burn? I sure don't, but I'm 15 years old. Do you plan on making huge copies of your shots? For 4 x 6 inch prints or even bigger like 12 x 18, you won't see much of an advantage.

I also have to point out one major weakness of Prosumer cameras compared to DSLR (especially my prosumer). This is the lack of wide angles. Prosumer cameras rarely have an angle wider than 24mm or so. With DSLR you can get relatively cheap lenses ($500-$600) that offer you shots at 10mm. So if you plan on doing lots of landscape work, then a DSLR is the way to go.

DSLR's also have FAR superior low light performance. This could be useful if your son is ever playing football in a dimly lit stadium.

Sorry for the long post.
Morag2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2006, 6:38 PM   #28
TDN
Senior Member
 
TDN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,288
Default

Yes. You do.



TDN
TDN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2006, 6:57 PM   #29
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 546
Default

TDN wrote:
Quote:
Yes. You do.



TDN
:lol: 27 replies, TONS of useful information, and it all boils down to a simple answer!:lol:
gadgetnut is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Aug 30, 2006, 7:03 PM   #30
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 207
Default

I bought my Pentax DL with the kit lens and within a week ordered a Sigma 18-125. This is one great lens for day to day shooting and with the 1.5 math makes this lens work in 35mm format as a 187mm zoom. I also have a Sigma 28-300 that I like but if I only had one to choose from the 18-125 would be it. Hook one of these on your K100D and you're in business. Oh yea the 18-55 Pentax is a great lens too, just not the reach of the Sigma.

Good shot with the Sigma 18-125 http://www.stevesforums.com/forums/v...mp;forum_id=80
rritter 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 4:27 PM.