What is Digg?71 Comments
- noahhoward, on 10/12/2007, -2/+21DSLR's aren't made to take videos. They're meant to take extremely high quality shots with the variety available with different lenses.
- tkcom, on 10/12/2007, -10/+23Don't forget that DSLR can't record videos.
- klang, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13It also says one more important thing;
If you don't know the advantages of SLR, it's not for you.
Taking good pictures is an art and you have to take a lot of pictures before you get good at it. Using a DSLR instead of a SLR will at least cut the price for the hundreds of films it takes to be experiment, try, wait and fail, that is the traditional learning curve for using a "real" camera. - troon, on 10/12/2007, -4/+16@jhshukla
Take a little more time to read the comment to which you are replying next time. - nogami, on 10/12/2007, -2/+12There are some good reasons here - which is why I have a "point-n-shoot" (Canon Digital Elph 630) in addition to my DSLR (Nikon D70). I use my DSLR when I want "good" pictures, either for work, or on vacation and such, however the PnS is great for keeping in the pocket and taking quick snaps if I'm out and about.
Gotta have the right tools for the right job.
N. - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7I don't know why people are making statements like "SLRs are not good for parties", which is completely untrue
Obviously, if SLRs have bigger sensors, reduced noise, etc, it makes sense SLRs are better for night photography, as it will handle the darkness better, especially with higher ISO settings.
Now, it's just the bulkiness of the SLR which gets in the way, which is the only point I agree with you about that. - merimeet, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8Exactly. I love my DSLR, but they're definitely not for the average user. The other article made it seem like it, but if you're just going to be taking snapshots of you and your friends, it's not worth it to spend 600+ dollars on a camera you have to really learn how to use. It can be really frustrating to learn what each mode is like, what shutter speeds are appropriate for each lighting situation, when to use and when not to use flash.
- mickisdaddy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I love my DSLR. The advantages far outweigh the disadvantages. The main reason why I went DSLR is the optical zoom factor. All the point and shoots that I have seen had sucky optical zoom. Whenever I made prints from shots that I used any digital zoom at all, they had horrible grain factor. DSLRs do not have this problem.
- 4Prophecy, on 10/12/2007, -5/+12It's an OK list, but it doesn't really go beyond price and bulkiness.
- doyadigg, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This article is pointless. It's like comparing a hammer and a screwdriver and then bashing the screwdriver for not being able to drive a nail into a piece of wood.
SLR and PS cameras are made for two completely different types of photography. Want to run out with your friends and take some pictures? Get a small PS. Want to treat photography itself as a hobby and take some cool nature shots? Get an SLR.
Film photography is a hobby of mine and SLR cameras are extremely more capable for that task. However, I wouldn't take the camera to a bar for some quick shots of me and my friends. The two types of cameras serve different purposes and can't be compared like this. - Ironman11, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5AdBlock Plus w/ Filterset G works wonders. I couldn't see a single ad on that page. You might want to try it out.
- Comatose51, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Ironically, I mostly use a 48mm prime lense with no zoom for most of my DSLR pictures. To each his own, which is why SLR/DSLR is great.
- mariusaz, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I don't understand. I love my DSLR.
- bensales, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4This is a pointless article, you buy a SLR for one thing and a point and click for another. I have both types. There are some situations where I wouldn't use my SLR and some where I would want something better that a standard digital camera.
A good example is recently I wanted to shoot a sporting event that took place in a dimly lit hall, flash photography wasn't allowed so I needed the DSLR with a large aperture lens. I wouldn't have been able to get any shots with the normal camera. - fearofcorners, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7I think the choice should really be based on whether your photography is for record-keeping or art. An SLR is terrible for taking to a party and a P&S is terrible for serious photography.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Isn't there an unspoken rule to never mention Ken Rockwell on digg...
- lucask, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6uh.. ad sense?
- AdamWeeden, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5@noahhoward
Which is fine. The article however is talking about, essentially, finding what's right for you as a consumer. Not everybody needs a DSLR, and conversely not everyone needs something as simple as a point and shoot. Neither one is better, it's just about using the right tool for the right job (for the right person). tkcom is simply pointing out that if what you (the proverbial you) want to do with your camera includes taking video, than a DSLR is not right for you. - teknopagan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Actually, billyboobs34, I would highly recommend that demonicume does start with just the kit lens. After a few months of shooting, he/his gf will know where that kit lens falls short of their needs and can purchase additional lenses to cover. Kit lenses may be cheap, but they are usually pretty sharp and also usually the best bang-for-your-buck lens you can buy.
