Why is it that the users in the photography section jump down your throat if you don't want an DSLR?

Many times the answers are given to questions that are asking how they can do the same things with their point and shoots as the examples they are posting that were shot with much better cameras, either digital or film, that are fully adjustable with excellent lenses.

In all the answers I have given on here, I have never jumped down someone's throat because they did not want a DSLR. I have, however, been aggravated by people who cannot seem to fathom why their point and shoot camera or even cell phone camera does not give "professional" looking photos.

To your defense, I would MUCH rather see someone who understands how to use their point and shoot to it's full capabilities instead of some goof who goes out and buys a DSLR, never bothers to even read the manual, keeps the camera on AUTO, then comes on here complaining about their photo quality and asking what "settings" to use to magically create the greatest photos ever taken.

Point and shoot cameras can certainly produce some very nice photos, and are definitely easier to carry with you at all times. A photo taken with a point and shoot is ALWAYS going to be better than the photo that was never taken by the DSLR sitting at home in the closet.

I keep my little Canon SD 400 in my pocket and have taken many photos I would have never had otherwise. But I do understand it's limitations.

It all comes down to just how far you need / desire your quality and control to be in your photography. I use my DSLR for some occasions, my medium format film Mamiya for other occasions, a Holga at other times, and even a pinhole camera.

All cameras have their pros and cons. Some people just can't understand that ONE camera cannot be the end all, perfect camera for ALL purposes.

steve

A lot of it depends on how the question is phrased. If someone says 'i am a beginner who wants to learn photography,' or 'I love photography and want to know what camera I should get' or something like that, I generally recommend a SLR. Usually, if someone is looking for a point and shoot camera, they say so. however, I agree that an expensive DSLR isn't the best choice for a beginner, especially a 13 year old. That is why I recommend that people who are seriously interested in photography, regardless of their age, start out with a used film SLR. They are a lot cheaper (as little as 75 bucks for a good beginner camera like a pentax k1000 with a lens), a lot more rugged, and they are better than a DSLR for teaching the important fundamentals of photography that any aspiring photographer, whether they aspire to be a professional or just a skilled amateur, needs to know. I know that they are perfectly appropriate for someone as young as thirteen, because I got my first film slr at age eight. A friend of mine gave his son an slr at age six, although he was always very closely supervised while using it at that age (not that I was an unsupervised eight year old running around town with a camera, but you get my point). I wouldn't give a kid that age a DSLR though, because they are either WAY too expensive, way too fragile, or both for someone that age.

Also, the VAST majority of compact point and shoots are unsuitable for learning all of the basics of photography that someone serious about photography needs to learn, largely because with the vast majority of point and shoot cameras (except for really expensive point and shoots like the sigma DP series), the sensor is so small that the depth of field is essentially the same at all apertures. I leave my compact point and shoot at f2.8 all the time, because there is no point in changing it. It might as well be f22.

I never jump down the throat of a person who wants a point and shoot digital camera. However, when they complain that their images don't come out the same as that of a DSLR, I tell them the reason is the point and shoot. The truth is, digital photography is different than film photography. Back in the day, there was also point and shoot cameras, that used film. Most of the time, you could get very similar results than you would with an SLR because the same film that was available to people who use SLR cameras was available to people who used point and shoot cameras. But a point and shoot digital camera doesn't have the same equality, and people become frustrated and complain about it in the form of questions [like these] on yahoo answers. I never recommend that a person go beyond their means to buy a camera. But I will ALWAYS recommend a DSLR over a point and shoot when it comes to the highest level of image quality, because people ignorantly believe that a $200 camera should provide the same result as a $3,000 camera, and that there is some "trick" we photographers know that they don't. Well technically, there is. But in order for the trick to work, you've got to have something to work with first. That starts with image quality. Some of the images you see that have been made using a DSLR can only be achieved by using a DSLR. But people want so desperately do be the next greatest photographer in the world, or they just want to know how awesome they are, and want to know how they can do it with the cheapest cameras around. And it's like EVERY day, over and over. GOD, you'd think people would be smart enough to use the "search" tool to get the answer without having to repost. But the truth is, they're attention whores and the WANT people to give them the answers THEY want to hear, and NOT the TRUTH, which is what they get.

And the truth is, you've got some of the most experienced and knowledgeable people in this section who spend their time, time that could be better spent doing something else, answering questions. You remember that nonsense back in grade school, when your teacher told you there's no such thing as a stupid question? Well, those weren't exactly words she meant for you to live your life by because there is also such a thing as asking an informed question, something that most people here do not understand. You don't just ask a blind question because though we all take time out of our lives to answer, we don't feel like replicating a wiki that could have easily been googled. They should at least do a little research on their own before they ask so they'll at least know how to ask. No one ever wants to side with us and agree that you people are just too dag whiney! Get over yourselves already. You ask, and you get answers. Words to live by: Never ask a question to which you are not prepared to hear the answer.

And the first time I handled an SLR, I must have been 11 or 12. So speak for yourself.

Admittedly I haven't been around here for too long, but I have spent quite a bit of time on here and I have not noticed anyone recommending a DSLR unless there was a reason for it.

The realities are that a $200 camera will not do what a $1,000 camera will do and a $1,000 camera with kit lens will not do what a high end pro camera with professional glass will do. There is a reason for the difference in cost.

That said, there is a lot to be learned about photography that can be learned on a lower end camera. At the very least, if you are serious about pursuing photography you should have a camera that allows for manual settings of aperture and shutter.

As for the investment in DSLRs - pros and most serious hobbyists consider their lenses an investment and as such they take care of them and often keep them through several camera upgrades. Once purchased, you are unlikely to purchase a new one for many years.

I am a professional photographer and in addition to my "good gear" I do own a Canon G7 and a Canon G10 converted for infrared. These are carry around cameras that I use when it is not feasible or wise to carry the "good" equipment. I like to go into questionable areas and sometimes I am more comfortable looking like a middle aged grandmother pulling her point and shoot out of her purse than a professional with one of those white Canon lenses.

As for 13 year olds and equipment, I don't agree that they shouldn't handle the equipment. They just need to learn to respect it. I was handed an early 50's range finder by my father when I was 9 years old. Had to learn to load film, shoot slide film and use a manual light meter. When my children showed an interest, I handed them my cameras too - with instructions on handling. Now my grandson is taking photos with my daughter's DSLR - he's 7. I probably wouldn't be in favor of investing $5,000 for a 13 year old, but $1,000 for an entry level DSLR and basic lens for a seriously interested kid, probably.

So, all things considered, there are places for all types of cameras. You just need to be aware of the benefits and limitations of the choices you make.

It's may be generally true that the better the equipment, the better the opportunity for a great picture inside your own talent and experience. BUT, it's also true that there are situations where a D/SLR simply won't travel well, and may even cause problems instead of solve them. A good point and shoot is a good back up for even the best photographer for those shots where a D/SLR is just too cumbersome to use, or the action is too quick. Your examples are valid also. The best bet is to buy the camera you will use. D/SLR, point and shoot, lomo, pin hole, what ever. If someone is jumping down your throat ignore them. Get the camera you are comfortable with and will use. If you progress in the hobby/biz, D/SLR's aren't going any where.

Georgie you said "He's probably sick to death of being questioned by people who should be out looking for his daughter. " So the journalist should be out looking for his daughter? How about the Mcann's stop sitting by the pool all day and start looking themselves? Surely they're the ones who SHOULD be looking for her, not the journalist. As for the question, I know the media have been saying that he stormed out and all that, but what you see in the video is completly different. He simply walked out for a bit, he didn't rip his microphone, as some papers are saying. The thing is, it still doesn't seem right, if the PR had cleared the questions with them, why did he act that way? If he has got nothing to hide then why not just say they only know what every one else does, they are waiting for the results and just leave it at that. There was no reason to act the way he did.

I agree with most of what you said, but I think SOME 13 year olds can handle a DSLR. At that age they SHOULD know how to properly handle an expensive electronic, although it's sad that a lot of teens come to Y!A saying "I dropped my camera and the lens is stuck!!! WHY is it doing this?!?!" Everyone makes mistakes, and most people realize what they did wrong, but people who ask questions like that are just ignorant (not sure if that's the right word).

I'd like to type out a really long rant, but you probably get my point already.

I agree that for many people, pocket cameras are ideal. If someone wants more control though, a DSLR would offer that. I haven't noticed people pushing the idea of DSLR cameras on anyone who isn't ready for them or can't afford them. I certainly wouldn't. Maybe you're talking about students asking about cameras for photography courses. Instructors want the student to learn about apertures and shutter speeds, and most adjustable cameras are SLR types. In that case, they should get the kind of camera required for the course.

You might find more people in support of point and shoot cameras in the Consumer Electronics > Cameras section. In the "Photography" section, you will get answers aimed at photographers more than snapshooters.

I agree with your line of thinking totally. You'll make out better in the other section, though. Most "experts" over hear don't know that much about the entry level cameras and point and shoot cameras.

I don't like it when one asks for a P&S and one of those answerers, ignore it and recommend a DSLR anyway.