What percent of SLR users do you guys see using their camera like a point and shoot?

mikekelley wrote in post #9099917
Even though a lot of people use them as point-n-shoots, they still produce better images than a p&s, so i guess if people are looking for better image quality but don't want to learn how to do everything, that's fine too.

exactly. Nobody here knows "everything" about photography either.

You could be a pro wedding photographer but if you aren't using a bracket for your flash and getting shadows then why they heck are you doing this profession?

same could be said for people that have nice cars and take them through automatic car washes (the kind wish brushes) and change the oil every 10000miles...

I'm curious to how one would even know that another shooter is using green-box mode? How can you see what mode someone else is on? Would that imply that you're looking at other photographers rather than what you're supposed to be shooting?

In any event, I remember being out at a concert and handing my Rebel to another Rebel user to take a picture of me with the artist, at which point he looked down at the camera and said, out loud, "Where's the green box mode?" (I would have at least hoped that he'd set it to "P" so I could still have a RAW of that image!)

I'd guess the currently, 95% of people with dslr's do not know much nor care that much about photography. Since about a year or so ago, at least around LA, I'd say half to more people at touristy places are walking around with a dslr. Most of those are walking around with an entry level dslr with a kit lens or two. A smaller portion buys more expensive body and lens but still don't know much about metering, shutter speed rules, composition, etc. They just put it in P mode and figure IS gives them better image b/c it costs more. Then the smallest portion of folks actually know a lot about photography.

I suspect a significant amount of folks are using dslr's now days b/c digicam have serious limits like slow and poor AF performance, long shutter lag, long delay between shots, small buffers, poor indoor (high ISO) performance, poor ergonomics, and lack of real wide angles. The availability of dslr's for under $500 or so have been really good for folks.

Just b/c one has a dslr doesn't mean that they have to be a serious photographer. I say good for those folks who want a nice camera. Digital technology has really brought a renaissance to photography and I'm happy to see folks getting out and taking pics.

DStanic wrote in post #9099932
exactly. Nobody here knows "everything" about photography either.

You could be a pro wedding photographer but if you aren't using a bracket for your flash and getting shadows then why they heck are you doing this profession?

same could be said for people that have nice cars and take them through automatic car washes (the kind wish brushes) and change the oil every 10000miles...

Again, I really don't want to come off as condescending, I was just bummed out that there weren't more photogs to talk to. I guess I just was hoping more of these people shared an interest in taking full advantage of their tools. I wouldn't consider myself anything more than a novice right now, but since I bought my first DSLR I've been trying really hard to learn and get better. I guess the difference is that I bought the camera so I could get into photography, and I made the assumption that's why most people would by a DSLR rather than to simply buy a nicer camera for snapshots.

A lot of people use them now as just a camera to have pictures of the family, nothing wrong with it.

I have a question tho. I hear all the time, its the person not the camera. Then read in this thread that if you are shooting in green box mode you should just buy a p/s. How does this make sense?
Does this mean if I go buy a $150 canon power shot and a $1200 50D and set both on a $30 tripod and aim at the same object in auto that the Power shot will take an EXACTLY identical shot as the 50D?

If this is so, what is the point of all these fancy shmancy expensive censors and expensive lenses and all?

(hopefully you can tell I don't think this is so and that the picture out of the 50D will be substantially better. Because obviously depending on the conditions the noise could be terrible on that point and shoot and the 50D should be fairly decent. If this were not the case, (that the better the camera, the better the picture), there would be no need to ever upgrade, just use your abilities and buy to a point that has the PHYSICAL FUNCTIONS to have the adjustments you want, not the capabilities (Higher ISO, Higher MP to print larger, faster shooting,Faster focusing, FPS)

As long as they have fun. I really don't care unless they get in my way of getting a shot.

Could be the wifes/husbands/boyfrie​nds camera - my wife only know how to use my 50D on green square!

gkarris wrote in post #9099390
Status symbol - they can afford an expensive camera in today's Economy.

I unfortunately get ignored at our local camera shop (the few left here) as I walk in looking at all the used/old stuff. They'd rather cater to the rich Soccer Dads that plop down $2,000 on a Nikon D90 system (Soccer Mom's only spend about $700 on a Canon Rebel system - LOL...)

I saw such Soccer Dad at the local field with a D90, and some outrageous expensive Nikon Telephoto lens (400mm f2.8 ). I thought he was The Press, but the Green Mode gave it away and the fact he was following a player, not the ball...

Really, how many pics do you need of you kid waiting for the ball?

