Allotments 4 All
General => Computers / Internet => Topic started by: tim on June 18, 2008, 11:31:45
-
.....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??
-
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.
-
Sony A200 - Sony 18-70 mm.
-
........ to see it's effect on the focal range....
Sorry - a bit rusty on the terminology - should have written 'depth of field'.
-
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 (http://www.steves-digicams.com/2008_reviews/sony_alpha200.html)
Ho hum, back to work.....
-
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.
-
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!
-
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.
-
Interestuing - SLR, as well as dSLR - same thing?
-
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.
-
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.
-
This is where I read up on cameras prior to buying mine.
http://www.dpreview.com/ (http://www.dpreview.com/)
They are a freindly and helpful lot a bit like A4A but with cameras as opposed to plant life.
-
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!
-
Just thought - at 2 am - don't need a faster lens for the mundane - just go 'Manual' & up the sensitivity??
-
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.
-
Indeed!
Yes - ISO - hence 'mundane', where grain matters less?
-
Sorry - missed the 'mundane' :)
-
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).
-
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."
-
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?
-
Seems so - so long as they are the new maker's thread.
-
Tim,
I have a similar problem with one of my mobile phones, Can't download any photos on to the computer if that is what you mean :).
-
unfortunately Tim they're not, it seems. They're FD lenses for my trusty Canon A1, and T70 (with the dead battery)
-
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?
in a nut shell basically and as Barnowl says you can 'play' more when it is all digital - in the good old days ;D you could do so much with the ASA, the speed of the lens, the shutter speed in connection with the diaphragm opening and then of course in the darkroom afterwards - the possibilities are endless but it depends on what your priorities are with regard to depth of field and depth of focus - it will be a rule of thumb that the smaller the diaphragm the longer the depth - you have the beauty of ease with a digital camera but they do take away quite a lot of choices that many cannot be bothered with these days
-
i'm displaying my ignorance again, but don't prime lenses for digital SLRs have indicators for the depth of field either side of the point of focus, or would having to look be too much trouble?
-
they should do else you'd have virtually no manual operation at all but because so much determines or can alter depth of field and depth of focus I think it is best to buy a digital SLR that offers the most in its manual format - varies enormously and I guess $ comes into it
-
No, I'm OK with that, Mr Smith.
1. Yes, I appreciate the benefits of digital, but I'm trying to justify my purchase of a SLR.
2. Aha, primary lens! Yes - certainly true in the olden days. Mine, of course, is a 17-80mm, so not primary? And yet, all my 35mm Olympus lenses had depth of field markings.
3. Yes, it would be a help, but to be really critical in eg Portrait Photograhy, it was great to have the facility to see the result (the blurring) through the lens.
-
3. Yes, it would be a help, but to be really critical in eg Portrait Photograhy, it was great to have the facility to see the result (the blurring) through the lens.
have just remembered that the last SLR I bought which must been over 20 years ago - a pentax - did have a preview button, but they weren't the norm then, I guess because photographers kind of knew what to expect with each combination of film speed, shutter speed and aperture - you'd think they'd be the norm with digital SLR's now though
-
the Canon A1 had a stopped down mode, but it was sufficiently ffiddly to suggest it's not such an easy thing to incorporate. And I used it for the opposite reason - to check for no loss of focus at small apertures - course the image in the viewfinder could be very dark
-
Thank you for all that. I now have to accept the status quo.
-
As actually taking the photo doesn't cost anything, do you think it may be worth checking whether the camera will shoot in a burst mode: first shot at metered setting, second at plus a stop or two third minus a stop or two. (I could do this with my 35mm film camera but too expensive on film).
The facility is meant to overcome variable lighting conditions/metering errors but presumably the depth of field would vary a bit with the aperture settings?
-
Clever stuff!
A bit advanced for Daughter, maybe - for critical subjects, she does do a manual bracketing.
Just learnt one reason for SLR - the fact that it not only focusses in real time, but exposes in real time. A real blessing.
Haven't used the camera fully yet - birthday's on Saturday.
-
Best advice I can offer, is shoot in RAW mode. It took me some time to let go of jpg on my dSLR, but it's the best thing I ever did.
Other good piece of advice about lenses. Is get yourself a cheap 50mm (standard lens), as they're light, fast and cheap.
Any other questions you might want to post, feel free to ask, as I know a bit about dSLRs.
Tim
-
Just off to read up the books - starting with RAW!!
-
unfortunately Tim they're not, it seems. They're FD lenses for my trusty Canon A1, and T70 (with the dead battery)
Hi Rhubarb. Have you tried any of the FD to EF lens converters? I keep wondering whether they're worth a try. It's pretty frustrating to have Canon FD f1.4 50mm and f4 70-210mm lenses that I can't use on my EOS.
A new f1.4 from Canon costs around £200 and the quality isn't anything like that which the old lenses had. I suppose one's paying for the auto focus. Never had much problem with manual, myself.
PS brief hijack - hope you don't mind Tim
-
All grist to the mill??
-
I had a quick Google after using old lenses on dSLR bodies was mentioned. Seemed to be that the Canon converter only worked with some lenses, reduced image quality, and were rare as hens teeth hence expensive. A cheap non Canon alternative seemed to be also about, but was much worse.
So the answer is no, though I was very excited while the thought lasted.
I just keep my hand in with serious photography with my Bronica, though I haven't printed anything for about 4 years - almost impossible to see any Newton's rings from a colour slide until you've got the print