PDA

View Full Version : D-SLR vs Digital-Compact Camera



halim
09-23-2004, 10:01 PM
i'm new to digital photography and photography itself..purchased an canoon A80,and planning to get a better camera,but still confused which to choose,an SLR or compact..i've been reading a lot from the internet,cd roms,books,but there are things i still don't understand..

1. is how SLR system makes the camera produced better pics??..from what i read the main difference is mainly on how does the viewfinder works..

2. is it true if i use SLR the only way to see the object is through the viewfinder?? unlike a compact camera which can use LCD,EVF or TTL to see the object

3. how about the recent advances in digital camera such as..olympus 8080,coolpix 8700,which has many helpfull features such as live histogram..,which is better compared to the same priced digital SLR such as nikon d-70 or cannon eos300d(which is now on "sale",with a price below US$800 with lens included)


well that's bout all i guess..sorry if i ask too much.. , so in case someone knows articles or site that can help..please notify me..thanks :)

Billiam
09-25-2004, 09:34 PM
The greneral wisdom is:

1 - DSLR's have larger sensors, so they perform better under low light
The larger sensors require longer focal length lenses, which allow the photographer to selectively reduce depth of field when it's desireable (hard to do in a p&s)
DSRL's meter and focus faster, so they are more suitable for action shots
DSLR's can use the existing catalog of lenses from their respective manufacturers, which can be very good (though not cheap)
The better DSLR's are probably more rugged than most p&s cams
Battery life in the SLR's is supposed to be much longer than in p&s cams

2 - True for all slr's

3 - See #1

Rhys
09-26-2004, 02:21 PM
Allow me to confuse you by mentioning the Canon S1 IS, Nikon 5700 and Panasonic FZ-10.

These are pretty much SLRs in all-in-one bodies. I look on them as a 35 - 400 zoom with a free camera thrown in. For the price you'd pay for the lens, you get a camera too. Bargain!

Ant
09-27-2004, 07:18 AM
Allow me to confuse you by mentioning the Canon S1 IS, Nikon 5700 and Panasonic FZ-10.

These are pretty much SLRs in all-in-one bodies. I look on them as a 35 - 400 zoom with a free camera thrown in. For the price you'd pay for the lens, you get a camera too. Bargain!


You obviously haven't got a clue what a real SLR is have you?

It's not a good idea to confuse people with your ignorance. A Canon S1 IS is not anywhere close to the same league as a genuine DSLR. It's a nice enough camera but really little more than a glorified 'point and shoot'.

Halim

There are three categories of digital camera. Point and shoot, pro-sumer, and SLR.

Point and shoots are fully automatic. The camera controls everything, you just point it at a subject and press the shutter release; that's about the only involvement you have, other than maybe to alter the EV or WB manually. These cameras usually produce pretty good images straight out of the camera though.

Pro-sumers are a step up. They share many of the same automatic features of point and shoots except that they also have manual settings to allow you control over exposure....shutter speed and aperture in particular. you'll also get many other manual features such as a greater control of WB, more image quality options etc. These cameras are a step closer to genuine SLRs and are a good introduction to manual exposure settings and creativity for people new to photography. I still use one as my second camera, and love it for what it can do.

However the point and shoots and the prosumers have many weaknesses when compared to a genuine SLR. They have very small sensors and so noise is a problem when going higher than about ISO100. They also have very small focal lengths, which mean that they can't get the same wide range of DOF as an SLR. They are also a lot slower than an SLR, both in focus and shot burst. Many of the pro-sumer cameras, and all of the point and shoots, don't have a hot shoe for external flash either. Which is a big problem if you want proper flash photography, which if you're serious about photography you probably will want. All SLR have fittings for an external flash.

I used point and shoots and prosumers for a couple of years before I took the DSLR plunge and the difference is enormous. No amount of live histograms can make a prosumer camera any better than my D70

In a nutshell if you can afford a DSLR then get one, you'll notice the difference straight away.

Here's a link which may interest you on the subject:

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm

D70FAN
09-27-2004, 07:54 AM
You obviously haven't got a clue what a real SLR is have you?

It's not a good idea to confuse people with your ignorance. A Canon S1 IS is not anywhere close to the same league as a genuine DSLR. It's a nice enough camera but really little more than a glorified 'point and shoot'.

Halim

There are three categories of digital camera. Point and shoot, pro-sumer, and SLR.

Point and shoots are fully automatic. The camera controls everything, you just point it at a subject and press the shutter release; that's about the only involvement you have, other than maybe to alter the EV or WB manually. These cameras usually produce pretty good images straight out of the camera though.

Pro-sumers are a step up. They share many of the same automatic features of point and shoots except that they also have manual settings to allow you control over exposure....shutter speed and aperture in particular. you'll also get many other manual features such as a greater control of WB, more image quality options etc. These cameras are a step closer to genuine SLRs and are a good introduction to manual exposure settings and creativity for people new to photography. I still use one as my second camera, and love it for what it can do.

However the point and shoots and the prosumers have many weaknesses when compared to a genuine SLR. They have very small sensors and so noise is a problem when going higher than about ISO100. They also have very small focal lengths, which mean that they can't get the same wide range of DOF as an SLR. They are also a lot slower than an SLR, both in focus and shot burst. Many of the pro-sumer cameras, and all of the point and shoots, don't have a hot shoe for external flash either. Which is a big problem if you want proper flash photography, which if you're serious about photography you probably will want. All SLR have fittings for an external flash.

I used point and shoots and prosumers for a couple of years before I took the DSLR plunge and the difference is enormous. No amount of live histograms can make a prosumer camera any better than my D70

In a nutshell if you can afford a DSLR then get one, you'll notice the difference straight away.

Easy there Ant. Trying to convince Rhys that his S1 isn't a dSLR is counterproductive, as Rhys already knows the differences. He was making a good point, and just happens to like, and own, the S1 IS.

Most high end all-in-ones do have a flash shoe, and are pretty quick, so the difference isn't that severe. Yes, most of us know that dSLR's offer a ton of advantages, including much higher ISO, but to the average shooter, an all-in-one is more than enough camera.

I too have a D70 and have had several film SLR's (Nikon FE, Minolta SRT101, and Minolta 3Si) and consumer digitals (since my first Kodak D50 in 1996).

Cameras like the Panasonic FZ series, and the new Nikon 8800, while certainly not dSLR's, tend to blur the line a little. Not everyone wants, or needs, a dSLR, and pro-sumer all-in-ones fit that catagory. I can't remeber the last time Nikon, Canon, Sigma, or Tamron, offered a 35mm-420mm, f2.8 with image stabilization, and then threw in a body for $399.

Ant
09-27-2004, 08:18 AM
Easy there Ant. Trying to convince Rhys that his S1 isn't a dSLR is counterproductive, as Rhys already knows the differences. He was making a good point, and just happens to like, and own, the S1 IS.

Yes, I was a little harsh unfortunately, and if Rhys wants to think his P&S canon is an SLR then that's his business but I quite object to giving people misleading info. Somebody could spend several hundred dollars because of that bad info. and end up not getting the camera they thought they were getting.

I agree that not everybody needs or wants an SLR....or can afford one, but it's a lot more productive to explain the differences clearly rather than just calling a P&S an SLR. That's like me calling my car an aeroplane.

The edges between a high end pro-sumer and a genuine SLR are indeed starting to blur a little but they aren't that close yet. I love my Olympus C750 for the things it can do but there's no way I'd use it as my main camera for the more testing shoots. My D70 just totally blows it away.


I can't remeber the last time Nikon, Canon, Sigma, or Tamron, offered a 35mm-420mm, f2.8 with image stabilization, and then threw in a body for $399.

No, it's a good point. But then f/2.8 isn't that much use if you can't get any kind of shallow DOF with it and the highest ISO you can realistically go is 200.

Rhys
09-27-2004, 10:40 AM
Yes, I was a little harsh unfortunately, and if Rhys wants to think his P&S canon is an SLR then that's his business but I quite object to giving people misleading info. Somebody could spend several hundred dollars because of that bad info. and end up not getting the camera they thought they were getting.

