Why would anyone want a digital SLR?

[Srf_Cast]

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.

You totally misunderstood my post, but the fact remains that you’re being plain rude.

No my statement doesn’t sound insulting to anyone. It simply means I’m not much of a sports fan and will not go to ballgames to shoot or to watch if that’s OK with you.

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.

Again you read something that isn’t there. It simply means that my job is OK and since my photography skills are far from professional I will not be buying a Pro equipment and changing my 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.

Is it so hard to understand that we all like different things? You may like bird watching or photographing squirrels I may like portrait and underwater photography. What’s wrong with that? Of course bird photography can be extremely difficult, but I’ll stick with different subjects, which interest me.

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.

No comment. I’ve been out of high school for a while now.

 

[Stuart Robins]

I (kind of) agree.

Most of the people on these forums haven't used different cameras in different film formats. They see the 35mm SLR body as a "professional" camera. They go into their local camera store and the most expensive digital is a 35mm SLR body. Then after reading reviews on this site, they spend thousands on an digital SLR.

So they get angry when someone asks the question "why would anyone want one"?

I agree we don't need a digital body that mimics the format of a 35mm SLR body. It no longer holds film. It dosen't need a pentaprism or even a mechanical shutter. Some people are saying that the manual viewfinder is much better than an LCD.. I actually find the viewfinder on most digital SLR's quite bad compared to film SLRs. They are far too small and you can't see anything.

I think an SLR that accepted 35mm lenses and had a groundglass on the top (similar to the Mamiya RZ/RB or Hasselblad) with a live LCD preview on the back would be cool.

 

[betlog]

My rudeness stems from the fact that your trying to justify shooting with a digicam by belittleing other people who do require the specialization of a digicam by inferring your above shooting in a darkened stadium or shooting sports since you have a decent job. I suggest you re-read your initial post and see if you can't pick up on it.

BTW I'm not a sports photographer or anything but I wouldn't diss another persons livelihood even in the roundabout fashion you displayed.

 

[betlog]

The common misconception with video modes for digicams is adding
the feature is free. No feature is free. Adding video support
requires additional software, which in turn requires additional
quality assurance time cycles. I'd prefer if those resources were
spent making the still side of the camera better, not adding
features that are better represented elsewhere.

Electronics manufactures want to distinguish their products from
the competition's. That usually results in higher quality products
across the board. Unfortunately, this also leads to feature creap,
and so we get things like video modes in still cameras. I
understand why it happens and I do understand people want the
fature. The bottom line for me is that I don't take movies so I
wouldn't want the feature. If I were really interested in taking
movies I'd buy equipment that was specifically designed for it.

I understand where you’re coming from. I don’t take movies myself
but I suspect the feature is nearly free and the lines of code have
been in the firmware of even the cheapest cameras for years. I fail
to see how crippling it would be seen by anybody as an advantage.
It’s like saying that you hate a cell phone because it can also
display the time and calendar and the professional phone should
only allow you to dial the number.

You don't think they factor in the research and development of the movie mode into the cost? Of course they do, nothing is free with these cameras.

 

[mississippi]

Seems to me that DSLR is starting to conotate 35 mm sized CCD more than anything else, even though that is not the true definition.

 

[Roshni]

SLR is a hangover concept from the days of film. Digital SLR is a marketing gimmick producing some stunning over-engineering. Someone mentioned split screen optical viewfinders. Great, but standard on which model is that?

Even the R-D1 has fallen into the same trap... Gimmickery

A manufacture COULD create a simple body that took interchangelable lenses but sensa the optical viewfinder. Electronic EVF from a P&S... and video clips!

Put in an internal projected LCD or OLED of huge resolution and a full frame 7Mp Bayer or equivalent Foveon chip, a system of mechanical and USB2.0 Lens mounts, and shoot in compressed RAW. Make the whole thing of plug-in componententry and therefore upgradeable.

Problem is there's no money in it is there? Every time a new model comes out you spend 20% of the money in changing the appearance of the product enough for people to know you've got the new one.

 

[brianj]

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

Yes, but I thought it was hillarious as only DSLRs suffer from dirt on the CCD as most of them have no way of preventing it when the lenses are changed.

Brian

 

[Medic Laviña]

Current technology limitations make DSLRs the only way to get those quality pictures. Consider the following points:

1) The current EVFs cannot replace optical viewfinders because they are still unusable for manual focusing, near dark situation and/or under strong sunlight. Moreover, manufacturers still have to find ways to make EVFs drain less battery power and generate less heat that contributes to image noise. Many of us won't care about the EVF power drain though.

2) We all know that slow response (especially AF) is one of the main problems with P&S cameras. Current electronic circuits & chips required to boost digicam speeds need bigger body frame to fit everything in. I'm not an engineer, so, I don't know if body frames can be further reduced in size by revolutionizing camera body design and/or designing smaller electronic parts.

3) No amount of technology can make small-diameter lenses capture as much light as the big DSLR lenses. No small-lens P&S can produce shallow DOF that only DSLR lenses can. Aside from the high cost of bigger sensors, size of required lens is another reason why manufacturers can't just throw in a big sensor in a small camera. And a smaller sensor means narrower dynamic range, more noise at higher ISO numbers and low-light situations.

There are other factors I could mention but I believe these are enough if you have the capability to understand explanations.

SLR is a hangover concept from the days of film. Digital SLR is a
marketing gimmick producing some stunning over-engineering.
Someone mentioned split screen optical viewfinders. Great, but
standard on which model is that?

Even the R-D1 has fallen into the same trap... Gimmickery

A manufacture COULD create a simple body that took interchangelable
lenses but sensa the optical viewfinder. Electronic EVF from a
P&S... and video clips!

Put in an internal projected LCD or OLED of huge resolution and a
full frame 7Mp Bayer or equivalent Foveon chip, a system of
mechanical and USB2.0 Lens mounts, and shoot in compressed RAW.
Make the whole thing of plug-in componententry and therefore
upgradeable.

Problem is there's no money in it is there? Every time a new model
comes out you spend 20% of the money in changing the appearance of
the product enough for people to know you've got the new one.

--
Medic

 

[marlinspike]

Yes, but I thought it was hillarious as only DSLRs suffer from dirt
on the CCD as most of them have no way of preventing it when the
lenses are changed.

It's either the Canon Pro1 or S1 that's prone to dust on the CCD as well.
Richard
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list

 

[wonderkid]

Hi,

As someone who has owned a Sony f717 for about a year (probably the best ever prosumer none-DSLR), several compact digicams, loads of 35mm SLRs and then having played with several Digital SLRs in a store recently, I can provide you the following quick feedback:

(I got to play with the Canon 300D, Nikon D70 and a friend's £11k Canon EOS 1D or similar.)

1. The huge bright dynamic optical viewfinder offered by SLR are quite simply the only way. Despite the stunning results provided buy my f717's lovely lens, the EVF (electronic viewfinder) or LCD on ANY prosumer digicam is no substitute for an SLR's viewfinder.

2. The speed of SLR lenses gives you so much more flexibility.

And that is it.

The truth is that there is the need for invention. A system that combines the benefits of an SLR with the versatility of a prosumer digicam - such as DVD quality video recording AND a true optical viewfinder.

I am saving for my first D-SLR, and it just a case of choosing which. So far, the new Canon EOS 20D is looking possibly, but we'll see what's out when I have the money.

Wonderkid

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.

--
For my latest details...
http://www.gonumber.net/2539

 

[DavidMaven]

(nt)

 

[marlinspike]

1. The huge bright dynamic optical viewfinder offered by SLR are
quite simply the only way. Despite the stunning results provided
buy my f717's lovely lens, the EVF (electronic viewfinder) or LCD
on ANY prosumer digicam is no substitute for an SLR's viewfinder.

2. The speed of SLR lenses gives you so much more flexibility.

And that is it.

Um, I think you're forgetting the DOF, the variety of available focal lengths, and the quality of the lenses. And that's without including things that somebody might say will not be a benefit in the future (like noise, even though it will be a benefit, but just for those people I'm leaving that out).
Richard
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list

 

[Roshni]

It MUST be technically possible because the prosummer cameras have manual focus and no prism system. It's not BETTER but it is cheaper and lighter and almost as good most of the time.

People said they wanted DSLR... which is what they got... However, I maintain that for the majority of Potential users they asked the wrong question.

The reflex component of the DSLR -IS- a hangover. It is NOT the only solution to the problem which is to have a Digital ICL (Inter-Changeable Lens) camera for existing lenses from 35mm format cameras.

The reflex component of the SLR digital is a wonderful aid but does NOTHING for the quality of the pictures that a camera produces - in all probability it impinges on outright performance due to vibrations and lock-up issues .

It's not about making interchangeable lenses smaller - it's about removing unecessary complexity from the rest of the camera. It's about making a camera body to accept existing lenses 35mm, medium format or whatever without the 90% mass of engineering overkill hung over from professional SLR film days and seen as necessary by those amatures who perhaps belong more to the point and shoot brigade of the photography world (that last is a bunyip - which is a -kind- of troll that lives in a water hole).

The focus mechanism on the Pansonic FZ10+ series works fine (and, no, it's not perfect) by using a magnified centre frame. Low light issues are always going to be there and exist with SLR cameras too. The focus screen on my Pentax K2 is almost unusable with my wide angle zoom even on a outside on a sunny day (it doesn't a have a split screen).

As for AF - the first thing I do with any camera is turn the ruddy thing off if at all possible. How the heck can the camera decide what I want in focus?

 

[John Burns]

No comment. I’ve been out of high school for a while now.

You should have stayed and finished.

--
John

 

[John Burns]

The focus mechanism on the Pansonic FZ10+ series works fine (and,
no, it's not perfect) by using a magnified centre frame.

Keep in mind the only reason it works is the sensor is so small on the FZ that the depth of field is huge. I would hate to even attempt to manually focus an f2 lens on a full size sensor camera using any of todays' EVF screens.

--
John

 

[Seb D]

You have no idea my friend.....

How many wedding pro's, photojournalists or nature (national geographic) photographers have you seen or even heard of carrying a small digi cam such as the 8080....

The things I can acomplish with my 1D MK2 you could never ever do with a small portale digi cam. End of story

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.

--
Seb D
http://www.sebdphoto.com

 

[Medic Laviña]

It MUST be technically possible because the prosummer cameras have
manual focus and no prism system. It's not BETTER but it is
cheaper and lighter and almost as good most of the time.

And they use EVF which make it unsure if the subject really is in focus.

People said they wanted DSLR... which is what they got... However,
I maintain that for the majority of Potential users they asked the
wrong question.

You're forgetting that the original question on this thread is "Why would anyone want a digital SLR?". We are not questioning the decisions of P&S users (who unreasonably bash on DSLRs) nor persuading them to go DSLR.

The reflex component of the DSLR -IS- a hangover. It is NOT the
only solution to the problem which is to have a Digital ICL
(Inter-Changeable Lens) camera for existing lenses from 35mm format
cameras.

Can you give an example of other solutions, or at least describe the concept?

The reflex component of the SLR digital is a wonderful aid but does
NOTHING for the quality of the pictures that a camera produces - in
all probability it impinges on outright performance due to
vibrations and lock-up issues .

[sarcasm]
Yeah, and the P&S digicams produces better picture quality than those of DSLRs.
[ sarcasm]

--
Medic

 

[Srf_Cast]

No comment. I’ve been out of high school for a while now.

You should have stayed and finished.

--
John

Cheap shot, but peanut prizes usually inspire monkey contestants.

 

[Hoang Pham]

everyone has different needs. there is no perfect camera. that is why there are so many kinds. don't try to make yourself feel better by thinking that all cameras other than your's are bad. even 1Ds owners don't have the best, look at the 30k medium/large format digitals... but they don't go around saying that those cameras are junk. different styles for different people. try to be more open minded.

--
too lazy to make a site so i put my pics at
http://www.xanga.com/nviati

 

[EnglishBob]

Rebel with kit lense is 835g, with a 300mm zoom it's 1100g, battery included.

--
http://gallery.crowleyhosting.com