5 Reasons to Ditch your Digital SLR

Wired article

I just read up on the Samsung NX10 and it does not impress me. 3 fps up to 3/10 (RAW/JPEG) images in a burst? My six-year-old 20D has a 6/9 buffer with 5 fps and it's ancient technology. Also, I like the old viewfinder. It's what makes the DSLR so quick. I can raise my camera and frame a quick shot and snap it within a couple of seconds.

Wired? I've never heard of a photography magazine by that name.

I can hear the door hitting the author's ass from here.

Cool...I have to have one of those.
That will do so much more than what I've got now.

Anyone want a 1DMkII and 40D plus a heap of L glass?

I have an E-P1 and a 5D Mark II and in no way does the Olympus kick the Canon's ass. In fact it's worse at... Well, everything, apart from size. It's adequate as a point-and-shoot. I don't expect much out of it, I don't use it for anything important, and I'm satisfied with it because the results I get aren't as bad as a traditional point-and-shoot.

philwillmedia wrote in post #9403522
Cool...I have to have one of those.
That will do so much more than what I've got now.

Anyone want a 1DMkII and 40D plus a heap of L glass?

I really had my heart set on the NX10, but I'll help you out because that's the kind of guy I am - $500 should more than cover the lot, shouldn't it?

From the article:

"They Don’t Scream “Look at Me” - With a smaller camera, you can blend in."

But what if I don't want to blend in? What if I want people to bow down and grovel at the man with the long, large, thick, white lens (can we say "phallic symbol", kids?)

Jokes aside, with an article titled "5 Reasons to Ditch your Digital SLR" I think we may have another Ken Rockwell in the making.

Gedanken wrote in post #9403896
I really had my heart set on the NX10, but I'll help you out because that's the kind of guy I am - $500 should more than cover the lot, shouldn't it?

500 bucks!!
You'd be willing to give me 500 bucks for my gear when you could have this awesome piece of kit for about the same money. You must be mad - haha

tell ya what Ged, ya can have all my gear for 300 and I'll even pay to send it to ya - even better, I could drive to Melbourne and you'll have it in 8 hours time.:p:p

I agree that the article is absolutely ridiculous for even the semi-serious amateur photographer. Theres no way that thing will beat a DSLR.

However.

I think the point it's making is perfect for that person who buys a 50D and leaves it on that green box. It looks as though that camera will do most things a DSLR will do in auto, but its smaller and more convenient for the average joe. I'd bet getting snapshots of friends, your kids, or your vacation will all be made easier for people using that camera. And they still get the coolness of having multiple lenses. Why you would want that for a P&S I don't know.


If your into photography as an art, that article is ridiculous. But if you got that $800+ camera and never take it off auto, this new camera is for you!

Thats how I read the article anyway And just think of all the cheap DSLR's on Ebay if this catches on!!

I have a GF-1, but I never bought it with the expectation that it was going to replace my 1D Mark III.

The GF-1 is good at what it is for - delivering pretty good images while being small enough to be taken places where I'm not lugging the SLR kit.

Why do all the authors write about these cameras as either/or propositions? They are compliments to a SLR.

i like the blend in point, bring to a concert or a game unnoticed, but otherwise not a fan

The micro 4/3s have been around for coming to a year and are being put out by both Panasonic and Olympus. It's interesting technology and I'm sure we'll be moving in that direction over the next few years but it's not quite prime time ready yet. If Canon put out a micro 1.6 rebel I'm sure it would catch on. Not everyone likes large cameras but still want the quality.

I don't get the either/or argument either. I would love a good-quality P&S to cram in my purse when lugging an SLR isn't an option. That doesn't mean I'm ditching the SLR. Each has its place.

I agree with unmanedpilot though - I think this article is geared towards the auto-shooters who buy SLRs thinking the gear makes the photo. It's in a tech/gadget mag, after all. While I'm sure some photographers read it, I'd give it much more weight if it were in a photography magazine.

hold on, I thought this was going to replace my DSLR. I am so confused:
http://www.dpreview.co​m …0911/09111001ri​cohgxr.asp

does anyone think there's any merit in the author's presumption that Nikon and Canon will eventually offer this style of camera?

I think I'd probably buy one if Canon made one, but I feel as though they would have to introduce a new lens line up. It seems to me that, size being a primary feature of this camera style, EF(s) lenses would be so big compared to the camera body that it would cancel out any attraction to it. It seems like such an expansion of research and production that I don't know whether or not Canon and Nikon would consider it profitable.