Do i really need my dSLR to take great photo's?

ian-83

ian-83

Messages
1,502
Name
Ian
Edit My Images
Yes
Considering selling up my dSLR and lenses to get something a bit more like an advanced compact (Nikon P7700, Canon Powershot G15) so I can still control various aspects of the exposure settings and also shoot in RAW if wanted. Can anyone suggest any alternatives to the two I have listed?

Most of my photo's are going to end up on my computer and on Facebook and if printed likely to be 6x4 or similar size to go in the photo album.

As an enthusiast am I likely to notice a difference in picture quality? Or will it only be noticeable if I go pixel peeping?

Reason I am looking for something smaller is want something a bit easier and more discreet to carry about so I use it more to get pictures of my little girl growing up. Getting the dSLR out and carrying it around seems a bit of a chore recently.
 
ian-83 said:
Most of my photo's are going to end up on my computer and on Facebook and if printed likely to be 6x4 or similar size to go in the photo album.

As an enthusiast am I likely to notice a difference in picture quality?
Click to expand...

Probably not. Obviously a DSLR is more versatile but most people these days have equipment far in advance of their needs.

When I used to enter camera club competitions, the only picture I ever scored 10/10 with was taken with a Canon G9.

If the difference in size and weight is also the difference between you taking it with you or leaving it at home then a compact can only be an advantage.


Steve.
 
Last edited:
I went through this last year.
Ended up selling the d90 and all my lenses and went for the nikon j1.
It's a small camera that I can still add lenses too but more importantly the autofocus is very accurate and speedy, not far off my d90

The camera stays with me more now than the d90 ever did
 
Great pictures of what?
Clearly some genres are difficult with anything other than a DSLR?
However a CSC is enough for most people most of the time, and for more than web size too.

Compacts have limitations that are more than you'll notice pixel peeping, whenever I use a compact it's the speed of use which is the big drawback.
 
ian-83 said:
As an enthusiast am I likely to notice a difference in picture quality? Or will it only be noticeable if I go pixel peeping?
Click to expand...


Fuji X100S

Same sized sensor as your D7000. Same resolution as your D7000. = same quality as your D7000.

Coolpix A looks nice too.. also DX sized sensor, and 16MP.

Cameras don't take photographs, people do. If you feel your SLR is hindering your picture taking... ditch it.
 
Last edited:
Lots of people say how fantastic the iphone is as a camera....so this may even be sufficient depending on your needs.
 
Did the same thing myself last year sold my Canon 5D and bought an Olympus M4/3rds camera, wanted something smaller but still the option of lens changes. Whilst its probably no good for sports stuff its plenty fast enough for me. If I pixel peep I definitely notice the difference but the few I have printed recently look just as good as any I printed with my DSLR.

Its all about taking photos if your DSLR is hindering that then like PookeyHead says "Ditch it" and buy something your more comfortable with.

Steve
 
There will be a difference in IQ but it is a small difference. When I compare shots taken onan X10 with those on a DSLR the difference is very small and for my purposes the X10 is plenty good enough. However, I enjoy using DSLRs so just use both and use whatever I fancy using that day.

Why not test the water with a used compact and see if it does what you think it will. If it doesn't, just sell it on. Should cost hardly anything that way.
 
Last edited:
Some good feedback so far and lots to think about. I am tempted to test the water before jumping off the dslr ship completely and to look at my needs, to see if not having a dslr will affect what i photograph. I am currently looking at a waterproof compact for use on holiday while poolside so no worries of water in my equipment ruining it. Think I will see how I get on with this before deciding what to do with my dslr.
 
You know... its not an exclusive choice... you can have BOTH you know...
DSLR for when you can be bothered, or its needed.... a compact or similar for convenience...
 
What would bother me more in switching soley to a compact, is losing the shallow DOF in portrait work.
I do love doing outdoor portraits with needlessly long lenses so that the background is nothing but smush.

I'm happy with most of what I get with my compact (a Canon Ixus 115, for reference) when I don't have to go stupid with the ISO, but it can't replace everything I use the DSLR for (like ultrawide lenses).
 
You do need a dslr IMO, especially with kids. The iq is there plus the speed in turning on and,shutter lag and dof as well as low light. I think I am ok with a camera. Some people pay me for portraits and the odd wedding and I like to think I know what I am doing. But the majority of the shots taken with my canon s95 are poor in comparison IMO. And I will always take the d700 and 50mm over that unless I really have to.

The s95 isn't a bad camera, it will just never compete with a 'proper camera'.
 
Steve Smith said:
On the internet or printed 6x4 there will be no noticeable difference.
Click to expand...

