First DSLR

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: DigDug

DSLR seems to be the new fad. It will pass.

Haha. You have no clue.

I don't? DSLR will soon turn back into a hobby. People will feel burdened by carrying around accessories and lenses in big bags, and as point and shoot quality catches up to DSLR, people will resort back. If you could get all of the same qualities of a DSLR (no shutter lag, big fast focal range, large CCD, etc) in a compact fixed lens point and shoot all in wonder would you get it? That's when DSLR will transition back into a hobby rather than mainstream stuff.

Nope, you don't have a clue. Thats exactly what happend with regular SLR's, with point and shoots increasing in quality, but slr's never went away, did they.

Point and shoot film never had the potential that digital does.

 

[unsped]

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: unsped
in good light, a 100 dollar 70-300mm lense can take the same picture a $1500 300mm 2.8 , just dont end up like most people who shoot blurry photos and blame it on the lense and end up spending thousands of dollars trying to fix the wrong problem.

Sorry, but that is just not true. Even in good light, a 300 2.8 will trounce a $100 70-300 in sharpeness, contrast and bokeh. For instance, I can tell that the picture of the photographer linked 3 above yours was taken with a pro quality lens and that is a significantly downsized version.

Of course, the point of using a telephoto prime is mainly for the speed it provides. It's hard to find a 70-300 zoom with a 2.8 aperture at 300mm.

i think your missing my point.

composistion, metering, exposure etc.. control the image 100x more than the extra ability of a lense. you can take ****** photos with either, and you can take great photos with either. alot of people think you need high dollar lenses to take good photos, when the lense (as long as its decent) probably has the least impact over a 'photo'.

i can take better pictures with my 450g 70-300 than a 3lb 2.8 aperature lense thats left at home because its too heavy.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: DigDug

DSLR seems to be the new fad. It will pass.

Haha. You have no clue.

I don't? DSLR will soon turn back into a hobby. People will feel burdened by carrying around accessories and lenses in big bags, and as point and shoot quality catches up to DSLR, people will resort back. If you could get all of the same qualities of a DSLR (no shutter lag, big fast focal range, large CCD, etc) in a compact fixed lens point and shoot all in wonder would you get it? That's when DSLR will transition back into a hobby rather than mainstream stuff.

No, you don't have a clue whatsoever.

None.

And I am a complete amateur. Talk to photographers that do this for a living. They will all say the same thing "It's here, you can't avoid it, you can't compete without it"

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: DigDug

DSLR seems to be the new fad. It will pass.

Haha. You have no clue.

I don't? DSLR will soon turn back into a hobby. People will feel burdened by carrying around accessories and lenses in big bags, and as point and shoot quality catches up to DSLR, people will resort back. If you could get all of the same qualities of a DSLR (no shutter lag, big fast focal range, large CCD, etc) in a compact fixed lens point and shoot all in wonder would you get it? That's when DSLR will transition back into a hobby rather than mainstream stuff.

No, you don't have a clue whatsoever.

None.

And I am a complete amateur. Talk to photographers that do this for a living. They will all say the same thing "It's here, you can't avoid it, you can't compete without it"

I'm not talking about for professionals :roll:

I guess I should rephrase, DSLR will soon turn back into a hobby for the masses.

 

[jpeyton]

Myself (and many others) picked up Nikon D50 w/ lens kits for under $600.

Before I purchased, I played around with the D50, D70s, and 350D (I stuck to Nikon and Canon because they tend to have the best new/used lens markets). 350D was too small for my medium-sized hands, making it uncomfortable to grip and shoot lots of shots. The D50 and D70s fit my hands like a glove. Don't buy a camera based only on features; see if its even comfortable to hold and use first.

While the D70s has a few more manual adjustments, the D50 has plenty enough to keep me busy, and it shoots better pictures out-of-the-box than the D70s. The D50's sensor (yes, it is different than the D70s sensor) also handles noise noticeably better, and has more "pop" to the colors.

As for the guy arguing that DSLR is a fad...that is an absurd statement. SLR technology has been around for the better part of the 20th century and P&S cameras have always lagged behind in picture quality. The only difference now is that CMOS/CCD sensors are replacing film. But a fixed-lens, P&S camera will always have disadvantages to a more versatile body/lens SLR system.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

I'm not talking about for professionals :roll:

I guess I should rephrase, DSLR will soon turn back into a hobby for the masses.

And what I'm saying is that is a good thing.

But professionals are quickly moving over to digital. It's here...it has arrived.

You're right though DSLR will make available the sames means that SLR gave to the masses. But you can't deny that this movement/advances are good for everybody.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: tfinch2

I'm not talking about for professionals :roll:

I guess I should rephrase, DSLR will soon turn back into a hobby for the masses.

And what I'm saying is that is a good thing.

But professionals are quickly moving over to digital. It's here...it has arrived.

You're right though DSLR will make available the sames means that SLR gave to the masses. But you can't deny that this movement/advances are good for everybody.

I'm not.

I predict in a year there will be loads of consumer level DSLRs flooding ebay because people are tired of the "hassle" that comes with them.

I for one welcome our DSLR overlords. 🙂

 

[spidey07]

I do too tfinch2.

🙂

long live our great digital cameras that have finally arrived.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: jpeyton
Myself (and many others) picked up Nikon D50 w/ lens kits for under $600.

Before I purchased, I played around with the D50, D70s, and 350D (I stuck to Nikon and Canon because they tend to have the best new/used lens markets). 350D was too small for my medium-sized hands, making it uncomfortable to grip and shoot lots of shots. The D50 and D70s fit my hands like a glove. Don't buy a camera based only on features; see if its even comfortable to hold and use first.

While the D70s has a few more manual adjustments, the D50 has plenty enough to keep me busy, and it shoots better pictures out-of-the-box than the D70s. The D50's sensor (yes, it is different than the D70s sensor) also handles noise noticeably better, and has more "pop" to the colors.

As for the guy arguing that DSLR is a fad...that is an absurd statement. SLR technology has been around for the better part of the 20th century and P&S cameras have always lagged behind in picture quality. The only difference now is that CMOS/CCD sensors are replacing film. But a fixed-lens, P&S camera will always have disadvantages to a more versatile body/lens SLR system.

You misinterpreted my point too.

 

[PHiuR]

people are only buying the cameras because they want STUFF. STUFF makes people happy. More than half of the people who buy these DSLRs won't use them for the reasons that they were made for in the first place.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: PHiuR
people are only buying the cameras because they want STUFF. STUFF makes people happy. More than half of the people who buy these DSLRs won't use them for the reasons that they were made for in the first place.

Exactly.

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
You misinterpreted my point too.

Naw, your logic is flawed. Film SLRs sold by the millions every year for decades during the 20th century, and we didn't see the masses dumping their film SLR bodies just because they decided they didn't want the "hassle".

The only reason people are dumping film SLRs now is because of good, cheap DSLR bodies that have made it to market during the last 18 months. It's not a fad...people like taking photos.

 

[DBL]

Originally posted by: unsped

Originally posted by: DBL

Originally posted by: unsped
in good light, a 100 dollar 70-300mm lense can take the same picture a $1500 300mm 2.8 , just dont end up like most people who shoot blurry photos and blame it on the lense and end up spending thousands of dollars trying to fix the wrong problem.

Sorry, but that is just not true. Even in good light, a 300 2.8 will trounce a $100 70-300 in sharpeness, contrast and bokeh. For instance, I can tell that the picture of the photographer linked 3 above yours was taken with a pro quality lens and that is a significantly downsized version.

Of course, the point of using a telephoto prime is mainly for the speed it provides. It's hard to find a 70-300 zoom with a 2.8 aperture at 300mm.

i think your missing my point.

composistion, metering, exposure etc.. control the image 100x more than the extra ability of a lense. you can take ****** photos with either, and you can take great photos with either. alot of people think you need high dollar lenses to take good photos, when the lense (as long as its decent) probably has the least impact over a 'photo'.

i can take better pictures with my 450g 70-300 than a 3lb 2.8 aperature lense thats left at home because its too heavy.

Oh, I agree with all that but that is not what you said.

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: tfinch2
You misinterpreted my point too.

Naw, your logic is flawed. Film SLRs sold by the millions every year for decades during the 20th century, and we didn't see the masses dumping their film SLR bodies just because they decided they didn't want the "hassle".

The only reason people are dumping film SLRs now is because of good, cheap DSLR bodies that have made it to market during the last 18 months.

