[Jussei]

So, recently I picked up a Sony Alpha DSLR camera with the kit lens and also a Sigma Super Macro II lens not too long ago. A lot of great Head-Fiers have helped me with questions I've had concerning DSLR and the Alpha in general. I created a thread a few weeks ago with questions.

Here is my dilemna...
My Sony F717 has been a great camera, and has taken outstanding shots, when it recently developed a CCD failure, I sent it to Sony to have it repaired. They did this free of charge and paid shipping both ways. This was a 3 year old camera that was long beyond its warranty, so I think Sony deserves some props here because they often get so much bad PR, but this isn't the point I'm trying to make, so Ill get to that.

Since the F717 was out for repair and I needed a camera, I figured that I may as well upgrade to DSLR. Every time I've made a digital camara 'upgrade' I've notice a tremendous increase in photo quality, but I'm not so sure this time.

Anyway, I got my repaired F717 back today and figured I'd do a head to head with my new Alpha and the results weren't as I expected. Not only did I feel that my F717 held its ground, I felt that with some shots, it took better pictures than my Alpha. This was unsettling for me because the price difference is fairly substantial. The Alpha with extra lens and memory would fetch around $700 used. The F717 around $300.

I set up a blind test for my wife by taking 3 pictures with each camera. I tried to keep them as similar as possible. I wanted to make the test as fair as possible even though I wanted the Alpha come out on top seeing how it's considerably more expensive. Of the 3 shots I took, she preferred 2 of the 3 that the F717 took.

So, here is the real question... am I just inept at taking photos with a DSLR, because surely it HAS to be able to take better pictures than my 3+ year old F717, or could the F717 actually be a better camera? I understand that the Alpha certainly isnt the end all when it comes to DSLR, but it's being compared to a lesser camera of the same brand. I can understand differences if Im comparing Nikon to Sony or Canon to Sony, but this is old Sony prosumer P.A.S. v. new Sony DSLR.

I went ahead and created a Flickr account with 4 total shots, 2 Alpha and 2 F717. http://www.flickr.com/photos/7753631@N03/
See if you can tell which is which.

 

[PiccoloNamek]

The picture quality between digital cameras really doesn't vary that much, even between DSLRs and little cameras. The real advantage of a DSLR is being able to use normal lenses to get things like real DOF control.

 

[Jussei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by PiccoloNamek /img/forum/go_quote.gif The picture quality between digital cameras really doesn't vary that much, even between DSLRs and little cameras. The real advantage of a DSLR is being able to use normal lenses to get things like real DOF control.

When it comes to photography Im still a total beginner, could you explain 'DOF control' to me.
I have always been under the impression that DSLR's should be able to take much better pictures than 'regular' digital cameras.

 

[mb3k]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jussei /img/forum/go_quote.gif When it comes to photography Im still a total beginner, could you explain 'DOF control' to me. I have always been under the impression that DSLR's should be able to take much better pictures than 'regular' digital cameras.

DSLR's enables the photographer to have the opportunity to take better pictures but does not guarantee it. With more time and familiarity with the features and options (ie. lenses, speedlights, etc) the DSLRs are more capable but it largely depends on the photographer's skill.

 

[Davesrose]

Well I can say that the second flower pic and the first screwdriver photo are better exposed. If that's supposed to be a surprise then I'm gonna guess they are from the 717? The 717 is a very good automatic camera....I notice that it's automatic settings are pretty neutral.

To get good exposure with DSLRs, you do have to know more about the principles of exposure and lighting. With these shots, were you using a flash? How are you taking pictures with the Alpha? Using manual or shutter/aperture priority? I'd read up on your camera's metering. I generally like to spot meter: find an area in your scene that's a middle gray tone and spot meter. You can lock the exposure settings there. If you really want to be analytical about it, you can also meter bright and dark areas to figure out a good average.

I wouldn't get into flash photography for right now. You might find it easier to start off with outdoor shots for now. With indoor, you have to be concerned with making lighting sufficient and naturally colored.

edit: DSLR quality. Digital is just like film: film based SLRs gave you more options and control to be able to take photographs that would be impossible to capture with a point and shoot. The best way to learn all its manual controls is to first start off with the basics of exposure: learn about what a fast or slow shutter does....what does a small aperture do? I'm not going to tell you, because you have to do your homework!

http://www.amazon.com/Photography-9t...6267121&sr=1-3

Also check out books by Ansel Adams to really find out principles of exposure

http://www.amazon.com/Ansel-Adams-Gu...6267493&sr=1-7

 

[Jussei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mb3k /img/forum/go_quote.gif DSLR's enables the photographer to have the opportunity to take better pictures but does not guarantee it. With more time and familiarity with the features and options (ie. lenses, speedlights, etc) the DSLRs are more capable but it largely depends on the photographer's skill.

See, here is what I expected to hear. I'd say my skill/understanding is a 2 or a 3 on a 10 point scale. I was just wanting to know that they CAN be better with increased skill.

 

[Arainach]

Technique is ALWAYS more important than equipment. Ansel Adams shot using cameras whose optics were inferior to today's Camera Phones.

A DSLR is capable of far better shots but hardly guarantees them. You have to compose the shot, know what you're looking for, and use good technique to avoid things like blur, etc. Know the relationships between ISO, Aperture, and Shutter Speed, and all the tradeoffs inbetween.

 

[Jussei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well I can say that the second flower pic and the first screwdriver photo are better exposed. If that's supposed to be a surprise then I'm gonna guess they are from the 717? The 717 is a very good automatic camera....I notice that it's automatic settings are pretty neutral. To get good exposure with DSLRs, you do have to know more about the principles of exposure and lighting. With these shots, were you using a flash? How are you taking pictures with the Alpha? Using manual or shutter/aperture priority? I'd read up on your camera's metering. I generally like to spot meter: find an area in your scene that's a middle gray tone and spot meter. You can lock the exposure settings there. If you really want to be analytical about it, you can also meter bright and dark areas to figure out a good average. I wouldn't get into flash photography for right now. You might find it easier to start off with outdoor shots for now. With indoor, you have to be concerned with making lighting sufficient and naturally colored.

All 4 shots were taken with a flash. All of the things that you mentioned (shutter/aperture/metering) really lets me know that I have a great deal of things to read up on and figure out how to get the most of as I couldn't answer any of them. I know this makes me sound like an idiot buying a $600+ camera with no knowledge of how to use it, but that's what I'm working toward.
Basically, what I was trying to rule out after playing with both cameras today is buying into hype. I know it's prevalent with audio gear and I feel that I'm knowlegable enough about it to not fall into the trap, but with photography I didnt know for sure.

 

[Jussei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm not going to tell you, because you have to do your homework!

Ha. I like that approach and I've been practicing daily. I've got a cousin who is a BIG TIME professional photographer and I plan on spending some time with him this summer and I wanted to appear at least mildly knowledagble before meeting up with him.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jussei /img/forum/go_quote.gif Basically, what I was trying to rule out after playing with both cameras today is buying into hype. I know it's prevalent with audio gear and I feel that I'm knowlegable enough about it to not fall into the trap, but with photography I didnt know for sure.

Once you take baby steps and properly learn about exposure, then the rest of the camera's features won't be so intimidating. IMO, it is easiest to learn about basic exposure with B&W film photography....but maybe you can just try setting your DSLR to monochrome. Starting off with B&W, you see your tonal ranges and it's easier to tell if your photo is over or under exposed.

But definitely check out books for beginers. That link to the Adams book I linked is a real must have for you

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jussei /img/forum/go_quote.gif Ha. I like that approach and I've been practicing daily. I've got a cousin who is a BIG TIME professional photographer and I plan on spending some time with him this summer and I wanted to appear at least mildly knowledagble before meeting up with him.

Well if you've read Adams's books by then....you'll knock his socks off

 

[Mrvile]

This is usually a pretty big concept, so I'll just add a few of my thoughts.

First, a camera is a camera. They all do the same thing - take pictures. Most cameras, including point-and-shoots, allow for a lot of control; you just need to learn how to use it. A higher end point-and-shoot will generally have almost all the same controls and features of up to a midrange DSLR, so they will generally be able to get the job done just as well. Take a look at this guy's portfolio - he is one of my photography heroes and I can always turn to him for inspiration. Why? Not only does he take amazing photos but he does not use a DSLR. He uses two older digital point-and-shoots, a few accessories, and a vast knowledge of how to use his cameras.

But again, a camera is nothing more than a tool used to capture an image. The idea is similar to a screwdriver - you can either get yourself a simple handheld electric screwdriver or a high power, customizeable drill kit. Both will get the job done, and the results will look about the same. However, one might opt for the latter because of its versatility, security, and if nothing else, its sheer power.

However, one thing a lot of people don't consider is what can be had from owning and using a DSLR itself. Many amateur photographers who end up buying DSLR's use it to learn - an SLR not only provides a multifacted tool capable of photography to the nth degree but also a valuable skill set to any aspiring photographer. Sure, you can get by with a point-and-shoot and even take photos comparable to that of a DSLR, but remember, understanding your brush is the first step to mastering your art.

Good luck!

 

[Jussei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Davesrose /img/forum/go_quote.gif Well if you've read Adams's books by then....you'll knock his socks off

Done, I may have to make a trip to Borders or B&N tomorrow and look for it. Great reviews on the book and you seem to know what you're talking about and since Im an photography imbicile, you win.

 

[borninquisitive]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jussei /img/forum/go_quote.gif When it comes to photography Im still a total beginner, could you explain 'DOF control' to me. I have always been under the impression that DSLR's should be able to take much better pictures than 'regular' digital cameras.

First of all, a great deal hinges on the skills of the photographer. I will not go further with this.
I would suggest that if you have knowledge or a strong urge to understand manual photography, a dslr is quite nice to have but you can find great manual cameras (without the option of interchangable lenses.)
Yet, the last I looked...dslrs are becoming more and more affordable.

If you opt for a dslr consider this: lens. A great deal of investment goes into these and if the camera body dies, you will probably want to stick with the same brand on account of your investment into the lenses. Not to say that you couldn't sell them.

Consider the quality of lenses. If you move to dslr, you want quality lenses. I would strongly suggest you research in a brand that you forsee yourself wanting to stick to for years to come.

As for wondering if a dslr will produce a better picture? No. Hand an average "point & shooter" a dslr and hand a skilled photographer a decent non-dslr...the latter will (most likely) produce a better photograph.

By no means am I suggesting that dslr's only belong in the hands of skilled photographers! Heck no! lol Just something to think about, though.

 

[borninquisitive]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrvile /img/forum/go_quote.gif However, one thing a lot of people don't consider is what can be had from owning and using a DSLR itself. Many amateur photographers who end up buying DSLR's use it to learn - an SLR not only provides a multifacted tool capable of photography to the nth degree but also a valuable skill set to any aspiring photographer. Sure, you can get by with a point-and-shoot and even take photos comparable to that of a DSLR, but remember, understanding your brush is the first step to mastering your art. Good luck!

Well said.