Prosumer vs. DLSR thoughts

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Mike, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. Mike

    Mike Guest

    To date, I have really not been very impressed with the price/performance of
    DSLRs.
    I tend to like the "prosumer" cameras, especially becuase of integral
    lenses - my Minolta A1 lens goes and far and wide (the latter is more
    important to me) than I've ever needed it to, and wedding the lens and
    camera/sensor design seems to have advantages, especially with respect to
    size/weight. Until recently buying a "professional" DSLR probably meant
    having no built-in flash (great for "emergencies", if nothing else) and also
    meant that not all of the light coming though the lens actually fell on the
    sensor, while the consumer cams make use of all their leight -- how
    riduculous and what a waste of expensive glass! Seems to me you'd have to be
    crazy to buy one of those unless you had a significant investmet in lenses
    you couldn't do without, or you needed super-fast shot speeds. I'm glad to
    see that these things are changing. (Who says a "professional" would't want
    the convenience of a built-in flash - if even to ratio in to a more complex
    setup.)

    It seems to me a 20D with the wider IS lens stuck on there for life (well,
    most of the time...) is just what the doctor ordered for me. (The A1/A2 also
    has image stabilizaiton.) It still is bit bigger to carry around, but that's
    life. I was pretty convinced to make this purchase when I noticed at a
    wedding that half of my shots were not taken with the viewfinder, but using
    the display, with the camera held above my head or down at waist-level, as
    I've also done with previous digicams. (This not only allows for dramatic
    shots, but ones you just can't get otherwise. All my great kids shots were
    taken while sitting down stealthely using the angled display.) Even for
    normal-height shots, this is a welcome repreive from sticking my nose in the
    camera. Realizing that I'm going to pay $2500 and loose a major feature is a
    real let-down. Does anyone else miss this? (I shot film SLRs for years,
    but never had waist-level finder or a larger format display back - I guess
    you don't miss it until you have it.)

    Why can't I simply press a button on the 20D that will lock-up the mirror
    and open the shutter letting me use the display as a viewfinder? Sure it'll
    take longer when I press the shutter-release to reset them, expose the shot,
    and lock them open again (actually, the mirror could stay where it is), but
    I'd be willing to make that tradeoff when I wanted to.

    As for the A1, I'm really happy with it, although it occasionally misses a
    no-brainer focusing assignment, something they've apparently improved in the
    A2.

    thanks,
    mike
    Mike, Nov 12, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike

    YAG-ART Guest

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:42:01 GMT, "Mike" <> wrote:

    >To date, I have really not been very impressed with the price/performance of
    >DSLRs.


    Really? the performance of a good DSLR blows any P&S camera out of
    the water.
    YAG-ART, Nov 12, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Mike

    Mike Guest

    Well, I said price/perf, not just perf. E.g., (2 X "goodness" / 10 X price)
    would not be good trade-off for most users. (If you don't care about the
    denominator, that's whole different story.) Of course, goodness is hard to
    measure, but still I beleive this to be true.
    No need to dimishinsh P&S's - a full-blwn DSLR has a Program mode (well most
    do), and many "P&S" are as advanced and flexible if not more so then their
    big-brothers in many respects. (Of course, they're probably slower in
    focusing, buffering, and everything else.)
    I still stand (from my own, limited, experience) that DSLR's for
    non-specialized use are not worth their price and heft.
    I'm not sure it's fair to call the current crop of 8MP cameras from Canon,
    Minolta, Sony, etc., point-and-shoot just just because they may not have
    removable lenses.
    Then again, maybe point-and-shoot is preferrable to
    get-camera-out-of-big-bag-and-find-a-lens-and-twiddle-some-stuff-and-point-and-shoot
    :)
    (Just razzing ya...)

    "YAG-ART" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:42:01 GMT, "Mike" <> wrote:
    >
    >>To date, I have really not been very impressed with the price/performance
    >>of
    >>DSLRs.

    >
    > Really? the performance of a good DSLR blows any P&S camera out of
    > the water.
    Mike, Nov 12, 2004
    #3
  4. Mike

    Mike Guest

    Well, devil-advocating aside, your right-on with all your points.
    The whole post originated becuase I'm probably getting the 20D as well.
    I was just bitching that I'll lose the really useful (to me anyway) feature
    of being able to compose via the display when I need to - seeing it seems
    technically possible with an SLR if you beam split or lock up the mirror.
    I guess one size never fits all, and I'll need a 20D and a small P&S...

    "Charlie Self" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Mike writes:
    >
    >>Well, I said price/perf, not just perf. E.g., (2 X "goodness" / 10 X
    >>price)
    >>would not be good trade-off for most users. (If you don't care about the
    >>denominator, that's whole different story.) Of course, goodness is hard to
    >>measure, but still I beleive this to be true.

    >
    > Goodness may be hard to define, but on every realistic basis when results
    > are
    > tabulated, P&S loses because goodness is easy to measure once defined.
    > I've
    > lost a good many shots of higher speed action because of fuzzy focusing,
    > missed
    > focusing in manual because who the HELL can tell what is in focus or not
    > with
    > an EVF, lost all sorts of low light shots. My DSLR gives me faster,
    > cleaner
    > results with fewer false focuses and fewer lost shots because of a
    > scrambled
    > egg EVF (none, of course, because the viewfinder is purely optical).
    >
    > For your non-specialized use, a DSLR may be overkill and overspending. For
    > me,
    > it was just overspending, but something I am happy I overspent on. And
    > that's
    > not to particularly knock the P&S and the prosumer cameras I had before
    > it.
    >
    > I don't think anyone is calling that latest 8 MP point and shoot cameras,
    > but I
    > do know at least one person who is changing from a prosumer 8 MP to a
    > digital,
    > probably a 20D, shortly.
    >
    > Do you know of anyone going the other direction?
    >
    > Charlie Self
    > "It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of
    > common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever
    > ineligible for public office." H. L. Mencken
    Mike, Nov 12, 2004
    #4
  5. Mike

    YAG-ART Guest

    Its a lot more tha 2x "goodness" more like 1000x "goodness" at 10x
    price

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:24:17 GMT, "Mike" <> wrote:

    >Well, I said price/perf, not just perf. E.g., (2 X "goodness" / 10 X price)
    >would not be good trade-off for most users. (If you don't care about the
    >denominator, that's whole different story.) Of course, goodness is hard to
    >measure, but still I beleive this to be true.
    >No need to dimishinsh P&S's - a full-blwn DSLR has a Program mode (well most
    >do), and many "P&S" are as advanced and flexible if not more so then their
    >big-brothers in many respects. (Of course, they're probably slower in
    >focusing, buffering, and everything else.)
    >I still stand (from my own, limited, experience) that DSLR's for
    >non-specialized use are not worth their price and heft.
    >I'm not sure it's fair to call the current crop of 8MP cameras from Canon,
    >Minolta, Sony, etc., point-and-shoot just just because they may not have
    >removable lenses.
    >Then again, maybe point-and-shoot is preferrable to
    >get-camera-out-of-big-bag-and-find-a-lens-and-twiddle-some-stuff-and-point-and-shoot
    >:)
    >(Just razzing ya...)
    >
    >"YAG-ART" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 17:42:01 GMT, "Mike" <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>To date, I have really not been very impressed with the price/performance
    >>>of
    >>>DSLRs.

    >>
    >> Really? the performance of a good DSLR blows any P&S camera out of
    >> the water.

    >
    YAG-ART, Nov 12, 2004
    #5
  6. Mike

    YAG-ART Guest

    Why would you want to compose via the LCD anyway?

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 19:58:27 GMT, "Mike" <> wrote:

    >Well, devil-advocating aside, your right-on with all your points.
    >The whole post originated becuase I'm probably getting the 20D as well.
    >I was just bitching that I'll lose the really useful (to me anyway) feature
    >of being able to compose via the display when I need to - seeing it seems
    >technically possible with an SLR if you beam split or lock up the mirror.
    >I guess one size never fits all, and I'll need a 20D and a small P&S...
    >
    >"Charlie Self" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Mike writes:
    >>
    >>>Well, I said price/perf, not just perf. E.g., (2 X "goodness" / 10 X
    >>>price)
    >>>would not be good trade-off for most users. (If you don't care about the
    >>>denominator, that's whole different story.) Of course, goodness is hard to
    >>>measure, but still I beleive this to be true.

