# What's the advantage of shooting with dslr equipment?



## Marsu42 (Dec 13, 2012)

This question has been bothering me for some time, esp. after procrastinating in forums while trying to decide what expensive gear is eventually "worth it" to me  ... _please not I'm not trolling and applaud everyone who puts his/her money into expensive gear to get shots just for the sake of remembering his/her kids or such_.

So here it goes: When looking at a lot of sample shots, I'm wondering "would have that gear been necessary", and the inverse question "What shots can *only* be taken with this kind of equipment" and why is an expensive dlsr necessary _at all_?.

My guess is that a good part of the dslr market segment is populated by 30-40+ year old males who made their first photographic good experiences with analog dslrs (me, too). They just stick to the good ol' ways while the companies know these customers are rather well off by now and will respond to "quality" and "feature" upselling, so they exploit these suckers pushing the next $3500 camera or $2000 lens to customers who feel secure when having expensive gear.

I think I'm not alone with this question, and the difficulty often results in pro photogs either recommending "just get a [enter latest model name here], you'll never regret it" or the exact opposite "no need for the latest equipment". So here is my list that a dslr with proper equipment is good at, i.e. as a pro shooter you are well advised to take it into consideration or you'll end up being asked "My grandma could have shot that with her p&s"...


 *lighting*: multiple off-camera flashes that are reliably triggered with fast x-sync or hss give a distinct "non-p&s" impression
*thin depth of field and/or strong bokeh*: can only be done with expensive lenses with large glass elements, and esp. fast primes
*shooting reliability*, i.e. more "keepers": while you can take good shots with nearly every equipment, it is seldom or never known how many shots or opportunities were lost. This concerns button layout, af precision, ...
*shooting moving objects*: pro dslrs are faster, at least at the moment. That concerns af speed/tracking, shutter release time and fps - the latter being better on mirrorless.
shooting in *extreme natural conditions*: pro dlsr equipment is sealed and sturdy, but for many usages throw-away equiment might make more sense and outodoor/underwater p&s will be there sooner or later.
shooting in *difficult lighing conditions*: the best sensors will always be the most expensive and eventually end up in dlsr equipment, meaning more dynamic range (well, with Nikon ) and higher iso capability for faster shutter speeds or low light shooting
*(super)tele shots*: longer focal lenght with decent quality is and will be a domain of expensive equipment
sharpness for *large prints*: while the next iPhone will probably have more mp than the current Canon crop cameras, attaching a $1000+ lens will still make a difference.
*composition*: a large ff viewfinder enables you to concentrate on the shot, at least as long as there are no dencent electronic viewfinders for p&s around

... added, though imho only slightly valid because a eos-m takes ef lenses, too:


*macro capability*: true 1:1 (or higher), not just 'close focusing' as 'macro' has come to mean in the P&S world
*tilt-shift lenses*: ability to correct for perspective distortion, and manipulate the DoF/plane of focus in a way other that a uniform linear distance from the camera

Let me know if anything else comes to your mind what's the sense of buying a dlsr system.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 13, 2012)

How about portability? As an outdoor enthusiast this is a huge concern. Even if someone gave me a 1D-? And a $10,000 prime lens or two, I can't take them with me half the time.... I have to settle for what I can carry. I tend to carry a crop body and several lenses, but a 400/5.6 is as big as I can go. Almost all of my friends go far lighter.

How about indestructability? As much as I hate p/s cameras, when canoeing I carry a waterproof p/s as a second camera, and those GoPro cameras are very popular with the whitewater crowd. And yes, these cameras work underwater....

I know your list is what the dslr is good at, but for balance we need the downside as well.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 13, 2012)

Don Haines said:


> I know your list is what the dslr is good at, but for balance we need the downside as well.



I didn't write the downsides because there are so much of them even if not considering the price - the list is purely meant to determine why dlsrs are necessary *at all* and what elevates them above p&s, i.e. which shots you can sell as a pro because your grandma cannot take them. I'll make this clearer in the op.


