With Digital Cameras, What is the advantage of SLR??

[PlatinumGold]

SLR has to do with viewing mechanism right?? with so many people using and leaning to the LCD for shooting Digital pics, what is the advantage of the SLR now??

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

SLR is true WYSIWYG framing. Non-SLR cameras have parallax issues; that is, what you see in the viewfinder/display is slightly offset from the picture that actually gets taken. For point-and-shooters, this is not an issue. For people concerned about photo composition, there's no question about whether SLR is useful.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw
SLR is true WYSIWYG framing. Non-SLR cameras have parallax issues; that is, what you see in the viewfinder/display is slightly offset from the picture that actually gets taken. For point-and-shooters, this is not an issue. For people concerned about photo composition, there's no question about whether SLR is useful.

Also, the LCD reduces battery life. I almost never use the LCD on my P&S digicam.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

 

[TekDemon]

Actually, many digital cameras(non-SLR) have TTL setups for the viewfinder which get rid of the parallax issues. I think at this point the differences are more simply in what market the cameras are meant for.

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

I believe there are some digital SLR cameras with fixed (non-interchangeable) lenses. I don't know of any 35mm cameras where that's true, however.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

i always understood that slr was not synonymous with allowing multiple lenses. you can have lens mounts for non slr cameras right?? and fixed lens cameras can be slr's?

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

I believe there are some digital SLR cameras with fixed (non-interchangeable) lenses. I don't know of any 35mm cameras where that's true, however.

and 35 mm paradigm is meaningless when discussing digital cameras right?

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

I believe there are some digital SLR cameras with fixed (non-interchangeable) lenses. I don't know of any 35mm cameras where that's true, however.

and 35 mm paradigm is meaningless when discussing digital cameras right?

It is for most. The ultra-high-end DSLRs have 35mm-equivalent sensors I think.

Check out the second bullet on this page.

 

[edro]

The main advantage is the limitless lenses, which of course, come at a price.

There is no denying the superior image quality of a dSLR (in the right hands, of course).

I love seeing a new guy posting his "what's am I doing wrong" pics, using his new 10D, on DPReview. I will tell you what you are doing wrong... you bought a $2k camera and don't know the first thing about photography... Now sell it to me for half what you paid and I will give you a nice handy little HP point and shoot.

 

[kami333]

Ever tried using a EVF? I rest my case.

I was very excited about the Sony F828 until I went to try one out the other day. The EVF makes it extremely difficult to focus and it hurts even looking into it.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

i always understood that slr was not synonymous with allowing multiple lenses. you can have lens mounts for non slr cameras right?? and fixed lens cameras can be slr's?

There's no technical reason for SLR to imply interchangeable lenses, but generally SLRs have interchangable lenses.

Viewfinder cameras can theoretically have interchangeable lenses, but the built-in viewfinder will become useless. Although with a digital camera, since the LCD is a view through the lens, it can still work.

 

[Jzero]

:beer:

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

i always understood that slr was not synonymous with allowing multiple lenses. you can have lens mounts for non slr cameras right?? and fixed lens cameras can be slr's?

There's no technical reason for SLR to imply interchangeable lenses, but generally SLRs have interchangable lenses.

Viewfinder cameras can theoretically have interchangeable lenses, but the built-in viewfinder will become useless. Although with a digital camera, since the LCD is a view through the lens, it can still work.

so, interchangeable lens is not an advantage of the SLR technology.

i'm just asking about the SLR and how it is advantageous over the lcd viewfinders that are becoming so popular.

it would seem to me at some point SLR will have a much more limited role. particularly i see prosumers and sports photographers going for viewfinders that allow for various angles that are impossible with SLR's.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

i always understood that slr was not synonymous with allowing multiple lenses. you can have lens mounts for non slr cameras right?? and fixed lens cameras can be slr's?

There's no technical reason for SLR to imply interchangeable lenses, but generally SLRs have interchangable lenses.

Viewfinder cameras can theoretically have interchangeable lenses, but the built-in viewfinder will become useless. Although with a digital camera, since the LCD is a view through the lens, it can still work.

so, interchangeable lens is not an advantage of the SLR technology.

i'm just asking about the SLR and how it is advantageous over the lcd viewfinders that are becoming so popular.

it would seem to me at some point SLR will have a much more limited role. particularly i see prosumers and sports photographers going for viewfinders that allow for various angles that are impossible with SLR's.

Limited role? Tell that to all the people rushing out to buy Canon's digital rebel!

 

[FeathersMcGraw]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

it would seem to me at some point SLR will have a much more limited role. particularly i see prosumers and sports photographers going for viewfinders that allow for various angles that are impossible with SLR's.

I have no idea what this means. What you shoot depends on your lens, not your viewfinder. SLR is simply a technology which allows you to see exactly what sort of image you are capturing when you press the shutter button.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

i always understood that slr was not synonymous with allowing multiple lenses. you can have lens mounts for non slr cameras right?? and fixed lens cameras can be slr's?

There's no technical reason for SLR to imply interchangeable lenses, but generally SLRs have interchangable lenses.

Viewfinder cameras can theoretically have interchangeable lenses, but the built-in viewfinder will become useless. Although with a digital camera, since the LCD is a view through the lens, it can still work.

so, interchangeable lens is not an advantage of the SLR technology.

i'm just asking about the SLR and how it is advantageous over the lcd viewfinders that are becoming so popular.

it would seem to me at some point SLR will have a much more limited role. particularly i see prosumers and sports photographers going for viewfinders that allow for various angles that are impossible with SLR's.

Limited role? Tell that to all the people rushing out to buy Canon's digital rebel!

obviously the change will not happen overnight as paradigm changes are usually difficult.

i'm willing to bet there are more serious photographers using LCD viewfinders now than there were 3 yrs ago.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: FeathersMcGraw

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

it would seem to me at some point SLR will have a much more limited role. particularly i see prosumers and sports photographers going for viewfinders that allow for various angles that are impossible with SLR's.

I have no idea what this means. What you shoot depends on your lens, not your viewfinder. SLR is simply a technology which allows you to see exactly what sort of image you are capturing when you press the shutter button.

the sony 828 allows you to twist the camera and you can view the lcd viewfinder from angles that were impossible with the old slr view finder.

 

[phantom309]

Olympus makes some very nice SLR's with non-interchangable lenses.

The main problem with non-SLR cameras, film or digital, is that you can never be sure exactly what the AF is locked on. Everyone who's used P&S or cheap digital cameras has a few shots where the AF locked on the wrong thing, like the wall behind the subject. With those tiny LCD monitors it can be almost impossible to tell whether the subject's in focus. With an SLR there's never any doubt what you're focused on.

Also, Canon's dSLR's are fantastic cameras for lots of other reasons. The AF is incredibly fast and precise - there's very little shutter lag. The battery lasts a remarkably long time. The CMOS imager makes wonderful images with almost no grain. My digital Rebel makes better large prints than any 35mm SLR I've ever had. I've got 8x12s that you'd swear were medium format.

 

[GTaudiophile]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

i always understood that slr was not synonymous with allowing multiple lenses. you can have lens mounts for non slr cameras right?? and fixed lens cameras can be slr's?

There's no technical reason for SLR to imply interchangeable lenses, but generally SLRs have interchangable lenses.

Viewfinder cameras can theoretically have interchangeable lenses, but the built-in viewfinder will become useless. Although with a digital camera, since the LCD is a view through the lens, it can still work.

so, interchangeable lens is not an advantage of the SLR technology.

i'm just asking about the SLR and how it is advantageous over the lcd viewfinders that are becoming so popular.

it would seem to me at some point SLR will have a much more limited role. particularly i see prosumers and sports photographers going for viewfinders that allow for various angles that are impossible with SLR's.

Limited role? Tell that to all the people rushing out to buy Canon's digital rebel!

obviously the change will not happen overnight as paradigm changes are usually difficult.

i'm willing to bet there are more serious photographers using LCD viewfinders now than there were 3 yrs ago.

Sure, because DSLRs have not been affordable. Next, they'll break the $500 barrier and continue to get better and more inexpensive. As that continues, you'll see a lot more people, myself included, ditching their LCD cams for DSLRs. I only use the LCD on my G2 so as to frame the picture properly. Using the viewfinder results in an images slightly different than you intended as the LCD is looking through the lens whereas the viewfinder does not. There is no such issue with SLRs. What you see through the viewfinder is what you get.

 

[phantom309]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

i always understood that slr was not synonymous with allowing multiple lenses. you can have lens mounts for non slr cameras right?? and fixed lens cameras can be slr's?

There's no technical reason for SLR to imply interchangeable lenses, but generally SLRs have interchangable lenses.

