A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old December 8th 04, 06:50 PM
David J Taylor
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default "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


  #2  
Old December 8th 04, 07:05 PM
bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #3  
Old December 8th 04, 07:05 PM
bob
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
  #4  
Old December 8th 04, 10:17 PM
Todd H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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/
  #9  
Old December 8th 04, 10:17 PM
Todd H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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/
  #10  
Old December 8th 04, 09:58 PM
Jon Pike
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"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
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
photograph books and money :) n Digital Photography 6 November 20th 04 03:16 PM
Real Money Real Fast Greg 35mm Photo Equipment 0 November 5th 04 02:06 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:28 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.