Seriously? You should not write another article, ever. This was purely your opinion, and a bad one at that. There are uses for each type of camera. Normal people just wanting to take a few random pictures were never going to buy a 1000 DSLR anyway, so why did you feel the need to bash them? I am a proud owner of a Canon 30D and I love it. It's super hard to use correctly, but when I do figure things out, the pictures are fantastic. That's the fun of it for me, figuring things out. If I wanted a point and shoot, I would have bought one (which I did just for that purpose). Your article was aimed at the wrong crowd, they already knew everything you said. Seriously!

Unwanted attention? Are you kidding me?? I get more unwanted attention shooting with my Casio Exilim than I ever got with my Nikon D70! The Exilim doesn't have a viewfinder, so I have to do the "hold it about a foot in front of me" thing and everyone can see the screen. One woman asked my why I was shooting in the dark (I was taking a long exposure), and another time a woman freaked out because I was taking pictures of her condo building and she though I was a realtor. With the D70 I never get a peep because it looks like any other SLR from the past 60 years.

1. size
2. size
3. PnS good enough
4. too hard
5. PnS good enough
6. don't buy because of unwanted attention?
7. too hard
8. too costly
9. too hard
10. too costly

Having trouble coming up with 10 different reasons?

Seriously, I think people already know the difference between a Big Wheel and a sports car. Just who do you think benefits from this article?

Yes, the article is his opinion...just like nearly every other editorial article out there. It is all factual but his opinion. You don't have to agree with it. Slonkak, aimed at the wrong crowd? The internet is the wrong crowd? Not everyone reading this is a photography expert.

Craigsj, who do you think will benefit from this article? Anyone who is considering a new digital camera. If you are a photography expert, which I'm sure all of the commenters are, this article will be filled with info you already know.

And yes speed153, unwanted attention does occur. Just because YOU have never experienced it doesn't mean it is a fallacy. Sometimes the attention is helpful. Case in point: When we were at CES shooting pictures of the car babes, Kurtis could always get the girls to line up for better shots simply by flashing the nicer DSLR. We didn't do anything different than the guys with little p'n's cameras, but the models reacted differently to a guy with a big, professional looking camera.

Haha, I knew this article would get more flames than the other one. People defending their DSLRs. If you read the article you'll see that I personally use a DSLR and I would never to back to just having a point-n-shoot. But I think this article needed to be written to give the other side of the coin after I wrote my 10 Reasons to Buy a DSLR.

Keep the comments coming guys. :)

Yeah... people read your '10 reasons why you should' and complained then read your '10 reasons why you should NOT' and complained! And it's mostly the people who can already make the decision for themselves... (EDIT: and apparently people who don't read the full article or notice that you also wrote "10 reasons to buy a DSLR") This isn't for photography buffs, it's for people who don't know what's presented in the article and are trying to make the decision!

Anyway, good job Kurtis... but uh... WHY U HATE DSLRZ?!!1! DSLRZ R TEH WIN!!1!!one!

Reflex technology was invented because it was the only way to really see what you were about to shoot with tratidional cameras.

Now with digital camera, you can see exactly what image your sensor is getting with a simpler technology such as a bridge.

DSLR are just for those old fashioned that want to show they have a big thing in ther hands cause they're not happy with what they got in their pants.

Those ppl also like dslr cause they are the most expensive... And if they're expensive it's because they're making good shoots! While they're the most expensive cause they contain much more mechanical moving parts.

This one should be in the top 3: No video. Some or many PnS cameras take very adequate video - 640x480 at 30fps looks great on a computer. With one or two gigabytes of memory you can capture nice long clips without reaching into your backpack to pull out your other camera. Then, of course, you'd use Pando to send half-gig clips to all the relatives.

HUH? Old-fashioned people want to spend more money to get a top of the line DSLR...because they're old-fashioned? I can't count the number of Amish I've seen running around with $4000 DSLRs. Every black buggy I pass on the road has a Nikon D2X lens poking out of the carriage. Honestly, if it wasn't for those old-fashioned people, no technology would sell ever.

Ah, excellent point edietiker! I may have to ammend my article for that one. I knew I had forgotten something but I couldn't think of what it was. :-D

Hay Kurtis, I like what you've done here, a very objective way of presenting both side of the argument (probably because of all the debate that the other article caused) but none the less very informative for the potential buyer! Good stuff!

chacallot - I disagree with your post. SLRs have been around for a while now, and they have their advantages and disadvantages. Leica's M series of rangefinders are also very nice, if you can afford them. If not, consider a Voigtlander Bessa ;-) Each system has benefits, rangefinders are usually unobtrusive, small and light and easy to handle. Add to the facts that they have no mirror slap, and they're very quiet, a boon in certain shooting situations.

I don't consider myself 'old fashioned' as you so put it. I use a DSLR because it suits my shooting needs. Nothing more, and nothing less. Of course, I've been using film SLRs for over 20 odd years, so maybe you consider that being old fashioned.

I'll agree that DSLRs attract unwanted attention, I personally hate it and generally leave the area very quickly to avoid harrassment. Everyone wants to seem to want you to take their photos etc, and you end up with having to try and figure out a multitude of digital compacts, where the UI is generally VERY bad. Just my opinion.

Kurtis, I agree with most of your points, although the portability point is a bit over the top. You don't have to take a big camera bag with you just cos you have a DSLR. I could easily just take my 1D and my 70-200 f2.8 and nothing else on a shoot. Sure, it's a bit heavier than a digital compact P&S, but it's still portable.

With the small prints argument, again, I'd disagree. A DSLR will have a better quality image, even with smaller prints, simply because of the larger sensor size, and associated pixel size. Most people wouldn't notice it though.

Learning curve is one of those things that's debatable. Generally speaking, from my personal experience, the UI is much better on a DSLR than a digital compact P&S. If it's easier to use, it's easier to learn imho. Of course, you can use a DSLR in auto program mode, and you don't really need to learn the other buttons/menu functions. That makes it no different to a digital compact P&S imho.

Expensive hobby? Yes, it can be. But - you don't have to buy the most expensive DSLR on the market, nor do yo have to buy every single lens, or the most expensive lenses etc. You can do DSLR photography relatively cheaply if you really want to.

Cheers,

Dave

Kurtis, I agree with most of your points, although the portability point is a bit over the top. You don't have to take a big camera bag with you just cos you have a DSLR. I could easily just take my 1D and my 70-200 f2.8 and nothing else on a shoot. Sure, it's a bit heavier than a digital compact P&S, but it's still portable.

Regardless of whether you use a backpack or any camera bag at all, is that 1D going to fit in your pocket? Especially not with a 70-200 2.8 on the end of it, no way.

With the small prints argument, again, I'd disagree. A DSLR will have a better quality image, even with smaller prints, simply because of the larger sensor size, and associated pixel size. Most people wouldn't notice it though.

That's exactly what I said, lol. The difference will be noticeable for someone with a keen eye, but most people wouldn't notice the difference. The point was that if you make nothing but small prints, a P&S will be sufficient for the average person. DSLRs can be very handy if you want to make high quality large prints.

Learning curve is one of those things that's debatable. Generally speaking, from my personal experience, the UI is much better on a DSLR than a digital compact P&S. If it's easier to use, it's easier to learn imho. Of course, you can use a DSLR in auto program mode, and you don't really need to learn the other buttons/menu functions. That makes it no different to a digital compact P&S imho.

I agree to an extent. My point was based on the fact that your average modern point-n-shoot camera has a pretty good and intuitive system that your average person can understand easily. DSLRs have so many buttons and features that it will likely confuse someone who has never used a DSLR.

Expensive hobby? Yes, it can be. But - you don't have to buy the most expensive DSLR on the market, nor do yo have to buy every single lens, or the most expensive lenses etc. You can do DSLR photography relatively cheaply if you really want to.

Sure you can, if you have more self control than I do. :-D

Great articles both for and against DSLR. Last June, I lost my Canon Rebel XT, and several lenses including a 17-85 IS lens that I was just getting to know. I've been getting by during my recent travels with a 6MP Casio Exilim point n shoot, but it just isn't the same.

I'm planning to start over and get a new DSLR and kit soon, but I haven't decided between the Rebel XTi, the Nikon D80, or possibly the new Sony Alpha A100. There are lots of Nikon users at my workplace, but I'm more familiar with Canon, and the built in image stabilization of Sony makes it difficult to decide. I'd very much like to hear the pros/cons and comparisons of one system against of the others.
Alex

One more reason is an added advantage of point-and-shoot; i.e. you can take videos too. Someone might argue that it is not a thing to count here. However, as I said, its and added advantage.

Hey folks, I'm hoping the author will focus on addressing this question particularly. I'm new to the world of DSLRs, but am sick of the horrible range my regular digital gets. My dad has a really old canon SLR, which has always performed very well. I just think a digital would be that much better (no film!!).

My question is: I was looking at Canons at bestbuy for about CAD$850. Talking with a rep there, he was saying sometimes the mirrors in the digitals "break" or "flip". I think he was just trying to push their 3 year guarantee on me... How often do these cameras break? Was he full of it? Can I buy a canon, treat it well, and never have it break from normal use?

lol, the mirrors 'flip'?

The shutter mechanism is rated for a certain number of actuations, beyond that it may break but it's fixable, and should last for years at least.

The mirror should only break if you try to mess with it, which you should never need to do. And I've never heard of one flipping.

That just wreaks of a selling tactic to get you to purchase their warranty. They make a killing off that stuff thats why they push it.

I'd recommend that you check out some online resellers, like B&H Photo or Beach Camera. I guarantee you that it's not an $850 camera.

he said $850CAD. but yes, probably still much cheaper online.

Uh...http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=convert+850+c...

Damnit, Max... You're not allowed to prove me wrong on things. Me am bossman!