ezra
Member
What are the major differences between the two?
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
SLR vs Point and shoot
- Thread starter ezra
- Start date
Bill Dewey
Veteran Member
1. Flexibility - wide range of focal lenght lenses, wide range of accessories
2. Quality - larger CCD-less noise, top-end very rugged professional construction, quality lenses and accessories
3. Price - Digital SLR's start around $2500 US for body alone, then you add lenses.
For me, the added cost is much more than paid for by the quality of images I am able to capture.
2. Quality - larger CCD-less noise, top-end very rugged professional construction, quality lenses and accessories
3. Price - Digital SLR's start around $2500 US for body alone, then you add lenses.
For me, the added cost is much more than paid for by the quality of images I am able to capture.
Can you restate this so a professional assessment can be construed?
This sounds like too basic a question so I must assume you want to use a Leica rangefinder and a few lenses but you are worried that it may not suit your application?
So what is your intended market or application?
This sounds like too basic a question so I must assume you want to use a Leica rangefinder and a few lenses but you are worried that it may not suit your application?
So what is your intended market or application?
RJNedimyer
Veteran Member
Wow!
When I was a teenager the definition of a "point and shoot" camera, was a camera such as a Kodak "Brownie". It had No focus, No ASA (ISO) setting, No Shutter control, No apature control, ...
Later a point and shoot could have some of these controls but they were controled by the camera not the photographer.
Also, a SLR meant that there was "1" lens (used at a time or only 1 lens) that was used both to focus and compose and also to take the picture.
This was to seperate it from a TLR (twin lens reflex) which 2 seperate and focus connected lenses were used 1 to take the picture and 1 to view and focus. There also were view cameras and cameras with Range finders and nonparallex corected and non-focusing seperate lenses for viewing the subject.
NOTE: some of the TLR's had more than 1 lens sets as did the view cameras and at least 1 range finder company had interchangable lenses.
So when did the definition of SLR become [or include the price] about $2500 or more and Point and shoot less than about $2500? And when did the number of lenses have anything to do with the definition of the camera? And if someone should manufacture a poorly made Digital SLR will it not qualify as a Digital SLR?
If I am wrong I apologize. But I still believe that SLR is a "type" of camera and not a price, quality level, or a minimium specific number of lenses that has been manufactured to use with it.
Bill Dewey
Veteran Member
RJ, you are quite correct, SLR is a "type" of camera, not defined by price, in general. And I should have been more specific in speaking of "interchangeable lens" SLR's versus the SLR type of digitals such as the Olympus E-10 and E-20. Good clarification point, thanks.
Specifically, the only current manufacture Digital SLR's, defined as a camera built upon 35mm SLR technology with interchangeable lenses, are made by Fuji, Canon, Kodak and Nikon, in no particular order. In approximate price order, from low to high, these are:
Fuji S1 and Canon D30 and used Nikon D1 at about $2500 or so.
Nikon D1H at about $4000
Nikon D1X at about $5000
Kodak 720/760 about $5-7000 (i think, not too sure here)
Canon 1D about $5500-6000, not quite released yet.
The above are all "interchangeable lens" Digital SLR's.
Then you have the Olympus E-10/E-20 and the Canon ProIS, and other SLR-like digital cameras such as the Fuji 6900. The Fuji does not do true "Through The Lens" view, but displays on an LCD in the viewfinder. These, I think, are in the $1,000-$2,000 range. These are sometimes referred to as "prosumer", what a horrid term.
Then the rest, the "consumer" cameras, more like what you think of as "point and shoot" 35mm format, with varying degrees of manual functionality.
Hope this is more clear, and thanks for pointing out the difference between SLR and Interchangeable Lens SLR.
Specifically, the only current manufacture Digital SLR's, defined as a camera built upon 35mm SLR technology with interchangeable lenses, are made by Fuji, Canon, Kodak and Nikon, in no particular order. In approximate price order, from low to high, these are:
Fuji S1 and Canon D30 and used Nikon D1 at about $2500 or so.
Nikon D1H at about $4000
Nikon D1X at about $5000
Kodak 720/760 about $5-7000 (i think, not too sure here)
Canon 1D about $5500-6000, not quite released yet.
The above are all "interchangeable lens" Digital SLR's.
Then you have the Olympus E-10/E-20 and the Canon ProIS, and other SLR-like digital cameras such as the Fuji 6900. The Fuji does not do true "Through The Lens" view, but displays on an LCD in the viewfinder. These, I think, are in the $1,000-$2,000 range. These are sometimes referred to as "prosumer", what a horrid term.
Then the rest, the "consumer" cameras, more like what you think of as "point and shoot" 35mm format, with varying degrees of manual functionality.
Hope this is more clear, and thanks for pointing out the difference between SLR and Interchangeable Lens SLR.
P
Peter Sills
Guest
In general the differences are as follow:
SLR (Single Lens Reflex)
In this system the image is brought to the viewfinder through the same light-path that the image will eventually hit the "film-plane". The reflex refers the the action of moving the mirror which diverts the image to the viewfinder, so that it can indeed fall upon the flim plane.
Point and Shoot:
These used to be called Rangefinder cameras as they used a seperate light path than the one which fell upon the film plane. The viewfinder was used to get a general idea of the pictures composition prior to the shutter press.
However, recently (within the last 20+ years) these terms have taken on the following meanings - which may or may not universally apply.
SLR
Removable/Interchagable primary lens system.
Variable focus - either manual or automatic
Larger Imager (in the digital realm) for greater sensitivity to light
Professional Metering
Full Manual Operations options
Point and Shoot
Pocket or near pocket sized
Simple operation (almost all automatic)
Fixed lens (can be modified only by adding onto existing lens)
Small Imager (in the digital realm) higher ISO/noise ratio
Those are the general definitions. Currently I would only consider a camera with a full reflex system, interchangable lenses, and a near 35mm sized sensor to be a digital SLR (currently these include the Kodak line, Nikon D1* line, Canon EOS D30 and 1D, and lastly the Fuji S1). The rest are all point and shoot (including the hybrid's from Minolta and Olympus).
Peter
SLR (Single Lens Reflex)
In this system the image is brought to the viewfinder through the same light-path that the image will eventually hit the "film-plane". The reflex refers the the action of moving the mirror which diverts the image to the viewfinder, so that it can indeed fall upon the flim plane.
Point and Shoot:
These used to be called Rangefinder cameras as they used a seperate light path than the one which fell upon the film plane. The viewfinder was used to get a general idea of the pictures composition prior to the shutter press.
However, recently (within the last 20+ years) these terms have taken on the following meanings - which may or may not universally apply.
SLR
Removable/Interchagable primary lens system.
Variable focus - either manual or automatic
Larger Imager (in the digital realm) for greater sensitivity to light
Professional Metering
Full Manual Operations options
Point and Shoot
Pocket or near pocket sized
Simple operation (almost all automatic)
Fixed lens (can be modified only by adding onto existing lens)
Small Imager (in the digital realm) higher ISO/noise ratio
Those are the general definitions. Currently I would only consider a camera with a full reflex system, interchangable lenses, and a near 35mm sized sensor to be a digital SLR (currently these include the Kodak line, Nikon D1* line, Canon EOS D30 and 1D, and lastly the Fuji S1). The rest are all point and shoot (including the hybrid's from Minolta and Olympus).
Peter
Forrest41926
Veteran Member
I don't understand why a camera with one lens and one light-path that has fully manual, fully automatic, or semi-manual control is an SLR if it's made by Canon or Nikon, but a camera with one lens and one light-path that has fully manual, fully automatic, or semi-manual control is point and shoot if it's made by Minolta or Olympus???
Just a point of clarification - "Point and Shoot" and Rangefinder are rather different beasts, though the do both have separate light paths for viewfinder and film.
You'd never mistake a Leica M6, a Konica Hexar RF, or a Contax IIIa for a P&S once you got your hands on one!
--Paul
Z (is real)
Veteran Member
Technically, niether the Minolta or Olympus products have the "reflex" part of SLR. I would not however call them point-and-shoots.
-Z-
Forrest41926
Veteran Member
Right. Some of the Olys have a clever beam-splitting prism which doesn't move at all, while the other Olys, the Minolta, a Sony, and even the new $6,000 Canon 1D move only electrons that tell pixels in an EVF tro light up. All of them are single lens ... but they don't reflex.
Point and shoot implies just that ... that you can get a picture faster than you can think about what it is you're shooting. With a parallax viewfinder, why bother trying to compose a good photograph?
Those of us who can't yet afford a D30, but still take the time to carefully plan our photographs and capture them to the best of our ability -- often taking advantage of our prism/EVF camera's manual modes -- surely don't deserve -- or enjoy -- the "point and snapshooter" label.
Z (is real)
Veteran Member
You are incorrect about the EOS-1D. It has a reflex mirror and does not have any sort of EVF.
I said I would not call an E10/20 or a D7 a "point-and-shoot" and have not made any aspersions against those cameras. There is however a technical argument to be made that they are not SLRs and since someone came down hard about the definition of "SLR," it is a valid point.
-Z-
Forrest41926
Veteran Member
??? Early reports suggested you can review your images in the viewfinder, and that the LCD blackout was very brief?
I completely agree with what you posted. I was just ranting about the very common subtext in this forum that anything that wasn't shot on a D1 or better is idiot photography. Surely, these affordable cameras aren't full-fledged SLRs, but many of them aren't point and shoot, either, and often not used as such.
Z (is real)
Veteran Member
You can review the images on the LCD as with most digital cameras, but you cannot see them before the shot is taken. (I.e. you cannot frame with the LCD.) The viewfinder blackout is very brief because the mirror system is one of the fastest built into any SLR. (It is the same as in the EOS-1V.) The term "LCD blackout" is a misnomer.
-Z-
P
Peter Sills
Guest
I'm sorry, I have to jump back in here.
I would consider the Olympus and Minoltas to be in the P&S category. I would also consider the Coolpix line and the Canon Pro 90 to be in this category as well.
Why?
What is a point and shoot then? A point and shoot is a camera which allows the user to take an image by quickly pointing and shooting the subject. For all of these cameras, this is what they do.
In addition, they provide some manual control, however (to the best of my knowledge) none of these cameras provides for a true TTL metering system. In other words, they are "approximating" what will happen at the film plane in some fashion or another.
I think a better definition may be non-SLRs and true-SLRs. Once you get beyond the true-SLR there are a variety of hybrid systems for taking a picture. To classify them all together would be almost impossible.
Note that I am not saying one is better than another. In fact, as someone pointed out earlier, there are several Leica Rangefinders which will easily outperform some basic SLR cameras.
I think in this area, we can easily define an SLR. The rest remain more difficult to categorize.
Peter
I would consider the Olympus and Minoltas to be in the P&S category. I would also consider the Coolpix line and the Canon Pro 90 to be in this category as well.
Why?
What is a point and shoot then? A point and shoot is a camera which allows the user to take an image by quickly pointing and shooting the subject. For all of these cameras, this is what they do.
In addition, they provide some manual control, however (to the best of my knowledge) none of these cameras provides for a true TTL metering system. In other words, they are "approximating" what will happen at the film plane in some fashion or another.
I think a better definition may be non-SLRs and true-SLRs. Once you get beyond the true-SLR there are a variety of hybrid systems for taking a picture. To classify them all together would be almost impossible.
Note that I am not saying one is better than another. In fact, as someone pointed out earlier, there are several Leica Rangefinders which will easily outperform some basic SLR cameras.
I think in this area, we can easily define an SLR. The rest remain more difficult to categorize.
Peter
Bill Dewey
Veteran Member
I think, Peter, that if you look at my response above you will see how I categorize the difference. The short version:
1. Consumer - Canon A20, Casios, Coolpix, etc.
2. Prosumer (I hate this word) - Canon Pro IS, Oly E-10/E-20.
3. SLR - can be applied (loosely) to #2 above.
4. Interchanglabe Lens SLR - Fuji S1, Canon D30/1D, Nikon D1 series.
This satisfies those cameras such as the Pro 90 and E-10/20 that actually do view through the lens.
As to your comment about P&S being any camera that you can pick up and take an image by quickly pointing and shooting, well my Nikon D1H does an admirable job of that, and I would hesitate to categorize it as a "Point and Shoot".
1. Consumer - Canon A20, Casios, Coolpix, etc.
2. Prosumer (I hate this word) - Canon Pro IS, Oly E-10/E-20.
3. SLR - can be applied (loosely) to #2 above.
4. Interchanglabe Lens SLR - Fuji S1, Canon D30/1D, Nikon D1 series.
This satisfies those cameras such as the Pro 90 and E-10/20 that actually do view through the lens.
As to your comment about P&S being any camera that you can pick up and take an image by quickly pointing and shooting, well my Nikon D1H does an admirable job of that, and I would hesitate to categorize it as a "Point and Shoot".
Z (is real)
Veteran Member
If TTL means through the lens, your knowledge is simply incorrect for the Minolta D7 and the Olympus E10/E20. I expect almost all digital cameras made today meter throught the lens, but I really do not know. I'd expect many of them use the actual CCD to do the metering.
-Z-
ezra
Member
I own the mvc-cd300. I want to upgrade to one of the new 5+ mil pixels cameras on the market. I am new to photography, but learn fast. I hate under buying when it comes to technology, as I out grow when I under buy. The newer cameras say slr type. My question is do I wait for other 5+mil pix models to come out? I do not know enough to make what I consider an informed decision about what is presently avalible. Are there 6 mil pix consumer level cameras right around the corner? I hope you can help.
ezra
ezra
ezra
Member
I think I get it. I am new to digital photography. It sounds like defintion of slr changes monthly with newer technologies obscuring older phrases and their definitions. What do you think of the three 5+ mil pix prosumer(I am not found of this word either, but it seems to fit) presently avalible?
going_digital
Forum Enthusiast
And the Fuji (not the S1) and Minolta models use an imaging LCD to provide a low resolution viewfinder (like you find in camcorders). The Olympus does provide an optical image through the lens, but with an optical splitter so that the light energy density entering the front of the lens is split with some going to the viewfinder and some going to the sensor - reducing the brightness to both the sensor as well as the viewfinder. The viewfinder is not a bright as it could be, and the signal to noise ratio of the sensor suffers because of the attenuated image from the splitter. Also, I'm not sure if the Olympus has a mechanical shutter; the Minolta and Fuji don't.
One other differentiating factor specifically with the Minolta, Fuji, and Olympus is the size of the sensor. Their choice of closed system architecture for their through-the-lens products allows them to use a smaller CCD and achieve their zoom ratio's and ranges because they don't have to work around the restrictions of lens-to-focal-plane distances of the 35mm SLR architecture (hence they can get wide angle and zoom range without requireing very expensive lenses because focal length multiplier has no meaning). In fact, these cameras refer to zoom ranges as 4x or 8x as opposed to 28mm-135mm; focal length doesn't have any meaning.
The downside of course is that the smaller the sensor, the less light it picks up, the more they boost the sense amplifiers from the sensor and the lower the signal to noise ratio. For the other manufacturers of D-SLR's, I'm not sure the lens-to-focal-plane distance is a restriction on their designs, but based on existing SLR architectures, the manufacturers seem dead set on working within this framework. We all know you can put the lens at a close distance to the focal plane - which would change the focal length of lenses, and would shift the focus distances (tele-extenders do this in the opposite direction). Maybe doing so in the the wide angle direction pushes beyond the sweet spot of the optics and that is why they don't want to do this. Given that focal length multiplier is a big feature, there must be a reason why this is not a viable solution for them.
Lastly, I interpret "point-and-shoot" to mean not having to set aperture or shutter speed or focus. With SLR's having such good auto exposure systems and autofocus systems, I believe the term SLR and point-and-shoot are not exclusive characteristics in a camera.
This seems more like a discussion of consumer vs. prosumer vs. professional digital cameras, as opposed to SLR vs. point and shoot.
One other differentiating factor specifically with the Minolta, Fuji, and Olympus is the size of the sensor. Their choice of closed system architecture for their through-the-lens products allows them to use a smaller CCD and achieve their zoom ratio's and ranges because they don't have to work around the restrictions of lens-to-focal-plane distances of the 35mm SLR architecture (hence they can get wide angle and zoom range without requireing very expensive lenses because focal length multiplier has no meaning). In fact, these cameras refer to zoom ranges as 4x or 8x as opposed to 28mm-135mm; focal length doesn't have any meaning.
The downside of course is that the smaller the sensor, the less light it picks up, the more they boost the sense amplifiers from the sensor and the lower the signal to noise ratio. For the other manufacturers of D-SLR's, I'm not sure the lens-to-focal-plane distance is a restriction on their designs, but based on existing SLR architectures, the manufacturers seem dead set on working within this framework. We all know you can put the lens at a close distance to the focal plane - which would change the focal length of lenses, and would shift the focus distances (tele-extenders do this in the opposite direction). Maybe doing so in the the wide angle direction pushes beyond the sweet spot of the optics and that is why they don't want to do this. Given that focal length multiplier is a big feature, there must be a reason why this is not a viable solution for them.
Lastly, I interpret "point-and-shoot" to mean not having to set aperture or shutter speed or focus. With SLR's having such good auto exposure systems and autofocus systems, I believe the term SLR and point-and-shoot are not exclusive characteristics in a camera.
This seems more like a discussion of consumer vs. prosumer vs. professional digital cameras, as opposed to SLR vs. point and shoot.
Bill Dewey
Veteran Member
ezra, I don't really think the definitions change this quickly. When I actually think back on it, the SLR vs. Interchangeable Lens SLR started years ago in the film world as well, I had just forgotten about that.
As far as the latest crop of "prosumer" cameras they are all quite fine. Best suggestion I can make is to try them out if possible. If you can find friends with them where you play for a while, all the better. Next best would be to find a camera store that will let you play a bit in the store, at least 1/2 hour or so. Look at the specs, decide which bits suite what you plan to shoot the best. If you do a lot of close-up/macro photography look for that in the specs and Phil's reviews. Same for zoom and manual features. This is all the same as in the film world, you need to understand where your "important issues" are and then find the tool that fits them the best. And don't forget the issue of "feel". If you don't like it, you won't use it. Case in point, I bought my wife a Coolpix 880. She loved it but for 2 things. The first was a long delay between pressing the shutter, shutter lag, and the image capture. Second was that there was no positive confimation, audible, that an image had been captured. Sold it and bought her a Coolpix 995, which resolves both issue. Much happier now.
Good luck, you are on the way to a very enjoyable journey.
As far as the latest crop of "prosumer" cameras they are all quite fine. Best suggestion I can make is to try them out if possible. If you can find friends with them where you play for a while, all the better. Next best would be to find a camera store that will let you play a bit in the store, at least 1/2 hour or so. Look at the specs, decide which bits suite what you plan to shoot the best. If you do a lot of close-up/macro photography look for that in the specs and Phil's reviews. Same for zoom and manual features. This is all the same as in the film world, you need to understand where your "important issues" are and then find the tool that fits them the best. And don't forget the issue of "feel". If you don't like it, you won't use it. Case in point, I bought my wife a Coolpix 880. She loved it but for 2 things. The first was a long delay between pressing the shutter, shutter lag, and the image capture. Second was that there was no positive confimation, audible, that an image had been captured. Sold it and bought her a Coolpix 995, which resolves both issue. Much happier now.
Good luck, you are on the way to a very enjoyable journey.
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum