ServinginEcuador
Founder of the Head-Fi Pay-to-Post Program.
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2002
- Posts
- 8,384
- Likes
- 17
Robert,
The point isn't to buy a prosumer dSLR that will only give you equal output quality when compared to a consumer grade digicam. Quite the opposite, buying a high price dSLR means getting higher quality photos, lowered shutter lags, better flash coverage, and much better lenses.
Here's a quote from Photo Dude's site:
Quote:
Many other sites concure that by throwing on consumer grade lenses onto a 6+MP camera you are making a mistake. It will still take decent pictues, but why spend so much money on a body alone only to cripple it with cheap plastic and glass?
If it came down to a decision between a good consumer digicam like the Nikon 8700 or Sony F828 and a dSLR with cheap lenses, I would go with the consumer stuff. With the dSLRs you have to factor in the rather expensive flash and lenses to go with it. If you can afford it, go with the dSLR. If not, be happy and stick with the consumer camera. My dad owns a D1x from Nikon, and even it's 6MP CCD will show how big the difference is between consumer and pro glass.
Plus, it's a LOT easier to build high quality glass into a small consumer digicam's lens for much cheaper cheap than it is to build a full scale dSLR or standard film camera lens. The size difference, parts quality, moving parts, sheer size of the glass, coatings for the glass, autofocusing mechanisms, much larger aperature blades, and number of glass elements of regular SLR lenses costs more at retail than most consumer digicams around.
The point isn't to buy a prosumer dSLR that will only give you equal output quality when compared to a consumer grade digicam. Quite the opposite, buying a high price dSLR means getting higher quality photos, lowered shutter lags, better flash coverage, and much better lenses.
Here's a quote from Photo Dude's site:
Quote:
Glass is really an issue. It’s the primary reason I wasn’t tempted to go from the Nikon 990, my “training wheels” digital camera, to the Nikon 5000 when it came out. The little tiny excuse for glass on the front of it seemed to limit the output quality from the beginning. Having shot Canon EOS for 16 years, I knew what kind of lens quality to expect, and knew it would be worth waiting until I could afford a DSLR. The article on the 11MP Canon 1Ds concludes “The 1Ds is mercilessly unforgiving of lens quality. It sucks up resolution like a sponge. Give it the highest image quality possible and it will reward you with superlative photographs. Feed it consumer grade zoom lenses and it will be ‘OK’, but you won’t be happy.” “In my almost 35+ years as a photographer I have never seen anything like the ability of this camera to separate the wheat from the chaff in lenses. If you have a 1Ds you will now know why you bothered to buy those expensive Canon ‘L’ series lenses. This camera demands them.” I have no experience with that eight thousand dollar camera, but I can sure tell the difference in lens quality even on my 6MP camera. If you spend a grand on a camera, and then slap a $250 zoom on it, your image quality will be forever limited by that lens. Realistically, you have to plan on spending at least as much on lenses as you do on the body, at least, at current DSLR prices. And that makes it an even tougher nut. It was easier for me having shot Canon all this time ... but I also now see how my 16 year old lenses are far exceeded in quality by the ones currently on the market. Let’s face it. It’s been true for decades. Photography is a damn expensive enterprise, as an amatuer or a pro. It just is, as it has always been. We’ve just now added another level of obsolescence that we didn’t have with film cameras. |
Many other sites concure that by throwing on consumer grade lenses onto a 6+MP camera you are making a mistake. It will still take decent pictues, but why spend so much money on a body alone only to cripple it with cheap plastic and glass?
If it came down to a decision between a good consumer digicam like the Nikon 8700 or Sony F828 and a dSLR with cheap lenses, I would go with the consumer stuff. With the dSLRs you have to factor in the rather expensive flash and lenses to go with it. If you can afford it, go with the dSLR. If not, be happy and stick with the consumer camera. My dad owns a D1x from Nikon, and even it's 6MP CCD will show how big the difference is between consumer and pro glass.
Plus, it's a LOT easier to build high quality glass into a small consumer digicam's lens for much cheaper cheap than it is to build a full scale dSLR or standard film camera lens. The size difference, parts quality, moving parts, sheer size of the glass, coatings for the glass, autofocusing mechanisms, much larger aperature blades, and number of glass elements of regular SLR lenses costs more at retail than most consumer digicams around.