WHat are the advantages of dSLR cameras?

[Cheesetogo]

Could someone tell me what they are exactly, as opposed to a non-slr with manual controls?

 

[Keyvan]

well forgive me for being captain obvious, but isn't slr just mean single lens reflex..

 

[Zucarita9000]

If you don't know what they are, then you don't need one.

 

[PhlashFoto]

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
If you don't know what they are, then you don't need one.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[crabbyman]

SLRs you can change the lens....non slr you are stuck with the lense you get. Plus any SLR will have faster shutter speeds than a "point and shoot". SLRs also have larger imagers than most p&s digicams. The sensitivity of the SLR chip can also be pushed to speeds upward of 3200 film speed equivalents with only a fraction of the noise of a similar p&s. In other words if you had a SLR and a regular p&s side by side taking a picture at the same film equiv. speed, the DSLR will be a "better" image.

 

[crabbyman]

Originally posted by: ELopes580

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
If you don't know what they are, then you don't need one.

My thoughts exactly.

We all have to start learning somewhere... Geez..

 

[Nocturnal]

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
If you don't know what they are, then you don't need one.

I was just about to post this. It seems that many people are just jumping on the photography bandwagon due to the recent cheap DSLRs offered by Canon such as the 300 and 350D. Seriously, you'll probably lose your interest in taking photos and just stop using your camera. Don't do it, if you have to ask, you probably won't even use it and will stick with the auto controls.

 

[Cheesetogo]

Originally posted by: Nocturnal

Originally posted by: Zucarita9000
If you don't know what they are, then you don't need one.

I was just about to post this. It seems that many people are just jumping on the photography bandwagon due to the recent cheap DSLRs offered by Canon such as the 300 and 350D. Seriously, you'll probably lose your interest in taking photos and just stop using your camera. Don't do it, if you have to ask, you probably won't even use it and will stick with the auto controls.

I'm just curious. Who ever said I was going to buy one?

 

[halfpower]

SLR=Single Lens Reflex. The image you see through the camera should be the same image that the camera sees. I suppose this might help you frame your pictures just a little bit better.

A $180 SLR with 35mm 200 film at f22 will still burn the socks off a $1200 digital camera. Of course nobody wants to bother with the pain of development.

Does a dSLP have a shutter with a mirror or an optical sensor that sends the image data to an LCD on the back? I wish I knew.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: halfpower
SLR=Single Lens Reflex. The image you see through the camera should be the same image that the camera sees. I suppose this might help you frame your pictures just a little bit better.

A $180 SLR with 35mm 200 film at f22 will still burn the socks off a $1200 digital camera. Of course nobody wants to bother with the pain of development.

Does a dSLP have a shutter with a mirror or an optical sensor that sends the image data to an LCD on the back? I wish I knew.

Both, sorta. DSLRs have a shutter. That shutter opens up onto a small piece of glass. Under that glass is a CCD or CMOS sensor. But you cannot preview the image via the LCD like with a P&S camera. You look through the view finder, adjust your shutter speed, focal point, and/or ISO based on the exposure meter, push the trigger, and what you see is what you get.

This PIC shows you the innards of a Canon EOS-350D.

Why did I buy a DSLR? They offer a level of flexibilty with different lenses and shutter speeds and options than a P&S camera can deliver. Canon DSLRs use CMOS sensors that are very good/low noise at high ISO levels, which means you can take better photos without a nasty flash in low-light situations. DSLRs also do a lot less in-camera processing, thus leaving a much more neutral, natural photo that can later be enhanced at the will of the photographer in Photoshop.

 

[V00D00]

I think a dslr would pay for itself over time if you plan on doing online stuff with the images rather than getting prints. My friend has an slr and he takes a ton of pictures, get's the developed, and then scans them into his computer. I don't think he even really cares too much about the prints. With all the money he's spent on getting the film developed the dslr would have been well worth the huge price difference.

I agree with halfpower though, a non-digital slr will probably get you better picture quality for your money.

 

[AltonTN]

The biggest advantage is having the capability to take better pictures. Your photography ability plays the biggest part, but having a DSLR gives you capability to go beyond candid shots.

Capabilities like sophisticated flash, wide angle landscapes, long zooms for wildlife, fast lens for "bokeh" (- blurriness ) that makes your subject stand out from the background and also for sports.

Of course buying the DSLR, lens, and other equipment runs into money. But if you are in it for the long run, then a DSLR is the way to go. Image quality differences between digital and film are down to almost zilch. As one poster said, if you have to ask ....

Well, if you have to ask, you probably would not know the difference in the images.

 

[tiap]

Just went to a graduation for my 5 year old and took over 400 highest level pix in about an hour with a Canon 300D. Have several lenses from a former film canon slr. I certainly wouldn't have done that if I were using film. I know I captured shots that I would have missed with film. It's the old professional photographer's trick: A lot of shots and get a few outstanding ones. Most consumers try to create that perfect picture with only 5 shots. Not very likely.
Even though the canon 300d is any entry level dslr and all of the professional reviews say that digital can't come close to film results, I have seen a lot of pros that can't tell the difference between the two when the prints are done by a real lab. Don't believe everything you read.
Digital has a lot of real world advantages, especially with the prices coming down.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: tiap
Just went to a graduation for my 5 year old and took over 400 highest level pix in about an hour with a Canon 300D. Have several lenses from a former film canon slr. I certainly wouldn't have done that if I were using film. I know I captured shots that I would have missed with film. It's the old professional photographer's trick: A lot of shots and get a few outstanding ones. Most consumers try to create that perfect picture with only 5 shots. Not very likely.
Even though the canon 300d is any entry level dslr and all of the professional reviews say that digital can't come close to film results, I have seen a lot of pros that can't tell the difference between the two when the prints are done by a real lab. Don't believe everything you read.
Digital has a lot of real world advantages, especially with the prices coming down.

You make a good point. Digital photography, DSLR or otherwise, allows you to pretty much take dozens of photos of the same thing, thus increasing the probability of a good shot.

Photography means to me, the ability to "borrow" another eye and see life at perspectives and angles that my human eyes woould normally not see. I approach a "subject", stop, stare at it, and begin looking at the surroundings and available light, and begin brainstorming through my head what angle I want to see: from above, from below while squatting, tilting the camera, reflections, etc.

As a simple, and not-so-extraordinary example, people often approach the Vietnam War memorial in Washington DC and see a wall with names, people walking by, and snap a picture of the entire seen. But do they ever REALLY SEE it? I walked up to the wall, and saw this. (That was taken with an old Canon G2.)

 

[speedydave]

The main advantage to a DSLR, besides being able to change lenses, is that in almost every case, a DSLR will offer far more control and adjustment than a point and shoot will, even in manual modes. Will your pictures instantly become masterpieces just because you buy a DSLR? No, that's up to you to do that; the camera is only a tool. Will a DSLR help you to create wonderful pictures if you already have the skill and knowhow behind a camera compared to a point and shoot? You betcha. There are some point and shoots that offer just about as much adjustability as a DSLR does (Canon G-series, for instance), but unless you are willing to have the extra size and weight to carry around, plus the temptation to buy more lenses (trust me, you'll get lens envy eventually) and spend time doing the extra post-processing work on the images (P/S's have a lot of in-camera enhancing features, while DSLR's give you the extra flexibility to do it yourself later), I'd stick with a point and shoot.

 

[RanDum72]

A $180 SLR with 35mm 200 film at f22 will still burn the socks off a $1200 digital camera. Of course nobody wants to bother with the pain of development.

f22? you get loads of depth of field but that is hardly the best aperture for a lens. The rule of thumb is the best aperture, quality-wise, is around two stops down from its max aperture (wide open). So if its f2.8, f5.6 is usually the best. and $1200 gets you a Minolta D7 or a Canon 20D, both which has awesome quality even pushed to ISO 1600 in their settings. Besides having to buy NO film, digital sensors usually have better dynamic range than film. Maybe slide film is still arguably better but negative film printed at sizes up to 8 x10 can hardly 'burn the socks' off good digital cameras, even the non-SLR ones.