pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Why I went from Point and shoot to DSLR  (Read 3201 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: February 17, 2011, 20:25 »
0
I was thinking that it may have some value to tell my story and logic of why I went from a very convenient low cost high quality Canon point and shoot to a large heavy collection of expensive DSLR equipment.   So I wrote about my madness here.

http://www.bobkeenanphoto.com/why-i-went-from-a-small-point-shoot-to-a-big-heavy-expensive-dslr/


« Reply #1 on: February 17, 2011, 21:21 »
0
Loved your story. I'm a bit on the same journey so I could relate. Thanks for posting.

RacePhoto

« Reply #2 on: February 18, 2011, 02:48 »
0
Wait I thought I just read why you went from a APS to full frame. Is this some kind of time warp?  :)

I have a small disagreement from personal experience. I sold the G6 and got a S90 and thought I'd like it better. (it does fit my pocket better) Gave away the 590IS that was the, everywhere, all the time, in my pocket camera. And now I miss the G6. Which translates to some day while you are hiking or traveling you are going to miss the G10.

Yes I have a slew of lenses, for different situations, and even broke my own rules and bought a 2X extender. The thought of a 400mm with a 2X was just far too tempting.

Sorry to disappoint everyone but I have come to two conclusions.

1) Match the equipment to the needs of the situation, and nothing is perfect for everything. I need a G10 or 11 for travle, light work, a pocket camera like the S90 (but I'd rather give up the sensor and resolution for one feature, an optical viewfinder!) and DSLR for professional work, where you pick the lenses you need and go shoot. There is no magic camera that does it all.

I used to think I could get by with the pocket camera and the DSLR, but no, I discovered I need a mid-size superzoom for those days when I need like and easy, and when the pocket camera just can't do all the things that a nice Bridge camera came do.

OK imagine a person out in the wild, or depending on their guns for hunting, defense and basic needs. They would have a pistol, small and fast, a rifle for long range accuracy (the food and essentials) and possibly a pocket gun for emergencies. There you go. Bridge, DSLR and P&S.  ;D

What I'm getting at is I have tried to get by with two (plus the other collection of extras, but that's not the point) and the answer is, someone well equipped sould really have three cameras if they want to be loaded and ready for versatility and basic needs.

2) ? ( you thought I forgot two?)

When you get the DSLR and have half a dozen "perfect"lenses for just what you need. The next thing you will find out is you need something new or different for some specific application. But the same applies as above. Eventually you'll find that you can manage with three basics and do just about anything. A fast lens - a zoom lens - and depending on what you do the most either a wide angle or a longer tele lens. Easy as 1-2-3.

Going to Las Vegas, you take a 19mm, going to Kenya you take the 400mm and a 2X.

Doesn't matter, but you don't take along a big-ass backpack with a ton of equipment. Plan ahead man!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
25 Replies
13175 Views
Last post April 17, 2008, 11:27
by vphoto
21 Replies
9611 Views
Last post March 21, 2013, 15:27
by DrC
1 Replies
4835 Views
Last post October 20, 2008, 18:11
by madelaide
14 Replies
8509 Views
Last post March 08, 2011, 15:14
by madelaide
32 Replies
18710 Views
Last post March 05, 2013, 11:37
by Fred49

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors