Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Pros and Cons?  (Read 4389 times)

Lisa Nikodym

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1705
    • http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lisa_pictures/lisa_pictures.html
Pros and Cons?
« on: March 24, 2004, 05:32:39 pm »

I can't make any general comments, but you can do a side-by-side features comparison of any set of cameras, including both SLRs and digicams, at the dpreview web site.  Just look for "Buying Guide" > "Side-by-Side".  You might choose a couple of digicams and a couple of SLRs you're thinking about and compare them all.

Lisa
Logged
[url=http://www.stanford.edu/~melkor/lis

Digi-T

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 149
Pros and Cons?
« Reply #1 on: March 24, 2004, 07:02:38 pm »

I like aspects of both types of cameras. For a purely fun and convenience point of view I enjoy my Sony F707 fixed lens camera. I shoot a wide variety of shots and for the vast majority of my shots the fixed lens range of 38-190mm is perfect. I have teleconveters to widen the range with some trade offs in quality. Often I will be shooting a wide angle shot one minute and then a long zoom close up the next so I find that changing lenses constantly is very annoying and can actually cause me to miss certain shots. At the same time I wish I could have the greater quality and options that SLR lenses provide. Because of my shooting style I get a lot of use out of the live preview of the EVF and rear LCD which is not possible on DSLR's. I especially like being able to view the rear LCD as I am taking overhead or low-to-the-ground type shots. The swivel body makes this easy. The movie mode is nice and I actually use it once in a while to help support the still images I take at an event like racing events. The lighter weight of a fixed lense design makes it easier to take with me everywhere I go. So for a camera that has a lot features and is simple and a joy to use it is hard to beat a fixed lense digicam. Now on the other hand if you really need or want the most options and quality from your lenses, higher speed shooting and overall better image quality than a DSLR is the better choice. I've learned to get the most out of my F707 and I am quite happy with most of my shots from it but more and more I am finding myself up against the wall in regards to what I am able to get out of it and I am starting to need many of the better features of a DSLR but I'm not sure I want to give up the fun factor of my fixed lense design. It really is a personal choice and not one that I have fully resolved either. For now I am going to wait and simply enjoy what I already have and see if the perfecr camera for me is made in the near future. Keep in mind that if you decide on a DSLR that even an entry level one is a pretty serious machine, not just in it's capabilities, but also in weight and feel as well as workflow if you decide to start using the better quality RAW files. You put on a long zoom lens on the digital Rebel and you will feel the weight and everyone around you will know you have a camera. Hard to hide that thing.

T
Logged

d2frette

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 153
    • http://
Pros and Cons?
« Reply #2 on: March 25, 2004, 04:46:04 pm »

Quote
Are there waterproof cases for DSLRs that would allow for shooting on the river, (or even underwater shooting)?  How expensive are these?  
Tom - Yes they exist.  $1500 would probably be the low end for a waterproof DLSR case.  But I've never seriously looked into one.
Logged
David M. Frette.  
Programming, Photo

Aaron Bredon

  • Guest
Pros and Cons?
« Reply #3 on: March 29, 2004, 12:16:16 pm »

Quote
Can anyone direct me to a good article from a feature standpoint between dSLRs vs. fixed lens digicams?  (or comment?)

I am not specifically talking image quality, but rather advantages and disadvantages from a feature standpoint.  I guess some of the things I've listed below are "capabilities" while others are user considerations.  I'd appreciate comments on both.  I am pretty familiar with what the fixed lens digicams offer, but less so with DSLRs.  Are there any big things that aren't available on DSLRs that I might assume would be after reading about fixed lens?
One thing that may not be obvious: many fixed lens digicams use leaf shutters. This means 2 things:
1. These cameras can flash sync at all shutter speeds. I have used flash at 1/2000s on my Minolta Dimage 7i, and it works well even though the shutter speed is faster than the flash burst.
2. There is no stretching/shrinking of fast-moving objects. A focal plane shutter will compress objects that are moving quickly in the direction of the shutter, and expand objects that are moving quickly opposite to the direction of the shutter.

I have found that the live exposure preview of the EVF in my Dimage 7i makes correct exposure a no-brainer. If I am exposing wrong it will be obvious to me before I take the picture, and I can adjust exposure and take the picture with no significant delay. (the low-res EVF does make manual focusing and double-checking autofocus harder, but there are visual clues that make it possible)
Logged

TomS

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Pros and Cons?
« Reply #4 on: March 24, 2004, 03:51:00 pm »

Can anyone direct me to a good article from a feature standpoint between dSLRs vs. fixed lens digicams?  (or comment?)

I am not specifically talking image quality, but rather advantages and disadvantages from a feature standpoint.  I guess some of the things I've listed below are "capabilities" while others are user considerations.  I'd appreciate comments on both.  I am pretty familiar with what the fixed lens digicams offer, but less so with DSLRs.  Are there any big things that aren't available on DSLRs that I might assume would be after reading about fixed lens?

I realize all have different features, but I am considering a 5mp or 8mp digicam with 28-200 or 35-380 fixed zoom or possibly an entry level DSLR such as the Canon 300d or Nikon d70. If I went with something like the 300d or d70, what are the key features that would be present or lacking compared to something like the Sony 828, Coolpix 8700, or Minolta A2?  Other than noise HAHA.

For example:
Digicams + or - compared to DSLR:
+movie mode
+fixed lens, no dust
+more compact telephoto capability
-less DOF control
-EVF doesn't provide benefits of TTL optical viewfinder
+EVF allows display of LCD information on EVF or LCD
+no mirror slap
-slower autofocus performance
+interval photography, not available on DSLR?
+Minolta offers AS, affordable compared to comparable for DSLR
-most have electronic zoom rather than manual zoom ring (with exceptions)
Logged

BJL

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 6600
Pros and Cons?
« Reply #5 on: March 24, 2004, 06:25:05 pm »

Let me start with the obvious ones that have ben most noticable in my extensive shopping and limited user experience.
   Moving from a fixed lens digicam (say a high end one like the Minolta A2 that Michael Reichmann seems to like a lot) to an interchangeable lens DSLR, here are some plusses and minusses.

+ I greatly prefer the optical through the lens viewfinders for the common reasons of the sharper image and better performance in low light (for now, but "video viewfinders" are improving)

+ better AF performance and shutter lag in general, far better in my experience, partly due to the ability to use phase detection rather than contrast detection AF

+ a far greater variety of lenses, including some likely to be of far higher quality than any on a fixed lens digicam

+ higher usable shutter speeds (at a cost in depth of field), ultimately because the SLR lenses have physically bigger apertures and so can gather more light from a subject.

+ more capability to achieve very shallow depth of field and so blur out distracting backgrounds, or even foreground elements that pass directly in front of the main subject (due again to the physically far larger aperture diameters).

- greater size, weight and cost (I said I was going to state the obvious)

- no live video viewfinder, either back panel LCD or EVF, so no live histogram, or flashing highlights, or zooming for manual focus, or "exposure level preview", or ...

- no video recording ability

- sensor dust; but see below


Non-differences and less important ones.

= DSLRs do not inherently suffer from having less depth of field; you can roughly match the high DOF of a compact digicam by stopping down a DSLR suitably and then adjusting the "ISO" speed up to get a comparable shutter speed, and still end up with comparable noise levels, at least with many DSLR's.

= Interval photography: at least some DSLR's support interval photography. For example, the E-1 offers this, but only through tethered operation and with the Studio software, which costs extra.

= The mirror slap on my Olympus E-1 is so quiet that I doubt it will have much affect on image sharpness, though I have not tested that formally. That is an advantage of smaller format DSLR's with proportionately smaller mirrors compared to larger formats; the momentum of the mirror reduces with the cube of format's linear size. However, I believe that many APS format DSLR's still use full 35mm format mirrrors, so do not yet have this advantage.

= As a new E-1 user, I have seen no sensor dust yet and am for now optimistic that the "sensor cleaning" mechanism will minimise this much discussed annoyance of interchangeable lens DSLR's, but mostly on the basis of reports from other users.
Logged

TomS

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4
Pros and Cons?
« Reply #6 on: March 25, 2004, 03:37:41 pm »

Can anyone comment on how weatherproof the Sony 717, Canon 300D, and Nikon D70 are?  I have only had a point and shoot , and I took it all over the place, inlcuding river rafting, hiking in a variety of settings, some of which were fairly dusty, etc.  

While I can put gear in a dry bag while on the river, I was never that concerned about my point and shoot, but with a more substantial investment, I am a bit more worried about how they would do in various environments, and I'd hate to miss a great shot because I was afraid of ruining the camera.  

Also, I have seen waterproof cases for point and shoots.  Are there waterproof cases for DSLRs that would allow for shooting on the river, (or even underwater shooting)?  How expensive are these?  The thought of a budget point in shoot underwater alone makes me nervous about whether the case is properly lubed and sealed, but the idea of a more expensive piece of equipment underwater is a bit more scary.
Logged

George Barr

  • Guest
Pros and Cons?
« Reply #7 on: March 26, 2004, 12:04:19 am »

I have owned both a fixed zoom camera (sony 707) and dslr (Canon 10D) and here's my thoughts on the subject.

The optical finder is much brighter in sunlight - I wear glasses and if the sun is to the side it is almost impossible to see the electronic viewfinder - I use one hand to shield my eye from the suns glare. On the other hand, the optical viewfinder overestimates what can be photographed while the electronic viewfinder underestimates what will be recorded - sometimes it is better to underestimate recording dynamic range (max.  and min. brightness that will have detail).

I loved the tilting back on the 707 - that meant that both the lcd and viewfinder could be tilted - I could raise the camera above eye level or lower and not have to get into really awkward positions to photograph with - ideal for landscape photography, flowers, macro, etc.

DSLR's don't shoot movies - yes, I know you could have bought a movie camera but short movies in one camera is nice if you are a family person

My 10d with it's 70-200 zoom is basically equivalent to 320 mm. full frame at the long end - longer than most fixed zoom cameras (olympus 750 etc. being the exceptions).

Having the lcd preview the image can be very handy in some situations, especially when it tilts - lcds and even electronic viewfinders tend to be more accurate in coverage than an optical viewfinder - but focusing with an electronic viewfinder is not ideal - but it is doable

It's true that you can't slip a sony 707 or any of the current 8 mp fixed zoom cameras in your pocket, but there is a huge difference between lugging my 17-40, 28-105 and 70-200 f4 lens vs. the sony - much bulkier, much heavier, much slower to set up and use lenses.

Depth of field is an issue - when I used the sony 707, I hardly ever ran out of depth of field, with the 10D this is frequently a problem in shooting landscape and architectural - f8 on the sony is equivalent to about f64 on the 10D, which of course it doesn't have - and oddly, I didn't find that images got much fuzzier at f8 vs. f4 - had expected they would based on diaphragm size and diffraction. On the other hand, my 10d is noticeably fuzzier at the smallest aperture vs. half way down, regardless of which lens I use - I can mostly correct for it with more agressive unsharp masking, all be it with slightly more noticeable sharpening artifacts.

You don't need mirror lock up on a fixed zoom digicam - no mirror, not even a shakey focal plane shutter to blur things - I have a lot more fuzzy pictures since I switched to the 10D - the vibrations in the 10d, 70-200 combination don't settle down for quite a while despite a good wood tripod - I never had that problem with the same tripod and the sony.


The last difference is the ability to annotate images with some of the better digicams - I'd like that on my 10D.

Having said all that, you still have to address the quality issue = images with the new canon pro 1 are as sharp and as detailed as images from the 10D. The grain at slower speeds doesn't show up in any reasonable sized print so isn't really an issue - but the quality of the shaddows and the ability to lighten shaddows in an editing programme is one big difference. With the 10D at ei. 100, I can use curves or levels or the new shaddow control in photoshop to really bring up the shaddows - with digicams, the noise levels in teh shaddows really limits how much you can open up the shaddows by whatever technique. There is a smootheness to 10D images which isn't there with the digicams. I say that the 10D has less sharpness than 35 mm. film but the tonality of 4X5. Hope this has been helpful.

George
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up