|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Are SLR's that much better than regular cameras?
As I understand it, the big advantage of SLR (single-lens-reflex) cameras was with 35mm film, where what you saw in the view finder was exactly what would appear in the picture. Almost all new digital cameras have LCD screens which preview the picture you are taking. With the LCD screens, are SLR cameras that much better than regular digital cameras? I'm talking about comparing the medium end digital cameras, like the Olympus SP-350 8 mega pixel which can swap lenses and has a hot shoe to the similar mega pixel Digital SLR cameras . Are the SLR's really worth the extra price? I currently have an Olympus D-580, 4 mega pixel, point & click with 3x optical zoom. Apr 11 06 12:12 am Link Seriously... Go back to the drawing board on that question. Let's see reasons: - Shutter lag - Real lenses - Really seeing what you get - Longer battery life - Better construction - Better quality control - Larger selection of lenses - Longevity of equipment - Overall image quality - Full control over Focus - Shutter - Aperture - sensor speed - Not being laughed off the set by your client/model/MUA/assistant/producer Apr 11 06 12:19 am Link an 8 mp point and shoot is different from an 8 mp dslr. the point and shoot has a smaller sensor, so the individual photosites are smaller. this causes more noise. Mr. Jackson has already summed up the rest. Apr 11 06 12:30 am Link a 30 year old fully manual SLR film camera is 100x better than a point shoot digital... but an SLR probably wouldn't be that much use to you if you haven't learned how to use one. Apr 11 06 12:34 am Link Mark Young wrote: Digital SLRs have screens to preview the picture as it was taken, not to preview the picture you are taking. Apr 11 06 12:35 am Link If you were to ask about the fundamental design issues... Yes the technology is available to make a "SLR like" camera without the mirror and probably without the shutter mechanism that is every bit as good as a DSLR. Nobody makes one though. I will buy one when they arrive on the scene. Shutter noise can be quite annoying at an event. Nobody makes one though. Oops I allready said that. Buy a good DSLR and update later. Nobody will be making the camera you want very soon. Apr 11 06 12:39 am Link A pro level camera has better exposure control than P&S cameras because they are meant to be more precise. A littel variance in exposure is not that important to the every-day casual shooter. It's very important to the por that wants to know the shot he is taking will be a perfect shot as set up by him/her. Apr 11 06 12:41 am Link honestly, if you have to ask that question, you obviously dont know what you are talking about. Apr 11 06 12:43 am Link Justin Huang wrote: Moreover, the larger sensor gives you better control over depth of field. It's almost impossible to have anything resembling a shallow depth of field with the fingernail-sized sensors in P/S digicams. An APS-C sized sensor found in most digial SLRs is an improvement. A full-frame sensor (found in only a few) is much better. I prefer the super-shallow DOF I get with my 6x7 camera. If I want to deepen the DOF I can always crank up the lights and stop down. Apr 11 06 12:44 am Link SLR's are bigger and faster and you can do more things with them, but they're only as good as the photographer behind it. Personally though I'd like to see the manufacturers ignore the marketing dept for once and make a real camera with a nice big giant bright viewfinder. Apr 11 06 12:47 am Link Mark Young wrote: Your assumption is incorrect. The advantge of an SLR is far greater than seeing what you are actually shooting through the lens. Trevor Meeks wrote: Once upon a time, none of us knew anything about cameras or shutter speeds or lenses. You're right. Mark, the original poster, doesn't know what he's talking about. This is a great opportunity to educate him a little. I respect him for having the intelligence to ask some questions to broaden his knowledge. Apr 11 06 12:49 am Link VirtuaMike wrote: You know what I'd like to see is a camera which you look right through the back...the same spot that the LCD is on most dSLRs Apr 11 06 12:50 am Link dude I pitty you,unless you r terry richarson.......look it up! Whileyou aare at it lookup D'ebutant! Apr 11 06 12:51 am Link YES! Apr 11 06 12:53 am Link mark, after looking at your profile and portfolio, i honestly do see that you dont know the difference between a point and shoot and a real camera. you have some good ideas, but your equipment really limits you. Apr 11 06 01:10 am Link James Jackson wrote: Then you'd have a sensor that's prone to vibration due to it having to continually flip up and down. Apr 11 06 01:15 am Link It's like an 1870's-era pistol vs. rifle question. In a gunfight, if you know how to use it, go with the rifle. The SLR is more accurate, has greater range, and can be easily adjusted in the field. The snapshot is more easy to shove in your pocket. Apr 11 06 01:16 am Link MarkMarek wrote: That's changed. A couple o' months ago Olympus announced the E-330 which has both an SLR viewfinder AND a live view LCD. It's available in stores now. Panasonic announced a similar model the PMA show in Orlando last month, and Leica will also be making a similar version as well. Trevor Meeks wrote: Sorry to say it, but that's a pretty ignorant statement to make. Believe it or not, there are WORKING PROS that don't know the difference. It's a valid question, and is probably one of the often most asked questions when dealing with advanced amateurs interested in purchasing a new camera. wandering eye wrote: That's not quite true, but you are sort of correct. It's a symbiotic relationship. James Jackson wrote: See info about the Olympus E-330, Panasonic, and Leica digital cameras mentioned above. It's not exactly how it works, but the end results are the same. Apr 11 06 01:40 am Link Mark Young wrote: Right. Mark Young wrote: I'm sure the same thing will be true of digital SLRs eventually. It could be done now, but it would add a few hundred dollars (if not a thousand or more) to the cost. Mark Young wrote: That's like comparing apples to gorillas. Apr 11 06 01:43 am Link oh my god.. i don't know what to say.. sometimes i feel like i don't know enough to call myself a photographer.. i respect the 'title'.. maybe you should try to deal with your inner senses or something similar Apr 11 06 01:52 am Link it is a shame that the choice in digital cameras is restricted to overpriced, clunky, ugly slrs, and crappy small-sensor disposable pocket cams. as far as i know, there has only been one rangefinder design so far (that voigtlaender/epson thing), which was a bit over-priced/under-quality. that's one of the big drawbacks to digital so far, in my mind - the lack of variety in camera design. everything is so blah. Apr 11 06 02:20 am Link Mark Young (From Profile) wrote: With this logic, one would assume masterpieces could be created with those crappy plastic paintbrushes and watercolors they gave us to use in elementary school. Better tools and materials doesn't necessarily equal better art, but it certainly gives you more options to work with. I think everyone else has already pointed out the other obvious points. Apr 11 06 02:28 am Link I think this was a great question to ask. It's something that many who are getting started wonder. But wait, I bet everyone started out as a "Pro" right? So many take that "your camera makes you" point of view. Mean while... Terry Richardson In the end it's about what fits your needs. It's funny how many forget about what early photographers dealt with when they got started. Speed wasn't exactly something that came with the territory. What works best for you is what matters. I think "point and shoot" gets thrown around too much. A camera isn't point and shoot simply because it isn't a DSLR. There are cameras that give you manual control and professional quality at 8 megapixels without the option to change lenses. They shoot in RAW and TIFF mode and have the same connectivity as a DSLR. "Better" is a matter of perspective. It's only better for you if you're going to make use of the new options you have. I've seen many who claim to be photographers simply because they have a DSLR yet their photos could be considered boring. It wasn't too long ago when there were no digital SLR cameras... Apr 11 06 02:29 am Link Yes. Apr 11 06 02:35 am Link and on the LCD you can't tell if the image is crisp enough or not anyways  Apr 11 06 02:39 am Link please please take a photography class..... if you need to ask this you obviously don't know anything about photography. it is simply one of those little basic things that even the simplest of photographers or anyone with a passion for photography knows. i don't mean to sound mean or anything but that is the truth. the mega pixel on the camera has nothing to do with it's performance. the construction for SLRs are professional grade and can do so much more than any point and shoot. when you need to edit pictures taken by an SLR and ones taken by a point and shoot you will see the difference immediately. this goes for film as well as digital. Apr 11 06 02:48 am Link SayCheeZ! wrote: Ummm, the only differences between the Olympus stuff and other cameras is that the mirror flips horizontal instead of vertical, there's a contast live view ccd that'll stream to lcd, and that the actual sensor allows live data to be streamed off it when the mirror's flipped out of the way. No one actually moves the sensor because vibration would be nasty. Apr 11 06 02:58 am Link Anybody ever notice that there are many great photographers (great and talented, both pro and amateur) who prefer camera designs besides the SLR design? Like rangefinders, TLRs, view cameras, etc. SLRs are always big, clunky and awkward for their format. They have many inherent design strengths (the ability to see actual light through the lens, not "reproduced" in not-quite-real-time low-quality digital video like a digi P&S, without shutter lag, and with full aperture/shutter control) is a huge strength. And the sheer RANGE of lenses available cannot be beat, either. But in many aspects, many other camera design types have SLRs totally trumped. In terms of sheer lens quality, rangefinders and even TLRs have SLRs beat by a mile. And I mean by a mile. There is no expensive touted Canon "L" glass that can even compare in quality to even a mid-level rangefinder lens. (The lens design of a rangefinder is inherently simpler because of the lack of the mirror, the rear lens element can be much closer to the film plane making the lens design much more straightforward and effective. Much sharper, and causing much less barrel distortion at wider lengths from an inherent design point of view.) I like to have a rangefinder around because they're easily carried and I can shoot them whenever. I use it for personal work. Rangefinders have their weaknesses, but they also have some major strengths. Same with TLRs. And of course, the inherent strengths/weaknesses that view cameras bring has been discussed many times. I don't particularly appreciate the design sensibilities that manufacturers base their P&S cameras around though. Camera manufacturers have decided to either make fun little "hey look, don't we all look cute?" P&S cameras that come with a free toaster and probably a phone or PDA or something built into the next version, or else the DSLR for the photographers who are "pros" or at least wanna look like one (with ever-more-impressive sounding specs and more "features" than you can shake a stick at, but without so much as a decent viewing system, the very raison d'etre of the SLR design). So many designs that could benefit certain photographers that go ignored. It's a shame. However, at the very least a camera that does not allow full control of aperture/shutter/focus is not a fully-functional camera by my standards, and in the digital world, pretty much the only way you can take control of that is with an SLR design, unless you're going to put a back on a view camera. By the way, on Sunday, while shooting a fashion editorial for a smaller European edition of a major American magazine, the fashion editor's boyfriend, who was on the shoot, brought his little digi Powershot and made some great pictures of the shoot. Then again, he's a graphic designer and has somewhat of a naturally appreciative eye, you could say. (Wait, how many threads have there been complaining of this scenario?) Oh, and while we're going there, the model's boyfriend came along, he drove her the approximately 300km to the shoot. This is a model who has been in campaigns for major labels in the States, ads you find in any magazine and clothes you could find at a Macy's or Nordstroms in a mall store near you, and I've lost count how many magazine editorials in how many countries. The furthest thing from a webmodel you could find, and she brought her boyfriend. (I shot them both together 2 years ago for my monograph, and they're still together!) And since it was a shoot in a public location, on the street, the chief editor borrowed a company van so that the model could change inside the car. And I was shooting film, not digital, and proofing on polaroids. And some of these fashion shots were shot with a moderately wide angle lens, including a headshot (that shot was about the sunglasses), and only 2 out of 8 pages were shot with a telephoto. Oh, and on a few of the shots I used a hotshoe flash, and the rest of the shoot was natural light only. Let's see, how many MM taboos did we manage to break in a single shoot? Apr 11 06 05:54 am Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: Rules are meant to be broken. Apr 11 06 06:02 am Link Thank you - well said. Apr 11 06 06:34 am Link Better glass on a D-SLR Apr 11 06 06:40 am Link James Jackson wrote: OK..MAYBE with his GWC low MP camera but I use a Sony F828 (8MP) AND the Olympus Evolt 8MP). I use the Evolt for the longer lenses. But I HATE the fact i can't see the image magnified in the camera viewfinder. My eyes are bad and I'm stuck with AF. AND I can't see those tiny screens on the back of the camera..at least not well enough to evaluate much. Apr 11 06 06:52 am Link MarkMarek wrote: The new Evolt has a real time screen but alas still on the back and not thru the lens. Apr 11 06 06:53 am Link Ched wrote: I'll put my Sony F828 aginst what ever you use and see how speedy it adjusts. And how large I can blow up the image. And what ever else you want to try MINUS going beyond its' 28-200MM range. then I take out the Evolt. Slower but more range. And by slower I mean adjusting it and checking my image quality after the shot on it's tiny dark screen. ESPECIALLY out in nature where I do most of my work Apr 11 06 06:58 am Link Marko Cecic-Karuzic wrote: bravo, marko! nice post. you know how i feel about rangefinders lately (getting the mamiya 6 later this week!). Apr 11 06 07:04 am Link Kai-Huei Yau wrote: And I have an image in the NAtional Biblotique (SP) that was taken with a Poloroid SX70. There are pinhole and Diahna images in the MOMA in NYC..So yes, you can take a simple tool and make art. IF you are really artist! Apr 11 06 07:09 am Link JT Hodges wrote: NOT necissairly...ever shot with the crap bundeled with the Canon or the Olympus? Cheap glas to make a cheap bundle. While the lens on My Sony F828 is razor sharp. Apr 11 06 07:12 am Link One of my advertising portfolio instructors made a ton of money shooting national ads with his SX-70 for years. (For those who don't know, the SX70 was like the quintessential amateur Polaroid camera of the 70s. It was unique in the structure of the emulsion contained in an envelope which, while still warm and fresh, could be manipulated for artistic effect something like the smudge tool in Photoshop. Apr 11 06 07:17 am Link too bad about the sx-70 film demise. one of my best scores in the last year was a polaroid 680 camera - basically an sx-70 camera design, but uses current 600 film. one of my favorite cameras. Apr 11 06 07:24 am Link VirtuaMike wrote: Not quite so! All Olympus DSLRs vibrate the hell out of the sensor every time it gets turned on. This is to shake off any dust that has gotten to the sensor. It's one of Olys best features. You never have to clean the sensor! Apr 11 06 08:12 am Link |
