DSLR vs Standard Digital Camera

What is the difference between these, Im aware that an SRL uses moving mirrors

so the eye piece uses the same lense as the camera but is that the only thing

to justify the cost difference. As there are non slr digital cameras that

accept 35mm lenses, like my own thats now sub ?200 and 4 years past due. And

most now have adjustable apeture size, speed and iso levels some of which to

the same degree, and underneath are probably even using the same CCD chipsets

internally no doubt made by motorolla seeing as they make most other random

chips here and there lol. So am I missing something blindingly obvious or is it

just because it says SLR.

 

Thanks, Huw.

1. You are severely underestimating the creative potential and quality control available by having interchangeable lenses.

 

2. The size of the sensor chip is of significant importance and none of the fixed-lens digital cameras I have read about have as large a CCD/CMOS chip as comparable DSLRs.

 

3. Yes, there is a non-SLR digital that takes interchangeable 35mm lenses. The Leica M8 is a rangefinder-style camera with 35mm lenses.

 

I'm sure others will chime in here with some more info.

I believe the DSLRs provide slightly faster AF. - I don't know which non SLR besides the M8 or anscient scanner-cameras might take 35mm lenses. If there is some non SLR in the 4 3rds system or a camcorder with photo option and interchangeable lenses it has at least a smaller sensor than the other SLRs and sensor size might still matter for image quality and lower noise at high ISO. - Why else is everybody ravishing about the EOS 5D? Personally I also have a way harder time to focus manually on a electronic viewfinder as long as I'm not shooting tethered to a decent screen which makes the whole setup already more expensive than my DSLRs and as static as my LF monorail.- Sorry I'm not omniscient.

"Am I missing something blindingly obvious or is it just because it says SLR."

 

Yup, that's it. All of those photos you see published in magazines and newspapers every day? They were all taken with SLRs that had been purchased by professionals only because those fellows wanted to *look* professional by having the letters "SLR" stamped on their little black pentaprisms.

 

Short answer: If you have to ask what the benefits are of an SLR, you don't need one.

 

There is so much misinformation above that it's hard to imagine that anyone can salvage this pathetic thread - or should even try.

Ralph I think that Huw has asked a legitimate question and deserves a legitimate answer and not a snide comment.

 

Huw different photographers have different needs and thus different styles of cameras exist.

 

SLR cameras have many advantages over point and shoot cameras for some types of photography. If you want a small compact camera for family get togeathers or snap shots a point and shoot might serve you better than a slr. On the other hand if you shoot for sports illustrated you might need a camera that shoots 10 frames per second is weather proofed and offers you the ability to change lenses and high enough quality to do a two pages spread.

 

So what I am trying to say is you are missing something. To be of more help I need to know more about your situation and what cameras you are looking at.

 

Nick

Someone once said that the difference between a SLR and a P&S is like the difference between having a real girlfriend and a blow-up doll.

 

Some how "it just ain't the same"

It's pretty much a case of "you get what you pay for". What you're paying for in a DSLR is at first glance increased DOF control and better low-light capability. It's also a modular system, which means that if you want a weatherproof body and/or quick AF for sports situations, you can buy that and have it compatible with the rest of your equipment.

 

A decent fixed-lens camera might be a better choice for the money, if you don't need the above and/or are concerned with bulk and weight.

 

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/panasonic_lumix_dmc-fz30_canon_eos-20d_camera_shootout/

what is a "standard digital camera"?

 

some hallmarks of a good SLR compared to most P&S cameras:

 

- speed: faster AF, bigger file buffer, faster card write times

 

- flexibility: choose lens, flash, file format (JPG,RAW), color space according to the job

 

- user interface: big optical finder, easier access to functions for more control

 

- more control: depth of field is smaller, more customisation options, direct access to control aperture, shutter speed, exposure compensation etc

 

- low light performance: bigger sensors mean less noise at high ISO numbers (i.e. low light)

 

note: these are generalisations. you will find SLRs with poor finders as well as P&S cameras with good user interface. quite a few of these points (ui, RAW format) can be implemented in a digicam but the camera companies decided that the market for such cameras is too small. instead they release dozens & dozens of virtually identical cameras on the market.

 

i'm not aware that motorola produces CCD/CMOS-sensors. but even if they do, until now there are no P&S cameras that use APS or four thirds sensors.

<i>Someone once said that the difference between a SLR and a P&S is like the difference between having a real girlfriend and a blow-up doll.

 

Some how "it just ain't the same</i> <p> huh, well said...

Huw

<p>

as has been said <i>if your not missing a DSLR then you probably don't need one</i>. However, you might still find that after you get one you might like it more.

<p>

I have both DSLR and compact. I like both, but both do different jobs. If I'm on a hike I take my compact, mainly to save weight. I'm reasonably confident that I can take pictures that will fill my needs when I'm out and about with my compact. Having said that, mine has features that allow easy access to manual focusing and exposure setting as well as the ability to capture the image in RAW. This makes up for the image quality differences that DSLR's have at this point.

<P>

what it doesn't make up for is the speed of autofocus and the selection of telephoto lenses. So if you are wanting to photograph (say) your kids footy games or some birds then you'll find the DSLR has a number of advantages.

<P>

Of course all this comes with a cost ... the DSLR is dearer, and that's just the start. Lenses for some more serious photography are expensive too. I used to like to photograph birds, but found that <br>

1 the time investment<br>

2 the cost of equipment<br>

were both too high for my interest levels. Instead I mainly focus on things 'closer to hand'

<P>

I have put together some of my thoughts and musings on this topic

<A HREF="http://home.people.net.au/~cjeastwd/digital/" target="_blank">here</A>, have a read if you like. If any of that helps you to decide.

<P>

Thanks for the oppinions, well facts, and the linked review. I do still wonder why theres so little effort put in by manufacturers to produce high end non-slr cameras with comparible modularity and technologies tho as a step between the two technologies. But anyways.

There is always the leica m8 or the epson rd1. Both are rangefinders and take leica "m" mount lenses.

<<I do still wonder why theres so little effort put in by manufacturers to produce high end non-slr cameras with comparible modularity and technologies tho as a step between the two technologies. But anyways>>

 

The reason is that there is no market. Or rather, the market for these devices is so small that the chances of making any money is slim to none.

 

The point and shoot market is dominated by consumers, not by "photographers." Consumers want 1) shiny, 2) big numbers, (more MP, more zoom), 3) style (camera as fashion statement), and probably a few other items. They want to replace their film point and shoots with digital.

 

They don't care about sensor size, modularity, or anything else a "photographer" may care about. They want to snap pictures, nothing more. And, most importantly, these people fill the pockets of camera manufacturers.

 

As I've said elsewhere, it would be wonderful if this changed and more companies branched into niche markets. But if you are looking to start a photographic journey, there is no reason to not buy a camera today and take the first steps.

The camera zaibatsus, out from under the oppressive yoke of the film manufacturers, are now able to focus on what they do best: the same old, only this time with a real nice "rapid technological change" obsolescence marketeering strategy which they lacked in the bad era of film. So, it is either p&s or slr -- just like the 1980s.

Don

<P>

but I fear its worse ... while the 80's delivered such gems as the 110 format SLRs there was still cameras like the Trip 35, of which many a fine kodachrome has been made :-) Sharing the 35mm capture format meant that the camera was simply the box to hold the film and lens. But as you rightly point out, the Kamera Zaibatsu have sorted that issue out now.

<P>

The irony (for me) is that Japan seems to be the land of the large format camera, with Fuji still making nice emulsions and makers such as Tachihara Ebony Toyo and Toho (to name just a few). Stuff like Epsons range of 4x5 capable scanners are also really helping. I can (well could) either nip down to Yodobashi and get my E6 procesed for 900yen, or drop the black and whites into a tray of D-76 at home.

<P><div></div>

<p>Go with the slr option every time.

<a href="http://www.contactphotographer.co.uk">www.contactphotographer.co.uk</a></p>

<p> </p>

the two big big big things for me are that SLRs have much better Signal/Noise ratio and RAW.

Yeah, SLR is the way to go no doubt. http://www.mitchelsphotography.com