Reading mode: Light Dark

Why would anyone want a digital SLR?

Go to last post
I see no need for the display on the back of a DSLR. I have an A1 and Drebel. I like the optical viewfinder, but like the EVF for exposure control and being able to see the image after the shot. I would rather have an EVF behind the optical viewfinder. Then you could have it turn on after a shot and have it give you the image with histogram etc displayed for a few seconds like my A1 does after the shot. Maybe put it behind a mirror so it shows through the mirror when the display is on or when the main mirror is up, otherwise you get the optical view.

Anyway, I'm ok with giving up the EVF before taking the shot, but would like the features it has for after the shot and for viewing images.

...Gary
 
Does the large sensor of a DSLR give better dynamic range than the smaller sensor in P&S digicams or 8Mpxel prosumers? In other words, does a larger sensor w/ larger photosites give better dynamic range (more shadow to highlight detail) as a function of size, as well as lower noise and allow higher ISOs?

Can anyone post sample pics with 100% crop comparing the dynamic range between a DSLR and a digicam?

Thanks :).
loebner said:
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.
Click to expand...
--
'It's not the camera, it's the person behind.'
Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.darwinonline.org/index.php?cat=10196
Minolta DimageX / Sony P100
 
tipham said:
Does the large sensor of a DSLR give better dynamic range than the
smaller sensor in P&S digicams or 8Mpxel prosumers? In other words,
does a larger sensor w/ larger photosites give better dynamic range
(more shadow to highlight detail) as a function of size, as well as
lower noise and allow higher ISOs?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Richard
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list
 
Can you show side-by-side comparisons?

Thanks.
marlinspike said:
tipham said:
Does the large sensor of a DSLR give better dynamic range than the
smaller sensor in P&S digicams or 8Mpxel prosumers? In other words,
does a larger sensor w/ larger photosites give better dynamic range
(more shadow to highlight detail) as a function of size, as well as
lower noise and allow higher ISOs?
Click to expand...
Yes.

Richard
--
http://davidson.smugmug.com
See my profile for equipment and wish list
Click to expand...
--
'It's not the camera, it's the person behind.'
Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.darwinonline.org/index.php?cat=10196
Minolta DimageX / Sony P100
 
Sorry to repeat this question from elsewhere, but does the large sensor of a DSLR give better dynamic range than the smaller sensor in P&S digicams or 8Mpxel prosumers? In other words, does a larger sensor w/ larger photosites give better dynamic range (more shadow to highlight detail) as a function of size, as well as lower noise and allow higher ISOs?

Can anyone post sample pics with 100% crop comparing the dynamic range between a DSLR and a digicam?

Much appreciated :).
OzRay said:
The A2 is a fantastic camera that is just shy of being a DSLR and
does nearly everything that a DSLR is capable of doing. I had no
problems with the EVF, ergonomics and general controls, and the
quality of images in general was outstanding. However, there were
some shortfalls such as huge depth of field at any aperture
(sometimes a gift, other times a curse), it wasn't weatherproof and
the dynamic range was kind of tight. The A2 suited my needs for a
time, but I realised that I needed more (this came as a surprise,
considering I was very happy with the A2).

Without any meaning to do so, I was being asked more and more to
take photographs in situations where the A2 was meeting its limits
(portraits, special events etc). Mainly for these reasons and the
limitations described before, I decided to go to a DSLR. I have
found that I really do appreciate the interchangeable lenses, 800+
shots on a single battery charge, very fast write times, the option
for shallow depth of field when required, the dynamic range and the
much greater solidity and weatherproofing of my DSLR. It hasn't
been a cheap transition, but I have no regrets doing so.

If you still have your Nikon lenses and tried these on a D70, you
may very rapidly change your mind about DSLRs.

Cheers

Ray
loebner said:
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.
Click to expand...
--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said
it first).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/
Click to expand...
--
'It's not the camera, it's the person behind.'
Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.darwinonline.org/index.php?cat=10196
Minolta DimageX / Sony P100
 
loebner said:
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.
Click to expand...
loebner, you're absolutely right. All those professionals out there are wasting their money on junk that doesn't help them produce better photos. Your C-8080 can do everything their equipment can do and more, all for a fraction of the cost!

The reason none of them have discovered this obvious fact is of course fetishism about their fancy equipment. Their fragile business models will be shattered the moment some C-8080 owner realizes he can do everything they can do, but charge much less due to much lower equipment costs. Why, loebner, you can lead the inevitable tidal wave of C-8080 owners who will soon take all the business away from those silly professionals. You'll be a folk hero! What are you waiting for??

Greg
 
Seb D said:
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....
Click to expand...
I am getting the impression that almost everyone except me on this forum is a professional, and therefore needs a DSLR. This must be why everyone needs extraordinary quality and it is a life and death situation that they capture every instance of anything they see around themselves, without error or degradation.

Fortnately I am just taking photos for fun.

Brian
 
Generally the larger the sensor and the photosites, the better the dynamic range. That said, much has to do with the way the photosites collect photons and how they manage the charge that the photons generate. From this follows the way in which the processor interprets the photosite charge to produce an image. It's not all that simple, but larger sensors basically have better dynamic range.

You can get some information here:

http://www.normankoren.com/digital_tonality.html

http://www.extremetech.com/article2/0,1558,1157579,00.asp

Cheers

Ray
tipham said:
Can anyone post sample pics with 100% crop comparing the dynamic
range between a DSLR and a digicam?

Much appreciated :).
OzRay said:
The A2 is a fantastic camera that is just shy of being a DSLR and
does nearly everything that a DSLR is capable of doing. I had no
problems with the EVF, ergonomics and general controls, and the
quality of images in general was outstanding. However, there were
some shortfalls such as huge depth of field at any aperture
(sometimes a gift, other times a curse), it wasn't weatherproof and
the dynamic range was kind of tight. The A2 suited my needs for a
time, but I realised that I needed more (this came as a surprise,
considering I was very happy with the A2).

Without any meaning to do so, I was being asked more and more to
take photographs in situations where the A2 was meeting its limits
(portraits, special events etc). Mainly for these reasons and the
limitations described before, I decided to go to a DSLR. I have
found that I really do appreciate the interchangeable lenses, 800+
shots on a single battery charge, very fast write times, the option
for shallow depth of field when required, the dynamic range and the
much greater solidity and weatherproofing of my DSLR. It hasn't
been a cheap transition, but I have no regrets doing so.

If you still have your Nikon lenses and tried these on a D70, you
may very rapidly change your mind about DSLRs.

Cheers

Ray
loebner said:
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.
Click to expand...
--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said
it first).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/
Click to expand...
--
'It's not the camera, it's the person behind.'
Melbourne, Australia.
http://www.darwinonline.org/index.php?cat=10196
Minolta DimageX / Sony P100
Click to expand...
--
There are no limits, only challenges - me (unless someone else said it first).

http://www.rkp.com.au/PhotoGallery/
 
loebner said:
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.
Click to expand...
I'm a little late coming to this thread, but come on now. You have a lot more control on an SLR than on a compact. Everyone has different needs and that is why there are sooooo-> many diff types of cameras on the market. That's like me asking you- Why do you have a computer? Why do you own a car? Why can't you just walk everywhere- it gets you places! Hmm... think about that one buddy.
 
Not true. Noise is HUGELY related to the optics. Noise Figure (NF) is the ratio of the noise generated by the sensor and the LOSS of the optics. Think about it, if the light coming in is very low, the noise contribution by the sensor becomes more significant. Ever notice that you always see the noise on the dark portions of a digital photo? That's becuase the sensor pixels that get a lot of light have a better signal-to-noise ratio (more signal).

You might say - well, gee, I'll just keep the shutter open longer! Well, that isn't always an option because of moving subjects/cameras AND the more TIME you spend sensing, the more noise you'll encounter.

Now, are nice, bright optics restricted to DSLRs? Nope, but they are related to how much money you spend and lens weight!

Jeff
loebner said:
parallel said:
loebner said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
 
So am I, and after 20 years of doing it for fun with a point and shoot compact 35mm.

Then after making the mistake of reading a book on photography and learning something about DoF et al, I wanted a camera that would let me do a lot of the things I had read, I got an Olympus C8080, after 5 days of frustration I returned it. I then bought a Rebel and have produced more "keepers" in the 5 weeks I have owned it than in the previous 5 months with my other cameras. It's easier to use, quicker to make set-up changes and much better in low light than the Olympus was.

--
http://www.gallery.crowleyhosting.com
 
If yo don´t have your own photo/darkroom/lab and in some cases even if you have one, the running costs for films, chemicals, paper, power, water, rental... I can do nearly the some work in a notepbook or pc for around 400 $ never beeing out of film and don´t lose my work, backing up for nearly free by pressing copy/burn... digital material don´t age, too...

Pay one time use for free about the product life time.

Its like choosing between a sportscar whitch needs daily work and lot of gas and a servicefree and sportscar which even needs no gas nor ensurances and has clima and rc for free.
 
Because clients expect it, will not except anything that looks like the 35 P&S they bought for their kid. Because the SLR form factor is what we trained on. Because manufacturers are not making any other form factor other than DSLR and Digital Backs for MF and LF that can produce the quality that clients expect. Hey, a P&S is great for vacation or snaps. If I'm shooting a job I want at least a DSLR. If I'm lucky I shoot with a back on a MF or viewcamera.
loebner said:
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.
Click to expand...
 
Hi again. Either I'm missing the point with my writting or we are talking
about different things.

I thought I had described the concept: 35mm (format) lens, camera body, EVF. Back half Olympus 8080 (but, obviously, with larger chip), front half Nikon lens mount (or whatever). If the LCD on the back of a DLSR camera is good enough to review a picture then it sure as heck must be good enough to frame it. No, it won't be the same. Naturally, high velocity subjects will be less easy to shoot than with an optical system.

1) I'm not questioning the Quality of DSLR cameras at all, or their ability to produce, in the right hands, mighty fine photographs. It's just mass engineering overkill for most of us who want to use a range of lenses. The new Olympus might be worth a look, though (for myself).

1a) I will asssert, as I did before, that the Reflex System in a Digital SLR does absolutely NOTHING for the quality of an image. You seem to refute this with your delightfully sarcastic remarks - so if if disagree please give me a simple reason why so, that I may stand corrected.

2) Picture quality isn't the only issue - the issue is about maximizing control over focus and depth of field. Perhaps you are clouding the issue of maximizing artistic flexibility with the technical electronic excellence of the image?

4) And as for the continuing failure of people to understand the EVF has the Capacity to provide more than adequate focusing power and Depth of field indication. Get Over It - a bit. All it would take is some creative programming.. Pansonic have made a nice start on the FZ10 and the LC1 is remarkable (when you find the correct setting) - go and try it with an open mind. In my opinion it beats the mat screen on the EOS300 hands down for focussing in reasonable light, and with the gain turned up (why do you have to do that in a menu?) is still a useable option in lower light. However, for only an extra $300 or so one can fit a proper screen to the EOS300...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top