----------



## Dark Reality (Dec 13, 2012)

I think you pretty much answered your question. 

For me, low light without flash. 
using several flashes, or studio lights. 
Optical tele, not digital zoom like most.
Depth of field to isolate the subject.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 13, 2012)

As a plus.... GLASS!!!!!

even the cheapest of the APS-C lenses are better than anything on a p/s.
L-Glass is something that no p/s can touch.... no matter what the focal length is used....


Another plus is focusing....DSLR's focus better, faster, and in a wider range of conditions.

shutter lag. press the shutter on a DSLR and you instantly hear "click". On a p/s you get a quarter second or more delay before the "click". This is particularly annoying when you are taking pictures of a kitten jumping in and out of a paper bag..... would you like to see my 20 or so pictures of a paper bag with no kitten visible


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 13, 2012)

Don Haines said:


> even the cheapest of the APS-C lenses are better than anything on a p/s.



Are they? I haven't researched that, but there are bound to be Leica or such p&s that have better iq than aps-c kits. And you can screw any L lens on an eos m, that's why I didn't include it - good glass is no inherent advantage of a dlsr system anymore.


----------



## Dylan777 (Dec 13, 2012)

@ Marsu - It sounds like you are talking to yourself into 6D and some "L" lenses for 2012 ;D


----------



## Nishi Drew (Dec 13, 2012)

How about with the OM-D? If we just compare against P&S then DSLRs don't seem so capable, there's mirrorless now.
Small, lenses weight nothing, it's fast, has quick and accurate AF, good IQ and DR.
The body is well built, it's weather sealed, and has a nice tilt screen.

A DSLR is then good in comparison only when you've got a full size sensor, and naturally the ISO noise advantage 
and possible DR boost is there too. For plenty of people, like me, that full size sensor is what makes the diff.
Having that depth control at wider perspectives, and a good sized comfortable grip to carry around a 70-200 all day.
And yeah, if it weren't for AF and other auto features, the new Leica looks capable enough too


----------



## LostArk (Dec 13, 2012)

No format or camera is universally best, and this will always be true. For people people p&s makes the most sense. For some, mirror less. For others, SLRs, medium format, large format, and so on. You can make a list of pros and cons for each format, or make lists of why x format is better/worse the y etc. 

The SLR is the sweet spot in terms of performance, versatility, and portability. At the end of the day, its limitations are minor compared to what you'd give up to use a different format. For example, if I wanted to gain a little portability by using a mirrorless, I'd be giving up on tilt-shift, optical viewfinder, AF performance, subject isolation, and image quality. I can think of many reasons why this trade off would be worth it, any many reasons why it wouldn't. In another example, if I chose medium format, I'd be giving up on AF performance, portability, and low light performance, but I'd be gaining image quality and n flash sync. 

The DSLR is the jack of all trades, throw a pancake on it and call it a p&s, anything-you-can-do-it-can-do almost as good or better. 

Maybe in ten years mirrorless will advance to the point where it can obsolesce the DSLR as the jack of all trades, but like the TLR or the rangefinder, the SLR will always have niche applications and enthusiasts.


----------



## Zv (Dec 13, 2012)

I know some p&s let u shoot RAW now but you really need the hi res files from the DSLR when post processing. I'm sure someone will tell me otherwise!

Shooting long exposures for star trails etc would be another DSLR advantage. 

Exposure bracketing for HDR is preferable with DSLR but could be done with p&s I guess. 

Ergonomics - I can change exposure settings much faster on a DSLR. 

Better video. 

Filters. Cpl, grad nds etc for landscape. Guess you could do that with a p&s but you'd look a bit silly!


----------



## neuroanatomist (Dec 13, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> Let me know if anything else comes to your mind what's the sense of buying a dlsr system.