Viewfinder cameras can theoretically have interchangeable lenses, but the built-in viewfinder will become useless. Although with a digital camera, since the LCD is a view through the lens, it can still work.

so, interchangeable lens is not an advantage of the SLR technology.

i'm just asking about the SLR and how it is advantageous over the lcd viewfinders that are becoming so popular.

it would seem to me at some point SLR will have a much more limited role. particularly i see prosumers and sports photographers going for viewfinders that allow for various angles that are impossible with SLR's.

Limited role? Tell that to all the people rushing out to buy Canon's digital rebel!

obviously the change will not happen overnight as paradigm changes are usually difficult.

i'm willing to bet there are more serious photographers using LCD viewfinders now than there were 3 yrs ago.

I'm willing to bet there aren't. Go to any major sporting event and see what the pros are using.
The trouble with using an LCD as a viewfinder is that you can't tell what's in focus. Not a problem if you're photographing little Tyffany and Zachary under the Xmas tree, a huge problem if you're photographing a halfback who's running full speed 100 feet away surrounded by other players.

 

[Tom]

The main reason for sports photogs using SLRs is the long fast lenses they need, you can't get those lenses any other way.

I doubt that they are manually focusing much of the time, they probably either pre-focus based on distance or use auto-focus if it's fast enough.

But that's just a guess.

 

[PlatinumGold]

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
The main reason for sports photogs using SLRs is the long fast lenses they need, you can't get those lenses any other way.

I doubt that they are manually focusing much of the time, they probably either pre-focus based on distance or use auto-focus if it's fast enough.

But that's just a guess.

i always thought that sports photographers just took as many pics as possible and just used the onese that looked good. machine gun approach vs sniper approach.

 

[rahvin]

Originally posted by: phantom309

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Jzero

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: GTaudiophile
Multiple lenses.
Canon's DSLRs use much nicer CMOS sensors (made by Canon). Canon's non-SLR CCD sensors are made by Sony I think.

i always understood that slr was not synonymous with allowing multiple lenses. you can have lens mounts for non slr cameras right?? and fixed lens cameras can be slr's?

There's no technical reason for SLR to imply interchangeable lenses, but generally SLRs have interchangable lenses.

Viewfinder cameras can theoretically have interchangeable lenses, but the built-in viewfinder will become useless. Although with a digital camera, since the LCD is a view through the lens, it can still work.

so, interchangeable lens is not an advantage of the SLR technology.

i'm just asking about the SLR and how it is advantageous over the lcd viewfinders that are becoming so popular.

it would seem to me at some point SLR will have a much more limited role. particularly i see prosumers and sports photographers going for viewfinders that allow for various angles that are impossible with SLR's.

Limited role? Tell that to all the people rushing out to buy Canon's digital rebel!

obviously the change will not happen overnight as paradigm changes are usually difficult.

i'm willing to bet there are more serious photographers using LCD viewfinders now than there were 3 yrs ago.

I'm willing to bet there aren't. Go to any major sporting event and see what the pros are using.
The trouble with using an LCD as a viewfinder is that you can't tell what's in focus. Not a problem if you're photographing little Tyffany and Zachary under the Xmas tree, a huge problem if you're photographing a halfback who's running full speed 100 feet away surrounded by other players.

No serious photographer would use an LCD for a viewfinder in any situation. The LCD just does NOT offer the resolution and clarity of looking through the same lens that the exposure is going to shoot through with your own eyes completely optically.

 

[Jzero]

Originally posted by: PlatinumGold

Originally posted by: Dead Parrot Sketch
The main reason for sports photogs using SLRs is the long fast lenses they need, you can't get those lenses any other way.

I doubt that they are manually focusing much of the time, they probably either pre-focus based on distance or use auto-focus if it's fast enough.

But that's just a guess.

i always thought that sports photographers just took as many pics as possible and just used the onese that looked good. machine gun approach vs sniper approach.

It's a little of both.
Not that I'm a pro, but I've done a little bit of sports shooting for college newspapers. I've found that AF on my fairly cheapo Pentax ZX-50 is too slow or will accidentally focus on the wrong thing in the heat of the moment. Also, my 200mm lens is not AF so I have to focus manually when using that anyway.

It's nearly impossible to try to follow the action with the camera. Picture a basketball game. Zoom in to 200mm focal length (I think that's like 4x?) and try to follow the ball through the viewfinder.

You will go bonkers!

So instead you focus on an area or follow a player where you think some action will occur (The area under the net, the line of scrimmage, the center, the QB, the wide receiver).

You set the camera to rapid-fire mode if it's available, and as soon as the action hits, you snap a bunch of pictures.

So there is a bit of composing shots, and a bit of sooting like crazy.