«

In article <bi1d78$mcb$>,
says...
> Why do digital cameras like the newly-announced Canon 300D need to be SLRs?
> Sure, being able to change lenses is great, but couldn't you do away with the
> mirrors and just have an lcd viewfinder? With fewer moving parts there would
> be less to break.
>
> Just curious.
>

David,

The virtues of SLRs have been beat to death here in the past couple of
weeks. Please look in the archives at http://groups.google.com for a
thread titled "Canon 10D to come down in price?" The thread ran from
8/7/03 to 8/12/03 and contains 165 messages.

--
________________________________
Todd Walker
http://twalker.d2g.com
Canon 10D:
http://twalker.d2g.com/canon10d
My Digital Photography Weblog:
http://twalker.d2g.com/dpblog.htm
_________________________________

Todd Walker <> wrote:
> In article <bi1d78$mcb$>,
> says...
>> Why do digital cameras like the newly-announced Canon 300D need to be SLRs?
>> Sure, being able to change lenses is great, but couldn't you do away with the
>> mirrors and just have an lcd viewfinder? With fewer moving parts there would
>> be less to break.
>>
>> Just curious.

> The virtues of SLRs have been beat to death here in the past couple of
> weeks. Please look in the archives at http://groups.google.com for a
> thread titled "Canon 10D to come down in price?" The thread ran from
> 8/7/03 to 8/12/03 and contains 165 messages.

Thanks Todd, I read through this entire thread and it was helpful.

I am certainly not a photography expert, I've been taking pictures for a long
time and have slowly learned some things, but I am definitely an amateur.
I started with a Pentax K1000, then some years later bought a Nikon 8008s (both
35mm of course). I loved taking pictures but I hated waiting for the film
to be developed. Sometimes I would be shocked when I'd finally get my prints
(sometimes they would be much better than I expected, but often not).

About three years ago, I saw a friend using a digital camera and I asked if I
could play with it. In a very short time I knew I had to have one (he had a
1.3 MP cheapo Fuji). About a year later I finally bought my Canon Powershot A20.

The A20 wasn't/isn't bad and I loved being able to preview pictures right away
(I've been able to erase a lot of terrible shots). Photography is so much
cheaper now and I'm able to take many more shots than before.

I quickly missed the optical viewfinder of the Nikon, it is drastically better
than the Canon's. And I missed being able to change lenses. The Canon's 3x lens
just isn't right sometimes, sometimes I really need a long zoom. And the A20
has horrible shutter lag sometimes. I really hate that. But I've limped
along with it and it's been fun.

So I've been waiting for an affordable DSLR to come out. Maybe the Digital Rebel
is that camera for me, maybe not, I'd like to try one. It still won't be
cheap, especially if I get the long zoom, but it's borderline affordable for me.

I wonder if there is a market for a non-SLR digital camera that allows you to
change lenses. Several people have commented how poor a lot of electronic
viewfinders look. I did use a friend's Olympus C700 and the viewfinder was
pretty crummy. Maybe someday this technology will improve to the point that
an electronic viewfinder will look as good as an SLR's optical viewfinder.
With my original question, I guess I was trying to simplify the design and get
rid of some moving parts. For all I know, this camera might not be any cheaper
than a DSLR to produce.

I don't really care about video or sound and if I want black and white, there
is software for that. I just like to take pictures and I'm still trying to
learn and improve.

I appreciate the help several people have given me!


--
David Swanger
Office of Information Technology
Auburn University, AL

Hey rsfcker!

writes:

> I quickly missed the optical viewfinder of the Nikon, it is
> drastically better than the Canon's. And I missed being able to
> change lenses. The Canon's 3x lens just isn't right sometimes,
> sometimes I really need a long zoom. And the A20 has horrible shutter
> lag sometimes. I really hate that. But I've limped along with it and
> it's been fun.


I know what you mean. I sold my Olympus OM-1 to help pay for a Canon
A40. There are many things I love about it, and many things I hate.
The Olympus had the best and brightest viewfinder of any camera I've
ever used. Ergonomically, it was so sweet. I absolutely miss the
sound of the shutter release on that camera. However, I too was tired
of waiting for film to get developed. There were many times when I
missed shots because I had not threaded the film correctly. I don't
miss film at all. I still have a Nikon N65, but I haven't touched it
in months.

The shutter lag on the A40 totally sucks and composing shots with the
LCD is a pain, but it takes nice shots and is simple to use. I'd buy
it again if I knew then what I know now, and I consider that the sign
of a good product.


> So I've been waiting for an affordable DSLR to come out. Maybe the
> Digital Rebel is that camera for me, maybe not, I'd like to try one.
> It still won't be cheap, especially if I get the long zoom, but it's
> borderline affordable for me.


I said I would buy A40 and wait for the first DSLR that came in under
$1000. I'm reconsidering that now. I never expected that a DSLR
would come in under that price so soon. Now, I'll probably wait until
one hits the $600 mark. Considering the way prices have fallen on
these so quickly, I don't think that will be much more than a year or
so.

Aaron

--
"A classic is something that everybody wants to have read and
nobody wants to read."
-- Mark Twain