Tossing around the idea of getting a DSLR camera

[Crotalus 0]

We had a 35mm Canon Rebel that took really nice photos. Then we moved into the digital world and had a few kodak easy shares and i have a Pentax Optio W20 for fishing.

 

I had the Kodak out a few weeks ago and dropped it thus rendering it useless. Now we need a new camera. The Pentax is nice for fishing and hunting, but with the small lens the Kodak took better pictures even though it was 2 years older and took 5 MP pictures compared to the Pentax's 7 MP.

 

 

So now my searching has taken me to two possible solutions. The first is a Canon Powershot SX10s or for about $200 more the Digital Rebel XS.

 

For me either camera will be more than adequate as i am not a pro photographer or even a hobbist, i just like taking nice pictures, usually while camping with the kids. The one area that i do like is taking macro photos of flies when i am in tying mode.

 

Will i need to sink several hundered dollars into a macro lens for the DSLR or will i be able to take adequate photos using the 18-55 lens with some minor cropping? I dont need to be able to submit the photos for publishing or anything like that, i just like to post some pics to this site from time to time (like the one in my avatar).

 

Of course now i am kicking myself that i sold the lenses with my 35 mm Rebel 18 months ago - I had a pretty nice 80-200 that would have worked with the DSLR and saved me from buying a new one

[JayMorr 0]

Go with the DSLR and use your kit lens. You will not be disappointed because you will have more options later on when upgrading. You will also have more options when taking photos.

 

In regards to the 18-55....

 

here are couple samples from a recent blog post:

http://www.flyfishermanforum.com/2008/11/tying-macdaddy.html

 

For the money now you can get into a Rebel XT 8.0mp for 250-300 and the XTi for 400ish. Nikon also has some cameras in the same price range. Also check out your local used classifieds. People are upgrading camera bodies right now and I see these bodies for cheap all the time.

 

I hope that helps.

 

 

 

 

[Wulff 0]

Well Im going to recommend you stick with a "PnS". I dont know why but people seem to think they are incapable of good photos.

 

The question you want to ask yourself is....Why do I want a DSLR.

 

If you have little or no desire to learn photography...and only really plan on using DSLRs in auto mode, nor do you relish the idea of buying extra lenses than you are foregoing what makes DSLRs powerful.

 

Theres very, very little, good Digicams can't do that DSLRs can...and they can do soooo much more, including the ability to learn photography and take control of the cameras manual settings.

 

Video

Macro

Telephoto.

 

To get consumer grade lenses and bodies capable of that in a DSLR your looking at about $3,000.00.

A good telephoto 300mm or 400mm alone will cost $1,500 and more. They transalte roughly to 10x optical zoom, which many PnS have. A good 1:1 Macro lens will start at about $700.00. Next up are Tripods and heads capable of holding the weight of DSLRS and heavier lenses ( $200.00 to start), spare batteries ($80), Cards, bags, filters, and on and on.

 

Compared to $500.00 for a Canon G10.

Have a read here. http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml

 

Thats being compared to a $40,000 medium format Hasselbad. If cant see much of a difference....can you?

**************

 

Now if down the road you decide you want to get a little more serious about photography, then by all means...A DSLR is the way to go. Just keep in mind a DSLR does stop with the purchase of a body...there are lenses ( good lenses often cost more than decent bodies) and accessories..not to mention software like photoshop, lightroom, etc,etc.

While those arent neccessary, they part of the "growth" stages.

 

DSLRs are great but buying one for the sake of having a DSLR is like buying a Bassboat without the motor and trimmings

[Houndog 0]

I drag around a P&S when I don't plan on taking photos, and carry a DSLR when I plan on taking photos or will be somewhere that sometimes presents opportunities for photos (like the camp).

 

For fly tying pictures I would be more concerned about light than camera, either camera will give you satisfactory results for the web.

 

The P&S's can definitely take good pictures, but after using a DSLR it would be hard to go P&S only, the control and ability to isolate the subject when needed would be hard to give up...

 

[nemoblackdog 0]

If macro really is of interest to your photography needs, it may be worth noting that many P&S cameras actually are easier to use for closeup macro shots. The small lenses they have - while a weakness in the light gathering and ultimate sharpness arena - actually have greater overall depth of field at macro ranges. Look at the fly tying pictures that Hans Weilenmann and Charlie Craven have on their websites. All of those shots and those in Charlie's tying books are shot with an older P&S nikon - not a DSLR. The photos in his books are simply the best of any in the business.

 

For more general purpose photography, there are limitations to each format. Light gathering ability of the optics (which translates in to "speed") is definitely a much bigger advantage to the DSLR. However, a camera that sits on a shelf or closet because you don't want to lug it around isn't of any real use. If you are willing to put up with the "lugability" factor, then there's no doubt the DSLR is more capable. It's only a question you can answer.

 

If there's any doubt that P&S cameras are entirely capable of world-class photos, look up Alex Majoli's work here. Also, flickr.com has a facility to search for photos shot by camera type. Plug in your favorite P&S camera and one can't help but be be impressed by the overall high-quality of the photos that are returned.

 

 

[Crotalus 0]

Thanks for the replies guys - not that they made my decision any easier :wallbash:

 

The G10 looks like a very interesting camera Wulff, but that makes the decision that much tougher since they are about the same price as the Rebel XS w/ 18-55 lens.

 

I think i am still leaning the DSLR way, we are going to Maine on vacation next year and to Yellowstone in the next 2-3 years so i think i really want the option of picking up a telephoto lens and taking some nice landscape and wildlife pics.

[Peterjay 0]

Most of the guys I know, including professionals, also own an inexpensive P&S to use for fishing pix, etc. You don't even need to spend $500 on a G10. I recently hung a show featuring 11X14" and 12X18" art prints. Most of the images were captured with a Canon 5D, but two were made with a $150/5.1MP Nikon pocket digicam. The only way anybody can tell the difference is if I tell 'em, and I'm not talking. If you want to upgrade your outfit in the future with wildlife pix in mind, a DSLR is probably the way to go, but you can do some amazing stuff with a P&S as long as you're willing to accept a few limitations.

[Crotalus 0]

I have a waterproof Pentax Optio w20 that i will continue to carry while fishing and hunting. It just doesnt have the quailty lens needed for taking really good long range photos, it works well up close but is lacking in scenery abilities which i want to do more of.

[Wulff 0]

The G10 looks like a very interesting camera Wulff, but that makes the decision that much tougher since they are about the same price as the Rebel XS w/ 18-55 lens.

 

I know its not easy Crotalus. Its a process most photographers go through in one form or another. Whether its wher to spend the initial investment or whether its trying to decide to buy the $1,500 24-70 f2.8 or $1,400 24-105 F4 IS. Or whether they should upgrade to the newest body for 3G, or wait and buy that pro body they dream about for another G or 2.

 

Thats why I mentioned the G10. For the same money your out the door and taking pictures. There are other equally good PnSs out there. Some will be better for macro shooting, some better for telephoto work with more optical zoom. Hells there are PnSs out there with more Optical zoom, than my equivelant 400mm.

 

In one hand you have an entry level DSLR with an entry level kit lens

In the other you have a high end digicam that can take virtually the same pics as the DSLR but also be good for macro *and* telephoto *and* video.

 

and you done spending.

 

With the DSLR your goign to want (and need) more lenses....atleast two more to get what you get with one good PnS.

If you want to explore photogrpahy, than that may be the best route

 

However,

 

 

For me either camera will be more than adequate as i am not a pro photographer or even a hobbist, i just like taking nice pictures, usually while camping with the kids. The one area that i do like is taking macro photos of flies when i am in tying mode.Will i need to sink several hundered dollars into a macro lens for the DSLR or will i be able to take adequate photos using the 18-55 lens with some minor cropping

 

Will you need to sink more into the DSLR?

Yes you will.

 

 

 

 

[Crotalus 0]

Talked it over with the Mrs and we are going DSLR since we both miss the old 35 mm Rebel.

 

Now the hard part, picking the body and lens combo

 

I have been looking at both the Rebel XS and the Rebel XSi and various lenses.

 

It'll either be an XS with the 18-55 kit lens and a Canon EF-S 55-250mm f/4-5.6 IS lens (i thought about the 70-300 lens that seems to be popular but this one has image stabilization) or the XSi with a Tamron 18 - 200mm f/3.5-6.3 XR DI-II LD Aspherical (IF) AF Zoom Lens with Macro