File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Dear /p/

I've been lurking here for a number of months and for a long time I even convinced myself that I should really get a DSLR. I was shopping and shopping, looking at Black Friday deals, trying to get the best price for a reasonable camera, and then it hit me.

I don't need a DSLR. Hell, I don't even want a DSLR.

I don't think I'm the only one who thinks that photography is supposed to tell a story. It's supposed to capture a moment in history, be it epic or humble. A DSLR would give me greater range in conveying that moment, but when it comes right down to it a big camera like that would only hold me down. No, I think my medium is in the form of point and shoot. Taking pictures of family, friends, amazing places and things, everything around us is what's important, not necessarily having the best camera and the most lenses.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is that, unlike a lot of you guys, I don't want to get involved in photography at this detailed level. I commend you guys for doing a generally good job, but it's just not for me. Give me my crappy point-and-shoot any day, because that's the one that's always out, always taking in moments, always recording little steps of life.

Discuss.
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeNoritsu KokiCamera ModelQSSImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width3087Image Height2048
>> Anonymous
well see thats the thing.

I, on the other hand prefer the size of the slr's simply as they fit better in my hand and have better balance.
not only that, they allow me to capture pictures you/i may not have been able to with a p&s due to something like slow AF, poor flash system, silly amounts of noise limiting near dark shots.

yes your right in that its a personal choice.

i simply couldnt live without what a d-slr offers me. ive become accustomed to its workings, its speed and its sheer controllabilty and the end result that i can attain through both better lens options giving me the exact DOF, perspective and focal length i need.
another factor is simply looking professional part of the time. if i turn up to a concert with my slr, prime lenses and flash i most certainly look more setup for the person im taking photos for. its like a business man turning up in a suit, its just what looks professional and is accepted.
>> Anonymous
yeah, I have a rebel xt and a few lenses.

At the beginning of the day I pop on a good light lens for the daylight hours.

Usually come home at some point when it's getting darker out. Pop on a light lens that's better for night time shooting.

My heavy zoom lens I take with me if I'm going to an event or something big. Pretty much always know ahead of time when those things are happening anyways.

I bought all my lenses used, and very cheap. Same with my camera body.

And I'm in no way a professional. Just an illustration student.

Soo... what was your point about the point and shoot again?
>> Anonymous
>>91316
How cheap? most decent point and shoots are under 300 dollars, probably around 150-200 on Black friday. the cheapest i've seen for any dslr cameras is like 500-600.
>> Anonymous
eventually you'll start to get aggravated that, no matter what you do with your p&s, your images never look quite how you remember the scene.

thats usually where SLRs can help, of course its just a toll and no matter how expensive it is it's not going to record the moment without user knowledge.

much like the difference between a webcam, a Hollywood movie camera and being there yourself are all different, the webcam will be hard pressed to tell the story.
>> Anonymous
>>91317

a used rebel xt? Well I bought mine for around 400 dollars.

That being said, that was awhile ago.

You can currently buy it new on amazon for 419 dollars (body only).

I can only imagine how cheap you can get it used nowadays.

Still a great dslr for the money too.
>> Anonymous
or if you get real stuck. get the original D rebel, i got one awhile back and its a great starter slr and after that i stepped up to a 30D which is awesome as. then i guess the next step is the 5D... money though!
>> Anonymous
>>91319
I agree that there's a trade-off, but chances are that if I go to San Francisco with some friends, I'm not going to carry a nice expensive camera with me, I'll be taking a small, high-quality point and shoot. It's not just about safety from getting mugged or anything, it's about taking the big thing out and taking a picture. It's downright obtrusive in a common-day situation.

Don't get me wrong, a point and shoot has no place with scenery or high quality artistic shots unless you're trying to utilize some feature that( somehow) managed to stay unique to your point and shoot.

I enjoy taking pictures like the one I uploaded, but I'm not interested in much more than messing around with light, and realistically I either have to save for a ridiculous amount of time, or sell the photos, and neither of those options are terribly likely.
>> Anonymous
>>91323

seriously. the budget dslrs aren't all that impressive.