Good point. I was talking personally and the way I look at images and forgot the OPs intended use! The differences are only really noticeable as I am looking at them on a large monitor.
 
depends what you mean by great. dSLRs have greater dynamic range and noise control compared to a compact plus they have more control over DOF. So while you might be able to capture the same scene the IQ won't be anywhere near as good


ian-83 said:
Considering selling up my dSLR and lenses to get something a bit more like an advanced compact (Nikon P7700, Canon Powershot G15) so I can still control various aspects of the exposure settings and also shoot in RAW if wanted. Can anyone suggest any alternatives to the two I have listed?

Most of my photo's are going to end up on my computer and on Facebook and if printed likely to be 6x4 or similar size to go in the photo album.

As an enthusiast am I likely to notice a difference in picture quality? Or will it only be noticeable if I go pixel peeping?

Reason I am looking for something smaller is want something a bit easier and more discreet to carry about so I use it more to get pictures of my little girl growing up. Getting the dSLR out and carrying it around seems a bit of a chore recently.
Click to expand...
 
I use the wifes compact from time to time, the shutter lag drives me nuts, so whilst the IQ may be OK I find that together with the lack of viewfinder a real pain.
 
As Phil says it does depend on what you want to shoot and to a degree how you intend to use the images afterwards (web vs large prints etc).

I've recently bought the Sony RX100 and can honestly say it's very impressive, it should be as it's quite expensive but IMHO well worth the money - it's the only compact I've been fully happy with. I'm still keeping the DSLR though and use it for "critical" work when IQ is paramount, I take the Sony with me everywhere now though

Simon
 
I thnk with a DSLR you have to power to make changes to a scene and the images you create, the range of changes you can make are far in excess of those on a compact. But if you don't want or need all of that, then a compact is likely to serve you just as well.

When out and about I come across an awful lot of touristy type middle aged men, lugging around high end DSLRs (often set to "auto"), when really they'd do just as well (if not better) with a compact.

There's an old phrase "horses for courses".

Steve said:
Lots of people say how fantastic the iphone is as a camera....so this may even be sufficient depending on your needs.
Click to expand...

The probably also instagram the sh** out of their images......
 
Last edited:
POAH said:
depends what you mean by great. dSLRs have greater dynamic range and noise control compared to a compact plus they have more control over DOF. So while you might be able to capture the same scene the IQ won't be anywhere near as good
Click to expand...

That really depends on what compact and what sort of shots you take. In my experience in the conditions I shoot in (natural day light, low ISO) the IQ is very close between a good compact and a DSLR, especially for web or small prints.
If I shot at very high ISOs and/or with huge dynamic range in the shot then yes they woould not be anywhere near as good.

(I don't count DoF as part of IQ but it can be a limiting factor)
 
Steve Smith said:
On the internet or printed 6x4 there will be no noticeable difference.

Steve.
Click to expand...

I'm guessing for taking pictures of children the main issue could be indoor high ISO useage and/or cropping.

My non SLR suggestion would be something like the Panasonic LX7, a compact with an ultrabight lens to counter the need for high ISO performance.
 
At your stated end use, you'll see very little difference between most run of the mill shots taken with either and SLR or a decent compact. Even at print sizes up to A4, you'll be hard pushed! Go much bigger and you'll start seeing differences if you look for them (but most people won't notice). What you'll probably find is that you'll take more photos, simply because it's easier to pull an unobtrusive compact out of a pocket than a bulky (and they all are compared to compacts) SLR out of a bag.

To add to the couple you mention, I would add some of the smaller Fujis to the list of candidates - namely the X-10, X-20 and XF-1. The X-10 and X-20 have optical viewfinders with the X-20 adding some exposure information overlaid on the image and the XF-1 shares the guts of the X-10 behind a more compact lens making it truly pocketable (in a shirt pocket).

Teflon-Mike said:
You know... its not an exclusive choice... you can have BOTH you know...
DSLR for when you can be bothered, or its needed.... a compact or similar for convenience...
Click to expand...

Quoted for truth! I'm currently using my pair of Fujis (X-10 and XF-1) and a Fuji bridge (HS-30) more than my D700 but I won't be getting rid of the SLR kit because it does do some things far better than the Fujis, especially high ISOs and wide angles.
 
ernesto said:
That really depends on what compact and what sort of shots you take. In my experience in the conditions I shoot in (natural day light, low ISO) the IQ is very close between a good compact and a DSLR, especially for web or small prints.
If I shot at very high ISOs and/or with huge dynamic range in the shot then yes they woould not be anywhere near as good.