    >>
    >> Goodness may be hard to define, but on every realistic basis when results
    >> are
    >> tabulated, P&S loses because goodness is easy to measure once defined.
    >> I've
    >> lost a good many shots of higher speed action because of fuzzy focusing,
    >> missed
    >> focusing in manual because who the HELL can tell what is in focus or not
    >> with
    >> an EVF, lost all sorts of low light shots. My DSLR gives me faster,
    >> cleaner
    >> results with fewer false focuses and fewer lost shots because of a
    >> scrambled
    >> egg EVF (none, of course, because the viewfinder is purely optical).
    >>
    >> For your non-specialized use, a DSLR may be overkill and overspending. For
    >> me,
    >> it was just overspending, but something I am happy I overspent on. And
    >> that's
    >> not to particularly knock the P&S and the prosumer cameras I had before
    >> it.
    >>
    >> I don't think anyone is calling that latest 8 MP point and shoot cameras,
    >> but I
    >> do know at least one person who is changing from a prosumer 8 MP to a
    >> digital,
    >> probably a 20D, shortly.
    >>
    >> Do you know of anyone going the other direction?
    >>
    >> Charlie Self
    >> "It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of
    >> common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever
    >> ineligible for public office." H. L. Mencken

    >
    YAG-ART, Nov 12, 2004
    #6
  7. Mike

    YAG-ART Guest

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:49:30 +0100, Alfred Molon
    <> wrote:

    >In article <JB6ld.24573$V41.13854@attbi_s52>, Mike says...
    >
    >> Why can't I simply press a button on the 20D that will lock-up the mirror
    >> and open the shutter letting me use the display as a viewfinder? Sure it'll
    >> take longer when I press the shutter-release to reset them, expose the shot,
    >> and lock them open again (actually, the mirror could stay where it is), but
    >> I'd be willing to make that tradeoff when I wanted to.

    >
    >Agree 100%. Lack of live preview is the major reason for which I haven't
    >yet bought a DSLR. Another one is that I don't usually shoot at ISO
    >3200.


    Preview? What do you think you are seeing though the viewfinder?
    YAG-ART, Nov 12, 2004
    #7
  8. Mike

    Larry Guest

    In article <>,
    says...
    > Preview? What do you think you are seeing though the viewfinder?
    >

    The OP already pointed out that he cant hold the camera
    overhead and see the framing in the LCD, as he can with
    some P&S cameras.


    --
    Larry Lynch
    Mystic, Ct.
    Larry, Nov 12, 2004
    #8

  9. > Preview? What do you think you are seeing though the viewfinder?


    Folks want stuff to work the way they want it to work. I have gone around
    and around with this very issue with friends and family members about all
    kinds of products. Forget logic. Forget other points of view. Forget
    state of the art and economics. Forget engineering reality and safety and
    regulations. Forget the fact that the alternatives can be much better.
    Folks want stuff to work the way they want it to work. Now, completely
    tired out and bored by this, I simply suggest that they design and build
    their own commodities.
    Charles Schuler, Nov 12, 2004
    #9
  10. Mike

    bob Guest

    YAG-ART <> wrote in news:ua7ap01uq1rhvsl4c862763eefa906lbuu@
    4ax.com:

    > Why would you want to compose via the LCD anyway?
    >


    I use my LCD most of the time now. It presents framing more accurately, and
    it allows using the camera away from the eye, which I'm doing more and more
    now. Either to raise the camera higher (handy for architecture) or to lower
    it (good for people pictures).

    Bob
    bob, Nov 12, 2004
    #10
  11. Mike

    Matt Ion Guest

    Mike wrote:
    > To date, I have really not been very impressed with the price/performance of
    > DSLRs.
    > I tend to like the "prosumer" cameras, especially becuase of integral
    > lenses - my Minolta A1 lens goes and far and wide (the latter is more
    > important to me) than I've ever needed it to, and wedding the lens and
    > camera/sensor design seems to have advantages, especially with respect to
    > size/weight.


    Perhaps, although modern AF SLR lenses are also wedded to the
    "camera/sensor" design they're intended for, though a set of electrical
    contacts.

    > Until recently buying a "professional" DSLR probably meant
    > having no built-in flash (great for "emergencies", if nothing else)


    Define "recently"? Film SLRs have had this feature for years, usually
    more in the "prosumer" level models than the full-on pro units, and as
    many existing DSLRs are based on their film counterparts, it makes sense
    that most have had built-in mini-flash from the start.

    > and also
    > meant that not all of the light coming though the lens actually fell on the
    > sensor, while the consumer cams make use of all their leight -- how
    > riduculous and what a waste of expensive glass!


    That doesn't make sense... where does the other light go? Except for a
    very few models that use a beamsplitter, the pellicle mirror flips up
    out of the way and lets all the light through.

    > Seems to me you'd have to be
    > crazy to buy one of those unless you had a significant investmet in lenses
    > you couldn't do without, or you needed super-fast shot speeds.


    Or just simply a focal length that falls outside that of your attached
    lens... what do you do if one day you need something wider than yours
    goes, maybe a panoramic or fisheye lens... or something significantly
    longer to get that really distant shot? You can't just pop off the lens
    and snap in one more suited to the shot.

    BTW, does that Minolta let you zoom manually? Or do you just push the
    "zoom in" or "zoom out" button and sit there and wait while it dials
    itself to the proper length, letting the shot slip away? An SLR's zoom
    will adjust as quickly as you can twist your wrist.
    Matt Ion, Nov 12, 2004
    #11
  12. Mike

    Guest

    In message <>,
    YAG-ART <> wrote:

    >Why would you want to compose via the LCD anyway?


    So that you're not limited to the perspectives that are available when
    your eye is pinned to the viewfinder.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 12, 2004
    #12
  13. Mike

    YAG-ART Guest

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:29:46 GMT, bob <>
    wrote:

    >YAG-ART <> wrote in news:ua7ap01uq1rhvsl4c862763eefa906lbuu@
    >4ax.com:
    >
    >> Why would you want to compose via the LCD anyway?
    >>

    >
    >I use my LCD most of the time now. It presents framing more accurately, and
    >it allows using the camera away from the eye, which I'm doing more and more
    >now. Either to raise the camera higher (handy for architecture) or to lower
    >it (good for people pictures).


    Most DSLR viewfinders are close to 100% coverage. If you want to use
    teh camera out of position then buy an angeled viewfinder, the LCD is
    useless in bright light.
    YAG-ART, Nov 12, 2004
    #13
  14. Mike

    Guest

    In message <>,
    YAG-ART <> wrote:

    >Its a lot more tha 2x "goodness" more like 1000x "goodness" at 10x
    >price


    You're only counting the DSLR pluses.

    There are pluses to the prosumer cameras:

    1) Greater depth of field, when needed, even at telephoto.

    2) Easier to compose overhead, or near the ground.

    3) Silent operation; SLRs make a lot of noise that alarms living
    subjects.

    4) Lack of flipping mirror and moving curtains makes the cameras more
    suitable for hand-holding with longer shutter times.

    5) Optics on the better prosumers can only be matched by moderately
    expensive lenses on DSLRs.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 12, 2004
    #14
  15. Mike

    Guest

    In message <>,
    Alfred Molon <> wrote:

    >Another one is that I don't usually shoot at ISO
    >3200.


    If you had a clean one, though, you might.

    Sometimes higher ISOs are preferable to flash and lower ISOs, especially
    when the lighting is good in distribution, but low in quantity.
    Especially when you don't want the distraction of flash.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 12, 2004
    #15
  16. Mike

    Guest

    In message <>,
    YAG-ART <> wrote:

    >Preview? What do you think you are seeing though the viewfinder?


