Topic: Cameras are not Computers, but............

[tim]

.....we have experts for both?

Just showed up my ignorance. Thought that with a dSLR camera you could see the selective blurring of a subject's surrounds through the lens. The book says NO!!

So what are the essential advantages of the SLR??

[Barnowl]

I thought they were the same as a conventional modern SLR - you have to press a button on the lens to stop down the aperture to see it's effect on the focal range, but this probably varies from camera to camera/lens to lens and you may have to be in manual focus mode at the time as well  ???.

If you name the camera and lens, I expect there'll be someone who can give a definitive answer.

[tim]

Sony A200 - Sony 18-70 mm.

[Barnowl]

........ to see it's effect on the focal range....

Sorry - a bit rusty on the terminology - should have written 'depth of field'.

[Barnowl]

I've been thinking of buying a DSLR for a while so looked up the A200.

I've read several reviews (see below) and you're quite right Tim, the Sony doesn't have a depth of field preview button. So all you can do is set the camera to aperture priority and go for the widest f stop it will let you have at a reasonable shutter speed, or perhaps use one of the scene modes.

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2008_reviews/sony_alpha200.html

Ho hum, back to work.....

[tim]

B****r!!

That was one of the main reasons I bought it for Daughter (the Painter)'s birthday.

Didn't see the caveat in Steve's review.

No wonder it was cheap!!

Thanks.

[tim]

Mode & scene selections are the same on SLRs & non, & some 'nons' take interchangeable lens so, given the same megapixels, what are the blessings of the SLR?

A slightly clearer viewfinder??

Against which they are 3 times the weight!

[djbrenton]

I might be wrong as I've not looked at DSLR but if the lens is larger then you get greater light capture for better results in low light conditions.

[tim]

Interestuing - SLR, as well as dSLR - same thing?

[Barnowl]

B****r!!

Didn't see the caveat in Steve's review.

Neither did I  - surprised he didn't mention it in the conclusion - but he is in the business of selling cameras but it does get excellent reviews elsewhere as well.

One big plus is that the anti shake is built into the camera not in the lens  which makes additional lenses a lot cheaper (unlike Canon where anti shake lenses cost more than a camera).

My problem is I have a Canon SLR bought because I was fed up with lugging my Canon A-1 around - still a great camera but together with the various lenses rather a lot to carry around.  I got it just before decent Digital SLRs became more affordable (in fact the Canon that broke the mould (the rebel) came out just two months later!) I have quite an expensive lens for it that I'm pleased with and that I don't want to go to waste, which means I'm pretty much tied to Canon.

[Larkshall]

Mode & scene selections are the same on SLRs & non, & some 'nons' take interchangeable lens so, given the same megapixels, what are the blessings of the SLR?

A slightly clearer viewfinder??

Against which they are 3 times the weight!

Without doubt the DSLR is better than even the so called bridge camera's. I use a Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ10, an excellent camera with the Leica DC Vario Elmarit Lens. The maximum opening is f2.8 throughout the zoom range (12x). Where the DSLR scores is with the viewfinder, you actually see what happens as it happens. Whereas the FZ10 (like all bridge cameras) has an electronic viewfinder which causes a delay in what you see. Not very good for action shots, but otherwise a brilliant system.

[Tee Gee]

This is where I read up on cameras prior to buying mine.

http://www.dpreview.com/

They are a freindly and helpful lot a bit like A4A but with cameras as opposed to plant life.

[tim]

All good stuff - thanks!

1. You actually see what happens... - so why can't you see the depth of focus?
2. Wish I had 2.8! Always did on my oldies. But not throughout the range? That's something!
3. So now I'm looking for a faster, fixed lens at a reasonable cost. What's reasonable??
4. Great site, TG.
5. Bought this on suggestion of a professional. When I showed it to him, he said nice lens. Meaning...??
6. So - the only real plus for the SLR is the viewfinder?
7. Wanted to explain DOF to Daughter - always thought it a simple matter. Looked it up on the net. After 25 pages of reading, I decided not to bother!!

PS Is this why one goes for SLR??

PPS Do I go for a Polaroid or UV filter as lens protection??

PPPS Pour yourself another before answering!

[tim]

Just thought - at 2 am - don't need a faster lens for the mundane - just go 'Manual' & up the sensitivity??

[Barnowl]

By sensitivity I think you mean the ISO. In general the higher the ISO you push it to, the greater the 'noise' in the picture (similar to fast films being grainier).

Play with the settings and take pictures at each change and you can check which comes out best then just erase the bad ones to gain back the space.

That's the great thing about digital it doesn't cost anything to play with them.

[tim]

Indeed!

Yes - ISO - hence 'mundane', where grain matters less?

[Barnowl]

Sorry - missed the 'mundane'  :)

[Larkshall]

I should have said that the 12x zoom allows me to take a photo of a vehicle at 150mtrs and read the number plate on screen easily. At the other end of the scale it will focus down to 5cm, add a 1 dioptre supplementary lens and you can focus to within 1mm of the supplementary lens (that's about six times life size).

[tim]

We didn't really need one??

"Digital Camera Type.  As much as we absolutely love Digital SLR cameras, there should be a very good reason why you might need one.  We always advise our customers to go for a point-and-shoot digital camera because they are much easier to use and already have 99.99% of the features that most amature photographers will ever need. There are some good reason why you might need a digital SLR camera  Let us try to list these good reasons

You are Pro, and you do not need to read the rest of the page

You are in astrophotography or microphotography, and you need a digital camera to connect a telescope or microscope.  While there are now dozens of digital camera adapters available for point-n-shoot digital cameras, correct mounts for SLR cameras are more readily available, and using the optics of your telescope or microscope should give better image quality than having to deal with a combination of eyepieces and camera objectives/lenses.

You already have a nice set of SLR lenses and accessories from your film SLR camera, and you want to re-use your lenses.

You want to have full control over the way you take pictures and your are not afraid to mess with the options.  You need to be a true photography enthusiast and not be afraid to read a camera manual.
You want to have the latest, greatest, most advanced and most expensive camera available on the market today, and all you care is the get a great deal from a reputable Authorized US Dealer.  Well, we at OpticsPlanet.com love customers like that, but we still suggest to think and see if there is something else besides the bragging right that you need in your digital camera."

[Rhubarb Thrasher]

isn't it just that you can't be a proper photograper, and take proper photographs, unless  you have an SLR camera (at the very least), like in the days of film?

is it true that with dSLR's these days you can use your old lenses?