this is patently a question asked by somebody who has not used one. having gone from a Canon A1 SLR in my early days throught the point and shoot digital to the very clever Nikon 995 and now to a D70 all I can say is that I have come back home. The ease of taking the photograph, the ability to see what I am taking - rather than squinting at some minute screen in the sunlight, the ability to actualy be at one with the camera and the photograph make me realise that if you want to take snaps use a P&S, if you want to take photographs then there is absolutley no choice but an SLR - just see how many professionals use any other medium and then ask yourself why
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Why would anyone want a digital SLR?
- Thread starter loebner
- Start date
$300 was the quoted price was in local currency (NZ) which is real to me. Maybe I should say almost 20% of purchase price (which is what it amounts to here)?
My whole point is that I'm talking about a camera for people who look down an eyepiece for no more than 20 mintues in a day, for the purposes of capturing a small part of their life and environment. A camera for people who like to take photographs, want interchangable lenses, and want (otherwise) the smallest, lightest camera to do it with so they can get on with doing the things that they do.
I beleive there is a (huge) hole in the market. There is a vast array of P&S and there are a dozenish DSLRs, and there is nothing in between. What is wanted is a "Cheap" body for 35mm format Lenses. Solution: take avay the OVF and all else that is no longer absolutely necessary in the new Digital age.
Personally, I can live without an external LCD panel , focus lamps, this that and the other. I just want something simple, affordable and reliable to put my lenses on, chuck in my pannier/pack/boat and go have fun.
Can't be that hard - Epson have more or less done it apart from the cheap bit.
My whole point is that I'm talking about a camera for people who look down an eyepiece for no more than 20 mintues in a day, for the purposes of capturing a small part of their life and environment. A camera for people who like to take photographs, want interchangable lenses, and want (otherwise) the smallest, lightest camera to do it with so they can get on with doing the things that they do.
I beleive there is a (huge) hole in the market. There is a vast array of P&S and there are a dozenish DSLRs, and there is nothing in between. What is wanted is a "Cheap" body for 35mm format Lenses. Solution: take avay the OVF and all else that is no longer absolutely necessary in the new Digital age.
Personally, I can live without an external LCD panel , focus lamps, this that and the other. I just want something simple, affordable and reliable to put my lenses on, chuck in my pannier/pack/boat and go have fun.
Can't be that hard - Epson have more or less done it apart from the cheap bit.
marlinspike
Senior Member
Well, 13%, but whatever.
So you want a rangefinder? Sadly, even for film those were expensive.
Richard
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list
weirdrob
Leading Member
loebner wrote:
snip...................
--
Rob Wierman
http://www.pbase.com/weirdrob/root
snip...................
Put a Canon 10D sensor in this body and I'd be happy...
--
Rob Wierman
http://www.pbase.com/weirdrob/root
Percentage depends entirely on price of the two objects so yes, whatever: 20 for me 13 for you. The point is, either way up, it's a significant extra investment required...
And no, not a rangefinder - no range finding is necessary because the sensor alows for a realish time TTL view using an EVF - even if it is less than perfect it's still adequate, and is cheap to produce.
Someone might know what the Shutter and Reflex system represents as the total cost of the non imaging component of the camera - but my guess is it's around 70%.
And no, not a rangefinder - no range finding is necessary because the sensor alows for a realish time TTL view using an EVF - even if it is less than perfect it's still adequate, and is cheap to produce.
Someone might know what the Shutter and Reflex system represents as the total cost of the non imaging component of the camera - but my guess is it's around 70%.
Yes, and the DSLR brigade just don't seem to get it do they?
P&S, DSLR and The Third Way...
P&S, DSLR and The Third Way...
marlinspike
Senior Member
I know if you want to buy the shutter and reflex system from canon it runs a total of about $300 US.
Richard
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list
Richard
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list
marlinspike
Senior Member
Of course I should add that all cameras have shutters.
Richard
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list
Archie Bunker
Active member
It's mostly because the dSLR sensors are much larger than the 2/3" type sensors of cameras such as the 8080. Larger sensors=larger photosites=lower noise. And the difference can be huge. Look at the noise levels of the 8080 at 400 ISO compared to the Canon 300D at 400 - not in the same league (the fact that the 300D uses CMOS also helps). 8080 at 400 is more comparable to the 300D at 1600 (maybe slightly worse).
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum