I think I'd like a DSLR, but... - Page 3

Ian · #31 22-03-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stephen

It seems to me that if you are happy to relinquish all responsibility for the end result of your files, and you are not prepared to spend time processing your shots to get what you want, then it is a waste of time shooting Raw and having the control it potentially offers. Shoot jpegs and upload to Photobox would seem the best solution for you.

I think that if you invest in a decent raw processing program then the time spent processing raw can be minimised and you can potentially get a better result and enjoy this element of the image producing process

I think this is another rare situation where I have to respectfully disagree

Being a great photographer doesn't necessarily mean one is guaranteed to be great at post processing. But by shooting in RAW you give the best raw materials for someone who is blessed with excellent post processing skills.

My friend, Danny Chau, was hired by hundreds of photographers to produce the best possible printed results. That was a large proportion of his business.

I'm sure he could produce a better printed result from my own photography

Ian

Stephen · #32 22-03-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

I think this is another rare situation where I have to respectfully disagree

Being a great photographer doesn't necessarily mean one is guaranteed to be great at post processing. But by shooting in RAW you give the best raw materials for someone who is blessed with excellent post processing skills.

My friend, Danny Chau, was hired by hundreds of photographers to produce the best possible printed results. That was a large proportion of his business.

I'm sure he could produce a better printed result from my own photography

Ian

Whilst I don't disagree with what you are saying. There certainly are and indeed always have been photographers that are so busy that they have to have other people process their photography. Then they charge a fortune for their images

However this is somewhat clouding the issue I was responding to. I felt that the OP was implying that the dSLR was too much like hard work and that he was trapped by built in obsolescence which was costing him money. All he seems to want to do is take photos without having the bother of processing his raw files. Again one could reasonable assume that he could be as well letting the camera do the work as is what happens in most compacts.

pewidane · #33 23-03-09

Canon G 10. 80 iso.

jaqian · #34 23-03-09

Speaking as someone who only recently upgraded from a bridge to an slr (Fuji S9000 > Sony A100) I think part of the reason people don't upgrade is expense. Another is fiddling with lens' and the resulting sensor dust etc. I think the majority of people (who don't already own an slr) aren't interested in photography just want something to take snaps with or are happy with what they can get from a bridge camera. Me I like fiddling with lens' etc

Ian · #35 23-03-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaqian

Speaking as someone who only recently upgraded from a bridge to an slr (Fuji S9000 > Sony A100) I think part of the reason people don't upgrade is expense. Another is fiddling with lens' and the resulting sensor dust etc. I think the majority of people (who don't already own an slr) aren't interested in photography just want something to take snaps with or are happy with what they can get from a bridge camera. Me I like fiddling with lens' etc

Hi - welcome to DPNow!

Did you but the A100 new? It's been discontinued for nearly a year - or did you buy an end of line bargain, or maybe a second hand one?

The replacement A200 is just about the least expensive DSLR on the market, although it has quite a reasonable specification.

How long did you consider getting an DSLR?

The Panasonic Lumix DMC-G1, which is designed to scoop up those who baulked at buying a DSLR, probably wouldn't rate highly for people looking for a low-priced entry into DSLRs.

Ian

jaqian · #36 23-03-09

Thanks for the welcome Ian.

I bought the A100 second-hand for €200, the person I bought it from only had it a year. I considered buying the A200 but the A100 has features (mirror lock-up etc) missing in its upgrade. Best of all I sold my Fuji S9000 for €200 so really a free upgrade

I've considered getting an slr for quite some time now and technically the A100 isn't my first as I had a Nikon D70 for a few months. It was a culture shock compared to the Fuji S5500 I was using at the time. The menu was really clunky and no live view! Also I had been asked to shoot a friends wedding later that year and I knew I wouldn't be able to afford the extra batteries and lens that I would need so I swapped it for the Fuji S9000 and bought a cheap flash and I already had a rake of AA batteries. Two years later and I was ready for the jump to an slr.

If I hadn't bought an slr I would have probably bought the Fuji S100fs.

Rob

Gez · #37 23-03-09

You are right Gkardos dust on the sensor is a real headache for dslr users, hopefully technology will eventually solve the problem. I would be interested in your choice of single lens camera has there are so many on the market at present.

Ian · #38 23-03-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gez

You are right Gkardos dust on the sensor is a real headache for dslr users, hopefully technology will eventually solve the problem. I would be interested in your choice of single lens camera has there are so many on the market at present.

Sensor dust has already been successfully addressed. Only Pentax and Sony haven't yet implemented ultrasonically vibrated filters that can shake the dust away and so protect the sensor light path. There some big exceptions - the Nikon D3 and new D3x aren't protected in this way.

Ian

SkySkape · #39 06-05-09

I need to take the photo at the instant I press the button, not seconds after. So far there appears to be a compromise between speed and quality with affordable DSLRs. This was never the situation with film SLRs.

gkardos · #40 06-05-09

Quote:

Originally Posted by SkySkape

I need to take the photo at the instant I press the button, not seconds after. So far there appears to be a compromise between speed and quality with affordable DSLRs. This was never the situation with film SLRs.

I agree. However, you still had to manually focus(for the most part) and for quite awhile you had to set f stop, shutter speed manually after using a hand held light meter to decide upon exposure. In addition, if this was once in a lifetime shot, you also had to bracket the exposure (slide or negative color) on both sides to assure one shot that came out right.

Life is a series of trade offs.

Doc_Gary