Why would anyone want a digital SLR?

[S Hess]

Many of the points mentioned here that give the DSLR the slight
edge today, will be very shortly available in every camera down to
the phonecam at almost no cost.

The days of the DSLR dinasaur are very numbered.

Brian

Sounds like DSLR hating by someone who can't afford one. There is no way a p&S camera will ever have the capabilities of a full size camera. Where are you going to put the zoom and focus rings? What about the optical viewfinder and mirrorbox, where are you going to fit that? What about the larger sensor, where you going to fit that? What about size to steady your shot? If your point is accurate, then Hollywood should be using handheld camcorders to film blockbuster movies right? Right now I'm enjoying getting all the shots that you can't with your p&s and never will.

 

[S Hess]

Great shot! Nooooo way you can get that with a P&S camera.

1/400s f/18.0 at 420.0mm iso400



--
Rob Wierman
http://www.pbase.com/weirdrob/root

 

[brianj]

Sounds like DSLR hating by someone who can't afford one. There is
no way a p&S camera will ever have the capabilities of a full size
camera. Where are you going to put the zoom and focus rings? What
about the optical viewfinder and mirrorbox, where are you going to
fit that? What about the larger sensor, where you going to fit
that? What about size to steady your shot? If your point is
accurate, then Hollywood should be using handheld camcorders to
film blockbuster movies right? Right now I'm enjoying getting all
the shots that you can't with your p&s and never will.

I could easily afford a DSLR, but have made the concious decision that they are an overkil for my requirements of having fun doing photography especially while touring in cities of the world where the DSLR would be a cumbersome obtrusive risk. I had already owned a film SLR that is why I know I don't want to lug one around the world any more.

All of the legacy components from the film days in a DSLR will be memories one day like the accustic horn wax record player. I don't know all the ways this will be achieved, but I know that history proves it.

I have no envy one way or the other, just as when I am driving my cheap car I don't envy someone in a fancy sports car. They are different machines for different purposes and I do not have the requirement for them.

Brian

 

[parallel]

If I earned my living taking photos I'd probably spend > $10K on equipment too. It's a law of diminishing returns and what pros use is not what we're talking about here.

The FZ 20 shutter delay is not bad and you can take 3 fps. Using a
red dot sight it it not difficult to follow the action.

parallel

If your happy with 10 decent action shots out of 100 go for it. I
searched the sidelines while watching football today. I didn't see
an FZ20 anywhere. Pros are not stupid. At least not most of them.
If a cheaper, lighter camera could deliver the goods they would use
it.

--
John

 

[Kendunn]

Lower noise, Faster, and you can control focus much better (out of focus areas as in portraits). Doing this with a digicam is pretty much a waste of time.

I understand the use of an SLR with film. It allows me to preview
the image without parallax, and it allows me to make best use of a
zoom lens etc. That's why I have used SLR's since 1968 (Nikon F,
then Nikon F100).

With my Olympus 8080 digital camera, though, the CCD chip
transmits the image in real time to a LCD for immediate preview of
the true image projected upon the chip. There is no parallax, etc.
My 8080 shows me exactly what I'm going to get if I press the
shutter release. What more would SLR optics do?

It seems to me that SLR optics only add cost and weight to the camera.

 

[Skipper494]

loebner wrote:
Why would anyone want an SUV?
Skipper494.

 

[eelpout]

I have a Minolta A2 and the EVF in there is arguably the best available at the moment. Oh yes, it has lots of issues due to current technology (like having to switch to B&W in low light), but I surprisingly don't find myself missing an optical viewfinder when using it (and I have a Maxxum too). its 1 million pixel resolution and 30 FPS speed are quite good. though of course an improvement of twice those specs in both areas would be welcome.

I for one (and I'm sure I'm in a tiny group here) was a bit disappointed that the new Minolta 7D does not have an EVF. call me crazy, but I like having all the info, histogram, etc. AND after shot review available without having to move my head and look at the back of a camera. I was hoping KM would basically take the A2 concept, give it the larger AS sensor, a Maxxum lens mount, use the best EVF available and add more SLR like controls. well they did that but left out the EVF.

Once EVF's evolve a bit more I think they may be the way things go. Although I think some day we'll actually be wearing electronic glasses or contacts hooked up to a camera instead of peering through viewfinders.

My fear is with the crippled A200 now out that KM may be abandoning the SuperFine EVF idea. And I don't think that's a good thing.

 

[Roy van der Woning]

Because it doesn't matter what you manufacture, even if it is not
really needed, people will buy it because in today's society
consuming is all there is left to do, and people build their
personal value on what they have.

In other words: all (d)SLR owners were basically tricked into buying these cameras while in fact they didn't really need them and would have been better off with a non-SLR model?

So I am not saying that a DSLR does not do a better job, and
sometimes someone will need that, but mostly people are just
shooting images to store on CD because there is nothing else to do
with them.

How does storage media have any bearing on this issue? Does it matter if I want to watch my pictures on the computer or flip through them in a photo album?

There is no real purpose in this except to amuse yourself and have fun.

And that's no real purpose? Entire industries make millions out of people just amusing themselves and having fun.

Such an activity does not really justify spending huge $ on it,
when the same fun can be achieved with a lesser device.

But it can't. Those lesser devices have inherent restrictions making them unsuitable for many kinds of photography.

See my thread below for the Porch V family car for an analogy.

You mean Porsche drivers got suckered into buying their cars too?

Roy.

 

[marlinspike]

Its like saying you can only go the journey in a porch or
lambogini, but sometimes a 4WD is needed and usually a little city
car will do the job.

Wow, you sure can spell well. Porch isn't the Aussie spelling either, so don't give me any of that.

I don't want to waste my money on a DSLR which may do the job on
the rare occasion that a good P&S cannot. So I use an Optio 555
which does the job well most of the time.

I'd like to see you take any of the spots photos I have taken with my dRebel, and I'm not anywhere near the best, and I could still benefit from even better equipment.
Richard
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list

 

[John Burns]

...there is a way. Shear luck. The shutter has to fire sometime and if you got lucky anticipating the built in delay you might get a shot like this every now and then.

Great shot! Nooooo way you can get that with a P&S camera.

--
John

 

[John Burns]

Another thing, has anyone tried to shoot sports with a digicam?
Nearly impossible! I'm not talking about just shooting a wide
angle shot of a game, but a close-up action shot. A digicam
wouldn't even be able to keep the player in focus.

It is frustrating but interestingly enough focus is not a major problem. The depth of field on most P&S cameras is so large most shots come out reasonably focused. The delay is really what makes them unsuitable for sports.

--
John

 

[Srf_Cast]

haha, try it, you'll end up just like the motorcycle dude who wiped
out. Spoken like a true chump.
Ok, sure you can use a little digicam but what do you think your
hit rate will be? You think you can get 90% of the shots in focus,
cool, now try shooting in a darkened stadium with iso 800, can you
still do that? Then blur out the background in camera etc etc. haha

I wouldn’t shoot in a darkened stadium even if you paid me. I have a decent job and even though the photography is my major hobby I wouldn’t do it for a living or even for fun. Sports photography is very boring to me as is photographing dull birds with huge telephoto.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that for 99% of the normal users in coming years non DSLR cameras will be more than enough given how the technology progresses.

There will always be a marker for better, professional grade equipment capable of fast shooting in bad lighting with 30MP resolution.

 

[Colden]

Non-DSLR cameras are more than enough for 99% of normal users NOW, forget about the coming years.

Why do you think camera phones are so popular? Does that mean SLRs will inevitably go away? Nope.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that for 99% of the normal users
in coming years non DSLR cameras will be more than enough given how
the technology progresses.
There will always be a marker for better, professional grade
equipment capable of fast shooting in bad lighting with 30MP
resolution.

 

[georgeaye]

Really.

Move on.

g

 

[brianj]

Its like saying you can only go the journey in a porch or
lambogini, but sometimes a 4WD is needed and usually a little city
car will do the job.

Wow, you sure can spell well. Porch isn't the Aussie spelling
either, so don't give me any of that.

I don't want to waste my money on a DSLR which may do the job on
the rare occasion that a good P&S cannot. So I use an Optio 555
which does the job well most of the time.

I'd like to see you take any of the spots photos I have taken with
my dRebel, and I'm not anywhere near the best, and I could still
benefit from even better equipment.

Spots photos, not very good spelling either! or do you mean dirt on the CCD?

Brian

Richard
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list

 

[NormanLaw]

Oops so did I !!!
--
Regards,
Norman

 

[betlog]

I wouldn’t shoot in a darkened stadium even if you paid me.

Who cares, are they beating down the door to get your services. Sorry for being snippy but your opening line sounds extremely condescending and insulting to professuional photographers.

I have

a decent job

What and being a sportshooter isn't a decent job? I don't shoot sports but I feel I have to stick up for those who do because it's an extremely challenging profession.

and even though the photography is my major hobby I

wouldn’t do it for a living or even for fun. Sports photography is
very boring to me as is photographing dull birds with huge
telephoto.

I'd love to hear what you consider exciting photography. Sports and bird photography are extremely difficult.

I guess what I’m trying to say is that for 99% of the normal users
in coming years non DSLR cameras will be more than enough given how
the technology progresses.

They already are now, Thanks Captain Obvious, what does that have to do with the specialization required of slrs.

There will always be a marker for better, professional grade
equipment capable of fast shooting in bad lighting with 30MP
resolution.

huh? Of course, that's a given.

 

[Greg Lovern]

I understand the use of an SLR with film. It allows me to preview
the image without parallax, and it allows me to make best use of a
zoom lens etc. That's why I have used SLR's since 1968 (Nikon F,
then Nikon F100).

With my Olympus 8080 digital camera, though, the CCD chip
transmits the image in real time to a LCD for immediate preview of
the true image projected upon the chip. There is no parallax, etc.
My 8080 shows me exactly what I'm going to get if I press the
shutter release. What more would SLR optics do?

It seems to me that SLR optics only add cost and weight to the camera.

I've tried both, and I personally much prefer my *ist D's viewfinder to any of my digicams' LCD previews.

But, if I could have a camera that was the same as my DSLR in every way except that instead of a mirror, pentaprism, and viewfinder it had a big LCD preview that looked just as good as my viewfinder (even with manual focusing) and had no lag, and had a collapsible bellows or something around the LCD to shield bright light, and if the shutter also had no more lag than the DSLR, and if it still had the same interchangeable lens mount, and the same sensor, and if because of the difference the camera was even smaller and lighter and less expensive, I just might be interested.

One advantage to this scenario that I don't think has been mentioned is that it would be like having mirror lockup (no mirror vibration) on every shot.

But I think it's going to be a long while before LCD technology is as good as all that, if it ever really gets there at all. In the meantime, I'll enjoy my DSLR (and my compact P&S when I don't want the DSLR's size and weight), and you can choose to settle for what you get from your C-8080's little Fisher-Price sensorette, even on your most important shots. And if what you get from your C-8080 is good enough for you and your customers, then that's all that really counts, right?

But if you're not sure whether you've made the right choice, be sure to bash and troll DSLR users at every opportunity, to help you feel better about your choice.

Greg

 

[marlinspike]

Spots photos, not very good spelling either! or do you mean dirt
on the CCD?

You're ignoring the fact that mine was obviously a typo whereas you spelled Porsche "Porch" in another post as well.
Richard
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list

 

[voices in afka_bob's head]

The FZ 20 shutter delay is not bad and you can take 3 fps. Using a
red dot sight it it not difficult to follow the action.

Go ahead, do it.