PDA

View Full Version : dSLR vs. all-in-one



radek_42
01-05-2005, 01:17 PM
Hi,

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I did fair amount of research to understand different modes and features of different digital cameras. Since I consider myself "technical" I'd like to have full manual control over the camera. dSLR cameras are the first thing that comes to mind. However, is the price worth it?

Lumix FZ20 with excellent 36 - 432 mm/f2.8 lens, full manual control and movie mode costs about half of Canon's 300d, the cheapest dSLR.

I know I know, the noise level in dSLR cameras is much lower due to their large sensor and even at ISO1600 the pictures are nice compared to ISO400 in all-in-one cameras. Also, dSLR you can buy tons of different lenses ....

I tried both Canon 300d and Nikon D70. I really liked the look and feel of D70. However, from pratical point of view I do not see any reasonable advantage over say Lumix fz20 or PS S60 that would justify over $500 price difference.

I guess my real question is, where do you start to see the difference between dSLR and all-in-one camera ... e.g. shooting sport, indoors, wild-life, ...

Thanks,
R

jeisner
01-05-2005, 01:28 PM
I sold my FZ20 to buy a Pentax *ist DS, but whether YOU need an FZ20 (which is a great non-SLR or a SLR is up to you and your priorities.....

These are some of the reasons I switched.....

1) Optical viewfinder (I hated the FZ20 EVF it really hindered the nice manal focus control for me)
2) Bulb mode
3) Much less noise at higher ISOs
4) Related to point 1 but the lack of gain up on the LCD in dark places was very annoying, even my old Kodak 6490 had this.
5) Well you might complain about lens costs but I like the choice afforded by DSLR and the wideangle and tele offered by Panasonic are EXTREMELY expensive for what they are....
6) DSLR has much better DOF control

John_Reed
01-05-2005, 02:30 PM
Hi,

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I did fair amount of research to understand different modes and features of different digital cameras. Since I consider myself "technical" I'd like to have full manual control over the camera. dSLR cameras are the first thing that comes to mind. However, is the price worth it?

Lumix FZ20 with excellent 36 - 432 mm/f2.8 lens, full manual control and movie mode costs about half of Canon's 300d, the cheapest dSLR.

I know I know, the noise level in dSLR cameras is much lower due to their large sensor and even at ISO1600 the pictures are nice compared to ISO400 in all-in-one cameras. Also, dSLR you can buy tons of different lenses ....

I tried both Canon 300d and Nikon D70. I really liked the look and feel of D70. However, from pratical point of view I do not see any reasonable advantage over say Lumix fz20 or PS S60 that would justify over $500 price difference.

I guess my real question is, where do you start to see the difference between dSLR and all-in-one camera ... e.g. shooting sport, indoors, wild-life, ...

Thanks,
RIf price isn't a factor, it's hard to argue that all-in-one cameras are better in any way than dSLRs, except for compactness. If you were to buy a dSLR with the same optical range as the FZ20, you'd have to have enough glass to cover the range from 36mm to 432mm, which would take at least two lenses, including one fairly large telephoto zoom lens. I don't think it matters too much in comparing the two approaches that the FZ20 has the constant f2.8 aperture, since with a dSLR you can most usually shoot at ISOs of 800-3200, which more than makes up for the difference. You do get the stabilized lens, but now the K-M Maxxum 7D offers that feature built into the camera body, and Canon and Nikon make IS lenses as well.

IMO, you'll be more likely to have the all-in-one with you when the shot opportunity arises than you will the dSLR outfit, simply because it's a lot more portable. I'd advise you to get the smaller, cheaper FZ20 package first, eventually get to the point where you're frustrated by its limitations (not your own), and at that point, you'll be ready to spring for the big one, and know a lot more about what you really need and don't need. If you're thinking that having the more sophisticated camera will magically make a professional photographer out of you, think again. The great images are taken by the great photographers, irrespective of equipment.

Rhys
01-05-2005, 03:39 PM
Hi,

I am about to buy my first digital camera. I did fair amount of research to understand different modes and features of different digital cameras. Since I consider myself "technical" I'd like to have full manual control over the camera. dSLR cameras are the first thing that comes to mind. However, is the price worth it?

Lumix FZ20 with excellent 36 - 432 mm/f2.8 lens, full manual control and movie mode costs about half of Canon's 300d, the cheapest dSLR.

I know I know, the noise level in dSLR cameras is much lower due to their large sensor and even at ISO1600 the pictures are nice compared to ISO400 in all-in-one cameras. Also, dSLR you can buy tons of different lenses ....

I tried both Canon 300d and Nikon D70. I really liked the look and feel of D70. However, from pratical point of view I do not see any reasonable advantage over say Lumix fz20 or PS S60 that would justify over $500 price difference.

I guess my real question is, where do you start to see the difference between dSLR and all-in-one camera ... e.g. shooting sport, indoors, wild-life, ...

Thanks,
R


Ok. DSLR v All-in-one

DSLR - pro
Can take different lenses
Has a bigger sensor
More bits available for it

DLSR - anti
None take standard AA/2CR5 batteries
If dust gets on the sensor it's on every frame
Bulk
Weight
Cost



All-in-one - pro
compact
a 38 - 380 zoom range on the 10x zooms will cover 90% of what you want to do
a 24 - 115 zoom range on the Nikon 8600 will cover the wide end
Usually take AA batteries or 2CR5
Add-on adaptors available
lightweight
no chance of dust on the sensor
a lot cheaper

all-in-one - anti
unsupported by the manufacturer after production ends (usually after 12 months)
DSLRs almost all use Compact Flash. all-in-ones can use any one of the memory types, dependent on the camera.
The smaller sensor employed on all-in-ones is often blamed for image quality problems (purple fringing) when the photographer has not closed the aperture sufficiently.

Generally, I'd say that the DSLR offers a very poor return on capital invested. Both sets of cameras depreciate along the glide ratio of a house brick.

My personal opinion is that a wide-zoom compact and a long-zoom compact will combine to produce quality that will rival that of any DSLR but at a fraction of the price. Each all-in-one costs about the same as a lens for a DSLR.

I went through the DSLR v all-in-one debate myself. I decided to go for the all-in-one. I looked at all that were available at the time. I decided that I'd restrain myself from buying more than 3 megapixels because 3 will produce an excellent A4 (8.5x11) print and that as an amateur photographer I was not really that interested in prints that were much bigger than that. Hence I ended up with a trio of 3 megapixel cameras, each of which performs better in specific circumstances - macro, shirt-pocket-portable and a long zoom semi-SLR. Now, it's possible to get more megapixels. 8 is commonplace at the moment and should produce a pleasing A3 (17 x 22) photo. If I were looking for A3 images then again, I'd follow the same route.

Remember a DSLR at home because it's too bulky to carry every day is a wasted photo opportunity,

D70FAN
01-05-2005, 04:39 PM
Ok. DSLR v All-in-one

DSLR - pro
Can take different lenses
Has a bigger sensor
More bits available for it

DLSR - anti
None take standard AA/2CR5 batteries
If dust gets on the sensor it's on every frame
Bulk
Weight
Cost



All-in-one - pro
compact
a 38 - 380 zoom range on the 10x zooms will cover 90% of what you want to do
a 24 - 115 zoom range on the Nikon 8600 will cover the wide end
Usually take AA batteries or 2CR5
Add-on adaptors available
lightweight
no chance of dust on the sensor
a lot cheaper

all-in-one - anti
unsupported by the manufacturer after production ends (usually after 12 months)
DSLRs almost all use Compact Flash. all-in-ones can use any one of the memory types, dependent on the camera.
The smaller sensor employed on all-in-ones is often blamed for image quality problems (purple fringing) when the photographer has not closed the aperture sufficiently.

Generally, I'd say that the DSLR offers a very poor return on capital invested. Both sets of cameras depreciate along the glide ratio of a house brick.

My personal opinion is that a wide-zoom compact and a long-zoom compact will combine to produce quality that will rival that of any DSLR but at a fraction of the price. Each all-in-one costs about the same as a lens for a DSLR.

I went through the DSLR v all-in-one debate myself. I decided to go for the all-in-one. I looked at all that were available at the time. I decided that I'd restrain myself from buying more than 3 megapixels because 3 will produce an excellent A4 (8.5x11) print and that as an amateur photographer I was not really that interested in prints that were much bigger than that. Hence I ended up with a trio of 3 megapixel cameras, each of which performs better in specific circumstances - macro, shirt-pocket-portable and a long zoom semi-SLR. Now, it's possible to get more megapixels. 8 is commonplace at the moment and should produce a pleasing A3 (17 x 22) photo. If I were looking for A3 images then again, I'd follow the same route.

Remember a DSLR at home because it's too bulky to carry every day is a wasted photo opportunity,

You all-in-one guys are so full of it. :rolleyes:

I've been down this road before (recently), so before I take the next exit...

...The Fuji S1, 2, & 3 Pro series use AA's. ;) The one negative in an otherwise fine dSLR. :(

D70FAN
01-05-2005, 05:02 PM
If price isn't a factor, it's hard to argue that all-in-one cameras are better in any way than dSLRs, except for compactness. If you were to buy a dSLR with the same optical range as the FZ20, you'd have to have enough glass to cover the range from 36mm to 432mm, which would take at least two lenses, including one fairly large telephoto zoom lens. I don't think it matters too much in comparing the two approaches that the FZ20 has the constant f2.8 aperture, since with a dSLR you can most usually shoot at ISOs of 800-3200, which more than makes up for the difference. You do get the stabilized lens, but now the K-M Maxxum 7D offers that feature built into the camera body, and Canon and Nikon make IS lenses as well.

IMO, you'll be more likely to have the all-in-one with you when the shot opportunity arises than you will the dSLR outfit, simply because it's a lot more portable. I'd advise you to get the smaller, cheaper FZ20 package first, eventually get to the point where you're frustrated by its limitations (not your own), and at that point, you'll be ready to spring for the big one, and know a lot more about what you really need and don't need. If you're thinking that having the more sophisticated camera will magically make a professional photographer out of you, think again. The great images are taken by the great photographers, irrespective of equipment.

One moderately inexpensive ($400) lens can approximate 36 to 432. The Tamron 28-300 (42mm-450mm on a 1.5X crop). I will concede that it is not Image Stabilized, or as fast, but with ISO 1600 to work with this may not be an issue (?). Sooner or later there will be an equivalent IS lens on the market. Wait! I can hear them working on it now :rolleyes:

I will concede (as I have many times incidentally) that the FZ20 is probably a better starter camera, and a heck of a lot cheaper as well. But as you said it does have some (serious?) limitations...

Just stop with the "it's smaller so you will be more likely to take it along" mantra already. This ain't no box camera (which incidentally Ansel did quite well with).

Even with the 70-300 (105-450), in the belt case, my dSLR is still very portable. It's not like I need a backpack, or roll-around case, for 2 lenses. And the Manfrotto monopod makes a great walking stick. :)

Anyway, I digress. For now... ;)

Rhys
01-05-2005, 07:14 PM
You all-in-one guys are so full of it. :rolleyes:

I've been down this road before (recently), so before I take the next exit...

...The Fuji S1, 2, & 3 Pro series use AA's. ;) The one negative in an otherwise fine dSLR. :(

There are now some rechargable twin AA cells...

Seems like a good idea to me...

D70FAN
01-05-2005, 07:17 PM
There are now some rechargable twin AA cells...

Seems like a good idea to me...

Hopefully they are oposite polarity, as the normal battery stack is in series to achieve 5-6V.

jeisner
01-05-2005, 11:40 PM
Ok. DSLR v All-in-one
DLSR - anti
None take standard AA/2CR5 batteries


Not true, my *ist DS does...

Rhys
01-06-2005, 10:09 AM
Not true, my *ist DS does...

Yes. You're right. The *ist and the Fuji S1, S2 etc take AA batteries.

Neither, in my opinion, is a mainstream manufacturer. Personally, I would call Nikon and Canon mainstream and the rest belong to a large group of off mainstream manufacturers such as Goodmans, Vivitar, Pentax etc.

jeisner
01-06-2005, 08:57 PM
I wouldn't put Pentax in the same category as vivitar, and who is Goodmans? I would group Pentax with Olympus and Konica Minolta maybe, they are not the largest two in this area (canon/nikon) but that doesn't mean they aren't mainstream brands, well known and distributed around the planet....

TheObiJuan
01-07-2005, 12:10 AM
I am in the same predicament. I was so sure about the D70, then I got to this forum and saw the love for the FZ20, for a long time I told myself I would take a step down by accepting the P&S, but not really.
The fz20 has excellent glass, and the d70 can use some great glass, but really $$. the noise in the fz20 isnt that much worse than the d70, and the quality is not too far off either. I will never go above 8x10, so 5 megapixel is great for me.
I will be getting the camera, any under 2k in June, for my B-Day, so I could wait to see the next succesor of the FZ20, perhaps better ISO sensitivity, more MP, or more DPI, faster AF, or faster Shutter.

In the end I will have a Lumix series, bc 1 GREAT lense is awesome for general picture taking, and a DSLR for excellent prepared shots, and my p150, for everything else.

So in the end, I would say don't make it a versus, but rather a combination. Both DSLR and P&S.

jeisner
01-07-2005, 02:39 AM
the noise in the fz20 isnt that much worse than the d70

Excuse me??? Thats almost laughable.....



P.S. Regarding more MP this is just numbers on paper if they don't increase the sensor size....

Rhys
01-07-2005, 06:33 AM
I wouldn't put Pentax in the same category as vivitar, and who is Goodmans? I would group Pentax with Olympus and Konica Minolta maybe, they are not the largest two in this area (canon/nikon) but that doesn't mean they aren't mainstream brands, well known and distributed around the planet....

Zenith is a name known all over the planet. They make clunky screw-mount cameras that haven't evolved since the 1970s. That doesn't mean that they're particularly mainstream.

If I'd ever had a good experience of Pentax rubbish then I'd class them with maybe better manufacturers but my experience (3 cameras all of which were defective plus defficient repairs) plus friends whose Pentaxes broke under guarantee and for whom Pentax did nothing tends to indicate to me that they cannot be classed any higher than some manufacturer of trash that falls out of cereal boxes or christmas crackers.

D70FAN
01-07-2005, 10:55 AM
I am in the same predicament. I was so sure about the D70, then I got to this forum and saw the love for the FZ20, for a long time I told myself I would take a step down by accepting the P&S, but not really.
The fz20 has excellent glass, and the d70 can use some great glass, but really $$. the noise in the fz20 isnt that much worse than the d70, and the quality is not too far off either. I will never go above 8x10, so 5 megapixel is great for me.
I will be getting the camera, any under 2k in June, for my B-Day, so I could wait to see the next succesor of the FZ20, perhaps better ISO sensitivity, more MP, or more DPI, faster AF, or faster Shutter.

In the end I will have a Lumix series, bc 1 GREAT lense is awesome for general picture taking, and a DSLR for excellent prepared shots, and my p150, for everything else.

So in the end, I would say don't make it a versus, but rather a combination. Both DSLR and P&S.

You have to be careful about blanket statements. In this case you should probably have qualified them a little.

"the noise in the fz20 isnt that much worse than the d70, and the quality is not too far off either"

I think you meant the noise at ISO 100 (200 on the D70) isn't that much worse. Right? Anything else doesn't hold water.

As far as build quality, you might be pushing the envelope a little there as well, and maybe should have used the Canon 300D as a closer example. That's not to say that either is bad, but the D70 is at least a little better in this regard.

As far as picture quality, at ISO200 (actually 100 on the FZ20 and 200 on the D70) you may be right. Plus there is always Noise Ninja to save the day.

TheObiJuan
01-07-2005, 12:46 PM
most def. at ISO200, not at any above that, the FZ20 is very noisy at those levels.
I would not get the fz for indoor shots, but outside.
that is where the D70 excells anyway.
I have toyed with the D70 quite a bit, since a friend has one with the 18-70 lense. I took it to CC to do a physical comparison and have looked at pics of both, and I still feel the fz is the better buy for the money.

Now the P150 to fill the compact category, the FZ20 for most pics, and the D2X to grow into :)
I believe that when it comes out, it will not become out dated any time soon.

jeisner
01-07-2005, 01:14 PM
Zenith is a name known all over the planet. They make clunky screw-mount cameras that haven't evolved since the 1970s. That doesn't mean that they're particularly mainstream.

