|
|
|
|
melekzek
Dec 2, 2003, 6:26 PM
Post #1 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
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?
|
|
|
|
|
trbrts
Dec 2, 2003, 6:37 PM
Post #2 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 4, 2002
Posts: 94
|
you can have my digital SLR when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Dec 2, 2003, 7:00 PM
Post #4 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Dec 2, 2003, 7:03 PM
Post #5 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
I've heard of SLR-digital mix cameras : you take pics through classical SLR lenses, a processor shows you the image on a screen, and if you like it, an argentic film is exposed with the view... Is that possible? Did I hear well?
|
|
|
|
|
dsafanda
Dec 2, 2003, 7:17 PM
Post #6 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2002
Posts: 1025
|
I pretty much agree with everything tenn_dawg said. Even if they could someday develop small and fast lenses with optics that are identical to current SLR lenses I'd still want a chunky and substantial body that would feel stable in my hands.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Dec 2, 2003, 7:19 PM
Post #7 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: There is a reason that professionals perfer to hike in 30lbs of camera gear
Traditional P&S cameras used not to provide decent amount of control, which is rapidly changing in the digital domain. I am trying to be devils advocate here, since film is not needed, my question is why not use a smaller lightproof box ?
In reply to: The small lens size leads to terrible Depth of Field problems however.
that is an excellent argument, this point alone rests your case
:roll:
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Dec 2, 2003, 7:38 PM
Post #8 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
For the vast majority of consumer purposes, a P&S will work with flying colors. Especially a DIGITAL P&S. Those things are getting awfully powerful.
Unfortunately simply due to the physics of small lenses, they will never be able to provide the level of control and versatility that their bulky cousins will. I've seen a film P&S with a lens prime at around 28mm rated at F/1.4. Pretty impressive. No vignetting, and infinate Depth of Field.
Unfortunately, that's not what we're going for alot of the time. Hahaha, I'm still hesitant to move to the digital realm. Smaller than sandard 35mm sensors scare me, and waste a LOT of glass. I'm about to pick up a used D30, and all that means is that I'm probably going to have go dump a few hundred bucks on a 16mm lens just to get me into the 25mm range.
Aww, well, I really think the benifits will outweigh the disadvantages, and all those friggin hours in the library scanning slides will be over forever...
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
cyberclimber
Dec 2, 2003, 7:40 PM
Post #9 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 19, 2002
Posts: 243
|
tenn_dawg made some good points, and there are other factors to consider as well. Digital point and shoots are getting more and more megapixels onto their chips, but for the most part they are sticking with much smaller chip sizes than the digital SLR's (what a camera's firmware and software does with the pixels is important but hard to quantify). This increases the problems with digital noise and makes it harder to obtain true wide-angle. In keeping with the point and shoots advantages, namely small size and lower costs, manufacturers for the most part have to sacrifice large f-stops as well. Digital point and shoots have come a long ways and are continually improving, but still fall far short of giving the photographer the creative controls that a good digital SLR can give.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Dec 2, 2003, 8:19 PM
Post #10 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: manufacturers for the most part have to sacrifice large f-stops as well.
You are right in this one, it never occured to me to check the upper f-stop, but just the day before, I saw one digital camera w/ a lens f 4-11. :shock:
|
|
|
|
|
kingman
Dec 2, 2003, 8:46 PM
Post #11 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2003
Posts: 53
|
One thing to remember when thinking about a digital. Although a P&s allows you "manual" control the manual controls are really quite useless. There is no real way to use them effectively, either in terms of operating speed or in terms of picture composition. To say that you can change the appateur and shutter speed means nothing when your changes can't be compared to the existing light, there are no light meters on a P&S.
That said I use a olympus digital P&S when climbing and backpacking because its far lighter and smaller then either of my Nikon film bodies without lenses. Plus its a good deal less expensive then a digital nikon body. I don't want to lug my heavy SLRs for multi day trips when my first concern is not photography. However, if I'm am going out to shoot, I'll take the SLRs without hesitation.
My olympus, the D-560, has great battery life and runs on AA batteries. That was one of my requirements, a dead rechargable isn't very good if you can't recharge it.
If you want great final quality and have the money to buy a nikon or cannon digital SLR buy it, by all means. You'll have a much better final product then any SLR will give.
|
|
|
|
|
spuzo
Dec 2, 2003, 9:07 PM
Post #12 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2003
Posts: 13
|
In reply to: you can have my digital SLR when you pry it from my cold dead hands.
Agreed - I just skimmed the thread but wanted to toss my two cents in, I just brought a lovely minolta digital SLR into the family and I love it love it love it. Worth every penny and more. If you're lookin for a deal - go to overstock.com they'll treat ya right. With their prices, you can join in the fun without giving up your first-born.
And just to give the P&S's a pat on the back, I shot beautiful amazing stuff on a Canon Powershot all over this planet and would use it all the time if still had it.
|
|
|
|
|
dirko
Dec 2, 2003, 9:48 PM
Post #13 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 5, 2002
Posts: 374
|
It's all about control.
Having an SLR means always being in total control. Having a digicam means being able to take control if you really want to. A tiptronic is not a stick, right? There is nothing wrong with not wanting control. I love my P&S. But if you are probably going to just use the automatic setting and the autofocus on your SLR, maybe you don't need one after all.
Just trying to save you some bling, bro.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Dec 2, 2003, 9:50 PM
Post #14 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
In reply to: In reply to: manufacturers for the most part have to sacrifice large f-stops as well. You are right in this one, it never occured to me to check the upper f-stop, but just the day before, I saw one digital camera w/ a lens f 4-11. :shock:
I'm a camera neophyte, so pardon me if my question doesn't make sense, but why would you want a larger f-stop (smaller aperture, right?) in these digital cameras when the depth of focus is very large (whether you want it that way or not) anyway?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
psych
Dec 2, 2003, 10:11 PM
Post #15 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2002
Posts: 416
|
I recently picked up a beautiful new Canon EOS 300d (digital Rebel), such a fun camera! 6megapixels to play around with, comes with a pretty good lens and was under 2 grand, plus the image quality is superb!
Can't wait to try it out for climbing shots in the summer, the size limits me in that I don't want to take it skiing (fall on the lens, and I've got a problem), so the smaller P&S digitals are still great for that. I just went skiing on the weekend and took my older Nikon Coolpix 4500 out, because it's so durable and small, it can take a fall and not suffer any damage. But the benefits of the DSLR make it very tempting to take instead.
It's very true though about the depth of field issues with smaller lenses...I could only get a nice blurred out background if I shot at maximum focal length and widest aperature (smallest number). Now, with the Canon it's much more along the lines of a traditional SLR in that respect, though a larger lens would help even more for that. Next aquisition...
Mike...
|
|
|
|
|
adampaiva
Dec 2, 2003, 10:46 PM
Post #16 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2003
Posts: 76
|
can the small digi cameras do manual control? everyone I have played around with I couldnt figure out any way to set the shutter speed and aperture on my own.
|
|
|
|
|
melekzek
Dec 2, 2003, 11:08 PM
Post #17 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 16, 2002
Posts: 1456
|
In reply to: To say that you can change the appateur and shutter speed means nothing when your changes can't be compared to the existing light, there are no light meters on a P&S.
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....
|
|
|
|
|
sixter
Dec 2, 2003, 11:11 PM
Post #18 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 25, 2003
Posts: 262
|
In reply to: In reply to: In reply to: manufacturers for the most part have to sacrifice large f-stops as well. You are right in this one, it never occurred to me to check the upper f-stop, but just the day before, I saw one digital camera w/ a lens f 4-11. :shock: I'm a camera neophyte, so pardon me if my question doesn't make sense, but why would you want a larger f-stop (smaller aperture, right?) in these digital cameras when the depth of focus is very large (whether you want it that way or not) anyway? GO
I think some of this may be confusion about aperture, smaller aperture = larger number. But there are arguments either way about the need for abilitylity to have a larger, or smaller aperture. I love my fast lens, like my f2.8 glass. There are times when having a f22, or in the world of larger format, even smaller aperture are appropriate. Ever read about Ansel Adams and his time with Group f64? They were all about maximum depth of field, hence the name f64. Personally I am looking forward to my first 4x5 view camera purchase for my landscape work. Having the smaller aperture (larger number) is great forlandscapee work where you want the distantmountainn peak in focus, as well as the bunch of bight colorful wildflowers 5 ft in front of the camera in relatively good focus.
Having a larger aperture (such as the f2.8, or f1.8 on my 50mm prime lens) is wonderful as you can drop out a background, or shoot a low light image without having to change film.
As far as digital goes, I am waiting for Foveon to get a full frame X3 chip on the consumer market.
http://www.foveon.com/X3_tech.html
|
|
|
|
|
liciarothermel
Dec 2, 2003, 11:44 PM
Post #19 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 13, 2003
Posts: 11
|
Aaaah, quite the question, which many people are asking themselves these days, and which I myself contemplated a few months ago. After MUCH searching and reading reviews and talking to those in the know-how, I decided to sell my fancy shmancy Canon Elan 7E and buy a digital camera, not SLR (too expensive), but the closest I could find.
I got a Minolta DiMage 7Hi ($600 + $40 for a 256MB CompactFlash card, and will probably spend another $150 for a mounting flash). This camera has an almost-SLR feel, but a lightweight body and incredible range of features. The only thing it doesn't have is interchangeable lenses, but I've still got an old Pentax P3 with some good lenses, should I need to do more serious photography.
While there is no substitute for the lenses on my film SLR (or the smell of the darkroom chemicals, getting your hands wet, seeing the image slowly show up on the developer tray...) this camera works wonders. It has a hot shoe for another flash, full manual controls, manual focus, all sorts of controls for photo size/quality/light/color/etc., even a real-time histogram!
The cool thing about digital is that you can take a hundred shots and not freak out because you'll have to pay for developing all of them, only to find out that a handful turned out as you wished, and the rest are junk. On the other hand, the average digital SLR is several times more expensive than its counterpart in film.
I suppose if you're not looking for anything too complicated, get a P&S with 3 or 4 megapixels, and good luck.
|
|
|
|
|
tenn_dawg
Dec 3, 2003, 12:05 AM
Post #20 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 14, 2002
Posts: 3045
|
Alright, I saw a couple questions to answer, and a couple points to make, lets see if I can remember now...
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.
Phych,
I have never EVER EVER been able to get a friggin P&S camera to properly expose snow. Grey snow in pictures sucks. Spin in two stops of over exposure on a cloudy day with an SLR, and your problem sloved.
Sorry to vent, but I once burned several roll of film on a family vacation, and grey snow makes me crazy, hahahaha.
I agree though carying an SLR while skiiing is asking for trouble. If you put it over your shoulder, and keep it under your jacket, under your arm, that's probably the safest place.
Travis
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Dec 3, 2003, 12:52 PM
Post #21 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
^then you have some condensation all over the camera...and it's not the solution!
|
|
|
|
|
buckyllama
Dec 3, 2003, 3:21 PM
Post #22 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 12, 2003
Posts: 314
|
Personally I feel that the SLR model needs to die in the new digital world. Mainly because there is no need for the whole prisim/mirror arrangement, which is a pretty good part of the size and weight of a SLR body. A high-grade digital viewfinder would be superior and would draw less power than the larger rear LCD screen, as well as being more useable in bright light. The other part that contributes to the size and weight of an SLR body is, of coure, the film mechanism. Which also vansihes, but gets replaced in part by batteries and storage media.
The newer digital cameras are also largely blurring the feature set between SLRs and traditional P&S. My Canon A70 has a full manual mode where you can set aperature and shutter speed, as well as aperature and shutter priority modes. It also has matrix, center weighted, and spot metering options. It can even be manually focused. And it's tiny enough that I can carry places that it would be impossible to bring an SLR. (well not impossible, I've done it, but it's a major hassle) The lack of effective depth of field is a definate issue, however there is a balance to be struck between great depth of field (larger sensors) and small size for optics and electronics (smaller sensors)
What I'd love to see is a line of camera bodies and lenses that are small, lightweight, efficient, and designed for digital. It would end up being a larger package than an A70 or similar. But could be 30% smaller than even the current breed of compact SLRs (Minolta Maxxum5, Canon Rebel Ti, etc). I'd want interchangeable lenses of course, but I think it's worth abandoning the old-style of film SLR lenses for something new if it can be done better.
FWIW, I love SLR's and even medium format, but their size is not condusive to carrying them a lot of the places we find ourselves as climbers, and for that reason I do not carry one. The camera you have in your hand when a great shot presents itself is worth far more than the one that is left in the car or in a pack.
|
|
|
|
|
cracklover
Dec 3, 2003, 6:24 PM
Post #23 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2002
Posts: 10162
|
Thanks tenn_dawg! That's what I thought.
Sixter, what part of "larger f-stop (smaller aperture, right?)" didn't make sense? Or do you just find it easier to lecture someone who's inexperienced, rather than actually thinking about what they're saying?
GO
|
|
|
|
|
the_alpine
Dec 3, 2003, 7:28 PM
Post #24 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 6, 2003
Posts: 371
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
crotch
Dec 3, 2003, 7:56 PM
Post #25 of 39
(5426 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 16, 2003
Posts: 1277
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
