Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 16, 2007.

  1. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    Bill Guest

    Yes, it works well at the speeds that YOU need
    Again, YOU don't need anything that wide, but many others do.
    Point for you - your camera does what YOU want it to, and it is very
    portable. However, there are a variety of uses that your camera won't
    cover as well as others.

    I currently own a dslr and several point and shoot cameras. Since I
    bought the dslr about a year and a half ago, I rarely use a point and
    shoot. 90 percent of my shooting is done with one lens - 28-135 IS
    (45-216mm equivalent). I occasionally use a longer or shorter lens,
    but not that often.

    I like to shoot in low light situations without a flash, so a dslr was
    the only choice. I did a lot of research, tried several "low light"
    point and shoot cameras and tried really hard to convince myself that
    they were good enough. I finally bit the bullet and spent the money
    for a dslr because I knew I wouldn't be happy with the compromise. The
    factors that influenced my decision may not be relevant to other
    photographers.

    True, some point and shoot cameras will do as well as a dslr under
    many if not most conditions, and will be all that most people will
    need. I often recommend point and shoots to people when they will
    cover all of the stated needs, as well as recommending brands of dslr
    than the one I own.

    The bottom line is that there are many different types of uses for
    cameras and to state that the camera that I own does everything that I
    want it to and is the only one to own is being narrow minded.

    Bill
     
    Bill, Nov 18, 2007
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    ray Guest

    Exactly the point. I'm not disputing at all that a DSLR may be a superior
    answer for some problems. Saying that it's 'better' so I need to get one
    is asinine.
    Exactly - if they need that and they don't need portability, then a DSLR
    might be a better answer for them.
    I did not mean to imply it is the only one to own. I was meerly point out
    that it is the best solution for me at the current time. Different users
    have different needs. Each must assess his/her requirements against the
    available products. Stating that there are ten overwhelming reasons why
    everyone should own a DSLR is ridiculous. For me it's not a good solution
    for the vast majority of my shooting.

    IMHO a DSLR is generally a lot of overkill for most casual photographers
    who will never learn to use it effectively. There are obviously cases
    where a DSLR is the best solution and there are just as obviously cases
    for which it is not. Most of the point mentioned are valid IF they are
    concerns of the user - if not, then they really don't matter. Besides
    which, at least one was false.
     
    ray, Nov 18, 2007
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    allr1 Guest

    (John Bean) wrote:

    " Plus:

    11. It fits in your pocket

    Oops... perhaps that should be added to the 'Ten reasons to choose a
    Point and Shoot over a Digital SLR' thread that hasn't yet appeared.

    What a pointless load of nonsense.
    -- John Bean

    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

    There is a point.

    A sad need to justify the expense and hassle
    of a DSLR.

    The need to offset an inferiority complex is
    probably another one as well.
     
    allr1, Nov 18, 2007
    #23
  4. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    TaylorFense Guest

    That is precisely the problem when unskilled and zero-experience usenet trolls
    post BS like this. People like you end up thinking that it's "useful
    information". You're being taken for a fool and don't even realize it. Far be it
    from me to help you out of that trap, I'm sure you do it often enough all on
    your own no matter how many have tried to show you the error of your ways.
     
    TaylorFense, Nov 19, 2007
    #24
  5. The all have an optical viewfinder. Read more closely. He said, "100% optical
    viewfinder."

    Every optical viewfinder is only a rough approximation of what will actually
    appear on the final photo. 95%, 97%, 103%, some much worse than that. Let's add
    in that the D-SLR light-path cannot account for proper exposure readings if you
    change your fixed-focal length lens to another focal-length or use a zoom lens.
    The orientation of the sensors in the light path can't compensate for the
    widening or narrowing light-cone as the focal-length of the lens is changed.
    This problem has existed in all SLRs and persists to this day in all D-SLRs.
    Let's add in, any ambient light that enters through the back of that optical
    viewfinder will also upset the exposure reading. Lets add in, if you stop down
    your lens for a DOF preview that the image becomes so dim, even in sunlight,
    that it's now an unusable option.

    Do you want me to list more drawbacks to an optical viewfinder? I can. I have
    pages full of reasons why an optical viewfinder is nothing but a detriment to
    photography once you have learned of the benefits of an electronic viewfinder.
    "You don't know what you miss 'til it's gone" has never been truer than when I
    moved from optical viewfinders to EVFs and LCDs. I now miss all their inherent
    drawbacks and limitations that I didn't even know they had during all the years
    that I was using them.
     
    GilesJefferson, Nov 19, 2007
    #25
  6. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    hacky-sack Guest

    It is interesting to note that the difference between 95% and 100% is the
    difference in area of seeing a 6 megapixel sensor or an 8 megapixel sensor,
    exactly. That's how much your optical-viewfinder's view may not be showing you
    what you paid for, nor even allowing you to use it to its fullest advantage.

    Do try to enjoy your last-century optical viewfinder after "seeing the light".
     
    hacky-sack, Nov 19, 2007
    #26
  7. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    TaylorFense Guest

    Someone that can easily spot misinformation and resident-trolls that perpetuate
    their stupidity in people as ignorant as you. You're just one of their many
    methods that they use. Oh? You didn't know that you're being used?

    Now, rather than be dragged even further into this off-topic trolls' game, as
    you have been so easily lead by that ring they put in your nose, no further
    comment from me is needed to expose you for what you truly are. This clearly
    shows it all.
     
    TaylorFense, Nov 19, 2007
    #27
  8. The only kind of person that would even remotely consider any of that as
    bullshit is someone who doesn't know the first thing about photography nor their
    cameras.

    How nice of you to reveal the expanse of your ignorance so succinctly and
    completely.

    Go away ignorant troll.
     
    GilesJefferson, Nov 19, 2007
    #28
  9. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    Alan Hoyle Guest

    Wider even: Olympus makes a rectilinear 7-14mm f4 (14-28mm equiv to 35mm) for 4/3
    system.

    -alan
     
    Alan Hoyle, Nov 20, 2007
    #29
  10. True, but it's nearly $1600. Olympus should bring out a competitor to
    lenses such as the Canon 10-22 EF-s, for around $600, i.e. a 8-18mm. I
    don't think many Olympus D-SLR buyers are going to spend $1600 to get
    wide-angle capability. Maybe they already have brought something out.
     
    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 20, 2007
    #30
  11. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    Alan Hoyle Guest

    Not yet, but according to the Olympus Lens Roadmap, they plan what
    appears to be something around a 8-16 in the "Standard" range for '08.

    http://www.olympus-esystem.com/dea/products/lens/pdf/zuiko_lens_eng.pdf

    For reference, the most expensive lens currently in the "Standard"
    lineup is around $400.

    -alan
     
    Alan Hoyle, Nov 20, 2007
    #31
  12. It better be good. The Canon EF-s 10-22 has L quality optics (though
    build quality is more like their standard lenses).
     
    SMS 斯蒂文• å¤, Nov 20, 2007
    #32
  13. SMS 斯蒂文• å¤

    dj_nme Guest

    It would surprise me if at least some 4/3 DSLR owners bought a Peleng
    8mm lens and a M42-4/3 adapter.
    A cheap 16mm (35mm equiv) fisheye for the Olympus DSLR users.
     
    dj_nme, Nov 21, 2007
    #33
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.