"Your money is better spent on an SLR". Is it?

"Ron" wrote in message
...
I think this is a very good perspective and argument. Clearly, we all have
learning curve issues -- and priorities that drive purchasing decisions .

Interestingly, though I had very long lenses for my film SLR, etc. I found
myself only needing them on very rare occasions for the kind of
photography I do and want to have control over. And, I found that for
many places in life I wanted to go my trusty VW camper/van was a heck of a
lot more sensible, cost effective and efficient than the BMW's that
resided elsewhere in the family. Again, the important thing is to start
with the photography you do, the features that help you accomplish your
goals, and make measured decisions. I would never use an ad hominem
argument against DSLR's (and will probably own one), but I would urge that
many folks who are ready to plunk down big bucks (and they are very
expensive) not get taken in by too much of the hype out there.

What I said was not directly against your statement but to counter a handful
of people, like David, persistently saying they are sold by the digicams and
don't look back on a full SLR system. It would be fine if he keeps that for
himself. I have no doubt a digicam fits his need 99% of the time and
majority of the people too. It is likely that a digicam delivers a much high
quality pictures than his old SLR system if he used crappy lenses. As far as
hype of DSLR, it isn't. Being low noise and fast are enough reasons to go
DSLR if one is serious about photography. That said it has no substitute to
a person's artistic skill. They are really two very different animals.

I have been reading all of the posts in this thread and finally decided to
weigh in. The best camera for anyone is the camera that they will USE! For
a person who would not want to be bothered by a complex SLR, or want to
carry a few extra lenses, a point and shoot would certainly be the better
choice. That said, I would think that the person who would hang around in a
group like this one for any length of time has a more than casual interest
in photography and, long term, would be happier with the SLR. Point and
shoots can take some amazingly good photos but will never match the SLR for
flexibility in a variety of situations.
Chuck

I have been reading all of the posts in this thread and finally decided to
weigh in. The best camera for anyone is the camera that they will USE! For
a person who would not want to be bothered by a complex SLR, or want to
carry a few extra lenses, a point and shoot would certainly be the better
choice. That said, I would think that the person who would hang around in a
group like this one for any length of time has a more than casual interest
in photography and, long term, would be happier with the SLR. Point and
shoots can take some amazingly good photos but will never match the SLR for
flexibility in a variety of situations.
Chuck

leo wrote:
[]
What I said was not directly against your statement but to counter a
handful of people, like David, persistently saying they are sold by
the digicams and don't look back on a full SLR system.

But that was not my point. The original proposition was that anyone
spending enough money on a non-SLR that could have bought them an SLR was
spending that money unwisely.

"But your money WOULD be better spent on an SLR, which is why the Canon
Digital Rebel did sneak into this guide"

I disagree with this statement, and invited comments. Clearly there is a
place both high-end non-SLRs and for low-end SLRs, and the comments made
may help people who are looking at spending that amount of money to decide
what their next purchase will be.

David

leo wrote:
[]
What I said was not directly against your statement but to counter a
handful of people, like David, persistently saying they are sold by
the digicams and don't look back on a full SLR system.

But that was not my point. The original proposition was that anyone
spending enough money on a non-SLR that could have bought them an SLR was
spending that money unwisely.

"But your money WOULD be better spent on an SLR, which is why the Canon
Digital Rebel did sneak into this guide"

I disagree with this statement, and invited comments. Clearly there is a
place both high-end non-SLRs and for low-end SLRs, and the comments made
may help people who are looking at spending that amount of money to decide
what their next purchase will be.

David

In article , says...
For the money, for doing available light and snapshot work, you can do
a lot better with a P/S 4Mp digicam that comes with a nice f/2.0 lens
(my Canon G2 comes to mind) than you can with my digital Rebel and
it's kit lens which is several stops slower, and hence not as well
tuned to available light photography. There are scenes my G2 shoots
much better than my Rebel.

Doesn't the better sensitivity of the Rebel sensor overcome the slower
lens disadvantage for available light photography?

In article , says...
For the money, for doing available light and snapshot work, you can do
a lot better with a P/S 4Mp digicam that comes with a nice f/2.0 lens
(my Canon G2 comes to mind) than you can with my digital Rebel and
it's kit lens which is several stops slower, and hence not as well
tuned to available light photography. There are scenes my G2 shoots
much better than my Rebel.

Doesn't the better sensitivity of the Rebel sensor overcome the slower
lens disadvantage for available light photography?

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
leo wrote:
[]
What I said was not directly against your statement but to counter a
handful of people, like David, persistently saying they are sold by
the digicams and don't look back on a full SLR system.

But that was not my point. The original proposition was that anyone
spending enough money on a non-SLR that could have bought them an SLR was
spending that money unwisely.

"But your money WOULD be better spent on an SLR, which is why the Canon
Digital Rebel did sneak into this guide"

I disagree with this statement, and invited comments. Clearly there is a
place both high-end non-SLRs and for low-end SLRs, and the comments made
may help people who are looking at spending that amount of money to decide
what their next purchase will be.

David

I agree with the statement:
"But your money WOULD be better spent on an SLR, which is why the Canon
Digital Rebel did sneak into this guide"
For people who are interested in photography.

On the other hand if SLR doesn't fit one's lifestyle or budget, there's
nothing wrong having a digicam.

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
leo wrote:
[]
What I said was not directly against your statement but to counter a
handful of people, like David, persistently saying they are sold by
the digicams and don't look back on a full SLR system.

But that was not my point. The original proposition was that anyone
spending enough money on a non-SLR that could have bought them an SLR was
spending that money unwisely.

"But your money WOULD be better spent on an SLR, which is why the Canon
Digital Rebel did sneak into this guide"

I disagree with this statement, and invited comments. Clearly there is a
place both high-end non-SLRs and for low-end SLRs, and the comments made
may help people who are looking at spending that amount of money to decide
what their next purchase will be.

David

I agree with the statement:
"But your money WOULD be better spent on an SLR, which is why the Canon
Digital Rebel did sneak into this guide"
For people who are interested in photography.

On the other hand if SLR doesn't fit one's lifestyle or budget, there's
nothing wrong having a digicam.

"David J Taylor" wrote in message
...
leo wrote:
[]
What I said was not directly against your statement but to counter a
handful of people, like David, persistently saying they are sold by
the digicams and don't look back on a full SLR system.

But that was not my point. The original proposition was that anyone
spending enough money on a non-SLR that could have bought them an SLR was
spending that money unwisely.

"But your money WOULD be better spent on an SLR, which is why the Canon
Digital Rebel did sneak into this guide"

I disagree with this statement, and invited comments. Clearly there is a
place both high-end non-SLRs and for low-end SLRs, and the comments made
may help people who are looking at spending that amount of money to decide
what their next purchase will be.

David

I agree with the statement:
"But your money WOULD be better spent on an SLR, which is why the Canon
Digital Rebel did sneak into this guide"
For people who are interested in photography.

On the other hand if SLR doesn't fit one's lifestyle or budget, there's
nothing wrong having a digicam.