You bring one of those out with like, a 50mm on it or some small zoom and no one is really going to be all that impressed.

rebel xt + 50mm 1.8(both new) from amazon would be around 500 dollars. A little less perhaps.
>> Anonymous
by the way, you keep saying high quality point and shoot.

which one exactly?

some are close enough to a dslr that they'll end up being ok. Others... others are just terrible.
>> Anonymous
Get a rangefinder.
>> Anonymous
itt, a big waste of my life.
>> Anonymous
Get an Olympus XA.
>> Anonymous
I use a point-and-shoot too, for the quiet shutter. Size isn't really an issue; people are intimidated by a small camera just as much as a big one. Technique is what makes the photographer blend in, not equipment size. Shutter noise is a factor, though, because people can get used to an object sitting around quite easily, but a loud clack every so often still stands out.

The ideal for people like us would be a rangefinder, like someone said, but the digital ones are expensive and the film ones are, well, film. (Film's good, but it gets expensive and being able to process each image individually instead of developing a whole roll is incredible.)

Plus, full coverage TTL viewing through an EVF is one thing and rangefinder composing is another. Both have their advantages.

I am getting a DSLR soon, though, for the low light ability. Point and shoots just can't handle any outdoor shots at night and have an unspeakably hard time with low-lit indoor shots at night. In good light, a bridge point and shoot like what I use will effectively match a DSLR, but when it gets dark a larger sensor is needed. Period. Your OP pic is a perfect example.
>> Anonymous
OP, I have a PnS, and I think the complete opposite. I've outgrown it. I want my camera to do more, not just capture what it sees, but to capture what I want to say in a picture. To change the aperture and set it to keep the shutter open for a long time are things I want to do but can't with my camera. If you just want to capture family moments, then you aren't doing art, youre just recording things for the future. I personally want to do art with my camera, and therefore need to expand.
>> Anonymous
You can convey all the story you want with a point and click.

Only get a DSLR when you're tired of your pics looking like shit all the time.
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
Point and shoots can be awesome sometimes. Especially the little disaposable cameras by Kodak. Those things are absolutely amazing sometimes. So are polaroids.

As for Digitals, I have way too much trouble with quality, grain resolution and color in my mom's digital P&S for me to even CONSIDER using it. P&S's are easy, they're great, but they can only do so much and will end up limiting in the future. My mom went to Yosemite with her little digital, she took a photo of a beautiful fall scene with orange trees and blue sky, then i got it on her computer, looked at it and it looked like crap.

I DO, however, agree with you that having the best technology isn't going to necessarily produce the best pictures. Nor is the fanciest lens, the newest filters or whatever.

That said, i carry my N80 nearly EVERYWHERE with me. With at least 3 or 4 rolls of film to spare and it's been absolutely awesome. I guess it's because that's what i'm used to using. Except I never really go out to capture family, friend or life moments. There are too many other digital cameras around to worry about that. I go and sniff cool places out then capture them- or cool people. For me it's more about finding those old, rusted, forgotten things that people discarded long ago, or portraying what everyone else takes for granted and rushes by on their way to the next meeting.

JMHO
>> Liska !!LIVFOETqL8j
>>91372

also- if you have a scanner and a printer at home, film gets a whole heck of a lot cheaper. Just get the roll developed for the 4 or 5 bucks without the printing, then take it home and have at it. Most of films expenses come from printing the pictures, not developing the film.
>> Anonymous
I think the overall lesson you need to learn is that expensive equipment does not make a good quality image, but it makes good image quality.
>> Anonymous
I've found the biggest limiting factor on my Canon S2 IS is the lack of a hotshoe or PC link for an external flash. True I can use a slave flash but it still relies on the popup flash to do so which for me defeats the object. It's the only reason I desire a DSLR in fact.
>> Anonymous
>>91430
Buy a good one and you'll never look back.