DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Hardware and Software >> DSLR's vs very high-end, but not SLR
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 25, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 05/24/2004 02:53:22 PM · #1
I obviously know very little, so forgive me for the obvious. I would like to know the crucial differences between very high-end digital cameras and DSLR's. What are the critical pro's and con's that are considered by those of you who are advanced enough to be using either one, but make a choice for your personal reasons? Does one always have to choose a lens for a SLR or is it only for fine-tuning? (Warned you, I am new to this.)
 05/24/2004 03:05:33 PM · #2
I would say the main diffeence is the flexibility of the lens. With a DSLR you can go as wide as you want or as long as you want. Many of the high end digitals have many of the same features a DSLR does.

of course there are as many pro's and con's to each type of camera.

just a few: high end digital = live privew on LCD screen a DSLR does not do this. To me its not a big deal, to others it is.

DSLR = VERY long exposures via bulb mode & remote, high end digital may only go to 30 seconds some maybe a few minutes, but the images get REAL noisy. To me this is a big deal and to others its not.

DSLR = heavy and bulky equipment
High end digital = small, compact and liteweight

I have a Sony 707 and love it, it produces some great images, but its very limited on the exposure times. I do some astrophotography and need exposures longer than 30 seconds, so a DSLR works out great, its very flexible in the lens choices I have so I can shoot through my telescope or piggy back it for wide field astrophotography or I can put my long lens on and use my 400mm lens for a little longer reach on the stars.

Im sure many more pro's and con's will pop up once others start replying.

James
 05/24/2004 03:13:45 PM · #3
When you buy a dSLR, you are investing in a system. The camera back of the lens is just one part of that system. You now have the opportunity to get whatever lens fit the style of shooting you prefer, limited only by your budget. You also have a bigger senser and will have cleaner, more silky images for the most part.

A high end digital camera like the Pro1, Sony 828, Oly 8080 and others pack a LOT of features into a camera that cannot change lenses. They come with a pretty darn good lens, which can do most of things most people want to do, but they have their shortcomings. For the most part, action photography and low light photography is a bit (or quite a bit!) more challenging to accomplish on a non-dSLR.

The gap between the two is shortening considerably, but at the end of the day, the dSLR will always have the ability to get the perfect lens for a specific application, and the high-end digital will be a compromise.

Either way, the cameras are fantastic and the consumers are the winners. All you need to do is make the tough choice as to which one you're going to buy!
 05/24/2004 03:23:32 PM · #4
Thank you for the great clarifications!!!! The really stupid part of my question -- do you always "put on" or choose a lens each time, or use a general one unless you think a particular one is called for?
 05/24/2004 03:32:02 PM · #5
Originally posted by Kylie:
Thank you for the great clarifications!!!! The really stupid part of my question -- do you always "put on" or choose a lens each time, or use a general one unless you think a particular one is called for?


I think it depends on the photographer, Kylie, just like most things about the wide-world of SLR hardware.

Some DSLR users have a "walking-around" lens that they'll often leave on the camera. The Canon 24-70L is a good high-end example of such a lens. Not much telephoto, not much wide-angle, but a great quality mid-zoom. Other folks stick strictly to "prime" lenses, meaning not zooms, and for that, they tend to pick very precisely out of their bag for which lens will frame a given shot properly.

A lot of this depends on the conditions. Changing lenses from your bag for a church-wedding is less risky to your equipment than changing lenses in the back of a dusty jeep, speeding across the plains on an African safari, for example.

Really, it's about how you choose to use the system. For me, I have a wide-angle zoom, and a telephoto zoom, and I tend to mount the one that makes the most sense, based on the kind of shots I expect to shoot, and then I pull out the other, or a mid-range very-fast prime, or a tele-extender, if the situation warrants.

Hope that helps give you an idea of the variables involved.

Message edited by author 2004-05-24 15:32:37.
 05/24/2004 03:36:08 PM · #6
I'm to the point now where I'd like the flexibility of changing lenses and adding cool attachments. My Sony still gives me great shots, and I'm sure I'll use it even after I finally get a DSLR, but it will be nice, when I have the funds, to get the DSLR. Who knows when that will be?
 05/24/2004 03:40:04 PM · #7
Originally posted by Kylie:
Thank you for the great clarifications!!!! The really stupid part of my question -- do you always "put on" or choose a lens each time, or use a general one unless you think a particular one is called for?


Most pros will buy multiply bodies and depending on the shot pull the camera with the correct lens. You sometimes see in the news where photographers might have multiply cameras over their shoulders.

Probably one wide and one tele lens. Just not enough time sometimes to change lenses and still get the shot.
 05/24/2004 04:01:12 PM · #8
Another advantage to the DSLR is the optical viewfinder. My wife has the Oly C-750UZ, it can take excellent pictures but I really don't know what I am going to end up with until I download them and see them on the computer. The optical viewfinder on my D70 gives a much better 'preview' of the final picture.
 05/24/2004 04:27:48 PM · #9
I'm on a digicam roller coaster right now, owning 4 cams in the past 12 months. Many (many) moons ago I owned a 35mm SLR (Pentax ME Super) but only recently has my interest in photography been rekindled.

I purchased my first digicam a year ago last xmas, and have since owned an Olympus 730UZ (I still have that) a Fuji 6900, a Minolta A1 (Wow) and now the 300D.

Only a year ago I thought I was crazy spending £300 on the Oly but upgraded to it anyway to photograph my Tropical fish. The 300D is by far and away the best of all my cameras for fish photography as the shutter is almost instant, even the A1 as the (then) fastest non dSLR had enough 'lag' to lose the fish from the frame but did have a cute focus tracking feature.

I'd now consider myself to be a serious amateur but also a rookie and will be one of the first to say its not so much the camera as the person behind it that makes good shots although the prosumer and dSLR's will most definately make it easier (once the controls are mastered).

One thing though, I reckon I'll be submitting my pics straight from the cam in future as I reckon I'm losing 1-2 points a challenge for not being able to use photoshop :(

This photography lark is great fun, almost as compelling as DPC!


05/27/2004 08:48:47 AM · #10
Biggest reason I am going to a DSLR is manual zooming and interchangable lens, I love the 5050, goes down to f1.8, but only goes up to 105mm, great indoor and out as a point and shoot. Takes as good of pics as a E-20, but not as versitle. I will definatly keep the 5050 as a backup and for low light as it is $$$$$$$ to get to a 1.8 any lens on a slr.
 05/27/2004 09:01:26 AM · #11
I may have missed it, but I haven't seen anyone say anything about image noise at higher iso's. In my opinion, this is one of the most important selling points for a digital slr. It's not even a close comparison, DSLR's simply blow the others away.
 05/27/2004 09:49:26 AM · #12
Originally posted by wyoduckhunter:
.... I will definatly keep the 5050 as a backup and for low light as it is $$$$$$$ to get to a 1.8 any lens on a slr.


The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is US$69
 05/27/2004 10:23:43 AM · #13
One key difference that I have not seen in this thread is the Depth Of Field (DOF) limitations with small sensor cameras. I'm including this here because most of the dSLRs on the market now use a much larger sensor than those found in the high-end "integrated" cameras. The DOF is related to the focual length of the lens (actual, not equivalent) and the bigger sensor really helps in the area. A shallow DOF field is required to get the nice background blur that you see in many portraits today.

The other benefit of a large sensor is reduced image noise. Noise goes up as more pixels are packed into a smaller sensor area.

I have considered going back to a high-end intergrated camera in order to reduce the bulk of the system I am carrying, but it is VERY hard to loose the benefits that I have mentioned above.

Message edited by author 2004-05-27 12:43:07.
 05/27/2004 10:39:34 AM · #14
The depth of field issue mentioned by nusbaum can be an important point to those wanting to take portraits. Sure it can be simulated with software but it's a poor substitute.
One other sort of key difference I've noticed from a different angle is that there is a definite perception change for those around you having their picture taken to include yourself when using a pro or sub-pro dslr. Try not to get into trouble with this but when you're walking around with a canon 10d w/ a 70-200L lens on it,monopod attached, and lensbag slung on your shoulder, you can get places you could never get with a canon a80 :) Dslrs just command more respect and attention whether warranted or not.

Message edited by author 2004-05-27 10:41:15.
 05/27/2004 12:21:31 PM · #15
Originally posted by wyoduckhunter:
Biggest reason I am going to a DSLR is manual zooming.....

You can get manual zoom without making the jump to DSLR. Minolta DiMage A2 has 7x manual, a very full feature set, and probably the most advanced EVF available.

Correct me if I'm wrong but in discussing the depth of field issue aren't you talking about acheiving shallow DoF? For the other end of the scale, as in having more of the photo in focus, aren't the fixed lens cams about as able as a DSLR?

05/27/2004 12:38:22 PM · #16
Originally posted by doctornick:
Originally posted by wyoduckhunter:
.... I will definatly keep the 5050 as a backup and for low light as it is $$$$$$$ to get to a 1.8 any lens on a slr.


The Canon 50mm f/1.8 is US$69


I decided last night during a gig in London that the Canon f1.8 50mm is the greatest lens ever. That huge aperture, great focal length for portraits and the incredible price. I don't know why every Canon SLR owner doesn't make it the very first lens they buy.
 05/27/2004 12:42:27 PM · #17
Originally posted by coolhar:
...
Correct me if I'm wrong but in discussing the depth of field issue aren't you talking about acheiving shallow DoF? For the other end of the scale, as in having more of the photo in focus, aren't the fixed lens cams about as able as a DSLR?

You are absolutely right! I'll change that to shallow rather than limited. That what happens when you post while doing real work...
 05/27/2004 12:44:01 PM · #18
Originally posted by wyoduckhunter:
Biggest reason I am going to a DSLR is manual zooming and interchangable lens, I love the 5050, goes down to f1.8, but only goes up to 105mm, great indoor and out as a point and shoot. Takes as good of pics as a E-20, but not as versitle. I will definatly keep the 5050 as a backup and for low light as it is $$$$$$$ to get to a 1.8 any lens on a slr.


5050 is only good at ISO 64,bump it to 200 and photos are so noisy,become useless beyond 4X6 print !
 05/27/2004 01:06:24 PM · #19
The ODF thing is interesting. Gordon has spoken about it for so long that I think he is bored now, but there is absolutely no comparison. If you want really deep extensive depth of field, you'll need a non-SLR camera.

;-)

E
 05/27/2004 01:07:25 PM · #20
Does anyone think they will ever get SLRs back down to the size I remember for film (like my old Pentax ES or Pentax Spotmatic). Am I wrong that these SLRs are larger? I saw the 10D a while back, and was turned off by its size, and yesterday, I was surprised to see how big the 300 was!

Isn't the digital rebel much bigger than the film rebel?

Is the Nikon any smaller? How about the Pentax?
 05/27/2004 01:14:23 PM · #21
It appears that complete flexibility for shooting different subjects will require a dSLR, as well as, a prosumer model with fixed lens. Each has it's place and many professionals use both for different circumstances and subject.
 05/27/2004 03:38:44 PM · #22
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
...I have considered going back to a high-end intergrated camera in order to reduce the bulk of the system I am carrying, but it is VERY hard to loose the benefits that I have mentioned above.


You may wish to look at a Leica.
 05/28/2004 12:41:18 PM · #23
Originally posted by zeuszen:
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
...I have considered going back to a high-end intergrated camera in order to reduce the bulk of the system I am carrying, but it is VERY hard to loose the benefits that I have mentioned above.


You may wish to look at a Leica.


I have been looking at the new Leica D2 a couple times a day (web and forums) for the last month, and I like it a lot. I'm trying to think of a way to add this camera to my kit rather than replacing my 10D completely.
 05/28/2004 12:43:10 PM · #24
Originally posted by Nusbaum:
I'm trying to think of a way to add this camera to my kit rather than replacing my 10D completely.

Second mortgage? ;-)
 05/28/2004 12:59:28 PM · #25
Here is a site I use faithfully whenever I need to find out about digital camera hardware - this site conducts very detailed tests and gives pages and pages of information about each camera's pros and cons, etc. //www.imaging-resource.com You can even do a blow-by-blow comparison of any camera listed in their database (which is basically any digital camera ever made).

Last night I bought my very first DSLR - a Nikon D70. I'm so excited I could die. I was using a point-and-shoot Kodak DX6490 and I was happy with it - however, only about 1/3 of the images I took were stock photography worthy. I'd submit photos to stock photo sites and constantly get rejected - not for the composition, but for the noise. Unfortunately, the Kodak model has huge JPEG compression and won't let you record in RAW mode (with no compression). The lens is fine on my Kodak - actually... it has a pretty spectacular lens. The ease of use is great. The print quality is really good for a regular sized print, or even an 8x10(only if it's set to ISO 80 - anything higher is way to grainy). The only real problem I had with my Kodak is submitting to stock agencies. It's a 4.0 megapixel camera so the image size isn't the problem - it was simply the JPG compression and added noise at really high image sizes (which stock agencies demand).

So... with that in mind... choosing the right digital camera will depend on how you intend to use the camera. If you are at all considering selling your work, think about spending the extra $1000 on a DSLR. If you are going to be using a camera for a site like this, something to learn, photos you enjoy in your own album, you will probably enjoy a point-and-shoot.

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 05:35:43 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/12/2025 05:35:43 PM EDT.