If I'd ever had a good experience of Pentax rubbish then I'd class them with maybe better manufacturers but my experience (3 cameras all of which were defective plus defficient repairs) plus friends whose Pentaxes broke under guarantee and for whom Pentax did nothing tends to indicate to me that they cannot be classed any higher than some manufacturer of trash that falls out of cereal boxes or christmas crackers.

Sorry for your experiences, I have had a few pentaxs over time and had no problems, even have one here that is around 20 years old and still working fine.

Rhys
01-07-2005, 04:55 PM
Sorry for your experiences, I have had a few pentaxs over time and had no problems, even have one here that is around 20 years old and still working fine.

I gather the K1000 and Spotmatics were excellent. I gather the MX is excellent too. It's when they started with the Super A and Program A that they went downhill - and they've not yet recovered from what I hear.

Pentax lenses used to be cheap and quite good. I can't vouch for their quality though. I did notice a definite lack of build quality in the KAF lenses and their KAF bodies in general.

That's when I went over to my Nikon FMs. Nikon's lens-compatibility lets me down if I want to start using DSLRs so I might just sell my MF Nikons and go for an EOS based system.

radek_42
01-13-2005, 05:35 PM
Hi again.

Thanks for all the comments. I've got another comment/thought:
It is clear, that it is easy to make telephoto lenses for compact cmeras due to their cropping factor (up to 5x). At the same time, the actual focal length of the lens is quite small (compare to 35mm camera); typicaly 5-20mm (this is for S60). I just realized that the short focal length limits the f-number to about f/8 (apperture at that point is only 0.5mm at wide end). I really wonder if that is good or bad. Well, you can use relatively wide appertures which allows you to use fast shutter speeds..... at the same time, you don't really loose DOF, because your focal length is so damn short. So the only problem you might have is long exposure times during bight sunny day.... (can't close apperture).

You read over and over that SLR creates much better perspective (deep DOF) and are supperior to all-in-ones.... can anyone explain that to me?

Cheers,
R.

D70FAN
01-13-2005, 06:23 PM
Hi again.

Thanks for all the comments. I've got another comment/thought:
It is clear, that it is easy to make telephoto lenses for compact cmeras due to their cropping factor (up to 5x). At the same time, the actual focal length of the lens is quite small (compare to 35mm camera); typicaly 5-20mm (this is for S60). I just realized that the short focal length limits the f-number to about f/8 (apperture at that point is only 0.5mm at wide end). I really wonder if that is good or bad. Well, you can use relatively wide appertures which allows you to use fast shutter speeds..... at the same time, you don't really loose DOF, because your focal length is so damn short. So the only problem you might have is long exposure times during bight sunny day.... (can't close apperture).

You read over and over that SLR creates much better perspective (deep DOF) and are supperior to all-in-ones.... can anyone explain that to me?

Cheers,
R.

I think it's the other way around. It's that on a dSLR you can actually use DOF as a tool. With most all-in-ones you get very good depth of field weather you want it or not.

Anyway that is only a very minor point when talking about the difference between DSLR's and all-in-ones.

Probably the biggest problem is that you need to spend some quality time with a dSLR, but once you do, it becomes very difficult to tollerate all the shortcommings of shooting with an all-in-one. It's very gradual, but it happens.

It is now to the point where I don't even want to shoot with anything else. I was on the verge of buying an FZ3, just for the wonderful zoom, but just could not handle the user interface. Put my money back in my pocket and walked out the door.

I used to love to go try out the latest all-in-one at the camera stores, but now...the thrill is gone. How does Jeff do it?

Let that be a lesson to you. Don't buy a dSLR! It's the devils work I tell ya. :eek:

Momma don't let your babbies grow up to use dSLR's... Hmm. Catchy lyrics. ;)

eagle17
01-14-2005, 10:32 AM
What george said about the time it take to learn how to use a DSLR is the ticket.

after all if you use a dslr as a point and shoot in full auto mode every time then yes you will not see a huge difference in your shots.

however if you learn how to get the right light and how to frame the subject you will start to end up with photos that you will really want to frame and maybe even blow up and hang on your wall.

for me there is also the hunt... I love to go out and look for the right shot... it is really fun, along with doing my own family protraits, childrens portraits, pet pics, etc.

for me trying to take pictures with a all in one is now a bother becase they do not have the tools built in to set the manual settings right.. this is why I will never go back.

Samuel Lo
01-23-2005, 09:50 PM
Yes. You're right. The *ist and the Fuji S1, S2 etc take AA batteries.

Neither, in my opinion, is a mainstream manufacturer. Personally, I would call Nikon and Canon mainstream and the rest belong to a large group of off mainstream manufacturers such as Goodmans, Vivitar, Pentax etc.


Sorry, my Nikon D100 can accept six AA batteries, along with its own LIon battery.

Samuel

jeisner
01-23-2005, 11:55 PM
Ahh doesn't count, nikon isn't mainstream (I had bad experiences with them) :P

(only J/k)

easyj
01-24-2005, 09:43 AM
I look at it this way, SLRs are awesome, but I spent $300 four years ago on a 1MP digicam and $300 two years ago on a 2MP digicam. Now I could get a camera that would blow either one away for around $300 (or $150 for that matter). I would hate to spend $1000 and have the thing be obsolete in two or three years, but that is most likely what will happen. Unfortunately, the longer you wait to buy a camera the better pictures you will get. At this time, you need to pick a price point that you are comfortable with and expect the camera to last 2-3 years and then be ready buy another one. For most casual users, the price of a DSLR is difficult to justify for something that has such a short life.

Also, in defense of smaller point-and-shoots, how many pictures will you miss because you didn't bring your DSLR equipment along? Some of my best shots are ones that I took simply because I had the camera with me. I would always want a small camera, even if I had a DSLR.

