Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / May 2005
Digital or SLR??
|
|
Thread rating:  |
Mike - 04 May 2005 18:55 GMT can anyone ell me what the difference is.
SLR seems more expensive but im not sure what SLR means
TIA
Mike - 04 May 2005 19:27 GMT > can anyone ell me what the difference is. > > SLR seems more expensive but im not sure what SLR means > > TIA to clarify not what SLR stands for, but what SLR means in terms of the camera i.e. the differences over a normal digital camera
TIA
Marvin - 04 May 2005 20:43 GMT >>can anyone ell me what the difference is. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > TIA The term SLR, when applied to a digicam, means that it is possible to switch lenses.
Wayne Fulton - 04 May 2005 23:42 GMT >The term SLR, when applied to a digicam, means that it is possible to switch >lenses. True, but rangefinders could have, and have had interchangable lens too.
The really big deal is that the SLR viewfinder views through the actual camera lens, instead of some little second window which sees something else from a different position. Then your SLR shows exactly the image that will be captured, regardless if you use a macro lens for extreme closeup, or extreme wideangle or telephoto lens.
The rear LCD on a regular digital also shows the actual image too, but it is too small and poor quality to be able to focus or judge critically. The SLR viewfinder is bright and clear, designed to help focus.
See http://www.answers.com/topic/single-lens-reflex-camera
JPS@no.komm - 05 May 2005 01:12 GMT >The rear LCD on a regular digital also shows the actual image too, but it is >too small and poor quality to be able to focus or judge critically. The SLR >viewfinder is bright and clear, designed to help focus. The SLR viewfinder is a little sharper than the LCD ones, but it by no means has all of the resolution that the film or sensor is seeing.
 Signature
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> John P Sheehy <JPS@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< John P@ Bengi - 05 May 2005 01:47 GMT The SLR viewfinder is made of granular surface glass otherwise the light wouldn't be visable on it as a screen. There isn't more resulution really.
My digital has a manual focus zoom that gives me pixel for pixel manual focusing while I am touching the focus switch. You won't get that in a chemical camera.
35mm film may not last more than a few years and be extremelty expensive for the no name manufacturers to sell to you.
Kodak predicted this back in about 1999
> >The rear LCD on a regular digital also shows the actual image too, but it is > >too small and poor quality to be able to focus or judge critically. The SLR > >viewfinder is bright and clear, designed to help focus. > > The SLR viewfinder is a little sharper than the LCD ones, but it by no > means has all of the resolution that the film or sensor is seeing. CSE - 05 May 2005 09:32 GMT >>The term SLR, when applied to a digicam, means that it is possible to switch >>lenses. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >See http://www.answers.com/topic/single-lens-reflex-camera So my Digital Viewfinder on my Sony F717 does not exist.
Are you referring to None Digital SLR's.?
as it seams that way..
tabitha_97@yahoo.com - 04 May 2005 19:42 GMT guys just came in from fishing.....guess a northern bit my hook in half this morning....happened before now to answer ur question---CANON SLR----SINGLE LENS REFLEX--DIGITAL CAMERA EOS---CANON 35mm Series cameras Power Shot----digital sure shot----35mm Really got into digital when my daughter sent me fotos of a live volcano in Hawaii, my friend sent pics of deer in his backyard, and my son came home from Ireland and Europe and wouldnt let me normally hold all 35 rolls of pics....exactly....what is the sense of taking stuff when u get to picky about it..... digital is more flexable...can come in from out in the cold, take the flash card out and put it into the printer and presto u got ur pics, can now download them into ur cdrw, or make fast prints, or even a tee shirt..... canon sure shot 35 mm camera is a neat camera...got it for my wife...hard to download quality pics with it and send them over the internet....still use my polaroid for record keeping and the like....Canon SLR or EOS is for those who are into photography in a big way and dont mind paying $1000 to 1500 or more... Power Shot is an all around tool.250--400...Sony got a couple of smaller digital cameras i like but since i dont own one cant comment on them....Anyone who has Netscape has a great browser for receiving digital photos followed by microsoft, opera, adelphia, yahoo...and then the rest.....excite etc... hope this answers ur questions crusty old feller
John P@ Bengi - 05 May 2005 01:16 GMT SLR stands for "single lens reflex" This is an out of date technique of being able to look through the same lens as the picture will be taken from. This means there is a lens that has to slap out of the way when the picture is taken for the lens to be used for the shot. This isn't necessary for digital pictures. Digital cam users do not "close their eyes" when they take a picture like SLR users do.
Much mechanical alignment technique is required by a skilled camera tech to align what you see is what you get and the alignment is critical with this mirror technique Most DigiCam users always look through the lens that will take the picture and see what they will actually shoot, with light compensation in place before the shot.
Some day these SLR cameras will only be seen in museums and we will be bewildered by the ancient mechanical nightmare mechanism technology.
> can anyone ell me what the difference is. > > SLR seems more expensive but im not sure what SLR means > > TIA CSE - 05 May 2005 09:28 GMT >can anyone ell me what the difference is. > >SLR seems more expensive but im not sure what SLR means > >TIA Plus no preview of recorded Image, puts me right off.
Yes read a review of the Canon 350D and you can't even use the Histogram when shooting or LCD screen.
Are all SLR Digital cameras like this..?
CSE - 05 May 2005 09:37 GMT >can anyone ell me what the difference is. > >SLR seems more expensive but im not sure what SLR means > >TIA Are you referring to Digital SLR as that is what most replies seem to think.
Digital SLR like the Nikon F70 or Canon 350D
These are budget models..
BucketButt - 08 May 2005 07:16 GMT > can anyone ell me what the difference is. > > SLR seems more expensive but im not sure what SLR means There are three important differences between digital SLRs and advanced compact digital cameras that look a lot like SLRs ... but only the first one is actually part of the SLR design.
SLR stands for "single-lens reflex", and describes the type of viewfinder. An SLR uses a mirror directly in front of the shutter that bounces light to a prism which in turn directs it to the eyepiece where you see it. Since the mirror intercepts the light coming through the actual picture-taking lens, you see what the film or digital image sensor will see; when you press the shutter release the mirror flips out of the way just before the shutter opens, and the light coming through the lens passes through to the film or sensor. The eyepiece blacks out until the shutter closes and the mirror returns to its original position. Since an SLR's viewfinder is strictly optical, it doesn't drain batteries. But because you cannot see what the camera sees during exposure -- meaning you can't adjust focus, exposure or even aiming -- no digital SLR includes a "movie" mode.
Some advanced digital compacts use electronic viewfinders (EVFs) that essentially use a tiny LCD display in the eyepiece and show you exactly what the image sensor sees -- it's very SLR-like, since it also shows exactly what the picture-taking lens sees. The EVF may or may not black out during the time that the image sensor is recording the image into memory. Some cameras that use EVFs can send the sensor's image-data to the eyepiece and memory simultaneously in "movie" mode. But EVFs require power continuously when in use, not just when you're actually taking pictures. This may result in fewer shots per battery charge; you may need to carry a spare battery or two, although that's usually a good idea with any digital camera. (For obvious reasons, film cameras don't have EVFs.)
Other compact cameras use a simple optical viewfinder that has its own tiny separate lens mounted near the picture-taking lens. While these viewfinders don't drain batteries, neither do they show exactly what the picture-taking lens "sees". Most of them work well enough for casual snapshooting, but they can't be as precise as a viewfinder that uses the actual picture-taking lens.
The second big difference between digital SLRs and non-SLRs is that every digital SLR I've heard of uses interchangeable lenses while nearly all non-SLR digitals have permanently-attached lenses. If the lens that comes with your digital SLR can't quite get that particular wide-angle or telephoto shot you want, you can remove it from the camera body and replace it with one that's better suited to the task; you can't do that with a fixed lens, although some of the better digital compacts accommodate adapter lenses that help extend the fixed lens's capabilities a bit.
The third important difference actually has more to do with the size and price of the camera than anything else -- and digital SLRs are generally both larger and more expensive than digital compacts. As a rule, digital SLRs use physically larger image sensors than compacts; the more expensive (and usually larger) SLRs usually have larger sensors than their less expensive kin. When everything else (including the number of pixels) is the same, a larger sensor means less digital noise in the captured image. This may not matter much if your primary interest is taking snapshots that won't be printed any larger than 4x6 or 5x7, but it's a very important consideration if you need high quality that lets you see fine detail or make large prints.
No one camera has the perfect combination of features for every photographic situation, which is why there are so many different cameras to choose from. It's your job to decide just which features are most important to you, then find the camera or cameras that best fit your requirements.
 Signature Walter Luffman Medina, TN USA Amateur curmudgeon, equal opportunity annoyer
Chuck - 17 May 2005 04:27 GMT One advantage of the true SLR film camera is that the viewfinder usually includes a focus aid that can be extremely effective when used with manual focus. The typical digital cameras LCD screen is not nearly as precise.
>> can anyone ell me what the difference is. >> [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] > important to you, then find the camera or cameras that best fit your > requirements. John P Bengi - 17 May 2005 22:04 GMT How would you know if your snadblasted glass screen has the same focus as your film does? This is totally reliant on how acurate and how recently your camera was set up. With an LCD screen the focus is exactly what you will get for an image.
> One advantage of the true SLR film camera is that the viewfinder usually > includes a focus aid that can be extremely effective when used with manual [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > important to you, then find the camera or cameras that best fit your > > requirements. Chuck - 17 May 2005 23:48 GMT The films distance from the lens and thickness of the film is fixed. The focus screen on an SLR usually includes a "bullseye" and a split image bubble. Both are more precise than the plain ground glass are. In addition, focusing is usually done with the lens wide open. The Digitals LCD focus arrangement on many of the camera is harder to use, at least in "normal" light levels. In low light leves, the LCD focus may be easier to use than the SLR glass screen.
> How would you know if your snadblasted glass screen has the same focus as > your film does? This is totally reliant on how acurate and how recently [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] >> > important to you, then find the camera or cameras that best fit your >> > requirements. John P Bengi - 18 May 2005 00:09 GMT Why are the ground glass screens adjustable to make the focus correct then?
If they weren't adjustable the focus on every camera would be way off. With digital you are looking at the film image.
The resolution of that "ground glass" is less than the LCD image anyway.
> The films distance from the lens and thickness of the film is fixed. The > focus screen on an SLR usually includes a "bullseye" and a split image [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > >> > important to you, then find the camera or cameras that best fit your > >> > requirements. Mike Russell - 28 May 2005 13:53 GMT Walter has given a good summary of the differences between SLR and non-SLR digitals.
I would add that digital SLR's are attractive to people who already have a large investment in Canon or Nikon compatible lenses and want to keep using them. For many people lenses represent an investment of several thousand dollars or more, and for them it is economically unwise, as well as understandably painful to walk away from that sort of legacy.
Shutter lag is generally much slower for non-SLR digicams, mainly due to focus delays. Autofocus can be almost instantaneous with an SLR because the focus pathway uses specialized electronic optical sensors that are directly in the optical pathway. Non SLR digicams use the CCD image for focussing, and this is inherrently slower - still taking a second or so, for example, even on my relatively state of the art coolpix 8700.
Personally, I've gone with non-SLR because my investment in lenses was very small, and I value the lower price, smaller size, and dustproof lens-CCD assembly of the non-SLR digicams. An EOS with zoom lens is larger and heavier than my old 6x6 twin lens reflex camera!.
You'll probably be happy with whatever your choice is. There are several good web pages comparing camera models in great detail, with discussions of features and full-size downloadable images from each camera for comparison - one such is www.imaging-resource.com . In the end, the satisfaction lies in getting good results with whatever equipment you have. A few days ago I got a reasonably good picture, handheld in low light at 1/7 second exposure, with my coolpix's BSS feature, after a Canon EOS 20 owner refused to even take the picture because of the slow shutter speed - and his lens probably cost more than my camera :-)
 Signature
Mike Russell www.curvemeister.com
Steve - 30 May 2005 14:46 GMT I would also add that the shutter lag on a non-SLR can be minimized by either pre-focusing (pressing the shutter button halfway and holding it till your ready to shoot) or on many Digicams you have the optioon to Manual Focus. I use the second choice when I know I will need to get a quick picture such as at a parade or a sporting event. It is done by switching to manual focus, either choose your optimal distance to your subjects, and set it.
When you take a picture this way, the camera does not have to focus, so it is quite a bit quicker. One thing to be aware of though is if you need to take a picture that is closer than the distance you set, your subject may be out of focus.
>Walter has given a good summary of the differences between SLR and non-SLR >digitals. [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >take the picture because of the slow shutter speed - and his lens probably >cost more than my camera :-)
|
|
|