 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / DSLR Cameras / April 2006Low end DSLR or High end P&S
Hi, Please forgive this dual post but because of the nature of the question I need to get varied opinions again, please. I am quite stumped now having read two exactly opposite reviews for a high end P&S. That is confusing isn't it especially if you don't know anything about digital photography. I'm purely a film SLR person who nows wants to go electronic. So how exactly is a low end d-slr better than a high end p&s ? I specifically only need to print out photos in 5x7 print sizes. Thats all. Is the photo quality of a high end P&S still worse than a low end D-SLR for that? If I were to take a picture on auto mode using both types of cameras at the same time or the same wide angle, Fstop and shutter speed on both cameras and click ( you know what I mean ), then what would be the difference in a 5x7 print ? I ask this because I'm really confused ( as you can make out :) DSLR owners:- Why is a HE P&S like the Fujifilm S9000 not better than even the cheapest DSLR ? Look at its features! The only problems I see are lack of IS and more noise. - But thats only if you don't use a high shutter speed for the former and need prints bigger than 5x7, for the latter. Am I right? P&S owners:- If you know about SLRs and/or have owned one then why go for a high end P&S ? Have they caught up by now? If you were to raise shutter speeds for the same ISO 100 would that not make up for lack of IS on an SLR? I mean if I can get a HE P&S that has:- an optical viewfinder, manual, shutter and aperture priority, a good zoom with wide angle, ability to take good pictures ( as per claims I've read ) in lowlight etc etc then where can I go wrong? If I just want to take max 5x7 digiprints ? :) Thanks plenty. It all has to do with sensor size, the larger the physical size of the sensor, the better the camera is. So even $500 Dslrs will make better images than more expensive HE P&S. One notable exception is the Sony RD-1, which uses an APS size sensor. The camera is a little limited by the lens range, the 35mm equivelent of 24mm-140mm. The big problem with other HE P&S is that the small sensors get noisy, above an ie of 100, most reviews say they are unacceptable at an ie of 400. I seem to remember that the Fuji 9000 is better than most, but I would bet that a DSLR of any stripe would beat it out image quality wise. The other thing is that in general through the lens optical finders are easier to use than electronic viewfinders. If you are able to use an ie of 100 and you are only printing to 5x7, almost any digital camera above $500 would work. Look into the Sony RD-1 if you like a single lens camera. Tom > So how exactly is a low end d-slr better than a high end p&s ? Faster and more flexible. > I specifically only need to print out photos in 5x7 print sizes. Thats > all. Is the photo quality [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > what would be > the difference in a 5x7 print ? Even at 5x7 a DSLR will often make a nicer print. > I ask this because I'm really confused ( as you can make out :) > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Thanks plenty. Actually, there is a place for both and many folks own both. For a one-camera family, simply list all the things that are important. The ability to change lenses, change ISO, response time, buffer size, and those kinds of issues often make the DSLR look better. Small size and weight, ease of use, and general simplicity often make the P&S cameras look better. > Actually, there is a place for both and many folks own both. Schuler's points are well taken. Many of us film old-timers chanced the digital waters with a simple P&S first... in my case after a half-century enjoying Leica, Nikon and Rollei gear. After going thru increasingly better P&S cameras, last year I graduated to a Pentax DSLR and indeed began to feel like a born-again "real" photographer. Regardless of your favorite print size, working with even a low-end DSLR will revive your photographic juices and keep you from lapsing into the P&S snapshooter category. A DSLR's low noise is fantastic compared to any P&S... I never hesitate to use ISO 800 or 1600 when appropriate, and even ISO 3200 can be processed to appear noisless in your 5x7 print. And you can still also use a much cheaper digital P&S as a second camera when that suits better... why drive your monster SUV to the supermarket when your other car is a Mini-Cooper? Even 2 megapixels (hard to find with today's escalating sensor wars) can be very satisfying at the 5x7 level. And something like a Canon digital Elph is a size you can wear on a neck string or slip in a pocket rather than lug around. Size does matter... but it cuts both ways. When you really go digital, perhaps to the