The random endorsement: Digital SLRs (or why point-and-shoots are a waste of time)
- March 5th, 2008
- 7 Comments
There wasn’t an endorsement last week—frowny face—because head whip cracker Biggs had me write that cute Usenet primer. As a result, one of you wants me thrown off the Internet for good, which I wouldn’t be altogether opposed to.
But we’re back to basics today; another plain jane, vanilla otherredundantword endorsement for your Wednesday afternoon. Digital SLRs are the focus of my attention today.
You aught to invest in a digital SLR. I don’t care if you’re taking pictures for Magnum or capturing your friends’ drunken stupidity for later Facebook placement, you need an SLR. (For a an idea of what an SLR is on a more technical level and how they differer mechanically from a point-and-shoot, mosey on over to Wikipedia for a hot minute. With any luck, the CG server will still be up and running when you’re done.)
An SLR won’t just take “better” pictures than point-and-shoots, either. Since you’re able to manually control the two basic operations of the camera—shutter speed and aperture—you can be a whole lot more creative with your photos. Take these two pics I took last autumn.
This unknown male model posed for a quick shot at a club here in New York. Due to the oddities of club lighting (there is none), I had to screw around with the settings of the camera just to be able to capture any light at all. With a point-and-shoot, all you would have had is some shoddy built-in flashed washed out image; you wouldn’t be able to appreciate this real life Ancient Greek statue. Further playing around with the settings of the camera, you can take photos with all sorts of light tricks. Trails like the kind seen in the photo below (pictured: one of the club’s janitors (left) and some sort of CEO (right)) make you look like a skilled photographer when in fact you’re just an average joe fiddling around with a couple of dials on the SLR’s body.
In my case, I started using an SLR (the old Canon Rebel XT) just to take photos at trade shows and the like. In fact, I was offered a job once at some “press event” (read: party) just because I was the only gun running around with an SLR. Granted, I never followed up with the guy because I’m a myopic jerk, but it was neat nonetheless. It wasn’t until I took a class on photojournalism and then started trolling photography message boards that I started to appreciate photography. If you’re just using a point-and-shoot, you really are limiting yourself.
True, I understand that it’s not exactly convenient to haul an SLR all over town, especially if you jump in the deep end and bring extra lenses and so forth. (Though I must say, companies like Lowepro and Crumpler make top-notch camera bags.) I totally understand that bringing an SLR to a Six Flags or whatever can be a pain. By all means, bring your point-and-shoot in that case. Just know that you won’t be able to play around with the depth of field (which would make for some really interesting photos… just check Getty for examples).
Even Barcelona striker Samuel Eto’o uses an SLR!
SLR prices aren’t too bad nowadays, either. You can get an entry level one for under a G, if not significantly cheaper. And don’t panic over which brand of camera to get. At the entry level, SLRs from the likes on Nikon and Canon and Olympus et al. are all more or less the same; there’s no real opportunity cost in picking one over the other.
Can a point-and-shoot do that?
In summary, SLRs are worth figuring out how to use. Be my guest and keep using that point-and-shoot of yours, but once you’ve tried and gotten used to SLRs there’s no reason to go back. I tired to use a point-and-shoot just yesterday and was like, “How the hell do you use this, this toy?” Needless to say, I’ve run back to my SLR.
And there you have it.
Johnal (Who am I?)
9 months ago
Perhaps I don’t fully grasp these “random endorsements” just yet, but I think it’s a pretty weak argument to say that the reason P&S cams are a waste of time is because they may lack Av and Tv functions. There are quite a few P&S cameras available that offer these modes. Hell, I swear by my DSLR and will take it anywhere I can when a picture needs to be taken, but I still bought myself a cheap A570 IS for hooking up to my RC plane to take aerial video and aerial snapshots. I paid less than $100 for that POS P&S but it’s more than capable of handling Av/Tv modes.
What it DOES lack is quality glass and overall picture quality. ISO settings above 400 are just unacceptable and are useless in my opinion. But, if for some unknown reason I really had to invest in a P&S camera, I’d probably go with a G9 that actually supports RAW (without having to use some sort of hack) and actually has excellent picture quality. I couldn’t believe this wasn’t your main argument since there are far fewer P&S cameras that support the RAW format straight from the box than there are P&S cams that have Av Tv mode. Anyway, sample pictures from the G9 rival a LOT of what I’ve seen from DSLR users so I think the photographer is still more important than the equipment he uses (to a reasonable degree).
Lastly, I would just suggest that you spend the majority of your SLR buying budget on quality glass rather than the body. Lenses hold their value really well and be sold for 80-90% of the original purchase price if it’s in pretty good condition. SLR bodies drop in price so fast, it’s probably best to just get an entry level one until you realize what type of photography you’d like to pursue.
Nicholas Deleon (Who am I?)
9 months ago
Let me explain the rationale, or what was *supposed* to be rationale, for the random endorsement.
You see that word there, “random”? That was supposed to be the key part of the column. One week I’d “endorse”–really, all “endorse” means here is “shout out”; don’t think lives are at stake here or anything–a cellphone or some other tangible tech item/gadget and the next week I’d endorse Eclipse Winterforst chewing gum or some other “random” thing. Keep it light-hearted, fun. That sort of thing. Eventually, the invisible hand sorta strangled me and the column. Now I’m struggling to find things to “endorse” since the fact of the matter is I get by with very little–I still use the original LG Chocolate as my main phone, for example. I could have the worst phone in the tech blogosphere. Show me someone with a worse phone.
Also, these endorsements are only supposed to be approx. 600 words in length, hardly enough space to tackle anything in any serious manner. So if they seem brief, that’s why; I’m working toward a number here.
With all this in mind, help me out–would y’all rather see Washington Post-style analysis (juxtaposed with posts about funny Street Fighter cosplay actors and the like…) or something a little more breezy. I’d be totally cool with writing “what you need to download this week from what.cd” or “my favorite brands of rum.”
Bottom line–should the endorsement be 100 percent serious 100 percent of the time or should I embrace the ideas upon which it was founded and endorse random nonsense every so often?
Keep house alive.
-nd (well, na now. inside joke.)
Alex (Who am I?)
9 months ago
I have an LG Chocolate too.
Finally, after owning it for seven months, I now know how to answer a call while I’m listening to music without disconnecting the caller and having to call them back.
I’m currently trying to figure out how to select what song I want to hear rather than being forced to listen to the song that the Chocolate wants me to hear.
Anyway, random nonsense, please.
Eric Nagel (Who am I?)
8 months ago
The dirty little secret of DSLRs, especially the consumer priced ones, is that the sensor is scaled down from the standard 35mm frame. As a result, your photo receives less information than old film SLRs receive. Full Frame DSLRs are still 3-4k but getting cheaper.
I am still using a Powershot G5 but have been tempted to upgrade to the G9 or a consumer grade DSLR. Give me a camera that takes the pain out of HDR photos and I am sold, or just give me some bacon and mayo…
Linger Longer
Simon (Who am I?)
8 months ago
I came out of the world of film SLRs and rangefinder cameras, and I can’t understand the need for digital SLRs. I was hoping someone could explain this to me. Back in the day, range finder cameras were fine. They allowed you to adjust aperature, speed and some even had lenses you could swap. The problem was that what you framed in the viewfinder wasn’t what you necessarily got a picture of, because of paralax etc. So the SLR came along and fixed this major problem. It had a mirror that allowed you to see exactly what was going to hit the film and then it would flip out of the way at the last second when you took the shot. This allowed you to frame and compose correctly. It is interesting to note that many photojournalist used/use rangefinders exclusively. They are lighter, make less noise (no clunk) and your view doesn’t black out at the crucial moment. What I don’t understand with digital SLRs is why are they necessary? Why is it necessary to have this bulky mechanism flipping down a mirror like with film? With a digital camera the “film” can be continuously monitored with a back display or, in theory, with a small display in the eyepiece, so you can frame and see exactly what the picture will be before you snap it, without the need for a mirror. A non-SLR (rangefinder or so called point and shoot) can also have aperature and speed priority and manual settings in theory. Finally, a non-SLR can also have changeable lenses. So to me it boils down to this: The whole advent of the SLR was to allow exact framing of your shot. But since digital already allows this without the bulk of a mirror, without the noise of a mirror, without the vibration of a mirror, without the “black out” of a mirror, why bother with the mirror? Why not develop the digital equivalent of a digital rangefinder, eliminating all of that extra mechanical stuff that is no longer needed? Thank you in advance for any insights you can provide.
Embassy Pro Books (Who am I?)
4 months ago
I think it’s entertaining how many willing ‘models’ you can get once you enter an environment where the alcohol is flowing.
I agree that point and shoot is very limiting and if you want the flexibility to explore and play with your photos it’s not the way to go.
Embassy Pro Books (Who am I?)
3 months ago
I agree that the DSLR are one of the best investments you will make if you enjoy taking photos. There positives and negatives to everything in life. Point and shoots are great if you need something compact. If you go out on the town and night you don’t want to be lugging the DSLR around.
During the day walking around the city it is a must. The photo quality at times doesn’t compare especially once you learn how to use it correctly.
Reply