*macro capability*: true 1:1 (or higher), not just 'close focusing' as 'macro' has come to mean in the P&S world
*tilt-shift lenses*: ability to correct for perspective distortion, and manipulate the DoF/plane of focus in a way other that a uniform linear distance from the camera



Don Haines said:


> I know your list is what the dslr is good at, but for balance we need the downside as well.



Well, the whole point of the list is things dSLRs are good at. But they're not all upsides.


*bank account depletion*: a dSLR system is really good at reducing your available cash reserves and/or increasing your credit balance


----------



## EchoLocation (Dec 13, 2012)

My main reason for getting in to DSLR photography was because I was really enjoying using my little Sony p&s with some manual settings and I decided that since I was traveling for a year, I might as well get a good camera for good pictures(550D and kit lens.)
One of the main differentiators of the DSLR for me was the low light capabilities and general image quality. Now that i've been in to the DSLR scene for a few years I realize that I also want a DSLR for bokeh, quick AF, and everything else that makes low light and pictures in general look better.
However, in reading this, I realize that I don't want a DSLR at all, I just want the things that the Full Frame DSLR offers. I would love to throw out the DSLR form and switch to something smaller(with a FF sensor,) but so far only Leica and the RX1 are the only things available. When I can buy a used RX1 for around $1800 or a FF NEX for around $3000ish, I will be on it. I live in an interesting place and would like to have a super high quality camera with me at all times, and I travel a lot so I would GREATLY prefer something smaller and lighter with similar image quality.


----------



## brettus44 (Dec 13, 2012)

Hi there,

I am new to Canonrumors Forum but I have been following it for the last year or so and regularly read the posts.

Marsu 42, I am only 24 and I have grown up with P&S cameras and yet I have spent vast amounts of my savings on DSLRs and big glass. There is one huge advantage for me, not just quality over the traditional point and shoot (the new mirrorless might one day take over but in my mind in an SLR form) but one of the key things is the ergonomics.

When I shoot with my 7D and my 300mm f/2.8 IS II USM, yes it gives me fantastic results with great bokeh but it just feels so right in my hands. I could not photograph a lion coming towards me and know I was focussing on the eye if I was using a point and shoot, or the EOS-M. I need to have the ultimate control and I need to be able to adjust everything with one hand. On a P&S this is simply not possible, there isn't that level of control or comfort that a DSLR provides. I can change all the settings I need without once taking my eye away from the viewfinder ensuring I don't miss the shot!

I do think that mirrorless will take over, but big glass will stay for the forseeable future and the bodies of these new mirrorless cameras will resemble a DSLR. For me it is all about balance and that is exactly what my "heavy" gear provides me with, yes it is a pain in the butt to carry my camera bag when it is full but I know when I set gear up on my tripod, it won't wobble and it is built like a tank, that for me is exactly what I need. A reliable, well built, well designed and comfortable piece of kit that will get the job done!

I hope that helps and don't get me wrong, some of the P&S and the new mirrorless cameras are superb and I would happily have one if I thought I needed one, but in my line of photography that is not currently an option. ; 

Cheers,

Bret


----------



## RLPhoto (Dec 13, 2012)

Freaking Everything.


----------



## Nazareth (Dec 13, 2012)

[[What's the advantage of shooting with dslr equipment?]]

The major advantage is the cost- it's very expensive, and will drain you financially- Everytime you turn aroudn in photography it's costing more andm ore money- memory cards, lens cleanign kits, filter, lenscaps, tripods, macro units, cases,backpacks,shoulder bags, printing,framing, matting, shipping, sneding camera otu to be cleaned, cleanign kits if you opt to do it yourself, insurance, on and on it goes. The advantage of photographyu is that it helps to rid you of hte burden of carryign around lots of heavy money, frees up your bank account asnd brings it back to a clean slate zero sum amount- and releives you of the worry of havign money- I can't tell you how many ulcers I've developped worrying about my money- but now thanks to digital photography, I don't have that worry anymore- I'm free as a bird knowing that the bills will just have to wait because there's no money to pay them- cvreditors will have to wait- etc etc. Nothin from nothin = nothin.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Dec 13, 2012)

DSLR's are not for everyone by any means. 
I'd say that many photographers want something to point and shoot, and they want everything to be in focus. 

A DSLR is for those who want more control over the final image and the ability to vary settings over a much wider range. Obviously, image quality is another reason, but point and shoot cameras can be very good there as is my wifes G1X.


----------



## Helevitia (Dec 13, 2012)

What initially pushed me to upgrade from a P&S to a DSLR, was the focus speed and the amount of time it took to turn on my camera and take a picture. I felt I was missing out on pictures because of those two issues alone. What pushed me to upgrade to a 7D from my Rebel was picture quality and support of higher end glass to have crispy pictures  ISO noise isn't very noticeable with the Rebel because the MP was small and the pictures were rarely used for real pictures. Once I started blowing them up, I started to notice the limitations of lower MP and image quality for printed pictures. 

And last, once I got the 70-200 II, there is no going back image quality wise. Don't buy this lens because you'll never be satisfied with anything less.

But hey, your reasons for upgrading could be completely different, just thought I'd share mine.


----------



## Botts (Dec 13, 2012)

Nishi Drew said:


> How about with the OM-D? If we just compare against P&S then DSLRs don't seem so capable, there's mirrorless now.
> Small, lenses weight nothing, it's fast, has quick and accurate AF, good IQ and DR.
> The body is well built, it's weather sealed, and has a nice tilt screen.



Good point, I'm seriously considering an OM-D to use when my 6D is simply too large. It may be worth including mirrorless in this thread, but no mirrorless is truly pocketable.

To answer the underlying question, I'd respond, different strokes for different folks.
Several people are more than happy enough to shoot with their archaic BlackBerry or old-gen iPhone cameras. If they only want the images for facebook, or 4x6's good on them. However, if you want to print memories in larger format, then the DSLR advantages kick in.


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 13, 2012)

Lots of reasons have been stated. But there is also an organic connection when you look through an optical viewfinder and photograph a subject. With EVF's and LCD screens, I feel a little removed from the experience.


----------



## pdirestajr (Dec 13, 2012)

You ever see a person take a photograph with an iPad?! That is the worst thing. Ever.


----------



## m (Dec 13, 2012)

> What's the advantage of shooting with dslr equipment?


I don't think one can answer the question as it stands.

Advantage compared to what?
Advantage in which application(s) of propertie-/feature(s)?



> "would have that gear been necessary" [...] "What shots can *only* be taken with this kind of equipment"



Ideally, one would pick a tool according to the task.
Sadly, in reality, people are limited by things like money, time, space, weight, availability ... 

Would you carry a point & shoot just in case one moment can be captured with it as well as your dslr, so you could take down your dslr and use the S100 instead?
Probably not. You'd use your point & shoot because you cannot afford a dslr, want to quickly take the shot, need to carry it in your jacket, go lightweight, ...

The property of being the camera most suited for a certain shot is in general of a far lesser significance than the other ones.

As there are a lot dslrs out there, the concept of them seems to be the best compromise.


----------



## CharlieB (Dec 13, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> So here it goes: When looking at a lot of sample shots, I'm wondering "would have that gear been necessary", and the inverse question "What shots can *only* be taken with this kind of equipment" and why is an expensive dlsr necessary _at all_?.



Expensive, and DSLR are not one in the same, as there are a good many relatively inexpensive ones on the market.

Most of the small sensor point and shoot types have terrible image quality. Even the least expensive DSLR will surpass that easily. 

I see the current Rebel T3 with lens for $399 at B&H, cheaper still at some other lesser known vendors.

For that kind of money, its not a whole lot more expensive than a "better quality" non-DSLR, and less expensive than the top end non-DSLRs. I hate to call them point-and-shoot cameras when you get into the $300+ range on the non-DSLR's... they're just a cut better, but still way below what you'll get with an APS-C sensor.

If all you're ever going to do are moderate wide to moderate portrait type of shots, for your own fun, occasionally making larger prints, wanting creative control over exposure, there is nothing wrong with a sub-$400 DSLR... and I don't call that expensive.

I'd still be using my 10.1mp 400D (Rebel XTsomething), if it had not been stolen. It produced image quality that was just wonderful for anything you'd ever want to view on a computer screen, or on any print up to about 11x14 or so. I know, because I printed those... with very good results.


----------



## Don Haines (Dec 13, 2012)

pdirestajr said:


> You ever see a person take a photograph with an iPad?! That is the worst thing. Ever.


I went on a photoshoot this fall and one of the ladies brought an Ipad..... and she took wonderful pictures... never underestimate what a real photographer can do with a simple tool. And before people start making comments about this, she is a professional photographer and studied photography at R.I.T. .....


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 13, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> macro capability, tilt-shift lenses



Added, and maybe a valid point atm, though I originally left it out because you can also screw these on an eos-m. My point is rather "for what is a $3500 camera good instead of a sub-€1000 one", so it's not just about €100 p&s.



pdirestajr said:


> With EVF's and LCD screens, I feel a little removed from the experience.



LCD - yes. EVF - no, not if it's a good one you cannot tell from a OVF except for the battery drain and the option to add useful information on the fly like focus peaking....



pdirestajr said:


> You ever see a person take a photograph with an iPad?! That is the worst thing. Ever.



Actually I frequently see tourists taking pictures with their iPads and oversized smartphones in Berlin, even today in the Zoo. The only explanation I can imagine is that people either don't realize what possibilities a decent camera offers or - that's what the post is about - it doesn't make a difference for the pictures they take. We should do a "blind test" comparison poll - iPad vs. 5d3 for web-sized shots 



Zv said:


> Better video.



Better, yes, best, no considering the recent developments - that's why I didn't include video in the list.



Zv said:


> Filters. Cpl, grad nds etc for landscape. Guess you could do that with a p&s but you'd look a bit silly!



Indeed - that's why you're probably just as old-school biased as I am, but does it matter how it looks if it gets the job done and you cannot tell the result from a dlsr? The only reason to look "pro" is if clients pay you more.



Dylan777 said:


> @ Marsu - It sounds like you are talking to yourself into 6D and some "L" lenses for 2012 ;D



You're actually reading my posts  ... it really still depends on the 6d/5d3 price after 2-3 month, the 6d just went *up* €100 in Germany *above* the Canon retail price


----------



## bycostello (Dec 14, 2012)

a slr gets you control over depth of field and fast focusing....


----------



## seta666 (Dec 14, 2012)

Well, I would not compare DSLR to compact cameras but to mirrorless cameras.

The Reflex cameras advantage.
-Superior AF
-Better balance on hand with big lenses and/or flashes
-Bright optical viewfinder


Mirrorless advantage
-Very light system
-On par output quality
-Discrete cameras, good for street photography, journalism

In my opinion Reflex cameras are better when you need fast AF and use tele lenses (Weeding, Sports, fashion)
Mirrorless cameras are better for street photography and perfect for travel photography (Travel, trekking, Street photography)

Mirroless cameras are one or two generation away of surpassing reflex cameras in some areas
A future FF NEX with improved AF would be much better for some kinds of photography than any reflex; same as Leica today but with more affordable price


----------



## Ryan708 (Dec 14, 2012)

someone at a restaurant with an i-phone trying to take a picture: "Ugh, this phone is such a...." and he trailed off.... I said loud enough for people to hear my responce "phone?"

High image quality needs large sensors, large sensors need larger lenses, and more space. I like the ruggedness of an SLR, and the holdability, speed and low-light abilities, A mirrorless does not interest me unless it would fit in my pocket, otherwise i want an SLR


----------



## 7enderbender (Dec 14, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> This question has been bothering me for some time, esp. after procrastinating in forums while trying to decide what expensive gear is eventually "worth it" to me  ... _please not I'm not trolling and applaud everyone who puts his/her money into expensive gear to get shots just for the sake of remembering his/her kids or such_.
> 
> So here it goes: When looking at a lot of sample shots, I'm wondering "would have that gear been necessary", and the inverse question "What shots can *only* be taken with this kind of equipment" and why is an expensive dlsr necessary _at all_?.
> 
> ...




All very valid points. And of course it all depends. For me personally it comes down to sensor size and for having the shallow DOF option available. The non-DSLR choices are way out of my price range still - Leica M9 and medium format alike. In other words if money was no object I wouldn't have a SLR...

Are there other ways to get wonderful pictures, including P&S cameras and phone cameras? Yep. Just not for a lot what I'm interested in unfortunately.


----------



## Videoshooter (Dec 14, 2012)

Speed, speed, speed. Focusing, fps (though mirrorless are surpassing DSLR's here, putting aside focus tracking) write speed (due to CF cards over SDHC), shutter lag (and no EVF lag like on mirrorless); just faster everything meaning you have a higher chance of getting the shot.

IQ wise, the bigger individual pixels equate to better images all-round - better dynamic range, colour accuracy, low light, etc. It's not just about megapixels when it comes to the bigger sensor in a DSLR.

RAW Files - yes, some upper range p & s cameras shoot RAW, but there's more to the puzzle than just that - DSLR's are designed to handle all that data even in burst mode, with faster write speeds and deeper buffers. Most p & s cameras with RAW capability mean you compromise on _speed_, which is critical in many situations. 

Ergonomics - intuitive button layout that lets you operate the camera without a magnifying glass and tweezers. The extra size and weight can also help in stabilizing photos. 

More control - yes, some p & s cameras and most mirrorless give you full manual control, but this goes hand in hand with _ergonomics_. DSLR's let you make changes instantly and blindly with ease, rather than digging through a maze of menus or trying to hit a tiny little button without also mashing every other button.

Lens choice - You say that this is a moot point because of mirrorless, but that's not entirely true. AF performance can suffer, sharpness can drop (due to pixel density & the crop factor which essentially magnifies any lens flaws), FOV changes and balance can be effected (which effects the _ergonomics_) when using DSLR lenses on a mirrorless camera.

Connectivity - need to operate the camera remotely through a PC? Or need multiple external flashguns? or you want to synchronize multiple cameras? DSLR's are your friend when it comes to these complex applications and workflows.

Additionally there are all the other little things that make the cameras "more professional" - dual card slots for redundancy, durability, battery life, custom filenames, copyright info in the exif data, etc etc. Of course any of these things can be built into just about any camera - but not without compromising the things that make those cameras attractive in the first place such as compactness and price.


----------



## Botts (Dec 14, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > macro capability, tilt-shift lenses
> ...



Durability and speed.

If you're making money on your photography getting the shot is what counts. Let's look at a hypothetical, even if the IQ between a T2i and a 7D/5D3/1DX were identical, if you're shooting an event, and the weather decides to wreak havoc, that weather sealed body has a much higher chance at getting you that money making shot. With the T2i you may choose to put it away to prevent sacrificing a body, or choose to try and use it in the weather just to have it die from the rain.

Alternatively, if you're lined up on the sideline at a sports game, and you know that a piece of key action is about to happen, if it's coming right for you, and you can't really predict the time, a 2 second burst at 6+ FPS gives you a much better chance at getting that winning shot as well.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 14, 2012)

Videoshooter said:


> Lens choice - You say that this is a moot point because of mirrorless, but that's not entirely true. AF performance can suffer, sharpness can drop (due to pixel density & the crop factor which essentially magnifies any lens flaws)



In theory, yes, but in reality with the current crop pixel density and ef lens choices corner/edge flaws of lenses are more likely to be "fixed" by using them on crop like eos-m while most L lenses aren't outresolved. If the crop pixel density rises even more, that might change.