point of skipping prints, the DSLR will yield better slideshows on your monitor... I view mine on a 42" Sony HDTV and get blown away by how fantastic my shots look. If you are anywhere near my age, I'd advise going first class with a DSLR right now and not handicap your remaining years with a less "serious" camera. The simple answer is "A point and shoot" is capable of taking nice photos, but it's les tolerant of tricky conditions" Perhaps a good analogy might be between a 2 wheel driave and a 4 wheel drive vehicle - both do a good job on the highway, but as soon as you go off road it's a different story. With the P & S you've also pretty limited to what's built into the camera, whereas with an SLR you can swap lenses to make the camera far more versatile - you also have far more control over the camera. My suggestion would be if you're only wanting to take typical photos to remember the occasion then probably the P & S will be all you need - on the other hand if you enjoy photography and want to develop your hobby then an SLR is the only way to go. Or to put it another way - if you're buying a car, is it because you want to get from A to B (get a 4 door saloon) or do you just want to enjoy the ride (get a Ferrari). > The simple answer is "A point and shoot" is capable of taking nice photos, > but it's les tolerant of tricky conditions" P&S should be renamed P&W&W&W&W&S: point and wait and wait and wait and wait and shoot! The shutter lag is awful on most. > Perhaps a good analogy might be between a 2 wheel driave and a 4 wheel drive > vehicle - both do a good job on the highway, but as soon as you go off road > it's a different story. Good analogy. If you use lowest ISO the P&S can make beautiful photos. Roger > DSLR owners:- Why is a HE P&S like the Fujifilm S9000 not better than > even the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > the former and need > prints bigger than 5x7, for the latter. Am I right? I struggled with the same issue you are. I flip flopped back and forth for months, but it all boiled down to the one thing I absolutely had to have: interchangeable lens. Without that option I was limited in what I could do with the camera. There was one other issue that drove me nuts, shutter lag time on the P&Ss. Now that I have a DSLR, I'm only limited by my credit card ;-P _____ Slack > So how exactly is a low end d-slr better than a high end p&s ? Digital Cameras: Does Pixel Size Matter? Factors in Choosing a Digital Camera http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter That said, you can still get beautiful photos from a P&S. I have both P&S and high end DSLRs. I prefer the DSLRs whenever I can carry the bulk and weight. Roger > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > about digital photography. I'm purely a film SLR person who nows wants > to go electronic. As a film slr user, did you enjoy the control of an SLR? Or did you put it on "automatic everything" and fire away? Either is ok ... it's up to you. P&S's are pretty darn good these days ... nothing wrong with using one. They do everything for you and life's simple. Even a simple DLSR has so many features and buttons and controls that you have to spend time actually reading the manual and playing with the camera. Some people love that stuff, others don't want to be bothered. By the way, you can get your film scanned onto a CD. That will let you learn digital photography without buying a digital camera. It turns out that a big part of digital is learning Photoshop. Sad but true ... you can't get away from the darkroom, all you can do is get away from the chemicals. > Hi, [] > P&S owners:- If you know about SLRs and/or have owned one then why go > for a > high end P&S ? Have they caught up by now? If you were to raise > shutter speeds for the > same ISO 100 would that not make up for lack of IS on an SLR? I found that an SLR with its array of lenses, flash guns etc. etc. was getting too much to carry around, and resulted in me leaving the camera at home and not getting pictures. The facilities in the two non-SLR cameras I now have (Nikon 8400 - 8MP 24mm wide-angle, and Panasonic FZ5 - 5MP image stabilised 36 - 432mm zoom) are greater than I ever had on the hoof with my Nikon F3 SLR. It feels like my whole outfit is lighter than the F3 with one lens! I no longer need to worry about the expense of interchangeable lenses (some lenses now don't cover the full 35mm frame, and will be obsolete when full-frame sensors are available for the brand). Yes, I can't use ISO settings above 400, but image stabilisation helps with the more stationary subjects I take. No I can't change the lenses, but nor do I have the problems with dust entering the camera. The images from the cameras are fine for 10 x 8 inch prints, and would certainly more than suffice for 7 x 5 inch prints, although most of my image display is now on the computer screen. I feel I have now broken out of last century's SLR-only perception, and am taking more photos, and enjoying my photography a lot more. Of course, that's for my needs. For you, perhaps some the strong points of DSLRs will outweigh their disadvantages. David The basic question is one of workflow. If you like using an SLR, and you like reflex viewfinding, and you don't mind the size, then why would you even ask? If you've got a problem with an SLR, then you need to weigh the options; they've been made clear to you. But I started in digital with a Canon G5 and quickly found that I needed a DSLR, so I jumped up to a Nikon D70 (and a little over a year later, I changed to a Canon 20D, but that's another story). My decision to upgrade to a DSLR (I started out with film SLRs, like you) was based on the following: 1. Unacceptable Optical Viewfinding - Optical Viewfinding in a small, non-reflex viewfinder is useless. 2. Insufficient Focal Length Options - When you can't change lenses, you need to be sure you've got everything you could want. I didn't. 3. Shutter Lag - You press the button, and moments later an exposure is made. SOmetimes it doesn't matter, but sometimes it does. 4. Zoom Lag - When zoom is controlled electronically, it can be hard to precisely compose shots, especially on the fly. 5. Unusable ISO over 200 - My D70 was useful up to 800 ISO, and, without lowering those standards, my 20D is useful up to 3200 *at times*. This was the real dealbreaker. The 400 ISO on my G5 was considerably worse than the not-worth-using 1600 on my D70. Maybe these problems have been fixed in the few years since I had my G5. But I doubt they've been fixed to the point of being worth skipping a DSLR. If you haven't got a problem with the SLR form factor, then I think you only need to decide which SLR to buy. If you must go digicam, everyone is right... the larger chip of the new Sony makes all the difference. But at that size, you might as well just go DSLR. Will > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Thanks plenty. A P&S is really just P&S. There are lots of controls but in reality, all you can use is the <shutter priority>. Other people here can explain to you why there's no need to bother with ISO, aperture etc. due to it's small sensor. And SLRs have faster processors and bigger buffer - that's just marketing decision. Focusing speed is due to different types of techniques though. It's a good idea to get a SLR for creative and serious photography and a slim P&S for casual outings. Or you maybe like David who is more than happy to have just a single ZLR and live with many limitations. [] > A P&S is really just P&S. There are lots of controls but in reality, > all you can use is the <shutter priority>. Other people here can [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > more than happy to have just a single ZLR and live with many > limitations. I find that I have used both aperture setting and manual shutter speed on my non-SLR. With the longer focal-length zooms, there is quite an opportunity for creative out-of-focus backgrounds, although obviously substantially less than with the larger sensor camera. Unlike today's fashionable view, I don't mind a little grain (noise) in some shots - it can actually add atmosphere! For me, the benefits of the non-SLR camera outweigh the drawbacks of the DSLR. In effect, I can get my photography done with /just/ the "slim P&S". I have learned how to live with the limitations rather than fight against them. I get short movie clips as well, which can often explain more than a still photo. Obviously, my choice wouldn't suit everyone. David Important points when choosing a new camera : 1. What does the system cost. 2. How much do you want to cary. 1. If money is no object buy both. Most Dslr owners have a point and shoot to cary around. 2. If you have enough money for a Dslr (see 1) and do not mind carying it around. (Or lugging the system around) the DSLR is the way to go. But remember a smal point and shoot is better than a DSLR which is at home when you are not. For most needs both a point and shoot and a DSLR will produce good pictures. But is most cases a DSLR will be at least as good or better than a point and shoot. When fotograving it handles better, in difficult situations the quality is better. And I must say working digital is a joy, and working DSLR is a great joy. But point and shoots can be better as well. They are more discrete, make less noise, it's easier to cary around all the time where you don't notice, but more important where the others don't notice you are carying a camera. Also a point and shoot has an advantage when taking macro's. Because of the smaller sensor size you get more depth of field than with a DSLR and with macro's this is often an advantage. In most of the other cases I consider more depth of field a disadvantage, but some people do disagree. So for pictures (even good pictures) only a point and shoot will often be enough. For the fun of making pictures a DSLR is a great way to go. ben brugman > Hi, > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > Thanks plenty. Thank you all for your replies, Everyone's contribution certainly has improved my perspective. I was, as you know stuck between buying either a Panasonic Lumix FX01 ( the wide angle P&S ) , Fujifilm S9500 (ZLR), and the cheapest d-SLR. I agree with all the points made by everybody and it seems like if I want to have just 5x7 prints then any of the above are great. The Panasonic P&S for its portablity, the Fujifilm for its zoom and the d-SLR for its versatility. I don't want to brave starting another conversation about which is better:- the ZLR or SLR (but that would be kinda interesting as well:) Based only on what I've read about ZLRs, My observations are:- Similarities between a ZLR and SLR ========================== 1) Same look, feel, size and weight 2) Program and Manual controls, just like the SLR ( though a bit limited for e.g aperture closing to F11 only which is F16 - F22 equivalent of SLR) 3) Not much shutter lag 4) Not pocketable 5) Both expensive Differences between a ZLR and SLR ========================== 1) SLR has larger sensor = meaning better pictures, rather, less noise 2) ZLR has image stabilization ( though the ZLR model I like which is the fujifilm S9500 doesn't have that and the minolta 5D SLR does have it) 3) ZLR can zoom to 300+ whereas its a fortune to buy even 200mm zoom lenses for an SLR 4) SLR can interchange lenses, though I don't like that because it means more weight to carry 5) SLR has better quality even for 5x7 prints because of its bigger sensor and quality lens. 6) SLR still has a quality picture at ISO 1600 or more.. In that regard is Image Stabilization on an ZLR equivalent to a Higher ISO and Higher shutter speed on an SLR ? Is it the same thing? 7) ZLR has no optical viewfinder - That's enough to make me turn the page. 8) SLR has depth of field preview 9) ZLR can do movies. I believe, like many others in this group, that the camera is not more important, rather its the photographer behind it that is. However I also think that the photographer should choose his tools right. :) I do take effort in composing my pictures with quality content taken at the exposure level, shutter speed and aperture that I think would be right. However because my current camera being film I cannot preview anything nor can I keep on clicking away because that would cost me a fortune. Thats why i decided to go digital, and so this post. > Similarities between a ZLR and SLR > ========================== [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > In that regard is Image Stabilization on an ZLR equivalent to a Higher > ISO and Higher shutter speed on an SLR ? Is it the same thing? If your subject is moving, fast glass and high ISO is more important than stabilization. 6.5 SLR is capable of shallow depth of field (for isolating the subject from distracting backgrounds) and large apertures (for low light and high speed action). ZLR has more depth of field. > 7) ZLR has no optical viewfinder - That's enough to make me turn the > page. > 8) SLR has depth of field preview > 9) ZLR can do movies. May I pick up on a couple of points? > Based only on what I've read about ZLRs, My observations are:- > > Similarities between a ZLR and SLR > ========================== > 1) Same look, feel, size and weight ZLR: The Panasonic FZ5 is just 326g with lens, battery and memory card. Not sure any DSLR can match that. (A Pentax model starts at 565g without the lens). > 5) Both expensive Panasonic FZ5 is about US $300-350. Not expensive. > Differences between a ZLR and SLR > ========================== > 2) ZLR has image stabilization ( though the ZLR model I like which is > the fujifilm S9500 doesn't have that and the minolta 5D SLR does have > it) Depends on the ZLR model. > 6) SLR still has a quality picture at ISO 1600 or more.. > In that regard is Image Stabilization on an ZLR equivalent to a Higher > ISO and Higher shutter speed on an SLR ? Is it the same thing? No, image stabilisation reduces the visible effect of camera shake on the image. For static subjects, you can to some extent have a lower ISO on the ZLR and use the image stabilisation to allow a longer exposure. The DSLR will produce a better quality image at the higher ISO, and thus not /need/ the image stabilisation. However, if you are interested in objects at some distance, and need to hand-hold a 200-400mm lens, having image stabilisation is an advantage wither you have a DSLR or ZLR. > 7) ZLR has no optical viewfinder - That's enough to make me turn the > page. The ZLR provides an electronic version of the viewfinder, which has the same advantages as an optical viewfinder in terms of accurate framing even when the subject is near the camera. However, may viewfinders provide a poor image and framing is about all you can do with them. A better viewfinder would be the my first wish in a ZLR. The best is the (now discontinued) Minolta A2 which was a very pleasant finder to use. If you get the chance, try handling both, and imagine having to carry them round all day. Are you trying to take any particular kind of 5 x 7 inch pictures? That could make quite a difference to what I would recommend. David > May I pick up on a couple of points? > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > David zlr have improved since my fuji 2800. Shutter lag was the biggest problem. picture quality was excellent even up to borderless A4. The fuji auto exposure system was better than my 20D. So there wasn't much need for things like exposure compensation. Still for pocketability i went with a hp707 for small and convenient use. For quality stuff that required thought and wide or long zoom then the slr comes out. I would look at the 5x zoom pentax pocket ones rather than zlr. Zlr are too much of a compromise and are neither as pocketable as the compacts or have the image quality and range of a proper DSLR. Get the minolta 5d that way you can have cheapish body, Image stabilisation and great glass. Soon the market will be flooded with stuff now that sony have taken over. For convenient carrying an upmarket compact with image stabilisation or one with extra wide zoom 28mm equivalent. Something like the canon S70 or something smaller. No I am just planning to take normal print size 5x7 pictures which I currently do with my film slr as well. The price you quoted is dollars whereas I am in the UK where its more expensive. Besides, the panasonic Z5:- I'm sure it doesn't start with a wide angle of 28 atleast. Also I'm not sure how an EVF is better than an OVF. But I'll need to try both out as you suggested ofcourse. Thanks > No I am just planning to take normal print size 5x7 pictures which I > currently do with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > try both out as > you suggested ofcourse. Thanks It very much depends what sort of pictures you want to take as to which non-SLR cameras I would recommend. If you are happy with the SLR camera format, why not stick with it? On the other hand, there may be no need to be subject to the constraints of last-century's design if you don't wish to. I quoted US$ as that's what's the majority here understand, although I'm based in Edinburgh myself. For a 28 - 200mm zoom range, with image stabilisation, and an excellent quality viewfinder, you might look at a second-hand Minolta A2. Consider the EVF as a miniature LCD packaged behind an SLR-like viewfinder. They are required because non-SLRs don't have a mirror to direct the light to the optical viewfinder. The plus side of not having a mirror is much reduced vibration and acoustic noise! You pays your money and takes your choice. David > No I am just planning to take normal print size 5x7 pictures which I > currently do with [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Besides, the panasonic Z5:- I'm sure it doesn't start with a wide angle > of 28 atleast. The range is 35-432. If your primary need is on the wide end, then the FZ5 or FZ7 is not the right camera for you. Some to look at would be the Olympus C-7070 or C-8080, Canon PowerShot Pro or S70, The Konica Minolta Dimage 1200, the Nikon Coolpix 8400, or the Sony DSC-F828. > Also I'm not sure how an EVF is better than an OVF. But I'll need to > try both out as > you suggested ofcourse. Thanks I wouldn't say that the EVF is "better" so much as "different". Whether it's "better" depends on what you do.  Signature--John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) Today commented courteously on the subject at hand > Based only on what I've read about ZLRs, My observations > are:- > > Similarities between a ZLR and SLR > ========================== > 1) Same look, feel, size and weight "Disclaimer" to my comments: my opinions are strictly through personal experience, not through in-depth study nor the evaluation of a large number of cameras over the years. Size and weight are highly variable, particularly when you consider that the weight of a EVF (ZLR) is always a constant while the all-up weight of any DSLR depends to a very large extent on the lens mounted at the time. Keep in mind also that if you intend to do flash photography, all-up size, weight, and cost will increase dramatically once you add somebody's external flash. Built-in flash units have a maximum range at ISO 100 of only 10-12 feet, sometimes a bit more, sometimes less. At the risk of a making sweeping generalization, any realistic EVF will be much smaller and lighter in weight than all but the most compact DSLRs. Example: My Canon Rebel XT kit lens is very light, my Sigma 18-125mm is also quite compact and light. My Canon 17-40mm is fairly large and weighs about a pound and my Canon 24-70mm is /very/ large (to me!) and weighs over 2 pounds (I think 33.6 oz.). And, my Canon 430EX external flash, the mid-size one, adds another pound. So, when I am shooting in a car museum, the total weight I'm lugging around (not counting extra lenses in a bag or cart) approaches five pounds. Check the specs for the weight of what you're actually considering to be certain. > 2) Program and Manual controls, just like the SLR ( though > a bit limited for e.g aperture closing to F11 only which is > F16 - F22 equivalent of SLR) Highly depended on model, either EVF or DSLR. The availability of photometric controls and "manual" can vary widely, but the only thing that really matters is what /you/ think is needed or desirable. > 3) Not much shutter lag DSLRs will always have much less shutter lag than an EVF. Depending on what kind of photography you do, the amount of shutter lag may be a minimal annoyance (if you shoot things sitting still, as I do) or a fatal flaw (if you shoot sports, animals moving around, auto racing, etc.). My daughter has a very exhuberant Chihuaua. When I am shooting pictures indoors with my Rebel XT, even it's minimal "lag" is problematical. What is really going on, though, is the time it takes for the AF mechanism to lock onto a rapidly moving subject. My "solution" for this, such that it is, is to shoot at more mega pixels than I need so I can stand farther back/more wide-angle, which increases depth-of-field so I don't have to be as concerned about an accurate AF lock. Again, it is what /you/ think is important that matters here, not mine or anyone elses. > 4) Not pocketable > 5) Both expensive Depends. The price range for EVF and low-to-mid DSLRs overlaps considerably. Some people might define EVFs for under $300 several times that amount, while entry level or "pro-sumer" DSLRs usually have body-only prices in the $600-900, if you're buying locally at list. Again, though, once you buy an EVF - whatever model at whatever price - it never changes (unless/until you buy an external flash). However, the more lenses you buy for the DSLR, the higher your total investment obviously increases. There is a floor but no ceiling. Whether increased cost is or is not justified depends on your expectations for quality, mega pixels, features, etc. It is quite hard to generalize IMHO. > Differences between a ZLR and SLR > ========================== > 1) SLR has larger sensor = meaning better pictures, rather, > less noise 2) ZLR has image stabilization ( though the ZLR > model I like which is the fujifilm S9500 doesn't have that > and the minolta 5D SLR does have it) DSLRs can have IS either on the body or some lenses or both. The importance of that again depends on the kind of pictures you intend to shoot. I assume you're interested in at least some form of low-light situations and want to avoid shake at lower shutter speeds. But, much depends on how steady you are and how much pressure it takes to push the shutter down all the way. > 3) ZLR can zoom to 300+ whereas its a fortune to buy even > 200mm zoom lenses for an SLR Definitely true. My Sigma zoom was around $400 while my two Canon zooms totalled over $2,100. And, as I commented on above, size of DSLR lenses go up quite rapidly with longer focal lengths/zoom ratios. Having said that, if you're buying for utmost sharpness/detail, you should expect the number of glass elements and groups to be higher than the normally compact EVF zoom lenses, which costs size, weight and money. I bought the Sigma zoom first because I was impressed by its modest size, weight, and price and the good things I'd read about it. I do not regret it. It is a fine lens and the one I take if I want to have a reasonably long telephoto and mimimum weight. But, compared to either Canon "L glass" lenses I bought later, the Sigma is quite soft. I guess it is still true that you get what you pay for. > 4) SLR can interchange lenses, though I don't like that > because it means more weight to carry This is a big issue for me, as well. However, after 3 EVFs which performed quite poorly for my main subjects, cars, I finally bit the bullet and bought the Rebel. I do not regret that at all, although I was totally unprepared for the very steep learning curve for flash - a big part of what I bought it for. And, I still get an occasional mild out-of-focus image even though I am sure I had an AF lock. > 5) SLR has better quality even for 5x7 prints because of > its bigger sensor and quality lens. You may well think you only want 5 x 7 today but tomorrow you may want 8 x 10, 11 x 14, 16 x 20, or poster size. DSLR qualities extends from sensors to firmware to mega pixels to features and ditto for lenses. I generally shoot at 4 mega pixels which is plenty for me, as I no longer print anything larger than 8 x 10. However, I do often shoot at the full 8 MP to gain detail and to create what amounts to a "digital zoom" by cropping the main subject out of the middle of a bigger image when I just can't get close enough at max telephoto. I seldom save finished JPEGs larger than 1400 x 1050, but I /always/ keep the unedited image in a sub-folder under the folder I store the finished images. That way, should I change my mind later and want to print large, I can go back to the full-size image and reasonably quickly re- edit. > 6) SLR still has a quality picture at ISO 1600 or more.. Hardly. This depends highly on whose DSLR you buy and which model you choose. I bought my Rebel XT because it was about 25% smaller and lighter than a Nikon D70S (the other camera I was most considering), and because everybody had told me that the Rebel's noise is quite low even at ISO 1600. However, Popular Photography rated the Rebel noisy above 200, which my testing confirms. I can shoot at 400 OK, noise at 800 gets pretty bad, and 1600 is almost useless to me. Noise, though, is highly subjective to many people and depend on many factors besides the obvious. For an easy example, the more underexposed an image is, the more noise will likely result. > In that regard is Image Stabilization on an ZLR equivalent > to a Higher ISO and Higher shutter speed on an SLR ? This is an apples-to-oranges comparison, again, IMHO. Is it > the same thing? 7) ZLR has no optical viewfinder - That's > enough to make me turn the page. I very much like the electronic viewfinders of the two EVFs I owned and another I evaluated, but whether you want to see what the lens sees or a reduced resolution view of what the sensors see is a matter of what is imporant to you. > 8) SLR has depth of field preview Yes, but much more limited in practical terms than a film SLR. But, by definition, you cannot preview a just-shot image in the view-finder to see if you did or did not get enough DOF, you must rely on the LCD which is pretty useless for anything other than general composure and general exposure considerations. This may or may not be an issue for you. > 9) ZLR can do movies. Yes, but they are /not/ movie cameras. > Thats why i decided to go digital, and so this post. Two pieces of advice I would offer you that can be of paramount importance: 1) Pick up, handle, and experiment with /all/ the cameras you are considering to see if you like the feel, ergonomics, features, etc. There simply is no substitute for actually trying what you're considering. 2) Buy from a store that will let you return whatever you buy if you just plain don't like it or are in any way dissatisfied with it. You really won't know if the features, quality, noise, IS or not, etc. do or do not meet your needs and wants without doing some real-world test shots typical of what you think you may encounter. Good luck! SignatureATM, aka Jerry "Whether You Think You CAN Or CAN'T, You're Right." – Henry Ford > Similarities between a ZLR and SLR > ========================== > 3) Not much shutter lag If the focus is not far off, e.g., the lens does not need to change focus from infinity to macro, and if the object can provide good contrast through the lens to the AF point, the AF can be instantaneous with SLR's phase detection, much faster than contrast detection using the imaging sensor. > Differences between a ZLR and SLR > ========================== [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > 3) ZLR can zoom to 300+ whereas its a fortune to buy even 200mm zoom > lenses for an SLR Canon 70-300/4-5.6 IS is about $500, and it has image stabilization. And it is equivalent to 480mm on APS, 1.6x longer. > 4) SLR can interchange lenses, though I don't like that because it > means more weight to carry But you might not need to carry everything everywhere everytime. With just a 50/1.8 for portrait, SLR is very light and portable. For a normal field of view, with only a 28/2.8, it is also very light. With just wide angle or small aperture tele lens, it is still very portable. > 6) SLR still has a quality picture at ISO 1600 or more.. I would not go higher than ISO 800 on APS SLR, which is about as good as ISO 200 on small sensor. > 7) ZLR has no optical viewfinder - That's enough to make me turn the > page. > 9) ZLR can do movies. If movie is more important, then get a camera with good movie. Later if you want better photo, add an SLR. http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.