for those of you who own digital SLR's, i'm wondering if they are really worth it. i really envy the ability to use any lens, but i dont envy that you have to pay 150-500 dollars every time you want that lens. i know there are a lot of other advantages, such as better drives, faster shutter response, and usually higher resolution, but i can survive without those advantages. tell me from your experiences is full control over the lens really worth the extra dough?

Absolutely! Because I normally shoot sports, having control over the type of lens I am using is key. During the Olympics in Athens I was shooting at several of the events and was going from using a 500mm telephoto to capture the facial expressions of the athletes to using a fish-eye and 20mm wide angle lens to capture images of the venues. No point and shoot (to my knowledge) has the ability to go from 500mm to 20mm in one camera and produce professional results. Plus, the quality of the lenses is much higher than those found in point and shoot setups. Interchangeable type SLR lenses are usually faster. (That is they have a larger maximum aperture, allowing you to shoot in lower light.) Probably one of the biggest advantages to the SLR lenses is the ability to effectively control depth of field. Due to point and shoot camera’s relatively shallow DOF, one has a harder time separating distant subjects from their backgrounds. With a good SLR type lens, it is much easier to produce a pleasantly blurred background from a distance and achieve good subject/background separation.

There are disadvantages to DSLR’s and their lenses though. The largest being their cost and weight. For instance, a 500mm super-telephoto lens and a 1D can’t be comfortably hand held for more than a few minutes, so using a monopod is essential with big glass. Plus that particular setup costs around $14,000. While this will not hold true with most cameras and lenses, they are considerably more money and weight than a good point and shoot.

The bottom line is that while a lot of P&S cameras cover wide focal length ranges and offer nifty features, they often push the optical envelope too much and achieve less than stellar results when compared to a good DSLR and several lens setup.

thanks for your insight Will, how about anyone else who owns maybe a bit cheaper one, because i know 14grand is just a little over my head right now. anyone else who's a little poorer like myself have any words of wisdom?

I already owned a Rebel 2000 with 3 lenses, it was beneficial to upgrade to a digital Rebel so I could use all the same accessories. When shooting pictures of my daughter, I use a fast 50mm normal lens at F1.8 so I don't have to use a flash in doors. Recently, at a Chicago Cubs baseball game, I used a 300mm lens to get incredibly close up shots with a shutter speed high enough to stop a fastball in mid-air as the player was swinging. For normal and versatile use, I use a 28-80mm lens.

If you're still in school, be sure to take a photojournalism course. I think I learned the most from being forced to go out with an old, manual SLR and shoot, develop, and print my own shots. The equipment can only take you so far, but it takes practice and persistance to get good results.

its a little late now, i only have this year left, and its a pretty packed schedule, and i dont even know if my school has a photojournalism course. are most of your lenses autofocus, or are they fully manual? i would assume manual would probably be cheaper, lighter, and better optics, but i dont really know, would those be good assumptions? and in your opinion is it worth the dolars to have the autofocus?

Carl, I didn't mean that what’s good is that expensive, I only used that example to illustrate that Digital SLR setups can range in price from that of an expensive point and shoot to the price of a car (which is definitely a downside!).

If i may answer one of your other questions; autofocus has become so common that there is no difference in optical quality or weight between the manual focus and autofocus lenses (if anything they have gotten better as newer technology comes out). Whether or not autofocus is important to you really depends on what you plan to use the camera for. If you are planning to photograph landscapes, then AF is not really that necessary. But, if you want to shoot sports/action/moving objects, then it is needed. With today’s digital SLR’s it is not a matter of paying to have it or not, but paying for AF speed and accuracy. (eg. Canon’s top end 1D (most expensive) has a faster, more accurate AF system than their 10D (mid level). With that said, they all have fast, accurate systems so no need to worry about that.

