Should I make the jump to SLR?

jive1 · #1 02-12-2008, 05:14 PM

I'm looking to get a new camera, and I'm wondering whether I should get a point and shoot, or a SLR.

The 2 point and shoots I'm looking at are the Canon S5 and the Panasonic FZ50. The SLR I'm looking at is the Canon Rebel XT.

I'm not a professional at this, but I need a good camera for my business. I do product shots in a semi-studio environment with lighting. I've been going with my old Canon A70 for a long time, but considering all the new technology out there, I figure I should take advantage of it.

I would love the picture quality of the SLR and the higher ISO settings for low-light situations, but I'm not a pro at it so I am leaning towards the point and shoot. Is the trade off in picture quality worth the added cost? If I were to get a SLR, are there any lenses you reccomend? I do macro photography, as well as regular shots. Zoom/telephoto would be nice too. But, I don't want to carry a bunch of glass, so that's another reason why I am leaning toward point and shoot. Plus point and shoot is cheaper.

Any suggestions?

Disraeli Gears · #2 02-12-2008, 05:29 PM

Personally, I'd go with the SLR. The picture quality along with all the options that come along with it make it totally worthwhile. I've had some experience with the Canon Rebel- it's a nice one, I'd say you should go for it.

Tsal · #3 02-12-2008, 05:29 PM

Perhaps a bottom of the line DSLR?

For studio setting, the non-zoom 'prime' lenses are very cheap and perform very well, and the cheapo macro-zooms - that get you the basic macro as well as basic zoom abilities - are still better than the point-and-shoot optics, because of the sheer size of the lenses. The DSLR's do have many of the same automatic programs than point-and-shoot's, but with some guide book study you'll be able to do a lot more.

kserg · #4 02-12-2008, 05:48 PM

Plus: DSLR pwns all!
Negative: its bulky.
Plus: It pwns
Negative: it doesn't take videos
Plus: it pwns
Negative: You'll be yet another stereotype: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vhzgTp8q9as

MakiSupaStar · #5 02-12-2008, 07:02 PM

I have a have that exact camera. Cannon Rebel XTi. It's sweet. I takes such good shots. If you want to do product placement stuff, it would be perfect for it. Plus it's great for taking the original shots of you making your bass face on a Roscoe, so then you can 'shop nothing but pure gold.

Petebass · #6 02-12-2008, 07:09 PM

Jive most SLR's also have point and shoot capabilities. Mine (an old Pentax that still uses film) even has a semi-automatic mode where you can, for example, set the shot for a particular aperture and it automatically selects an appropriate shutter speed.... and vice versa. Works a treat, and the results are better than any "point and shoot" camera I've ever used - digital or film.

Say you're at a sports match and you want to get some action shots. I use the semi-auto mode to select a fast shutter speed, and let the camera choose the appropriate aperture.

Similarly if I'm talking a portrait shot and want to emphasis the eyes, I'll set a very large aperture and let the camera choose the appropriate shutter speed.

FL Knifemaker · #7 02-12-2008, 07:21 PM

I've had a pretty extensive background with fully manual, SLR film cameras. It took me a month to get used to my Nikon D200. Would I go back to a point and shoot?? ............NEVER!!!

Take the plunge, go with the SLR. Get through the learning curve, your photography will show it in no time!!

EDIT, yes the D2oo will take brilliant point and shoot pics as well. You just have to push the right buttons, LOL!!!

bobbykokinos · #8 02-12-2008, 07:34 PM

I got a DSLR a couple years ago (Olympus E-500).. I love it.. Obviously, a huge advantage is having a choice of different lenses.

Having said that, I've seen many point and shoots offer great quality lenses and take fantastic pictures. Some better than some DSLR photos I've seen.. I think this is mainly because so many people go out there and buy DSLRs with the assumption that "well, they are more expensive so they MUST take better photos".. Then they leave them on auto all the time and they look nothing better than you would get from a point and shoot. I can't count the number of soccer moms Ive seen and men with more money than brains that go out and spend $2k+ on DSLR stuff, lenses, tripods, etc.. and their pictures look like crap. But it does make you look important with $2k worth of glass around your neck

So, if you are will to take the time to really learn how to FULLY use a DSLR, then absolutely go for it. If all you want to do it put it on auto and shoot pictures, I'd save the money for a NICE point and shoot.

Just my $0.02

BTW: I'd go with a widely used brand due to lens availability. Although I love my E-500, you can hardly ever find lenses for it locally to try before you buy which sucks.

jive1 · #9 02-12-2008, 07:37 PM

One of things keeping me from taking the plunge is buying and having to carry around additional lenses. I'm sure the optics are better than on a point and shoot, but with a point and shoot I can take a telephoto shot without having to change lenses.

So if I go SLR, what type of glass do you recommend?
The camera comes with a cheap 18-55mm. Will that be enough for me, or should I get something else?
Like I said, I take macro shots of products and portraits mostly. Although I would love to take telephoto and action shots as well. They have a 75-200mm lens that's not too expensive. Will that work? I also see that there is a 28mm macro lens? Is that even necessary?

One thing I want for sure is a polarizing filter. Controlling reflections is one of the reasons why I want to upgrade my camera to something that can take a filter.

jive1 · #10 02-12-2008, 07:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbykokinos

So, if you are will to take the time to really learn how to FULLY use a DSLR, then absolutely go for it. If all you want to do it put it on auto and shoot pictures, I'd save the money for a NICE point and shoot.

That's an issue for me.

On one hand, I have a present need to take great pictures without a steep learning curve.

On the other hand, I like photography and would someday really learn how to do it artfully. I just don't know when that will be.

jonathan_matos5 · #11 02-12-2008, 07:42 PM

i've got a rebel xt and its cool

here is an ok comparison here is a point and shoot pic.

and here is a slr pic.

i know the lighting is a major factor for why the flectones pic is a bad example so dont call me on that. after you actually figure out how to use the SLR you will never go back to a point and shoot.

MakiSupaStar · #12 02-12-2008, 10:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jive1

One of things keeping me from taking the plunge is buying and having to carry around additional lenses. I'm sure the optics are better than on a point and shoot, but with a point and shoot I can take a telephoto shot without having to change lenses.

So if I go SLR, what type of glass do you recommend?
The camera comes with a cheap 18-55mm. Will that be enough for me, or should I get something else?
Like I said, I take macro shots of products and portraits mostly. Although I would love to take telephoto and action shots as well. They have a 75-200mm lens that's not too expensive. Will that work? I also see that there is a 28mm macro lens? Is that even necessary?

One thing I want for sure is a polarizing filter. Controlling reflections is one of the reasons why I want to upgrade my camera to something that can take a filter.

There's a lot of reasonably priced used lenses out there. I'm using my 100-300 mm ultrasonic lenses from my 35mm Cannon Elan circa 1997. Get some UV caps for them and you're golden. I also have an smaller Cannon ultrasonic lens and I have that lens it comes with (which I haven't used once) but I also saw a pretty reasonable priced package in Costco that included a couple of lenses too.

These are the photos Sato took from the shore with my 100-300 ultrasonic lens in sports mode.

This is with the smaller lens

This is in a more manual mode with a high ISO. It's my ChiChi. This is my first venture into a low light shot.

Keep in mind all these photos have been compressed significantly for the web.

Then of course there is the issue of your subject matter. Sometimes a camera just doesn't matter at all. You can't polish the stink out of a turd.

bobbykokinos · #13 02-12-2008, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jive1

That's an issue for me.

On one hand, I have a present need to take great pictures without a steep learning curve.

On the other hand, I like photography and would someday really learn how to do it artfully. I just don't know when that will be.

Its not a HUGE impossible learning curve but more familiarizing yourself with where certain features on your camera and how to manipulate them.

Its not too bad.. Click the links below. They are links to hi-res pictures I took only after 1 day of having my DSLR and skimming through the manual.. They arent great but not bad for about 16hrs of owning one:

http://www.bobbykokinos.com/downtown/dt1.JPG
http://www.bobbykokinos.com/downtown/dt2.JPG
http://www.bobbykokinos.com/downtown/dt3.JPG

Night shots at that.. Just a little reading and better results than what I was getting the point and shoot.

jokerjkny · #14 02-13-2008, 03:08 AM

i'm on the border, too...

but i'm about to get one of these:

http://www.adorama.com/IRCGR2.html

Bad Brains · #15 02-13-2008, 06:25 AM

If you have the money, go with a SLR. Unless you're really into photography for professional/artistic purposes, you don't need excessive lenses. The standard 18-55mm that comes with the Canon XTI is all you will need, and it's far better than any point and shoot.

Philbiker · #16 02-13-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jive1

One of things keeping me from taking the plunge is buying and having to carry around additional lenses. I'm sure the optics are better than on a point and shoot, but with a point and shoot I can take a telephoto shot without having to change lenses.

So if I go SLR, what type of glass do you recommend?
The camera comes with a cheap 18-55mm. Will that be enough for me, or should I get something else?

If you're even considering a point-and-shoot, don't worry about the "cheap" 18-55mm lens that comes with a low end SLR. It will lots better than anything that comes on a point-and shoot. Keep perspective in mind.

I'd recommend an SLR, you won't do better. Personally I want a DSLR but my old film one will have to do for now.

**Eric Perry** · #17 02-13-2008, 06:52 AM

I have a Tamron 28-300 AF lens for my Nikon D50, and I absolutely love it!

Tsal · #18 02-13-2008, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jive1

So if I go SLR, what type of glass do you recommend?
The camera comes with a cheap 18-55mm. Will that be enough for me, or should I get something else?
Like I said, I take macro shots of products and portraits mostly. Although I would love to take telephoto and action shots as well. They have a 75-200mm lens that's not too expensive. Will that work? I also see that there is a 28mm macro lens? Is that even necessary?

Well, that's the good part with DSLRs - you can get a cheap lense now that will perform at least as well as the pocket cameras, but when you have some cash you can tailor it exactly to your needs. Changing lenses, in general, is a snap and you don't really do it too much - only when changing from studio to travel mode, for example.

I'd maybe go with three basic lenses: a 18-55 macro (sub-100 bucks), a 50mm prime for those very nice studio/indoor shots (100ish) and a 75-300 for outdoor zooming (again, 100ish).

FL Knifemaker · #19 02-13-2008, 07:54 AM

You don't need to carry extra lenses. Get one, high quality variable zoom lens and you'll be all set. I only have 2 lens, my zoom and a fixed lens for taking lightbox photos.

wilser · #20 02-13-2008, 08:24 AM

I know there's a big group of people that tend to say that photographs are made good by the photographer, the subject and the environment and has less to do with equipment. Although I am an equipment buff and do love my SLR (I used to own analog Canon EOS equipment, but recently went digital with the Panasonic L1 system), you can certainly take VERY good photos with a good quality non-SLR camera that has manual override options.

For comparison, check out some of the photos I've taken with the L1 and also with my wife's Canon S80 (semi-pro P&S). You'll see that the L1 photos are very good (cavern and product shots), but so are the S80 ones (landscapes and air & space museum visit).

http://www.flickr.com/photos/willramirez/

snips:
S80 example:

L1 example: