thetechlounge.com— If you're planning on getting a digital camera for yourself this holiday season, read 10 reasons why you should choose a DSLR camera over a point-n-shoot.
Nov 6, 2006View in Crawl 4
I had no idea that a f1:1.2 autofocus lens would cost that much. It was relatively cheap for my manual focus 35mm Minolta. But yes, it really did make a HUGE difference in the quality of my shots.I have had a couple of 35mm SLR's in the past, Pentax and Minolta, and the prices on accessories weren't that bad. I guess I just assumed that autofocus lensed would have come down by now, since the autofocus SLR is now close to 20 years old.As far as the Sigma 1.4, I have owned a couple of Sigma lenses, and they really are great bang for the buck. Go for it.
Unless you intend on spending a lot of time learning about the finer points of digital photography, like white balance, metering, exposure, depth of field, aperture, f-stop, etc, you should just stick with one of the many quality point-n-shoot digitals for the [above]average consumer. DSLRs are designed to give you "blank canvas" type results to which you apply technique to achieve the desired photo. Point and shoot digitals are designed to give you the results you want without any fuss or fore knowledge of photographic settings. For most people who just want a camera to take pics of their friends, kids, vacation, etc, a good point and shoot will produce, on average, a better result for them than were they to just pick up a DSLR, set it to full auto, and go. What people usually go ga-ga over in regards to DSLRs is short depth of field, and just about every fixed lenses digital out there over 200 bucks has a portrait setting or something to get this effect without much fuss.People see great photos from amazing photographers and just assume that it was the camera and think, "if I had that camera with it's super big lens I could take photos like that too! But they fail to realize just how much work is involved and end up worse results with a DSLR than they would with a good point and shoot digital.
One more point: for older people, being forced to use the viewfinder is a hassle. Using the LCD is a lot more practical.Being forced to use a LCD is more hassle, give me a proper viewfinder any day as I can see it without my glasses.
I must say; a disadvantage to buying a DSLR is the lenses. Let me explain.When you buy a DSLR, you buy just the body, or the body and a kit lens. I highly recommend the body only, as it is usually about $100 less, and the lens, frankly is a piece of crap. Then the lenses... there are prime lenses and zoom lenses. Prime lenses have the advantage of being cheaper for the same optical quality. Zoom lenses have the advantage of being versatile. If you want a decent prime lens (meaning suitable optics and aperture range), it will cost $50 to $300, for one lens - one focal length. If you want a decent zoom lens, it is anywhere from $200 to $500 on the low-end. If you are shooting at night or handheld, you need a larger-aperture lens, possibly with image stabilization, and that will be anywhere from $800 to $1600. It gets very expensive.Now
I must say; a disadvantage to buying a DSLR is the lenses. Let me explain.When you buy a DSLR, you buy just the body, or the body and a kit lens. I highly recommend the body only, as it is usually about $100 less, and the lens, frankly is a piece of crap. Then the lenses... there are prime lenses and zoom lenses. Prime lenses have the advantage of being cheaper for the same optical quality. Zoom lenses have the advantage of being versatile. If you want a decent prime lens (meaning suitable optics and aperture range), it will cost $50 to $300, for one lens - one focal length. If you want a decent zoom lens, it is anywhere from $200 to $500 on the low-end. If you are shooting at night or handheld, you need a larger-aperture lens, possibly with image stabilization, and that will be anywhere from $800 to $1600. It gets very expensive.Now, you can buy a Panasonic Lumix FZ50 for under $600. It has a zoom lens equivalent of 35-420mm (this is a huge range) with an aperture of f2.8-3.7 (pretty nice). Also, the camera has full manual controls, just like a DSLR. It has a mechanical zoom ring on the lens barrel, and a pseudo-mechanical focusing ring, which feels just like a DSLR. You get all the creative control over your shot that you would with a DSLR (with very few exceptions). It also has a hot shoe, so you can use professional lighting equipment.So, all that to say, unless you are actually making money from your photography or you have lots of money to spend on a hobby, go with an all-in-one/mega-zoom type.
I love my point and shoot. Best camera I've ever had, takes amazing pictures compared to the expensive but completely bewildering SLRs that I've had in the past. I'm actually interested in photography now.
I dont see how anyone can say that purchasing as DSLR is a waste of money. The prices of the entry level DSLR's have come down so much that they are now a great value compared to how point and shoots perform <a class="user" href="http://www.dubnoffphoto.com">http://www.dubnoffphoto.com</a> I have an article on my site that talks about this.
iphiNov 6, 2006
I got 3 reasons why NOT.<a class="user" href="http://observingtech.blogspot.com/2006/11/3-reasons-not-to-buy-dslr.html">http://observingtech.blogspot.com/2006/11/3-reasons-not-to-buy-dslr.html</a>
dmoney06Nov 6, 2006
I was referring to eyesight
ttlkurtisNov 6, 2006Submitter
lol... i love how somebody always says something about an article being an advertisement. it doesn't matter what the article is about.
devoinregressNov 6, 2006
#1 should be RAW format
thebloomsNov 6, 2006
I had no idea that a f1:1.2 autofocus lens would cost that much. It was relatively cheap for my manual focus 35mm Minolta. But yes, it really did make a HUGE difference in the quality of my shots.I have had a couple of 35mm SLR's in the past, Pentax and Minolta, and the prices on accessories weren't that bad. I guess I just assumed that autofocus lensed would have come down by now, since the autofocus SLR is now close to 20 years old.As far as the Sigma 1.4, I have owned a couple of Sigma lenses, and they really are great bang for the buck. Go for it.
greenampNov 7, 2006
Unless you intend on spending a lot of time learning about the finer points of digital photography, like white balance, metering, exposure, depth of field, aperture, f-stop, etc, you should just stick with one of the many quality point-n-shoot digitals for the [above]average consumer. DSLRs are designed to give you "blank canvas" type results to which you apply technique to achieve the desired photo. Point and shoot digitals are designed to give you the results you want without any fuss or fore knowledge of photographic settings. For most people who just want a camera to take pics of their friends, kids, vacation, etc, a good point and shoot will produce, on average, a better result for them than were they to just pick up a DSLR, set it to full auto, and go. What people usually go ga-ga over in regards to DSLRs is short depth of field, and just about every fixed lenses digital out there over 200 bucks has a portrait setting or something to get this effect without much fuss.People see great photos from amazing photographers and just assume that it was the camera and think, "if I had that camera with it's super big lens I could take photos like that too! But they fail to realize just how much work is involved and end up worse results with a DSLR than they would with a good point and shoot digital.
nkpnswNov 7, 2006
One more point: for older people, being forced to use the viewfinder is a hassle. Using the LCD is a lot more practical.Being forced to use a LCD is more hassle, give me a proper viewfinder any day as I can see it without my glasses.
planckscnstNov 9, 2006
I must say; a disadvantage to buying a DSLR is the lenses. Let me explain.When you buy a DSLR, you buy just the body, or the body and a kit lens. I highly recommend the body only, as it is usually about $100 less, and the lens, frankly is a piece of crap. Then the lenses... there are prime lenses and zoom lenses. Prime lenses have the advantage of being cheaper for the same optical quality. Zoom lenses have the advantage of being versatile. If you want a decent prime lens (meaning suitable optics and aperture range), it will cost $50 to $300, for one lens - one focal length. If you want a decent zoom lens, it is anywhere from $200 to $500 on the low-end. If you are shooting at night or handheld, you need a larger-aperture lens, possibly with image stabilization, and that will be anywhere from $800 to $1600. It gets very expensive.Now
planckscnstNov 9, 2006
I must say; a disadvantage to buying a DSLR is the lenses. Let me explain.When you buy a DSLR, you buy just the body, or the body and a kit lens. I highly recommend the body only, as it is usually about $100 less, and the lens, frankly is a piece of crap. Then the lenses... there are prime lenses and zoom lenses. Prime lenses have the advantage of being cheaper for the same optical quality. Zoom lenses have the advantage of being versatile. If you want a decent prime lens (meaning suitable optics and aperture range), it will cost $50 to $300, for one lens - one focal length. If you want a decent zoom lens, it is anywhere from $200 to $500 on the low-end. If you are shooting at night or handheld, you need a larger-aperture lens, possibly with image stabilization, and that will be anywhere from $800 to $1600. It gets very expensive.Now, you can buy a Panasonic Lumix FZ50 for under $600. It has a zoom lens equivalent of 35-420mm (this is a huge range) with an aperture of f2.8-3.7 (pretty nice). Also, the camera has full manual controls, just like a DSLR. It has a mechanical zoom ring on the lens barrel, and a pseudo-mechanical focusing ring, which feels just like a DSLR. You get all the creative control over your shot that you would with a DSLR (with very few exceptions). It also has a hot shoe, so you can use professional lighting equipment.So, all that to say, unless you are actually making money from your photography or you have lots of money to spend on a hobby, go with an all-in-one/mega-zoom type.
oohkumarNov 16, 2006
I love my point and shoot. Best camera I've ever had, takes amazing pictures compared to the expensive but completely bewildering SLRs that I've had in the past. I'm actually interested in photography now.
optimus_maximusNov 19, 2006
oops, dead link from above:<a class="user" href="http://www.gavinphotography.com/">http://www.gavinphotography.com/</a>
mdubnoffJun 5, 2008
I dont see how anyone can say that purchasing as DSLR is a waste of money. The prices of the entry level DSLR's have come down so much that they are now a great value compared to how point and shoots perform <a class="user" href="http://www.dubnoffphoto.com">http://www.dubnoffphoto.com</a> I have an article on my site that talks about this.