new to dslr

[Hoologan]

Good advice here. The biggest thing is to learn how to use it! An SLR isn't any better than a point and shoot if you never take it off Auto, just a whole lot bigger and heavier.

[ke6guj]

Good advice here. The biggest thing is to learn how to use it! An SLR isn't any better than a point and shoot if you never take it off Auto, just a whole lot bigger and heavier.

I'd not sure I'd agree with that. With DSLRs and their larger sensors and larger lenses, you're usually gonna get a better picture, even at the same resolution.

Plus there is the fact that most DSLRs are just plain faster than the average P&S. Right there, you'll be able to take better pictures, since you are more likely to get a pic when you want, not a second later.

[Small Yellow]

My sister has one of those. I tend to steal it to shoot stuff

Pictures, of course.

[RRangel]

Good advice here. The biggest thing is to learn how to use it! An SLR isn't any better than a point and shoot if you never take it off Auto, just a whole lot bigger and heavier.

Sorry to say that's not true. A lowly Nikon D40 with 6.1 megapixels will most likely shoot a better picture than even a 12 megapixel point and shoot. In case you're wondering the pixels are really a marketing ploy. It's the bigger and better sensor and superior lenses that do it. Not to mention more traditional and better settings. Most point and shoots can't compare.

That's not to say that you can't take a great picture with a point and shoot if you know what you're doing. Technology wise the DSLR wins.

[ocabj]

I tend to agree with Hoologan's statement. When I go to the San Diego Zoo (or Safari Park, formerly the Wild Animal Park), I see tons of people with dSLRs and more than half run them in auto. You can spot them a mile away because the second they half-press to auto-focus, the pop-up flash comes up, and they try hold it down to keep it down. I once saw a guy trying to shoot through glass, but his pop-up flash was up (running auto) and he was using his hand to cover the flash. And this is just people not knowing how to use their equipment (don't read the manuals).

Then you've got people who use a dSLR and complain that they're photos are coming out blurry. The run auto and expect the camera to do everything right for them. The camera's not going to know if you need 1/1000 sec to freeze motion if you got in auto. It's just going to find a balance between aperture and shutter speed to get a proper exposure with it's light meter. And even then, the light meter doesn't mean much if your subject is severely backlit. Maybe you have to run exposure compensation a stop or two to get a proper subject exposure. But that would require manual adjustments.

Give a random person who's not a photography enthusiast a dSLR and a decent P&S (with comparable effective focal lengths) and let them take shots with both cameras in the same situation, both on auto, I bet you those shots are going to come out looking fairly close. And in situations where it's low light, severely backlit, severely front lit, both photos are going to look equally crappy.

[RRangel]

I tend to agree with Hoologan's statement. When I go to the San Diego Zoo (or Safari Park, formerly the Wild Animal Park), I see tons of people with dSLRs and more than half run them in auto. You can spot them a mile away because the second they half-press to auto-focus, the pop-up flash comes up, and they try hold it down to keep it down. I once saw a guy trying to shoot through glass, but his pop-up flash was up (running auto) and he was using his hand to cover the flash. And this is just people not knowing how to use their equipment (don't read the manuals).

Then you've got people who use a dSLR and complain that they're photos are coming out blurry. The run auto and expect the camera to do everything right for them. The camera's not going to know if you need 1/1000 sec to freeze motion if you got in auto. It's just going to find a balance between aperture and shutter speed to get a proper exposure with it's light meter. And even then, the light meter doesn't mean much if your subject is severely backlit. Maybe you have to run exposure compensation a stop or two to get a proper subject exposure. But that would require manual adjustments.

Give a random person who's not a photography enthusiast a dSLR and a decent P&S (with comparable effective focal lengths) and let them take shots with both cameras in the same situation, both on auto, I bet you those shots are going to come out looking fairly close. And in situations where it's low light, severely backlit, severely front lit, both photos are going to look equally crappy.

The advantages of a DSLR are obvious. It's an exaggeration to claim that using both types of cameras in auto would produce the same result. Some may have an opinion of said users but that doesn't negate better hardware.

You can argue that someone who intends to use a camera in auto might not fully take advantage of a DSLR, but to claim the exact same result is a stretch.

[ocabj]

I'm not arguing against the fact that a bottom of the line dSLR will outperform pretty much every P&S (excluding micro-4/3rds), because I agree. But from a user standpoint, if you take a novice and hand them a dSLR and they run it on auto, the quality of exposure and composition will often not outperform the quality of exposure and composition that they would have achieved with a good P&S.

Will the actual image quality be better with the dSLR? Yes, of course. Pixel density and quality will be far better due to sensor size. But a bad photo is a bad photo, whether it's taken on a dSLR or a P&S.

I will concede that shutter lag is probably the single immediate improvement that someone will get from a dSLR over a P&S, and this will probably save them (even in auto) on shots.

[maxmonster]

But from a user standpoint, if you take a novice and hand them a dSLR and they run it on auto, the quality of exposure and composition will often not outperform the quality of exposure and composition that they would have achieved with a good P&S.

That right there is an excellent point. Even now though, the point and shoot cameras are coming up... they have fully manual mode, aperture mode, etc etc... which to an extent makes it pretty comparable to a slr.

To the OP, I don't have much experience with Canon, I just know they take some hella good pictures... I personally am a Nikon user just because I started out with a Nikon. If I remember correctly the camera you got is the one we use at work to take pictures of product... relatively easy to use camera. Keep in mind this is coming from a Nikon user. All the controls on a Nikon are completely opposite to a Canon. Probably have to get used to where to adjust shutter speed and aperture and what not but it all comes pretty naturally. Hope this helps and happy shooting.

[locosway]

DSLR produces some very good photos, but the shots can be crappy if the person using the camera doesn't understand the settings. My friend have a DSLR and he takes great pictures. I have a simple Point-n-shoot, and I also seem to take great pictures. Hell, I'm even doing HDR on my point-n-shoot.

So, don't focus on the equipment as much as on having fun and using your tools to their fullest potential.

Here's what my point-n-shoot is doing for me.. http://photos.gryman.com

[ZX-10R]

Canon house here. You did well for your self. A friend was considering that model and decided to go D50 instead when he was picking out a camera for his Australian trip but you are still in the good. Great gift to give someone. I have a Rebel XT I bought ages ago and 4 Canon point and clicks 2 of which I won as an award so everyone in my household has a Canon including the dog haha. My printers by the way are all Canon. Canon makes great products. if National Geographic uses Canon you should as well haha.

[portegee]

DSLR produces some very good photos, but the shots can be crappy if the person using the camera doesn't understand the settings. My friend have a DSLR and he takes great pictures. I have a simple Point-n-shoot, and I also seem to take great pictures. Hell, I'm even doing HDR on my point-n-shoot.

So, don't focus on the equipment as much as on having fun and using your tools to their fullest potential.

Here's what my point-n-shoot is doing for me.. http://photos.gryman.com

Those are really nice pictures, but they all seem to be still photo, we have a really nice dig point and shoot, but need a camera for action shoots for our daughters sports and everything else.

[Hoologan]

I tend to agree with Hoologan's statement. When I go to the San Diego Zoo (or Safari Park, formerly the Wild Animal Park), I see tons of people with dSLRs and more than half run them in auto. You can spot them a mile away because the second they half-press to auto-focus, the pop-up flash comes up, and they try hold it down to keep it down. I once saw a guy trying to shoot through glass, but his pop-up flash was up (running auto) and he was using his hand to cover the flash. And this is just people not knowing how to use their equipment (don't read the manuals).

Then you've got people who use a dSLR and complain that they're photos are coming out blurry. The run auto and expect the camera to do everything right for them. The camera's not going to know if you need 1/1000 sec to freeze motion if you got in auto. It's just going to find a balance between aperture and shutter speed to get a proper exposure with it's light meter. And even then, the light meter doesn't mean much if your subject is severely backlit. Maybe you have to run exposure compensation a stop or two to get a proper subject exposure. But that would require manual adjustments.

Give a random person who's not a photography enthusiast a dSLR and a decent P&S (with comparable effective focal lengths) and let them take shots with both cameras in the same situation, both on auto, I bet you those shots are going to come out looking fairly close. And in situations where it's low light, severely backlit, severely front lit, both photos are going to look equally crappy.

My point exactly. I know an SLR is better. People just think that they can buy an expensive camera and take awesome photos while never taking it out of Auto mode, but in reality there's a LOT more to it, especially when the light levels are low or the subject is moving quickly. They are buying into the megapixel marketing.

Most decent P&S cameras have manual modes as well, and if you learn to use them you can get some spectacular photos! The controls are usually a little more difficult on a P&S.

[Hoologan]

I just picked up a canon rebel t1i tell me what you all think of this camera it's going to be a Bday gift for the ol lady. I got what they called the monster kit with an 18-55mm autofocus IS lens, wide angle lens, telephoto lens, and a bunch of other stuff. Let me know any experience you guys have
thanks

BTW OP, the Rebel series is a great camera and a great way to learn the basics. I prefer the physical size to the larger bodies because I carry it on my motorcycle every day. Smaller size, but still has most of the features of the full size bodies and takes great photos. Even with the kit lenses.

This was taken at Preston Castle with my XSi and 18-55mm kit lense:

[locosway]

Those are really nice pictures, but they all seem to be still photo, we have a really nice dig point and shoot, but need a camera for action shoots for our daughters sports and everything else.

Mine does motion just as good. The ISO goes to 1600 so stopping someone in motion isn't a problem if that's what you want.

The only downside I have is not being able to change my lens, which I really hate sometimes. But, my camera was less than half of the entry level DSLR's.

I'm not knocking DSLR's, I actually want one pretty badly. I'm just saying that most point-n-shoot cameras do more than most people realize. Especially with some aftermarket firmware that's available for some of the older cameras.