• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

slr camera question

Inspector Jihad

Inspector Jihad

Lifer
what exactly does it do better than 'regular' cameras? I'm a huge camera noob, I dont really know anything.

Also, are dslrs and good and if so, whats a good model in the 500 dollar range?
 
Overall, it's the lens, not the camera that makes the picture quality much much better.

Also, the viewing through the actual lens is a huge plus.
 
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
why is viewing thru the lens better?
Click to expand...

Well, there are two camps in the digital world:

P&S: Where you usually use a screen to see what the lens sees. But if you take shots using the viewfinder, the result does not match what you see through the viewfinder. And using the screen may not be best in the bright sun and it wears down your batteries.

DSLR: What you see through the viewfinder is what you get. No live preview through a screen. No trouble in bright light. No wearing down of batteries.

DSLRs and P&S may give similar results when still objects are being photographed outdoors in bright light, but speed up the subject (sports) or decrease the lighting and a DSLR will walk all over a P&S camera. DSLRs simply have better IQ at high ISOs, can use faster lenses with F1.4 apertures, and have really fast shutters. But they are more expensive, heavier, and bulkier. All the things P&S cameras are not.
 
i read the wiki article on slr and i get a bit of it. so the major difference in a slr is the viewfinder thing right. But isit possible for a p&s to be good in low lighting and high speed?
 
And there are no DSLRs for $500.

A decent lens zoom will cost you that and another $800 for the body.

Being a DSLR owner is a lot more expensive that you seem to think.
 
Originally posted by: Staples
And there are no DSLRs for $500.

A decent lens zoom will cost you that and another $800 for the body.

Being a DSLR owner is a lot more expensive that you seem to think.
Click to expand...

Oh really? Then what do you call Pentax *ist DL? It's a DSLR, and it's under $500.
 
Close. That is $519.

Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.

I have not looked into that camera so I am not sure if it is a performer or not.

I have had a Rebel XT since early last year and I am happy with it (although Canon sucks with their small LCDs). The body is somewhere around $700 now.
 
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
i read the wiki article on slr and i get a bit of it. so the major difference in a slr is the viewfinder thing right. But isit possible for a p&s to be good in low lighting and high speed?
Click to expand...
No, the major difference isn't the viewfinder. The lack of a live view LCD is due to the very nature of what SLR stands for (although one manufacturer is trying to buck this trend). The major difference is the ability to change lenses to suit your particular needs, something a P&S does not enable you to do.
Originally posted by: Staples
And there are no DSLRs for $500.

A decent lens zoom will cost you that and another $800 for the body.

Being a DSLR owner is a lot more expensive that you seem to think.
Click to expand...
You can pick up a D50 for around $500 if you look hard enough, although it'll only be a body or a refurbished one. Although you are correct about being an SLR owner being expensive. The very thing I've listed above about the benefit of SLR's is the very big drawback, the cost of entry and acceptance.

Since picking up my Nikon D50 last January, I've somehow managed to spend over $1500 on the hobby.
 
SLR Pluses compared to Point and Shoots:

1. Better image quality, depending on the lens. A DSLR is fully capable of taking P&S quality pictures or worse if you slap on an ultra cheap lens.
2. Better Dynamic Range (The range between the maximum light intensity and minimum light intensity that's recordable in a single scene.)
3. Faster Autofocus
4. Faster turn-on time
5. Faster and longer continual shooting (3 fps minimum, unlimited if in JPEG, limited if in RAW)
6. Faster write speeds to storage media.
7. Ability to easily use RAW due to faster write speeds.
8. Better performance in low light and high ISOs
9. Greater or smaller depth of field depending on the lens.
10. Greater picture taking possibilities, from macro to wideangle to telephoto.
11. Viewfinder uses no batteries, and is an accurate representation of the picture because the colors are not messed up from viewing on an LCD or EVF.
12. Viewfinder allows easier manual focusing.

Minuses:
1. Can get REALLY expensive. Lenses can be 300+ a pop.
2. Bigger and heavier than point and shoots.


Have you seen the Pentax *ist deal on Hot Deals? $310 for the camera, and you can probably find some older, but still quite good, Pentax lenses from the last 20 years for cheap.

Canon and Nikon pros and cons:

Pros: Both are more or less the big camera players. Like AMD and Intel. Or ATI and nVidia.

Cons: Canon and Nikon lenses are off the wall expensive. Canon compatible lenses made by third party lensmakers such as Sigma, Tamron, or Tokina are generally more expensive than their Nikon counterparts.
 
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Minuses:
1. Can get REALLY expensive. Lenses can be 300+ a pop.
2. Bigger and heavier than point and shoots.
Click to expand...
$300+ a pop? I would've started that at around $500+ a pop. 😛 And I left #2 in the quote because I actually find the "bigger and heavier" part to be a plus.
 
Originally posted by: Staples
Close. That is $519.

Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.
Click to expand...

Never heard of mail in rebate? Never read reviews before you buy anything? Never open to other options? I'm sorry.
 
Originally posted by: blurredvision
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Minuses:
1. Can get REALLY expensive. Lenses can be 300+ a pop.
2. Bigger and heavier than point and shoots.
Click to expand...
$300+ a pop? I would've started that at around $500+ a pop. 😛 And I left #2 in the quote because I actually find the "bigger and heavier" part to be a plus.
Click to expand...

True true. I personally like the big and hefty... at times. Not really while backpacking where every ounce counts 😛

As for $300 a pop, I got my Canon 50mm f/1.8 MKII for $35, my Sigma 30mm f/1.4 for $300, and my Sigma 10-20mm for $400. The only lens over $500 in my repertoire is my Sigma 50-500mm, which I got for $650.

