Why a digital SLR

[hadley_stern]

I am on the verge of getting a digital camera and have a simple question.

 

What is the advantage of a digital slr vs. a rangefinder digital camera? I can

understand the ability to use lenses already in one's system but apart from that what

is the difference? Why should I pay 999 for a canon digital rebel when I can get a

kodak 5 MP (granted, one less MP) for 399?

 

thanks!

[sorin]

For the same reasons you pick a film SLR over a film point & shoot. And then some.

[Troll]

I disagree. At the present, I believe the best digital still cameras for most purposes are those with non-interchangable high speed zooms such as the Olympus E-20, Minolta A1, or Sony DSC 828.

[majid]

The Digital Rebel's sensor pixels are 8 times larger than those on the Kodak or Sony (small sensor = cheap to manufacture). This means the collect much more light and have a much better signal to noise ratio. This isn't related to the SLR design, it just happens the market is segmented so the high-end sensors appear in SLR rather than rangefinder/compact cameras. More responsive AF and faster electronics are introduced in DSLRs first, for the same reason.

 

The small sensor digicams have noisy images at ISO 100 and unusable beyond. ISO 800 on a Digital Rebel is as good as ISO 100 on the small sensor cameras, and ISO 100 on the Digital Rebel will blow them away, with smoothner and sharper images (as long as you use decent lenses).

[peter_phan]

o much larger sensor, which means much lower image noise, even at very high ISO speeds.

 

o much broader range of lens options, for example, being able to use lenses with very fast apertures like 50/1.4, 85/1.8, etc. for shallow depth of field, diffused backgrounds, faster shutter speeds.

 

o faster autofocus performance.

 

o greater options for future growth within a well-supported camera system.

 

Basically, it's all the same reasons you would choose a film SLR over a film point-n-shoot/rangefinder camera.

[craig_gillette]

For many folks, the all-in-one digicams are quite satisfactory. Apart from the sensor system, the SLR's optical finder can handle the full range of lenses. In a P&S under 4x zoom, you can get an optical finder, otherwise, the long zooms require an electronic finder. These electronic finders can be very difficult to work with for fine focus matters, they also have some "lag" of there own so moving subjects or moving cameras can be hard to capture - too blurred or too late, and the slr finder doesn't disappear during memory functions, etc. And further giving another advantage to slrs at times is the focus system speeds can be faster.

 

OTOH, if you aren't pushing the envelope of wide dynamic ranges, don't look to larger than 8x10/12 enlargements on a regular basis, aren't going for lens ranges outside the typical digicam and extender/wide aux lenses, or dynamic and low predictability action shots, the digicam may handle your needs reasonably well.

[lyle_aldridge1]

The biggest advantage is the bigger sensor, by far. When sensor size changes, comparison of megapixel numbers becomes meaningless. The bigger sensor produces less noise, getting a sharp image focused on the sensor does not push the limits of lens optics, and the image needs much less enlargement to produce the same size print. One can produce a very nice 8x10 print from the center third of a D30 frame, for example, even though its pixel numbers are lower than a 1.3mp digicam that barely produces a decent 4x6. The second big advantage is the lack of shutter lag, the maddening bane of digicams.

[jespdj]

I'm about to sell my PowerShot G3 and buy either a 300D or 10D.

 

Things I don't like about my G3 that will be better in a DSLR:

 

- The G3 goes from ISO 50 to ISO 400, but in 200 or 400 there is so much noise that it's not really possible to make "clean" photos. The 300D and 10D allow low-noise photos up to ISO 1600.

 

- I want to be able to use my Canon EF lenses that I use on my EOS 30... the G3's lens is not bad, but it's also not a great lens.

 

- The aperture range of the G3 is quite limited, f/2 to f/8. Sometimes I want a smaller aperture than f/8.

 

- The autofocus of the G3 is SLOW! Sometimes it takes more than 5 seconds to focus (not measured), which makes it not very suitable for photographing moving subjects.

 

Still, I like the G3, it's a wonderful camera and I've made great photos with it.

[erb_duchenne]

My general rule of thumb is that people who have to ask about the justification of SLR/dSLR are probably much better off with a P&S.

 

People who've some experience with photography and are starting to find P&S or prosumer cameras limiting will ask a whole different set of questions.

 

Stick to the lower price 5MP. It's high enough MP and you'll be happy with the money you saved. dSLRs also won't do other "FUN" stuff like IR or motion picture.

[m_.]

Many reasons if you care to use an SLR, although I myself am a rangefinder user and prefer to stay with it. For digital, the main reasons to use a DSLR will be:

 

1) You will look good with a DSLR. At least people think you are rich.

 

2) It is much faster from switch on to the ready mode for shooting, while you sit forever waiting for the camera to be ready if you have a pro-sumer digital.

 

3) continue to look good with a DSLR.

 

4) Shutter lug is unbearable in a pro-sumer digital, while a DSLR is like a SLR that the lug is almost unnoticeable.

 

5) Looking better now with a DSLR

 

6) More controls in general although a Leica user, myself included, will tell you they are useless.

 

7) I have to say you wil get that manual focus feature most likely in a digital SLR which you will be surprised how nice it can be in some situations. With that pro-sumer camera and trying to set focus manually? Try to rotate that small wheel to get it right.

 

8) a DSLR is great for action shots, while pro-sumer digital is a pain if you try to pin down a flying bird or a child in a playground.

 

9) Oh yeah, did I mention you look great with that big DSLR on your face, even without the battery being charged up?

 

Seriously, I have used a few DSLRs and am not convinced that the photo quality is that much better, at least not 10 or 30 times better than a pro-sumer digital such as Olympus C4040 or Canon G3 as their price suggested.

[Brad_]

<I>The small sensor digicams have noisy images at ISO 100

and unusable beyond.</I><P>

 

That's hardly a universal statement. Which digicam do you own

that yields noisy images at ISO 100? My sony doesn't.

[flowingcolor]

Shutter lag is not tied to type of camera, and the 300d is a prosumer camera just like sony

[beauh44]

Try shooting 3 RAW images a second with that Sony. Nothing against Sony's in particular - I used to own a DSC-F707 and it was a good P&S camera. But in its highest TIF mode, (It wouldn't do RAW) there was about a 20 second wait *between each shot* (!) while it wrote to the card. If you're at all serious about photography, it's a no-brainer: Interchangeable lenses, much faster shooting, low noise at high ISO, etc., etc. gives the nod to the DSLR. Ask a pro if he uses a Kodak or Sony P&S in his studio - maybe if the model is passed out she won't notice he's only taking one shot every 30 seconds. Oh - and try printing a 13X19" print from a 5mp P&S and you'll see spots. Best wishes . . .

[Brad_]

<I> If you're at all serious about photography, it's a no-brainer:

Interchangeable lenses, much faster shooting, low noise at high

ISO, etc., etc. gives the nod to the DSLR.</I><P>

 

Of course that is a bunch of nonsense. Being serious about

photography has little to do with camera choice. I use a sony

f707 and do not want a DSLR. Does that imply I'm not serious

about photography?

[beauh44]

