What I’ve learned about digital SLRs
Sorry about the long pause in communication. Partly it’s because I’ve had my mind on other things, but mostly it’s because I’ve been distracted by a sudden obsession with digital SLR cameras. This has come about because several people have sent us their photos from our Big Day, almost all of which were shot on film cameras or digital SLRs, and generally much much better than the photos that came from my digital compact. There is a very high correlation between “fantastic photo” and “proper camera”. Those people naturally sceptical of the Gillian McKeiths of this world would be quick to point out that you cannot jump to cause and effect — that maybe people who are great photographers are more likely to have proper cameras. But that’s not stopped me from believing that if I spend a lot of money on camera I will automatically become a great photographer.
So I’ve been trawling websites gathering reams of stats and information in the way that I do before a big tech purchase. I’m homing in on the Canon EOS400D following Dan Chung’s excellent piece to coincide with the pre-Christmas gadget rush. Here’s what I’ve found out…
One. Nikon cameras seem to be more expensive than the equivalent Canons. At least, Dan Chung and DPReview.com place the EOS400D next to the Nikon D80, and the latter comes in at about £180 more. Though admittedly DPReview.com says Nikon have gone “one better”, so Nikon have some justification in the price difference.
Two. Generally speaking, if you’ve got a digital compact you’ve got an awful lot for your money which you won’t get when you move to a DSLR:
- A DSLR requires you to look directly through the viewfinder. This is a good thing in the non-digital world, because SLRs ensured you saw exactly what the lens saw. But in the digital world you can hold a compact some way from your eye (perhaps up high pointing down into a crowd) and glance up at the screen to check you were catching what you wanted. You almost certainly won’t get this with a DSLR. I’m probably missing something, but that seems like an opportunity lost.
- Digital video: It’s probably there in your compact, but not likely in a DSLR.
- Lenses: Your compact goes from macro to normal to zoom, while a DSLR requires either three different lenses, or one lens which is going to set you back several hundred pounds if you want something of quality.
Three. Lenses are expensive. You can get cheap lenses, but it’s probably a false economy. Photonotes.org sets it out quite starkly:
It’s like spending massive amounts of money on a high-end CD player and amplifier and then plugging them into a pair of toy loudspeakers. Just as the final sound of your music will be hobbled by the toy loudspeakers the final quality of your pictures will be hobbled by a cheap lens.
£200 for a lens seems like entry level. Yikes.
Four. DPReview.com has a feature search and an excellent side-by-side comparison thing for cameras, but I can’t find a similar one for lenses. Photozone.de does at least have quite a few lens reviews and there are more guides elsewhere (1, 2).
Five. If you’re already shelling out for interesting things like double glazing and haven’t done your Christmas shopping yet then it’s going to be very hard to justify your impending purchase to yourself and your loved ones. Vanity and greed might be the genuine reasons, but sometimes the truth needs to be presented with tact.
On the other hand, obsessive virtual window shopping keeps you off the streets and out of your partner’s way. As long you don’t actually buy anything you’re going to be just fine.