Botts said:


> Durability and speed.





Videoshooter said:


> Additionally there are all the other little things that make the cameras "more professional"



Indeed, no doubt that for professional use dlsrs are the most appropriate choice ... but the majority of dlsr sales are to amateurs and some enthusiasts. 

All I was wondering what you *need* a dslr for when looking at all the shots folks post and thinking "Well, you certainly didn't need a dslr for *that*". Of course it doesn't hurt either, and a dslr has a steeper learning curve than a p&s.


----------



## Zv (Dec 14, 2012)

Marsu - I know what you mean, I try and educate people through my blog as I feel a lot of people think simply buying an expensive camera will give them great images. It kind of takes away from some of the hard work actual photographers put into creating their art. Instead of " hey, thats a great shot well done etc" you get "wow your camera is awesome", yes it is but only in the right hands! Some people cant tell the difference between a shot taken on a phone and one from a 3k dslr! What does the average person know about camera shake, noise and white balance? Sweet F all. They just look at the content not the technical side like us! 

http://zeebytes.blogspot.jp/2012/10/stop-think-shoot-photographers-code.html?m=1


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 14, 2012)

Zv said:


> Marsu - I know what you mean, I try and educate people through my blog as I feel a lot of people think simply buying an expensive camera will give them great images



Personally, I think that's just fine if a) *I*'m not buying gear I won't need and b) not too many rainforests are cut down as a consequence of people's desire to exchange their phone every other month :-o

I just feel a bit sorry for people who wish they can buy experience and knowledge and are bound to be disappointed, esp. if these people spent hard earned savings. But then again, if I don't own a camera store :->



Zv said:


> #
> It kind of takes away from some of the hard work actual photographers put into creating their art. [...] They just look at the content not the technical side like us!



Well, I admit that some gearhead talk can be fun, and understanding the tech stuff saves you from buying too expensive or not appropriate gear.

But I'm really trying not to let it mess with my head - do I really need an original Canon lens hood for €45 when the €5 China plastic item is 99% identical (except for the brand name)  ? Imho the key is balance, "just get the best (= most expensive)" is as much bs as "A good photog can shoot a wedding with a €10 throw-away p&s". 

Btw: Your 30 steps could really help beginners save wasted shots and lessen frustration, this is more or less what I've worked out for myself - except #30, I think spotting good shots requires taking lots of bad shots (and trying to recover them in post).


----------



## Zv (Dec 14, 2012)

No 30 is for was added by my girlfriend


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 14, 2012)

Zv said:


> No 30 is for was added by my girlfriend



31. Stop procrastinating by talking to anonymous foreign freaks on the net and do the dishes already :->


----------



## picturesbyme (Dec 14, 2012)

The advantage over ps?
- Showing off . In fact I think that's about 25-50% of the dslr users.
I think you covered the serious side so let's see the funny side.. 

It's amazing how many guys buy a camera just for that. Especially in developed countries men in that range have more $$ then skills or desire to learn.
They get their 1st cam (min a 5d3 to start with) in their 30s-40s and after a month they give advice on forums  or they get a Rebel and next week they ask how much should they charge after becoming a wedding photog overnight... 
I have a little view on that due to the stories I hear from the gallery/frame shop, the local printing places I'm in business with and the models I worked with.. I.e. there are plenty pervs on MM who only registered to snap some photos with pretty girls in a bikini (or nothing). The last guy told my GF he has 30+ yrs of experience and his photos suck on multi levels... and let's not talk about local wedding photogs... 

