what's the justification for getting a DSLR....

[Jerome]

My colleagues asked me why I got a DSLR when it's only about 3 mp when a cheaper and more compact G2 or D40 say has 4.0 mp. Well, I said interchageable lenses were the reason, more SLR control, etc. But how would u reply to the following:

1. A high quality 28-70L (Digital equivalent: 45-112 mm.) which can cost over $2000 brand new has only f/2.8 aperture. The G2 can go from a bigger f/2.0 to f/2.5 and covers a more useful focal length range. (About 34-103mm?) Haven't mentioned the price of the DSLR body yet!

2. I saw the shots taken from my friend's G2 and at ISO100, the sharpness is apparently as good as that taken from my 28-70L.

So they asked me, why spend so much??? Frankly, I'm stumped on this one to give a convincing reply that makes a layman understand.

But I like a DSLR cos I own a film camera body and the lenses are there already. And of cos the focusing, control and feel of an SLR is there. But other than these...

Any opinions??

 

[Jerome]

Opps, I meant the S40 in the above.

 

[YSLee]

If you can ask these questions, you probably ARE indeed better off with a G2 or similar.

 

[Bluestrike]

Hmm

1. I believe that the blur background cause by a SLR is more noticeable then a DC.

2. no comments

Oso, I think a DSLR can reach abt 800mm..... which I think that DC is a bit hard to beat in this tele range......

 

[tomshen]

Jerome, for general purpose G2 or those P&S cameras are good enough, especially if u want everything *all sharp*. But the advantages of a SLR/DSLR are unbeatable when shooting subjects far away, close-up, in low light condition, or moving fast etc. A consumer class DC usually has smaller sensor so the F2.0 is not equivalent to a SLR F2.0. You may find some other reasons to switch to DSLR if money is not an issue

 

[erwinx]

Exactly. Also, if you don't know the answers to the questions yourself, its likely that a G2 will suit your type of photography equally well. Bluestrike has suggested that its easier for DSLRs to go to 800mm, but unless you do ultra-tele photography, thats not <your> reason for buying the DSLR.....

Maybe you can answer your colleagues with this quote from the BMW advertisement:

You can tell the men from the boys by the sizes of their toys

Originally posted by YSLee
If you can ask these questions, you probably ARE indeed better off with a G2 or similar.

 

[Bluestrike]

Originally posted by erwinx


Maybe you can answer your colleagues with this quote from the BMW advertisement:

You can tell the men from the boys by the sizes of their toys

HEhehahhahahaaa........

Then ours are nothing when you look at Ian's toys......

 

[ziploc]

Originally posted by Jerome
My colleagues asked me why I got a DSLR when it's only about 3 mp when a cheaper and more compact G2 or D40 say has 4.0 mp. Well, I said interchageable lenses were the reason, more SLR control, etc. But how would u reply to the following:

1. A high quality 28-70L (Digital equivalent: 45-112 mm.) which can cost over $2000 brand new has only f/2.8 aperture. The G2 can go from a bigger f/2.0 to f/2.5 and covers a more useful focal length range. (About 34-103mm?) Haven't mentioned the price of the DSLR body yet!

2. I saw the shots taken from my friend's G2 and at ISO100, the sharpness is apparently as good as that taken from my 28-70L.

So they asked me, why spend so much??? Frankly, I'm stumped on this one to give a convincing reply that makes a layman understand.

But I like a DSLR cos I own a film camera body and the lenses are there already. And of cos the focusing, control and feel of an SLR is there. But other than these...

Any opinions??

Hello Jerome,

A few points (guys please correct me if I'm wrong):
1. Focusing speed and shutter lag - consumer DCs (eg. G2) have much slower focusing speed and shutter lag then a DSLR, especially in the shutter lag area. You'd miss lots of actions if you shoot sports or fast action shots with a consumer DC.
2. Sensor size - the sensor in DSLR is much bigger then the consumer DC! And that's one of the reason why DSLR can produce much better images even at lower resolutions when compare to consumer DCs.
3. Iso noise - consumer DCs are more prone to Iso noises. I have a G2 myself and I found the only acceptable Iso for me is Iso50. Other Iso settings are simply too noisy. DSLRs can go much higher Iso and yet can produce cleaner images.
4. DOF - due to the small sensor size in consumer DCs (in order to keep the cost down), the lens need to be shorter too, resulting in a much smaller aperture size (remember aperture size is (focal length)/f-stop, so eg. at f/2.8, the aperture size of the consumer DC is much smaller with shorter focal length then the DSLR). Bokeh is directly proportional to aperture size, hence it is really difficult to get good bokeh with consumer DCs.
5. There are many other factors like lens quality and stuffs that come into play. Pixel count is not everything! And you get what you pay for.

Hope that helps.

 

[Red Dawn]

Hi

see my reply here:

DSLR or prosumer / consumer digicam

link fixed ;p

 

[ckiang]

Go shoot things like wildlife, sports, etc with your friend's S40. Or even weddings/ROMs. Or even shoot decent portriats with a nice, blur background. Or shoot kids running around without missing the moment.

Next, print it big. And I mean really big, like 10" x 15". Or even 16x20".

You'll not ask the same question again.

In digital cameras, it's not all about megapixels. A good 2+ megapixel camera like the Nikon D1, or a 3+ mp camera like the Canon D30 is going to beat the crap out of a 4mp S40. In fact, though I am not a Canon user, I'm pretty confident the D30 will even beat the crap out of Sony F707, Minolta DiMAGE 7, etc.

Quality of the CCD (and hence the pixels), lenses, image processor, etc counts a lot more.

Regards
CK

P.S. And I know a camera that's about 10% the cost of the average 3-4mp digital camera, and can probably beat the crap out of it as well.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by ckiang
P.S. And I know a camera that's about 10% the cost of the average 3-4mp digital camera, and can probably beat the crap out of it as well. [/B]

which one? my new Phenix? ;p

 

[Jerome]

Hi all,

Thanks for the feedback. Hahaha...YSLee and erwinx, want me to downgrade ah? No way!! In fact I played with the G2 for a while b4 deciding on the D30. It's the SLR feel that I like cos I've been shooting with a film SLR for a couple of years.

I admit I don't do sports, or take super zoom pics up to 800mm. I ask the question for a reason. See, in films, it's very easy to tell the difference betn a picture taken with a compact camera and an SLR with a high quality pro glass. It is sometimes also obvious between an L and a consumer one.

Just that for general shots, I have to be hard pressed to tell the difference between the D30 with L lens and a G2. Very often, even with the D30 and an L lens, the images need correcting too (adjusting levels/contrast in PS) even though my exposure is spot on. You can't lie much when u do slides. If your exposure is off, it's telling. And if you use low-end lenses, it's obvious thru the loupe.

I didn't play with the S40 or G2 for long to explore noise at ISO 400. So now I know.... Yup, I like the D30 at ISO 400. Can't tell much diff from ISO100 for my purpose.

I also didn't know that an f/2.0 on a G2 is not a 'true' f/2.0 on the SLR. something I've to learn. Thanks to those who let me know.

Well, I still think the D30 serves me well. Just disappointed with the softness in images.

(Red Dawn I can't view the link you sent.)

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Red Dawn


which one? my new Phenix? ;p

Yup!

Regards
CK

 

[ckiang]

Originally posted by Jerome
Hi all,

Well, I still think the D30 serves me well. Just disappointed with the softness in images.

(Red Dawn I can't view the link you sent.)

Most D30 users I've encountered finds that it is inherently soft. This is by design - you have a lot more control by applying unsharp mask later. The softness worsens when a cheap lens is used (e.g. 28-300 class superzooms). But with a good lens such as a 50/1.8, or the L glass, the softness isn't as apparent.

Regards
CK

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by Jerome
My colleagues asked me why I got a DSLR when it's only about 3 mp when a cheaper and more compact G2 or D40 say has 4.0 mp. Well, I said interchageable lenses were the reason, more SLR control, etc. But how would u reply to the following:

1. A high quality 28-70L (Digital equivalent: 45-112 mm.) which can cost over $2000 brand new has only f/2.8 aperture. The G2 can go from a bigger f/2.0 to f/2.5 and covers a more useful focal length range. (About 34-103mm?) Haven't mentioned the price of the DSLR body yet!

2. I saw the shots taken from my friend's G2 and at ISO100, the sharpness is apparently as good as that taken from my 28-70L.

So they asked me, why spend so much??? Frankly, I'm stumped on this one to give a convincing reply that makes a layman understand.

But I like a DSLR cos I own a film camera body and the lenses are there already. And of cos the focusing, control and feel of an SLR is there. But other than these...

Any opinions??

Here's what I'd do :devil:

Take your G2 and A40 weilding friends out for a nice afternoon of shooting somewhere and all shoot the same subject from the same location at the same same time. Take each of the raw files and process them on the same PC in the same session and so on to eliminate any inconsistencies and then fork out for a 20" x 30" digital print from each file.

As the saying goes, the results will blow them away as its not till you get in to large (over A3) enlargements that a DSLR's advantages really become noticable.

As to how to explain the lens cost differences, point out the AF speed difference, the fact that you can use the lens on a regular SLR if you want to and the fact that since your using a DSLR you are using the sharpest part of the lens, not the periphery which in most zoom lenses on consumer digicams is somewhat soft and prone to coma.

 

[Ian]

Originally posted by Bluestrike

Then ours are nothing when you look at Ian's toys......

.. or Jed's for that matter.

Gets out pepper and microscope and looks at Bluestrike's gear ... hmm where's that scanning electron microscope....

 

[Adam Goi]

Justification? I still can't find one...hence I'll be hanging on to film-based SLRs...for now

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by Jerome

(Red Dawn I can't view the link you sent.)

sorry...i've fixed the link.
go see it now....should answer all of your questions...
u can also print it out to show your G2 / S40 friends the next time they question u ;p....

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7367

 

[Jed]

Aaargh...

1. A high quality 28-70L (Digital equivalent: 45-112 mm.) which can cost over $2000 brand new has only f/2.8 aperture. The G2 can go from a bigger f/2.0 to f/2.5 and covers a more useful focal length range. (About 34-103mm?) Haven't mentioned the price of the DSLR body yet!

You look at the size of a 28-70L and the size of the G2's lens? You looked at a model car and a real car and wondered why is there a price difference?

And as to the aperture difference, you ever wonder why they need to make a bigger engine for a bigger car to get it to go as fast as a smaller and lighter car?

2. I saw the shots taken from my friend's G2 and at ISO100, the sharpness is apparently as good as that taken from my 28-70L.

As others have said, it all depends on what size you output at. If you don't make large enlargements, then you really don't need a D30 at all. This quest for bigger/more expensive equipment just for the sake of it is quite frightening.

So they asked me, why spend so much??? Frankly, I'm stumped on this one to give a convincing reply that makes a layman understand.

As others have said, these questions should be answered BEFORE buying something, really. Unless you've got lots of cash to spare in which case nevermind the questions. And consider upgrading to a 1D.

Oso, I think a DSLR can reach abt 800mm..... which I think that DC is a bit hard to beat in this tele range......

Erm... 800mm only? Hehe

Zippy gives some great advice, apart from:

hence it is really difficult to get good bokeh with consumer DCs.

Actually, it's really difficult to get ANY bokeh with consumer DCs hehehe.

Go shoot things like wildlife, sports, etc with your friend's S40. Or even weddings/ROMs. Or even shoot decent portriats with a nice, blur background. Or shoot kids running around without missing the moment.

Next, print it big. And I mean really big, like 10" x 15". Or even 16x20".

You'll not ask the same question again.
Thing is, he's asking. And as we've already said, it's a bit like buying a Lotus Elise or better yet a Ferrari to use in Singapore. Or actually, in any country in the world, without taking out of his neighbourhood estate, where obviously a Toyota starlet would do just as well.

Well, I still think the D30 serves me well. Just disappointed with the softness in images.

Well the slight softness has to do with the concept that in addition to having better control later, you need a soft image to start with if you intend to blow up big.

 

[Jed]

Originally posted by Red Dawn


sorry...i've fixed the link.
go see it now....should answer all of your questions...
u can also print it out to show your G2 / S40 friends the next time they question u ;p....

http://forums.clubsnap.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7367

Wah lau, RD, you really too much time on your hands man...