What's the advantage of shooting with dslr equipment?

[m]

What's the advantage of shooting with dslr equipment?

I don't think one can answer the question as it stands.

Advantage compared to what?
Advantage in which application(s) of propertie-/feature(s)?

"would have that gear been necessary" [...] "What shots can *only* be taken with this kind of equipment"

Ideally, one would pick a tool according to the task.
Sadly, in reality, people are limited by things like money, time, space, weight, availability ...

Would you carry a point & shoot just in case one moment can be captured with it as well as your dslr, so you could take down your dslr and use the S100 instead?
Probably not. You'd use your point & shoot because you cannot afford a dslr, want to quickly take the shot, need to carry it in your jacket, go lightweight, ...

The property of being the camera most suited for a certain shot is in general of a far lesser significance than the other ones.

As there are a lot dslrs out there, the concept of them seems to be the best compromise.

 

[CharlieB]

So here it goes: When looking at a lot of sample shots, I'm wondering "would have that gear been necessary", and the inverse question "What shots can *only* be taken with this kind of equipment" and why is an expensive dlsr necessary at all?.

Expensive, and DSLR are not one in the same, as there are a good many relatively inexpensive ones on the market.

Most of the small sensor point and shoot types have terrible image quality. Even the least expensive DSLR will surpass that easily.

I see the current Rebel T3 with lens for $399 at B&H, cheaper still at some other lesser known vendors.

For that kind of money, its not a whole lot more expensive than a "better quality" non-DSLR, and less expensive than the top end non-DSLRs. I hate to call them point-and-shoot cameras when you get into the $300+ range on the non-DSLR's... they're just a cut better, but still way below what you'll get with an APS-C sensor.

If all you're ever going to do are moderate wide to moderate portrait type of shots, for your own fun, occasionally making larger prints, wanting creative control over exposure, there is nothing wrong with a sub-$400 DSLR... and I don't call that expensive.

I'd still be using my 10.1mp 400D (Rebel XTsomething), if it had not been stolen. It produced image quality that was just wonderful for anything you'd ever want to view on a computer screen, or on any print up to about 11x14 or so. I know, because I printed those... with very good results.

 

[Don Haines]

You ever see a person take a photograph with an iPad?! That is the worst thing. Ever.

I went on a photoshoot this fall and one of the ladies brought an Ipad..... and she took wonderful pictures... never underestimate what a real photographer can do with a simple tool. And before people start making comments about this, she is a professional photographer and studied photography at R.I.T. .....

 

[Marsu42]

macro capability, tilt-shift lenses

Added, and maybe a valid point atm, though I originally left it out because you can also screw these on an eos-m. My point is rather "for what is a $3500 camera good instead of a sub-€1000 one", so it's not just about €100 p&s.

With EVF's and LCD screens, I feel a little removed from the experience.

LCD - yes. EVF - no, not if it's a good one you cannot tell from a OVF except for the battery drain and the option to add useful information on the fly like focus peaking....

You ever see a person take a photograph with an iPad?! That is the worst thing. Ever.

Actually I frequently see tourists taking pictures with their iPads and oversized smartphones in Berlin, even today in the Zoo. The only explanation I can imagine is that people either don't realize what possibilities a decent camera offers or - that's what the post is about - it doesn't make a difference for the pictures they take. We should do a "blind test" comparison poll - iPad vs. 5d3 for web-sized shots

Better video.

Better, yes, best, no considering the recent developments - that's why I didn't include video in the list.

Filters. Cpl, grad nds etc for landscape. Guess you could do that with a p&s but you'd look a bit silly!

Indeed - that's why you're probably just as old-school biased as I am, but does it matter how it looks if it gets the job done and you cannot tell the result from a dlsr? The only reason to look "pro" is if clients pay you more.

@ Marsu - It sounds like you are talking to yourself into 6D and some "L" lenses for 2012 ;D

You're actually reading my posts ... it really still depends on the 6d/5d3 price after 2-3 month, the 6d just went *up* €100 in Germany *above* the Canon retail price

 

[bycostello]

a slr gets you control over depth of field and fast focusing....

 

[seta666]

Well, I would not compare DSLR to compact cameras but to mirrorless cameras.