    Analog light focused on a matte translucent surface, interpretted by the
    brain and not as the camera sees it.
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 12, 2004
    #16
  17. Mike

    Aerticus Guest

    Hi JPS - did you major in Philosophy?

    I'd guess so.

    Now, the Preview.

    It is an visual assemblage of data as detected, processed, rendered and
    displayed by the digital circuitry of the camera

    Aerticus

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In message <>,
    > YAG-ART <> wrote:
    >
    >>Preview? What do you think you are seeing though the viewfinder?

    >
    > Analog light focused on a matte translucent surface, interpretted by the
    > brain and not as the camera sees it.
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    Aerticus, Nov 12, 2004
    #17
  18. Mike

    ZONED! Guest

    On Fri, 12 Nov 2004 21:43:05 GMT, wrote:

    >In message <>,
    >YAG-ART <> wrote:
    >
    >>Why would you want to compose via the LCD anyway?

    >
    >So that you're not limited to the perspectives that are available when
    >your eye is pinned to the viewfinder.
    >--
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

    I learned way early in my career that when using a viewfinder (not
    incl. anything with ground glass) held up to my eye, I can compose
    better and see any blinks if I have both eyes open.
    ZONED!, Nov 12, 2004
    #18
  19. Mike

    Guest

    In message <>,
    YAG-ART <> wrote:

    >Most DSLR viewfinders are close to 100% coverage. If you want to use
    >teh camera out of position then buy an angeled viewfinder, the LCD is
    >useless in bright light.


    Tell that to all the people who find them useful.

    When I started using a DSLR, and left my Sony F707 home, I often felt
    crippled by the fact that I could only take pictures from persectives
    where I could get my eye.

    Why can't you just say, "yes, there are advantages to live LCD preview"?
    Does it hurt to say that?
    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
    , Nov 12, 2004
    #19
  20. Mike

    Alan Meyer Guest

    "Mike" <> wrote in message news:JB6ld.24573$V41.13854@attbi_s52...
    > To date, I have really not been very impressed with the price/performance of
    > DSLRs.

    ....

    For my purposes, I prefer a P&S camera to a dSLR because of
    1) cost 2) size and 3) ease of use (especially for my wife.) For what
    I do the quality of a good P&S is perfectly acceptable and the
    extra quality available in a dSLR isn't important to me.

    However, if I were a professional photographer, I'd want the
    highest quality I could afford. If someone were paying me money
    to shoot a wedding, or cover a news event, or produce a magazine
    spread, or prepare an advertisement, it would be pretty unprofessional
    of me to give them anything other than the results they paid for.

    How would I explain that the clothes on the model aren't as sharp
    as they could be, or the DOF not as good because the lens on
    my camera isn't the best? How would I explain that I missed the
    news event because the sensitivity of my CCD only went to ISO 400?
    How would I explain that the bride's gown is a bit off color, or the
    edges of the image are unsharp, or there is light falloff in the corners
    or anything else that could have been okay but for the fact that I
    used a cheaper camera?

    So I think the higher priced, perfectionist oriented systems are
    well worth the money to people who need them, and there are
    people who need them.

    But I don't happen to be one of them. I'm not a professional
    photographer. Amateur equipment suits me very well.

    Alan
    Alan Meyer, Nov 12, 2004
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Lester Wareham
    Replies:
    27
    Views:
    661
    David Littlewood
    Apr 11, 2005
  2. John A. Stovall

    Very best lenses to use on a DLSR

    John A. Stovall, Sep 5, 2005, in forum: Digital SLR
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    210
    Stacey
    Sep 7, 2005
  3. Jim Hutchison
    Replies:
    24
    Views:
    1,017
    Sander Vesik
    Mar 20, 2005
  4. Lordy
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    870
    Lordy
    Mar 21, 2005
  5. David Springthorpe

    Which DLSR?

    David Springthorpe, Feb 14, 2007, in forum: Australia Photography
    Replies:
    8
    Views:
    241
Loading...

Share This Page