How is a digital SLR and digital non-SLR camera different?

DuallyX

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2000
1,984
0
76
I was about to call you a noob...and then I saw it was THE rossman....still a photography newb tho. ;)

There are plenty of things that seperate the two- focus speed, available shutter speeds, aperature speeds, high-iso quality, physical sensor size, shutter-release speed, ttl viewfinder, metering...etc.

Read a few reviews at dpreview if you'd like to know more...or feel free to drop me a PM with any specific questions.
 

RossMAN

Grand Nagus
Feb 24, 2000
79,006
430
136
Originally posted by: DuallyX
I was about to call you a noob...and then I saw it was THE rossman....still a photography newb tho. ;)

When it comes to anything photography related I am the Elite Ultra n00b :eek:

So what digital SLR models would you suggest for entry, mid and pro levels?

Where does the Canon Digital Rebel fit into those 3 groups?
 

Viper GTS

Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
38,107
433
136
Rebel is the "SLR is suddenly semi-affordable OMG it's so freaking cheap" model.

The high end is many, many thousands of $$$.

Viper GTS
 

duke

Golden Member
Nov 22, 1999
1,240
0
0
The single main difference is by definition. For the SLR what you see through the optical view finder is exactly what the film or in your example the digital sensor "sees". This is different from a non SLR camera in that you need not have to worry about parallax.
 

iamwiz82

Lifer
Jan 10, 2001
30,772
13
81
IMHO, learning on a DSLR seems very pricy. I would get a regular, cheap SLR and learn how to use it before spending $1000 on a new camera that you dont really know how to use.
 

sygyzy

Lifer
Oct 21, 2000
14,001
4
76
Wow, the first time RossMan ever asked for help!

1. Digital SLR doesn't advance anything so there are larger dust issues when changing lenses than regular SLR's. Regular SLR's advance film which puts a new canvas in.

2. Digital has a 1.6 factor. If you want wide shots and get say a 20mm lens, it's really 32mm so it's not as wide. This is a big complaint. Since the lenses are interchangeable, if you were carrying film and digital around, you couldn't simply swap lenses because the ratios are different.

3. Digital SLR models - Entry/Mid = 300D, Mid = 10D, Pro = Not too sure. There are $8000 ones. Pro is pointless because I bet 1% of the people out there have it and you don't hear much about them on message boards (ie dpreview).

4. You have seen the 300D threads all over the place. Had I not paid the full grand when it first came out, I would have gladly jumped on it. It's UNBELIEABLE to me that they can sell it for that cheap. I waited years to get the Nikon 5700, 10D, etc at good prices. No matter what combo of 10% - $40 deal they came out with, it was incredibly expensive. Add to the fact that Nikon and Canon are not willing to drop prices like Sony did for the F717 and/or offer rebates, made it next to impossible.

Now the 300D comes out and all of a sudden you can get it for $250 less than retail? Blows my mind.

300D is *the* camera to get right now. It is silly to think otherwise. Look at all the posts on FW. You have people coming out of the woodwork to buy this camera. Finally Joe the Cook and Martha the secretary can afford to take really nice shots.
 

RossMAN

Grand Nagus
Feb 24, 2000
79,006
430
136
Originally posted by: iamwiz82
IMHO, learning on a DSLR seems very pricy. I would get a regular, cheap SLR and learn how to use it before spending $1000 on a new camera that you dont really know how to use.

True.

I am holding out for a Canon S400, A70 or A80 and should learn how to operate those and the basics of photography before even considering an SLR or DSLR.
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
I'd maybe think about getting a G3 or a G5.

They have a lot of the same controls as an SLR.
 

DuallyX

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2000
1,984
0
76
Well, if looking at just Canon's line of products:

Digital Rebel=intoductory camera
10D=advanced non-pro (elite hobbyist)
1D=Professional Journalism
1Ds=Professional Studio/Landscape/Architecture

I've shot with the Canon D30 and D60, Kodak DCS-330 (Old School), Nikon D100 and Fuji S2--All have had thier strengths and weaknesses, but, in the right hands can produce amazing results.

The fact of the matter is that the overall speed of a digital SLR allows you to capture moments you would have long missed with a small digicam...not to say that small digicams don't have thier place...I love my A40 as well.

Having a seemingly endless selection of lenses is a nice bonus as well.
 

DuallyX

Golden Member
Sep 6, 2000
1,984
0
76
Originally posted by: sygyzy
Wow, the first time RossMan ever asked for help!

1. Digital SLR doesn't advance anything so there are larger dust issues when changing lenses than regular SLR's. Regular SLR's advance film which puts a new canvas in.

2. Digital has a 1.6 factor. If you want wide shots and get say a 20mm lens, it's really 32mm so it's not as wide. This is a big complaint. Since the lenses are interchangeable, if you were carrying film and digital around, you couldn't simply swap lenses because the ratios are different.

3. Digital SLR models - Entry/Mid = 300D, Mid = 10D, Pro = Not too sure. There are $8000 ones. Pro is pointless because I bet 1% of the people out there have it and you don't hear much about them on message boards (ie dpreview).

4. You have seen the 300D threads all over the place. Had I not paid the full grand when it first came out, I would have gladly jumped on it. It's UNBELIEABLE to me that they can sell it for that cheap. I waited years to get the Nikon 5700, 10D, etc at good prices. No matter what combo of 10% - $40 deal they came out with, it was incredibly expensive. Add to the fact that Nikon and Canon are not willing to drop prices like Sony did for the F717 and/or offer rebates, made it next to impossible.

Now the 300D comes out and all of a sudden you can get it for $250 less than retail? Blows my mind.

300D is *the* camera to get right now. It is silly to think otherwise. Look at all the posts on FW. You have people coming out of the woodwork to buy this camera. Finally Joe the Cook and Martha the secretary can afford to take really nice shots.

Not all DSLR's have a 1.6 crop-factor. Canon's D30, D60, 10D and Rebel do. The 1D has a 1.3 crop factor. The 1DS is full 35mm frame size. (no crop factor) The Fuji S2 and D100 is 1.5. And it's actually something most people don't notice after a while--or at all if they haven't ever shot film SLR's.

Also, there are many more pro users out there than you seem to think. Keep in mind that until the last couple of years, ONLY pros and true enthusiasts could justify spending several grand on a Digital SLR. dpreview has many, many pro-users in their forums.

The digi-Rebel is a camera that will bring a LOT more people to digital SLR's, which is a good thing, for the reasons you stated.

As for learning on a cheap film SLR-perhaps. It depends on your style. I got into photography because I was first a graphic artist, so I naturally became intersted in capturing digitally. Digital allows you to keep trying over and over again to get the shot you want, with instant feed back--in this way they are better to learn on than film is.
 

NogginBoink

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
5,322
0
0
In an SLR camera, the viewfinder looks through the same lens that forms the image on the file (or whatever).

So what you see is what you get.

In a viewfinder camera, the viewfinder and the camera lens are separate optics systems and can have quite substantial differences in image area.
 

pulse8

Lifer
May 3, 2000
20,860
1
81
Originally posted by: RossMAN
Originally posted by: pulse8
I'd maybe think about getting a G3 or a G5.

They have a lot of the same controls as an SLR.

I was tempted to get a Canon G3 for $419.

Even the Canon G2 takes some amazing pictures in the right hands.

The G2 is a great camera. I got one recently and it takes some awesome pictures. You have some great manual controls on it like an SLR, but it's less bulky and you can't change lenses.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
50,419
8
81
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: RossMAN
Originally posted by: pulse8
I'd maybe think about getting a G3 or a G5.

They have a lot of the same controls as an SLR.

I was tempted to get a Canon G3 for $419.

Even the Canon G2 takes some amazing pictures in the right hands.

The G2 is a great camera. I got one recently and it takes some awesome pictures. You have some great manual controls on it like an SLR, but it's less bulky and you can't change lenses.
Sure you can.

Well.. I guess you can't change lenses, but you can add accessory lenses. I guess thats a pretty significant difference, but.. :p
 

sygyzy

Lifer
Oct 21, 2000
14,001
4
76
DuallyX - Thanks for your comments.

Between the G2 and G3, I'd get the latter. Unless the G2 was rediculously cheaper, I don't see any reason to not get the G3.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: pulse8
Originally posted by: RossMAN
Originally posted by: pulse8
I'd maybe think about getting a G3 or a G5.

They have a lot of the same controls as an SLR.

I was tempted to get a Canon G3 for $419.

Even the Canon G2 takes some amazing pictures in the right hands.

The G2 is a great camera. I got one recently and it takes some awesome pictures. You have some great manual controls on it like an SLR, but it's less bulky and you can't change lenses.

not all SLRs have interchangable lenses. minolta has a couple of dslrs that can't, and olympus had a film one that couldn't.
 

Sketcher

Platinum Member
Aug 15, 2001
2,237
0
0
The Digital Rebel is a SLR (single lens reflex) which allows you to view the subject TTL (through the lens). The Minolta S414 (and most other ps camera?s) uses a separate viewing window from the lens that actually takes the picture. The Rebel though consumer grade is built on "professional" idealology so it does not perform "live" display of images to an LCD like most PS's do.

Having a separate viewing position from the actual capture lens position creates a parallax to your subject. Digital point and shoot (PS) cameras are designed for that parallax to be within acceptable variance for approx. 94+% of all shooting conditions (distance from camera to subject) most people would shoot at.

Where parallax in a PS becomes most noticeable is when taking macro or close-up pictures. Most PS cameras? minimal registered focal distance won?t allow you to take a picture which will not represent well considering line of site (LOS) parallax. But even with PS?s which are configured for macro shooting it is often quite noticeable that the picture you take is not exactly what is framed in the viewfinder. Knowing where your viewfinder frames in relation to what your lens captures virtually eliminates any hassle of parallax issue in a PS (because you learn to compensate for the variance and get your shot anyway). At further distances, parallax is almost a non-issue because the angle of incident of View LOS to Capture LOS is for intended purposes negligible.

Zooming with a PS is somewhat misleading as well. Most PS cameras perform an excellent job of relating viewfinder image frame to lens capture frame. So good in fact that you usually don?t realize that you?re not seeing exactly what the lens sees. When ?zooming? with a PS you?re still not seeing through the lens however. The perceived zoom you see through the viewfinder is actually a separate zoom created by a diopter or second lens within the viewfinder which moves in relation to the amount of zoom dialed in. It does a pretty good job of representing how much zoom your capture lens is seeing but it is still not the exact image which you?re capturing.

What you see through ?SLR? cameras is what you get (with the exception of crop factor ? which DuallyX addresses in his post). You actually look TTL (through the lens) so whether you are zoomed, close to or far away from your subject you are seeing through the viewfinder exactly what your lens sees. You are truly looking through the lens.

I'm describing the difference of viewing between SLR and non-SLR, not disparaging non-SLR's. I'd love to have a G3 for a backup camera and a number of top PS's capture absolutely exceptional images - often with built in processing which provides more pleasing exposure and saturation levels which the pro gear requires additional software to perform.

Now, regarding the differences between the Digital Rebel and the Minolta S414; the differences are plethora. The BIGGEST functional difference being the Rebel can mount interchangeable lenses while the Minolta cannot. The Rebel can mount nearly all of Canon?s EF lenses as well as the new EF-S designed specifically for the Rebel (That?s a friggin? huge amount of lenses). The benefit of buying a true SLR be it film or digital is that as camera bodies come and go, your lenses will still be of value for use with other camera bodies from the same manufacturer. Most digital camera photogs from the Canon and Nikkon camps are able to use lenses they?ve bought over the past 15+ years (with a few exceptions). The Rebel can make use of Canon accessories such as cable release, battery packs, off-shoe flash and a host of other accessories (check Canon?s website for all the goodies).

The Rebel is more than twice the cost of the S414 but it is also nearly twice the Megapixel with functions and features which very closely resemble its professional sibling the Canon EOS-10D (in fact, the Rebel uses the same Digic processor which the 10D uses. Images out of the Rebel are equal to the 10D except for those which require the advanced features which are unique to the professional gear).

Hmm, I?m writing a book here. Head over to dpreview.com and bring up both of those camera?s side by side to view the technical differences. Depending on what you intend to do with your camera, those differences side by side should make your decision for you.

There?s nothing wrong with a PS for what it?s designed for but if you want to invest in equipment which can grow a hobby you?re better off looking into D-SLR?s. Most good camera shops will let you try the cameras and lenses in the shop, some even rent the gear. Bring our own CF card and take the images home to see what you got with your sample shooting. The Rebel takes CF I & II, the S414 takes CF I only.

Oh, output image size. What size images (photographs) are you wanting to get out of the camera? The difference in megapixel results in difference in size & quality printed images as well.

Someone else here can likely explain what I've described better than I've done it or clarify some of my less clear points but these are points worth noting as I understand them.

---------------->dpreview.com check out the buying comparison guide as well as user forums. The user forums per camera are an excellent source for hearing the issues or praise associated w/each camera. There are also relevant user experiences comparing similar and disimilar cameras.

Good luck!!
 

Lars

Diamond Member
Jan 10, 2001
3,379
0
0
I recently upgraded from my Minolta Dimage S404 to the Digital Rebel. What a difference. Faster focus, sharper pictures, less noise, more control ... better images. I also like the 1.6 crop factor because it makes a up to 480mm zoom lens out of my Sigma 70-300mm lens.