The Reflex cameras advantage.
-Superior AF
-Better balance on hand with big lenses and/or flashes
-Bright optical viewfinder


Mirrorless advantage
-Very light system
-On par output quality
-Discrete cameras, good for street photography, journalism

In my opinion Reflex cameras are better when you need fast AF and use tele lenses (Weeding, Sports, fashion)
Mirrorless cameras are better for street photography and perfect for travel photography (Travel, trekking, Street photography)

Mirroless cameras are one or two generation away of surpassing reflex cameras in some areas
A future FF NEX with improved AF would be much better for some kinds of photography than any reflex; same as Leica today but with more affordable price

 

[Ryan708]

someone at a restaurant with an i-phone trying to take a picture: "Ugh, this phone is such a...." and he trailed off.... I said loud enough for people to hear my responce "phone?"

High image quality needs large sensors, large sensors need larger lenses, and more space. I like the ruggedness of an SLR, and the holdability, speed and low-light abilities, A mirrorless does not interest me unless it would fit in my pocket, otherwise i want an SLR

 

[7enderbender]

This question has been bothering me for some time, esp. after procrastinating in forums while trying to decide what expensive gear is eventually "worth it" to me ... please not I'm not trolling and applaud everyone who puts his/her money into expensive gear to get shots just for the sake of remembering his/her kids or such.

So here it goes: When looking at a lot of sample shots, I'm wondering "would have that gear been necessary", and the inverse question "What shots can *only* be taken with this kind of equipment" and why is an expensive dlsr necessary at all?.

My guess is that a good part of the dslr market segment is populated by 30-40+ year old males who made their first photographic good experiences with analog dslrs (me, too). They just stick to the good ol' ways while the companies know these customers are rather well off by now and will respond to "quality" and "feature" upselling, so they exploit these suckers pushing the next $3500 camera or $2000 lens to customers who feel secure when having expensive gear.

I think I'm not alone with this question, and the difficulty often results in pro photogs either recommending "just get a [enter latest model name here], you'll never regret it" or the exact opposite "no need for the latest equipment". So here is my list that a dslr with proper equipment is good at, i.e. as a pro shooter you are well advised to take it into consideration or you'll end up being asked "My grandma could have shot that with her p&s"...

• lighting: multiple off-camera flashes that are reliably triggered with fast x-sync or hss give a distinct "non-p&s" impression
• thin depth of field and/or strong bokeh: can only be done with expensive lenses with large glass elements, and esp. fast primes
• shooting reliability, i.e. more "keepers": while you can take good shots with nearly every equipment, it is seldom or never known how many shots or opportunities were lost. This concerns button layout, af precision, ...
• shooting moving objects: pro dslrs are faster, at least at the moment. That concerns af speed/tracking, shutter release time and fps - the latter being better on mirrorless.
• shooting in extreme natural conditions: pro dlsr equipment is sealed and sturdy, but for many usages throw-away equiment might make more sense and outodoor/underwater p&s will be there sooner or later.
• shooting in difficult lighing conditions: the best sensors will always be the most expensive and eventually end up in dlsr equipment, meaning more dynamic range (well, with Nikon ) and higher iso capability for faster shutter speeds or low light shooting
• (super)tele shots: longer focal lenght with decent quality is and will be a domain of expensive equipment
• sharpness for large prints: while the next iPhone will probably have more mp than the current Canon crop cameras, attaching a $1000+ lens will still make a difference.
• composition: a large ff viewfinder enables you to concentrate on the shot, at least as long as there are no dencent electronic viewfinders for p&s around

... added, though imho only slightly valid because a eos-m takes ef lenses, too:

• macro capability: true 1:1 (or higher), not just 'close focusing' as 'macro' has come to mean in the P&S world
• tilt-shift lenses: ability to correct for perspective distortion, and manipulate the DoF/plane of focus in a way other that a uniform linear distance from the camera

Let me know if anything else comes to your mind what's the sense of buying a dlsr system.

All very valid points. And of course it all depends. For me personally it comes down to sensor size and for having the shallow DOF option available. The non-DSLR choices are way out of my price range still - Leica M9 and medium format alike. In other words if money was no object I wouldn't have a SLR...

Are there other ways to get wonderful pictures, including P&S cameras and phone cameras? Yep. Just not for a lot what I'm interested in unfortunately.

 

[Videoshooter]

Speed, speed, speed. Focusing, fps (though mirrorless are surpassing DSLR's here, putting aside focus tracking) write speed (due to CF cards over SDHC), shutter lag (and no EVF lag like on mirrorless); just faster everything meaning you have a higher chance of getting the shot.

IQ wise, the bigger individual pixels equate to better images all-round - better dynamic range, colour accuracy, low light, etc. It's not just about megapixels when it comes to the bigger sensor in a DSLR.

RAW Files - yes, some upper range p & s cameras shoot RAW, but there's more to the puzzle than just that - DSLR's are designed to handle all that data even in burst mode, with faster write speeds and deeper buffers. Most p & s cameras with RAW capability mean you compromise on speed, which is critical in many situations.

Ergonomics - intuitive button layout that lets you operate the camera without a magnifying glass and tweezers. The extra size and weight can also help in stabilizing photos.

More control - yes, some p & s cameras and most mirrorless give you full manual control, but this goes hand in hand with ergonomics. DSLR's let you make changes instantly and blindly with ease, rather than digging through a maze of menus or trying to hit a tiny little button without also mashing every other button.

Lens choice - You say that this is a moot point because of mirrorless, but that's not entirely true. AF performance can suffer, sharpness can drop (due to pixel density & the crop factor which essentially magnifies any lens flaws), FOV changes and balance can be effected (which effects the ergonomics) when using DSLR lenses on a mirrorless camera.

Connectivity - need to operate the camera remotely through a PC? Or need multiple external flashguns? or you want to synchronize multiple cameras? DSLR's are your friend when it comes to these complex applications and workflows.

Additionally there are all the other little things that make the cameras "more professional" - dual card slots for redundancy, durability, battery life, custom filenames, copyright info in the exif data, etc etc. Of course any of these things can be built into just about any camera - but not without compromising the things that make those cameras attractive in the first place such as compactness and price.

 

[Botts]

macro capability, tilt-shift lenses

Added, and maybe a valid point atm, though I originally left it out because you can also screw these on an eos-m. My point is rather "for what is a $3500 camera good instead of a sub-€1000 one", so it's not just about €100 p&s.

Durability and speed.

If you're making money on your photography getting the shot is what counts. Let's look at a hypothetical, even if the IQ between a T2i and a 7D/5D3/1DX were identical, if you're shooting an event, and the weather decides to wreak havoc, that weather sealed body has a much higher chance at getting you that money making shot. With the T2i you may choose to put it away to prevent sacrificing a body, or choose to try and use it in the weather just to have it die from the rain.

Alternatively, if you're lined up on the sideline at a sports game, and you know that a piece of key action is about to happen, if it's coming right for you, and you can't really predict the time, a 2 second burst at 6+ FPS gives you a much better chance at getting that winning shot as well.

 

[Marsu42]

Lens choice - You say that this is a moot point because of mirrorless, but that's not entirely true. AF performance can suffer, sharpness can drop (due to pixel density & the crop factor which essentially magnifies any lens flaws)

In theory, yes, but in reality with the current crop pixel density and ef lens choices corner/edge flaws of lenses are more likely to be "fixed" by using them on crop like eos-m while most L lenses aren't outresolved. If the crop pixel density rises even more, that might change.

Durability and speed.

Additionally there are all the other little things that make the cameras "more professional"

Indeed, no doubt that for professional use dlsrs are the most appropriate choice ... but the majority of dlsr sales are to amateurs and some enthusiasts.

All I was wondering what you *need* a dslr for when looking at all the shots folks post and thinking "Well, you certainly didn't need a dslr for *that*". Of course it doesn't hurt either, and a dslr has a steeper learning curve than a p&s.

 

[Zv]

Marsu - I know what you mean, I try and educate people through my blog as I feel a lot of people think simply buying an expensive camera will give them great images. It kind of takes away from some of the hard work actual photographers put into creating their art. Instead of " hey, thats a great shot well done etc" you get "wow your camera is awesome", yes it is but only in the right hands! Some people cant tell the difference between a shot taken on a phone and one from a 3k dslr! What does the average person know about camera shake, noise and white balance? Sweet F all. They just look at the content not the technical side like us!

http://zeebytes.blogspot.jp/2012/10/stop-think-shoot-photographers-code.html?m=1

 

[Marsu42]

Marsu - I know what you mean, I try and educate people through my blog as I feel a lot of people think simply buying an expensive camera will give them great images

Personally, I think that's just fine if a) *I*'m not buying gear I won't need and b) not too many rainforests are cut down as a consequence of people's desire to exchange their phone every other month :-o

I just feel a bit sorry for people who wish they can buy experience and knowledge and are bound to be disappointed, esp. if these people spent hard earned savings. But then again, if I don't own a camera store :->

#
It kind of takes away from some of the hard work actual photographers put into creating their art. [...] They just look at the content not the technical side like us!

Well, I admit that some gearhead talk can be fun, and understanding the tech stuff saves you from buying too expensive or not appropriate gear.

