What's the point of a DSLR anymore?

When I can make all my P&S shots have shallow depth of field?

http://digg.com …_a_shallow_dept​h_of_field

/sarcasm

Actually, there is a serious answer to that question: no viewfinder lag with a DSLR with an optical viewfinder. Every digital camera that uses an electronic screen as a viewfinder is subject to a delay before the image appears in the viewfinder. The delay has gotten shorter as cameras have improved, but it still exists - and it's enough to throw off a photographer's timing.

You're right, there's no point in using a DSLR anymore. The ability to get a shallow DoF is the only diference between a Kodak Easyshare and a 1DX. Everything else is just marketing.

D for doomed?

Elements 10 has a decent DOF tool in it. Probably not as advanced as CS6 will be but it works. So save yourself a ton of money and buy a little P&S and elements. No pesky raw files or settings to think of

That is a cool feature, way beyond easy and seems to work well.

Is this a serious question looking for serious responses?

tonylong wrote in post #14014895
Is this a serious question looking for serious responses?

I hope not.

I was coming in this to flame the OP hard, but saw the last line

Tony_Stark wrote in post #14015022
I was coming in this to flame the OP hard, but saw the last line

Ah, now I see!

This is gonna show how many people don't read all the way through

There's no replacement for displacement! The volumetric argument for DSLR's

A dSLR avoids ALL of the compromises that are inherent to P&S cameras...

• Larger pixels make for less noise, when ISO has to be increased due to low light
  
• Larger max aperture lenses allow the use of faster shutter speeds, compared to the smaller max apertures typical of most P&S cameras
  
• Elimination of noticeable shutter lag which is found with most P&S
  
• Larger sensor means shallower DOF when desired, which better isolates the desired subject from distracting backgrounds
  
• Zoom lenses with short zoom ranges make for fewer optical compromises found in P&S with wide zoom ranges
  
• Fixed focal length lens choices make for fewer optical compromises found in P&S with only zoom ranges
  
• For macro shooting, dSLRs permit use of extension tubes for even closer focusing
  
• In situations where even longer FL is desired, dSLRs permit use of teleconvertors, which give the lens a longer FL
  
• dSLRs permit pre-focus to be done by the user, so that you do not have to wait for the P&S to focus itself (and perhaps choose the WRONG focus point!)
  
• You hold the dSLR firmly with two hands, bracing the camera against your forehead, forming a much more stable base, compared to the typical need to hold P&S out in front of you, which is very unstable.
  

Of course, I was being sarcastic in my original post. But for those of you who contributed meaningful answers, thanks for your efforts!

- toasty

toastyphoto wrote in post #14022951
Of course, I was being sarcastic in my original post. But for those of you who contributed meaningful answers, thanks for your efforts!

- toasty

I made a serious reply even in light of the admitted /sarcasm/ simply because of the recent challenge, "Why bother to have a P&S when you have phone cameras with so many pixels?" In each case, if your demands are few, there is a less sophisticated solution to be had; but if your demands are more sophicsticated, the less sophisticated product simply does not cut the mustard. Unfortunately all too many folks simply fail to understand what differentiates different layers of sophistication in products. It is a bit like, "Why bother to buy a Ferrari when a Fiat 500 is available?" Your sarcasm belies the understanding of what marks the difference; many other folks simply fail to appreciate that difference.