- tinkafoo, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I think the author is trying his hand at really dry sarcasm, and failing miserably. Most of those points don't make any sense if you try to think about them.. "them cameras are big, heavy, and pointless if all you're taking is stoopid snapshots! HURRR"
Well duh. If you want to take throw-away pictures, get a throw-away camera. Tell me something I don't know, slapshot. - comradeTJH, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Reason 6 and 8 are the only real. I mean it's very obvious that a SLR is bulkier.. and for trashy snapshots feel free to get yourself a cheap small point-n-shoot cam.
But if you care about photography and need different lenses there's no reason against SLR's... - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Same, I have a Canon SD400 I won from Hustler, and a Digital Rebel. I'm no photographer, but it's nice having both. I have an old nikkormat with a lot of lenses if I really wanted to buy film.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I've owned all sorts of cameras SLRs, DSLRs, plus cheap (under $1000) digital and film cameras.
The shots taken with my DSLR (Canon D30) are some of the most beautiful shots I've ever taken. They are simply breathtaking compared to the flat nasty images of regular and film digital cameras that are not SLR - ryan112ryan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I sell DSLR's as a part time job in college right now, 90% of the people whom I sell the camera to will never take it off of the "auto" function. on top of that, they do not have a grasp of what the basic principles of photography are and how things like shutter speed, ISO, and apature interact and effect the end result. THIS LIST IS FOR THOSE PEOPLE. if you have a basic understanding of how cameras work and how shutter speed, ISO, and apature interact and effect the end result, and want to learn more DSLR's are for you, expensive upfront but long term are much cheaper and allow you to really develop because you have
-instant feedback
-no worries about how much its going to cost to print/develop
-unlimited photos to take, compare and learn from - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2DSLR for Christmas... Don't just contemplate, start saving money now, Make sure you spend some money on the camera body but have some (an equal amount or more) for the camera lens (or lens) don't just go for the crappy one in the kit.
Do yourself a favor and stick with Canon (personal favorite) or Nikon... - RetardoCrisp, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Wha....how foolish this write-up is. If you grew up with an SLR, then a DSLR is totally for you, otherwise get a PnS. I love my 20D and XT, those paired up with some L glass and sorry to say no PnS can even compare. Canon DLSR's use a CMOS chip, most PnS use a CCD. HUGE diff in noise and pic quality using a CMOS
- krazygluon, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Dugg for its attempt to get people to buy the right tool for the job.
- lustre, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2No one has used a DSLR with video capabilities because there are none that exist with said capabilities. The Olympus E330 could, conceivably, shoot video as it is the only DSLR with live sensor preview to the LCD via a beam splitting arrangement but the camera does not offer video recording capabilities.
The two largest hurdles are the reflex mirror blocking the sensor unless actually making an exposure and, perhaps more significantly, the mechanical shutter that, in most cases, has a total life span of from 35,000 to 100,000 actuations. In the latter case, I imagine that the shutter would be forced open for video but anything like this has yet to hit the market.
Now, in motion control studios, DSLRs have, in many cases, replaced the 35mm Mitchell-Fries cameras for animation but the frame counts are relatively low and the DSLR cameras are fairly expendable depending on overall budget. - zclip, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4stupid article, it just points out the basic differences between and SLR and a P&S.
OF COURSE the DSL is bigger, so OF COURSE it's also harder to take places, OF COURSE it's more expensive, OF COURSE it'll be harder to use since it has 10 times the features of a P&S.
This article could be just as effective if it were a single question: Do you "snap pictures" or do you do "photography"? If the former than get a p&s, if the latter get a dslr. - Mr.Scientist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I know all about blocking ads (but I don't do it excessively because good articles need them too). The problem here isn't the ad, it's the blogspam: A shallow article created for the purpose of showing ads.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2What dSLR did you use with video capability?
- flink405, on 10/12/2007, -2/+4Lame article.
One does not have to buy lots of lenses, tripods, etc, etc,etc and lug around to use the DSLR.
And number 6: "Unwanted Attention: "...LOL. As if no one has ever seen a SLR-type camera before. I have yet to have people come up and want to see my camera because it was an SLR.
7: "Learning Curve: If you have never used a DSLR before, there is a steep learning curve." Steep? Nah. Take it out of the box and click away if one wants. If one wants to use it for more things one can easily learn the different functions.
Number 8 - "Expensive Hobby:" It does not have to be.
9 - "Stress:" This author gets worried carrying around an expensive camera. Guess that iPod and laptop never leave the house, eh? And driving a $20,000-plus expensive auto! What if someone steals it or crashes into it.
Lame, lame, lame.
There is really only one reason not to buy a DSLR - it´s bulky, too large to carry around for day-to-day photo shooting. - lostboy, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2it's simply not true that a point and shoot is bad for art photography - among other things it allows for more candid shots because it is much more discrete. Also, if you can't take good photos with a p&s then you ain't gonna with dslr, people can save themselves a whole lotta money by starting out cheap and rather than forking out extra to find in the end they really aren't the photographer they hoped they'd be.
- theGecko, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Man, you must be on crack. Have you ever tried true nature photography, or action photography with a point and shoot camera. By the time the damn thing reacts, the subject is gone. You want real photographs and not just ones of your drunk buddies passed out buddies on your couch after a football game, then you need a DSLR.
I went from 35mm film to a Nikon D100 and now to a D200.
Hey DSLR's are not for everyone, your reasoning behind not needing one is totally faulted.
If people didn't prefer SLR's then why do point and shoot cameras have a "shutter" sound effect. LOL - skellener, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I hadn't shot with my film camera in years, but I missed it. The little point and shoots just don't bring the magic when you are composing a shot with your arms held out in front of you to look at the LCD. You want convenience? Use your camera phone for the little snapshots. If you really want to take pictures, there's nothing like a DSLR. This guy in a bonehead.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Call me crazy, but there really is no reason to get a DSLR. Personally, I don't see such things as the added bulk and size as a negative over point and shoot cameras if it means a better image. I also don't know why people say they'd never take their DSLR "to the bar" or "out with friends". Why not? I totally would.
I'm currently saving for a Nikon D80. Any suggestions on a possibly better DSLR than this for around the same price point? - GrahamStw, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2I don't know what lenses you have for your DSLR, but bigger point-and-shoots do have a decent zoom range on them.
The Canon PowerShot S3 IS has an image stabilised 36-432mm (equiv) f2.7-3.5 lens on it (12x in laymans terms).
And the Fujifilm Finepix S9100 and Fujifilm FinePix S6500fd bridge cameras both have 28-300mm (10.7x) zooms on them. - 07734, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I though the article was going to be film vs digital. In fact it's digital SLR vs digital 'point and shoot'. Which is fine, but aimed more at the general public than the aspiring professional photographer.
I would think I was right in saying, most professional photographers have a point and shoot digital in their collection to address the very vaild points made in the article, but they can not replace the quality and control given by a professional dSLR.
IMHO - JoeBlunt, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I go to a fair amount of concerts and live performances. Many or most will allow me in with a point and shoot style camera. I've been sent back to the car with my wife's SLR too many times to take it to the show any more.
- becknell, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1True DSLRs are only for the few that get bitten by the bug. A DSLR isn't even needed to have outrageously good photos. Two different examples given are:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/lesec/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ahmedzahid/ - MarkHarrison, on 10/12/2007, -4/+4Thank you for digging this!
It was the right article, at the right time for me, since my point-and-shoot is on its last legs (the motor on the lens cover has died).
I had been toying with a DSLR, but it strikes me that another point-and-shoot is a better match for my needs (and will save me a few hundred quid.) [US readers note, a "quid" is a British pound] - nybe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1If you don't already know all that *****, then you should NOT be in the market for a DSLR.
- Snuq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1third option is the slr-like cameras (which im planning on getting, a Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ7 specifically), they have the best of both worlds - high quality image sensors, smaller size/portability, inexpensive, often have external lense/flash support, record digital movies, and of course lots of manual settings in addition to point and shoot modes.
why CANT you have your cake and eat it too? - skytimelapse, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Reason 11: Every shutter in a DSLR will eventually fail after enough shots (I know). The cost to repair is as much as a decent P&S. My Old D Rebel died after only 7k shots but my 20d is at about 50k and still going strong.
- GrahamStw, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1@TheNakedChef: feet aren't always a good replacement for a zoom lens though.
Moving closer to something does NOT create the same effect as using a longer lens. The perspective changes completely.
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perspective_distortion_%28photography%29 and http://www.kevinwilley.com/l3_topic04.htm - bedheadben, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1For your number 6, have you ever heard of an Apeture Preview button? You can press it in and it will show you the dof you'll have with your current apeture.
- thebhef, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This seems to me like it's a total noob guide. Some people just want to have a nicer camera. There's a reason DSLRs are made. That reason is that it's the right camera for some people. This guy's just got a grudge because it's not the one for him.
- dalesmatrix, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1I'd say the pro's / Cons of DSLR vs P&S are;
1) DSLR lower noise at higher ISO due to larger sensor
2) DSLR interchangeable lenses...right lens for right job
3) DSLR Raw file, although some P&S do that these days
4) P&S, being able to preview how shot will look BEFORE clicking the shutter release (important when learning DOF, effect of shutter speed, aperture etc)
5) P&S portability
I personally think that for learning photography number 4 in my list actually leans towards getting a pro-sumer P&S, then upgrading to a DSLR when you've got all the concepts under your belt and can make a more informed decision.
All just IMHO of course. - SenisBS, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1My solution: DSLR and camera phone (2Mpix).
- intense321, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Heavy? Come on seriously, now. You geeks need to work out some more so you can build up some muscles to pick up that *heavy* camera.
-
Show 51 - 71 of 71 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is