+1 I saw a lady who was exactly doing the same, purely for the status, albeit, I am by no means good, I feel that most people are getting them just to pose with them, how many on here would leave their precious SLR hanging by their sides? Not me with any chance

i have a friend who saved/waited a long time to get a 5D/24-105 kit because he HAD to have a full frame camera. He shoots in green box, always outdoors, never shoots portraits and only takes his camera out when he goes "somewhere" once every few months...

its painful to watch on one level cause i shoot mainly portraits and have never been able to financially justify a 5D (mk1 or 2), on another level its tough to see cause i know he didnt need to spend so much to get the same results.

But he didnt ask me and could afford it, so... who is to say otherwise?

ETERNAL wrote in post #9100263
I have a question tho. I hear all the time, its the person not the camera. Then read in this thread that if you are shooting in green box mode you should just buy a p/s. How does this make sense?
Does this mean if I go buy a $150 canon power shot and a $1200 50D and set both on a $30 tripod and aim at the same object in auto that the Power shot will take an EXACTLY identical shot as the 50D?

If this is so, what is the point of all these fancy shmancy expensive censors and expensive lenses and all?

(hopefully you can tell I don't think this is so and that the picture out of the 50D will be substantially better. Because obviously depending on the conditions the noise could be terrible on that point and shoot and the 50D should be fairly decent. If this were not the case, (that the better the camera, the better the picture), there would be no need to ever upgrade, just use your abilities and buy to a point that has the PHYSICAL FUNCTIONS to have the adjustments you want, not the capabilities (Higher ISO, Higher MP to print larger, faster shooting,Faster focusing, FPS)

If you take an outside shot with a P&S and a 50D using auto mode and from a tripod (or not, makes little difference) the photos will likely look about the same. The will certainly look the same on prints up to 8x10 or so.

Similarly, if you take indoor or night photos with a P&S and a 50D in auto mode (the 50D will fire the pop-up flash) then the shots will look about the same. The bright subject / black background look with redeye is not going to be saved by a 50D.

That is what people mean when they say that people uninterested in learning might as well stick with a P&S.

The things that most knowledgeable people purchase a dSLR to do require that they apply their experience. These are things like bouncing a flash, using flashes off camera, shooting from a flash braket and dragging the shutter, use of very wide focal lengths and perspective, using fast lenses for control of DOF and use of fast lenses to manage low ambient light. Putting the camera in auto mode and standing in place while cranking a zoom ring will not do any of these things.

The beginner line of dslr's are so cheap and the auto IQ is a lot better than a point and shoot, if they feel like lugging around a big camera and not use it to its full potential that's their issue.

My only issue is when people look at you and say 'which camera is that' and if you say 450D they look at you like 'I have that one too'. There's a difference between taking pictures and being a photographer.

EmmaRose wrote in post #9101172
The beginner line of dslr's are so cheap and the auto IQ is a lot better than a point and shoot, if they feel like lugging around a big camera and not use it to its full potential that's their issue.

My only issue is when people look at you and say 'which camera is that' and if you say 450D they look at you like 'I have that one too'. There's a difference between taking pictures and being a photographer.

I agree.

Put another way, most adults can drive a car. Very few are NASCAR drivers.

lonelyjew wrote in post #9099348
I just got the feeling that the vast majority of these people never planned on going any further with photography than buying a nice camera that would magically give them good pictures.

Boy, I hear ya brother!

If only all those other people in the world would just come to understand that I know what's best for them, then they would straighten up, fly right and do it my way. I can't believe that some of them even bought cameras without consulting with me first. Then they use them all wrong. I swear, if everyone would just check with me first and do what I say, then we would all be a lot better off!

Sheesh!



Rad

There is some awfully pretentious posts in here. Apparently only those who 'work' for their shots in M mode deserve to own anything but a Kodak disposable.

tkbslc wrote in post #9101645
There is some awfully pretentious posts in here. Apparently only those who 'work' for their shots in M mode deserve to own anything but a Kodak disposable.

I get the feeling that there is a heck of a lot of "I wish I had more stuff/I wish I had their stuff" feelings all through this board, and ppl are finding this thread a relevent place to vent about some of it.

And Lonely, I know that you don't want to sound condescending, but it is really hard to bring up a topic of this nature with coming off like that. There are many reasons for people to buy and/or use expensive dSLRs that don't necessitate learning any functions beyond the green box mode. Some of them might not even make you aggreived.

Best thing is to not think twice. Talk to folk who you find interesting that are interested in talking about photography. Don't worry about the rest.