DSLR Cameras

[senwar]

I bought a Canon 450d a good few years back and took up a bit of an interest in photography. Got some fantastic pictures from my holidays at the time that I now have hanging pride of place in the house. The mrs got me a 300mm lens and I used it a lot.

However, I'm now finding myself just not touching it and I don't think its been used for about 2yrs at least. I don't bother taking it away with me anymore as can't be bothered with the bulk and for the kind of pics I take now, the phone's are good enough for what I want/need.

Now personally, I cannot see me ever needing a camera better than this so would never need to buy anything else. But I'm also thinking its ridiculous just sat in its bag doing nothing.

If you were in a similar position, would you keep the camera as there could be times I'd want to use it in the future and as I say, it will always be good enough for my needs, or would you look at selling it on while its still worth something.

Part of me thinks keep it, the other part says move it on. I know the obvious answer is to use the thing but as I say, my interest waned a little and I sort of took all the photo's I wanted if that makes sense. I bought it purposely for a particular holiday (resulting in said pictures above). But I just can't decide if its daft keeping it now or even dafter thinking of selling it as it will always do a good job.

[snowman]

I suspect if you're not using it now, you never will (and if it's in 10 years time, they will seem light years better, it's not like 35MM film, where the cameras only had a marginal effect on the quality of the resulting images - at least at normal print sizes).

Personally, I can't imagine NOT using my DSLR (I have two as I never sold my original Pentax iST when my wife bought me the 'better' K30) - I take it on holidays, days out, to motor sports events - but it sounds like your interest and requirements don't really support a NEED for a DSLR.

M.

[marcus fenix]

Keep it, maybe sell off the more specialised lenses. It's worth almost nothing now anyway. In 10 years time it will still take great pictures, DSLR technology is moving on slowly these days. People still take great pictures with cameras released 8-10 years ago!

[mjc1216]

I was in the same situation as you and after 2 years of not knowing which way to go i traded in my DSLR camera equipment and bought a Sony HX50.

Because it is compact and offers to me 90% of my DSLR requirements i have taken more pictures in the last 4 months than the previous three years.

It's not an easy choice but the right one for me.

[senwar]

Thanks - two contrasting responses and both valid.

Keep it, maybe sell off the more specialised lenses. It's worth almost nothing now anyway. In 10 years time it will still take great pictures, DSLR technology is moving on slowly these days. People still take great pictures with cameras released 8-10 years ago!

This is my thinking to be honest. But so is this....

I suspect if you're not using it now, you never will (and if it's in 10 years time, they will seem light years better, it's not like 35MM film, where the cameras only had a marginal effect on the quality of the resulting images - at least at normal print sizes).

Personally, I can't imagine NOT using my DSLR (I have two as I never sold my original Pentax iST when my wife bought me the 'better' K30) - I take it on holidays, days out, to motor sports events - but it sounds like your interest and requirements don't really support a NEED for a DSLR.

M.

I go away later this week - I'm wondering whether to take it anyway and see whether I have a need for it. I really wanted one at the time I got it and it sort of doesn't feel right getting rid - but as I say, seems daft keeping it.

Aaagh!

[senwar]

I was in the same situation as you and after 2 years of not knowing which way to go i traded in my DSLR camera equipment and bought a Sony HX50.

Because it is compact and offers to me 90% of my DSLR requirements i have taken more pictures in the last 4 months than the previous three years.

It's not an easy choice but the right one for me.

Thanks - that's a nice looking replacement. I've also got a Canon Ixus 130, and although not as good as the Sony you mention, its still a cracking compact. I've only used that about 4 times in the past few years too - just when I've needed something better for macro shots for watch photo's primarily.

Interesting to hear you had the same dilemma too.

[PickleB]

If you're not using the camera, then sell it if you can use the cash. There will be another model in the future that you'll want and plenty of 2nd bodies.

I'd rather keep the 300 mm lens. It won't age as rapidly as the body and I infer that a long focal length is essential to your photography.

[adzman808]

You have to be honest with yourself about why you're not using it.

If it's truly because it's to big, and you sincerely believe that a smaller set up will get you out there snapping away, then that's the answer

You could also look at a different strap option, there's straps you can get where the camera lives down by your hip on a quick release, then you slide it up to shoot = no more big lump of camera swinging around your neck like a wrecking ball!

Of course it might just be that you're not that into photography any more, and selling the DSLR at a loss in order to buy something else, will just end up with its replacement sitting there gathering dust...

[bonzo697]

I went through the same a while back, I got shot and bought a Canon G11. I've now got a G15 and it does everything (and more )than I'll ever need.

[watkins101]

I went through the same a couple of years ago, sold my Nikon D300and other bits then brought a Fuji x10, I have subsequently purchased an X-E1 with a couple of lenses as a kind of half way house but with the camera phone, x10 and X-E1 i think im covered. I cant see myself lugging those heavy kitbag full of stuff around again.

Martyn

[senwar]

Thanks all, appreciate the responses.

I'm going to have a think about things while on my travels - will take it with me and see if it gets any use.

I actually think adzman808 sums it up with

Of course it might just be that you're not that into photography any more

Thanks again all

[mr noble]

Another vote for flogging it and getting something like a Canon G16. (Or the new smaller GX7 I think it's called)

They're very good professional style cameras that can do everything that a DSLR can do, other than swop over lenses.

Much easier to carry about too!

[DandyHighwayMan]

I've been in the same boat. Had a 400d for 7 years took some great pics with it but got fed up having to cart around the bulk of the thing. My daughter who is 14 showed an interest, so I let her have the lot, body, 3 lenses, set of cokin grad filters, polarising filters, the lot. She's having fun with it.

In the meantime I bought a Fuji x100s. Great piece of kit, does pretty much everything I want without the bulk a kit and caboodle that I had with a DSLR.

I'm glad i've kept my old stuff in the family and it'll always be there if I choose to go back. I wouldn't have got much for what I had anyway.

[magirus]

Before you sell you might try a smaller format camera on loan if possible. I bought a Canon G12 and it's very capable within it's limitations. The articulated screen is excellent. The size (compared to a DSLR) is very portable. Totally controllable manually. However I just can't get used to an unusable viewfinder and composing via a rear screen. Very handy for sneaky street shots mind, but neither wide enough or long enough in the zoom range for anything other than holiday snapping. Sport, birds in flight, street activity etc etc, forget it. Put something like a a Canon 15-85 or an 18-135 on your body, buy a tripod, and maybe you might start shooting again.

[VDG]

I think it's all depends on what sort of photography you do or enjoy most, and if you do not need/use DSLR system capability or flexibility, you may want to move it on..

[NJHawkins]

I couldn't believe how heavy my nephew's DLSR is, he's a keen photographer and takes great pictures, but I don't see myself lugging that much weight around any more.

I've owned a succession of mid-range super zooms (culminating in a Fuji DSLR sized beast) until recently when I bought a Sony NEX (now rebranded as A*000s), it's a lot smaller, the lenses are lighter but the picture quality is way better than I got from even a 'good' super zoom. The big change, however, is how much extra stuff you can do in-camera these days, EG sweep panoramas, handheld twilight shots composited from multiple short exposures rather than one long one (all without going near Photoshop).

I'm not going to say that the NEX is the best big sensor/small camera system about because I don't know the others, however it's good enough for me and I like the style of Sony's digital film stock (just like in the days of film there are perceptible differences between how the same picture would look if taken with different brands).

[Shane]

Yep, I agree with VDG. Too many variables with photography and one size doesn't fit all. How much will you use the camera? Is it just for holidays or family pics, street/documentary, nature/wildlife, action/sports, etc etc. Do you need to use it in darker conditions or just in the daytime? Will you be printing from your images? Once you make a list it will be easier to make suggestions.

I moved from Nikon full frame to the Fuji X series because I was fed up with lugging a big camera and lenses around (but I didn't want to compromise on image quality). I can tell you now that I love using a smaller camera and this makes a huge difference in actual photography enjoyment. I also use an Olympus OM-1 and OM-2 for 35mm film photography and sometimes chuck an Olympus Trip in my bag which is also small.

There's no reason why you cannot just buy a cheap 50mm f1.8 for your Canon 450D. This will make the whole package very portable and you'll get great images from it.

[valleywatch]

A few years ago I "wanted"! to get into photography. I bought myself a used Sony alpha 390. Ive since got a couple of lenses (macro and telephoto) for it. I must admit...........I don't use it so much now. So I also bought a more compact camera to use as well.

I will keep my D.S.L.R. though, 2 reasaons!
Reason 1, I do eventually want to "get into!" photography more.

Reason 2 being......D.S.L.R.s don't seem to be selling for much these days anyway! So I will just keep it and "hopefully" use it more!

Myabe an ide to buy a "cheapish" compact type camera to have the best of both worlds?.

[adrianw]

I have two DSLR's a Cannon 1D and an EOS 30D, I just never got round to flogging the 30, I often think is it worth the hassle of lugging round such a lump, the 1D with a decent lens is a couple of kilos, then I see the results, its no contest, for snaps I use my Iphone.

[lex524]

I would trade it all in and get a small interchangeable lens camera (used).. Sony and Olympus do great ones for a few hundred. I have a Nikon d7000 which I only keep for photos of the kids at home as I have enough stuff to cart about now without that as well!

[senwar]

Well I decided against not packing the camera for my holiday. I just couldn't be bothered to bring it with me. Think that speaks volumes.

I've been using my Samsung s5 and it just does what I need to be honest. At the moment I genuinely can't think of when I would have needed the dslr. I think that just shows to me I'm just not fussed about photography as I was when I bought it.

Shame really. I've not even brought my ixus with me. Thanks again for all the responses.

[BrianT]

There is more "I need this that and another" talk in the photographic world, then anywhere else, especially on photographic forums. The plain truth is most low medium end cameras and above are far more capable them 99.99% of users.

The main advantage of the very best current DSLS or the lone R/F Leica is the performance at high ISO ratings, speeds that a few years ago with film would have been idiotic to even dream of. Fine, if you use these film speeds for the majority of your photography, but totally useless ......apart from bragging about your 24,000ISO shot of Granny's smellies.

Yes another advantage for the DSLR is frame shooting speeds, but for me one at a time is enough when it come to photography.

With recent advances digital cameras do not have to be of elephantine proportions. Take for example the micro 4/3 system, a very comprehensive outfit that will fit into half a shoe box, with enough spare room for the Snickers.

An A3 print produced from a Panasonic GF1 or it's electronic reflex counterpart, or Olympus, shot at anything up to 800ISO will be virtually indistinguishable for all practical purposes to one produced from a £5000 DSLR. Always of course with the proviso that the user knows what he is doing. Aye, there's the rub)

So basically, if your photography doesn't usually involve black cats playing football in a darkened basement, get a Micro 4/3 a couple of Pancake lenses and a little 45/150mm ( ish) zoom and avoid the photographers droop.