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

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.
--

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

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?


They should be. More megapixels is particularly good for landscapes and
most current models are 6 mp or more.

They also can go wider than most point and shoot cameras. For example,
the Canon 300D kt lens will go to 28 mm or so (35 mm equivalent) while
my two P&S are 37 mm and 38 mm respectively (there are some that go
wider). And you can -- at some expense! -- buy other lenses to go even
wider for landscapes.

Phil

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:

They also can go wider than most point and shoot cameras. For example,
the Canon 300D kt lens will go to 28 mm or so (35 mm equivalent) while
my two P&S are 37 mm and 38 mm respectively (there are some that go
wider). And you can -- at some expense! -- buy other lenses to go even
wider for landscapes.

There are several P&S which go down to 28mm and even less if you attach
a wide angle converter lens.
With the DSLRs instead there are problems if the lens is very "wide",
because the light needs to hit the pixels of the sensor perpendicularly
or not at a too great angle from 90°.
In addition to this the large DOF of P&S cameras makes them especially
suitable for landscapes.
--

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 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...

If I take the 2 cameras I still have and take identical pictures at the same
time, there is a big difference between, and if you think about it - there
should not be. If you want, I can post pics taken of the same things with both
cams and you can see for yourself, at Alt.binaries.photos.original.

Now if your P&S cam can take better pics then great!! I never said that ALL
DSLRs were better then ALL others, just that my 2 were like that!

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

Perhaps a test at identical F numbers for identical DOF would be more
appropriate.


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.

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.

It's less blurred because the focal length is shorter. What happens if I go out
and buy an F1.2 lens?? Hmm?? Your argument kind of goes out the window...

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.

The noise in your camera at the same ISO of a larger sensor DSLR would be far
higher. If I put a 1.8 lens on my camera it will be quieter than yours.

I think you ran an unfair comparison!