DSLR Camera's, are they worth it?

Just a quick one really guys,

looking for some consumer advice.

Last year for the first time really I actually picked up a camera for going on holiday to Rome and found I actually enjoyed the photography as much as the holiday! I was just using a run of the mill point and shoot cost me just over £100, its still in perfect working order however....

I am wondering if it would be worth investing in a DSLR and how the quality of my images would improve and how much of a learning curve is involved in getting decent pictures with them

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I bought mine before really understanding anything. I bought a book too and from there learned quite a bit. They are fun and can be a great hobby to get you out of the house. Oddly what I found though is 50% of my problem was composition and editing. AFter reading and experimenting I was able to take much better pictures with my phone camera or other digital camera.

You might be able to snag a used one for cheap and you can always get a nice new lens. If you just take the occasional family photo then I don't think they are worth it.

One of the things we don't realize is....you can take 1000 photos of something and like about 10....take those 10 and edit them up and you may end up with one photo you really like. DSLR cameras do have better quality for sure but that doesn't mean you can just point and click and everything is better. Learn manual controls asap and get some free editing software and you should be good to go.

Good luck...itll get ya out of the house and moving around more.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

For obtaining certain types of images, yes.

High speed images from say, a sporting event, a DSLR will perform better than your average digital camera.

If you want to take low light level shots without a brilliant flash, most DSLRs allow you to adjust the exposure time to your liking, and not just a Daytime/Nighttime setting.

And of course: Astrophotography.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I own and use a Canon 60D dslr for both still photography and video. Fabulous piece of kit.

The big advantage to a DSLR is being able to change lenses for different types of aesthetic approaches. in your pic's or movies.

The zoom kit lens that comes with most DSLRs is usually acceptable for most "shutter bugs" but for the serious photographer you need a nice selection. Many times the cost of a lens collection exceeded the actual camera. A terrible addiction.

However with the new technology...4/3 style units are great.
photo.stackexchange.com...

My next purchase will be a 4/3 style Panasonic GH6, strictly for film making but takes teriffic stills.

a reply to: eriktheawful

High speed images from say, a sporting event, a DSLR will perform better than your average digital camera.

I can attest to this.

I bought my DSLR camera about 8 years ago just before we went on a trip to Montreal to watch the Formula One races. The pictures I ended up with were fantastic, with beautiful clarity of the cars zooming past us at great speeds !

A DSLR camera can be used as a simple 'point and shoot' as well, but it's a great disservice to the capabilities these cameras have if you take the time to learn how to use all the functions it's capable of.

I'm extremely happy I made the investment... worth every penny as far as I'm concerned !

If you are "into" photography and serious about it, a dslr is a must. If you are just a point and shoot tourist, not so much. The capabilities of a dslr are such that, with interchangeable lenses, you have a lot more control over the shot. That assumes you have the knowledge and desire to even want more control.

I have a (now old) Canon A-1 that, imo, was one of the best reasonably priced dslr's ever made, and I took a lot of good shots with it, some of which I have framed. On the other hand, one of the best shots I ever took was of Mt. Rainier when the pilot of an Alaska Airlines jet decided to scrape the side of the mountain with his wings. I had five seconds to grab my wife's point and shoot from her purse and shoot through three layers of airplane window glass. It's one of the most fantastic pictures of the mountain (and that's what we call it: The Mountain) you'll ever see.

I no longer use a dslr for tourism just because it is too bulky and weighty compared to a good quality Nikon Coolpix, for example. You can get quality pictures with an iPhone these days (look at the megapixel count), so unless you want the fine control a dslr gives you, I'm not sure it is worth the considerable extra expense and hassle to outfit yourself with the camera and all its accessories.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

many people expect " better " pictures from thier new DSLR

it wont make you a better photographer

it wont improve your composition or timing or lighting choices

what a DSLR will do is :

allow :

far better control of :

focus
depth of field
white balance

it will allow you to take :

pictures in low light with minimal noise
pictures of hi-speed action with no blur

it will allow you to take pics from 50mm from your subject to 1 km away - without any comprimise

all of the above - subject to the caveat that you have lenses with the required

feild of view
focal length
speed

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

It depends entirely what you want to do with the camera and photos. Dslrs are significantly better if you get a good one. Its night and day to serious photo people. But if you just want memories, then it probably isnt worth the expense and the extra bulk.

I think you guys have saved me the best part of £300, thinking about it i have a pretty decent point and shoot, its a Cannon powershot 170IS with 16 megapixles and 16 times zoom, its also pretty light weight so I think for now, until the one i will stick with it.

Thanks again guys.

ATS just saved me a lot of money

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

I have Nikon D60 with a 18 - 300 mm lense. I started off with your basic lenses progressed to a 22 - 200 mm. And then a big boy, and it's been worth it every step of the way, once you get the hang of how to use all the shutter speeds, f stops and what not, you can definatley take some kind blowing photos.

Only issue is that in a rush or when you don't wanna carry it around it can be a little clunky, that's why I have a coolpix as well for just random photos.
But if you are interested in photography, or enjoy it a dslr is the way to go. Now days they have video recording capabilities and all those fancy things. Kine just takes photos.

I bought a Nikon Coolpix camera a long time ago - it had a fisheye lens which was/is really useful for working with computer graphics and texture mapping. Works best in sunlight, then it can take 1/500th second shutter speeds and take pictures of breaking waves on the beach that look really crisp and sharp with no other processing. Add on some infra-red filters and it's possible to take literally see the world in another dimension.

Had the chance to play with a high-end DLSR camera when at university. That system was awesome - it had a 12 megapixel resolution (4000x3500 pixels) with a macro features. So we could photograph a small area (4 inches x 4 inches) at 1000 pixels/inch. You can even write and download scripts for the camera to do timelapse, custom image processing. If you look around, you can find Bebe stereoscopic lenses that allow for true 3D photographs. You also have GIMP or Photoshop to help processing.

My smartphone can take megapixel images and video, but the limited lens controls are the annoying part - no manual zoom control. Taking movies will have random lens refocusing. The panorama feature is cool, but for some reason it disables camera zoom so I can't take zoomed in panorama views.

"The best camera is the one you have with you."

I have three DSLRs. Love them. Been using them for years.

But the camera I use the most is the one in my pocket when I see something I'd like to photograph, which is usually my phone.

My current phone is a Samsung Note 4, which I have to say takes amazing photos and is a pretty good phone too.

a reply to: schuyler

I'd really like to see the photo of Mt. Ranier! I've never used a DSLR, but from what I have learned from my basic research is that good lighting and composition along with editing can provide great results from crappy cameras. But, if I could afford the Lumix mentioned earlier, I would buy it in a heartbeat 💓

My son bought a nice one and I ended up buying it off him because he needed the money to buy a bmx. So, now with a great camera I love taking pictures of stuff however I find I still rely on my old point and shoot way more because I can just whip it out of my pocket... the dslr takes great pictures but I have to store it in a bag and attach lenses, keep it out of the rain, etc. Nice but not handy.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin

Most have given you good answers.

The downside to owning one and enjoying photography is that it is VERY EASY to get carried away with buying/wanting new accessories. My DSLR opened me up to wanting to spend a lot of money on it, but I intelligently hold back bacause it is not my profession nor my true passion (although I'm excited to bring it to Hawai'i with me this coming Monday!).

One thing that I didn't read mentioned (but didn't read all the posts) is that you can get a DSLR with HD video capabilities pretty inexpensively these days. The ability to manually control focus is a big plus in my book, too. I can't tell you how many good shots I've missed waiting on an auto-focus-only camera to try and figure out what I'm focusing on.

Manually controlling shutter speed and aperature is a big one for me, too. I really like getting extended-lenght shots of things like moving water and night scenes, and controlling depth-of-field can really aid in elevating your photo quality.

a reply to: OtherSideOfTheCoin
An SLR gives you a number of benefits the two biggest being quality and control. The quality of the images is way way way better than anything you have on a compact or phone. Then there is the control. You have control over literlly all aspects of taking a photo. I really can't go into detail here but since you would need to read your camera manual to learn how to adjust all the settings and you would understand why then.

If you want to take "snaps" then you can do that as well! These cameras come with a fully automated mode.

I bought a canon 450D about 7 years ago.
I did a cheap $500 - 2 month course to learn how to use it.
and I genuinely enjoyed it. Bought a few lenses, good tripod couple of filters etc..

I did a lot of travel and found.. the more i travelled the less I took photos..

Now, as much as I enjoy using the camera I find my Samsung galaxy smart phone takes photos just as good if not better. With 10x less the amount of effort. I just finished a trip to the US and didn't even take my 450D.

So, if your going to buy one, don't buy the best most expensive.

learning them is easy enough once you under stand the basics..

I own one, and never use it.

Whatever you do, don't buy one new. Back when I worked retail, I bought a used floor model for cheap and fell in love. It died. Then I bought a brand new one- $1600.
Two years later, I bought a second one, exact same camera body, for $200- a price low enough that it was worth it to me when I was out doing photography stuff, so I didn't need to change lenses so frequently. (I like prime lenses...)

The biggest expense with these things is the lenses- but a GOOD lens actually holds its value. I had bought a 400mm prime L-glass lense for $850 or so, and then sold it for 1k about 5 years later.