But I'm really trying not to let it mess with my head - do I really need an original Canon lens hood for €45 when the €5 China plastic item is 99% identical (except for the brand name) ? Imho the key is balance, "just get the best (= most expensive)" is as much bs as "A good photog can shoot a wedding with a €10 throw-away p&s".

Btw: Your 30 steps could really help beginners save wasted shots and lessen frustration, this is more or less what I've worked out for myself - except #30, I think spotting good shots requires taking lots of bad shots (and trying to recover them in post).

 

[Zv]

No 30 is for was added by my girlfriend

 

[Marsu42]

No 30 is for was added by my girlfriend

31. Stop procrastinating by talking to anonymous foreign freaks on the net and do the dishes already :->

 

[picturesbyme]

The advantage over ps?
- Showing off . In fact I think that's about 25-50% of the dslr users.
I think you covered the serious side so let's see the funny side..

It's amazing how many guys buy a camera just for that. Especially in developed countries men in that range have more $$ then skills or desire to learn.
They get their 1st cam (min a 5d3 to start with) in their 30s-40s and after a month they give advice on forums or they get a Rebel and next week they ask how much should they charge after becoming a wedding photog overnight...
I have a little view on that due to the stories I hear from the gallery/frame shop, the local printing places I'm in business with and the models I worked with.. I.e. there are plenty pervs on MM who only registered to snap some photos with pretty girls in a bikini (or nothing). The last guy told my GF he has 30+ yrs of experience and his photos suck on multi levels... and let's not talk about local wedding photogs...

Anyhow, a 7D can make great images, (heck, most recent cameras can) it can even do family/vacation photos, yet some people are "convinced" they can only do that with a 1Dx or at least with a 5d3 and L glass only. ) Then they snap shots that are never printed larger than 8x10 and could be easily done with an entry dslr, a m4/3 or with a ps.

It's probably related to midlife crisis too. It's cheaper than a red/yellow Porsche and easier to sell when it's over. It's also easier to "explain" to the wife.. or maybe it's just marketing.. like: you have to have an SUV or you're not a good/safe parent, you have to use this detergent, baby/dog/cat food.. etc.. or you are not a good... etc...

 

[tomscott]

From reading most of your posts on here Marsu42 you seem to be going round and round in circles.

Why not instead of idolising and agonising over equipment just go out and shoot some pictures?? Enjoy photography? Get your name out there sell some prints and that will make purchasing equipment easier. We all want to be

A good photographer can capture a fantastic pic with a box browny, gear enables more possibility but it should not stunt your creative growth. The camera is just a tool you tell it what to do.

I know i gave you some stick the other day, but seriously just enjoy it.

 

[Marsu42]

From reading most of your posts on here Marsu42 you seem to be going round and round in circles.

I have to admit I don't get that, imho I'm in the boat with lots of others starting sometime in 2012 looking for a ff, thinking about the old 5d2, being shocked by the overpriced 5d3 and then waiting for the 6d - that's not a circle, but a straight line.

Why not instead of idolising and agonising over equipment just go out and shoot some pictures?? Enjoy photography? Get your name out there sell some prints and that will make purchasing equipment easier.

Why do you assume I don't enjoy photography? What you read here is just a small part of me being annoyed by Canon and gearhead talk (but you're reading this too, aren't you?). I'm out every day taking shots and learning, just returned from taking nighttime shots of Berlin in the snow nearly freezing my fingers off (and gladly, because it was worth it). Imho I'm getting so many good shots it's hard for my old laptop to keep up w/o overheating.

And actually this post was intended to be about creativity, and esp. the kind that makes a difference in comparison to the gazillions of other pictures out there, growing by a million every day.

I know i gave you some stick the other day, but seriously just enjoy it.

I appreciate your advice and I know it's easy to get lost in tech spec sheets, but as written above writing in CR is not all I do. But shooting with my current equipment is just not made for commercial low light events, and since getting ok gear puts quite a strain on my budget I'm getting all the opinions I can get.

 

[pwp]

It's a matter of what you need for the job at hand. Sometimes there is a distinct advantage shooting with your iPhone or S100....

-PW

 

[stephan]

I did not grow up with analog SLRs, nor am I in the 35/40+ Range, nor do i have extra cash to spend. I grew up with P+S cameras and moved up to DSLRs.

My reasoning:

1) Optical viewfinder (no lag) and very low shutter-lag
2) faster focusing (with USM Lenses)
3) Much better grip (& Feel), plus all basic settings on dedicated controls

And of course selectable lenses. But that's not exclusive to DSLRs anymore.