why do we need digital SLR?

Discussion in 'Digital SLR' started by Summercoolness, Jun 16, 2006.

  1. Since traditional SLR (single len reflective) camera uses a mirror to
    reflect the light, what you view in the viewfinder is what you get on
    the film. So it is "WYSIWYG" (what you see is what you get).

    However, with the digital cameras, you constantly see the image on the
    LCD. So why do you need SLR digital camera?

    In fact... with the digital SLR, you need to stay close to the
    viewfinder to view the picture, while the non-SLR digital camera can
    let you view from a couple feet away.
     
    Summercoolness, Jun 16, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Summercoolness

    C J Southern Guest

    Nice Try.
     
    C J Southern, Jun 16, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Summercoolness

    Pete D Guest

    OMG, you are right, off to Cash Converters we go!!

    Have you noticed that the D-SLR's take slightly better quality photos than
    your crappy P&S?
     
    Pete D, Jun 16, 2006
    #3
  4. Summercoolness

    Rudy Benner Guest

    Can you suggest a way that I can use multiple lens with your non-slr
    digital?
     
    Rudy Benner, Jun 16, 2006
    #4
  5. Summercoolness

    J. Clarke Guest

    DAGS.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 16, 2006
    #5
  6. In contrast to what others say it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR
    camera with exchangeable lenses and it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR
    camera with a high quality sensor. In fact there is a DLSR camera that
    _additionally_ allows previewing the shot on the LCD screen. If you
    close the view finder by a tape you get what you suggest :).

    But IMHO it's a _great_ plus to have an optical view finder: no delay,
    resolution not limited by the LCD, much better look and feel. With my
    glasses I'm absolutely unable to use the "electronic view finder" of my
    father in law's Panasonic.

    -Michael
     
    Michael Schnell, Jun 16, 2006
    #6
  7. Summercoolness

    Jan Böhme Guest

    Well, he just might have a Sony DSC-R1...

    There isn't anything inherent in the SLR construction that makes it
    take superior pictures in and by itself. With a first-class optics, and
    a sensor the size of a dSLR, there is no reason that a "P&S" would have
    lower image quality than a dSLR. The same, of course, applies for
    Epson's digital rangefinder - if anyone has seen a trace of it.

    Sony might, for instance, now that they have swallowed K&M, make a body
    based on the DCR-R1 with an alpha mount, such that you can use the
    standard MInolta lens lineup with it. I feel that this is a much more
    clever way to get live preview in the

    What _is_ an inherent drawback in a large-sensor live preview
    construction is that consumes a lot more electricity than a
    corresponding dSLR. And the shutters used aren't as fast as dSLR
    shutters are, particularly not for wide apertures, which means that
    shallow DOF in strong light is more difficult to achieve without ND
    filters and such.

    What can live preview be good for? One obvious thing is to increase the
    possible shooting angles. However, this may also be arranged with a
    device of the Zigview type - preeferably one better than the currently
    existing one.. Another thing is that it in theory actually can be used
    to ascertain focus _more_ accurately. I know that it is right now much
    more difficult to ascertain focus on a standard LCD or EVF than on a
    DSLR screen, but the possibility to select an enlargement of a section
    of the image actually opens up the possibility for a more accurate
    focussing than is possible just by eyeballing a non-enlargable image on
    a viewing screen, if you can enlarge enough.

    A third thing that is good with a mirrorless camera is that it is a
    good deal more discreet soundwise. (This is, of course, an advantage
    that a "P&S" shares with a traditional rangefinder.) Good at theater or
    recital performances, and good for some kind of candid photos - be it
    of people or of wildlife.

    So there are pros and cons with both DSLR:s and live preview cameras.
    But there is nothing that in and by itself says that a camera using
    live preview would take pictures with worse image quality than a DSLR.

    Jan Böhme
     
    Jan Böhme, Jun 16, 2006
    #7
  8. Summercoolness

    Jan Böhme Guest

    Aren't teleconverters and WA converters multiple lenses? ;-)

    Jan Böhme
     
    Jan Böhme, Jun 16, 2006
    #8
  9. Summercoolness

    Scott W Guest

    All sorts of non-slr cameras allow for multiple lenses. Video cameras
    have a standard lens mount and take a wide range of lenses, but are not
    SLRs. In fact I don't see any reason why a non slr could not have a
    lens mount with muliple lenses.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jun 16, 2006
    #9
  10. Summercoolness

    Mike Guest

    The point and Shoot market , generally , consists of comsumers with a
    certain amount of free cash to blow. All major commodity producers know
    this and build products accordingly. In the photographic markets 20
    years ago it was all 35 mm split between 2 groups P&S and SLR's
    typically then as today the SLR crowd spent more bucks on "their
    Hobby". Also the higher up the quality ladder you go the more
    consumers are likely to spend But the smaller the number of
    interested consumers there are and thus the smaller the market for your
    product. [IE Medium and Large frame ]
    The Big photographic companies know who is likely to spend money and
    what they are likely to spend it on and build accordingly. They are not
    likely to build 2 systems to compete with each other. and if they did
    not enough people will buy 1 of them to continue to produce it. The
    lower end DSLR's are being released to entice the P&S shooters who
    aren't quite satisfied with their toys to try something different and
    it seems to be working. The enthusiasm of recently converted P&S
    shooters , the new found excitement with photography, should be obvious
    to anybody who reads what is being said on Groups for the D50 and Canon
    Rebel. Judging by the difficulty of getting certain Nikon Products
    worldwide in the past several months the enthusiasm caught the
    marketing guys by surprise. If you are happy with a point and shoot
    that's fine for shots inside 25 feet or so Great! enjoy it!
    It is less than satisfactory to me when i want to get a shot at a deer
    400 yards across a field ; a Duck going airborne at 25 feet; then a
    bee in a flower 15 inches away; and finally a landscape of the sun
    dipping behind a mountain. all with 1 camera within minutes of each
    other.

    Point and shoots are built for people who want photography kept simple
    DSLR's are built for people who want more [ more options,more control,
    more artistic expression]
    and then there are those who want both
    with the best of Quality
    for under $100.
    look at what is available and make a decision

    Quit whining about what isn't there and not likely to be.
     
    Mike, Jun 16, 2006
    #10
  11. Summercoolness

    ttdaomd Guest

    Without an engineering background, I would have to agree with you.
    Make a bigger battery pack for the increased power drain of the LCD! I
    prefer using both my eyes to compose a picture. In fact, before I got
    my D200, I asked the salesman if you could lock the mirror and use the
    thing like a point and shoot! Wouldn`t that be a great option? Use
    the traditional viewfinder or the LCD as you like! IMHO, having to use
    one eye to visualize your subject was always a compromise solution in
    the early days of 35mm photography. My old Nikon F had a removable
    prism and you could place a waist-level viewfinder with magnifier à la
    medium format if you wanted. Granted, I rarely used it because the
    image was so dark. With digital, this is not nearly as big a problem
    even in bright sunlight. I think the point and shoot has an advantage
    of SLR`s in this respect, but it is a question of habit and preference,
    IMHO.

    Tien
     
    ttdaomd, Jun 16, 2006
    #11
  12. Summercoolness

    J. Clarke Guest

    ???? The type of shutter used in any DSLR should work fine in a "point and
    shoot"--all it has to do is completely expose the sensor and any focal
    plane shutter can do that.
    That has its disadvantages as well--getting the magnified area where you
    want it. You might want to spend some time playing with a Panasonic FZ,
    which has such a feature (at least the 7 and 30 do, the 5 and 20 I'm too
    lazy to look up). It doesn't work all that well to begin with and getting
    it onto the spot where you want sharpest focus sometimes means moving the
    camera after focusing.
    Personally I'd like to see a DSLR with an LCD that moves into the finder
    when the mirror flips up and a mirror lockup mode--that would give you both
    worlds.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 16, 2006
    #12
  13. Summercoolness

    Scott W Guest

    Mostly I agree with all that you have said. But there is a case when an
    electronic view finder it a big help. On the Sony F828 I can adjust on
    the setting when wearing contact lenses, by looking into the electronic
    view finder. On the 20D and 350D it is a lot harder to do so, and at
    my forget trying to look at the photo afterwards on the small screen,
    if I have contacts and no reading glasses with me.

    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jun 16, 2006
    #13
  14. In contrast to what others say it _is_ possible to build a non-SLR
    Of course. But currently, this isn't how the major manufaturers are
    segmenting their markets.
    Absolutely.

    ---------------
    Marc Sabatella


    Music, art, & educational materials
    Featuring "A Jazz Improvisation Primer"
    http://www.outsideshore.com/
     
    Marc Sabatella, Jun 16, 2006
    #14
  15. Summercoolness

    tomm42 Guest

    The problem is holding a camera at arms length is the absolute worst
    way to hold a camera. You are inviting camera shake. I can't imaging
    doing this with my D200 and a 70-210 lens, you'd have to be Hercules. I
    wouldn't mind the removeable prisms of the Nikon F and CanonF1 series
    cameras. I just don't see the need for the electronic viewfinder and
    preview when you have a better view through the finder. Too noisy, get
    a digital rangefinder (should be more of those made).
    BTW holding a camera to your eye gives a three point brace to steady
    the camera, if you are good you can hold a 50mm f2 at 1/15 of a second.
    Thus eliminating the awful flash on P&S cameras.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Jun 16, 2006
    #15
  16. Summercoolness

    ttdaomd Guest

    Agreed. I usually shoot at 1/focal length (seconds) so that is not a
    big problem. Even at those speeds, you are right, my old Nikkor AF
    80-200 f2.8 is a handful without a tripod. Of course, when I want to
    use the D200 to its full advantage, I reluctantly lug around the
    tripod.
    You are better than me. I can manage 1/30 and still be more or less
    satisfied but at 1/15, even braced against a wall, I still shake.

    I think Nikon could have made the option of locking the mirror and
    using the LCD for those amateurs like me who like using it to compose.
    Then we would have a choice.

    Tien
     
    ttdaomd, Jun 16, 2006
    #16
  17. Summercoolness

    Jan Böhme Guest

    J. Clarke skrev:
    But it would have to perform the rather complex cycle
    close-open-close-open in very rapid succession, and clse completely
    before it can start the exposure. Curtain shutters don't really seem to
    be designed to do this fast. The "B" mode in the Olympus E-330, the
    closest existing thing to what you want, has a whopping shutter lag of
    one second, and it seems to be there for a reason.
    I know, I have an FZ20. This is exactly why I have toyed with the idea
    of making something actually useful out of the feature. That manual
    focus assist by magnification is very close to useless for macro
    photography: The detail resolution is way too small, and the
    magnification always comes up dead center. But there is nothing
    inherent that requires it to be set up this way. My idea was to be able
    to move the centre of magnification with the up-down-left-right arrows,
    and then have a couple of different magnification levels.
    Olympus E-330, "B" mode, only perfect, and with a decent size sensor,
    yeah. If you can do this with a Canonite or Nikonian shutter lag of 50
    ms - yes, by all means. Perhaps also with a Minoltan or Panasonicesque
    lag of 100 ms. The only question is still: Is that really technically
    possible?

    I't still think that it is easier to make a dedicated mirrorless body
    DSC-R1 style, to go with one's ordinary lens lineup, do do what we
    want.. Sure it would be a costly niche item. But quite a few lenses are
    costly niche items in the same price range - and people still buy them.

    Jan Böhme
     
    Jan Böhme, Jun 16, 2006
    #17
  18. Summercoolness

    Jan Böhme Guest

    tomm42 skrev:
    However, there are technical tricks to lower shutter times also on
    light LCD point and shoots. If you have move the camera away from your
    face until the neck strap is just tight, you get a lot steadier. I
    actually did this in low light with my Nikon Coolpix 995, althought it
    had an optical viewfinder (though not TTL, of course). If I could lean
    against a firm support (wall, tree trunk, column, etc), I had a 50% hit
    rate with 1/8 of a second, and a 25% hit rate with a 1/4. The
    resolution of a CP 995 is only 3 M, but I don't think that this means
    that one could come away with much more motion blur than in a DSLR
    without noticing it.

    Jan Böhme
     
    Jan Böhme, Jun 16, 2006
    #18
  19. Summercoolness

    tomm42 Guest

    Didn't have any problem with my Nikon D200 setting the finder, I wear
    glasses too. Canon design flaw, really no camera is perfect. Looked at
    a Fuji 9000 and a K/Minolta A series and just didn't lie the finders,
    the D200 comes close to full frame 35mm or DSLR finders.

    Tom
     
    tomm42, Jun 16, 2006
    #19
  20. Summercoolness

    J. Clarke Guest

    Several DSLRs manage 5 frames/second in burst mode, that means that it's
    down to 1/5 of a second.
    Many things are technologically possible that aren't economically feasible.
    That's the real issue, can it be done for a reasonable price.
     
    J. Clarke, Jun 16, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.