I agree that not everybody needs or wants an SLR....or can afford one, but it's a lot more productive to explain the differences clearly rather than just calling a P&S an SLR. That's like me calling my car an aeroplane.

The edges between a high end pro-sumer and a genuine SLR are indeed starting to blur a little but they aren't that close yet. I love my Olympus C750 for the things it can do but there's no way I'd use it as my main camera for the more testing shoots. My D70 just totally blows it away.



No, it's a good point. But then f/2.8 isn't that much use if you can't get any kind of shallow DOF with it and the highest ISO you can realistically go is 200.


I do own SLRs and have kept my eye on dSLRs with great interest. At the moment though I feel the Canon S1 IS is as good as many dSLRs in many respects. It's an amateur's camera but I'd be happy using it for serious work. My SLRs are Nikon FMs. If Nikon dSLRs drop in price to a level low enough to merit purchasing one then I shall definitely buy a D2.

Ant
09-27-2004, 11:28 AM
I do own SLRs and have kept my eye on dSLRs with great interest. At the moment though I feel the Canon S1 IS is as good as many dSLRs in many respects. It's an amateur's camera but I'd be happy using it for serious work. My SLRs are Nikon FMs. If Nikon dSLRs drop in price to a level low enough to merit purchasing one then I shall definitely buy a D2.

Hi Rhys

First of all an apology for coming across a little harsh. Nothing personal intended.

I would disagree, however, that your S1 IS is as good as many DSLRs. I personally haven't used as S1 IS so I'm just going by the specs and by my experience of using my Olympus C750....which is roughly in the same class, so I'm open to any corrections.

Any DSLR is going to be faster than the S1 IS. Also the minimum shutter speed on the S1 is only 15secs, so oddly any SLR is going to be slower too, but in a good way ;) If you want to capture fast action or long exposures then the S1 won't compete with an SLR

Any modern DSLR is going to give better image quality than the S1. This is just a no brainer. Large low noise sensor and a higher resolution than the S1s 3 megapixels.

No hot shoe on the S1 so any serious flash photography is out.

The S1 only produces JPGs so no lossless uncompressed pics for high fidelity. I personally prefer JPGs straight out of the camera, but I'm glad that RAW is there if I want it.

Honestly, I can't think of any real advantage that the S1 has over any modern DSLR other than the fact that it's cheaper and smaller.....actually there is one big advantage...lens range of 38mm-380mm. I think that changing lenses in the field is a real pain and having that range in one camera is a big plus, which is why I still carry my Oly as well as my D70; but that one advantage just doesn't go anywhere close to making up the shortcomings. The image stabilisation is nice too but you can get stabilised lenses for SLRs anyway.

I'd agree that a camera like the S1 is great for many people's needs. They may not need the speed or image fidelity of a DSLR and, if such, it makes little sense to pay through the nose for them; but I'd definitely say that a modern DSLR will outperform a camera like the S1 in every area.

Rhys
09-27-2004, 04:31 PM
I've never been very interested in flash photography, working mainly with landscapes and not people. Although I have a Metz hammerhead, I hardly used it even with my FMs.

The longest shutter speed is reputed to be 15 seconds however, I've never managed to get more than 1 sec on any program bar manual. Having said that I decided ages ago that Zenith had it about right when they put shutter speeds of 1/30 to 1/500 on their cameras as these are the most used. I have no problems with exposure settings.

As far as action goes, as I said, I'm a landscape photographer so action doesn't really apply.

The video mode is quite good and oddly enough I find I use that quite a lot.

From my point of view, I'd say that the S1 IS is particularly good. I agree that 3mp isn't as good as 6mp but on the other hand, 3mpm is about 2000 pixels across and 6mp is 2800 pixels across - not much more than 1/3rd larger.

D70FAN
09-27-2004, 04:43 PM
I've never been very interested in flash photography, working mainly with landscapes and not people. Although I have a Metz hammerhead, I hardly used it even with my FMs.

The longest shutter speed is reputed to be 15 seconds however, I've never managed to get more than 1 sec on any program bar manual. Having said that I decided ages ago that Zenith had it about right when they put shutter speeds of 1/30 to 1/500 on their cameras as these are the most used. I have no problems with exposure settings.

As far as action goes, as I said, I'm a landscape photographer so action doesn't really apply.

The video mode is quite good and oddly enough I find I use that quite a lot.

From my point of view, I'd say that the S1 IS is particularly good. I agree that 3mp isn't as good as 6mp but on the other hand, 3mpm is about 2000 pixels across and 6mp is 2800 pixels across - not much more than 1/3rd larger.

I always like to experience the "Rhys logic". But you forgot to mention the cost differences as well. Note: On the D70 its 3008 pixels across. Just want to keep you honest.

Hope the trip didn't get washed out by Jeanne.

doady
09-28-2004, 09:19 AM
Allow me to confuse you by mentioning the Canon S1 IS, Nikon 5700 and Panasonic FZ-10.

These are pretty much SLRs in all-in-one bodies. I look on them as a 35 - 400 zoom with a free camera thrown in. For the price you'd pay for the lens, you get a camera too. Bargain!

I'm quite new to photography, but my understanding is that those aren't SLR's because what you see in the viewfinder isn't exactly what you taking a picture of. Many prosumer cameras can have the features of an SLR, like my Olympus 5060WZ. But the reason it is not an SLR is because when I cover the lenses with my hand, I can still see through the optical viewfinder. Any true SLR has an optical viewfinder that actually sees through the lenses. There are many cameras that offer lots of manual controls, but only SLRs work in this way. So do not mislead this person into thinking those are like SLRs, because they don't work like SLRs at all.

Those cameras you mention are not a bargain at all. They are lower-priced for so many other reasons other than the useless viewfinder... lots of noise, less amount and precision of manual controls, less options, worse construction (plastic instead of metal), just to name what I can think of (I don't know as much about this after all). Those cameras don't even come close to D-SLRs. It boggles my mind that someone can actually think that $400-600 USD cameras are as good as cameras that cost over well $1000 USD! This really is only problem I have with what you say, that DSLRs are not worth the difference price.

Rhys
09-28-2004, 09:23 AM
I always like to experience the "Rhys logic". But you forgot to mention the cost differences as well. Note: On the D70 its 3008 pixels across. Just want to keep you honest.

Hope the trip didn't get washed out by Jeanne.

I was doing an off-the cuff calculation but even so, you have to admit that 2048 to 3000 is not the massive increase in size reflected by the price. People get so hung up on megapixel counts.

at 150dpi, 3mp gives a 10x13 inch print
at 150 dpi 6mp gives a 14x18 inch print

let's see - that's only 0.4 times bigger. Now let's look at the cost...
The S1 IS (I was given mine) is about $400 and the D70 is about $1200 or 3 times the price of 0.4 times extra quality.

I'd say that the S1 represents better value.

propwash
09-28-2004, 09:55 AM
at 150dpi, 3mp gives a 10x13 inch print
at 150 dpi 6mp gives a 14x18 inch print

let's see - that's only 0.4 times bigger. Now let's look at the cost...


That depends on how you calculate things. 14x18 is 252 square inches. 13x10 is 130 square inches. Figuring it this way, the 14x18 is 93% larger than the 10x13.

Ant
09-28-2004, 10:15 AM
et's see - that's only 0.4 times bigger. Now let's look at the cost...
The S1 IS (I was given mine) is about $400 and the D70 is about $1200 or 3 times the price of 0.4 times extra quality.

I'd say that the S1 represents better value.

Or let's say that I shoot airshows, lot's of fast aircraft flying around. I can spend $400 on an S1, and because it's so slow focusing, I get no good shots....so basically a camera I can't take pics with, or I can spend $1200 on a D70 and get lots of good shots. Which is the better value now?

I can understand what you're saying, and I agree: If a $400 camera suits your needs then there's little point in spending $1200 on an SLR. However, that's not the same as saying an S1 is as good as an SLR...it isn't. It may indeed be better value for somebody who doesn't need the extra features of an SLR, but if you do need, or want, those extra SLR features then a camera like an S1 simply won't hack it.

