Why go dSLR?

David J Taylor wrote:

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...


David Dyer-Bennet wrote:


Roland Karlsson writes:



(Jed Savage) wrote in
le.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.


Sure -- but only a small percentage of P&S digicams have an EVF. And
even then they are not WYSIWYG in a time sense for action due to shutter
delay.

I have two P&S (one with EVF) and one dSLR and use all three. Each has
its place. But the dSLR gives the best results by far.

It's all a matter of the price you are willing to pay: money, wt, bulk,
handling convenience, etc. And that is personal and temporal choice
(e.g., I use my Pentax 43WR if it is raining).

Phil

David J Taylor wrote:

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).


I never use a tripod, except for astononomy (image stabilized lenses).

Phil

(Jed Savage) wrote in message . com...
I've had a sanyo vpc-x360 for about 4-5 years that I've been using.
Aside from resolution, it's been an ok camera for me. I've been
thinking of going to a 4 or 5 mega-pixel camera tho as I'd like more
resolution. I went into the electronic shop here and started browsing
and I saw the dSLR cameras. I thought they were cool because of the
ability to change lenses (though I don't know why I'd ever need to
change lens), and I'm thinking of getting a dSLR my next buy. My
question is really what benefits do the dSLR cameras have over
non-SLR? I've heard that they offer the shooter more creative control
but I'm not quite sure exactly what that means. Why would one need an
SLR? What types of settings am I going to be able to tweak with on
dSLR camera that will make much difference in my photos? As you can
probably tell I'm not very schooled on photography beyond point &
click cameras, I just don't want to buy a standard digital camera and
be wishing later that I would have gone dSLR. Can anyone give me some
examples of when a dSLR camera would come in handy? Thanks!

Since no one has answered this correctly for you yet...

The primary advantage of a DSLR is massively larger pixel pitch
(sometimes called sensor pitch). The larger the individual sensors
the better. This dramatically decreases noise over the physically
tiny sensors in P&S cameras. Just imagine if you could cram
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 MPs onto a 1 mm square
sensor, the noise from such compressed electronics would totally
overwhelm the signal and you would get a picture of snow (in the
unused TV channel sense) every time. More MPs is not better, higher
signal to noise is better. More MPs can increase te signal, but at
some point noise increases more. The classic example is the Sony 8Mp
sensor in the F828, it is having difficulty outperforming their 5MP
model, if it does at all, the difference appears to be on the margin
at best. Same for Fuji's 6MP P&Ss, they aren't a linear improvement
of the previous generation, if any.

The DSLR with the largest pixel pitch of all is the Sigma SD9 and
SD10, with about 33% larger pixels than the full frame $8000 Canon
1Ds. Nothing else even comes close.

Here are some great examples of how more, but noisier pixels (lower
overall s/n ratio), hurts image quality tremendously...

http://www.pbase.com/imageprocessing/717_sd9_s602z

(the s602z on the bottom row outputs the most pixels, and very
obviously has terrible overall image quality by comparison)

Probably the next most important thing is 35mm format lens selection,
then general features.

Charlie Self wrote:

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.


True -- using an EVF after being spoiled by a dSLR is difficult -- but
still better than an LCD in bright sunlight.

Phil

Georgette Preddy wrote:
(Jed Savage) wrote in message . com...

I've had a sanyo vpc-x360 for about 4-5 years that I've been using.
Aside from resolution, it's been an ok camera for me. I've been
thinking of going to a 4 or 5 mega-pixel camera tho as I'd like more
resolution. I went into the electronic shop here and started browsing
and I saw the dSLR cameras. I thought they were cool because of the
ability to change lenses (though I don't know why I'd ever need to
change lens), and I'm thinking of getting a dSLR my next buy. My
question is really what benefits do the dSLR cameras have over
non-SLR? I've heard that they offer the shooter more creative control
but I'm not quite sure exactly what that means. Why would one need an
SLR? What types of settings am I going to be able to tweak with on
dSLR camera that will make much difference in my photos? As you can
probably tell I'm not very schooled on photography beyond point &
click cameras, I just don't want to buy a standard digital camera and
be wishing later that I would have gone dSLR. Can anyone give me some
examples of when a dSLR camera would come in handy? Thanks!


Since no one has answered this correctly for you yet...

The primary advantage of a DSLR is massively larger pixel pitch
(sometimes called sensor pitch).

Yeah, that has been noted in this thread -- just without the
mind-numbing detail.

Phil

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...

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

A bit like most dSLR owners have a distinct anti-P&S bias?

And who cares what he thinks anyway?

Obviously not dSLR owners!

I'm quite happy with my dSLR.

Good for you.

And even my friend with a D-5050 says it takes much better pictures.

And so it should do with all that extra glass, larger sensor and
hulking great size and weight (so speaks an ex-SLR owner of 30 years).