(I don't count DoF as part of IQ but it can be a limiting factor)
Click to expand...


also AF speed and shutter lag are worse on a compact.
 
AF speed yes, shutter lag not necessarily. All depends on what compact you choose.

Neither of those things should stop you taking a great photo though (whatever great photo means!)
 
Have a look on flickr and do a search for a couple of compact cameras and see what people achieve.

I have a Canon S110 and if I search for that, then go to groups it shows me all the pictures taken with that model and there are some brilliant ones.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/2128547@N23/pool/

I also have a D3100 but I get far more use from my compact as it's just easier to carry and there is zero shutter lag like a lot of compacts.
 
Like I mentioned above.
I have 3 very young children who don't like to keep still. I went from a D90 to a Fuji X10 to a Nikon J1.
Images are very very good IQ wise, there are 4 main lenses in the line up two of which are 10mm f2.8 and 18.5mm f1.8. Think Nikon have also just announced a 32mm f1.8 aswel.

The Fuji X10 was very nice but the autofocus was no where near fast enough. the J1 however is very quick. Im a few versions behind now, think there on the J3 at the moment. There is also the Nikon V1 which is the same as the J1 but also has a viewfinder.

The V1 with 10-30mm kit lens can be had for around £230 new.

At the moment I only have the 10-30mm f3.5-4. and 30-110mm f3.5-5.6 but im looking to get the 18.5mm f1.8 this month so that will give me a few extra stops of light
 
All worries about image quality, versatility, speed of operation, etc. are irrelevant when considering that the best camera is the one you have with you.


Steve.
 
Steve Smith said:
All worries about image quality, versatility, speed of operation, etc. are irrelevant when considering that the best camera is the one you have with you.

Steve.
Click to expand...

As the saying goes. It's better then nothing lol

Tbh though there are cameras that cannot simply take the shot leading to achieving the same you would without a camera ie nothing
 
Over confused now! Everyone that has commented has given me lots of pro's and con's to consider. Definately something I need to take time to think over properly and maybe dip a toe in the water before fully committing to sticking or jumping ship. I am beginning to wonder if a compact system like the Nikon system or Panasonic G system might give me best of both worlds. The chance to get a decentish dof for portraits yet compact enough to be easier to carry around to not miss shots by deciding to leave it at home. Also they seem close enough to an dslr for af speed and possibly dynamic range.

Will definately be looking at shots taken with a few contenders on FlickR to see if anything looks like it will produce what I am after.

Many thanks to everyone whose commented.
 
IF its DOF for portraits then stick to APS-C sized sensors.. Ideal solutions would be the fuji range X100/100s X-E1/X-pro1

Even with the Leica 45mm I found it hard to throw backgrounds out of focus with the panny system, with the fuji its a doddle even when shooting @ f4 or 5.6

DOF increases markedly when you drop down to m43 or compact sized sensors.

Compact wise probably the best one at present is the Fuji X20, cracking iQ, fast AF, good low light/high ISO performance and a real working view finder with information & AF points just like your DSLR
 
I've just sold up all my Canon gear for the exact reason you provided in your OP. I was sick of lugging four tons of gear around and my back isn't getting any younger.

I don't do sport, which in my mind was the only reason to stick with the DSLR. I enjoy street, landscape and family portraits. The Fuji X-E1 with the 35mm lens is just sublime. The 1.4 aperture and ability to shoot easily at ISO6400 means I can shoot in near darkness with virtually no noise. I notice no slower "wake up" time than my DSLR, but that's generally because it takes me a second or two to raise the camera to my eye after turning it on.

Moving to a smaller system has given my photography a new lease of life. I'd heartily recommend it. Picture quality has improved, and my willingness to take the camera out has too.

Ian.
 
I've traded one of my D90's for an Olympus PEN E-PM1.

I couldn't justify having two DSLR bodies, but I had to keep one for work purposes, so that will get used mostly for the "serious stuff".
Everything else will be shot on the Olympus M4/3 system, just like the post above, I got fed up not having the camera with me because its just too heavy to lug around, at least with the M4/3 system I can carry it with me and more importantly use it.

:)
 
Digital compacts, especially the top end ones, have come on leaps and bounds in the past couple of years in terms of image quality, dynamic range, sensor size, lens speed, af speed, noise control at higher iso's etc.
I've had a few over the past 5 years and bought an X10 early last year, and it's the first one I've been really happy with. It's not without flaws, and I believe the X20 improves on many things, but it's a great camera that I actually use more often than my D700 these days. Sure there's many things that the D700 wipes the floor with it, but in my mind cameras are just tools and it's about picking the best tool for the job!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top