Jason25
01-24-2005, 10:19 AM
Well, from what I've seen, many people who have a dSLR also have a P&S, so it seems like almost a moot point from that end of the table. Those who don't plan their shots don't have as much of a need for a dSLR I would think. :confused:

easyj
01-24-2005, 10:26 AM
Jason,

I think you hit it right on the head. If you are just capturing moments, as opposed to planning your shots, a DSLR is probably overkill. I also agree that most DSLR owners also have a point-and-shoot, which proves that a DSLR is not a replacement to a point-and-shoot.

Rhys
01-24-2005, 10:33 AM
Well, from what I've seen, many people who have a dSLR also have a P&S, so it seems like almost a moot point from that end of the table. Those who don't plan their shots don't have as much of a need for a dSLR I would think. :confused:

If they put extra features on zoom compacts and on dSLRs then I imagine their popularity would rise.

With a DSLR, a video mode is needed as well as AA battery capability. I do not care one iota for those stupid manufacturer-only batteries. I have a stupid little ENEL1 on my Nikon 995. When I want to use it, I either have to wait 5 hours for the battery to charge - by which time the light has well and truly gone - or use a 2CR5 battery. Thus, I tend to use 2CR5s.

With a camera that takes AA batteries, I can nip into a shop and pick up a packet of alkalines. I've done this before now and been very pleased with the results.

It's just like those mobile phones - once the charge is gone, they're impossible to use!

To me, a camera is something that can be used - not just an expensive piece of object d'art until the batteries are recharged.

Sure... one could buy another rechargable battery but I fail to see why when the cameras are just not built to last very long or will quickly be superceeded by a newer camera that takes yet another expensive ( and different) funky battery from the same manufacturer.

As far as I'm concerned, any camera that is incompatible with AA batteries is just a cheap gimmick that the manufacturers are going to withdraw battery support from just as the first batteries begin to die.

Jason25
01-24-2005, 10:39 AM
If they put extra features on zoom compacts and on dSLRs then I imagine their popularity would rise.

With a DSLR, a video mode is needed as well as AA battery capability. I do not care one iota for those stupid manufacturer-only batteries. I have a stupid little ENEL1 on my Nikon 995. When I want to use it, I either have to wait 5 hours for the battery to charge - by which time the light has well and truly gone - or use a 2CR5 battery. Thus, I tend to use 2CR5s.

With a camera that takes AA batteries, I can nip into a shop and pick up a packet of alkalines. I've done this before now and been very pleased with the results.

It's just like those mobile phones - once the charge is gone, they're impossible to use!

To me, a camera is something that can be used - not just an expensive piece of object d'art until the batteries are recharged.

Sure... one could buy another rechargable battery but I fail to see why when the cameras are just not built to last very long or will quickly be superceeded by a newer camera that takes yet another expensive ( and different) funky battery from the same manufacturer.

As far as I'm concerned, any camera that is incompatible with AA batteries is just a cheap gimmick that the manufacturers are going to withdraw battery support from just as the first batteries begin to die.
The only reason I can see using propietary batteries is if the whole brand uses the same batteries, but I definitely agree with the benefits of having standard AA support and the like. I can't agree with the video mode on any still camera though. It just seems like a useless gimmick to me honestly. I bought a MiniDV camcorder for that :D I'd rather pay less for the camera and not have it!

eagle17
01-24-2005, 10:44 AM
Are there any current model sony or canon all n ones that use AA batteries?

My 20D can use 6AA batteries just fine.

This is a pretty silly thread. There is a reason the pros use Dslrs and it is not because they just feel snobby.

it should come down to what you want to do, and how much money you want to spend. (in my opinion.)

Jason25
01-24-2005, 10:48 AM
Are there any current model sony or canon all n ones that use AA batteries?

My 20D can use 6AA batteries just fine.

This is a pretty silly thread. There is a reason the pros use Dslrs and it is not because they just feel snobby.

it should come down to what you want to do, and how much money you want to spend. (in my opinion.)
The Canon S1-IS uses 4 of them I believe (one of the cameras I'm considering). And yes, it is a silly argument :cool:

Rhys
01-24-2005, 12:03 PM
The Canon S1-IS uses 4 of them I believe (one of the cameras I'm considering). And yes, it is a silly argument :cool:

I have the S1 IS. It's a fantastic camera but needs:
1. A lens hood
2. A filter thread (for polarising filters)
3. Better low-light focussing.

It does indeed take 4x AA batteries.

Personally, I'd like to see a lower-priced dSLR with AA batteries and anti-shake built into the camera rather than into the lens.

Jason25
01-24-2005, 12:07 PM
I have the S1 IS. It's a fantastic camera but needs:
1. A lens hood
2. A filter thread (for polarising filters)
3. Better low-light focussing.

It does indeed take 4x AA batteries.

Personally, I'd like to see a lower-priced dSLR with AA batteries and anti-shake built into the camera rather than into the lens.
For under $300 at some places it doesn't seem like a bad deal at all. I'm really leaning towards the Lumix FZ20 though.

Rhys
01-24-2005, 12:16 PM
For under $300 at some places it doesn't seem like a bad deal at all. I'm really leaning towards the Lumix FZ20 though.

I compared the two. What won me over to the Canon over the Panasonic was:

1. I already had stacks of Compact Flash memory and a card reader wheras the Panasonic takes SD memory and has a manufacturer's funky special as a battery.
2. The S1 took AA batteries and has an excellent video mode. I don't believe the Panasonic takes AA or has more than a poor video mode.
3. The S1 was lighter and more compact although the zoom range is greater on the Panasonic.

jeisner
01-24-2005, 02:08 PM
I can't agree with the video mode on any still camera though. It just seems like a useless gimmick to me honestly.

Couldn't agree more, if you want 'video mode' buy a video camera, its like cameras in phones to me, a stupid gimmik, but I guess some people want it? I doubt a redisign of the way dSLRs work in order to incorporate this 'gimmick' would be cost effective, as I would wager most DSLR would not base their purchase on this feature!

Rhys
01-24-2005, 02:40 PM
Couldn't agree more, if you want 'video mode' buy a video camera, its like cameras in phones to me, a stupid gimmik, but I guess some people want it? I doubt a redisign of the way dSLRs work in order to incorporate this 'gimmick' would be cost effective, as I would wager most DSLR would not base their purchase on this feature!

Ok. Let's take the ranting out. cameras in phones are an unneccessary extra feature as the primary use of a phone is to make phonecalls. the built-in address book is an unneccessary extra feature too as we all have address books.

Adding video to a DSLR is NOT a redesign. It's just porting a single software library accross. It's a case of reading the image, shrinking to VGA and saving as a stream of compressed VGA images in an AVI or MOV file. It's just the same as taking a long series of photos and storing them in a single file. Such libraries already exist and are used by all the all-in-ones.

Personally, I would love to have this feature on a DSLR. Moving images can convey more than still images on occasion.

jeisner
01-24-2005, 05:37 PM
Ok. Let's take the ranting out. cameras in phones are an unneccessary extra feature as the primary use of a phone is to make phonecalls. the built-in address book is an unneccessary extra feature too as we all have address books.

And the primary use of my DSLR is to take photos ;) myself I never used the function on my digicams, I'm just not a video person, I guess!


Adding video to a DSLR is NOT a redesign. It's just porting a single software library accross.

It is if you want to use the optical viewfinder whilst recording the image, an advantage no EVR (P&S) has been able to replace yet, it is a major change in design, if at all possible at this point!


Personally, I would love to have this feature on a DSLR. Moving images can convey more than still images on occasion.

I am not denying they can, all I am saying is for video buy a tool built for that task!

Rhys
01-24-2005, 07:06 PM
It is if you want to use the optical viewfinder whilst recording the image, an advantage no EVR (P&S) has been able to replace yet, it is a major change in design, if at all possible at this point!

No but the LCD on the back can be used as such. That's not major redesign. IMHO, the optical viewfinder is a flaw that should be ironed out of DSLRs


I am not denying they can, all I am saying is for video buy a tool built for that task!

I'm thinking of the jobbing photojournalist who happens to be out in the field. He can sell his still photos to the papers and his video to the TV networks. That would be perfection so why the DSLR makers don't cotton onto that idea, heaven alone knows. And they lumber DSLR users with funky batteries. If the photojournalist is in a war zone, ordinary AA alkalines might be the only available power source. It might not be safe to stay in one place long enough to find a power supply and charge his funky batteries.

Plus, for ordinary domestic users, it's darned annoying having to remember to charge the camera before use. Remember, many people have cameras and bring them out only rarely. To them, funky manufacturer's special batteries are an annoyance they can well do without. I find they're an annoyance that I can do without. I find I use my AA based cameras far more than my ENEL1 based camera - why? Because when I feel like taking photos, I know I have readily available AAs. I charge AAs and use them for many things. I have to plan a day in advance with my Nikon 995 because of that stupid battery it takes - unless I use 2CR5s (which I tend to - purely because of this millstone that Nikon's lumbered the camera with).

Again, for ordinary users as well, built-in video is a great idea. Two tools in one. Why lug a camcorder and a camera?

jeisner
01-24-2005, 08:00 PM
IMHO, the optical viewfinder is a flaw that should be ironed out of DSLRs

Ahhhh???? OK well I think we will have to agree to disagree! My opinion couldn't be any more the opposite to yours in that respect.....

You don't want an DSLR you want a digicam with interchangeable lenses, if there was a market I am sure someone would actually make them!

Regarding AAs yes I agree with you on that and I am happy with my DSLR with AAs thanks!

Samuel Lo
01-24-2005, 08:12 PM
I look at it this way, SLRs are awesome, but I spent $300 four years ago on a 1MP digicam and $300 two years ago on a 2MP digicam. Now I could get a camera that would blow either one away for around $300 (or $150 for that matter). I would hate to spend $1000 and have the thing be obsolete in two or three years, but that is most likely what will happen. Unfortunately, the longer you wait to buy a camera the better pictures you will get. At this time, you need to pick a price point that you are comfortable with and expect the camera to last 2-3 years and then be ready buy another one. For most casual users, the price of a DSLR is difficult to justify for something that has such a short life.

Also, in defense of smaller point-and-shoots, how many pictures will you miss because you didn't bring your DSLR equipment along? Some of my best shots are ones that I took simply because I had the camera with me. I would always want a small camera, even if I had a DSLR.


AGREE! Digital cam is just like computer: it will be replaced within 3-5 years, no matter it's in good condition or not. The conclusion is DON'T buy expensive one and don't get too many DC at one time, or it will be fade out together.

Samuel

Ant
01-25-2005, 03:22 AM
OK. This is a bit of a long rant here but I'm dumbfounded as to why anybody would prefer AA batteries....and I used to be in favour of them myself until I got my D70 with it's fabulous Li-On battery. Now I wouldn't even consider AA batteries in a Digital camera.

The only thing they've got going for them is that they're plentifull and widely available, which they need to be considering that they don't last very long and have got to be constantly replaced....which works out to be more expensive and more hassle in the long run.


And they lumber DSLR users with funky batteries. If the photojournalist is in a war zone, ordinary AA alkalines might be the only available power source. It might not be safe to stay in one place long enough to find a power supply and charge his funky batteries

This makes little sense to me. The journalist has the option of carrying either specialist batteries for his camera or AA batteries. The specialist batteries last longer and are lighter for an equivalent charge, or are you saying that the journalist can just pop into the local war zone corner shop and buy AAs when his run out??? He's got just as much chance of finding a power supply to top up his Li-On battery when he needs as of finding AA batteries. Also I've read a lot of stuff from photojournalists and as far as I'm aware they aren't crying out for AA batteries.


Plus, for ordinary domestic users, it's darned annoying having to remember to charge the camera before use. Remember, many people have cameras and bring them out only rarely.

I would think that the cameras brought out rarely are the snapshot Point and shoots, and for those I can almost see why AAs may make sense, but for DSLR users they tend to use their cameras quite often and I can't see any advantge in AA batteries at all.


Because when I feel like taking photos, I know I have readily available AAs. I charge AAs and use them for many things. I have to plan a day in advance with my Nikon 995 because of that stupid battery it takes

I don't know about the battery that that camera takes but it's quite an old model. specialised Li-On batteries have come a long way since then. I can take my D70 out and shoot all day with it...over 600 pics...and the battery still registers as full. When I get home I can then either just put my camera away and the battery will still be full in a week's time, or I can just casually stick it on charge as soon as I get home and then put it away. It'll still be fully charged if I decide to use it a week or so later, probably even a few months later. I have had my D70 for nearly six months and I still haven't seen the battery indicator at less than 100% and I certainly don't need to plan in advance when I have to use it. When I compare that to messing about with AAs on my Oly 750 there's no doubt which is preferable.

Also Li-On rechargeable batteries are much better than Ni-cad or Ni-Mh: They're more powerful, hold a charge better, last longer and can happily be charged when only partially depleted; which means I can charge one whenever I like. Unlike the others, which need to be totally run down, and at the moment you can't get AA Li-On batteries.

I've got my two cameras sitting side by side in the cupboard. My AA powered C750 and my Li-On powered D70. If I decide to go shooting tomorrow I know that I can just take my D70 and get a day's shooting out of it, no doubt about it, or if I want to be 200% sure then I can just put the battery on charge now to top it up.

My Oly on the other hand is different. I've got two sets of rechargeable AAs with it, they've been sitting there a while and both register a useable charge and so I can't charge them up because they've got to be depleted first...I've got no idea how many shots I'll get out of them. So, I can either take pot luck and hope there's enough juice for a day's shooting...very unlikely. I can go through a whole palaver of trying desperately to run them down, only to then have to charge them back up again, or I can go to the corner shop and buy some more AAs, which costs me money!! no thanks.

I remember one airshow I was at last year. I only had my Olympus and ended up spending around 25 on AA batteries...not to mention the hassle of constantly having to change them, usually at the precise moment that I wanted to take that fleeting shot.

No thanks. AA batteries are great for the TV remote control or my alarm clock but I'll never buy another camera with AA batteries in my life.

jeisner
01-25-2005, 03:43 AM
I had a FZ-20 before my current Pentax ist DS DSLR. The FZ20 li-ion batteries in Australia cost $99. Hey why not charge a fortune if you are stuck with their proprietory batteries?

My *ist DS uses 4xAA batteries so I use NiMH 2500mAh batteries which cost me round $15 per set (I bought two) and I am still on the first set (800 photos so far). I like AA support as on holiday I dont have to take my charger with me, a set of AA Alkaline batteries, which I can buy cheaply anywhere should give me around 600 photos.

P.S. Regarding flattening them, the Sony refresh charger will actually flatten the batteries before it charges them, so if your going on a long trip and think your batteries won't make it you can use the refresh charger :)


and at the moment you can't get AA Li-On batteries.
You can get li-ion CRV3 rechargables, two of these work in the ist DS in place of 4 AAs.

Ant
01-25-2005, 04:08 AM
I had a FZ-20 before my current Pentax ist DS DSLR. The FZ20 li-ion batteries in Australia cost $99. Hey why not charge a fortune if you are stuck with their proprietory batteries?

Yes, the downside to Li-On is that they can be expensive. However, I've found that the one included with my D70 is all I need so I've never had to buy one. Also the equivalent batteries from third party manufacturers are usually a lot cheaper and just as good if you do need an extra.


My *ist DS uses 4xAA batteries so I use NiMH 2500mAh batteries which cost me round $15 per set (I bought two) and I am still on the first set (800 photos so far)

Really? 800 photos!!! Wow, I'm impressed. Looks like that camera has really been designed well for AAs.


P.S. Regarding flattening them, the Sony refresh charger will actually flatten the batteries before it charges them, so if your going on a long trip and think your batteries won't make it you can use the refresh charger

I'd never heard of that. That's a great idea. I may have to look into getting one.


You can get li-ion CRV3 rechargables, two of these work in the ist DS in place of 4 AAs

Yes, the D70 has an adapter that takes these in case of an emergency....but they aren't AAs ;)

I must admit that if Pentax can get 800 shots out of four AA batteries then I think they may be more usefull than I thought. I'd still prefer my D70 battery though.

jeisner
01-25-2005, 04:45 AM
Really? 800 photos!!! Wow, I'm impressed. Looks like that camera has really been designed well for AAs.


My individual shooting habits make a difference too, for example I have auto-preview turned off so the back LCD is only used for menu, or when I think I may need to just check something on that last photo. In a digicam though when the LCD/EVF is on a lot, I think the Li-Ions are needed, on DSLR it is more personal preference I think!

Ant
01-25-2005, 05:03 AM
My individual shooting habits make a difference too, for example I have auto-preview turned off so the back LCD is only used for menu, or when I think I may need to just check something on that last photo. In a digicam though when the LCD/EVF is on a lot, I think the Li-Ions are needed, on DSLR it is more personal preference I think!

Ah, of course..Being an SLR your camera has TTL viewfinding, which doesn't use battery power. The EVF in my Oly must consume a fair bit of power being on all the time. Though, it must take power to lift the mirror for every shot. I still think Pentax have done a heck of a job getting that many shots out of one set of AAs.

erichlund
01-25-2005, 09:37 AM
OK. This is a bit of a long rant here but I'm dumbfounded as to why anybody would prefer AA batteries....and I used to be in favour of them myself until I got my D70 with it's fabulous Li-On battery. Now I wouldn't even consider AA batteries in a Digital camera.

I agree that the D70 battery is great. I have two. One stays in the camera. I charge the other and put it in the bag. When I go to post process, I also swap batteries and charge the one from the camera. I've never had to charge both and have no idea how long the battery would really last. However, while the LI-ON is a better battery than NIMH, NIMH can still last a long time in a DLSR because the DLSR doesn't have the power consumption of all-in-ones. I'll come back to this.

The only thing they've got going for them is that they're plentifull and widely available, which they need to be considering that they don't last very long and have got to be constantly replaced....which works out to be more expensive and more hassle in the long run.



This makes little sense to me. The journalist has the option of carrying either specialist batteries for his camera or AA batteries. The specialist batteries last longer and are lighter for an equivalent charge, or are you saying that the journalist can just pop into the local war zone corner shop and buy AAs when his run out??? He's got just as much chance of finding a power supply to top up his Li-On battery when he needs as of finding AA batteries. Also I've read a lot of stuff from photojournalists and as far as I'm aware they aren't crying out for AA batteries.

Finding power? Every vehicle has power. Carry a charger that can tap that power, or a charger and converter that converts the power to charger power. Even infantry have vehicles. Independant journalists would need vehicles of their own I suppose.

--snip--

Rhys doesn't seem to understand that nobody else wants a DSLR that consumes just as much power as the all-in-ones. He wants a movie mode, which means you can't really have true SLR. With Movie mode, you would have to have EVF, but that means the camera eats power. The battery life would be the same as on the all-in-ones, and would significantly reduce the advantage of type. Like you, I've never seen my D70 show other than full power. I have no idea how long this battery would really last. If I were a photojournalist, I would invest in a half dozen batteries and a dozen or so memory cards. Basically, I would be looking to stay in the field for a week. With a laptop and a wideband satellite link, I could be assured of the opportunity to be where the action is. Heck, if I felt the need to stay in the field longer than that, I'd trash the digital (well, maybe that's a bit extreme), get a manual film camera (no batteries at all) and LOTS of film. There's something to be said for the old fashioned way.

No thanks. AA batteries are great for the TV remote control or my alarm clock but I'll never buy another camera with AA batteries in my life.

Of course, I haven't completely gotten away from AAs. Still need them for my flashes. Do the SB800 and SB600 use proprietary or do they use AA?

Cheers, Eric

Rhys
01-25-2005, 10:56 AM
Finding power? Every vehicle has power. Carry a charger that can tap that power, or a charger and converter that converts the power to charger power. Even infantry have vehicles. Independant journalists would need vehicles of their own I suppose.

--snip--

Rhys doesn't seem to understand that nobody else wants a DSLR that consumes just as much power as the all-in-ones. He wants a movie mode, which means you can't really have true SLR. With Movie mode, you would have to have EVF, but that means the camera eats power. The battery life would be the same as on the all-in-ones, and would significantly reduce the advantage of type. Like you, I've never seen my D70 show other than full power. I have no idea how long this battery would really last. If I were a photojournalist, I would invest in a half dozen batteries and a dozen or so memory cards. Basically, I would be looking to stay in the field for a week. With a laptop and a wideband satellite link, I could be assured of the opportunity to be where the action is. Heck, if I felt the need to stay in the field longer than that, I'd trash the digital (well, maybe that's a bit extreme), get a manual film camera (no batteries at all) and LOTS of film. There's something to be said for the old fashioned way.
Cheers, Eric

In a warzone such as Yugoslavia or Afghanistan and the forthcoming warzones of Syria and Iran then possibly Egypt and Saudi Arabia, there will indded be vehicles but the voltages will vary tremendously. For example, many tanks do not have 12v batteries and 12v cigarette lighter sockets - I know of no tanks with lighter sockets - but have 16 or even 24v batteries. Imagine trying to start a 20 liter engine with a puny 12v starter motor!

I suspect I'm not the only person to want AA batteries in a DSLR as Pentax proves as do jeisner's comments.

My personal experience of funky manufacturer-only batteries has always been very poor. When the batteries die (as they always do) it's either impossible to replace them or they cost too much. Either that or the charger breaks and is expensive or impossible to replace/repair.

Funky manufacturer's special batteries - no way! If the manufacturer's want me to buy something with some funky special battery, they can take a hike!

jeisner
01-25-2005, 02:49 PM
Ant below is a link to sony refresh batteries, I'm sure you can get the charger cheaper than this too.....

http://www.peats.ie/cgi-bin/shop/db.cgi?view=1&id=7903&type=6&path=13x13_2

Ant
01-25-2005, 03:24 PM
Thanks Jeisner.


and the forthcoming warzones of Syria and Iran then possibly Egypt and Saudi Arabia

:eek: Er, is there some inside info that you know that the rest of us don't Rhys? ;)