Why go dSLR?

On 23 Jun 2004 08:35:09 -0700, (Jed Savage) wrote:

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!

I bought a DSLR so that I could actually see the image - not some crap TV
picture - before I took it, so I could make sure it was framed and focused. In
bright sunlight - forget the electronic screen, even inside viewfinders are
useless. And I had one of the best, a Dimage7i.

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.

At first I wasn't concerned about changing lenses, but now I have the
opportunity to extend my range, even if I don't take full advantage of it, I do
want to get different lenses in the future, something you can't do with a
standard digital.

For me, the DSLR has brought photography back to life, much the way my first one
did back in 1965!

"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?

Steve

Roland Karlsson writes:

(Jed Savage) wrote in
om:

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.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:

Changing lenses. I can't get anything *close* to the wide end of what
I use routinely in a fixed-lens model. Also more responsive -- less
delay after pushing the button, faster autofocus. Also higher quality
pixels -- even at the same pixel count, the pictures are *better*;
especially at high ISO.

Of course it's a lot more money, and a lot more stuff to haul around.
That might end up discouraging you from shooting photos, which would
not be a win!

Oh well... my wife has a (film) SLR, me a compact Olympus 5050. Guess
which camera gets used more often

Concerning the high ISO, many people use DSLRs with lenses which start
at F4 or for other reasons are forced to shoot at small apertures (to
get sufficient DOF for instance). With small apertures you are basically
forced to use high ISOs, while with the camera I'm using I can shoot at
F1.8 at low ISOs and still have a lot to depth of field.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Olympus_405080/
Olympus 5050 resource - http://www.molon.de/5050.html
Olympus 5060 resource - http://www.molon.de/5060.html
Olympus 8080 resource - http://www.molon.de/8080.html

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 :-)

Unless you have the Minolta A2. . . .

"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 :-)

"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

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

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 Dyer-Bennet wrote in :

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


Just as you say - opinions vary. I must admit that I have not
looked at all EVF viewfinders there are out there. But those
that I have seen has a substantial lag and the resolution is
not enough to really eveluate the picture and do precision focus.


/Roland