Why do you NOT want a DSLR?

[metallilan]

Why do i NOT want a DSLR?

1. price. obvious reason ar, im still a student. get only $250 per month plus pay this pay that, dont think i can afford getting a DSLR than costs me so much. so far getting my Fz5 was the best camera i used so far, and i plan to use and upgrade it till the very day i get a DSLR...



think thats about it. was wondering if i should get and old slr to get the feel of an SLR

 

[wildstallion]

you have to change lenses and buy more lenses, some p&S can go from 18mm wide to a nice 200-300mm zoom, no hassle changing lenses or buying them, But DSLR much better, love my d70s!!!

 

[metallilan]

you have to change lenses and buy more lenses, some p&S can go from 18mm wide to a nice 200-300mm zoom, no hassle changing lenses or buying them, But DSLR much better, love my d70s!!!

mine goes from 36 mm to 432 mm (12x zoom)...so no worries about that.

 

[ExplorerZ]

guess most of the reasons are because of the price, same goes for me:embrass: but it is more worthwhile to invest in dslr than most other cam. Camera model lifespan ain't a problem if you doesn't need the technology or functions in the new models

 

[phelan]

you have to change lenses and buy more lenses, some p&S can go from 18mm wide to a nice 200-300mm zoom, no hassle changing lenses or buying them, But DSLR much better, love my d70s!!!

How do u increase the optical zoom beyond what is inbuilt for a p&s? *scratches head*

 

[metallilan]

How do u increase the optical zoom beyond what is inbuilt for a p&s? *scratches head*

for some pNs camera like canon powershots u can actually add a teleconverter to it.

 

[phelan]

How about the F11?

 

[doug3fflux]

for some pNs camera like canon powershots u can actually add a teleconverter to it.

quality drops

 

[XXX Boy]

1) Lifespan of DSLR is short (my Leica M-series cameras can last me for many many many years why I want something not lasting??!)
2) Quality not as good as my Leitz optics!
3) Too expensive for a top of the line model.
4) Too rely on batteries (my Leica M can even take photos without batteries!).
5) Too many ppl use DSLR liao (very sian as I hate to use something many ppl is having, too boring liao!).
6) Big and heavy!
7) etc....

 

[Halfmoon]

DSLR... why I prefer not to have one....

1. Money: Too expensive still.
2. Pic quality: Not convinced yet by the quality of pictures.
3. Durability: Questionable, and not sure how long would it last.
4. Crop factor: Will need to buy additional lens.
5. Crop factor: Prefer full frame.
6. Power source: Too short, consume too much power.
7. Need extra investment: New PC with more RAM, GB hard disk..... buying compact flash memory, cables, etc....
8. Complicating/ troublsome: Dislike WB setting, need to hunt for the right setting......
9. Lens issue: Expose the weakness of consumer lens quality, so must use top of the line lens to avoid problem with image.
10. Sensor issue: Need to clean, maintain it to avoid getting poor image picture quality.

Prefer the simplicity of film SLR, and not get caught in the rat race due to sensor issue, resulting in buying better lenses, accessories, MP race...... and taking away... the fun and joy of photography.... and focus......

 

[doug3fflux]

DSLR... why I prefer not to have one....

1. Money: Too expensive still.
2. Pic quality: Not convinced yet by the quality of pictures.
3. Durability: Questionable, and not sure how long would it last.
4. Crop factor: Will need to buy additional lens.
5. Crop factor: Prefer full frame.
6. Power source: Too short, consume too much power.
7. Need extra investment: New PC with more RAM, GB hard disk..... buying compact flash memory, cables, etc....
8. Complicating/ troublsome: Dislike WB setting, need to hunt for the right setting......
9. Lens issue: Expose the weakness of consumer lens quality, so must use top of the line lens to avoid problem with image.
10. Sensor issue: Need to clean, maintain it to avoid getting poor image picture quality.

Prefer the simplicity of film SLR, and not get caught in the rat race due to sensor issue, resulting in buying better lenses, accessories, MP race...... and taking away... the fun and joy of photography.... and focus......

i agree with most :thumbsup:

 

[zac08]

Expensive?

Actually, if you did a calculation, film can be more expensive than digital, as the cost of developing increases, it can be real costly.

Let's just place it at $3.50 per roll of 36exp ISO 400 fuji

50 rolls is $175

Developing the roll and printing to 4R is about $12 - 15

50 rolls is $600 (going by the lower figure)

total for 50 roll is $775. So if you shoot about 50 rolls per year and going by a 2 year calculation, you'd have spent enough to buy yourself a D50 kit and some spares.

Of course, film quality is still there (that we can't deny) But for the hobbyist shooter, I guess the cost can be justified.

 

[lsisaxon]

I find the options quite interesting. Is it comparing a DSLR to film SLR or DSLR to digital compacts or DSLR to film compacts? I can't vote because I am already using DSLR.

Too bulky - compared to film or digital compacts?
film SLR is bulky too.

Quality is not good enough - compared to film or digital compacts?
Quality is better than digital compacts, compared to film, it's quite subjective. IMO, the worst DSLR can give better images than the best digital compacts.

Presence of Focal Length Multiplier - compared to FF DSLR, film or digital compacts?
Film is 1x, FF DSLR's factor is 1x or thereabouts, digital compacts is about 7.5x.

Can't do video - compared to ?!?!
Someone demonstrated a short animation clip with EOS1DsMkII. If you want to shoot proper video, get a video camera.

Relatively low continuous shooting speed - compared to film or digital compacts?
You must be joking. Other than purpose built high speed 35mm SLR cameras with half mirror which can shoot up to 12fps, video cameras which shoot at 30fps and high speed cameras which shoot thousands of frames a second for just a split second, DSLRs boasts continuous shooting speed much faster than their film counterparts because there is no frame advancing required. I haven't seen a digital compact which can shoot full resolution at speeds faster than 5fps yet. Most can only make 30fps at 640x480 or smaller in the video mode.

Don't want the hassle of postprocessing - compared to film or digital compacts?
Film- You mean sending the film to lab is not considered post processing?
Digital compacts- If you think you son't need to PP images from digital compacts, then all the more you don't need to PP images from DSLR.

Storage media issues- Film or digital compacts?
Film- CF or SD are handier than 135 rolls.
Compact digitals - same, some use CF, some use SD, some xD, some SM and some MS/Pro

Battery issues - again, compared to film or digital compacts?
Film still uses the least battery because there is no LCD.
Next comes the DSLRs
Digital compacts are the most power hungry.

Others - like many have said, price is a factor but if you do the calculations, it's cheaper than film in the long run.

 

[waileong]

It depends on how "long" is your run. Given that DSLR technology is still evolving, and many people "upgrade" every 2-3 years, I doubt it's cheaper than film unless you shoot an awful lot of meaningful shots.

Others - like many have said, price is a factor but if you do the calculations, it's cheaper than film in the long run.

Why do I not want a DSLR? Because I'm happy with what I've got...

 

[lsisaxon]

It depends on how "long" is your run. Given that DSLR technology is still evolving, and many people "upgrade" every 2-3 years, I doubt it's cheaper than film unless you shoot an awful lot of meaningful shots.



Why do I not want a DSLR? Because I'm happy with what I've got...

No one say that they need to upgrade every 2-3 years. Plus , it's not just cost.. It's opportunity cost that money can't buy.

 

[waileong]

Suggestions:

a. Don't print all the negs. That's wasteful. Learn to use a lightbox and loupe, or get a cheap 4base scan if you really need to and only enlarge the really stunning shots.

However, if you want to calculate the cost of printing every shot, you should do the same for your DSLR shots to achieve a meaningful comparison.

b. Be more economical in your shooting.

I don't know what you do to shoot 50 rolls a year, in the old days, statistics showed the "average" Joe in the US shot 4 rolls a year. Yes, CS-ers shoot more than the average Joe, but that's because they have DSLR's. If they were all shooting film, I doubt they would shoot half as many shots, and they would not be running from event to event or from model shoot to model shoot, shooting 300-500 each time.

Just for myself, at CS "model shoots" I usually shoot only 2-3 rolls (ie less than 100 shots), and I don't go for every model shoot. However, when I ask around, the DSLR users typically shoot 300 or more. And I'm moving into medium format soon, where one 120 roll has 12 shots only, so I'll be shooting even more economically.

My greatest shoot volume is during vacations, I shot 28 rolls on my last trip to US (21 days) but that's because I shot the same scene in both black and white and colour. I don't take vacations every year.

c. Your time has a cost as well, which film users do not incur in the same manner or quantity.

The cost of post-processing, of noise-ninja, of sharpening, of adjusting white balance, levels, etc. Film users just send the negs to the lab and complain until the picture is to their satisfaction. Thankfully, most pro labs do a good job, and I don't have to do that.

Nowadays with work and with two toddlers, I find my time to be extremely precious-- even to get a few hours off to catch a movie with my wife is so difficult-- that the cost of shooting film is cheap compared to the time I gain.

How much is your time worth to you?

d. If you shoot 50 rolls of negs, you have 50 rolls of negs to keep for years to come.

If you shoot 2000 shots, you still have to find a way to store your RAW files and PSD files, and back them up/update them if necessary, which means hard disks/RAID's, DVD's, RAW editing programs, memory, powerful PC and colour calibrated monitor to run the Photoshop version 1000, etc. All these need to be factored into your cost calculations as well.


Wai Leong
===

Expensive?

Actually, if you did a calculation, film can be more expensive than digital, as the cost of developing increases, it can be real costly.

Let's just place it at $3.50 per roll of 36exp ISO 400 fuji

50 rolls is $175

Developing the roll and printing to 4R is about $12 - 15

50 rolls is $600 (going by the lower figure)

total for 50 roll is $775. So if you shoot about 50 rolls per year and going by a 2 year calculation, you'd have spent enough to buy yourself a D50 kit and some spares.

Of course, film quality is still there (that we can't deny) But for the hobbyist shooter, I guess the cost can be justified.

 

[zac08]

Definitely true.

But on the other hand, when it's digital. I dare to take more shots and be more daring in terms of composition, effects and test shots. It's not as possible in film for me as I would be thinking of the cost of each shot when I depress the shutter. Of course, I would not agree on the matter of Quantity over Quality. But with digital, I can shoot up to 5 or 10 different versions of a single scene and review them and choose another way to make it look better. With film, it's a matter of guesswork and only when the negatives are returned to you, would you know that you did ok, or you failed miserably. And often, those scenes are not replicable...

 

[lsisaxon]

Suggestions:
a. Don't print all the negs. That's wasteful. Learn to use a lightbox and loupe, or get a cheap 4base scan if you really need to and only enlarge the really stunning shots.

However, if you want to calculate the cost of printing every shot, you should do the same for your DSLR shots to achieve a meaningful comparison.

True, but still every roll works out to be at least $6, if you buy cheaper film and development only and scan it yourself.

b. Be more economical in your shooting.

I don't know what you do to shoot 50 rolls a year, in the old days, statistics showed the "average" Joe in the US shot 4 rolls a year. Yes, CS-ers shoot more than the average Joe, but that's because they have DSLR's. If they were all shooting film, I doubt they would shoot half as many shots, and they would not be running from event to event or from model shoot to model shoot, shooting 300-500 each time.

Just for myself, at CS "model shoots" I usually shoot only 2-3 rolls (ie less than 100 shots), and I don't go for every model shoot. However, when I ask around, the DSLR users typically shoot 300 or more. And I'm moving into medium format soon, where one 120 roll has 12 shots only, so I'll be shooting even more economically.

My greatest shoot volume is during vacations, I shot 28 rolls on my last trip to US (21 days) but that's because I shot the same scene in both black and white and colour. I don't take vacations every year.

All you need to do is go for photographic outings every weekend. You'll end up with at least 100 rolls every year. That's already very conservative. With digital, I can do a whole lot more for free.

c. Your time has a cost as well, which film users do not incur in the same manner or quantity.

The cost of post-processing, of noise-ninja, of sharpening, of adjusting white balance, levels, etc. Film users just send the negs to the lab and complain until the picture is to their satisfaction. Thankfully, most pro labs do a good job, and I don't have to do that.

Nowadays with work and with two toddlers, I find my time to be extremely precious-- even to get a few hours off to catch a movie with my wife is so difficult-- that the cost of shooting film is cheap compared to the time I gain.

How much is your time worth to you?

That is why my camera is set in such a way that I only need to do minimal processing, and that is when I make mistakes during shooting, otherwise, it straight to print from camera JPG.

d. If you shoot 50 rolls of negs, you have 50 rolls of negs to keep for years to come.

If you shoot 2000 shots, you still have to find a way to store your RAW files and PSD files, and back them up/update them if necessary, which means hard disks/RAID's, DVD's, RAW editing programs, memory, powerful PC and colour calibrated monitor to run the Photoshop version 1000, etc. All these need to be factored into your cost calculations as well.

50 rolls of negative takes up a lot of space and the dyes fade with time, a 2 year old colour negative, even when properly kept can never give you the same quality and contrast as after it was freshly processed. A DVD can hold up to 4.7Gb, assuming you shoot at 6Mpix (equivalent to 16-base scan), each JPG file is about 2+Mbytes. Thats about 2000 JPG images or about 50 rolls of film. If you shoot RAW, then it will give you roughly about 10 rolls.

And that's on a flat piece of $2 12cm plastic disc which is very space efficient. Before the data gets corrupted due to age, all you need to do is make a duplicate without loss of any quality whatsoever. I cannot vouch the same for colour negatives.

 

[waileong]

Lucky I don't go for photo outings every weekend then... Else my bank account will rapidly go down to zero. I do think it's a quality, not quantity thing. I don't think S'pore is so target-rich. Also, I need to do something other than photography every weekend.

50 rolls of negs just means 50 sleeves the size of F4 pages in a file. Not too much space needed. However, I agree that colour dyes on negs can fade if not stored well. That's why they make archival sleeves. I know, even that cannot stop the fading, only delays it. That's why I'm shooting lots more black and white these days.

Anyway, my main point was not about technology (ie negs vs DVDs), but just to point out that the cost calculations are a lot more complicated than the simple models presented. One really has to factor in, on the digital side, the cost of all the associated hardware (computer, DVD writer, monitor, printer, etc), software (Photoshop, Noise Ninja, workflow software if any, etc) and time spent post-processing and on the film side, the cost of processing and archival storage (which are presently quite cheap) and most importantly, the volume, as that will have a huge influence on which is "cheaper".

Although in the end, it's not just $$$-- one also has to balance the convenience of digital against the higher quality of film in terms of lattitude and resolution, etc. For most people it's a no brainer, everything else (from music to cars to movies to refridgerators) is digital, so why should photography be any different. The only point I really want to make is that people should choose digital for the convenience, not the cost or quality.

Wai Leong
===

All you need to do is go for photographic outings every weekend. You'll end up with at least 100 rolls every year. That's already very conservative. With digital, I can do a whole lot more for free.

50 rolls of negative takes up a lot of space and the dyes fade with time, a 2 year old colour negative, even when properly kept can never give you the same quality and contrast as after it was freshly processed. A DVD can hold up to 4.7Gb, assuming you shoot at 6Mpix (equivalent to 16-base scan), each JPG file is about 2+Mbytes. Thats about 2000 JPG images or about 50 rolls of film. If you shoot RAW, then it will give you roughly about 10 rolls.

And that's on a flat piece of $2 12cm plastic disc which is very space efficient. Before the data gets corrupted due to age, all you need to do is make a duplicate without loss of any quality whatsoever. I cannot vouch the same for colour negatives.

 

[whoswho]

1. Lens, Lens, Lens - It's the total cost I'm looking at and not just the DSLR camera. Spending more on lens than on the camera. Don't forget, changing and changing of Lens. A whole load of equipment to carry
2. Maintenance (reflex mirror, sensor, lens and etc. Unless I'm planning to be a professional photographer, I wouldn't have the time to spare in maintaining them...)