|
10 Reasons to Buy a DSLR Camera
There is a saying among photographers: "The camera doesn't make the photo, the photographer does." The point is that no matter how expensive your gear is, it means nothing without someone who knows how to properly use it. A great artist can create masterpieces with ordinary tools. I urge you not to buy that Canon EOS 30D or Nikon D80 or [insert other DSLR model here] if you plan to leave it on full automatic mode. DSLRs are expensive light-capturing tools that can help you create some amazing images, but only if you have the time and patience to learn what you are doing and be creative. As a side note, I will link to some various websites below which I think are useful in the context of this article. Please note that we are not paid for endorsements by any of these websites. I'm simply sharing what I think are some very useful links for people who aren't already "in-the-know." With my public service announcement out of the way, I present to you 10 Reasons to Buy a DSLR Camera:  Creative Control: This is probably the single most obvious advantage of DSLR cameras. These cameras have a multitude of settings that are just begging to be adjusted. Everything from shutter speed and aperture to white balance, in-camera sharpening and contrast, white balance and white balance shift, flash synchronization, and more... Superior Sensors: DSLRs typically use a sensor that is approximately the same dimensions as an APS film negative (22.7 x 15.1 mm). In contrast, the 2/3" sensor size of an 8 Megapixel digicam is dramatically smaller, about the size of the tip of your pinky (8.8 x 6.6 mm). The larger sensor translates directly to higher image quality in terms of detail, color depth, and dynamic range. Less Noise: Noise is the digital equivalent of film grain. The fact that DSLRs display less noise is at least in part a result of the larger sensor size mentioned above, however it is significant enough to warrant getting its very own bullet point. With your typical digicam, you will get noticeable noise which is detrimental to image quality at pretty much anything above the lowest possible ISO setting. Contrast that with your typical modern DSLR, where you can actually make acceptable prints even at some of the highest ISO settings. I should note that in the literal sense, DSLRs usually make MORE noise when you click the shutter than a point-n-shoot, hehe. Accessories Galore: DSLR cameras can almost be considered upgradeable, they have so many accessories... There are lenses, filters, adapters, extension tubes, flashes, strobes, brackets, and the list goes on. For example, you can buy affordable general purpose lenses or high-end lenses with superior quality. Some lenses serve special functions as well, such as those with image stabilization, macro abilities, tilt-shift functionality, and soft focus. You get the idea. With a DSLR, you have a lot of compatible tools at your disposal which opens the door to new creative possibilities. No Shutter Lag: Shutter lag is that awful delay between the time that you click the shutter on a digicam and the time that an image is actually taken. With DSLRs, there is virtually no delay between the time that you click the shutter and the image is taken. How many times have you missed a great photo opportunity because the camera didn't focus fast enough and then didn't take the shot fast enough once it was focused? Instant Startup: Most DSLRs have nearly instant startup times. That means if your camera is hanging around your neck and in the OFF position, and you see a three-legged man riding a unicycle towards you, you can quickly turn the camera on and snap the shot. And the aforementioned lack of shutter lag will further help in getting the photo. With a digicam it will usually take several seconds to startup, and then you'll have to wait a second or so for it to focus, and then when you click the shutter there will be maybe another second before the image is actually taken - and the three-legged man will be gone. Higher Build Quality: Most digicams are plastic, plastic, and more plastic. They feel flimsy and they're not all that hard to break. DSLRs are built to much higher standards, increasingly so as you get into the more expensive models of course. Some of the cheaper DSLRs are still going to have a lot of plastic in them, but overall they're more durable than a similarly priced digicam. When you get into some of the more expensive models in the $1,000+ range, bodies are ruggedized with largely metal bodies and nice rubberized grips. The ultra-high-end professional bodies are the most rugged and are weather-sealed so you can use them in the harshest environments without a problem. I don't think you'll find many war photographers using a rinky-dink digicam. Viewfinder: This can be a plus and a minus, but mainly it's a plus. With a DSLR, you do not compose your shots on the camera's LCD, you do so through the viewfinder, and you're actually looking through the lens (that's what TTL stands for, though not to be confused with TheTechLounge). Looking through the viewfinder allows you to see more detail as you compose your shots with regard to what's in focus, and you won't have to worry about glare on an LCD interfering with composition. The only negative looking through the viewfinder really has is that if you are in a situation where you have to shoot from the hip or over your head, you have to sort of blindly shoot. By contrast, some digicams have swiveling and rotating LCD screens which allow you to compose such a shot without a problem. It's a small sacrifice. I suppose there's also the fact that it might be less comfortable to press your face against the back of the camera, but you get used to it.  Ergonomics: Back when I used to shoot with a small digicam, I would notice that my hand would cramp after a while of holding the tiny camera. DSLRs are larger and have molded grips which (to a varying degree) make holding the camera for long periods much more comfortable. The cheaper DSLRs are smaller and less comfortable, whereas the more expensive ones are usually larger and more comfortable. This is actually the main reason why I chose to purchase a Canon 20D over a Canon Digital Rebel XT - the 20D feels much better in my hand. And since I'm on the computer pretty much all day every day and I already experience occasional pain in my hands, I wanted a very comfortable camera to hold. Price: DSLR cameras are practically affordable nowadays. The big two (Canon and Nikon) currently offer DSLRs for as low as $500-$600 (Canon Digital Rebel XT and Nikon D50) and they've been encroaching on point-n-shoot price territory more and more each year. Believe it or not, this is actually already cheaper than some digicams out there. Not to mention the fact that you can often find a great deal on a used DSLR at some major online stores such as BHPhotoVideo.com and KEH.com. Another great source for used equipment is the Buy & Sell forums (registration is required, but free) over at FredMiranda.com. Incidentally, FredMiranda is also a great site to learn from other photographers, and it's also a good resource for camera and lens reviews by the site's users.For me, the above list represents 10 good reasons to buy a DSLR over a point-n-shoot digicam. However, I don't want to paint a picture that DSLRs are the perfect solution for everybody. There are some aspects which some would view as a negative of DSLR cameras. You definitely won't be able to put a DSLR in your pocket, it may not be convenient for parties where people are likely to bump into it or spill drinks on it, you'll definitely get more attention with a DSLR around your neck than with a tiny digicam, it's heavier to carry around for long periods, there is a steep learning curve, and it's also an addictive hobby that may get you spending more on lenses and other accessories than you initially planned. These are all compromises I'm willing to make, but only you can decide if a DSLR is truly right for you. 
Related Articles Add Comment
26 User Comments 1 - Posted by
EmoMakesMeCry
on November 5, 2006 - 9:50 pm 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.
2 - Posted by
reverendtimothy
on November 6, 2006 - 7:38 am 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. 3 - Posted by
handrail
on November 6, 2006 - 1:05 pm 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 as 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. 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, 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. 4 - Posted by
deeporbit
on November 6, 2006 - 5:12 pm 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?? 5 - Posted by
reverendtimothy
on November 6, 2006 - 6:59 pm 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. 6 - Posted by
Kurtis
on November 7, 2006 - 7:06 pm 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
7 - Posted by
orangepeel
on November 8, 2006 - 2:56 am 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. 8 - Posted by
weirdbeardmt
on November 8, 2006 - 2:59 am 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. 9 - Posted by
ET3D
on November 8, 2006 - 2:59 am 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 $350, and DSLR isn't anywhere near these price points. Price is definitely not a reason to by a DSLR. That's even before you take into account the price of the lenses. Other points were almost as relevant. Like the ergonomics. I happen to find a camera weighing half a kilo and up pretty uncomfortable to hold. Or construction quality? Funny, I haven't seen many point and shoots which feel like plastic. My Sony DSC-P200 is metal. It also has a viewfinder. So basically, to me DSLR has the advantages of better sensors and less noise (also translated to higher sensitivity to light), and drawbacks of size and weight, lack of video (I think some has this now), and complexity. Certainly, if I was a serious photographer, using DSLR might have made sense. But you really have to be dedicated for it to make sense. For most people, there aren't any serious advantages to DSLR, as this article proved to me. 10 - Posted by
goki75
on November 8, 2006 - 5:55 am Following maybe of some interest: A. Nikon D40 or 40D is pitted to be a Manual Focus DSLR at cheaper price point than a good compact digicam with the same APS-C sized sensor as in D50. Market Prices could be near about 250$-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. 11 - Posted by
mdavis
on November 8, 2006 - 6:59 am 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. 12 - Posted by
deeporbit
on November 8, 2006 - 5:25 pm 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.
13 - Posted by
dpastern
on November 8, 2006 - 5:45 pm 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 14 - Posted by
ET3D
on November 10, 2006 - 12:24 am 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.
15 - Posted by
akhater
on November 12, 2006 - 4:17 am 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...
16 - Posted by
akhater
on November 13, 2006 - 5:24 am :) so I have to understand you don't like mine :)
17 - Posted by
Brian
on November 13, 2006 - 9:05 am 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
18 - Posted by
woffles
on November 20, 2006 - 1:21 am 19 - Posted by
ChrisL
on November 9, 2007 - 6:18 pm 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. 20 - Posted by
OMG
on November 16, 2007 - 12:39 pm 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!
21 - Posted by
lanimar
on November 2, 2008 - 11:36 pm 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.
22 - Posted by
Spanky
on December 23, 2008 - 2:19 pm 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. 23 - Posted by
DSLR Fans
on May 12, 2009 - 9:49 pm Wow, nice article with elaboration on the comments on reasons to buy digital slr DSLR cameras . A healthy discussion indeed.
24 - Posted by
Leap Year Photography
on June 18, 2009 - 7:39 pm Every photo on our blog http://leapyearphoto.com/blog is from an SLR... wouldn't have it any other way...
25 - Posted by
Rediss
on August 25, 2010 - 8:22 am Good check list. Thanks for sharing this.. Read Digital camera buying guide – A simple check list. at below link http://www.globinch.com/2010/03/22/digital-camera-... 26 - Posted by
zz
on September 8, 2010 - 1:46 am Add Comment To add a comment without being a member, you may omit the password field, but you must enter your name (or nickname) along with your comment. * Denotes required fields. |
Recent Reviews Electronics July 27, 2010
Mid-Tower December 6, 2009
Video Cards September 23, 2009
Gaming Devices July 17, 2009
Recent News Auto Blog Jul. 28, 2010 - 11:48 pm
CVG Jul. 28, 2010 - 11:47 pm
Boing Boing Jul. 28, 2010 - 11:46 pm
Rahool Sood Jul. 28, 2010 - 11:45 pm
MCV Jul. 15, 2010 - 11:53 pm
MSNBC Jul. 15, 2010 - 11:32 pm
Schneier on Security Jul. 12, 2010 - 11:59 pm
Tom's Hardware Jul. 12, 2010 - 11:51 pm
NewsOK Jul. 12, 2010 - 11:45 pm
|
|||||||||||||
