ECN Forum Forums General Topics of the Trade General Discussion Area OT (Sort of): Cameras

noderaser, I also noticed that he's getting a lot of answers about digicams rather than SLRs.

A good place for reviews about SLRs is here: http://www.luminous-landscape.com/

A good place online to buy from is http://www.bhphotovideo.com/

Sharp eyes, nod .... I'm planning on a camera with removable lens, built in meter, view through the lens, etc.

I've used the 'little ones,' and have found them wanting. I'm just more comfortable with the 'old style' camera, I guess.

Well that what happens when you ask a bunch of sparkies a photography question. With a little Super 88 tape, you can put amy lens on any camera. My apologies.

Did I mention my Pentex had a 16.3 zoom? What ever that means.

IMHO, SLR is obsolete. It was a powerful (if expensive) technique required back when the photographer used a viewfinder, but now that the viewfinder and film are one-in-the-same and the viewfinder is a 3" LCD on the back of the camera, it's rather pointless.

There are plenty of other cameras out there that give you SLR-like features for a whole lot more convenience and less cost. You can get frames that take lenses but aren't "SLR". But, do you really need to add lenses if your camera has 15x built-in optical zoom? The Sony Cyber-shot DHC-H5 I use at work offers pretty much everything an SLR does, but has the 12x lens internal, which makes it a ton more convenient. I don't like it, though- too bulky. I'd much rather prefer a full featured (eg includes manual aperature and exposure controls) point-n-shoot camera that fits in my pocket, even if I have to make do with 3x optical zoom.

My dad used his 2.0mp fuji with 6x optical zoom all the time, he loved that thing and really got into photography, so he bought an $800 7mp SLR. Yet, he still only ever uses his 2.0mp fuji because the SLR is too much of a pain to deal with.

I was under the impression professional photographers still use and prefer SLRs many of which are digital SLRs.

SLR is superfluous in a digital camera, but old habits die hard, I guess. You simply don't need an optical viewfinder in a digital camera, and thus don't need a complicated SLR mechanism. There was a tradeoff in battery life for a while that gave an advantage to having an optical viewfinder so you could turn the LCD off, but with the advent of lithium-ion and more efficient electronics, even that isn't much of an issue anymore.

I keep the LCD off on my camera unless I am really serious about what I am shooting. It does eat most of the battery usage.
My el cheapo Canon does zoom the optical viewfinder along with the lens. It is a fairly good representation of what you get. About the only time I use the LCD is when I am not sure what the autofocus will actually focus on or when I am holding the camera up in the air, shooting over something.

I disagree, the display on the cameras is no match for the final product and no match for seeing the real thing.

As far as the 'complicated SLR mechanism' I see lots of old SLRs working fine, I have already thrown out more then a few digitals because of failure.

JMO, Bob

Canon has now made their PMA new-product announcements. Still no EOS-5D Mark II. (But the existing EOS-5D is still an excellent camera.) They did announce a new reduced-frame camera, the Rebel XSi. It appears to be quite a decent entry-level SLR.

I recommend looking at http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech.htm

In particular read his discussions of 'point and shoot' cameras versus SLRs. He is a professional photographer, and uses both, everything from $150 point and shoot cameras up to the top of the line DSLRs.

For many things, you simply cannot beat a point and shoot. The thing is there when you need it, is cheap (so you are not worried so much about damaging it), and will get the job done.

But for some things the DSLR simply cannot be beat. In a nutshell, the DSLR will give you much more flexibility and much more creative control, in a more expensive and delicate piece of hardware that is larger and more difficult to lug around.

Viewfinders:
While the ability to view the image through the sensor obviates some of the benefits of the SLR, the resolution of the back panel LCD is still no where near that of the viewfinder. You simply cannot quickly evaluate things like precise depth of field using that LCD, but you can get it quickly though the viewfinder. The viewfinder works in low light that would take a 30 second integration time to even get an image, etc. There are still many situations where the back panel LCD simply cannot serve as the viewfinder. That said, using the LCD as viewfinder is so useful that it is showing up as a feature on the highest end DSLRs...and is pretty standard on point and shoot cameras. The best quality image sensors are not fast enough to use as the viewfinder system...but when you spend 20K on the sensor, you don't worry about saving the 0.5K on the mirror system

Image quality:
Larger sensors give better image quality. DSLRs have larger sensors and better quality even at lower MP counts. That said, the image quality of a point and shoot is generally good enough for the application. If the only thing that you care about is image quality, then forget digital and go straight to the 4x5 inch view camera with slide film If you are making photos for web use, then the quality of a point and shoot is more than high enough.

My favorite type of photography is 'ambient light' work, where I take pictures in dark spaces (home at night, theater, outside) without using any additional lighting. I use a Nikon D80 and a 50mm f1.4 'prime' (as opposed to zoom) lens.

For most people and most applications, zoom lenses are more useful and convenient. But zoom lenses are 'slower' and thus mean more situations where you need to use flash or faster ISO.

-Jon