Do I actually need a DSLR?
Discussion
Rosscow said:
Unless you want to learn about/be ready for anything without the size and cost of a full DSLR, in which case get a CSC?
A decent CSC can easily cost more than a DSLR, and by the time you've added lenses, can easily equal the size of a DSLR.CSCs arent the cheaper option to the DSLR. DSLRs can be picked up cheaper than CSCs. Just look at the entry level nikon and canon kit.
Both offer advantages and disadvantages to each other but both, within the right circumstances, can offer the same image quality as the other. Imo, CSC better for still photography ie landscapes, portraits, still life, macro etc. DSLR better for sports, action, kids, anything fast moving.
Anyone that thinks CSC cameras are the poor mans DSLR is having a laugh.
Got this for SWMBO for Christmas as a crop frame to go with her 5D, http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-smallest-a... Smallest DSLR on the market, it have great reviews and seems to be doing the trick quite nicely without adding too much weight to her already massive camera bag. The beauty of the Canon/Nikon route is the availability of lenses for it should you wish to take things further later on down the line.
Get a second hand mk1 50mm 1.8 prime for indoor portraits/family snaps as well, amzing quality and coupled with the 100D makes for a very small package
: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EF-50mm-F1-8-MK1-M...
Get a second hand mk1 50mm 1.8 prime for indoor portraits/family snaps as well, amzing quality and coupled with the 100D makes for a very small package
: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Canon-EF-50mm-F1-8-MK1-M...R8VXF said:
Got this for SWMBO for Christmas as a crop frame to go with her 5D, http://www.ephotozine.com/article/canon-smallest-a... Smallest DSLR on the market, it have great reviews and seems to be doing the trick quite nicely without adding too much weight to her already massive camera bag. The beauty of the Canon/Nikon route is the availability of lenses for it should you wish to take things further later on down the line.
The link isn't working for me but I see it's the 100D. I recommended it for my sister last year and she's been very happy with it, given she was after a small camera that was capable of more than she was getting from her compact.
Pints said:
The link isn't working for me but I see it's the 100D.
I recommended it for my sister last year and she's been very happy with it, given she was after a small camera that was capable of more than she was getting from her compact.
Yup, an awesome bit of kit. Will sort link when I get home.I recommended it for my sister last year and she's been very happy with it, given she was after a small camera that was capable of more than she was getting from her compact.
Find a decent cheap pancake lens and it would fit in a large jacket pocket I reckon.
100d is tiny, canon have a 24mm/2.8 EF-S pancake to go with it too. Great package. The 40 is great too but a little long for general photography on a crop.
Mirrorless can easily cost more than entry level SLR's
SLR though is the ultimate do it all tool. It will generally have the best chance of getting the shot ( flash system, lenses, configuration, AF etc etc).
Though modern mirrorless options are pretty close , loosing out on lenses and af tracking.
Mirrorless can easily cost more than entry level SLR's
SLR though is the ultimate do it all tool. It will generally have the best chance of getting the shot ( flash system, lenses, configuration, AF etc etc).
Though modern mirrorless options are pretty close , loosing out on lenses and af tracking.
otherman said:
Wise words. I'm a big fan of the Lumix cameras and I have two of them. A compact to pop in the pocket, and one of these. Fixed lens, but apart from that a lot of the quality you'd get from an SLR, but considerably smaller and a bargain to boot. I really suggest you don't go straight to DSLR, learn the trade a little first.
That Lumix gives the quality of a decent compact with the portability of a DSLR. Unless you need acres of zoom (on safari for example) then there are better options.Simpo Two said:
Can you shoot sports with a CSC? How good is the AF, eg speed, accuracy, acquisition, tracking? How good is the low light performance? What lens/flashgun choice?
They'll struggle with sports - the autofocus these days is roughly as fast as a DSLR and actually more accurate but struggles with moving objects. Low-light performance is just as good as a DSLR with the same sized sensor. Lens choice varies with brand, but most of the basics are covered. It's only really an issue if you need something extreme or specialist such as a 600mm telephoto, a tilt-shift or a 5x macro. Adapters help somewhat with these problems though.I think it's pretty accurate that a CSC gives you the quality of a DSLR with the handling of a compact (and a size half-way between the two). They are not cheaper, nor are they lower quality. It's all about what they are like to use vs what they are like to carry.
