Do I need a DSLR?

Minstadave said:
I don't think m4/3 performance is hugely better than the Sony 1" sensor based cameras in terms of sensor quality. The m4/3 sensor tech is pretty behind the curve even on the latest 20mp sensor. There's a significant difference in size too an RX100 fits in a trouser pocket where as even the smallest m4/3 with a pancake won't come close.
Click to expand...

I really don't know why people are suggesting an RX100 as an alternative for a DSLR or mirrorless... the image quality is nowhere close to a Nikon D3300 or Fuji with X-trans sensor, and the only advantage it has is additional portability.

I really regret buying my RX100 and I rarely use it except for nights out.
 
Last edited:
The main reasons for choosing DSLR are:

  • The flexibility of different lenses
  • Better low light performance and image quality
  • Better overall image quality (although this is marginal sometimes over a bridge camera)
  • Faster shooting (although not so much with the entry level models)
  • More external flash options

The downsides of DSLR are mostly weight / portability and cost (especially once you get the bug for buying new lenses). Some people find lens swapping frustrating, though you can offset this a bit by using zooms. If you don't mind carrying a camera bag around then a DSLR is a good choice, but the worst camera to buy is the one you leave at home because it's too bulky.

If you're going with a DSLR, get a decent entry level body and invest most of your money into lenses. You're going to have to make a decision early on what body manufacturer you're going with (eg Canon, Nikon, Pentax or Sony) because lenses aren't interchangeable between the different manufacturers. You can of course upgrade your body with another model from the same manufacturer. Which to choose? They're all good, it's down to personal preference regarding ergonomics, price, availability of lenses etc. Try and hold a few models in the hand in an actual photography store before you decide, there are big differences in grip and controls between the brands.
 
Minstadave said:
I don't think m4/3 performance is hugely better than the Sony 1" sensor based cameras in terms of sensor quality. The m4/3 sensor tech is pretty behind the curve even on the latest 20mp sensor. There's a significant difference in size too an RX100 fits in a trouser pocket where as even the smallest m4/3 with a pancake won't come close.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much nonsense. There is a big difference between a 1" sensor and a M43 sized sensor, the performance difference is very noticeable. m43 sensors are actually ahead of the performance curve and perform much closer to APS-C sized sensors than you would expect given their size.


As for the size of the camera that is also BS. I have am43 camera with kit lens and as I said above, fits perfectly happily in trouser pockets. Everywhere I take it i goes in my trouser pocket. that is without a pancake lens. The RX100 isn't significantly small enough to change the use case. It also fits in trouser pockets but isnlt small enough for shirt pockets where only the smallest compacts have some benefit.
 
So anyone want to summarize the options at this budget?

e.g. £400 would get you

Entry Level DSLR e.g. D3300 with 18-55mm kit lens, and a used 35mm prime.
+ Flexibility for different lenses
- Cost of different lenses

Upper end Bridge camera (e.g. Coolpix P900)
+ DSLR style
+ Flexible Lens (and no further cost)
- Not necessarily "best" lens for anything in particular


Used/older mid-high end DSLR + Lens (suggestions?)


Compact Camera (something like Sony RX100 mentioned?)
 
Armageus said:
But what really does a point and shoot offer over a good phone cam?


http://www.androidguys.com/2015/08/...y-rx100-how-good-is-todays-smartphone-camera/

Seems to think not much.
Click to expand...

I doubt I could have taken that photo with a phone, I have a 6s and it takes great snaps - well lit. Low light you need the flexibility of manual controls and a decent size sensor helps a lot. Also RAW off the RX100 as I do all my photo archiving and post processing in lightroom (although RAW is rumoured to come to iOS soon).
 
D.P. said:
As a father and photographer I do admit to using my phone a fair bit simply because the phone is with me all day everyday and you just never know when an opportunity arises.
However, I use a DSLR the majority of the time otherwise and don't think the weight or size is such an issue. A lot of the time out and about you have a pram and even a D800 and 24-70mm f/2.8 fits nicely underneath, or if shorter strolls to the park then the camera on a good shoulder strap is barely noticeable. I've gone on 15mile, 5000ft+ hikes with an 18 month old on backpack and carrying a D800 + 300mm f/4.0 + 24-70 with the usual food/water/clothes/nappies etc. It is worth it to get the photos you want and to have the children with you.
I do have an Olympus EPM-2 14-42 + 40-150mm kit when I want soemthign more than my phone but without the DSLR. Personally I don't really see the point in any of the compacts like RX100 when a small M43 camera gives you so much better results and the actual practical difference is minimal. An EPM-2 + 14-42mm fits in my trouser pocket just fine. That gives me APS-C DSLR quality in a small light package.
Click to expand...