No Brad, it doesn't. But again, take it in a studio situation - a professional situation if you will - that 707 won't stack up. I'm sorry, but while you're waiting 20 seconds for your TIF file to write to your proprietary 128 MB Sony memory stick, I can crank out 30 shots of the model moving around while you wait with more pixels to boot - while using a 1GB (or larger)Compact Flash card. Does your 707 have a standard PC cord to even connect to external strobes? No. Will your 707 print anything much bigger than an 8X10 print without jaggies? No. How is it at ISO 800? That's right - it won't do ISO 800. And while the Zeiss lens is good, it's a variable aperture lens that won't stop down beyond f/8 and it's permanently attached to the camera. I could go on, but you get my drift. And yes, I've owned the 707, and it's not a bad camera - the Zeiss lens is pretty good. But it's like owning a Sears electric guitar versus a Les Paul or Stratocaster - A Saturn versus a BMW, if you will. Find me a pro using a Sony camera for wedding photography, sports, portraiture - you name it - I think you'll be hard-pressed to do so. You'll see plenty of DSLRs, but not these prosumer point-and shoots like a 707 when someone is making a living with their camera. Why do you suppose that is? So while you may be "serious", and quite a good photographer, it's not the right tool for most jobs beyond snapshots. (I have seen some good landscape shots taken with a 707) If it makes you feel better, I can't shoot mpeg movies or use night-shot mode, though. And the Sony took much better infra-red shots too. So perhaps "serious" and "pro" aren't synonymous in your book, but they are in mine, so we can agree to disagree on this one. My mind is not changed. Best wishes . . .

[Brad_]

Beau, re-read Hadley's original question.<P>

 

He doesn't appear to be a professional. Your rambling response is non-responsive. I could just as well go off on a similar tangent and claim that if you don't shoot 8x10, you'll never get results like Avedon.<P>

 

And yes, I do print larger than 8x10 with great results.<P>

 

Your comment that, "...it's not the right tool for most jobs beyond

snapshots." is just plain silly. But to your eye, maybe my street photos would be categorized as "snapshots." <a href= http://pages.sbcglobal.net/jeanneevans/LatestWeb/> Here are a few pix</a>.<P>

 

And <a href= http://pages.sbcglobal.net/b-evans/WebImages/8-30-03NYCWeb> here are a few more</a>. What do you think?<P>

 

Clearly, you're a pro photographer. Do you have some links of your work so I can better gauge your comments?

[beauh44]

Brad, It's not my intent to get into a peeing contest regarding the virtues of a prosumer digital camera versus a DSLR. I simply stated my opinion, you disagree with me and I disagree with you, and that's cool. I never said a great shot can't be taken with a Sony or a Kodak Instamatic; obviously they can - in fact, I have quite a few that I took with the Sony and like very much. But you never responded to any of my alledgedly rambling and non-responsive points regarding the features that are lacking in a camera like the F707. Ad hominim arguments back with links to great Sony shots do not convince me that my reply was wrong. The subject of this thread is "Why a digital SLR" and I gave Hadley the reasons I believe the extra investment might be worth it, in my opinion - that's all. It was not my intent to make anyone feel threatened. As someone above pointed out, if you have to ask why buy a DSLR, you probably shouldn't buy one, and I would agree. This in no way invalidates those who don't shoot with one - including you. There's an old saying - buy the best and cry once. As for my photographic endeavors, well let's just leave it at this: I don't have a web site. Happy shooting and best wishes . . .

[navarra]

Brad, you got some nice shots there. I use a compact digicam too but guess what? I'm going to get a 300d as soon as I can find one here in Rome. I don't think a dslr will take better pictures, but it will make taking good pictures easier. Not to say that my s40 doesn't allow for the large prints that the 300d will (at least I hope to).

 

Oh, for black and white shots I think a film srl is still superior to digital.

 

Simone

[Brad_]

<I>Ad hominim arguments back with links to great Sony shots

do not convince me that my reply was wrong.</I><P>

 

Huh??? What arguments?<P>

 

You made the claim: <I>So while you may be "serious", and

quite a good photographer, it's not the right tool for most jobs

beyond snapshots. </I><P>

 

 

And I am refuting your claim. And rather than back my opinions

up with unsupported words and comments (after all, talk is

cheap), I'm backing them up with photographs (from the same

camera you referenced) so you and others can judge the validity

of my comments.<P>

 

As you obviously are a professional and are trying to persuade

people here with the weight of your opinions, it seemed

reasonable that seeing some of your photos would help lend

credence to your position.