My EOS M was £199 from Argos.
My 220SX was £159 from Currys
My 450D was £399 from an online retailer
Some CSC can be cheaper by DSLR, it all depends on quality etc. But choosing a CSC over DSLR is not about price. For me, photography is about spontaneity and capturing a moment, so I need a smaller format camera with better quality/versatility of a compact. I can understand others liking the planning, build up and tinkering of getting the perfect shot, plus post processing. The second style is not really my bag, I cannot use photoshop effectively and does not really interest me.
I respect some of the shots taken and posted on here with massive planning and post processing. I appreciate the skill and ability (way above mine) but its not what i enjoy personally.
Mike
My 220SX was £159 from Currys
My 450D was £399 from an online retailer
Some CSC can be cheaper by DSLR, it all depends on quality etc. But choosing a CSC over DSLR is not about price. For me, photography is about spontaneity and capturing a moment, so I need a smaller format camera with better quality/versatility of a compact. I can understand others liking the planning, build up and tinkering of getting the perfect shot, plus post processing. The second style is not really my bag, I cannot use photoshop effectively and does not really interest me.
I respect some of the shots taken and posted on here with massive planning and post processing. I appreciate the skill and ability (way above mine) but its not what i enjoy personally.
Mike
Rosscow said:
wildoliver said:
rich85uk said:
I was in this situation last year and looked at it in a very basic and blunt way, you either want something that fits in your pocket (compact) or accept it won't and do down the DSLR route which is what I did and feel I made the right move. You do get your mirrorless, bridge cameras etc that are smaller and lighter but only a few seem truly pocketable ( I did see a link to one that with the lens detached would fit in a pocket)
I recently took mine round SE Asia and it was never an issue but I only took a 35mm prime and the kit lens with me, once in a day bag you never notice the size or weight, pop into a shop where you can handle a few to get an idea on size and weight
I think this post sums it up for me, I use a dslr and a compact, I either want to chuck it in a pocket or have something to lug around but gives me options, why anyone wants something in the middle which doesn't fit in a pocket and doesn't offer all the options I don't know. But cameras are a personal thing.I recently took mine round SE Asia and it was never an issue but I only took a 35mm prime and the kit lens with me, once in a day bag you never notice the size or weight, pop into a shop where you can handle a few to get an idea on size and weight
It's all well and good saying have both or nothing but not all of us can afford a decent DSLR setup and a good compact.
I've looked at a LOT of reviews/videos etc. over the last week.
The conclusion that I have come to is that small or entry level DSLR's (the 100D for example) get average reviews when compared to some CSC cameras, especially something like the the A6000.
It's not necessarily about price - you can get a 100D with kit lens for £380 or the A6000 with kit lens for £470, so as has been said the CSC's are not a cheaper option.
But the point is they are still significantly smaller, and produce comparable if not better images.
For example, here is a comparison of the 100D v the A6000. Now I know this is not an actual review, but it highlights well the difference in specification between the two.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-100D-vs-Sony...
BUT, the problem with a Sony E-mount camera is of course cost and availability of lenses. They are inherently more expensive and there are much fewer to choose from.
For someone with a lot of lenses already it makes sense for another camera to be able to use the same lenses.
Now I don't really know if this is a problem for me, or not. For example, will I be happy with the A6000 kit lens or will I want to spend £700 on a Zeiss within 6 months of buying one.
Will the Panasonic LX100 take better pictures with its Leica fixed lens than the A6000's stock 16-50 lens?
It's all a bit of a headache for me. I can see myself buying the LX100 to save myself from lens selection issues! Something tells me to just buy the Panny and enjoy learning how to take great pictures with it - the fact there are no variables seems a good thing. Maybe that would peak my interest in DSLR's in the future.
On the other hand, maybe I should just buy an A6000 with the Zeiss 16-70 lens for £940 and be done with it.
Arrrggghhhh!!!!!!
The conclusion that I have come to is that small or entry level DSLR's (the 100D for example) get average reviews when compared to some CSC cameras, especially something like the the A6000.
It's not necessarily about price - you can get a 100D with kit lens for £380 or the A6000 with kit lens for £470, so as has been said the CSC's are not a cheaper option.
But the point is they are still significantly smaller, and produce comparable if not better images.
For example, here is a comparison of the 100D v the A6000. Now I know this is not an actual review, but it highlights well the difference in specification between the two.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-100D-vs-Sony...
BUT, the problem with a Sony E-mount camera is of course cost and availability of lenses. They are inherently more expensive and there are much fewer to choose from.
For someone with a lot of lenses already it makes sense for another camera to be able to use the same lenses.
Now I don't really know if this is a problem for me, or not. For example, will I be happy with the A6000 kit lens or will I want to spend £700 on a Zeiss within 6 months of buying one.
Will the Panasonic LX100 take better pictures with its Leica fixed lens than the A6000's stock 16-50 lens?
It's all a bit of a headache for me. I can see myself buying the LX100 to save myself from lens selection issues! Something tells me to just buy the Panny and enjoy learning how to take great pictures with it - the fact there are no variables seems a good thing. Maybe that would peak my interest in DSLR's in the future.
On the other hand, maybe I should just buy an A6000 with the Zeiss 16-70 lens for £940 and be done with it.
Arrrggghhhh!!!!!!
Edited by Rosscow on Thursday 19th February 08:56
Actually, this is an interesting forum discussion regarding the A6000 with DSLR's like the 5D III:
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?PHPS...
http://forum.luminous-landscape.com/index.php?PHPS...
Rosscow said:
Arrrggghhhh!!!!!!
You seem to be approaching this the right way with some very rational reasoning.People tend to fall into the trap of thinking a better camera will take better pictures. That is true from an image quality perspective but image quality is not the only thing that makes a picture good. After a few upgrades they usually end up with a DSLR as it looks the most professional. Then they start thinking that getting a better lens will help them take better pictures. The truth is that even if you started out with tens of thousands of pounds worth of medium format gear, you are not going to take great photos.
IMHO, better bodies, better lenses, zoom etc are all just a distraction from the main point of actually thinking about composition, light, story, the decisive moment etc. (the things that actually make a good photo). If you really want to take better photos, try to remove as many of these distractions as possible. Get a camera that is 'good enough'. Once you have mastered the important things, then think about upgrading your camera equipment when you know that it is actually holding you back.
I know this because I made all these mistakes.
Rosscow said:
I've looked at a LOT of reviews/videos etc. over the last week.
The conclusion that I have come to is that small or entry level DSLR's (the 100D for example) get average reviews when compared to some CSC cameras, especially something like the the A6000.
It's not necessarily about price - you can get a 100D with kit lens for £380 or the A6000 with kit lens for £470, so as has been said the CSC's are not a cheaper option.
But the point is they are still significantly smaller, and produce comparable if not better images.
For example, here is a comparison of the 100D v the A6000. Now I know this is not an actual review, but it highlights well the difference in specification between the two.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-100D-vs-Sony...
BUT, the problem with a Sony E-mount camera is of course cost and availability of lenses. They are inherently more expensive and there are much fewer to choose from.
For someone with a lot of lenses already it makes sense for another camera to be able to use the same lenses.
Now I don't really know if this is a problem for me, or not. For example, will I be happy with the A6000 kit lens or will I want to spend £700 on a Zeiss within 6 months of buying one.
Will the Panasonic LX100 take better pictures with its Leica fixed lens than the A6000's stock 16-50 lens?
It's all a bit of a headache for me. I can see myself buying the LX100 to save myself from lens selection issues! Something tells me to just buy the Panny and enjoy learning how to take great pictures with it - the fact there are no variables seems a good thing. Maybe that would peak my interest in DSLR's in the future.
On the other hand, maybe I should just buy an A6000 with the Zeiss 16-70 lens for £940 and be done with it.
Arrrggghhhh!!!!!!
If you're worried about lens options then it may be worth looking at the micro 4/3 system cameras. Use a slightly smaller sensor but image quality really doesn't suffer and the bodies have always been just as good as the equivalent Sony. It's the most mature CSC system out there and lenses are readily available. Price wise they compare to most of the sony stuff but there are some real bargains out there. Sigma make a fantastic small range of primes for the system and other 3rd party manufacturers have a few odds and sods. You also have the whole back catalogue of lumix and zuiko digital lenses from the 4/3 system to use with adapters as well as the lumix and zuiko digital m4/3 range on its own. New lenses come out fairly often as well. The conclusion that I have come to is that small or entry level DSLR's (the 100D for example) get average reviews when compared to some CSC cameras, especially something like the the A6000.
It's not necessarily about price - you can get a 100D with kit lens for £380 or the A6000 with kit lens for £470, so as has been said the CSC's are not a cheaper option.
But the point is they are still significantly smaller, and produce comparable if not better images.
For example, here is a comparison of the 100D v the A6000. Now I know this is not an actual review, but it highlights well the difference in specification between the two.
http://snapsort.com/compare/Canon-EOS-100D-vs-Sony...
BUT, the problem with a Sony E-mount camera is of course cost and availability of lenses. They are inherently more expensive and there are much fewer to choose from.
For someone with a lot of lenses already it makes sense for another camera to be able to use the same lenses.
Now I don't really know if this is a problem for me, or not. For example, will I be happy with the A6000 kit lens or will I want to spend £700 on a Zeiss within 6 months of buying one.
Will the Panasonic LX100 take better pictures with its Leica fixed lens than the A6000's stock 16-50 lens?
It's all a bit of a headache for me. I can see myself buying the LX100 to save myself from lens selection issues! Something tells me to just buy the Panny and enjoy learning how to take great pictures with it - the fact there are no variables seems a good thing. Maybe that would peak my interest in DSLR's in the future.
On the other hand, maybe I should just buy an A6000 with the Zeiss 16-70 lens for £940 and be done with it.
Arrrggghhhh!!!!!!
Edited by Rosscow on Thursday 19th February 08:56
I've been really tempted by an LX100 the last few days but having second thoughts today after going through a lot of video reviews of people that actually own one or have owned one against the usual guff you find on google to read through. One guy really got me thinking, suggesting that although the LX100 is a fantastic product, in many ways, it feels unfinished. He pointed out what I had been seeing in many sample images, that the JPGs the camera produces are poor. Soft with smudgy detail where the raw file from that image is tack sharp. Also that the auto modes are unreliable and inconsistent.
He suggested that whilst it's a fantastic tool for someone that knows what they are doing (and are willing to spend the time to learn the camera, using manual modes and processing raw files), it will be a big disappointment to anyone just wanting to go out and take photos, something he suggested, the RX100 is far, far better at.
I'm still really tempted but i'm just concerned that Panasonic will never release a firmware update to fix the issues and an LX100 MK2 may be looming soon and be the m4/3 compact everyone really wants.
Really, really tempted to pop by currys on the way home tonight and leave with an RX100 mk2. Just like the idea of having a camera in my pocket wherever I go without having to rely on my phone for everything. The DSLR really doesn't get out much these days. It's a waste.
Edited by MysteryLemon on Thursday 19th February 10:08
This slightly annoying video talks about the autofocus tracking capabilities of the a6000
and includes (too briefly) some very nice images of surfers.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1155478085/real-w...
and includes (too briefly) some very nice images of surfers.
http://www.dpreview.com/articles/1155478085/real-w...
It is tough.
I have to say that I though a compact system was the answer, except there is the little auto focus niggle in my mind, that on the 4-6 times a year I watch some live racing, I would be disappointed....
Just for the record I would likely only keep one jack of all trades lens, maybe treat myself to a second if I got very carried away - I wouldn't bother with a tripod or extra flashes etc.
I have to say that I though a compact system was the answer, except there is the little auto focus niggle in my mind, that on the 4-6 times a year I watch some live racing, I would be disappointed....
Just for the record I would likely only keep one jack of all trades lens, maybe treat myself to a second if I got very carried away - I wouldn't bother with a tripod or extra flashes etc.
Gassing Station | Photography & Video | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff