Why SLR is better?

Why SLR is better?

DavorD said:

Why SLR is better?

Click to expand...

First, you can switch lenses easily for a variety of effects/situations. With an SLR, one also has a wider selection of setting/adjustments, so they are bit more adaptapble to different subjects (shutter speed/aperture is nice on an slr when you have the option to go smaller than f/11, longer exposure times too). Also the lense quality is much better on most of the lenses one would use on an slr.

In my opinion, there is less holding you back with an slr, in about any given photo opportunity. Hopefully some else can chime in and offer maybe a more technical explanation.
take care,
Jerry-- http://www.angelfire.com/film/jhazard/http://www.pbase.com/jhazard

DavorD said:

Why SLR is better?

Click to expand...

Define what you mean by "better"?

SLR manufacturers generally provide a range of interchangeable lenses. This works out nicely because changing the lens simultaneously changes the scene magnification in the viewfinder. Camera bodies and lenses are coupled mechanically and perhaps electronically in non-standard ways. So a lens for a Canon EOS won't fit a Nikon body.

The best thing about an SLR is that what-you-see-is-what-you-get. If you've left the lens cap on, fitted a really long telephoto, attached a strange filter, you can see the effect in the viewfinder. With an SLR the image is right-side up and available until a few milliseconds before the exposure.

One obvious problem with an SLR is weight. The prism on top of the body that lets you see a properly-oriented image is heavy. For medium-format SLRs, the prism is very heavy and is usually optional. If you don't mind looking down into the camera and seeing an image that is reversed left-to-right, you can use a lightweight metal viewing hood rather than a prism.

Another problem with the SLR is noise. The mirror is light but it has to be flipped up as fast as possible. This is noisy.

A final problem with an SLR is exposure latency. If you wait for the decisive moment and press the shutter, the camera doesn't take a picture until it has stopped down the lens and flipped up the mirror. This takes between 50 and 100 milliseconds for the average 35mm SLR.

What is better to you ?

SLR is better for me because it provides through-the-lens view of the subject. and i only apply this term to cameras where i get an OPTICAL view through the lens and not the EVFs like Minolta Dimage or Sony.

Otherwise "better" is a term to broad and has nothing to do with quality of the image (note : slr still tend to provide better quality as targeted at an auditorium which demands quality).

in 35mm market i in some cases would favor the rangefinder leicas or voigtlaenders over any SLR. why ? because of size and this even-shorter-shutter-lag due to the lack of a mirror to be flipped up.

still - better is the wrong term here, it all depends on your requirements and abilities.

cheers

veniamin kostitsin
http://www.digitalimage.at/

SLR

DavorD said:

Why SLR is better?

Click to expand...

And another thing...

With non-SLR cameras where the viewfinder is separate from the lens you get parallax errors. This is because the viewfinder axis is offset from the lens axis. It's only a problem if you do a lot of close-up work - try putting your finger about 6 inches in front of the lens and tell me if you can see in the viewfinder exactly what the lens sees. There is less of a problem as the subject moves further away though so isn't normally a problem for distant subjects.

Just my 10 pence worth.

Andy.

DavorD said:

Why SLR is better?

Click to expand...

After thousands of shots with the prosumer Canon PRO90 (including professional work) I have certainly figured out why a "digital" SLR is far superior (for the "demanding" photographer, at least). I now can't stand the electronic viewfinder that is very dark in low light conditions and difficult to tell if your image is in razor sharp focus. The viewfinder on an SLR lets you see the real thing whereas most of the digital cameras give you a mini LCD display through the viewfinder or the actual LCD neither of which is detailed enough to give the reassurance that your focus is tack on. Also, the pro digital slrs do not have the frustration of shutter lag like the other digital cameras which can kill a shot of action or even of weddings where a 1/2 second delay can mean the difference between a great shot and an ok shot. You learn to anticipate using a camera with a shutter delay but some of the greatest shots get missed whether you can anticipate or not. Most prosumer digital cameras have a narrow range of aperture settings which is limiting in itself. And the last major problem with many regular digital cameras vs digital slrs is that many of them have electronically controlled manual focus systems which do not give certainty to razor sharp focus. My PRO90 has taken great shots but a digital slr is worth every penny more in price. (or should I say it is worth every $1000 or more dollars)!!
CharlieMcD

Andrew Harvey said:

With non-SLR cameras where the viewfinder is separate from the lens
you get parallax errors. This is because the viewfinder axis is
offset from the lens axis. It's only a problem if you do a lot of
close-up work - try putting your finger about 6 inches in front of
the lens and tell me if you can see in the viewfinder exactly what
the lens sees. There is less of a problem as the subject moves
further away though so isn't normally a problem for distant
subjects.

Just my 10 pence worth.

Andy.

DavorD said:

Why SLR is better?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...