Why go dSLR?

"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
...
(Jed Savage) wrote in
om:

My
question is really what benefits do the dSLR cameras have over
non-SLR?

There are three advantages
1. Currently you must buy a dSLR to get a large sensor.
2. SLR's has a very attractive view finder - WYSIWG.
3. You can get change lenses.

You area rguing against 3.

But 1 and 2 are two very real advanatages.

Offset by greater weight, bulk, cost and inconvenience.

Cheers,
David

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...


David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Roland Karlsson writes:


(Jed Savage) wrote in
.com:


My
question is really what benefits do the dSLR cameras have over
non-SLR?

There are three advantages


[snip]


2. SLR's has a very attractive view finder - WYSIWG.


Opinions vary; I think the viewfinder of an SLR is *less* WYSIWYG than
the live LCD preview that non-SLR digitals normally have.

Definitely not the case in bright sunlight :-)

Fine with an EVF, though.

Cheers,
David

"Bob" wrote in message
...
[]
Note that the DSLR user had to go all the way up to ISO 1600 to get
1/20 s - and his (handheld) shot is still blurred - while I took my
shot at 1/13s and ISO 125.

You shouldn't be taking hand held shots! That doesn't compare the
cameras, it
compares nerves... Now I can go buy a Nikkor vibration reducing
lens and
get far far better results.

Oh, well, not taking hand-held shots would rule out about 100% of my
photography!

My trade-off is to use a light-weight point-and-shoot that I can take
everywhere, and support it just as I am able. Today, I cannot stand the
bulk of extra lenses, flashguns or tripods, so an SLR or DSLR is not an
alternative for me. Propping the camera up against a wall or other
support enables hand-held long exposures. Swivel bodied cameras like the
Nikon Coolpix 990/995/4500 are, in some respects, even more flexible at
allowing discrete, hand-held shots where a DSLR would need a tripod (and
make an audible shutter noise when working).

Cheers,
David

Alfred Molon wrote in
:

Bob wrote:

Much to my surprise, I also found that the D70 camera made vastly
superior pictures as well! And both cameras cost me about the same
price - I now consider the Minolta an over-priced POS.

Concerning the supposed superiority of a DLSR compared to a P&S have a
look at these photos, both taken in the Nubian Museum in Aswan
(Egypt), both at the same time (after sunset at 6 something pm):

Olympus 5050:
http://www.molon.de/galleries/Egypt/.../img.php?pic=7
1/13s f/1.8 at 8.2mm (=40mm) iso125

Pentax *ist D:
http://www.pbase.com/image/25743311
1/20s f/4.0 at 38.0mm iso1600

Note that the DSLR user had to go all the way up to ISO 1600 to get
1/20 s - and his (handheld) shot is still blurred - while I took my
shot at 1/13s and ISO 125.

That's probably because the 5050 starts at F1.8, while the lens of
the Pentax DSLR the photographer was using probably started at F4.0.

Now, a 5050 at ISO 125 has less noise than a DSLR at ISO 1600. I can
assure you that the full size image of the 5050 is pretty noiseless
and very sharp.

Meanwhile my 10D could be used with a 50 f1.8 or a 28-135 IS lens to give
either better shutter speed with lower noise or a lower shutter speed with
image stabiliser. I don’t see that your comparison says much about D-SLRs
in general just because someone couldn’t hold a camera as steady at 1/20s
as you can at 1/13s.

When you have a different camera & lens in the hands of a different
photographer on a different day it is hard to make any meaningful
conclusions about what made the difference.


--
Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at http://homepages.ihug.co.nz/~markh/
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

"Steve Almond" wrote in message
...
[]
Are DSLRs really better for landscapes? I thought the low end models had
problems getting wide angle?

Steve

For panoramic landscapes, multiple pictures and software can overcome most
wide-angle limitations. 28mm is available in many quality point-and-shoot
cameras today, e.g. Nikon Coolpix 5400.

Cheers,
David

In article ,
Steve Almond wrote:

"Jeff Durham" wrote in message
. ..
If you are interested in pictures at a family outing, stick with a point
and
shoot digital camera. If you are interested in a wide range of
photography
(landscapes, fireworks, portraits, closeups of insects, flowers, ...), get
an SLR.

Are DSLRs really better for landscapes? I thought the low end models had
problems getting wide angle?

Easilly solved with a fisheye lens and Panotools (to defish it). This gives
you extreme wide angle with the added bonus of none of the light falloff in
the corners normally associated with wide-angle lenses.

David Taylor responds:

2. SLR's has a very attractive view finder - WYSIWG.


Opinions vary; I think the viewfinder of an SLR is *less* WYSIWYG than
the live LCD preview that non-SLR digitals normally have.

Definitely not the case in bright sunlight :-)

Fine with an EVF, though.

Really? My EVF in bright sunlight is not great, and in dimmer light trying to
follow action I get a comic strip movement, about like the flip books that were
around 50-60 years ago. Then it breaks up. I've never had an SLR do that,
digital or film.

I can think of a few advantages my 7i has over an SLR, but EVF is most
definitely not one of them.

Charlie Self
"It is even harder for the average ape to believe that he has descended from
man."
H. L. Mencken

"Charlie Self" wrote in message
...
[]
Really? My EVF in bright sunlight is not great, and in dimmer light
trying to
follow action I get a comic strip movement, about like the flip books
that were
around 50-60 years ago. Then it breaks up. I've never had an SLR do
that,
digital or film.

I can think of a few advantages my 7i has over an SLR, but EVF is most
definitely not one of them.

Charlie Self

OK, I'm speaking from experience with a Nikon Coolpix 5700 and Minolta A2.
One of the cameras has "select frame rate" option for the EVF which should
cover your action needs. I've not used a 7i. The Nikon allows you to
choose the brightness of the EVF separately from the LCD, as I recall.

I must admit that I would like to see a higher resolution in EVFs - even
higher than the VGA resolution of the Minolta A2. It would be good to see
some adaptive brightness control as well to match the taking conditions -
dimmer at night and brighter in daylight,

Cheers,
David

"Bob" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:18:05 +0200, Alfred Molon

wrote:

Bob wrote:

Much to my surprise, I also found that the D70 camera made vastly
superior
pictures as well! And both cameras cost me about the same price - I now
consider the Minolta an over-priced POS.

Concerning the supposed superiority of a DLSR compared to a P&S have a
look at these photos, both taken in the Nubian Museum in Aswan (Egypt),
both at the same time (after sunset at 6 something pm):

Neither of those photos is original, neither are they impressive! A single
modified snapshot between 2 specific cameras doesn't really say much...

All I can tell you is the experience I've had with MY cameras, and I can
definitely say that my D70 is superior to my Minolta 7i and also to my old
Kodak
280 and also to an Olympus I had that I forgot the model...


It would be rather surprising if your D70 wasn't better than a Minolta 7i
from three generations ago.

Steve

Bob wrote:

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 00:18:05 +0200, Alfred Molon

I think you ran an unfair comparison!

My impression is that Alfred has a distinct anti-dSLR bias. Fair
comparisons and rationale conclusions are not to be expected.

And who cares what he thinks anyway? I'm quite happy with my dSLR. And
even my friend with a D-5050 says it takes much better pictures. But
her camera is smaller and lighter and certainly cheaper.

Phil