Kurtis and his cameras, haha. This is a good article. I like it. I just bought a Nikon D50 and I'm in love with the thing. Once you go DSLR, you'll never go back.

lol, thanks man. congrats on your new big boy toy, btw. :-D

The points you've made are good, but completely and utterly misguided for your argument.

Let's be clear here - DSLR stands for "Digital Single Lens Reflex". As many camera enthusiasts should know, SLR is a throwback to the days when what you saw in the viewfinder wasn't what was snapped in the shutter. The point of SLR was to make sure the picture you're seeing in the viewfinder was exactly what was captured by the single-lens.

But digital cameras don't really need SLR any more. What you see on the screen is what you capture. The viewfinder is (almost) obsolete.

You've just given 10 reasons for buying a DSLR camera, while only briefly mentioning the SLR aspect barely in point 8. That's the equivalent of arguing "10 reasons you should buy an automatic-transmission car" and then talking about the seats, power steering, brakes, colour, etc... and not mentioning the transmission!!

It's true that many of these features are present on DSLR cameras, but that's only because DSLR cameras are typically higher-end. But they are also features of many non-SLR cameras too! I've owned several different ultra-compact and non-SLR cameras over the past few years which contained many of the points you've listed here (such as manual settings, instant startup, no shutter lag, etc) because they are completely unrelated to the DSLR feature.

The only real reason people would need a DSLR is for fast-action photography (where a viewfinder is essential for following the action) or for sunny glare situations, as you briefly mentioned. All the other points have NOTHING to do with SLR - they just happen to frequently (BUT NOT ALWAYS!) co-exist with DSLR cameras.

So yeah, my point is that your argument is good as a guide for features to look for when buying a digital camera, but NOT for Digital SLRs.

But digital cameras don't really need SLR any more. What you see on the screen is what you capture. The viewfinder is (almost) obsolete.

This statement makes me wonder if you've ever actually used a DSLR before. Viewfinders are certainly not obsolete. They show you much more detail than an LCD could, particularly on a full-frame body with a split microprism. Plus, you can hardly see a camera's LCD in direct sunlight, let alone compose a good photograph. One of the other disadvantages of point-n-shoots composing on the LCD is shutter lag. Shutter lag is largely caused by that LCD you compose the shot on...

You've just given 10 reasons for buying a DSLR camera, while only briefly mentioning the SLR aspect barely in point 8. That's the equivalent of arguing "10 reasons you should buy an automatic-transmission car" and then talking about the seats, power steering, brakes, colour, etc... and not mentioning the transmission!!

That doesn't even make sense... All of my points are about advantages of DSLRs. It's not an article just about 10 reasons why looking through a lens is better than composing on an LCD.

It's true that many of these features are present on DSLR cameras, but that's only because DSLR cameras are typically higher-end. But they are also features of many non-SLR cameras too! I've owned several different ultra-compact and non-SLR cameras over the past few years which contained many of the points you've listed here (such as manual settings, instant startup, no shutter lag, etc) because they are completely unrelated to the DSLR feature.

I've yet to see a point-n-shoot or high-end "prosumer" camera that has as many manual controls as their DSLR counterparts. Some of them may have a lot more options than your typical point-n-shoot, but it's still no DSLR. Nor have I seen any point-n-shoots with an instant startup time. Maybe it only takes a second or so, but not instant as far as I'm aware. And you certainly are not going to have a point-n-shoot with NO shutter lag, because as I mentioned before, the fact that you compose the shot on the LCD will translate to shutter lag.

The only real reason people would need a DSLR is for fast-action photography (where a viewfinder is essential for following the action) or for sunny glare situations, as you briefly mentioned. All the other points have NOTHING to do with SLR - they just happen to frequently (BUT NOT ALWAYS!) co-exist with DSLR cameras.

I never said anybody NEEDs a DSLR. The entire point of this article, which you apparently missed, was that DSLRs have a lot to offer that point-n-shoots don't, if you're inclined to get creative and you're not just a casual shooter. With the prices that you can buy a DSLR for these days, it's hard to justify buying a 'closed-system' point-n-shoot or prosumer camera when you could get a DSLR for $500-600 (or even less if you want to go with another brand besides canon or nikon, or buy used)

So you want his 10 reasons all to be "DSLRs are SLR cameras"?

The list is comprehensive enough to cover some reasons why someone would choose to buy a DSLR over a point n shoot. Sure, some point n shooters have similar or identical features, but typically when you buy a lowend digi you don't get many features other than "auto" where as with a low end DSLR you usually get features common to a high end point n shoot.

And i completely disagree with your statement that "The only real reason people would need a DSLR is for fast-action photography ". I was recently shooting some pictures at a botanical gardens and the auto focus of my Canon A80 couldn't cope with the multi-layered background depth of the subjects. it often took me several shots to compose a good pic. I was constantly wishing for a DSLR while shooting. And what about macro shots with a racking focus? Adjusting the f-stop on a DSLR yields better racking focus than with an auto focus point n shoot, in my experience.

Again, i also disagree with this statement "But digital cameras don't really need SLR any more. What you see on the screen is what you capture. The viewfinder is (almost) obsolete." You don't think that having a larger diameter and higher quality lens affects the quality of your shot? No matter how much you spend on a digi point n shoot, the size of the lens will be limited and much smaller diameter than a DSLR. I agree that the idea of a what you see is what you get viewfinder is somewhat obsolete with digi viewfinders, but the increase in image quality with a DSLR definitely deserves to be a top 10 reason.

And wouldn't you agree that the sensor size is also of major importance? Again, with a full sized camera body, you can fit a larger sensor. Smaller point n shooters can't accommodate the larger sensors, nor would they be able to properly focus images onto a larger sensor with their smaller lenses.

I think it's your argument that needs a second glance.

....dont mess with the K man, he be one photo phreek! ;-)

I liked that article, I’ve been toying with the idea of buying a digital camera recently and I think the extra investment for a DSLR might be a good one...lets get the creative juices flowing!

Blackjet,

I wouldn't get a DSLR as my first digi cam. There are tons of decent point n shoots out there to get you started. My old olympus D-520 works pretty well for quick pics, party shots, pics while driving, etc. And I used a Canon Powershot A-80 for some of our TTL product shots as well as some random point n shoot applications. The Canon is a nicer camera and works well for most things. Although, as I mentioned above, I really would like to have used a DSLR while I was at the botanical gardens. It would really help me take better pictures at the race track to catch fast action while watching races or even at car shows where I have time to fiddle with settings and compose a good shot.

Unless you have distinct reasons in mind to get a DSLR, I'd get a decent point n shoot first to start out.

yeah that's sort of true. if you've never used any digital camera at all, you probably won't want to START with a DSLR. unless, of course, you're going to buy a $500+ digital camera to begin with anyways, then I guess you would just plain be making a better investment by getting a DSLR, even if you didn't know how to use the advanced features at first.

I bought a Nikon D50 earlier this year after using an Olympus point and shoot unit for 5 years. The difference is amazing. The learning curve is steep as Kurtis mentioned but the end result is a LOT more creativity than point and shoot could ever wish for.
I agree with Kurtis than reverandtimothy may not have used a dslr or maybe he just bought something like a $500 point.n.shoot??

Welcome to the forums, deeporbit. :)

And thanks for the support. :-D

It seems I haven't explained myself well enough. I'm definitely not anti-SLR!! :)

To say again, my issue wasn't with the features of the article, but with the terminology used.

"dSLR" shouldn't be a blanket term for "high-end" cameras.

From the title of the article, I expected to read why I should buy a dSLR camera over a similar high end, but non-SLR, camera.

For example, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50 (which is NOT a dSLR camera) has a greater resolution than the Canon EOS 20D (one of your example dSLR cameras), the same "creative control" features, mostly the same accessories (such as hot-shoe and filters), same lack of shutter lag. In fact, the only significant difference the Canon has over the Lumix is the SLR viewfinder and greater sensor size - both of which are good things, but hardly 10 unique points.

Thanks also to handrail who's given the most insightful response yet.

In summary, I was disappointed reading about features I was already aware of with regular high-end cameras when I was expecting a dSLR-specific case.

For the SLR fanboys getting up in arms, I would like to remind them that my beef is with the use of "dSLR" as an umbrella term for high-end cameras, and not with the cameras themselves. I'd also like to ask: other than the SLR viewfinder and sensor size (which also covers noise), what other features does a dSLR has over a non-SLR high-end camera, as I'm apparently missing the other 8 points in the argument?

PS: For the record, I currently have a Panasonic Lumix (non-SLR). I *have* used dSLRs before and found the difference between a high-end non-SLR and a regular dSLR to be insignificant. I use the electronic viewfinder when necessary, and all the other features (such as hot-shoe for external flash, filters, manual focus, etc) are available. The only significant thing missing is a bigger sensor, and the noise level is not yet bothering me enough to fork out twice as much for a dSLR camera. I was simply highlighting that the only two SLR-specific points in this article were not enough to convince me dSLR is worth the extra cost.

"dSLR" shouldn't be a blanket term for "high-end" cameras.

I didn't use DSLR as a blanket term for high-end cameras... A DSLR is a DSLR. Digital Single Lens Reflex camera. I added into the beginning of the article exactly what DSLR stands for earlier today just to make it more clear.

For example, the Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ50 (which is NOT a dSLR camera) has a greater resolution than the Canon EOS 20D (one of your example dSLR cameras), the same "creative control" features, mostly the same accessories (such as hot-shoe and filters), same lack of shutter lag. In fact, the only significant difference the Canon has over the Lumix is the SLR viewfinder and greater sensor size - both of which are good things, but hardly 10 unique points.

The Lumix DMC-FZ50 has more MEGAPIXELS, not greater resolution. Unless I'm mistaken, the 20D still has a larger sensor than the Lumix. It's not the number of pixels, it's the quality of those pixels that counts. If you want more information in that area, here's a series of articles written by Joe Marney right here on our site:
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article/121/Beyond+Me...
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article/123/Beyond+Megapixels+Part+II/
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article/134/Beyond+Me...

Thanks also to handrail who's given the most insightful response yet.

He's wise beyond his years, that one. :-D

In summary, I was disappointed reading about features I was already aware of with regular high-end cameras when I was expecting a dSLR-specific case.

Some of the things DSLRs have, high-end prosumer cams might have as well. But no matter how you slice it, DSLRs are superior to those prosumers. With a Lumix, you're essentially investing in a closed system. With a DSLR, you have headroom to upgrade with various lenses.

For the SLR fanboys getting up in arms, I would like to remind them that my beef is with the use of "dSLR" as an umbrella term for high-end cameras, and not with the cameras themselves. I'd also like to ask: other than the SLR viewfinder and sensor size (which also covers noise), what other features does a dSLR has over a non-SLR high-end camera, as I'm apparently missing the other 8 points in the argument?

Once again, to clarify, DSLR was not used as a blanket term. I said DSLR and I meant DSLR. DSLR DSLR DSLR. Here are some of the points you missed... 1) Creative control: When you're comparing a DSLR to a very high-end prosumer digicam, there may not be a vast difference in the amount of creative controls available, but DSLRs do have more available to you. Do you have Shutter Lockup on the Lumix, for example? 4) Accessories Galore: Can you buy a tilt-shift lens for your Lumix? A 1:1 macro lens? How about a flash ringlight? 5) No Shutter Lag - your Lumix has shutter lag. Even if you use the viewfinder, which is electronic, it will have shutter lag. 6) Instant Startup - your lumix does not startup as fast as a DSLR (yeah yeah, i know some DSLRs aren't that instant like one of Olympus' with the Anti-Dust system at startup slowing things down. Check out DPReviews timings to see that there is indeed lag on the lumix: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page... 7) Higher Build Quality - I'll give you this one for the Lumix, it's got pretty good build quality. The same isn't true for most prosumer cameras though. 8) Viewfinder - optical viewfinder is superior for composition, as noted in the article. prosumer viewfinders are either electronic or just tiny, either way a DSLR's optical viewfinder is superior in resolution 9) Ergonomics - this is really dependant on the camera, but i'd say more often than not DSLR ergonomics are overall better than prosumer and point-n-shoot ergonomics. finally there is 10) Price - DSLRs are basically the same prices as prosumers these days, so why wouldn't you want an open-ended system with room to upgrade?

PS: For the record, I currently have a Panasonic Lumix (non-SLR). I *have* used dSLRs before and found the difference between a high-end non-SLR and a regular dSLR to be insignificant. I use the electronic viewfinder when necessary, and all the other features (such as hot-shoe for external flash, filters, manual focus, etc) are available. The only significant thing missing is a bigger sensor, and the noise level is not yet bothering me enough to fork out twice as much for a dSLR camera. I was simply highlighting that the only two SLR-specific points in this article were not enough to convince me dSLR is worth the extra cost.

A DSLR is not twice as much. Your Lumix costs over $500. You could get a DSLR for that price.

For what I use my camera for, the advantages of going with a DSLR far outweighed the cons...wait...there were no cons :)

As a graphic design and soon to be advertising student, I mess with images a lot. In my advertising assignments, I knew I would be using my own photography and I needed a camera that was flexible. No, I didn't want to wrap it around my waist, stupid. The advantages of being able to switch lenses is extremely helpful. There are times when I need a telephoto/macro/wide-angle/fisheye, etc; and I wouldn't get the same sort of flexibility from any point-n-shoot. In addition, being able to switch filters is immensely helpful.

I've been using an old Nikon EM and Nikon N2020 for years and I've finally reached the point where the DSLR market wasn't such a dream. I'd been drooling over them for a long time but now with these "entry-level" DSLRs (which are pretty damn powerful for a so-called entry-level camera), I can finally get more use out of a digital.

Being able to transfer the images in RAW format into Photoshop is also a huge help. With my Olympus p&s, it was saving my images in as JPEGs, which certainly isn't ideal. I much prefer my D50 and how it saves in an uncompressed format that I can upload into photoshop without losing any quality (I know a compressed format only loses a fraction, but I prefer uncompressed nonetheless)

Another thing I love about Nikon...Their Nikkor lenses. My old lenses from my N2020 are compatible with my D50. They're tiding me over just fine until I can afford to buy the new Nikkor lenses I need. One of my favorite features of DSLRs over prosumer cameras, is the ability to upgrade. Sometime down the line when I want to upgrade to a D80 or something, I can just buy the new body and keep all my lenses, therefore saving quite a bit of money. :)

Point taken. But as I read it it makes sense to me what Kurtis is getting at...and no I didn't discuss or read the article before he posted it! :) But you are correct, many of the features cross over from DSLR to P/S and vice versa. But then again, I typically think of DSLRs in terms of the old film SLR cameras. I don't own a DSLR, but do have a kick ass 25 or 30 year old olympus SLR with a couple different lenses. When Kurtis mentions creative control, I instantly assume any creative leniency that comes from being able to change lenses, finely adjust focus and set real f-stop...I rarely think of custom white balance and all the typical digital trimmings as most of those aspects can be adjusted with proper f-stop, ISO and shutter speed...if you know what you're doing.

As far as I know, and I don't know much, points 5-8 are typically associated with DSLRs. I know some P/S cameras do a lot to eliminate shutter lag and decrease start up, but I've not seen one in a store or at CES that is as quick as a decent DSLR. As far as the viewfinder goes. Kurtis's point about composing through the viewfinder vs. the LCD is dead on. And while Rev. Tim is totally correct about the LCD displaying the full image while composing, I still think that composing through a viewfinder is better as you can get a more realistic idea of focus than when squinting at an LCD screen. Plus, as Rev. Tim also mentioned, trying to compose a shot in the sun with an LCD is murder. Of course, on the flip side, it is a real pain to take a quick photo without the LCD. But pointing out the differences and highlighting the virtues of DSLR was the entire point of the article. So when Kurtis says "This can be a plus and a minus, but mainly it's a plus.", it is a very true statement, yet it highlights what I feel is an overall better feature for constructing good quality photos using a DSLR.

Gah! Ok, no more talking for me.

Thanks for coming back and adding to the discussion, Rev. Tim.. Afterall, that's what our forums are all about.

Guys

Cheers for the words of caution but I think a lower end DLSR would suit me well, I have been shooting for a while with my dads optio S50 and am starting to find that I have exhausted all its functionality. I want a little more out of what ever camera I do buy for example I would love to do a cityscape of Belfast from the top of our Uni library at night, the extra level of control you have with DSLR would be perfect for funky little shots like this.

The other major factor to consider is that I take allot of action shots, mostly of power kiting and surfing. It would be really good to have a camera with NO LAG and the capability to do large burst sequences quickly. I also like to photograph gigs I go to but the noise in the pictures taken buy the S50 is starting to get annoying......and don’t even get me started on how cool it would be to get a few different lenses...... ;)

But sadly, and more to the point, there is not much chance of me affording even a cheap point and shoot any time in the near future, I’m a student and I’m comparatively broke :( Ahhhhh well, will just have to make do.....

Wow, we got posted on Digg.com, and now we're on the front page of Slashdot. I didn't expect such a big response. :-D

Hmm.well, I enjoyed reading the article but I agree with reverend timothy that it didn't make it's points in a very clear way.

I'll try to explain myself simply - there is really only ONE reason to go SLR over P&S, digital or not, and that's LENSES.

Yes, lenses were mentioned as a part of accessories, but the list should have read something like:

1, Lenses
2. Lenses
...
9. Lenses
10. All the other points combined into one.

It's OK as a basic article but it's out of date and has a glaring omission. It's out of date because the 20D and Digital Rebel XT are no longer the current range (it's the 30D and the 400D).

The omission is the problem of the crop factor. Only a small handful of digital SLRs have a full frame sensor (such as the EOS 5D) which gives you a true 35mm-esque photo. Other DSLRs have a "crop factor", normally around 1.5-1.6x which means you in essence see a magnification in your photos - a photo taken at 20mm will really be 32mm. Unless you can afford $2500 for a 5D or equivalent, then it's an important consideration.

I agree with rev.Tim that the points listed in the article are fine, but they're a very woolly "reason" for owning a DSLR over a point and shoot.

Point 10 was perhaps the funniest. "DSLR cameras are practically affordable nowadays" -- well, that just makes them not as bad as they used to by comparison. You can still get a point and shoot for $200, and a pretty decent one for $350, and DSLR isn't anywhere near these price points. Price is definitely not a reason to by a DSLR. That's even before you take into account the price of the lenses.

Other points were almost as relevant. Like the ergonomics. I happen to find a camera weighing half a kilo and up pretty uncomfortable to hold. Or construction quality? Funny, I haven't seen many point and shoots which feel like plastic. My Sony DSC-P200 is metal. It also has a viewfinder.

So basically, to me DSLR has the advantages of better sensors and less noise (also translated to higher sensitivity to light), and drawbacks of size and weight, lack of video (I think some has this now), and complexity.

Certainly, if I was a serious photographer, using DSLR might have made sense. But you really have to be dedicated for it to make sense. For most people, there aren't any serious advantages to DSLR, as this article proved to me.

Following maybe of some interest:

A. Nikon D40 or 40D is pitted to be a Manual Focus DSLR at cheaper price point than a good compact digicam with the same APS-C sized sensor as in D50. Market Prices could be near about 250$-450$ Range

B. Canon E330 DSLR provides a Live View LCD panel- > akin to those in compacts.


WeirdbeardMT. I guess the sensor size in most DSLR is APS-C size which is very large compared to 2/3" in point and shoot compacts. What you are talking about are full frame 35mm sensors. There are Digital Backs for Medium Format Which are even bigger like mamiya, leaf aptus touching 30 megapixels...thats truely professional.


As for the Prosumer Cameras the likes of Lumix FZ50 I have owned a FZ20 for sometime now. A fine camera with excellent results. But unfortunately within two months I started finding faults with it. Not really camera troubles but expectation of more control like a regular film SLR.

While I generally agree with the article, it REALLY depends on what non-SLR camera you are comparing to. For example, if I address his 10 points compared to a high-end Sony 828 non-SLR digital camera:

1) Creative Control: I have most of the same settings and control in the 828 as a DSLR: shutter speed, aperature, white balance, flash modes, color balance, histogram, etc.
2) Superior Sensors: The 828's is nice, but it can't compare to most DSLR's... but that doesn't mean newer non-DSLR's will remain behind the sensor technology curve.
3) Less Noise: Not a terrible problem on the 828
4) Accessories Galore: Yep- gotta hand that over to the SLR's. The 828 can use various flashes, memory, filters, but the lens is fixed.
5) No Shutter Lag: I find the "lag" on the 828 to be minimal. The DSLR's are faster at focusing, but from the time it is focused I see no difference in speed from pressing the button fully down and it taking the picture on the 828 vs. the DSLR's I have used.
6) Instant Startup: Again, what is he comparing to? The 828 is ready to shoot in under one second.
7) Higher Build Quality: 828 will stack up against most DSLR's
8) Viewfinder: Personally, I *like* using a live screen to shoot instead of a viewfinder. So I find the 828 superior to a DSLR in that case, but if you do WANT to use the viewfinder, the DSLR is better. This is probably the most important differentiating factor between the two.
9) Ergonomics: 828 is every bit as comfortable to me as a DSLR, plus it can shoot overhead or underfoot while watching the screen, something you cannot do with a DSLR at all.
10) Price: quality DSLR or non-DSLR, price is similar and not a factor anymore.

Interestingly, a company could easily make a quality non-DSLR camera with a larger sensor and interchangable lenses and most of what is left of the differences will just disappear. Then the consumer is left with the only REAL difference: Do you want to be forced to look through a viewfinder or want to primarily look at a screen? They each have advantages and disadvantages.

And features that the 828 has that I have not seen on the several DSLR's I have played with?

1) The 828 has a (visible) laser focus system for dim light that is extremely accurate.
2) The 828 has a sharper and closer macro mode than any DSLR-included lens I have seen.
3) As mentioned above, the 828 body can twist and allow the photographer to take pictures overhead and underfoot while still seeing what he is doing
4) The 828 has night modes (infrared) that are better than what DSLR's can typically emulate (although I don't find that feature to be all that useful- it is still noisy and, of course, black-and-white-only.)
5) The 828 has full-motion video recording at 640x480, none of the DSLR's I have seen support any type of movie recording.

I believe the author would have done much more justice to have better defined which type of non-SLR cameras he was comparing to. There is often as much difference between a pocket non-DSLR and a high-end, large-lensed/bodyied, full featured non-DSRL as there is between most DSLR's and non-DSLR's.

LOL!

Great comments! Keep 'em coming!

Oi, lots of comments. I'll try to address all of them:

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hmm.well, I enjoyed reading the article but I agree with reverend timothy that it didn't make it's points in a very clear way. I'll try to explain myself simply - there is really only ONE reason to go SLR over P&S, digital or not, and that's LENSES. Yes, lenses were mentioned as a part of accessories, but the list should have read something like:
1, Lenses
2. Lenses
...
9. Lenses
10. All the other points combined into one.

LOL! Fair enough. :-D

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

It's OK as a basic article but it's out of date and has a glaring omission. It's out of date because the 20D and Digital Rebel XT are no longer the current range (it's the 30D and the 400D).

I don't understand your point about the 20D and Rebel XT not being the most recent cameras, what's your point? I only mentioned the 20D for ergonomics as a reason I chose a high-end DSLR than the entry-level. And I mentioned the Rebel XT because it's still available for purchase, and it's affordable. Sure, I guess you could pay $800 for a Rebel XTi, but if I'm going to buy a Rebel, I'd just get the cheaper one. I don't need a vibrating sensor to remove dust, that's what Sensor Swabs are for :-P

The omission is the problem of the crop factor. Only a small handful of digital SLRs have a full frame sensor (such as the EOS 5D) which gives you a true 35mm-esque photo. Other DSLRs have a "crop factor", normally around 1.5-1.6x which means you in essence see a magnification in your photos - a photo taken at 20mm will really be 32mm. Unless you can afford $2500 for a 5D or equivalent, then it's an important consideration.

I suppose you're right, I didn't mention crop factor in this article. (I did mention it in my Beginner's Guide to Manual Photography briefly... if that counts for anything). I just didn't feel it was really relevant to this article. I don't feel the crop factor really matters as a negative point, many people like the crop factor to get a longer reach on telephoto lenses. And if you have a Canon 1.6x crop camera for example, you could get an EF-S 10-22mm lens which has the same coverage basically as the 16-35mm 2.8L.

I agree with rev.Tim that the points listed in the article are fine, but they're a very woolly "reason" for owning a DSLR over a point and shoot.

I appreciate your opinion, but I guess we must agree to disagree. I think the reasons I've listed very clearly show why a DSLR is better than a point-n-shoot. Granted, my article can't account for EVERY SINGLE point-n-shoot and DSLR out there, but I believe my argument is sound. If I took into account every possible camera out there, I'd have to write a book comparing every single feature on every single camera. Maybe another day. :-P

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Point 10 was perhaps the funniest. "DSLR cameras are practically affordable nowadays" -- well, that just makes them not as bad as they used to by comparison. You can still get a point and shoot for $200, and a pretty decent one for $350, and DSLR isn't anywhere near these price points. Price is definitely not a reason to by a DSLR. That's even before you take into account the price of the lenses.

My point here, as I have mentioned earlier in my comments I believe, was that DSLRs are every bit as affordable these days as a HIGH-END point-n-shoot. I'm comparing apples to oranges. You're comparing my apples to an old tire at the bottom of the lake. Or something like that. And yeah, it's before taking into account the price of lenses, but even a kit lens will give you superior quality images over a point-n-shoot. You'll probably want something better eventually, of course.

Other points were almost as relevant. Like the ergonomics. I happen to find a camera weighing half a kilo and up pretty uncomfortable to hold. Or construction quality? Funny, I haven't seen many point and shoots which feel like plastic. My Sony DSC-P200 is metal. It also has a viewfinder.

Most point-n-shoots are made mostly of plastic. Ergonomics refers to things like the hand grip and button layout, not weight. Clearly, a DSLR loses in the weight category. And your Sony DSC-P200 has a viewfinder, but so do disposable cameras, that doesn't mean it's a GOOD viewfinder. Those are too small to be of any real use in composing a shot. Not that it matters much since p&s cameras have such a wide depth of field.

So basically, to me DSLR has the advantages of better sensors and less noise (also translated to higher sensitivity to light), and drawbacks of size and weight, lack of video (I think some has this now), and complexity.

You're pretty much dead on here. I haven't heard of any DSLRs that play video, actually. Although, you could do a ton of burst shots and make a small movie out of it. I've done that before, hehe.

Certainly, if I was a serious photographer, using DSLR might have made sense. But you really have to be dedicated for it to make sense. For most people, there aren't any serious advantages to DSLR, as this article proved to me.

Yeah, exactly. For a lot of people, a DSLR is not worthwhile, despite all its advantages. If you're not willing to LEARN to use your camera to its fullest, then it's sort of a waste of money, you might as well buy a cheap point-n-shoot and be done with it.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

While I generally agree with the article, it REALLY depends on what non-SLR camera you are comparing to. For example, if I address his 10 points compared to a high-end Sony 828 non-SLR digital camera:

1) Creative Control: I have most of the same settings and control in the 828 as a DSLR: shutter speed, aperature, white balance, flash modes, color balance, histogram, etc.
2) Superior Sensors: The 828's is nice, but it can't compare to most DSLR's... but that doesn't mean newer non-DSLR's will remain behind the sensor technology curve.
3) Less Noise: Not a terrible problem on the 828
4) Accessories Galore: Yep- gotta hand that over to the SLR's. The 828 can use various flashes, memory, filters, but the lens is fixed.
5) No Shutter Lag: I find the "lag" on the 828 to be minimal. The DSLR's are faster at focusing, but from the time it is focused I see no difference in speed from pressing the button fully down and it taking the picture on the 828 vs. the DSLR's I have used.
6) Instant Startup: Again, what is he comparing to? The 828 is ready to shoot in under one second.
7) Higher Build Quality: 828 will stack up against most DSLR's
Viewfinder: Personally, I *like* using a live screen to shoot instead of a viewfinder. So I find the 828 superior to a DSLR in that case, but if you do WANT to use the viewfinder, the DSLR is better. This is probably the most important differentiating factor between the two.
9) Ergonomics: 828 is every bit as comfortable to me as a DSLR, plus it can shoot overhead or underfoot while watching the screen, something you cannot do with a DSLR at all.
10) Price: quality DSLR or non-DSLR, price is similar and not a factor anymore.

1) True, you do have MOST of the same settings, but you do not have ALL of the same settings.
2) I don't expect we'll ever see DSLR sensors which don't surpass point-n-shoot sensors. The sheer size difference has a huge impact. I think we'll just see more and more affordable DSLR systems.
5) The 828 uses an LCD to compose and therefore there is shutter lag. You may not personally notice it in the situations you use it, but it's there.
6) The difference may not be huge for some of the high-end prosumer cameras.
9) The 828 is designed to feel like a DSLR, that's why. :-P
10) That's exactly my point, the price is similar. Therefore, the DSLR is the better deal as it is "upgradeable."

Interestingly, a company could easily make a quality non-DSLR camera with a larger sensor and interchangable lenses and most of what is left of the differences will just disappear. Then the consumer is left with the only REAL difference: Do you want to be forced to look through a viewfinder or want to primarily look at a screen? They each have advantages and disadvantages.

That's certainly possible, but I don't think manufacturers will do that. They would be smarter to make DSLRs cheaper, as people will eventually spend more money on lenses and accessories. It may end up like with the XBOX 360 / PS3 (though probably not exactly) - they take a loss on the console itself and make money on the games, controllers, etc... They'll probably make less eventually on the low-end DSLRs but make up for that with lenses, flashes, and so on.

And features that the 828 has that I have not seen on the several DSLR's I have played with?

1) The 828 has a (visible) laser focus system for dim light that is extremely accurate.
2) The 828 has a sharper and closer macro mode than any DSLR-included lens I have seen.
3) As mentioned above, the 828 body can twist and allow the photographer to take pictures overhead and underfoot while still seeing what he is doing
4) The 828 has night modes (infrared) that are better than what DSLR's can typically emulate (although I don't find that feature to be all that useful- it is still noisy and, of course, black-and-white-only.)
5) The 828 has full-motion video recording at 640x480, none of the DSLR's I have seen support any type of movie recording.

1) On a DSLR, you don't need that, you have a flash (or built-in flash) which will illuminate the scene as it focuses.
2) Possibly true, but I can buy a lens that will blow that away.
3) That is a definite plus for that camera. Shooting overhead / from the hip simply sucks on a DSLR, though you can buy angled viewfinders, etc...
5) Indeed, no movie recording on a DSLR. I don't personally find that to be a negative though.

I believe the author would have done much more justice to have better defined which type of non-SLR cameras he was comparing to. There is often as much difference between a pocket non-DSLR and a high-end, large-lensed/bodyied, full featured non-DSRL as there is between most DSLR's and non-DSLR's.

When writing an article like this, you have to make some generalizations. As I mentioned above, it would take me a book to write for every possibility that exists out there. By the time I'd finish writing it, new cameras would be out with different feature-sets.

Ok, let's end the silliness. The number 1 reason to get a DSLR is they look WAY cooler than any p&s. Chicks dig 'em! Big and black and pro looking. Just go to Disneyland and see who is serious and who is a "tourist" jsut out to capture the moment, which is great. But I doubt if Man Ray were alive today he would be using a p&s.

Wow. I think the article is quite accurate Kurt, with the basic advantages/selling points of a DSLR over the non DSLR prosumer cameras, and digital compact point and shooters being spot on.

1. Simply correct. Whilst some upper market prosumer cameras offer the ability to be creative, many do not. Want to do stuff like AEB? Forget it. This is not a hard rule, some non DSLRs do offer features such as this, but it's a rarity, not the norm. With a DSLR, it's the norm, not a rarity. Major advantage to the DSLR here.

2. Absolutely. Sensor size impacts on certain areas - the primary ones being noise and resolution. Smaller sensors, means smaller pixels, and this is BAD for digital photography. Diffraction plays a large part in poor image resolution, for more basic information read here:

http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffrac...

3. See point 2. This is why digital compacts and prosumer cameras are usually noisier than their DSLR counterparts. Of course, many digital compacts and prosumer cameras are also using CCD sensors, rather than CMOS, which is traditionally far smoother, and has a lower noise floor, and better amplication [of the signal] performance. You'll also find that the digital processing chipsets on cameras vary wildly, with the better quality ones appearing in DSLRs.

4. As a general rule, DSLRs (like their SLR cousins) will offer more accessories, and more potential functionality by the usage of add-ons. Want to change a focusing screen on a prosumer/digital compact camera? Forget it. Want to add a purpose made macro lens? Forget it. I must note that many digital compacts and prosumer cameras can accept macro filters, such as Raynox, and they are superb, with brilliant results. Of course, the major part of accessories is lenses, and this, as another poster pointed out is the killer reason to go with DSLRs/SLRs.

5. Again, this is a no brainer. I'm sure more recent models from the prosumer and digital compact camps have a lower shutter lag, but they cannot match a DSLR in all honesty. Shutter lag on my 1D is quoted by Canon as being 55ms, which is the fastest DSLR on the market I might add.

6. Same as point 5. Even my four year old 1D has a faster startup time than most prosumers/digital compacts.

7. Absolutely. Whilst some of the prosumers aren't bad in build quality, most of them are plastic and not particularly strong. This is an honest assessment. Of course, the pro DSLRs models are even stronger and have weather sealing to boot.

8. Personally, I dislike using LCD screens. They make you lazy, they make you not think about composition etc. They're a mongrel to read in harsh lighting, and the resolution is often very poor. They also lack reasonable information.

9. This is very much a personal preference thing I find. As an example, I can't stand Nikon DSLR ergonomics!!! As a general rule, digital prosumer cameras and digital compacts offer poorer ergonomics, with options/settings being set by a myriad of menus, rather than logically laid out buttons. This does affect usability, and as Kurt has pointed out, you'll quite often miss the shot.

10. This is contentious. I can see what Kurt is saying, from a price point of view, entry level DSLRs like the 400D/D50s offer exceptional vaue for money, lots of features, and the vast majority of prosumer and digital compact cameras cannot compete in all honesty. You get more bang for your buck with the DSLR, with more flexibility, power etc.

Drawbacks to DSLRs? Size. I know the 400D is tiny, but most digital compacts are smaller and slimmer. Weight, same deal. These are tradeoffs to improved build quality I feel. You can have one, or the other, but not both. I'm most certainly prefer a stronger camera, even if it was a bit larger and heavier. I guess I'm biased, since I use a 1D, which is a big and heavy camera ;-)

Shameless plug - feel free to check my website out:

http://www.macro-images.com/

Cheers,

Dave

Thanks for the responses, Kurtis. It wasn't clear to me that the comparison was to high end point and shoots. It makes more sense now. One reason I have a compact is that I found myself losing photo opportunities because I didn't have something I could carry in my pocket. Sure you lose other opportunities going this way, but, well, that was my choice. But then, I'm not a serious photographer.

I do agree with these, but one shouldn't get too much carried away and just buy a DSLR, there are also cons for a DSLR, check 10 reasons NOT to buy a DSLR at http://www.adidap.com/2006/11/11/10-reasons-not-to...

lol, I'm glad my article interested you, but I'll be writing my own article entitled 10 Reasons NOT to Buy a DSLR, to give the other point-of-view.

:) so I have to understand you don't like mine :)

I didn't say that, I just said I was planning on doing my own. :-P

Yeah, Kurtis was actually planning to do both. We were talking about the "10 reasons NOT to" right after he wrote this article. You just beat him to the punch :-P

Alright, today I got around to writing and posting my 10 Reasons NOT to Buy a DSLR:

http://www.thetechlounge.com/article/312/10+Reason...

Why?

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz50/page...

Cause!

I´ve used Minolta SLR (not digital) cameras for years and finally switched to a Minolta Dimage A200 a little over 2 years ago. I am always in conflict between which is better, a good DSLR or a prosumer camera like the A200. My experience with the prosumer type cameras has been:

They are smaller and handier than a DSLR and I don´t have to carry multiple lenses and don´t have the problem of changing lenses.

They can get you up to 18x zoom, which for a DSLR requires a very large and costly lense.

However, at least the A200 has very slow shutter release and the noise is so high that IS0 100 or maximum 200 is all I can use.

Autofocusing is close to imposible.

The F stop range is limited. The only prosumer with F11 that I have found is the Minolta. Most stop at F8. I certainly liked the F22 of my SLR Minoltas.

So my trade off is not price. If I could buy a prosumer with fast shutter release, good high ISO picture, easy autofocusing and a good range for F stops I wouldn´t need a DSLR. And if I could buy a lightweight DSLR with a single good Macro to telephoto lense all in one, I would´t need a prosumer. I´ve come to the conclusion that I will never get what I really want at any price.

I would like to buy a DSLR camera with infrared capabilities. I am trying to photograph unusual things in the air that cannot be seen with the naked eye. Any recommendations appreciated!

If you want IR capabilities on a DSLR, you're going to have to get it modded by a company that specializes in that. I don't know who does it off the top of my head, but Google should help you find some.

I thought you could wipe some solvent on the CCD's glass that removed the IR filter.

They do that so you can't shoot photos of people through their clothes, which is nice and all, but who wants infrared boobies?

"Man, check out the arteries on her! So symmetrical..."

For those dslr owners here not using their dslr, or those that don't use it for the reason of being bulky or whatever, I am willing to take it and make some valuable use for it. I have always wanted a dslr but is too expensive. I am aspiring to be a professional photographer. If you are willing to donate your unused dslr camera, Please contact me at lanimar3417@yahoo.com. Promise your dslr won't goto waste.

As usual, too many DSLR owners that paid too much, ranting about how they'll take it off your hands, if you don't want you're DSLR. You see, they are calling you stupid for your P&S choice. They will never get it (or there money back). Meanwhile, if you are a photographer, you're getting good pictures for less depreciating equipment (AKA camera) costs. That said, if you are going off to war to be a high paid photographer and the most durable camera now is a DSLR, then go for it. Most of you know darn well that you would be better off buying a new P&S the MIGHT get ruined than a mint DSLR that MIGHT protect from ruin. It's not like they are scratch proof.

It's all a game and you are all the suckers who buy into it. My proof: It CAN not cost that much to make even the high end cameras, in China. We ARE NOT seeing enough "better" for the price. I mean, you can own about 15 P&S for the price of a really good DSLR. It is literally cheaper (and better) to buy high end P&S for differing focal ranges, than to buy different lenses. You CAN get better shots with a P&S. Plus, noise, which can be worked around as simple as using a 1 second, still exposure at 100 ISO, is all but non-existent on the new P&S such as the new Pany G1. DSLR are going to be old school very soon. I suggest you save your money.

Spanky, why are you ranting so much about a P&S camera? And how do you figure you can buy 15 point-n-shoots for the cost of a good DSLR? Literally any DSLR will give you a noticeable improvement in your shots, assuming you know how to use it.

I think you need to read the companion piece to this article:
http://www.thetechlounge.com/article/308/10-Reason...

I've been using DSLRs for years, and I wouldn't be caught dead shooting anything important to me with a P&S. The quality simply isn't there. Sure, DSLRs are expensive, and they often result in spending a lot more money on lenses etc... but you get what you pay for. Read the article I linked to above if you want to learn a little bit about the advantages of a DSLR. They are not for everyone, but they are, without a doubt, superior tools for capturing images.

Every photo on my blog is from an SLR... wouldn't have it any other way...