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
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
Location: Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
Posts: 7,199
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!
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:
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.
__________________
Once you go dSLR you'll never go back
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.
Quote:
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.
Location: Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
Posts: 7,199
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ant
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.
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.
Location: Formerly South Wales. Now South Carolina.
Posts: 7,199
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'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.
__________________
Once you go dSLR you'll never go back
D-SLR vs Digital-Compact Camera
If you want to capture fast action or long exposures then the S1 won't compete with an SLR
Linear Mode