I don’t believe that Canon still makes manual lenses (other than a few very expensive professional architectural photography lenses). That’s one of the advantages to using a Nikon DSLR, if autofocus is not a priority, you can find, used, a whole bunch of older (but optically excellent) manual focus Nikon lenses that will fit on their new DSLRs.

ok, thanks for the advice. right now i have a cannon S30 and it has been great to me, as far as it was designed for, and i think i would definitely go cannon in the future. thanks for talking about AF a bit tho, now i just need to make 1500 bucks or so to get all this stuff i want. haha ya right, oh well i can dream. by the time i can actually afford it, lower end DSLR's will probably be much more affordable :P

Another trick might be to look for a used DSLR, the new EOS 20D just came out, so there will be a big surge of 10D owners selling their 10D's to buy a new 20D. This way, you might be able to find a 10D (a professional body and still new as it just came out last year) for less than the price of a new Digital Rebel! Or even an EOS D60 (the 10D's predecessor and still a great camera) can be found pretty inexpensively.

that would be great if i could find it, where would you suggest looking? ebay?

Yeah, you could try ebay, I have even seen 10D's in the bargain finder here in Calgary go for real cheap. My only concern with ebay and digital cameras is that you can't inspect the camera first. If the person who owned it tried cleaning the sensor and scratched it or something like that, you would not know by looking at the camera, only test images could show that sort of problem...and if there is a problem like that, the repair bill might be as much as the camera cost new. Personally, if I was going to search for a used one, I would look for something locally. Try calling The Camera Store here in Calgary (234-9935 or www.thecamerastore.com), they usually have a pretty big selection of used equipment at good prices, and since they are a pro shop, they can answer any questions you might have.

Ive upgraded from a Canon EOS 3000N (Normal SLR) to a Canon EOS 300D (Digital SLR)
The 3000N costs about 200€ and the Digital 300D Costs about 1300€.

In the past I had P&S Camera's Digital and Normal but the biggest problem I had is shooting indoor, I never could get enough (taking pictures of the inside of a building) on the foto with those standaard lenses.
So a friend of my told me the sollution is SLR's because you can swap the lenses.
So I started out with a normal SLR and I liked shooting with these Camera's. Now I bought me the Canon EOS 300D because I can us the assecoires of 3000N on my 300D (also the lens). Now Ishoot Color with my digital Camera but when I shoot Black & White I still use de 3000N because I still like B&W pictures taken on a B&W film better then when a B&W picture is converted from a color Picture.

I hope you guys understand what I'm trying to say :) because English is not my Native Language. Sorry for the spelling or grammar faults I may have written.

I started out using the pentax zxl and loved it but didnt like paying for film and developing or waiting. With the convincing from jojo i decided to get a pentax ist digital slr. It cost me a fortun but in the long run it will be worth it. I can use all my filters and my different lenses with this. And it takes super sharp pictures. And i get results fast without the wait. Thanks jojo for convincing me...You were right!!!:)

I have a 6 mp Nikon digital SLR and my middle son, Greg, uses a 4 mp Canon "point and shoot". Guess who consistently gets better pictures (hint, it ain't me). Photography is mostly about how you visualize things, and the equipment gets way more attention than it deserves. Greg has a better eye than I do right now, and for the types of pictures he takes, the p&s is not a limiting factor. Having said that, if you have the money to spend, you can do a lot of things with a digital SLR that you can't with a point and shoot, especially if you can afford a couple of lenses in addition to the one that comes with the camera. And, as brphoto pointed out, if you shoot sports (or wildlife, birds, etc.) you absolutely "need" those interchangable lenses.

My big limiting factore I had before upgrading to digital SLR was that the point and shoot didn't have enough control overall, as well as having limited zoom. With sunsets and pictures with the sun in it, I found the P&S camera's to be lacking in their auto configurations. Though my best picture by c-index is still from my point and shoot one, I find I get consistantly much better pictures with my new camera, I just haven't had the right conditions/locations to get a shot as well as I got it in Mesquite at Sunset. That being said, I know that with my new camera, I believe the shot would have been that much better had I had 2x the megapixel of my P&S like I have now, and more control over exposure and shutter speed and custom white balance. But Accipiter is very correct as far as limitations only being a small factor. It has a lot to do with your eye and a bility to imagine the shot. I think there's a fine balance between the 2 limitations with a greater emphasis on the ability of the imagination. That being said, If ya got the $$$ I would definately buy the digital SLR ;-)