How is my logic flawed? The only reason people went to film SLR is because they wanted a quality picture, which a point and shoot film could not provide. People are going to DSLR because at this moment, point and shoot digital can't provide the quality picture and flexibility they are looking for. The moment a point and shoot digital comes out that has all of the advantages of a DSLR in a compact size, the masses (not professionals) will prefer it over carrying a huge bag with 4 lenses and a 2 lb body, turning DSLR back into a hobby for the non-pros.

In the near future, why are the masses going to continue to spend near $1000 on a body and another $1500 on two nice lenses when they can pick up something like this for about $700 at most that has comparable image quality and functionality when they leave it on all auto and will probably be a little smaller to boot. DSLR is going to improve a lot too, but that is going to be enough for your everyday joe blow.

 

[spidey07]

Originally posted by: PHiuR
people are only buying the cameras because they want STUFF. STUFF makes people happy. More than half of the people who buy these DSLRs won't use them for the reasons that they were made for in the first place.

hey now...you're probably right.

But I have some very challenging shots and I would like to make the most of my camera. I can surely blame the lens/camera on my point and shoot camera (soney dsc-vx1) for the lack of focus control.

 

[JinLien]

Originally posted by: Czar
oh.. and I recomend the xt just for the very simple reason as more people own canons than nikon, sortof like the pc vs mac thing 10-15 years ago 😛

There has always been a Canon vs. Nikon thing long before most OTers knew about computers or cameras.

The race were on with the top 5-7 camera makers during the early 80s with Minolta first to introduce the innovative true auto focus camera Maxxum 7000 5 years before all of its competitions, however it marketing department was nowhere as good as its engineers therefore auto focus didn?t catch on with consumers till Canon & Nikon jumped into it 4-5 years latter. And, produces the 1.5 decade old penis/camera war.

In the early days Nikon was slightly ahead with its line of lenses, but the snobbish Nikon users and dealers might be one of the reasons that some amateur went with the Canon T series. The rise of Canon to today status is because Canon make a promise to spend more money in R&D in camera technology and became the first to produce the automatic average multi-zone metering & latter on multi-point focus with USM motor that make manual focus redundant (faster than manual focus and is accurate in bright & low light situation). USM and now IS couple with the largest line of AF lens make Canon a favorite SLR/DSLR with sport/fashion pro photographer. With the popularity of Canon today it also developed a cult like following that think if it is not Canon it is?crapps.

In the word of my favorite photographer Eugene Smith, ?The photographer is the one that make the picture?a camera is animate black box with a hole in it?.

 

[PHiuR]

Originally posted by: spidey07

Originally posted by: PHiuR
people are only buying the cameras because they want STUFF. STUFF makes people happy. More than half of the people who buy these DSLRs won't use them for the reasons that they were made for in the first place.

hey now...you're probably right.

But I have some very challenging shots and I would like to make the most of my camera. I can surely blame the lens/camera on my point and shoot camera (soney dsc-vx1) for the lack of focus control.

I had an A95 before I got my 20D. The A95 is an amazing P&S, I can give the camera to someone who is better with coming up with ideas and controlling a camera than me and can probably come up with better pictures that I can make on my 20D.

The A95 had full manual focus control, full manual shutter/aperature adjustments.
The only thing lacking was the picture quality...Don't know if your sony had manual controls or not. (probably not. hence Canon > *) 😉
I would really like to see Nikon make consumer P&S or lower end cameras.

I just don't like how some people get a $1000++ camera and expect the camera to take amazing pictures for them. It's the photographer, not the camera! When I see a picture from a DSLR with blur (not intentional) or REALLY REALLY bad composition or random snapshots...I get annoyed. GET a friggin P&S instead!

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: tfinch2
You misinterpreted my point too.

Naw, your logic is flawed. Film SLRs sold by the millions every year for decades during the 20th century, and we didn't see the masses dumping their film SLR bodies just because they decided they didn't want the "hassle".

The only reason people are dumping film SLRs now is because of good, cheap DSLR bodies that have made it to market during the last 18 months.

How is my logic flawed? The only reason people went to film SLR is because they wanted a quality picture, which a point and shoot film could not provide. People are going to DSLR because at this moment, point and shoot digital can't provide the quality picture and flexibility they are looking for. The moment a point and shoot digital comes out that has all of the advantages of a DSLR in a compact size, the masses (not professionals) will prefer it over carrying a huge bag with 4 lenses and a 2 lb body, turning DSLR back into a hobby for the non-pros.

In the near future, why are the masses going to continue to spend near $1000 on a body and another $1500 on two nice lenses when they can pick up something like this for about $700 at most that has comparable image quality and functionality when they leave it on all auto and will probably be a little smaller to boot. DSLR is going to improve a lot too, but that is going to be enough for your everyday joe blow.

Very nice, I thought yoyu were going to link an FZ30, which I consider a better camera then that samsung. So instead of a DSLR with ISO's up to 1600 and 3200, with interchangeable lenses, larger sensors to deal with noise and most of the time almost no shutter lag, you want something with slow raw file writing... I'll just copy paste to make it easier.

Long shutter lag
Focusing can feel slow
640 x 480 movies at 25 fps maximum clip length of 30 secs
Focus hunts - and often fails - at long end of zoom, especially in low light
JPEG processing doesn't make the most of the lens, smearing of low contrast detail
JPEG Images over-processed, specifically over-sharpened
Fairly harsh highlight clipping (JPEGs)
No image stabilization, no high ISO capability
Supplied raw converter worse than useless
Raw files large, raw file writing very slow
Tiff files no better than JPEGs, and very very slow
Unreliable white balance under artificial light
Big and heavy
LCD doesn't show 100% of frame, and playback mode doesn't give very accurate indication of brightness or color of recorded file

The FZ30 at least had IS, a decent raw mode, and less processing in camera for you to do the post porcessing. Your size is also moot. The FZ30 is 910 grams while the Rebel 350xt is 540g and the D50 is 620g. Add this to the weight of say a 70-200 lens and you have a much better camera.

EDIT: THe best camera to link was Probably the SonyR1, but that thing is a good 1k and still had its own drawbacks.

 

[Koing]

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: PHiuR
people are only buying the cameras because they want STUFF. STUFF makes people happy. More than half of the people who buy these DSLRs won't use them for the reasons that they were made for in the first place.

Exactly.

Indeed.

I'd like to buy a 20D (can afford it quite easily) but I don't want to carry around a big camera to take 'nice' pictures. Havin used a D70 and taken pics with it, it is SO much easier and better to use then my fathers V1. Sure it has full manual controls (no manual focus though) it sucks having to trawl through the menu to access them 😛. I'm not particularly keen on photography for a hobby. I just want great pictures that have the tone and the smoothness of a DSLR. No P&S has that imo.

Koing

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: tfinch2

Originally posted by: jpeyton

Originally posted by: tfinch2
You misinterpreted my point too.

Naw, your logic is flawed. Film SLRs sold by the millions every year for decades during the 20th century, and we didn't see the masses dumping their film SLR bodies just because they decided they didn't want the "hassle".

The only reason people are dumping film SLRs now is because of good, cheap DSLR bodies that have made it to market during the last 18 months.

How is my logic flawed? The only reason people went to film SLR is because they wanted a quality picture, which a point and shoot film could not provide. People are going to DSLR because at this moment, point and shoot digital can't provide the quality picture and flexibility they are looking for. The moment a point and shoot digital comes out that has all of the advantages of a DSLR in a compact size, the masses (not professionals) will prefer it over carrying a huge bag with 4 lenses and a 2 lb body, turning DSLR back into a hobby for the non-pros.

In the near future, why are the masses going to continue to spend near $1000 on a body and another $1500 on two nice lenses when they can pick up something like this for about $700 at most that has comparable image quality and functionality when they leave it on all auto and will probably be a little smaller to boot. DSLR is going to improve a lot too, but that is going to be enough for your everyday joe blow.

Very nice, I thought yoyu were going to link an FZ30, which I consider a better camera then that samsung. So instead of a DSLR with ISO's up to 1600 and 3200, with interchangeable lenses, larger sensors to deal with noise and most of the time almost no shutter lag, you want something with slow raw file writing... I'll just copy paste to make it easier.

Long shutter lag
Focusing can feel slow
640 x 480 movies at 25 fps maximum clip length of 30 secs
Focus hunts - and often fails - at long end of zoom, especially in low light
JPEG processing doesn't make the most of the lens, smearing of low contrast detail
JPEG Images over-processed, specifically over-sharpened
Fairly harsh highlight clipping (JPEGs)
No image stabilization, no high ISO capability
Supplied raw converter worse than useless
Raw files large, raw file writing very slow
Tiff files no better than JPEGs, and very very slow
Unreliable white balance under artificial light
Big and heavy
LCD doesn't show 100% of frame, and playback mode doesn't give very accurate indication of brightness or color of recorded file

The FZ30 at least had IS, a decent raw mode, and less processing in camera for you to do the post porcessing. Your size is also moot. The FZ30 is 910 grams while the Rebel 350xt is 540g and the D50 is 620g. Add this to the weight of say a 70-200 lens and you have a much better camera.

EDIT: THe best camera to link was Probably the SonyR1, but that thing is a good 1k and still had its own drawbacks.

You are a tool, I said a camera LIKE it, with similar DSLR performance in the future. I didn't say THAT camera. I bolded the parts you missed. :roll:

 

[Kelvrick]

Originally posted by: tfinch2
You are a tool, I said a camera LIKE it, with similar DSLR performance in the future. I didn't say THAT camera. I bolded the parts you missed. :roll:

You said in the near future. That samsung isn't even out yet, and successor cameras usually take a year, sometimes more for prosumer classes. I agree with the fact that you might not need cameras like the D50 and Rebel XT, but then with the evolution of prosumers, DSLR's will also get better. Start getting full-frame sensors in the FZ30's and Samsungs and you'll start getting higher isos, faster framerates, greater resolution out of the DSLR's as well.

Things don't just get better on one part of the spectrum. For the masses as you say, I think DSLR's aren't as much of a fad as you say. A lot of people have rebels, and D50/70's, but its just as a previous poster said, its to have things. When they go out, they still got thier Sony P's, and Canon S's/SD's. I don't think the population of ATOT, with us getting dslr's and lenses is representative at all of the masses.

Yea, I guess I was being a tool in arguing and respect your opinion as a fellow photographer, but still don't agree with your views of DSLR's phasing out for non-professionals.

EDIT: :beer: for the general advancement in technology. We all win, don't we.

 

[SparkyJJO]

Canon Digital Rebel XT (350D) FTW!!! 😀

 

[tfinch2]

Originally posted by: Kelvrick

Originally posted by: tfinch2
You are a tool, I said a camera LIKE it, with similar DSLR performance in the future. I didn't say THAT camera. I bolded the parts you missed. :roll:

You said in the near future. That samsung isn't even out yet, and successor cameras usually take a year, sometimes more for prosumer classes. I agree with the fact that you might not need cameras like the D50 and Rebel XT, but then with the evolution of prosumers, DSLR's will also get better. Start getting full-frame sensors in the FZ30's and Samsungs and you'll start getting higher isos, faster framerates, greater resolution out of the DSLR's as well.

Things don't just get better on one part of the spectrum. For the masses as you say, I think DSLR's aren't as much of a fad as you say. A lot of people have rebels, and D50/70's, but its just as a previous poster said, its to have things. When they go out, they still got thier Sony P's, and Canon S's/SD's. I don't think the population of ATOT, with us getting dslr's and lenses is representative at all of the masses.

Yea, I guess I was being a tool in arguing and respect your opinion as a fellow photographer, but still don't agree with your views of DSLR's phasing out for non-professionals.

EDIT: :beer: for the general advancement in technology. We all win, don't we.

The term near is relative. I was thinking a few years while others could have been thinking months. It'll happen faster than you think. Compare a shot from a $500 digital P&S camera in 2000 to a $500 digital P&S camera in 2005. 🙂

:beer:

 

[shuttleboi]

If you are serious about SLRs, you have to keep in mind that you are not buying into an individual camera; rather, you are buying into an entire lens family. IMHO the Canon lenses are better than Nikon's.

 

[virtuamike]

Originally posted by: shuttleboi
If you are serious about SLRs, you have to keep in mind that you are not buying into an individual camera; rather, you are buying into an entire lens family. IMHO the Canon lenses are better than Nikon's.

*sigh* as often as it gets said, the truth is that the majority of new DSLR buyers will probably never move past the original kit lens and maybe a tele zoom.