Also, to return to your original point, you're making a big mistake comparing image quality from a DSLR and a P&S on the megapixel count alone. That large DSLR sensor produces far superior, less noisy, images than any P&S, even assuming the same number of pixels. a friend of mine uses a fuji S5000....which, again, is roughly the same class as the S1, and I sent him a full size jpg straight out of my D70, he was amazed by the difference in image quality from a DSLR.

D70FAN
09-28-2004, 11:53 AM
Ok Rys you've got em' where you want em'. This thread is just getting started. I shall retire from this one.

You never did comment on the holiday in the Carolinas...

Rhys
09-29-2004, 09:45 AM
[/b]

Or let's say that I shoot airshows, lot's of fast aircraft flying around. I can spend $400 on an S1, and because it's so slow focusing, I get no good shots....so basically a camera I can't take pics with, or I can spend $1200 on a D70 and get lots of good shots. Which is the better value now?

I can understand what you're saying, and I agree: If a $400 camera suits your needs then there's little point in spending $1200 on an SLR. However, that's not the same as saying an S1 is as good as an SLR...it isn't. It may indeed be better value for somebody who doesn't need the extra features of an SLR, but if you do need, or want, those extra SLR features then a camera like an S1 simply won't hack it.

Also, to return to your original point, you're making a big mistake comparing image quality from a DSLR and a P&S on the megapixel count alone. That large DSLR sensor produces far superior, less noisy, images than any P&S, even assuming the same number of pixels. a friend of mine uses a fuji S5000....which, again, is roughly the same class as the S1, and I sent him a full size jpg straight out of my D70, he was amazed by the difference in image quality from a DSLR.

Having done airshows, most of the aircraft will be flying (if not crashing) so infinity will be all that's needed. The huge depth of field of digital will ensure everything's in focus. For ground exhibits, fast focussing isn't really necessary.

And I'm still in SC, George and should be until December.

Ant
09-30-2004, 01:24 AM
Having done airshows, most of the aircraft will be flying (if not crashing) so infinity will be all that's needed. The huge depth of field of digital will ensure everything's in focus. For ground exhibits, fast focussing isn't really necessary.

I tried that with my Olympus and wasn't greatly impressed with the results.....still way too much shutter lag. Maybe the S1 is better in this regard.

Still doesn't, and never will, make it an SLR though.

I can pound nails in with a rock.....doesn't make it a hammer.

Rhys
09-30-2004, 08:23 AM
I tried that with my Olympus and wasn't greatly impressed with the results.....still way too much shutter lag. Maybe the S1 is better in this regard.

Still doesn't, and never will, make it an SLR though.

I can pound nails in with a rock.....doesn't make it a hammer.

Well, it has a single lens, you see through the lens instead of a separate viewfinder. It is therefore a single lens reflex camera.

I've noticed no lag since I updated the firmware - aside from the focus lag (I'm not keen on autofocus anyway)

Ant
09-30-2004, 03:45 PM
Well, it has a single lens, you see through the lens instead of a separate viewfinder. It is therefore a single lens reflex camera.

Nope. Dead wrong.

It has an electronic viewfinder...at least that's what the specs say. So you aren't seeing thorough the lens at all, you're seeing an electronic version of it, which isn't even in full real time, but delayed by a fraction of a second. The light isn't reflected, and you aren't even seeing real light, so it can't possibly be single lens REFLEX.

Rhys
10-01-2004, 07:21 AM
Nope. Dead wrong.

It has an electronic viewfinder...at least that's what the specs say. So you aren't seeing thorough the lens at all, you're seeing an electronic version of it, which isn't even in full real time, but delayed by a fraction of a second. The light isn't reflected, and you aren't even seeing real light, so it can't possibly be single lens REFLEX.

So you're seeing what the image sensor on the camera sees rather than what you hope the image sensor on the camera is seeing....

Ant
10-01-2004, 09:49 AM
So you're seeing what the image sensor on the camera sees rather than what you hope the image sensor on the camera is seeing....

Yes. Oh, there's no doubt that the EVF system has some advantages. I can usually tell exactly how a shot is going to turn out in my EVF Olympus better than on my D70......provided it's not moving too quickly to be the subject of EVF lag of course ;) but there are disadvantages too.

This, however, is largely irrelevant. The fact that I'm not seeing the actual light that's coming through the lens means that it isn't an SLR.

