Why go dSLR?

In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote:
Phil Wheeler wrote:

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

I might upgrade to a DSLR, if it had live preview with histograms on the
LCD screen. And of course if it wasn't so bulky.

I.e. if it wasn't a DSLR.

I don't think you're really the target market. The histogram thing strikes
me in particular - I don't think I've felt the need for one *prior* to
taking the shot - the light meter works just fine.

In article ,
Roland Karlsson wrote:
Alfred Molon wrote in
:

ote 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.


Hmmm ... my 50 mm SLR lens is F1.4

Likewise. In fact, th eonly time I usually put a lens that's as slow as f/4
at its widest aperture on my 10D is when I use the 300mm f/4.0 USM L IS,
which becomes a 420mm f/5.6 with the 1.4 teleconvertor I use.

However, the IS means that I can shoot that lens handheld at 1/60 and still
get sharp images, which is nice for a field of view which 35mm users would
have to almost go to 700mm for.

The lenses I usually use are the 50mm f/1.4, the 100mm f/2.8 macro, the 15mm
f/2.8 fisheye and the 20-35 f/3.5-4.5.

"David J Taylor" wrote in message ...
"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!

No one is saying you have to use one, but I believe everyone who has
used both would agree that they are optically superior in a Biblical
sense. See...

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

I'd also bet most DSLR owners are also P&S owners, because there is so
little real overlap between the two.

Jed Savage wrote:

Can anyone give me some
examples of when a dSLR camera would come in handy? Thanks!

I struggled with the compact-digital vs. dSLR question for a long time;
there are clear advantages to both. In the end I decided to look at my
preffered subjects and shooting conditions, and chose a dSLR for three
main reasons:

1. DOF control - Most of my shots are semi-candid portraits with
cluttered backgrounds.
2. Low light performance - Many of these occur indoors, and I prefer to
use available light.
3. Turn-on, focus, and shot-to-shot speed - Practically all of them are
of a very active 4 year old.

It's unquestionably large and heavy; I dealt with it by getting a
LowePro Off Trail 1 - when I get too feeble to use that I guess I'll get
a cart. Or, hm, fit all the gear in a large backpack and let the boy
carry it, yeah, that's it...

Roland Karlsson wrote:

Yes, but the DSLR user didn't have an F1.8 lens with him - just an F4.0
one.

That was not so brilliant of him. At least not if he wanted badly
to take free hand photos in the dim light.

Perhaps he just didn't feel like always carrying a huge and heavy camera
lenses bag with him ?

A fast prime 50 mm lens is not at all expensive.

But how bulky and expensive is a good quality F1.8-2.6 35-105 mm zoom ?

Your way of arguing is not all that brilliant either. Do you
want us to take you seriously you have to compare apples to
apples and not to boats.

The point is that all these SLRs and DSLRs "come" with zoom lenses which
start around F4 (the kit). Equip them with a bright zoom lens and the
weight and cost goes up considerably. Instead most prosumer P&S come
with bright zoom lenses.

Anyway, this is a comparison of available equipment vs. available
equipment. The 5050 has an F1.8-2.6 lens, while perhaps for some weight
and bulkiness reason the DSLR photographer only had an F4 lens with him.
--

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

Chris Brown wrote:

I might upgrade to a DSLR, if it had live preview with histograms on the
LCD screen. And of course if it wasn't so bulky.

I.e. if it wasn't a DSLR.

I don't care if it's a DSLR or not, but I'd like to have a not too bulky
camera with a low noise high res CCD (8+ MP, ISO 400 and 800 with low
noise) and fast operation (short shutter lag, short cycle times).
Interchageable lenses wouldn't hurt either and probably I could make use
every now and then of a viewfinder as good as the one of a DSLR.
--

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

On 24 Jun 2004 13:46:24 -0700, (Georgette
Preddy) wrote:

No one is saying you have to use one, but I believe everyone who has
used both would agree that they are optically superior in a Biblical
sense.

Could you explain that?
I *really* want to know about this.


Bill Funk
Change "g" to "a"

Alfred Molon wrote in :

I don't care if it's a DSLR or not, but I'd like to have a not too bulky
camera with a low noise high res CCD (8+ MP, ISO 400 and 800 with low
noise) and fast operation (short shutter lag, short cycle times).

The only way you can make a low noise, high sensitivity camera is by
using a large sensor and fast lenses (at the same time).

The only way you can make such a camera compact is by prime lenses.
Zoom lenses are out of the question.

Interchageable lenses wouldn't hurt either and probably I could make use
every now and then of a viewfinder as good as the one of a DSLR.

The only way you can make a flexible camera that is reasonable compact
is the old Leica way. Some few very nice prime interchangable lenses
on a compact body.

How about an APS sensor sized camera with a new set of APS size
high quality lenses?



/Roland

"Mark Weaver" wrote in message
...

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message newslBCc.69

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.


Not a 5050, but the new batch of 8MP cameras will exceed the quality of
6MP
DSLRs when there is sufficient light to shoot at the lowest ISOs (which,
for
me, is true most of the time). Here, for example, is a crop of dpreview's
test target taken with the canon 300D and with the Powershot Pro1:

http://www.fototime.com/FE03B5924676FD8/orig.jpg

The additional detail in the Pro1 shot vs the 300D shot is quite apparent.

Mark


I checked out some real life pictures of the 8MP P&S. They do capture more
details but the shadow areas are pretty noisy.

leo wrote:
"Mark Weaver" wrote in message
...

"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message newslBCc.69

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.


Not a 5050, but the new batch of 8MP cameras will exceed the quality of

6MP

DSLRs when there is sufficient light to shoot at the lowest ISOs (which,

for

me, is true most of the time).

Alas .. not for me. I like to shoot in museums and cathedrals. No P&S
(but those with IS lenses) will cut the mustard.

Phil