"Your money is better spent on an SLR". Is it?

http://digitalcameraguide.blogspot.com/ says:

"If you want a top-of-the-line camera with TONS of features, awesome
lenses, amazing resolution, super-sharp sensors, and no compromises made,
AND if you don't want to learn how to use an SLR... then one of these
super-expensive cameras is for you. But your money WOULD be better spent
on an SLR, which is why the Canon Digital Rebel did sneak into this
guide."


I guess you have to read the whole Web page (or at least the introduction)
to put this quote in its proper context, and indeed the whole page looks
interesting and well written (although I've only skipped through it
myself).

I must confess that I don't agree with the statement, though. Whilst SLRs
do have capabilities that are different to non-SLRs, I don't think that
choosing a lighter, more compact camera that doesn't require an expensive
bag-full of lenses and accessories to make it work to its fullest extent,
is a worse way to spend your money. I would suspect that it takes just as
much effort to learn how to use a top-range non-SLR as it would to learn
how to use an SLR - after all many of the items you need to learn are the
same.

Just my opinion, of course! Thanks, BNM, for the write-up.

Cheers,
David

"David J Taylor" wrote in
:

I must confess that I don't agree with the statement, though. Whilst
SLRs do have capabilities that are different to non-SLRs, I don't
think that choosing a lighter, more compact camera that doesn't
require an expensive


I think he's coming from the "awesome lenses, amazing resolution, and
super-sharp sensors" perspective. He didn't mention lighter and more
compact as desirable traits.

Bob

"David J Taylor" wrote in
:

I must confess that I don't agree with the statement, though. Whilst
SLRs do have capabilities that are different to non-SLRs, I don't
think that choosing a lighter, more compact camera that doesn't
require an expensive


I think he's coming from the "awesome lenses, amazing resolution, and
super-sharp sensors" perspective. He didn't mention lighter and more
compact as desirable traits.

Bob

"David J Taylor" wrote in
:

http://digitalcameraguide.blogspot.com/ says:

I would never taken anything written on blogspot.com too seriously.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"David J Taylor" wrote in
:

http://digitalcameraguide.blogspot.com/ says:

I would never taken anything written on blogspot.com too seriously.

--
http://www.neopets.com/refer.phtml?username=moosespet

"David J Taylor" writes:

I must confess that I don't agree with the statement, though.

It's not universal that's for sure.

For the money, for doing available light and snapshot work, you can do
a lot better with a P/S 4Mp digicam that comes with a nice f/2.0 lens
(my Canon G2 comes to mind) than you can with my digital Rebel and
it's kit lens which is several stops slower, and hence not as well
tuned to available light photography. There are scenes my G2 shoots
much better than my Rebel.

To get an f/2.0 zoom on my Rebel would cost me a ****load while, it's
already there on my G2 that I paid $300 or so for.

The big selling points of an SLR are the optical viewfinder and the
focusing assurances you get from that, a marked reduction in shutter
lag, interchangeable lenses (though this adds cost to take advantage
of), and (in comparison to many P/S's that lack hotshoes, the ability
to step up to a real flash unit.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

"David J Taylor" writes:

I must confess that I don't agree with the statement, though.

It's not universal that's for sure.

For the money, for doing available light and snapshot work, you can do
a lot better with a P/S 4Mp digicam that comes with a nice f/2.0 lens
(my Canon G2 comes to mind) than you can with my digital Rebel and
it's kit lens which is several stops slower, and hence not as well
tuned to available light photography. There are scenes my G2 shoots
much better than my Rebel.

To get an f/2.0 zoom on my Rebel would cost me a ****load while, it's
already there on my G2 that I paid $300 or so for.

The big selling points of an SLR are the optical viewfinder and the
focusing assurances you get from that, a marked reduction in shutter
lag, interchangeable lenses (though this adds cost to take advantage
of), and (in comparison to many P/S's that lack hotshoes, the ability
to step up to a real flash unit.

Best Regards,
--
Todd H.
http://www.toddh.net/

I agree with David and am sure a lot of readers are struggling with this
issue.

As a veteran of a bunch of film SLR's over the years I did come to
appreciate their flexibility, focusing capabilities, etc. But having
switched over to digital my basic thinking has started to change because
of the inherent flexibility that CAN be available in very small
packages. When I put a wide-angle teleconverter on my Oly 5060 I am
dipping down around 18mm thanks to a lens I can put in my shirt pocket.
Ditto for the reach of a small Oly teleconverter that gives me superb
reach of another kind. In a pinch I can take this 'system' out for a
day in a very small bag or most sports jackets. In the old camera case
that I used to haul around my SRL and lenses I can put this system, an
external flash, a backup Oly 560, a subnote computer, an MP3 player, an
auxiliary battery for my computer and a bunch of batteries and chargers
for the cameras. All this photography for less than the price of a
digital SLR body, even if I throw in a good imaging program. And,
having all this in one relatively small space makes it a lot easier if
one is a heavy traveler, as am I, and one wants to concentrate on
subjects, rather than equipment. Of course, I'll probably bite the
bullet eventually (I do have some wonderful lenses left over from SLR
days...hmmm), but it probably won't be for sheer practicality or any
respect for my aching back. I took a couple of foreign trips this year
and because of all the hoofing around just took my little 560. When I
got home I compared results with earlier trips with SLRs. I think the
digicam won going away....I took more risks, more candids, and if I
didn't have quite the wide angle capability I wanted a little editing at
home sure made it look that way. Oh, and many of the photos were
beautiful and would print up to and above 8x10.

David J Taylor wrote:
http://digitalcameraguide.blogspot.com/ says:

"If you want a top-of-the-line camera with TONS of features, awesome
lenses, amazing resolution, super-sharp sensors, and no compromises made,
AND if you don't want to learn how to use an SLR... then one of these
super-expensive cameras is for you. But your money WOULD be better spent
on an SLR, which is why the Canon Digital Rebel did sneak into this
guide."


I guess you have to read the whole Web page (or at least the introduction)
to put this quote in its proper context, and indeed the whole page looks
interesting and well written (although I've only skipped through it
myself).

I must confess that I don't agree with the statement, though. Whilst SLRs
do have capabilities that are different to non-SLRs, I don't think that
choosing a lighter, more compact camera that doesn't require an expensive
bag-full of lenses and accessories to make it work to its fullest extent,
is a worse way to spend your money. I would suspect that it takes just as
much effort to learn how to use a top-range non-SLR as it would to learn
how to use an SLR - after all many of the items you need to learn are the
same.

Just my opinion, of course! Thanks, BNM, for the write-up.

Cheers,
David

I agree with David and am sure a lot of readers are struggling with this
issue.

As a veteran of a bunch of film SLR's over the years I did come to
appreciate their flexibility, focusing capabilities, etc. But having
switched over to digital my basic thinking has started to change because
of the inherent flexibility that CAN be available in very small
packages. When I put a wide-angle teleconverter on my Oly 5060 I am
dipping down around 18mm thanks to a lens I can put in my shirt pocket.
Ditto for the reach of a small Oly teleconverter that gives me superb
reach of another kind. In a pinch I can take this 'system' out for a
day in a very small bag or most sports jackets. In the old camera case
that I used to haul around my SRL and lenses I can put this system, an
external flash, a backup Oly 560, a subnote computer, an MP3 player, an
auxiliary battery for my computer and a bunch of batteries and chargers
for the cameras. All this photography for less than the price of a
digital SLR body, even if I throw in a good imaging program. And,
having all this in one relatively small space makes it a lot easier if
one is a heavy traveler, as am I, and one wants to concentrate on
subjects, rather than equipment. Of course, I'll probably bite the
bullet eventually (I do have some wonderful lenses left over from SLR
days...hmmm), but it probably won't be for sheer practicality or any
respect for my aching back. I took a couple of foreign trips this year
and because of all the hoofing around just took my little 560. When I
got home I compared results with earlier trips with SLRs. I think the
digicam won going away....I took more risks, more candids, and if I
didn't have quite the wide angle capability I wanted a little editing at
home sure made it look that way. Oh, and many of the photos were
beautiful and would print up to and above 8x10.

David J Taylor wrote:
http://digitalcameraguide.blogspot.com/ says:

"If you want a top-of-the-line camera with TONS of features, awesome
lenses, amazing resolution, super-sharp sensors, and no compromises made,
AND if you don't want to learn how to use an SLR... then one of these
super-expensive cameras is for you. But your money WOULD be better spent
on an SLR, which is why the Canon Digital Rebel did sneak into this
guide."


I guess you have to read the whole Web page (or at least the introduction)
to put this quote in its proper context, and indeed the whole page looks
interesting and well written (although I've only skipped through it
myself).

I must confess that I don't agree with the statement, though. Whilst SLRs
do have capabilities that are different to non-SLRs, I don't think that
choosing a lighter, more compact camera that doesn't require an expensive
bag-full of lenses and accessories to make it work to its fullest extent,
is a worse way to spend your money. I would suspect that it takes just as
much effort to learn how to use a top-range non-SLR as it would to learn
how to use an SLR - after all many of the items you need to learn are the
same.

Just my opinion, of course! Thanks, BNM, for the write-up.

Cheers,
David

"Ron" wrote in message
...
I think this is a very good perspective and argument. Clearly, we all have
learning curve issues -- and priorities that drive purchasing decisions .

Interestingly, though I had very long lenses for my film SLR, etc. I found
myself only needing them on very rare occasions for the kind of
photography I do and want to have control over. And, I found that for
many places in life I wanted to go my trusty VW camper/van was a heck of a
lot more sensible, cost effective and efficient than the BMW's that
resided elsewhere in the family. Again, the important thing is to start
with the photography you do, the features that help you accomplish your
goals, and make measured decisions. I would never use an ad hominem
argument against DSLR's (and will probably own one), but I would urge that
many folks who are ready to plunk down big bucks (and they are very
expensive) not get taken in by too much of the hype out there.

What I said was not directly against your statement but to counter a handful
of people, like David, persistently saying they are sold by the digicams and
don't look back on a full SLR system. It would be fine if he keeps that for
himself. I have no doubt a digicam fits his need 99% of the time and
majority of the people too. It is likely that a digicam delivers a much high
quality pictures than his old SLR system if he used crappy lenses. As far as
hype of DSLR, it isn't. Being low noise and fast are enough reasons to go
DSLR if one is serious about photography. That said it has no substitute to
a person's artistic skill. They are really two very different animals.