DSLR's vs non DSLR's

[tosh]

Well, I recently bought a used full frame canon Eos5d mk1 (flawless condition) and I'm beginning to think I've made a big mistake.

In the week that followed the obligatory canon flashgun had to be purchased along with a suitable bag (both used - ebay). Then spied the deal on the new 40mm stm lens with canons cashback deal so that's arrived too 
So in the short space of 2 weeks I've gone and blown best part of £550 quid!! 

Yet, I'm beginning to feel like I've wasted my money. The DSLR is heavy and cumbersome compared to the lumix LX-5 and iPhone. Plus I've been reading all the negative reviews on DSLR ownership.....it seems more and more are now jumping ship in favour of mirrorless systems - no wonder the 5d's are so cheap!!

Yesterday I was stuck at home all day and began comparing set ups with the DSLR and lx-5. I can't help but think the DSLR was a totally unnecessary purchase and that I got sucked into this "serious pictures require serious camera" bullsmurf.
I really don't see the need unless you're shooting sports with fast long lenses.

What's others views on DSLRs?

[dks]

didn't we talk about that before ?   

You went for full frame; they are heavy and too big and really only used, as you said, by people wanting/trying/pretending to take serious pictures. They are really designed for studio work, where you do not have to carry them, or for pros (though most people I see photographing weddings do not use full frame)

I have been using DSLRs for nearly a decade and have not seen the need for full frame. And I do take a lot of pictures.

Most smaller DSLRs also have an adequate on board flash.

Also, the lenses are an issue. I use an 18-200 zoom lens for most of my pictures which gives me a 35-320 full frame equivalent range.
On a full frame you will need a much bigger lens for that range, and it must be really good quality as full frame is less forgiving.

You bought the wrong camera, for your needs... (It is very common and I do notice that the people with the fanciest, largest cameras seem to use them the least, only on special occasion, as they are too heavy to carry and too big to have in a small bag. But, they like to be able to show, once a year, their pro grade camera..)
So, keep the flash and exchange your camera and possibly lenses for a smaller, DSLR system, like the 5** or 6** series

[tosh]

Here's my take on the subject:

DSLR = versatility depending which lenses you own...quality of lenses you own, flash gun,  tripod - bigger the better to combat both the weight and flapping mirror - yeah yeah, mirror lock up, I know... Function 123 in god knows what drop down menu!! Cable release or remote release........ And on and on and..........on!!

Lumix LX-5  24-90 f2.8 asph leica glass - ouch!!! Sharp!!
2cm close focus
Flash sync at any speed
Movies?? No problem
Built in flash or hot shoe - you decide
Stabilised lens
Additional supplementary lenses to make it full fisheye, telephoto or extreme macro!!
Requires only an Uber light weight tripod - no flapping mirror (leaf shutter?)

To me the biggest dilemma I have with digital is just that.....digital
In the days of film, it was film that was your medium you either put it in your compact or your SLR the difference was startling but the film was the same.
With digital its brought a whole host of problems to consider. Whereas before it was your lenses that were the weakness, now there is a multitude of weaknesses to consider, sensor, sensor size, dirty sensor, firmware, out of date firmware and so on and so on.

Yet step away from all this clever stuff and all we are interested in is the picture - how you get it is irrelevant. In fact I'd go as far to say even quality is irrelevant if the subject matter is boring, dull and stoic.
This is where smartphones excel, instant imaging anytime any place. May not be the best - but you got it regardless.

I've read on other blog sites that they are predicting Nikon to disappear within 2-3yrs due to the digital revolution and that because Nikon is solely a camera manufacturer and nothing else its demise is almost certain. With the likes of apple and Sony getting more and more knowledgeable it doesn't sound far fetched at all.

[tosh]

@dks

Yes, but in my defence I said I already had several canon lenses (4 actually + 1 3rd party) so going full frame would save the cost of replacing all my glass.

It was never the case of wanting to look the part - if that was my concern  I'd have gone much higher up. I was simply wanting to see why all the fuss and I'm still looking tbh.

Although it's early days, I do think the SLR is a dinasour - bit like CRT vs flat screens - nothing wrong but simply old hat.

But even if I'd opted for the smaller sensor slr - you still need to add all the accessories or why get a SLR in the first place?