Since replacing my 35mm SLR outfit with a Canon S30 two years ago, I
would never go back to lugging around a camera bag with SLR and loads
of lenses and accessories again.

Sure a dSLR will nearly always take better quality pictures, but at
what cost in size and weight (disregarding price).

I've taken literally hundreds of unrepeatable photos over the last two
years that I would *never* have got with an SLR, simply due to the
fact that my P&S camera goes nearly everywhere with me nowadays.

That one fact alone ensures that I will never ever go back to SLRs,
unless they drastically reduce in size and weight (which seems
doubtful given current trends).

It seems to me that dSLRs are aimed at "professional" photographers,
whereas P&S cameras are for photographers who are *really* interested
in capturing every photographic opportunity, no matter where they are.

Baron Sloan wrote:



A bit like most dSLR owners have a distinct anti-P&S bias?

And who cares what he thinks anyway?


Obviously not dSLR owners!

I'm quite happy with my dSLR.


Good for you.

And even my friend with a D-5050 says it takes much better pictures.


And so it should do with all that extra glass, larger sensor and
hulking great size and weight (so speaks an ex-SLR owner of 30 years).

Since replacing my 35mm SLR outfit with a Canon S30 two years ago, I
would never go back to lugging around a camera bag with SLR and loads
of lenses and accessories again.

Sure a dSLR will nearly always take better quality pictures, but at
what cost in size and weight (disregarding price).

I've taken literally hundreds of unrepeatable photos over the last two
years that I would *never* have got with an SLR, simply due to the
fact that my P&S camera goes nearly everywhere with me nowadays.

That one fact alone ensures that I will never ever go back to SLRs,
unless they drastically reduce in size and weight (which seems
doubtful given current trends).

It seems to me that dSLRs are aimed at "professional" photographers,
whereas P&S cameras are for photographers who are *really* interested
in capturing every photographic opportunity, no matter where they are.


I use both P&S and I am no professional. I always have a P&S with me
and do not miss opportunities. But there are many occasions when it is
worth it (to me) to lug the SLR with a couple of lenses -- like when I
travel to places I may never see again (and at 67 there are lots of
those, I suspect). So it is still worth it to me to lug 2 kilos of gear
up 1000 meters as I did in the Pindos Mtns last month.

So I agree with all you say. I just cannot agree with those who claim a
P&S (e.g., D-5050) takes pictures of the same quality.

Another irony is that I mostly use my overseas shots to do slide
presentations (though I print a few). And my projector is XGA
(1024x768), far short of two megapixels. So I still find my old Oly
C-2100UZ useful.

Phil

"Baron Sloan" wrote in message
news:40dadde2

I've taken literally hundreds of unrepeatable photos over the last two
years that I would *never* have got with an SLR, simply due to the
fact that my P&S camera goes nearly everywhere with me nowadays.

Me too. But I still prefer my D70. I carry my little Casio Exilim almost
everywhere and have had some great photos from that, but they just don't
compare with the D70 quality. However - as you say, a lower quality image is
better than none at all.


That one fact alone ensures that I will never ever go back to SLRs,
unless they drastically reduce in size and weight (which seems
doubtful given current trends).

It seems to me that dSLRs are aimed at "professional" photographers,
whereas P&S cameras are for photographers who are *really* interested
in capturing every photographic opportunity, no matter where they are.

So use both ! dSLR for when you're serious about trying to get the best shot
you can, and P&S when you just need to get that shot NOW (and don't happen
to have your dSLR ready).

I also keep a Sony IP7 handycam in my camera bag for video, and have
(crappy) video and still capability on my phone. To me, more choice is
better - there's no need to limit yourself to one option these days.

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
[]
It's all a matter of the price you are willing to pay: money, wt, bulk,
handling convenience, etc. And that is personal and temporal choice
(e.g., I use my Pentax 43WR if it is raining).

Phil

Agreed completely, but there are posters here who do not respect one's own
choice, and insist that only a DSLR is good enough, and that the rest of
us must be inferior beings by birth!

Cheers,
David

David J Taylor wrote:
"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
[]

It's all a matter of the price you are willing to pay: money, wt, bulk,
handling convenience, etc. And that is personal and temporal choice
(e.g., I use my Pentax 43WR if it is raining).


Agreed completely, but there are posters here who do not respect one's own
choice, and insist that only a DSLR is good enough, and that the rest of
us must be inferior beings by birth!

Yes, but there are posters who will take any position whatsoever as long
as it's contrarian, or arch, or....

I am lucky enough to have an SLR or two, a Canon g3, and was recently
"forced" to buy the 300D when the g3 hit the pavement. I look forward to
getting it back, as it has features the dSLR doesn't, and I prefer it
for some types of photos.

--
John McWilliams