-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Digital SLR?
- Thread starter razza1987
- Start date
G00fyDad
Well-Known Member
It depends on how much time you have on your hands. If you have a bit before your trip then yes, get an SLR or DSLR and practice a while. If not then I'd stick with a point and shoot. You cannot grab an SLR or DSLR and automatically take wonderful shots. I've tried. 
There are a lot of mechanics that go into using one.
Although some DSLR's do have a "auto" function or some other ability to recall the last saved settings used. But to use the same settings each time is useless.
There are a lot of mechanics that go into using one.Although some DSLR's do have a "auto" function or some other ability to recall the last saved settings used. But to use the same settings each time is useless.
Joshua&CalebDad
Well-Known Member
DSLR's are easy to pick up and use if you keep the setting on "auto," have auto focus on the camera, and you know how to zoom in and out. However, that would be like buying a sports car but treating it like a bicyle. You'll be able to take pictures but they will never come out like some of the ones you see posted on this siteon the picture threads. To get the most out of your DSLR you have to take the time to learn about Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, how light can affect your picture, and things of this nature.
If you plan on taking the time to learn more about photography then sure put your money into buying a DSLR. But be honest with yourself, if you don't have the interest or time to learn more about photography then you are better off staying with a point and shoot camera. It'll be easier on the wallet and you'll be less frustrated in the end.
On a side note, Nikon does have their entry level DSLR at about $550 with an 18 - 155mm lens for about $500. If you want to purchase the next step up they have the D5100 for about $650.
Good luck with your decision.
NowInc
Well-Known Member
I know a few are prob sick of me suggesting it..but if youre thinking about getting into a DSLR..the entry level Nikons (D3100 and D3200) have a teaching mode that will let you choose the type of picture you want to take and then tell you how its achieved (bokeh, fast motion, etc). I found that those who have gone this route usually pick up on it really quickly.
stlbobby
Well-Known Member
DSLR's are like a computer. You can pick one up and do the basic stuff easily, but it will take you some time to learn and unlock it's full potential.
I finally stepped up to a DSLR, I still shoot film but had a point and shoot for digital stuff, I got a great deal on a solid Nikon package at Costco. It came with a D3100 body, two lenses, and a bunch of cheap extras for less than $800. It is a great starter kit.
Whatever you do take sometime to read up on cameras before you buy. It's not all about megapixels. Things like lens compatibility and availability, sensor size, shooting modes, and codecs all affect your final product. Figure out what what kinds of shots you want to take and then decide what is best for you.
Finally, if you are thinking about using it mainly at WDW a point and shoot may be your best bet. A DSLR is heavy, bulky, and somewhat delicate and may not be your best option for a long day in the parks. I only bring my DSLR to the parks when I am going there specifically to take pictures. My wife just got a great Nikon Coolpix AW100 that we use for normal touring.
I finally stepped up to a DSLR, I still shoot film but had a point and shoot for digital stuff, I got a great deal on a solid Nikon package at Costco. It came with a D3100 body, two lenses, and a bunch of cheap extras for less than $800. It is a great starter kit.
Whatever you do take sometime to read up on cameras before you buy. It's not all about megapixels. Things like lens compatibility and availability, sensor size, shooting modes, and codecs all affect your final product. Figure out what what kinds of shots you want to take and then decide what is best for you.
Finally, if you are thinking about using it mainly at WDW a point and shoot may be your best bet. A DSLR is heavy, bulky, and somewhat delicate and may not be your best option for a long day in the parks. I only bring my DSLR to the parks when I am going there specifically to take pictures. My wife just got a great Nikon Coolpix AW100 that we use for normal touring.
CP_alum08
Well-Known Member
There is a pretty steep learning curve when you take the camera out of Auto mode (assuming you don't already understand shutter speed, aperture, an ISO). And like someone already said, there really is no point buying a DSLR just to leave it in Auto mode, your photos wont be THAT much better than a point and shoot. Also, understand that to get the full benefits of a DLSR you're going to want a couple lenses which can get expensive, especially if it's something you don't need. If you have the time and money to invest then yes, it makes a world of difference over a p&s, but if not I'd stay with something smaller.
flynnibus
Premium Member
A DSLR even in auto mode will be an improvement. The larger sensor, the better focus performance, the higher shutter speeds, burst mode, and other features will all be at your disposal even if you shoot in auto mode. Don't listen to these 'its pointless if you use auto mode' posts. Most of the time, you don't need to leave auto mode unless you are trying to create a specific effect.
What a DSLR will not be vs a P&S is a 'one tool to serve them all'. Some people get a DSLR and think all their photos will instantly be better. Without the right lens, you may actually find it harder to get some photos you are used to getting with your P&S. You won't be able to get every shot you see people post here with just the kit lens. It's not a magic 'I get all the shots' now just because you bought a SLR. It takes more effort to eek out the max the cameras can do vs a P&S - but if you are willing, the results are superior.
But even with a DSLR with a kit lens, you will find even in just something like App. Mode, you will enjoy better photos by playing with depth of field... or shooting burst mode.. locking exposure, etc.
But you will have to learn the basics of aperture ,shutter speed, iso, and exposure. It's not hard - but is essential, unlike in a P&S.
What a DSLR will not be vs a P&S is a 'one tool to serve them all'. Some people get a DSLR and think all their photos will instantly be better. Without the right lens, you may actually find it harder to get some photos you are used to getting with your P&S. You won't be able to get every shot you see people post here with just the kit lens. It's not a magic 'I get all the shots' now just because you bought a SLR. It takes more effort to eek out the max the cameras can do vs a P&S - but if you are willing, the results are superior.
But even with a DSLR with a kit lens, you will find even in just something like App. Mode, you will enjoy better photos by playing with depth of field... or shooting burst mode.. locking exposure, etc.
But you will have to learn the basics of aperture ,shutter speed, iso, and exposure. It's not hard - but is essential, unlike in a P&S.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
the other element that comes into place is the power of post production...
I see both sides of the old "shooting it on AUTO jpeg" debate, but there is no question that even if the camera is shot on AUTO that if you're capturing images in a RAW format you have a LOT of latitude in post to repair your errors. Try editing a JPEG, phew... that isn't easy.
You can really push RAW images but unfortunately that brings costs as well. You'll need software and a machine with enough RAM to push that program.
I see DSLR's as a true pandora box... it's something people just casually pick up then it's...
SOFTWARE
COMPUTERS
BAGS
HIGH END TRIPODS
FILTERS
LENSES
BATTERY GRIPS
ETC ETC ETC ETC ETC
in the end, you spend a good chunk of cash
nngrendel
Well-Known Member
I have to disagree with this statement. Auto Mode is only giving you the best Averages for an exposure. If you know all the other aspects of photography like ISO, Aperture, and shutter speed then you can improve your shots when you know how these settings will affect what you are trying to do. I must emphasize. The camera does not take the picture. The photographer does. I dont shoot in manual or Aperture Priority for specific effects. I shoot in these modes for better pictures.
I have seen many with nice SLR's but still have sub par results. Keep in mind we are not taking pictures of objects its all about capturing light. If your taking pictures and not taking into consideration what light is available then you may as well be in auto mode on a point and shoot. Just my opinion. Another reason for SLR is the ability to have a variety of lenses that you cant get with a point in shoot. If this does not interest you then you may not need to spend the extra $$ for a SLR. However! If you have a vast amount of disposable income then I say go with a SLR. Why not.
NowInc
Well-Known Member
As said a few times..DSLR turns into a commitment. I dont know anyone (over the age of 14 who got one for xmas) who owns a DSLR who didnt also end up investing in lenses, bags, filters, tripods, monpods etc...its an addiction. Not a BAD one, just expensive. You'll realize over time what gear you want..what gear you need..how to use what you have..and start setting "goals" of things you want to obtains (usually...lenses).
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
donsullivan
Premium Member
The most practical answer to this question is actually another question. Why are you considering a DSLR? I ask that because it really is an important part of the decision process.
- Are you choosing it because you've seen lots of people with DSLR's create beautiful images and you figure you need that kind of camera to do that? If so then make sure you are prepared for the investment in time and money to achieve the type of results you've seen others create. If your style of photography is capturing events and you are looking to improve the quality of those images then I would encourage investing in a higher quality point-and-shoot camera from one of the major manufacturers like Canon, Nikon or others. With less work (and less bulk to haul around) you can produce some amazing images with the higher end point and shoots available today.
- If you are considering moving into photography as a hobby and ready to invest some time (and money) then the leap to a DSLR is likely the way to go. When it comes to the dialog of which one (Canon/Nikon/other) I often suggest folks choose the brand their friends have. It will give you a source for help when you have questions and you may be able to borrow gear from each other to keep the cost of investing down a little. Photography can become a pretty expensive hobby.
The bottom line is understanding why you're making the leap and what your photography goals are. I know countless people who invested in a DSLR so they could 'take better pictures' and then they never use it because they don't want to haul all that stuff around or it's 'too big'. It's a wonderful hobby if it's something you're prepared to invest in but it's important to be sure of why you're doing it or you can sink a lot of money into something you don't use.
flynnibus
Premium Member
can you do better? Sure, with setup. But a lot of people take pictures to.. wait for it.. capture life. When doing that, the auto modes with a little bit of input don't just do an average.. they take the inputs, and give the best exposure based on the inputs. I get so tired of photogs who act like every shot is a tripod, bracketed, measured, remote triggered shot. People get so absorbed into photography that some forget the end game -- not the mechanics leading up to it. And not everyone is into photography for ART, but rather to capture life and memories.
You're never going to capture a shot on the first try when you are trying to balance all four inputs without setup. If I'm trying to capture my daughter riding.. I can tell the camera I'm in direct sunlight (setting my WB and ISO), I can set a shutter speed, and I don't need to worry about app. unless I'm trying to mess with the depth of field. Without any test shots, with that kind of setup I can get what I need.
Could I do it all in manual? Sure.. but why. Marginal gain for lots of time and setup? No thanks. I'll lower my camera ego and use a priority mode or program.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
shoot RAW, then you NEVER have to worry about WB because that is 100% recoverable in post.
This all comes with experience, sure... setting yourself up on modes helps when you don't know what you're doing but you just get used to the time of day etc and go from there. Experience makes everything
As for capturing life... getty and reuters guys on the sidelines, aren't shooting in auto...
nngrendel
Well-Known Member
I agree if you are shooting a wedding and something happens and you need to hurry and get a shot of something that is unexpected then by all means flip over to Auto to capture it. However nothing that happened in Disney during our trip required me to do so. I also use Shutter or Aperture Priority more than I use full manual. So those are a form of Automatic but you still have more control than letting a piece of equipment make all the decisions for you. The camera sensor no matter how awesome it is will never replace the human eye. I got tired of "photographers" who encourage people to use Auto as a main setting for your 1000 DSLR. I would also think most of here that use SLR's are not after to capture run of the mill images. I take pictures to capture something beautiful that I enjoy looking back at again and again. This doesnt make me wrong or you wrong. As I said before its just my opinion. Its how I want to shoot my images and the reason I spent $$ on doing so. But I must add its not all equipment. If your looking to buy a high end camera to take average pictures save the $$ is what I am saying.
That guy waited for this and probably knows the game well. Most sport photographers even get to know a team and plays they are going to run. That way that can anticipate shots like these. It didn't all come from owning a $5000 camera body with a $3000 lens.shoot RAW, then you NEVER have to worry about WB because that is 100% recoverable in post.
This all comes with experience, sure... setting yourself up on modes helps when you don't know what you're doing but you just get used to the time of day etc and go from there. Experience makes everything
As for capturing life... getty and reuters guys on the sidelines, aren't shooting in auto...
I normally shoot RAW. During our vacation I shot RAW and JPEG so I would be able to post some shots while at the hotel.
ddbowdoin
Well-Known Member
I'd agree with the body, considering the great lighting in stadiums but the lens is a must
You need a 300mm lens (in general) to work pro events
I've tried, tried, tried, tried, tried to get press passes and only have done so ONCE
http://www.facebook.com/media/set/?set=a.224815434268533.55121.117542861662458&type=3