[dks]

In the old days, if you put the Leica lens on your Zenith camera (same mount) you could get the same picture for the same film.

But these were the old days. Now the "film" is fixed for each camera.

I take a lot of pictures with my phone, in daylight and they are good enough.
(see the cellphone thread)

However, I describe myself as a photography enthusiast so I like to have the capabilities of a DSLR when I need them. I have been taking photographs for a few decades and have several regular and digital cameras. Never needed a full frame DSLR.

Now, the new cameras with the digital viewfinders seem good, but it depends on your needs; do you shoot a lot at night?, is the screen good in bright light?

Obviously what you bought is not suitable for your needs. The sooner you get something that suits you the better it will be. Whether Nikon or Canon will go the way of Kodak is not really relevant to whether you need a full frame DSLR now.

I know people who have used the same DSLR for nearly a decade and are happy with it. Others buy the biggest, newest model and never use it.

I do have my share of expensive SLRs that I bought and never used too, as I was happy with a smaller SLR model.

By the way, this used to happen in the old days too. Many people would buy SLRs and use them once every few years.

All I suggest, is that before you give up on the DSLR, try the smaller frame ones.
Maybe you just do not need a DSLR; most people do not anyway.

I have several Canon lenses and really only use 1. And all my SLR Canon lenses are of no use as they were for the non auto-focus (FD) mount.

[tosh]

The sole reason for the purchase of the DSLR was URBEXIng.
I'm not the slightest bit interested in long focal length lenses - the only time I can ever see myself needing anything like that is if I were to photograph my son playing sports.

The reason for the 5d was so that I could save money on having to buy new lenses and at the same time keep the very large and fabulously bright viewfinder which I read is a major downfall on crop sensor DSLRs.
I've already ordered a pair of canon extension tubes (12mm & 25mm) again used. These are solely to be used with either the 24mm or 40mm lens - I'm after close up macro with massive depth of field with minimum distortion (fisheye) to create eye popping impact, the 24mm may need to be replaced by the wider 20mm! (Hope not)  but I'll wait and try out extensively before I make any further purchases.

As for family days out..... I can't see myself taking the 5d, both the iPhone and LX-5 offer far more freedom.

Hopefully I'll make the 5D purchase work. There's no way I'm buying into another system now. I reckon within 2-3yrs smartphones will reach the realms of what we thought could never be achieved today.

Exciting times ahead indeed.

[AimlessWanderer]

I'm far less of a photographer than you guys and others on here, but here's my thoughts anyway ...

If you just want to capture an image ... go point and click. Doesn't matter if it's a phone or a compact camera. Aim, zoom, focus, click. Done. In fact my little Lumix gives me a better picture than my ultra cheapo DSLR set up ... and fits in a pocket 

DSLR lets you get a bit more creative with depth of field, exposures etc, and has a better zoom - so for me it still has a place, but not in an everyday role. It's one to play with when you want to try and get a bit more arty/moody. Even so, I only have a very cheap 18-200mm zoom lens and the built in pop up flash. For my needs (and skill level) there is no need to own anything more

[tosh]

Exactly my thoughts too AL

It's in the manufacturers interests to sell us this idea - but in reality most of it is simply not needed today.

If I was starting from scratch and owned nothing photographic, I would certainly have chosen a different path.

[Mr. Whippy]

At one time, I followed this stuff much more closely.  For us, when our kids were competing in horse sports, only a DSLR would have sufficient shutter speed to truly capture the action.  Trying to use a still from a video was not sufficient.

If that's changed, then I see a vanishingly small need for a DSLR.

[Millhouse]

When I wanted to make the move from a point and shoot to something better, I spent a long time considering what to get.

I ended up with Panasonic's Lumix G micro 4/3 system. I wanted DSLR capabilities in a smaller package. Video was also important to me. Does it do what I want?

Mostly. Where it can't compete with a DSLR is low light shooting, which I am shooting more of. At the moment, I am looking at DLSR's again.

[derekmac]

I could never go without having my DSLR. The speed, versatility and quality are just so damn good, a point and shoot, or phone simply can't touch it.

I have a Sony A57, and it's a fantastic camera. It's light, easy to use, and wicked fast. I've always been a Minolta fan, and had a few lenses, which is why I went with Sony. This is my second Sony DSLR.