I think this illustrates very well who should be buying a DSLR.
You cant be karting around a 300 f4 to take family holiday type snaps for a album or online.
You must be using that lens for wildlife. If you want to photograph wildlife a DSLR is by far the best thing to use.

This is exactly the reason I own a DSLR and the fantastic pictures I can take of wildlife make it worth owning.

However....
If im just out with the family and want to take a few pictures to share on facebook then I do very well with my phone.
Im probably more technically aware than most people but the phone quality with a bit of processing is pretty good most of the time.

If im going to be taking pics at night I will take my DSLR.
If your not happy with the quality of a good phone camera then DSLR is the way I would go.

But dont rule out the latest phones, they are pretty good.
 
D.P. said:
This is pretty much nonsense. There is a big difference between a 1" sensor and a M43 sized sensor, the performance difference is very noticeable. m43 sensors are actually ahead of the performance curve and perform much closer to APS-C sized sensors than you would expect given their size.


As for the size of the camera that is also BS. I have am43 camera with kit lens and as I said above, fits perfectly happily in trouser pockets. Everywhere I take it i goes in my trouser pocket. that is without a pancake lens. The RX100 isn't significantly small enough to change the use case. It also fits in trouser pockets but isnlt small enough for shirt pockets where only the smallest compacts have some benefit.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure I agree with you, although I'll do it a bit more politely.

In terms of noise and dynamic range the best tool for comparison I've found is the DPR one and the 1" Sony sensor is very similar to the 20mp m43 one. The newer APS-C sensor in the Nikon 7200 is substantially better than both.

Sensor tech wise m43 is pretty stagnant, no backside illumination, no real progression in dynamic range since the 16mp sensor came out which was what 2011? I've got the GX8 with the latest sensor and it's not as good as the APS-C sensor in my old NX300 even, let alone later stuff. The sensors take turns to leapfrog each other but the latest 20mp sensor is quite underwhelming, the new EM-1 might change things though.

In terms of size, you can get a m43 body about the same size as the RX100 in the GM5, add a pancake and it's a bit bulkier, add anything bigger and it's not going in a trouser pocket comfortably (unless its a collapsible small zoom I guess) - the RX100 is more pocketable.

At the end of the day it's about the photos, you choose your compromises to suit you. Personally I have the GX8 and I reckon that as things are currently the best m43 sensor is closer to 1" performance than APS-C performance and the size saving isn't that compelling over APSC either for the bodies that have the features I want.
 
Last edited:
Although DxOMark isn't perfect, it's a useful metric for comparisons.

2r9t1n4.png

By standardising the results of the best cameras in their class (FF, APS-C, m4/3, 1"), you can see that m4/3 is indeed closer to the performance of 1" sensors than it is to APS-C, whilst FF is still a fair bit better than APS-C (with the Nikon's DR being an outlier IMHO). Although not a perfect means of comparison, it does illustrate the point nicely I think. Of course, if we take FF as being 1 stop better than APS-C as conventional wisdom dictates, in the grand scheme of things, 1" isn't that much worse than APS-C for the vast majority of users in the vast majority of conditions.

Obviously this doesn't take into account things like AF performance, price, lens availability, etc. in which case there are significant differences between the various systems.

It's a shame the Nikon 1 family didn't really take off. A really good 1" interchangeable system could really rival m4/3 if done properly I think if Olympus/Panasonic don't produce a significantly better sensor anytime soon.

http://www.photozone.de/Reviews/986-equivalence

This talks a bit about weight and size differences between systems when it comes to the lenses, which is the key point. You can't get around physics. Most of the reduction is in the body, and it's rare for manufacturers to produce a lens that's significantly smaller or lighter (Fuji's 18-55 and Panasonic's 12-32 being nice examples), leading to only marginal reductions overall depending on the combination you're after (telephoto is never going to be pocketable, etc.)
 
Last edited:
Holst1981 said:
I think this illustrates very well who should be buying a DSLR.
You cant be karting around a 300 f4 to take family holiday type snaps for a album or online.
You must be using that lens for wildlife. If you want to photograph wildlife a DSLR is by far the best thing to use.

This is exactly the reason I own a DSLR and the fantastic pictures I can take of wildlife make it worth owning.

However....
If im just out with the family and want to take a few pictures to share on facebook then I do very well with my phone.
Im probably more technically aware than most people but the phone quality with a bit of processing is pretty good most of the time.

If im going to be taking pics at night I will take my DSLR.
If your not happy with the quality of a good phone camera then DSLR is the way I would go.

But dont rule out the latest phones, they are pretty good.
Click to expand...



I went out on a family trip today with my D800 and 24-70mm, just wanted something to give some better photos. A good shoulder strap goes a long way. Plus a baby stroller makes a perfect camera holder:D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom