If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
When does SLR start to make sense ?
I understand that the bigger sensors in the current SLRs will give a better
image than the sensors in the compacts, but when does the difference start to show ? And how ? Say comparing a good quality 6 MP compact (say Fuji F30) with a good quality 6 MP SLR (say a Pentax DS2 or K100D), will you see the difference on the screen ? What will be the difference, more noise ? What about when you print, with both at 6 MP, how big to do you need to enlarge to see the difference ? And again, how will the difference show ? I do understand the advantage of the SLR if you want a whole bunch of different lenses, flashes, etc... but I am not concerned about that here. Thanks. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
When does SLR start to make sense ?
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
When does SLR start to make sense ?
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
When does SLR start to make sense ?
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
When does SLR start to make sense ?
Hi Yves,
Ok, here is my take. Compacts take great images and I use one a lot when I don't have my slr with me. But here are the issues with compacts IMHO: 1. Image noise. because the sensor chips are smaller, for lower cost and other reasons, they have more inherent noise than bigger ones in an SLR. Especially noticeable in areas of flat color, like blue skies. 2. Lens maximum aperture. The maximum aperture on some compacts are pretty small, meaning less light to the film, meaning you must either use flash, a tripod or raise the ISO (noise) earlier than with an SLR with a decent lens. 3. Shutter lag. Many compacts suffer from longer delays between when you press the shutter and the picture is taken than slrs do. This makes no sense because the slr has more to do, but it happens. 4. Slow write times to memory. Many compacts are very slow writing to the card, especially if they support RAW mode. 5. Heavy JPEG processing. I've noticed many compacts do pretty heavy JPEG compression even in minimum mode and most do not offer the RAW option. Thus many compact images when you zoom to 100% look over sharpened, cover contrast enhanced and have some visible JPEG noise. Cheers, Wayne -- Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
When does SLR start to make sense ?
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
When does SLR start to make sense ?
wrote in message news:588Wg.107641$1T2.23612@pd7urf2no... wrote: The difference will only become apparent when shooting under less than ideal situations. Low lighting and/or fast moving subjects will make for blurry photos on a compact. And even if you can get a decent low light shot off a compact camera, chances are it'll only look good on small prints (5" x 7", or internet size, etc). Try printing it on A3 size, and it'll look downright ugly. So a 6 MP pixel compact blown up to A3 will be ugly, but the same from an SLR will look good ? I have exhibited and sold quite a few photos that have been enlarged to A3 size from a 5 MP compact, even low light sunset ones. Perhaps my most popular pic is a sunset taken a few years ago with a 3 MP compact, which has enlarged perfectly well to A3 size (but it wouldn't enlarge well beyond this). No one to my knowledge has said these pictures are ugly because I didn't use a better camera! But if you want to enlarge just a small portion of a picture, or if you want an enlargement way beyond A3 size, then I would use a good SLR or a fixed lense camera like the Sony R1, which has 10.3 mp and a large sensor. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
When does SLR start to make sense ?
Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
Hi Yves, Ok, here is my take. Compacts take great images and I use one a lot when I don't have my slr with me. But here are the issues with compacts IMHO: IMHO the biggest difference between compacts and SLR is the same as it was with film, it is all about what-you-see-is-what-you-get. With SLR you look through a viewfinder and see what you'll get on the picture, with compacts you get a viewfinder that shows you roughly what you're pointing at providing you allow for parallax differences between the finder and the lens. With digital compacts you often don't even get a viewfinder and have to hold the thing at arms length and try to pick a shot from a blurry little screen that's lagging behind what the subject is doing and is hard to see in bright sunlight. With SLR you can use the viewfinder to focus (or see what the autofocus has done), check depth-of-field and capture the decisive moment. With compacts you point and hope. The other big advantage of an SLR viewfinder is it doesn't consume batteries, you can squint down the finder for as long as you like waiting for the child/wildlife/sunset to be in just the right position. With a compact LCD the clock is ticking. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
When does SLR start to make sense ?
Wayne J. Cosshall wrote: Have a look at Leica's V-Lux1 or its equivalent the Panasonic Z50. The lens has a 55 mm diameter and max aperture of F/2.8. IMHO, it might be a good reason not to buy a DSLR i.e. no lenses to change and no dirt on sensor issues. An SLR does have advantages over both, but then its film and not digital for instant gratification. regards -kamal Hi Yves, Ok, here is my take. Compacts take great images and I use one a lot when I don't have my slr with me. But here are the issues with compacts IMHO: 1. Image noise. because the sensor chips are smaller, for lower cost and other reasons, they have more inherent noise than bigger ones in an SLR. Especially noticeable in areas of flat color, like blue skies. 2. Lens maximum aperture. The maximum aperture on some compacts are pretty small, meaning less light to the film, meaning you must either use flash, a tripod or raise the ISO (noise) earlier than with an SLR with a decent lens. 3. Shutter lag. Many compacts suffer from longer delays between when you press the shutter and the picture is taken than slrs do. This makes no sense because the slr has more to do, but it happens. 4. Slow write times to memory. Many compacts are very slow writing to the card, especially if they support RAW mode. 5. Heavy JPEG processing. I've noticed many compacts do pretty heavy JPEG compression even in minimum mode and most do not offer the RAW option. Thus many compact images when you zoom to 100% look over sharpened, cover contrast enhanced and have some visible JPEG noise. Cheers, Wayne -- Wayne J. Cosshall Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/ Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/ |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
When does SLR start to make sense ?
I think that an SLR starts to make sense when you're really committed to
spending a lot more money on your hobby. Since a crappy photographer with a £2k DSLR will take worse photos than a keen amateur with a £200 compact there's a lot to be said for buying yourself a nice compact first. See how much you use it, see what results you get, check to see if a DSLR really would offer you much of an improvement on what photos you've got then decide if you want to invest the extra money. For me a DSLR would help with manual focus, since i've not yet seen a really good manual focus on a compact, and taking photos of birds in flight the auto-focus just isn't fast enough, not even on most DSLR's. That and maybe a very long exposure setting for e.g. star pictures, or meteor trails. However I don't judge either of these conditions to be important enough to make the DSLR worth buying just yet. D wrote: I understand that the bigger sensors in the current SLRs will give a better image than the sensors in the compacts, but when does the difference start to show ? And how ? Say comparing a good quality 6 MP compact (say Fuji F30) with a good quality 6 MP SLR (say a Pentax DS2 or K100D), will you see the difference on the screen ? What will be the difference, more noise ? What about when you print, with both at 6 MP, how big to do you need to enlarge to see the difference ? And again, how will the difference show ? I do understand the advantage of the SLR if you want a whole bunch of different lenses, flashes, etc... but I am not concerned about that here. Thanks. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Mmmmm I wonder ? | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 0 | January 13th 06 06:59 PM |
This can make you some extra cash, check it out. | Nick Burns | 35mm Equipment for Sale | 0 | July 14th 03 05:25 PM |
This can make you some extra cash, check it out. | Nick Burns | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 14th 03 05:25 PM |