True? DSLR are only worth it if you buy the expensive stuff

[Illah]

If you point and shoot with a DSLR on 'auto' mode then you'll get point and shoot quality

The real benefit of DSLR's is the versatility. They're photographer's cameras, not casual cameras. They're only better if you use them to their potential.

With that said, the D50 is excellent and IMO far better than a P&S, even with stock lenses. Read up on those lenses you picked out - they're not at all bad, *especially* for the price.

Now if you just want a camera but the nerd in you is getting caught up on features, maybe a DSLR isn't for you. People into nerdy hobbies like audio, computers, pens, etc. start researching and always want 'the best' without considering real world usefulness

DSLR's are big and bulky. At full zoom with that 70-300 lens and the hood on (I own one) the camera will be nearly 14" front to back. Your camera bag will be bigger than your girl's purse, so forget about taking it to restaurants or anything like that. If you happen to be carrying around the camera and you see something spontaneous, forget about getting the shot unless for some reason the camera is already out of its bag, has the right lens on, is turned on, etc.

--Illah

 

[warpdriver]

A D50 with the stock 18-55 kit lens is fine, it's a good lens for the money.

What the DSLR buys you:
- larger buffer to shoot more continuous shots
- larger sensor which allows you to shoot at high ISO (film speed) with less grain/noise (less need to use flash or tripod)
- the option to expand, with more advanced lenses/flashes
- generally picture better quality than most P&S
- usually DSLRs have more hard buttons making it easier to change settings
- more suited if you want to do this as a hobby.

What you lose:
- size, generally a lot larger and heavier
- zoom, usually a high end advanced P&S camera has more magnification factor in the lens to allow you to zoom in more than the standard 18-55 lens.

It's good to have both actually. I carry an ultracompact but also have a DSLR

 

[MD1032]

My dad offered to get me two different cameras for college - the Canon S2 and the SD700. I've been doing a lot of camera research and reading on dpreview, which is an awesome site you should check out. In the end, I decided on the SD700 since the best camera is the one that you have with you and I love the small size, but I'm going to miss all of the flexibility I would have had even with the S2, which is a higher end powershot. And now that I've looked up (and gotten confused by) all of the SLR's, I've realized that all these P&S's we've been using are severely crippled when compared to the higher-end stuff. I mean, the SD700 doesn't even have the option to choose exposure time or aperture priority. So eventually, I'll get an SLR. In the meantime, though, I need to get them straightened out. I mean, 20D, 50D, 5D, D50, D70, Digital Rebel. "What's the difference?" my brain is asking. Guess I should do some research and find out.

 

[dj_mocok]

The difference? I think it's price that distinguish them the most.

Beauty is in the hands of camera holder.

Speaking of models, I'm not sure why both companies have somewhat similar models as you mentioned... 5D, 20D, 30D, 2DX, 200D... can't they come up like 32B, 36C, 38DD, or something like that? I mean, what's with the D cup?

Seriously, many people are too caught up in features that they probably never need considering what they are going to use the camera for.
Instant on and .5 sec on won't make so much diffence for most typical users. Or 5fps, 8fps, 100fps... , or there is a bit of noise in my ISO20000...
Battery life on the other hand, you can't have enough. That's one of other advantage of DSLR compared to compacts. Battery life.

 

[Illah]

Quote:

Originally Posted by dj_mocok Battery life on the other hand, you can't have enough. That's one of other advantage of DSLR compared to compacts. Battery life.

Very true - my D50 lasted the entire memorial day weekend at Yosemite on a single charge...nearly 600 pics taken, looked at on the screen, etc.

But I also have a tiny canon about the size of a pack of smokes for taking to clubs, shows, etc. As much as I'd love to take D50 shots at a concert there is NO way I'm lugging that around and risking getting it banged up. There's a place for both types of cam, just really think about what you're going to be doing with the cam. Frankly my tiny Canon gets used literally 20x more than the Nikon, but when the time comes for 'real' photography there's no comparison.

--Illah

 

[jumpinjohn1234]

Question: IS the body more important or is it the lens, Overall. For example, would the nikon d50 with extremely nice lens or a nikon d200 with the stock lens b a better choice?

 

[warpdriver]

Both are important, if either is weak then your results will suffer, but for the most part, spending more on the lens will reap more benefits because the performance of the body cannot make up for a bad lens. Buying a cheap lens is like buying a high performance car and putting bad tires on it.

In the case of your example, I'd rather buy a D50 and have a better lens, say the 18-200VR than a D200 with the 18-55.

 

[lan]

I would spend more on the lens(es). Some bodys have more features which you may or not be able to take advantage of but the lens is more related to quality and your choices here will dictact the uses of the camera. You must figure out what you want to take pics of, what you like, and how you like to work. High shutter speed, low light capability, wide angle/telephoto, do you like/need flash, zoom, etc.

 

[dj_mocok]

Yep, I'd take a better lens + cheaper body over better body + cheaper lens any time of the day.

I mentioned before on the other thread, I took some shots using Nikon very old lens (17+ years), and the quality was excellent. Lens don't age.

Speaking of P&S, I got a chance to play around with Leica Digilux 2, and if you want the ultimate P&S for outdoor (portrait) only, Digilux 2 is the one. Outdoor, the contrast, the blackness, the colour, they are all so natural. I kid you not, colour-wise (straight from camera no post-processing), they outperform D200 + F1.8 lens. In non DSLR, definetely the best I've ever seen.
The lens in that Leica is that amazing. Their indoor + bounce flash also give you excellent result, very natural colour tone, but what annoys me a lot is they are so damn slow indoor. But if mostly shoot outdoor, and want some good quality P&S without needing to do post processing, you can't go wrong with Leica Digilux 2. Dpreview (Phil) really sell the camera short by giving image quality 8/10, I don't know what he was thinking or how he shot with the camera. It should be 9.5/10. That link to photo.net review is much more accurate and non-biased.
Too bad I don't have some pictures from Leica with me at the moment to show how good it was.


But really, depending on what you wanna use it for, Digilux 2 might as well be the one you need. (this, if you don't like to carry around big DSLRs; if you don't mind big cameras, then maybe with that price, it would be better off taking DSLR route).

 

[Mr.PD]

Quote:

Originally Posted by jumpinjohn1234 Question: IS the body more important or is it the lens, Overall. For example, would the nikon d50 with extremely nice lens or a nikon d200 with the stock lens b a better choice?

Better lens would be better.
The problem with cheap lenses is that they may not get accurate focus or the photos will look soft. Then there is the light reflection issues inside the lens. A digital camera is more susceptible to light reflections inside than a film camera. Cheap lenses don't have all the coatings of better lenses to combat this.
Honestly though, you would probably need to be at near pro level to notice the differences in 90% of the lenses on the market. If you want good family albums full of 4X6 and 5X7 photos a cheap DSLR with a low budget kit lens will be fine. When you want to shoot photos to sell, or to blow up to poster size, you can upgrade the lens at that time.
More expensive bodies means that you have more features, more creative control, and maybe better processing. More mega pixels equals more fine detail and bigger blow ups.
I've gotten some great shots with a 3mp P&S that look fine in 8X10 prints. They may not be magazine quality, but they do look great framed on my desk. My 8mp Nikon P&S shot a photo I had printed at 16X20 and is framed on my living room wall. That shot also took second place in a photo contest. But that P&S also cost as much or more than a low end DSLR.

I think it's easier to get great shots with a P&S if one doesn't know a lot about photography. The only thing a P&S lacks is creativity options. For instance, there are several P&S cameras that take real close macro shots. But they don't have the short depth of field for that fuzzy background effect that one can get with a DSLR and a macro lens. Telephoto options are limited to what camera you bought. Then again, with the price of some lenses, a guy could buy a suitcase load of P&S cameras for what one lens cost and have all kinds of options available.

 

[beerguy0]

Bodies come and go, but lenses are forever. Even the most expensive DSLR body is going to be replaced eventually, but you'll keep the lenses. (The good ones, anyway).

My first digital was a Canon Pro 1. Great camera, excellent image quality, but having to shoot at ISO 50 all the time was very frustrating. Small sensors tend to be very noisy at anything over ISO 100. While a P&S camera is easier to carry around, the DSLR is more versatile, especially if you are shooting in low light. Get a fast lens, crank up the ISO, and you can get shots a P&S will never be able to capture.

As a learning tool, I think an inexpensive DSLR is probably the way to go. More options, fewer limitations.

 

[jpburton5150]

I got a Canon 350D last year with the kit lens and was amazed at mainly the control I had over everything, and my photos improved a tad as a result. For christmas I got a 50mm f/1.4 USM Medium Telephoto and it is simply godly. I haven't shot with my kit lens since. Yeah, maybe its a pain to have to back up wayyy far to get any photo but the optics and the precision in the focus are insanely crystal clear.

The lesson?
As everyone else has said, cheap body and nice lens for the win.