|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Dec 3, 2003, 8:07 PM
Post #26 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
In reply to: In reply to: cracklover, You make a good point. I guess it isn't really nessesary to have a small apperature on a camera where the Depth of Field is nearly unlimited even at f/1.4. This is probably why it is not offered in most P&S cameras. = Necessary if you want longer exposures without carrying ND filters around.
Yes, but nine times out of ten if you want long exposures, you're going to have an SLR. There are relatively few times that you would want a long exposure, and a small apperature anyway.
Taking a picture of a brightly lit stream is one.
And really in this situation, if you are thoughtful enough to be conserned about the appearance of the water, you are probably also conserned in selecting the exact depth of field you want, and a P&S would not be appropriate. It would be hard to get around needing an SLR and a bag of ND filters...
Besides, I'd feel silly carrying a tripod that weighted 3 times as much as the camera to get a long exposure shot.
As an aside, I've held the lens of some polarized sunglasses in front of a P&S lens before, and was plesantly suprised with the results. Try it sometime.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Dec 3, 2003, 8:11 PM
Post #27 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: I saw a device somewhere that you stick in the film compartment of your SLR and it somehow takes digital pictures. Dont remember where I saw it or how it worked, but seems like a fantastic idea.
I remember I read about it a couple of years ago, maybe even 5 years ago. I thought it is a neat idea, and the way to go. Then apperently they dissapear, and never finished manufacturing a consumer version of their test product. Maybe they did, but could not sell, and go bankrupt, I am not sure. Partially the reason was, the area their sensor was covering was very very smal, surely smaller than todays DSLRs, which is still a problem unsolved in DSLRs. And it was pretty costly I guess.
I still think it is a very nice idea, and after last few years advancements, I am sure a higher quality version could be produced cheaper nowadays. We'll see....
|
|
|
|
|
kingman
Dec 3, 2003, 8:49 PM
Post #28 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2003
Posts: 53
|
The thing you're talking about was going to be made by SiliconFilm. However, it never proved fesiable. It was essentially a CCD that went in place of your film and a storage device that screwed to your tripod mount.
However, SiliconFilm is now out of business. No big loss in my opinion as it just added weight and bulk for a low mega pixel CCD. However, it would have been really cool had they made it possible to put every thing in a package the size of a film can, I'd have been first in line. oh well.
www.siliconfilm.com - The company
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0109/01091702siliconfilmvaporizes.asp - they folded
|
|
|
|
|
psych
Dec 3, 2003, 9:46 PM
Post #29 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 416
|
In reply to: One big plus to SRL, P&S now seems to be beaten to death. I did not know that. I always assumed that having manual control means there is some kind of light meter around. You can manually change, shoot, look at the result, discard, change some more, shoot, discard, until you are satisfied, I think this kind of workflow was in developers mind..... Instead of learning how to measure light, find the correct exposure for the given light and image you try to achieve, and LEARN some skills, they decided simply (being simple is the key issue w/ P&S anyhow) shoot, and if you get a nice thing, good for you, otherwise please try again....
Depends how "P&S"-ish you go, anything that has a manual mode has to have some sort of light meter, otherwise how would you judge the exposure for anything? Thinking further about it, how could any camera operate without a light meter? I mean, they might be crap light meters but they still must have them so the camera knows if it's pitch black and needs a flash, or if it's bright sunlight and doesn't need it. So anything worth more than $80 probably has one, and if you buy below the $80 range, well...you've got problems. Throw-away cameras not included.
Tenn_Dawg:
My cameras have fortunately all been able to expose for snow properly, though sometimes in dim lighting they'll come out with a blue cast. But I hear ya, it totally sucks to do a vacation and then find all your pictures came out shat. Once took one of those all in one throw away cameras (the cheapy $12 Kodak ones that you just give to the developer to develop) to Whistler for a skiing trip and all the shots came out with pristine white snow, I was totally impressed!
Mike...
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Dec 3, 2003, 10:43 PM
Post #30 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
In reply to: Tenn_Dawg: Once took one of those all in one throw away cameras (the cheapy $12 Kodak ones that you just give to the developer to develop) to Whistler for a skiing trip and all the shots came out with pristine white snow, I was totally impressed! Mike...
Oh yeah, I've known for a long time the technology was out to get me. Hahaha.
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Dec 3, 2003, 10:44 PM
Post #31 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
GOT ONE for ya :!: :!: http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/servlet/ProductDetailDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&productId=166624&navigationPath=32090n32091n32091n32091 check out the accesories on it aswell.
|
|
|
|
|
kman
Dec 3, 2003, 10:45 PM
Post #32 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 16, 2001
Posts: 2561
|
It's a sweet camera.
|
|
|
|
|
pico23
Dec 6, 2003, 7:29 AM
Post #33 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2003
Posts: 2378
|
[quote="tenn_dawg"]In reply to: Ok, here is a comparison question. SLR cameras are always thought to be superior to compact cameras, and the biggest reasons are the manual control and composing through the lens. But nowadays, with the compact digitals having LCD screens and having manual control, do we still need to stick w/ SLR format? Every electronic gadget is getting smaller, digital compacts are no exception, unless you insists on SLR format. The only reason I can think of is the optical quality of lenses, which btw I cannot afford anyhow. digital SLR: - Interchangable optically superior lenses - as bulky as an SLR gets - optically superior lenses cost a lot digital campact: - compact size - not interchangable lenses - lenses are not that fast - cheap wide/zoom extension lenses I think in some close future, the these small lenses can become faster, and than there is no reason to keep the SLR size anymore. Whatcha think?
Here's a couple of points. Despite it's size, a full size SLR is the easiest camera to take good pictures with. The size makes them handle exceptionally well, and their weight cuts down on camera shake durring exposure due to poor photographic technique.
In reply to: For me, having my choice of quality lenses means more than any other aspect. SLR's have always been little more than a light proof box. The ability to use the lenses is what you are REALLY paying for. The aspherics that they use in P&S type cameras are suprisingly a very high quality optical piece. The small lens size leads to terrible Depth of Field problems however. If I can't throw the background out of focus while taking a portrait, then the camera is useless for that purpose. Who wants to go in and blur out 50 backgrounds in the Digital Darkroom when probably only one or 2 of the pictures will be chosen for duplication.
I can soften the background of my photos using a digital P&S. I got some great portraits of my little brother last weekend using the portrait mode. I printed them out using my inkjet and I'll bet you that you couldn't tell me if they were shot on a DSLR, SLR or DP&S. And side by side comparison of the prints showed my inkjet was superior to the one hour photo lab. All you need is a fast lens and my HP 850 has a nice F2.8 lens and a 8X optical zoom.
In reply to: The same is true for Climbing shots. If I can't alter Apperature on the fly while burning 30 or so exposures, that's more work I have to do later.
Do you really need to alter the aperture on the fly for climbing photos? Photos usually fit into two catagories 1) Scenics with a good DOF and 2) Portraits with a shallow depth of field.
In reply to: The Versatility of SLR's goes far beyond these points as well. There is a reason that professionals perfer to hike in 30lbs of camera gear, and it aint because it's fun. In reply to: There really isn't a comparison between an SLR and a P&S as far as the versatility of the tool is conserned, and I personally think that the SLR will be around and will have it's supporters for as long as photography exists.
The best camera is the one that gets the shot. If you want to lug 30lbs of gear around than your entitle to it but most people aren't inclined to do so. Personally, I've never understood how people can lug around those bulky canon and Nikon SLR's. I prefer the small form factor of a Pentax SLR. Smaller is better for adventure photography IMO.
|
|
|
|
|
djmacedonas
Feb 3, 2005, 11:57 PM
Post #34 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 11, 2002
Posts: 84
|
Funny that no one mentioned the number one reason to choose a DSLR over a P&S:
Action Photography... Even the best P&Ss have some "shutter-lag" before acquisition of the digital image, but a DSLR shoots your shot immediately.
|
|
|
|
|
blondgecko
Moderator
Feb 7, 2005, 6:39 AM
Post #36 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666
|
There's a few P&S compacts which offer apertures up to F/1.8 these days - still not as good as an SLR, but not too bad either... In addition, for a fairly modest price, one can get pretty good quality "clip on" 0.5x (macro) and 2x telephoto) lenses designed to fit most standard P&S lenses, thus effectively extending the zoom range 3-fold. Not too shabby for a compact.
|
|
|
|
|
kalcario
Feb 7, 2005, 6:59 AM
Post #37 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 25, 2002
Posts: 1601
|
The best digital slr on the market today, for which you will pay upwards of 2 grand, will be obsolete in 2 years, and be made obsolete by a digital slr that will cost 2/3's less and have triple the megapixels. A digital slr will theoretically approximate film resolution and quality at around 32 megapixels. A great article on this topic:
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/filmdig.htm
|
|
|
|
|
photojosh
Feb 7, 2005, 7:40 AM
Post #38 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2005
Posts: 11
|
In reply to: I can soften the background of my photos using a digital P&S. In reply to: All you need is a fast lens and my HP 850 has a nice F2.8 lens and a 8X optical zoom.
You can get SOME blur with a p&s camera, but it is NOTHING like what you get with a SLR lens. Having an f/2.8 lens on a 7-21mm lens isn't going to give you that much out-of-focus even at full zoom. A 21mm lens has a HUGE depth of field even at 2.8. What's that you say? Your digital camera has a 35-128mm lens? Well no it doesn't my friend, that is what it has in a "35mm equivalent" focal length. The lens is optically a 7-21mm. And depth of field is a function of lens focal length. A 20mm lens has the same depth of field on a mini digital camera or on the largest format camera in the world.
Now a few of the P&S cameras out there are starting to have 8-10x zoom lenses. Which brings the optical focal length up to something like 7.6-61mm (in the case of that HP 850) and 61mm is long enough to be able to get some blur in the background at 2.8. Ahhhhh, but wait, very VERY few P&S cameras have a constant f/2.8 aperture through their whole zoom range. Many end up being 4.5 or even 5.6 by the time you zoom to the long end of the zoom range. And as aperture increases, DOF gets larger, and your blur goes bye-bye.
In reply to: I printed them out using my inkjet and I'll bet you that you couldn't tell me if they were shot on a DSLR, SLR or DP&S. And side by side comparison of the prints showed my inkjet was superior to the one hour photo lab.
I guess that depends on what photo lab you go to. The one hour lab I use prints on Fuji Crystal Archive paper and makes AMAZING prints for the sprocking price of 19 cents for a 4x6. Home photo printers can range from decent to amazing. But all in all, photos printed on real photo paper are tougher, more water resistant, have a better tonal range, and are FAR more resistant to fading than anything printed at home. ]
In reply to: Personally I feel that the SLR model needs to die in the new digital world. Mainly because there is no need for the whole prism/mirror arrangement, which is a pretty good part of the size and weight of a SLR body.
That is what Olympus was/is trying to go for with their 4/3 camera system. Though it hasn't really paid off as of yet.
The fact of the matter is that P&S digital cameras rule for a lot of things. I use mine all the time. In fact, I'm not sure I've taken an SLR climbing/hiking/camping more than a very few times. Usually it's my Canon G2 or even my Canon s110. But for serious photography, I use serious gear. Just as horsepower isn't the only thing you consider when driving a racecar, mega pixels and zoom lenses aren't the only thing that you consider when thinking about cameras.
It's all about being able to have the camera ready for that "once only" shot. And with my SLR's, I don't have to fiddle through a maze of menus just to change the white balance or iso. I press one button, spin a dial and it's done.
|
|
|
|
|
marulianus
Feb 7, 2005, 4:42 PM
Post #39 of 39
(4376 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 2, 2005
Posts: 49
|
I must write my oppinion about SLR or not topic because i have both SLR and compact digital camera... (sorry about my bad english).
Both of them have their adventages and disadventages. The best adventages of compact class digital camera is their size. And we must know that in compact class there are many subclases of camera from full idiots (Canon A400) up to Pseudo SLR cameras (like Canon Pro-1). And in SLR cameras there are again Amateur (Canon 300D), SemiPro (Canon 20D), Pro (Canon 1D Mark II).
If you are going into multy pich direction you probably will not wanna take with you SLR Camera because you don't have so much space to take it with you and it worth to much if fall from there, so you will probably use some compact class to take some pictures. If you wanna take best pictures you can then you must use SLR..
If you wanna take pictures of some climber in 1pich rute you would like to have some SLR to get better pictures. SLR have many adventages, starting from speed, autofocus, many manual settings, more quality sensor , less noise on high noise camera (don't use Oly E-1 with more then 400 ISO),..... So SLR definitly are best you can use to take pictures.
I have Canon 20D with 17-40 f 4,0L, 70-200 f2,8, 50mm f1,8 and many other, and Canon A75. I use Canon 20D in 99% of time, because when you look at picture taken with SLR you will never ever say that compact class is better or good almost like SLR...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