Used lenses are where it's AT! FredMiranda's Buy/Sell baby!
 
Originally posted by: Staples
Close. That is $519.

Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.

I have not looked into that camera so I am not sure if it is a performer or not.

I have had a Rebel XT since early last year and I am happy with it (although Canon sucks with their small LCDs). The body is somewhere around $700 now.
Click to expand...

just bought a rebel xt for $525 after a $100 rebate about a month ago
 
Originally posted by: Staples
Close. That is $519.

Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.

I have not looked into that camera so I am not sure if it is a performer or not.

I have had a Rebel XT since early last year and I am happy with it (although Canon sucks with their small LCDs). The body is somewhere around $700 now.
Click to expand...

Do you have a reading problem? It has rebates.
 
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
hmm...what about camera that are "inbetween" p&s and dslrs...like this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16830179057
Click to expand...

Eh.... they're probably good for what you're going to use them for. I personally think it's good to first start learning on a prosumer camera like the above. That way you'll get the basics down and hopefully eventually get a solid understanding of what you'd like in a future camera.

For someone like me the camera would be too limited.

1. No RAW mode. Unacceptable.
2. The wide part of the lens is not wide enough (35mm).
3. FPS is too slow.
4. Autofocus is probably too slow for action shots like birds flying.
5. High ISO is probably really noisy.
6. Aperture range is too small.
7. Dynamic Range is probably too limited.
8. MEMORY STICK?!?!

On the plus side, I'm sure the lens is really sharp and has full manual controls. For someone who's a camera noob and who probably doesn't want to (or can't) spend a lot on good glass, a prosumer camera like this one is probably your best bet.
 
Originally posted by: Baked
Originally posted by: Staples
Close. That is $519.

Canon and Nikon are the only cameras I think of when I think DSLR.
Click to expand...

Never heard of mail in rebate? Never read reviews before you buy anything? Never open to other options? I'm sorry.
Click to expand...

MIR don't count. I never even get some of them back. That is why they don't count. I never have bought anything based on the price after MIR.

I have a Rebel XT and I am happy with it. DSLRs are not going to improve much. Sure the sensors will get more dense and the MP number will go up but as far as the camera, DSLRs are not going to get much better. Back when I bought mine, there were only Nikons and Canons. I did a lot of research on them. I bought one. I am happy with it and stopped reading reviews because I know that nothing will be worth spending another $600 on for many many, years if ever. I said I don't know whether the Pentax is a good performer or not. I'd be open to it if it scored well and if I were looking for a DSLR now.
 
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
hmm...what about camera that are "inbetween" p&s and dslrs...like this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16830179057
Click to expand...

Eh.... they're probably good for what you're going to use them for. I personally think it's good to first start learning on a prosumer camera like the above. That way you'll get the basics down and hopefully eventually get a solid understanding of what you'd like in a future camera.

For someone like me the camera would be too limited.

1. No RAW mode. Unacceptable.
2. The wide part of the lens is not wide enough (35mm).
3. FPS is too slow.
4. Autofocus is probably too slow for action shots like birds flying.
5. High ISO is probably really noisy.
6. Aperture range is too small.
7. Dynamic Range is probably too limited.
8. MEMORY STICK?!?!

On the plus side, I'm sure the lens is really sharp and has full manual controls. For someone who's a camera noob and who probably doesn't want to (or can't) spend a lot on good glass, a prosumer camera like this one is probably your best bet.
Click to expand...

yeah i think that would suffice for my needs. And I'd be teaching my dad and sister how to use it after I figure it out so its best to not go the dslr route cause they'd prolly not use it correctly anyway.

What other good cameras are there like that sony?
 
you can buy very nice lenses with lots of coatings and bits to make sure its sharp from corner to corner. the sensor is big. more light per pixel is better. eh go to howstuffworks.com
 
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad

yeah i think that would suffice for my needs. And I'd be teaching my dad and sister how to use it after I figure it out so its best to not go the dslr route cause they'd prolly not use it correctly anyway.

What other good cameras are there like that sony?
Click to expand...

I have no idea. Being an SLR user I've kinda gone clueless about the prosumer market. Check places like DPReview and ask questions on their forums.
 
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
Originally posted by: fuzzybabybunny
Originally posted by: Inspector Jihad
hmm...what about camera that are "inbetween" p&s and dslrs...like this one:

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16830179057
Click to expand...

Eh.... they're probably good for what you're going to use them for. I personally think it's good to first start learning on a prosumer camera like the above. That way you'll get the basics down and hopefully eventually get a solid understanding of what you'd like in a future camera.

For someone like me the camera would be too limited.

1. No RAW mode. Unacceptable.
2. The wide part of the lens is not wide enough (35mm).
3. FPS is too slow.
4. Autofocus is probably too slow for action shots like birds flying.
5. High ISO is probably really noisy.
6. Aperture range is too small.
7. Dynamic Range is probably too limited.
8. MEMORY STICK?!?!

On the plus side, I'm sure the lens is really sharp and has full manual controls. For someone who's a camera noob and who probably doesn't want to (or can't) spend a lot on good glass, a prosumer camera like this one is probably your best bet.
Click to expand...

yeah i think that would suffice for my needs. And I'd be teaching my dad and sister how to use it after I figure it out so its best to not go the dslr route cause they'd prolly not use it correctly anyway.

What other good cameras are there like that sony?
Click to expand...

canon>sony
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top