Anyhow, a 7D can make great images, (heck, most recent cameras can) it can even do family/vacation photos, yet some people are "convinced" they can only do that with a 1Dx or at least with a 5d3 and L glass only. ) Then they snap shots that are never printed larger than 8x10 and could be easily done with an entry dslr, a m4/3 or with a ps.

It's probably related to midlife crisis too.  It's cheaper than a red/yellow Porsche and easier to sell when it's over. It's also easier to "explain" to the wife.. or maybe it's just marketing.. like: you have to have an SUV or you're not a good/safe parent, you have to use this detergent, baby/dog/cat food.. etc.. or you are not a good... etc...


----------



## tomscott (Dec 14, 2012)

From reading most of your posts on here Marsu42 you seem to be going round and round in circles.

Why not instead of idolising and agonising over equipment just go out and shoot some pictures?? Enjoy photography? Get your name out there sell some prints and that will make purchasing equipment easier. We all want to be 

A good photographer can capture a fantastic pic with a box browny, gear enables more possibility but it should not stunt your creative growth. The camera is just a tool you tell it what to do.

I know i gave you some stick the other day, but seriously just enjoy it.


----------



## Marsu42 (Dec 14, 2012)

tomscott said:


> From reading most of your posts on here Marsu42 you seem to be going round and round in circles.



I have to admit I don't get that, imho I'm in the boat with lots of others starting sometime in 2012 looking for a ff, thinking about the old 5d2, being shocked by the overpriced 5d3 and then waiting for the 6d - that's not a circle, but a straight line.



tomscott said:


> Why not instead of idolising and agonising over equipment just go out and shoot some pictures?? Enjoy photography? Get your name out there sell some prints and that will make purchasing equipment easier.



Why do you assume I don't enjoy photography? What you read here is just a small part of me being annoyed by Canon and gearhead talk (but you're reading this too, aren't you?). I'm out every day taking shots and learning, just returned from taking nighttime shots of Berlin in the snow nearly freezing my fingers off (and gladly, because it was worth it). Imho I'm getting so many good shots it's hard for my old laptop to keep up w/o overheating.

And actually this post was intended to be about creativity, and esp. the kind that makes a difference in comparison to the gazillions of other pictures out there, growing by a million every day.



tomscott said:


> I know i gave you some stick the other day, but seriously just enjoy it.



I appreciate your advice and I know it's easy to get lost in tech spec sheets, but as written above writing in CR is not all I do. But shooting with my current equipment is just not made for commercial low light events, and since getting ok gear puts quite a strain on my budget I'm getting all the opinions I can get.


----------



## pwp (Dec 14, 2012)

It's a matter of what you need for the job at hand. Sometimes there is a distinct advantage shooting with your iPhone or S100....

-PW


----------



## stephan (Dec 15, 2012)

I did not grow up with analog SLRs, nor am I in the 35/40+ Range, nor do i have extra cash to spend. I grew up with P+S cameras and moved up to DSLRs.

My reasoning:

1) Optical viewfinder (no lag) and very low shutter-lag
2) faster focusing (with USM Lenses)
3) Much better grip (& Feel), plus all basic settings on dedicated controls

And of course selectable lenses. But that's not exclusive to DSLRs anymore.


----------



## DJL329 (Dec 15, 2012)

What's the advantage of shooting with dslr equipment? So that you can look cooool...

You know, just like ... Ashton Kutcher? Oh well, nevermind...


----------



## ChilledXpress (Dec 15, 2012)

I'm still trying to figure out what the purpose of this thread is? Seems like a thread with very little substance and you know it's just about hit rock bottom when photos of Ashton holding Nikon are showing up. 

If you don't know what the advantage of a DSLR vs PS is, this isn't ever going to help... ever heard the term preaching to the choir?


----------



## infared (Dec 15, 2012)

Hey..this is a Canon Website....I am not taking this nonsense.
Now the thread has no content whatsoever! ;D


----------

