Going backwards, DSLR to Fixed Lens.

For quite a few years, I stayed with the Sony DSC-D770 and its pro twin,
the DKC-FP3. I refused to upgrade because the cameras were not the limit
on what I wanted to do. My skill was. Most of my earlier work in film
was large or medium format, so I actually knew the difference.

Their excellent lenses let me get all there was to obtain out of the
1.5MP sensor, and they were perfect for web and screen-viewed photos, if
not too great at more than 8X10 prints. I made numerous prints at that
size that looked pretty good. Good printing software let me get pics
with no pixelization or other noticeable artifacts at that size. [That's
more than I can say for the average 3.3MP camera of that era.]

Ergonomically, they were as good or better than my old 35mm film
cameras, and I could hand-hold most outdoor shots without the blurring
"wiggle" I suffered with the older little P&S cameras.

Moving to a mountain area, I found the panoramas I wanted and the
detailed scenery cried out for something with more pixels and noise-free
ISO above 50. I wanted wall-size prints, too, like the Mountain Light
stuff..

I bought a Canon D60 with 2 average-quality zoom lenses, and quickly
upgraded to a better one (Tokina 12-24 f4). "Zowie!" I got some pics
that were impressive enough that I also had to upgrade my printers. Back
to working more on my skills problems.

As I trekked around the hills and mountains, I found carrying the D60,
tripod, and three lenses was a real pain. What is worse, I despised
having to clean the sensor, periodically. The D60 is way better in this
area than some others (i.e., the dust is quite out of focus so is much
less obvious), but having to photoshop out blobs in the sky quickly
became tedious. Eventually, the D60 became the camera I just hauled out
only for deliberate photo trips. I got a small Canon S1 IS for an
everyday hiking camera. It is only 3.2MP, but has a decent superzoom
(10X) lens and image stabilization that overcame some of my problems
hand-holding smaller cameras for tele shots.

I found I was taking 20 shots with the S1 to one with the D60 -- maybe
more.

Seriously rethinking what was right for me, I waited until the prices
dropped a bit, and purchased a Sony DSC-R1 to do most of the things I
had been doing (or wanted to do) with the D60. Here, in the high desert,
the dust-on-sensor problem went away, and I had an excellent live
preview mode that is missing on most DSLRs. The downside is that you
better love the lens, because that's it. You can add on adapters, but if
the basic lens isn't absolutely top notch, you can just end up hating
the camera.

It has the noise-free higher ISO I wanted, and the sensor is big enough
(enough pixels and ISO) I can actually use the smart zoom for a lot of
less-critical shots, extending the 5X zoom to about 20X. [Don't try that
with less than about 10MP, tho.]

It is heavy, at 2 lbs, but way, way less than the D60 with extra lenses.
I recently carried it on a few high-altitude hikes (up near 10,000 ft)
and didn't feel burdened too badly by that weight.

I replaced my Canon S1 IS with a Sony DSC-H5, to get the better lens
(Zeiss) and more pixels, and it is now my standard "going hiking"
camera.

Now, my quandary is what to do about the D60? I'll probably sell the S1,
because the H5 is just a noticeable upgrade on the same thing (12X vs
10X and 7MP vs 3MP)

I have considered keeping the D60 and getting a long lens for wildlife
photography. Unfortunately IS does little good at 400mm and more, and
some of those lenses are incredibly expensive. Maksutov mirror lenses
are cheaper, but you give up autofocus and adjustable aperture with most
of those. Unfortunately, they are about the only ones light enough for
backpacking in.

My experience (i.e., opinion) seems to run counter to much of what I
read here, so I thought it might be useful to share it, and then put on
my flame-resistant underware to get your feedback. What about converting
the D60 to wildlife only? It seems it might be terribly under-utilized
in that role. The H5 is pretty great for this stuff, and I'm actually
far more likely to have it with me when the opportunity arises.

Is it dumb to ditch the DSLR and replace it with "consumer" fixed-lens
cameras?

It's your call. LMK what you think.

JB

"J. B. Dalton" wrote in message
. 130...
For quite a few years, I stayed with the Sony DSC-D770 and its pro twin,
the DKC-FP3. I refused to upgrade because the cameras were not the limit
on what I wanted to do. My skill was. Most of my earlier work in film
was large or medium format, so I actually knew the difference.

Their excellent lenses let me get all there was to obtain out of the
1.5MP sensor, and they were perfect for web and screen-viewed photos, if
not too great at more than 8X10 prints. I made numerous prints at that
size that looked pretty good. Good printing software let me get pics
with no pixelization or other noticeable artifacts at that size. [That's
more than I can say for the average 3.3MP camera of that era.]

Ergonomically, they were as good or better than my old 35mm film
cameras, and I could hand-hold most outdoor shots without the blurring
"wiggle" I suffered with the older little P&S cameras.

....

Is it dumb to ditch the DSLR and replace it with "consumer" fixed-lens
cameras?

It's your call. LMK what you think.

JB

I'm thinking of doing the same as you. Will probably dump my Nikon D50 and
half dozen lenses after I finish a few macro and copying jobs I can't seem
to get around to. The sensor cleaning ritual is not for me. I do like
fiddling with different lenses but their cost and the sensor cleaning
requirement sure takes the fun out of it.

In article ,
"oceangoing" wrote:

"J. B. Dalton" wrote in message
. 130...
For quite a few years, I stayed with the Sony DSC-D770 and its pro twin,
the DKC-FP3. I refused to upgrade because the cameras were not the limit
on what I wanted to do. My skill was. Most of my earlier work in film
was large or medium format, so I actually knew the difference.

Their excellent lenses let me get all there was to obtain out of the
1.5MP sensor, and they were perfect for web and screen-viewed photos, if
not too great at more than 8X10 prints. I made numerous prints at that
size that looked pretty good. Good printing software let me get pics
with no pixelization or other noticeable artifacts at that size. [That's
more than I can say for the average 3.3MP camera of that era.]

Ergonomically, they were as good or better than my old 35mm film
cameras, and I could hand-hold most outdoor shots without the blurring
"wiggle" I suffered with the older little P&S cameras.

....

Is it dumb to ditch the DSLR and replace it with "consumer" fixed-lens
cameras?

It's your call. LMK what you think.

JB

I'm thinking of doing the same as you. Will probably dump my Nikon D50 and
half dozen lenses after I finish a few macro and copying jobs I can't seem
to get around to. The sensor cleaning ritual is not for me. I do like
fiddling with different lenses but their cost and the sensor cleaning
requirement sure takes the fun out of it.

This thread speaks directly to a situation I was in last weekend. Some
friends and I drove out to State College, PA from the Philadelphia area
for a long weekend. We decided to check out the Penn Caverns that
Sunday. I have an 8MP Sony DSC-W100 P&S camera and the original Canon
Digital Rebel with three different lenses and an external Canon flash. I
was certain the Canon would be the best camera to use to shoot photos in
the dimly lighted caverns. I was wrong.

I could not get the Canon to auto-focus as we were transported on a
small boat through the caverns. The area was too dark for me to see well
enough to manually focus. I got out my little Sony P&S camera, put the
ISO up to 1250 and let it select the aperature and shutter speed. I
ended up getting considerably better photos with my little pocket sized
camera than I did with my fancy dSLR rig.

On the other hand, while I was out walking in the bright sun near the
cavern's main entrance, I spotted several graceful butterflies. I tried
shooting photos of those butterflies with my Sony and it just didn't
work due to the shutter lag and the short range zoom on it. I popped my
75-300mm zoom on my Digital Rebel and I was able to get some very nice
photos of the butterflies from far enough away that I didn't scare them
away when I pointed the camera at them.

There are also times when I enjoy taking my bike out for a long ride
somewhere scenic. When I go biking, I almost always take my Sony digital
camera with me. Taking my dSLR stuff with me on my bike for two hours
would be an onerous task. Last month, I went riding from North Wildwood,
NJ to Cape May on my bike and I got some fantastic shots of birds when I
reached the area near a wildlife sanctuary. I would have never been able
to get those photos if I didn't have my P&S camera hanging around my
neck with a strap.

My point is simple. In some situations, there is simply no substitute
for the flexibility in optics and exposure one gets with a dSLR, but in
other times, the complexity of a dSLR just gets in the way and impedes
the effort to shoot quality photographs.

J. B. Dalton wrote:

I have considered keeping the D60 and getting a long lens for wildlife
photography. Unfortunately IS does little good at 400mm and more, and
some of those lenses are incredibly expensive.

Actually, IS does very well in the longer focal lengths, and
becomes very important for high magnification imaging, especially
wildlife action, even when using a tripod. Lack of IS on
500 and 600 mm Nikon telephotos is what led some pro
wildlife photographers to switch to Canon, who does have
IS on their super telephotos.

Maksutov mirror lenses
are cheaper, but you give up autofocus and adjustable aperture with most
of those. Unfortunately, they are about the only ones light enough for
backpacking in.

Unfortunately, the mirror lenses tend to be made cheaply and have
relatively poor performance. I good wildlife lens that is
relatively light, for the canon bodies, is the 300 mm f/4 L IS.
Add a 1.4x TC and you reach 420 mm (*1.6 for the D60 crop factor).

My experience (i.e., opinion) seems to run counter to much of what I
read here, so I thought it might be useful to share it, and then put on
my flame-resistant underware to get your feedback. What about converting
the D60 to wildlife only? It seems it might be terribly under-utilized
in that role. The H5 is pretty great for this stuff, and I'm actually
far more likely to have it with me when the opportunity arises.

Is it dumb to ditch the DSLR and replace it with "consumer" fixed-lens
cameras?

Not at all, if the weight and bulk is that much of a concern to you.

Note that the D60 is 3 generations old (10D, 20D 30D, and about to
be a 4th as Canon will probably announce a new camera in a month
or so). I had a D60, and still have a 10D, 20D (at
work), and a 1D Mark II. Dust has never been a problem.
I just blow it off; no harder than keeping a lens clean.
The occasional dust speck is a small problem compared to the
dust and defects needing fixing in scanned film.

Concerning weight and bulk, I carry everything I can. When my
wife asks why I carry all that stuff for a simple day hike
(30 to 60 pounds depending on large format or digital or both),
I respond "because I can, and be happy that I can." It is a form
of exercise. ;-)

One other thing. If you really liked large format and still
want all that resolution (now in megapixels), try digital
mosaics and get a program like ptgui (ptgui.com) to put them
together. With your 3-megapixel P&S you can rival 4x5 film
(but it will take a couple of hundred images to do it).

[How many J. B. Dalton's are there? I know one other (unless your
are him).]

Roger
Photos at: http://www.clarkvision.com