If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
... 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 Hey Alfred, you really fight forcefully about dSLR vs P&S. Have you owned a SLR? Can we really compare the f stop and ISO with different type of cameras? A SLR is certainly not for many consumers. If one has to think whether to get SLR or P&S, I'd suggest one get a Digital Rebel with some good lens though. I have sold a 70-300 IS lens on ebay, I got back 90% of it's value so it's not that expensive to forgo SLR if one determines that it's not his photo taking style. Also, majority of dSLR users have digital P&S cameras somewhere in their home, so they do know what they are talking about. They also would have no reservation to take the P&S if having fun was the main priority. As I moved up from Olympus C-3000Z to Canon Digital Rebel, I have taken many great and interesting pictures that I had never dreamed of with the Olympus which I original thought it's good. The DR is amazing, even at pixel level. The background blurring is beautiful for portrait. My new Canon 300mm f/4 IS lens gives me all the details that I would have never achieved from P&S. I am going to add 1.4xTC converter to make it a 420mm lens. If I had the money, I wouldn't mind to trade my compact DV camcorder for a prosumer (aka bulkier, heavier) model. |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
In article ,
Alfred Molon wrote: 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 Then the Epson R-D1 might be more your thing. SLRs don't really do "compact". |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
"Roland Karlsson" wrote in message
... [] How about an APS sensor sized camera with a new set of APS size high quality lenses? /Roland I would be keen to see something along those lines succeed! But the current mantra is: "It has to be 35mm to suit our existing lenses". You would have thought that the manufacturers would have been keen to lock buyers into a new range of lenses, wouldn't you? Is the 4/3 system the answer? Cheers, David |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
... [] 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 Eh? I shoot in similar circumstances and I find I can hold a P&S a lot steadier than I ever could a 35mm SLR with its bulky lens! Take the Nikon 990 range swivel body cameras - you can place the blody on a flat surface (a pew for example) and swivel the lens to frame your image. No problem with 1 second exposures then..... You would need a tripod to do that with an SLR camera. Even with my Nikon 5700, the swivel finder allows the camera to be propped into an obscure position for taking - somewhere that I could not get my eye to the viewfinder - and be well braced for the shot without a tripod. No DSLR can yet offer a swivel finder.... The swivel finder also comes in handy if you are trying to be discrete about your photography. Cheers, David |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
"leo" wrote in message k.net... "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. My experience has been that ISO 50 daylight shots are very clean. But if I should run into shots where that isn't the case, I know of several very effective noise-reduction packages (whereas I don't know of any effective detail-addition packages Mark |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
I also find macro focusing difficult with an LCD screen. I don't have a
DSLR, so use my film SLR for macro work, digital for other things. Have a decent print scanner so I can digitize the SLR shots. Would like a decent DSLR, but can't afford one- hope the price comes down eventually. Roland Karlsson wrote: "David J Taylor" wrote in : Offset by greater weight, bulk, cost and inconvenience. True - but I would really have the convenience of a precision SLR view finder the next time I photgraph macro. I am tired of "not really in focus" shots taken by non SLR cameras. And an EVF does not really help all the way - hard to see that precision focus. /Roland -- Don Stauffer in Minnesota webpage- http://www.usfamily.net/web/stauffer |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
"Mark Weaver" wrote in message
... [] My experience has been that ISO 50 daylight shots are very clean. But if I should run into shots where that isn't the case, I know of several very effective noise-reduction packages (whereas I don't know of any effective detail-addition packages Mark Geninue Fractals or whatever it's called? G David |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
David J Taylor wrote: "Phil Wheeler" wrote in message ... [] 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 Eh? I shoot in similar circumstances and I find I can hold a P&S a lot steadier than I ever could a 35mm SLR with its bulky lens! Take the Nikon 990 range swivel body cameras - you can place the blody on a flat surface (a pew for example) and swivel the lens to frame your image. No problem with 1 second exposures then..... You would need a tripod to do that with an SLR camera. You must have missed my IS (Image Stabilized lens) statement above. I can do handheld very easily at 1/10 to 1/2 sec exposures. Never use a tripod. Phil |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
David J Taylor wrote: "Phil Wheeler" wrote in message ... [] 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 Eh? I shoot in similar circumstances and I find I can hold a P&S a lot steadier than I ever could a 35mm SLR with its bulky lens! Take the Nikon 990 range swivel body cameras - you can place the blody on a flat surface (a pew for example) and swivel the lens to frame your image. No problem with 1 second exposures then..... You would need a tripod to do that with an SLR camera. Forgot to add -- and I can shoot at ISO 1600 if needed. Not possible with a P&S, at least today. Phil |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
Why go dSLR?
"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
... David J Taylor wrote: "Phil Wheeler" wrote in message ... [] 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 Eh? I shoot in similar circumstances and I find I can hold a P&S a lot steadier than I ever could a 35mm SLR with its bulky lens! Take the Nikon 990 range swivel body cameras - you can place the blody on a flat surface (a pew for example) and swivel the lens to frame your image. No problem with 1 second exposures then..... You would need a tripod to do that with an SLR camera. You must have missed my IS (Image Stabilized lens) statement above. I can do handheld very easily at 1/10 to 1/2 sec exposures. Never use a tripod. Phil No, I saw your statement about IS. You seemed to be saying that what I have been doing with P&S digital these last six years was impossible without IS lenses. Not so. No, I don't use ISO 1600, but neither do I mind a small amount of noise (grain) on images taken under circumstances where the noise adds character. I find the present "total noise free" approach somewhat of a fashion of the day. Cheers, David |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|