As I see it, the advantage of a slr camera is that it allowed you to see exactlly what the film was going to take. But most digital cameras have a LCD display that does the same thing - is there any point to all these high priced digital slr cameras?
LCD’s suck and are gimmicks. The view-finder is much, much better. How do you stabilize a camera with your arms outstretched to look at the LCD? That is, without a tripod?
I think the key feature of an SLR camera that the digital ones are copying is not so much the through-the-lens viewfinder, but the availability of high-quality interchangeable lenses.
Well, almost all digital SLR camera also have a viewfinder that will give you exactly what the picture will be. The LCD is there for when you don’t really care to set up a shot, or taking video (for which I think it is easier,) or because non-camera savy people think it’s “cool” and are more likely to buy your $500 camera when all they really need is the $100 one.
They typically have larger and higher-resolution CCDs (or other forms of photosensors) than are available on other cameras, also. For making very large or very high-resolution prints – for professional or artistic photography, that is – 12 megapixels might be necessary. IIRC, the larger CCDs also solve a few of the problems with noise and distortion that are inherent in CCDs.
Also, the interchangeable lenses mean that a wider variety of focal lengths is available. Even the best non-SLR cameras have a zoom factor of about 10x, which means the longest focal length is ten times the shortest (it has nothing to do with magnification). For taking telephoto shots at very long range, you might want a lens with, say, 300mm or 800mm focal length (in 35mm equivalent), which you can’t get on a non-SLR digital camera. The lenses are typically higher-quality, have less distortion, and allow you to manually focus and change the aperture directly on the lens rather than with a button.
There are some other minor advantages – for example, most non-SLR cameras have a built-in flash only and no hot shoe, while SLRs have a hot shoe that allows you to add a more powerful flash and place the flash at a greater distance from the lens, which reduces redeye. SLR cameras generally allow the user to save images in ‘raw’ format rather than a compressed format, which allows the elimination of compression artifacts.
Balancing out these advantages is the fact that SLRs and their accessories are still very expensive and that they are large and heavy relative to non-SLR digital cameras. The ability to look directly through the lens in the viewfinder is less important than it was with film SLRs, but there are other advantages that digital SLRs have over non-SLRs. (I really don’t like saying ‘point-and-shoot’, because non-SLR cameras have a very wide range in features, going from a cellphone camera that really is point-and-shoot to cameras that have manual shutter speed, aperture and focus controls and differ from SLRs only in that they have fixed lenses and smaller CCDs.) Most of these differences aren’t really important for the typical digital camera user, but they can be important for professionals or serious amateurs.
CurtC has it right. Digital cameras seem to have confused a large proportion of the population about what makes a good quality image. The manufacturers sell megapixels - wow, a 6-megapixel camera, it must produce great images!
But it’s not just about megapixels - after all, you wouldn’t expect to put top-notch fine-grained Velvia film in a £10 point-and-shoot camera and magically get great results, even though the image-capturing medium itself is extremely good. Sure, with all things being equal, a good 6mp camera will give you better pictures than a 3mp model, but the most important thing is the glass.
Most point-and-shoot cameras have a tiny little nubbin of a lens, and while some of them are very good these days, for optimum quality - and more importantly, light-gathering ability - you want a proper lens. SLRs give you the ability to interchange lenses, and are usually compatible with the older lenses that people have from their film SLRs.
Exactly. There are tons of reasons my primary camera is a DSLR and not a point and shoot digital.
-
Lenses - interchangable lenses get me the opportunity to shoot with the best glass for the situation. If I need very high quality super-wide angle glass for a shot…I put that lens on. There is currently NO point and shoot digital that offers a quality super wide angle view. If I need a super sharp telephoto for sports or wildlife shooting…I can pop on a 400mm f/2.8 lens that will be outstanding. The compact super-zoom cameras have decent lenses, but not even close to a dedicated 400mm pro-quality lens. The difference between quality glass and consumer glass is astonishing.
-
Shallow depth of field - this is nearly impossible to do with a consumer digicam, as the sensor is too small, and the actual focal length of the lens is only around 70mm for something like the Panasonic Lumix. Coupled with the super tiny sensor, shallow depth of field (subject is tack sharp, foreground and background are softly out of focus) becomes extremely difficult if not impossible.
-
Noise - DSLRs have sensors that are about 5 times larger than the small digicams, which means that they gather more light per pixel, with less interference from electronics. Couple that with a mechanical shutter, and the sensor only needs to power up when the shot is taken…further lowering the heat buildup that leads to noise. This is why a 6MP digital SLR has MUCH higher image quality than an 8MP digicam. The 8MP digicam might look good for prints up to 11x14, while the 6MP DSLR will print beautiful 13x19 inch prints. Also…DSLRs can shoot at ISO 400 with virtually no image noise…point and shoots have literally TONS of noise at ISO 400. The ISO 1600 on my DSLR is cleaner than ISO 200 on my digicam. I can also take 5 minute exposures on my DSLR that are cleaner than a 15 second exposure on my digicam…absolutely needed for low light and night photography.
-
Shutter lag - There is significant shutter lag (time between the button press and the shot being taken) on digicams that is not there on DSLRs. This gap is narrowing as technology improves, but it’s still not there.
-
Optical viewfinder - tons, tons, TONS better than an LCD or electronic viewfinder. The reason you don’t notice is because you have no real need to manually focus most of the time with a digicam. Trying to manually focus without and optical viewfinder is nigh impossible. I can accurately focus my DSLR in practically pitch black conditions…but there’s no way to do that with my digicam.
-
Image quality - touched on in the previous points, but the image quality with a DSLR and a good lens will blow away the image quality of even the best point and shoots. At the 8x10 size, a good digicam in bright light will produce a seriously good photo…but as soon as the light gets dim, or the print gets large, the disadvantages become clear.
I have a small compact digital camera I use when I don’t feel like carrying my SLR, but I’ve taken over 3,000 frames with my SLR in the last 4 months, but only about 80 with my compact…the quality and control I get with the SLR makes the image worth it almost all the time.
I chose a dSLR over a compact digital because of the lens and filter options, the flexibility in setting up a shot, much more control over things like aperture and speed, and much faster response times (almost negligible shutter delay). I chose it over film because of the instant results - the ability to instantly see whether the shot came out the way I wanted it to, the ease in creating extremely high-quality prints in my home very quickly, and the ability to use software to process the image exactly the way I want to, and fix any flaws quickly, easily, and invisibly.
I get pictures with my dSLR that rival anything I’ve ever been able to capture on film, and completely surpass anything I was ever able to get with a compact digital.
**Or, uh, what Jman said.
The OP raises the point that the SLR design itself is not particularly necessary for a high quality digital camera. A different shape that allowed interchangeable lenses would be just as suitable. I guess the main problem is people are used to using SLR shaped cameras for high quality photography so the shape remains, even though there is no longer need for a film and winding mechanism. Still reflexive viewing through the lense will remain necessary until CCD’s are as sensitive as Human eyes, and LCD’s are able to give images as good as life both of which are some way away.
What all those other guys said. I will say that if you intend to use a camera exclusively or nearly exclusively to take portrait snapshots for posting to the web or for printing of 4X6 or less most or all of the advantages of an SLR over a decent point and shooter like something from the Olympus C-line disappear. Indeed, you may find that the increased hassle of handling and downsizing the images produced by an SLR in its full mode make it kind of a pain.
I lovelovelove my Digital Rebel and would only ever leave it for an even higher-end Canon. But I’ll admit that from time to time I wish I still carried my old Olympus 3030 with me instead of a backpack full of gear.
thanks for the comments. I see that a DSLR has a lot of merit, though unless the prices come down I will leave them for the professionals
DSLRs still have one big advantage for portrait snapshots: because the viewfinder has no time lag or limited frame rate, it’s easier to capture the exact moment the subject turns to the camera and smiles.
Just for the record, my non-SLR Kodak allows me to use lenses. Maybe not quality lenses, but lenses. Of course, then I’m limiting myself to the crappy LCD, and can’t use the viewfinder.
Technology may catch up to the point where an electronic viewfinder camera matches the performance of a DSLR but we’re not close to being there. There are times I just want a compact camera for everyday shots but most of the time I’m more than willing to put up with the bulk of a DSLR. I shoot a D100 with a battery grip so it’s pretty bulky.
The biggest advantage for quality is the physical size of the sensor. When everything is scaled up there is more light on the sensor for a given exposure. This means less noise/grain and more detail and color. Electronics will get better certainly but they can’t change the distribution of photons so the bigger sensor will always be better than the smaller one.
FWIW Nikon as unintentionally sliped information about the D50, an entry level DSLR. Not sure about the specifics but while it will certainly lack pro features it should have a lot of what makes a DSLR better than a small sensor consumer digicam. The D70 isn’t much more than a thousand dollars with a kit lens so the new camera will likely compete well against consumer digicams.
Most of the advantages to DSLR have been covered already, but there’s another advantage to DSLR you guys haven’t mentioned - those color LCD displays burn a HUGE amount of power. With a DSLR, you have the option of turning the thing off for everything but picture reviewing. That means you can go a lot longer without recharging. On my Canon 20D, this is a difference of about 500 shots - not insignificant by any means.
Balthisar: And my non-SLR Canon lets me use (accessory) lenses too; they simply act as multipliers for the focal length, and they’re rather expensive for proprietary accessories that only work with a certain model of camera. With an SLR, you’ll probably be able to use the lenses you buy for the 2005 model on the 2007 model and the 2010 model. (Not necessarily, as there are different mounts with different brands, but it might be possible if you choose the right camera.) You can use 35mm lenses on SLRs, although IIRC they will have different properties because even the larger CCDs used in dSLRs aren’t as large as 35mm film.
Hmm, I was under the impression that on most dSLRs the LCD panel cannot be used at all for framing a shot. At least on my Canon ES300, the LCD is only used for reviewing shots, and cannot be turned on for ‘live’ use. Is the 20D different in this respect?
I agree, the battery life on the DSLRs is a huge step up from the consumer cameras. I’ve shot for literally days without needing a recharge.
I also have a Digital Rebel. You can’t use the LCD for framing shots, but the default setting is that it stays on, and whenever you take a shot, it appears on the LCD immediately afterward, for a couple of seconds, for instant review. It also shows the current camera settings. It still burns less power than on a digicam where you use it to frame shots, but if you turn it off until you need it, it’s even more economical of battery power.
What he said. I think there’s also an option to turn the LCD on for framing, but I haven’t dug into it at all. Why would anyone want to? (I’ll look through the user’s manual tonight and post a followup.) Not sure if Nikon DSLRs have the same kind of restriction. Any Nikon users want to chip in?
What blows me away about the 20D battery life is that I also shoot for days without recharging, with flash and at the highest possible resolution. Those kinds of demands would nuke my old Minolta in about 20 shots, but my trusty 20D can shoot a couple thousand (no lie) before it runs down.
In regards to **Roches’ ** comment to Balthisar- yes, not only will my DSLR lenses still be useful for future generations of the camera, they are actually the same lenses I bought years ago for my EOIS. Biggest reason I went with the 20D. But you’re also right that they perform differently because of CCD size. My old 28mm lenses will no longer focus on anything closer than about ten feet away :dubious: