Are SLR cameras worth the money??

[Bradchip]

Photoshop isn't cheating. Unless you're shooting RAW, then there's always editing applied to the image within the camera anyway. It's all about control over an image. If you can make an ok image a great one, then why wouldn't you edit? A lot of the compact cameras automatically apply sharpening/contrast/saturation to shots straight out of the box to look more 'pleasing'. I've generally found that the standard or neutral colour settings within a camera look really drab...and always need that extra bit of punch.

I know a lot of purists out there from the film days that are happy to bag out photoshop, but they were applying many of the same techniques used in photoshop in the darkroom anyway.

Thumbs up to the people in here recommending the D90 and the D7000

But back onto the original post...SLR's are definitely worth the money. The kit lenses will keep you going for awhile, and are a great starting point, but eventually you'll want lenses that can do a little more.

 

[bigfella77]

I dont mean to say photoshop is bad or anything, I use it myself sparingly. I am still only an amature photog but my challenge to myself is to get it right in camera, to acheive the best possible result without having to tinker with the file after the fact.
I know the camera does a bit of altering itself but depending on what im shooting I may use either RAW or I monotone for portraits. I have seen some absoloutely beautiful images made with photo shop, but thats with people who know what they are doing. My biggest gripe with photoshop is people overworking the image till it looks harsh cheap knock off of what may have once been a nice image.
I only have a Canon 400d at the moment, but I have about 5 lenses and out these I pretty much only use two coz the others aint much chop quality wise.

 

[eipper]

Brad,

I shoot in raw+jpeg low, raw for reproduction and jpegs for image sorting/sending to publishers etc, you can boost the colours, saturation in camera if you will but then are you getting true representation of the image....Don't get me wrong the only reason I have a dislike of photoshop is that people use it to "touch up, sharpen, boost sats, contrast etc" but claim the finish product was not "photoshoped". Many, many photographers that I know use it, for "adjustment" but where do you draw the line?

As for my kit lens stance....for 99% of reptile people should worry about compostion, settings and lighting before they spend money of lenses that are faster or sharper, quite frankly the differences are slight.

Cheers,
Scott

 

[Justdragons]

`What the hell is that thing??!!`

looks like your kitty is wearing a snorkel. lol

 

[ianinoz]

Short answer = YES.

The most important pros are
1) interchangeable lenses and a wide range of lenses to suit every photographic need
2) you see what the film (or the sensor in the case of DSLRs) sees via the pentaprism and view finder
3) more control for the photographer is this is needed, sometimes you need this
4) on good DSLRs you can change the apparent "film" setting
5) on good DSLRs you can get the camera to automatically remove sensor noise in longer exposures in low light or at night time.

I loved my old Minolta XD5 , and I still have it and still use it sometimes, I love my Canon 40D.

 

[GeckPhotographer]

I feel like photoshop is cheating too. The fun in photography is trying to catch that perfect real life moment as it was and do it well without having to edit it. I do crop though.

 

[Ewan]

Why do people think that buying a more expensive camera will improve their photography? All cameras serve the same functions, they allow the photographer to create an exposure. All modern cameras will even do this (and more) for you automatically. One thing a camera can not do for you is compose your image. If you want to put thousands of dollars into your photography do an art course (will most likely only cost you a few hundred dollars) focusing on the laws of composition and forget about the techno mumbo jumbo. The more complicated camera equipment you have with you the harder it will be to improve your images. The best camera in the world is the one you have with you that gets out of your way so you can focus on your subject and compose a pleasing image.

 

[jordanmulder]

Why do people think that buying a more expensive camera will improve their photography? All cameras serve the same functions, they allow the photographer to create an exposure. All modern cameras will even do this (and more) for you automatically. One thing a camera can not do for you is compose your image. If you want to put thousands of dollars into your photography do an art course (will most likely only cost you a few hundred dollars) focusing on the laws of composition and forget about the techno mumbo jumbo. The more complicated camera equipment you have with you the harder it will be to improve your images. The best camera in the world is the one you have with you that gets out of your way so you can focus on your subject and compose a pleasing image.

I agree that it's not all about the camera..... but the equipment you have certainly does help make your images way better. For inctance I went on a walk with Dan40d who had his canon eos 1ds mark (2?) with him and the (100-400L ?) telephoto lense.... we found a land mullet shot similar compositons and although my image was alright it looked like dirt compared to his. so although it's not entirely up to the camera investing in better equipment will give you better results.

 

[Ewan]

To someone who can compose an image and knows how to create an exposure a 1d MkII is undoubtedly an extremely useful tool. Placed in the hands of someone who does not hold this knowledge they are likely to miss the shot and not learn a thing. In terms of a beginner learning how to create a pleasing image an expensive and complicated camera is more likely to hold them back.

 

[jordanmulder]

To someone who can compose an image and knows how to create an exposure a 1d MkII is undoubtedly an extremely useful tool. Placed in the hands of someone who does not hold this knowledge they are likely to miss the shot and not learn a thing. In terms of a beginner learning how to create a pleasing image an expensive and complicated camera is more likely to hold them back.

I agree with you here.