[dks]

a box of mine 

[Top-Gear-24]

Exactly my thoughts too AL

It's in the manufacturers interests to sell us this idea - but in reality most of it is simply not needed today.

If I was starting from scratch and owned nothing photographic, I would certainly have chosen a different path.

The same can be said about 80% of the stuff that comes with your iPhone, for me a phone is for making phonecalls, and a DSLR is for taking pics. 

I could never get myself to spend money on an iPhone (or similar from a different brand), I would much rather buy a "normal" phone for 50 Euros and spend the rest of the cash on a new DSLR.  Not that I need a new DSLR,  I still think that my "old" Canon EOS400 is one of the best things I've ever bought, and I see no need in buying myself another one.  I also have a small compact camera from Casio, and I can take beautiful pics with it, but when I take 10 pics with the Casio, 2 of them are good, when I take 10 pics with my Canon EOS400, 8 of them are good (and 2 of them are perfect  ). 

I've seen some nice pics made with an iPhone, but I know that it takes more effort (or luck) to get that perfect pic than it does with a DSLR.

And the weight ...  I own two camera bags from Lowepro, one big enough to hold my Canon along with my 28-80mm and my 55-200mm lens, my tripod, my Garmin GPS, and my wallet and phone and some other stuff (like 3 or 4 full size multitools  ),  and a smaller one, big enough to hold my camera with its 28-80mm lens, my wallet and phone (and 2 multitools).  It doesn't take long before you're used to dragging that camera bag with you (my brother even has a backpack from Lowepro to store his 2 DSLR bodies and about 2 or 3 lenses, and he still has a bit of space for his raincoat and his lunch  ).

Long story short, I love my Canon EOS400  .

[derekmac]

...when I take 10 pics with my Canon EOS400, 8 of them are good (and 2 of them are perfect  ). 

Maybe another reason I'm so fond of having a DSLR is having young kids.  I can shoot at 10fps (12fps at 8.4MP crop), and have very fast auto focus.  Also, being able to shoot in RAW, especially when doing macro shots is great.

[tosh]

Cheers for the input everyone 

We decided to go for a walk through the woods this afternoon. I took both the lumix and the iPhone. It's the first time I've taken the lumix out, it came from ebay several months ago...ridiculously cheap due to a missing battery door (now covered with black electrical tape  ) anyway the battery caused all sorts of problems, after 4 batteries (long story) I realised the charger was at fault - it all works beautifully now.

I was simply blown away by the sheer versatility of this little camera. I hadn't gone equipped with anything other than the camera and the phone - so everything was handheld. Staggeringly good!!

However..... What I did note the the shutter lag! Jeez, how long ZZZzzzz 

That is where the dslr reigns supreme, instant!
But besides that the little LX-5 blew my socks off, unbelievable.

[Chako]

It all depends on your needs, wants, and what you get used to.

[tosh]

I've just been uploading some of the pictures I took today with the Lumix LX-5. Bear in mind this is my first outing and everything was handheld, shot in Jpeg and then re-sized for uploading.

I'm astounded by the quality considering this is just a compact. The resolving power of that lens is simply surreal!! If I'd taken a tripod or clamp I could have stopped the lens down as it was I was shooting almost wide open, hence the very shallow depth of field.

The latest lumix LX-7 has the same lens 24-90 Leica Asph  but with a F1.4 aperture!! plus other extras that the LX-5 missed out on.

 

[tosh]

A dead fly I saw on the decking.

The lens has actually resolved the honeycomb detail in the fly's eye in the full size file!!! - but has lost most of the detail due to resizing for uploading.

Seriously I cant wait to get this camera on a tripod and shoot RAW.

[gardenvalley]

I too am a Panasonic G user and it`s an excellent little camera. Unless you REALLY need high frame rates and/or long lenses for sports and wildlife or are expecting to make very big prints I`d say an SLR particularly full-frame is probably unneccessary. I downsized from dSLR, before that medium format, and don`t feel like I`m missing anything with the G2.
I would have a compact instead but very few, if any, have a usable viewfinder and using filters is a kludge, I`m a big fan of polarisers.
For (semi) serious photography a tripod is a must as evinced by Tosh`s photos, 3 of which are fuzzy. The photo of the young person is excellent, though.

My opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it.