Rhys
10-01-2004, 10:04 AM
Yes. Oh, there's no doubt that the EVF system has some advantages. I can usually tell exactly how a shot is going to turn out in my EVF Olympus better than on my D70......provided it's not moving too quickly to be the subject of EVF lag of course ;) but there are disadvantages too.

This, however, is largely irrelevant. The fact that I'm not seeing the actual light that's coming through the lens means that it isn't an SLR.

That's why it's called a dSLR.

D70FAN
10-01-2004, 12:30 PM
Yes. Oh, there's no doubt that the EVF system has some advantages. I can usually tell exactly how a shot is going to turn out in my EVF Olympus better than on my D70......provided it's not moving too quickly to be the subject of EVF lag of course ;) but there are disadvantages too.

This, however, is largely irrelevant. The fact that I'm not seeing the actual light that's coming through the lens means that it isn't an SLR.


What? You can't be serious. Even the A2 EVF isn't that good. to each their own I suppose.

Note: Why can't K-M wrap a good sensor around that beautiful camera and EVF? They could have a serious contender.

Ant
10-01-2004, 01:07 PM
That's why it's called a dSLR

No it isn't.

A dSLR is an SLR camera that takes digital pictures. An SLR is an SLR camera that takes film pictures.

Ant
10-01-2004, 01:18 PM
What? You can't be serious. Even the A2 EVF isn't that good. to each their own I suppose.

Can't be serious about what? The fact that an EVF has some advantages over a ground glass SLR viewfinder? Of course it does!

I'm not saying that an EVF is better, but it does have some advantages over an SLR viewfinder. If I adjust exposure value or WB settings on my Olympus then I see the effect directly in the EVF, basically the EVF shows me exactly how the photo is going to turn out before I take it. With an SLR that isn't the case. The only way I know how a pic is going to turn out on my D70 is in post view after I've taken it.

Another advantage of an EVF is real time histogram, try getting one of those with an SLR. I don't use that feature and it isn't a big deal for me but I've heard of people who really like it.

Of course EVFs have disadvantages over an SLR viewfinder, and overall I prefer the SLR system but to deny that EVFs have some advantages is just stupid.

timmciglobal
10-23-2004, 07:40 PM
Having owned and S1 and now Canon 300D let me tell you the difference is IMMENSE.

First of all, just speaking of S1, it's focus system is TERRIBLE. The focus is signifcantly slower and has a far greater problem finding focus (being as it's single point AF center only) also the image noise on S1 at night or in low light is a serious issue for printing at any size.

Now my 300d, I can shoot all the way up to ISO 1600 and still make good prints, ISO 800 for sharp and ISO 400 and down image noise is nearly impossible to see even at 1:1 viewing.

As far as shooting speed, there is NO comparison between the speed to take a picture then another and a point and shoot.

As far as S1 goes, I liked it alot had it a focus system that works. Even with the firmware fix it's focus system is still terrible, often giving me out of focus shots.

Tim

D70FAN
10-23-2004, 10:46 PM
Can't be serious about what? The fact that an EVF has some advantages over a ground glass SLR viewfinder? Of course it does!

I'm not saying that an EVF is better, but it does have some advantages over an SLR viewfinder. If I adjust exposure value or WB settings on my Olympus then I see the effect directly in the EVF, basically the EVF shows me exactly how the photo is going to turn out before I take it. With an SLR that isn't the case. The only way I know how a pic is going to turn out on my D70 is in post view after I've taken it.

Another advantage of an EVF is real time histogram, try getting one of those with an SLR. I don't use that feature and it isn't a big deal for me but I've heard of people who really like it.

Of course EVFs have disadvantages over an SLR viewfinder, and overall I prefer the SLR system but to deny that EVFs have some advantages is just stupid.

I don't recall calling your intellegence into question, however your judgement does seem to have some flaws. Your opinion is fine, and we all have a right to our opinions, but I think that you may have overstepped that boundry.

Rhys
10-24-2004, 02:34 PM
r and a point and shoot.

As far as S1 goes, I liked it alot had it a focus system that works. Even with the firmware fix it's focus system is still terrible, often giving me out of focus shots.

Tim

The picture should not be taken unless the focus brackets are green. When they're not, use manual focus. When I started doing that my out-of-focus shots reduced to nil.

Ant
10-25-2004, 02:38 AM
I don't recall calling your intellegence into question, however your judgement does seem to have some flaws. Your opinion is fine, and we all have a right to our opinions, but I think that you may have overstepped that boundry.

I think you need to stop being so over sensitive. I never called your intelligence into question at all.

If my judgement has flaws then why don't you point them out to me.

Rhys
10-25-2004, 06:07 AM
I think you need to stop being so over sensitive. I never called your intelligence into question at all.

If my judgement has flaws then why don't you point them out to me.

I note that Ant posted on 10-01-2004 08:18 PM

to deny that EVFs have some advantages is just stupid.

To me, this does seem to be accusing George of stupidity which really isn't very nice.

It would have been better to phrase the sentence somewhat differently and less confrontationally. For example, instead of
Of course EVFs have disadvantages over an SLR viewfinder, and overall I prefer the SLR system but to deny that EVFs have some advantages is just stupid. it would have been better to say
Of course EVFs have disadvantages over an SLR viewfinder, and overall I prefer the SLR system. It seems strange to me to state that EVFs posess no advantages. Could you elaborate?
This comes over in a much less confrontational manner and might even provoke further informed discussion rather than a simple slanging match.

D70FAN
10-25-2004, 07:00 AM
I think you need to stop being so over sensitive. I never called your intelligence into question at all.

If my judgement has flaws then why don't you point them out to me.

You already have.

Ignorant? I may be... stupid I'm not. I can live with that.

Again, on the subject of EVF's: I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it.

Ant
10-25-2004, 07:01 AM
You're probably right, the way I said it wasn't the best use of words, unfortunately....maybe more evidence of my stupidity than George's ;)

However, I will deny that I questioned his intelligence. I consider myself a pretty intelligent guy but I do stupid stuff all the time. Doing or saying something stupid isn't the same as being a stupid person.

I still find it quite unbelievable that some people can deny that EVFs have some advantages....and I'm somebody who prefers the traditional SLR system.

Maybe I'm just used to internet discussions that are a little more robust than appears to be the case on this site. No offense intended.

Ant
10-25-2004, 07:05 AM
You already have.

Ignorant? I may be... stupid I'm not. I can live with that.

Again, on the subject of EVF's: I respect your opinion, but I don't agree with it.

Doh, was replying to Rhys before I saw your reply.

As I said above. People do stupid stuff all the time, doesn't make them a stupid person. I think you're reading too much into what I said.

If you don't agree with my opinion then why not tell me why. I respect most peoples' opinion except for those who won't bother explaining it.

D70FAN
10-25-2004, 09:52 AM
Doh, was replying to Rhys before I saw your reply.

As I said above. People do stupid stuff all the time, doesn't make them a stupid person. I think you're reading too much into what I said.

If you don't agree with my opinion then why not tell me why. I respect most peoples' opinion except for those who won't bother explaining it.

Maybe...

The opinion:

I find EVF's difficult to use due to the pixelization and delay. With an OVF what you see is what you get (assuming you know how to use the camera settings).

I don't care for graphics in the viewfinder, other than base information at the bottom of the frame, as a quick double check, as I find anything else distracting. If I have doubts about exposure and want to make sure the shot is exposed correctly then I use bracketing.

This is why, while it is really tempting to buy an FZ3 as a knock around camera, the EVF just bugs the heck out of me.

...PAX.

Ant
10-26-2004, 10:22 AM
Personally I agree with you 100% about the current state of EVFs.

My view is that their advantage lies more in their potential rather than in what they're doing today. I firmly believe that given the technological advances of the next few years, maybe even the next decade, that EVFs will replace ground glass SLR viewfinders. Something I read once sums it up:

"EVFs are the future of digital photography...but they aren't the present"

Anyway, that's all I'm going to say on this thread. Apologies for any offense, none was meant.



:)

Rhys
10-26-2004, 10:51 AM
That new Epson might turn that theory on its head. I really quite like the idea of a rangefinder digital camera.