Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Dumb Question I expect but could someone help

Reply
Thread Tools

Dumb Question I expect but could someone help

 
 
Randy Berbaum
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2005
Min <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
: In article <(E-Mail Removed) .com>,
: Scott <(E-Mail Removed)> writes
: >A digital SLR (single-lens-reflex) has interchangeable lenses and is
: >usually classified as a Prosumer camera. You can get an overview and
: >specific camera reviews and recommendations of digital slr digital
: >cameras here:
: >
: >http://digital-camera.review-center....uide.php?id=14
: >
: And your question is?

He wasn't asking a question. He was answering one.

Randy

==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dr. Joel M. Hoffman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2005
>What is digital slr?

Here's the basic story.

There are at least two ways of dividing up cameras.

1. Digital vs. film. A digital camera captures images to a flash
card or other electronic medium. Digital is usually better for
capturing digital images, and certainly more convenient for capturing
digital images. In fact, for snapshots and medium-quality
enlargements, digital is more convenient in every regard. But a
digital camera will be more expensive than a film camera of the same
quality, sometimes much more expensive.

2. SLR vs. fixed-lens. An SLR lets you change lenses, while a
fixed-lens camera does not. (There are other non-SLR cameras that
also let you change lenses, though.) The reasons an SLR is better
than a fixed-lens camera are threefold: First, you can change lenses,
so you have more flexibility. Secondly, because you can use more than
one lens, you don't have to have one lens that does everything, so you
get higher quality. Thirdly, most SLRs are designed to be of higher
quality than most fixed-lens cameras.

A digital SLR is just that: a digital camera that lets you change
lenses.

-Joel

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free 35mm lens/digicam reviews: http://www.exc.com/photography
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Joe Makowiec
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2005
On 18 Mar 2005 in rec.photo.digital, Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:

> 2. SLR vs. fixed-lens. An SLR lets you change lenses, while a
> fixed-lens camera does not.


Nope. An SLR (Single Lens Reflex) has a single lens (as opposed to dual
lens cameras[1]), and uses a reflex (mirror) to send the image to the
viewfinder. Whether or not the lens is interchangable has nothing to do
with it. The fact of the matter is that virtually all SLRs have
interchangable lenses; however, some rangefinders do, too.

[1] Classic Rolleiflexes, for example; see http://www.foto.no/rolleiflex/
--
Joe Makowiec
http://makowiec.org/
Email: http://makowiec.org/contact/?Joe
 
Reply With Quote
 
James Silverton
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2005
Dr. Joel M. Hoffman wrote:
>> What is digital slr?

>
> Here's the basic story.
>
> There are at least two ways of dividing up cameras.
> >>>>>>>>>>Much snipping<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<


> A digital SLR is just that: a digital camera that lets you change
> lenses.
>
> -Joel
>


De facto perhaps but not *required* by the words "single-lens reflex"!


--
James V. Silverton
Potomac, Maryland, USA

 
Reply With Quote
 
Tumbleweed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2005

"Dr. Joel M. Hoffman" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:6WC_d.19556$(E-Mail Removed)...
> >What is digital slr?

>
> Here's the basic story.
>
> 2. SLR vs. fixed-lens. An SLR lets you change lenses, while a
> fixed-lens camera does not. (There are other non-SLR cameras that
> also let you change lenses, though.) The reasons an SLR is better
> than a fixed-lens camera are threefold: First, you can change lenses,
> so you have more flexibility. Secondly, because you can use more than
> one lens, you don't have to have one lens that does everything, so you
> get higher quality. Thirdly, most SLRs are designed to be of higher
> quality than most fixed-lens cameras.
>
> A digital SLR is just that: a digital camera that lets you change
> lenses.


Erm .... while that may often be true, it is far from being on the mark!
There are plenty of non slr's around with interchangeable lenses - albeit no
digitals that I know of.

The reason for the SLR is the desire to see what you are actually framing.

The Single Lens Reflex allow the user to view the actual image which will
hit the film plane at the time of exposure through the taking lens.
..
Twin lens reflexes used two matching lenses, one to view and one to shoot.
This was better than optical viewfinder cameras but did not totally
eliminate parallax error. Nor could you see the effects of graduated filters
etc.

The beauty of the single lens reflex is viewing through the taking lens: you
can accurately preview depth of field. take real macro photos (virtually
impossible with any other camera) and experiment with filters before
exposing a frame.

The advent of digital means that there is less "risk" attached to taking
frames since they are virtually free


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2005
Tumbleweed wrote:
[]
> The reason for the SLR is the desire to see what you are actually
> framing.

[]
> The beauty of the single lens reflex is viewing through the taking
> lens: you can accurately preview depth of field. take real macro
> photos (virtually impossible with any other camera) and experiment
> with filters before exposing a frame.
>
> The advent of digital means that there is less "risk" attached to
> taking frames since they are virtually free


... and, of course, that any camera with an LCD or EVF finder offers
exactly the sort of live framing advantages only previously available with
SLR cameras.

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
Tumbleweed
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2005

"David J Taylor" <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
wrote in message news:jFD_d.215$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Tumbleweed wrote:
> []
>> The reason for the SLR is the desire to see what you are actually
>> framing.

> []
>> The beauty of the single lens reflex is viewing through the taking
>> lens: you can accurately preview depth of field. take real macro
>> photos (virtually impossible with any other camera) and experiment
>> with filters before exposing a frame.
>>
>> The advent of digital means that there is less "risk" attached to
>> taking frames since they are virtually free

>
> .. and, of course, that any camera with an LCD or EVF finder offers
> exactly the sort of live framing advantages only previously available with
> SLR cameras.
>
> David

Up to a point. But a (as yet) there is no camera with an LCD or EVF that is
capable of resolving detail sufficiently accurately to take macro 'photos or
to accurately evaluate D.O.F ..... I accept that they are vastly better than
optical viewfinders. But still (currently) limited in capability.


 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      03-18-2005
Tumbleweed wrote:
> "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote in
> message news:jFD_d.215$(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Tumbleweed wrote:
>> []
>>> The reason for the SLR is the desire to see what you are actually
>>> framing.

>> []
>>> The beauty of the single lens reflex is viewing through the taking
>>> lens: you can accurately preview depth of field. take real macro
>>> photos (virtually impossible with any other camera) and experiment
>>> with filters before exposing a frame.
>>>
>>> The advent of digital means that there is less "risk" attached to
>>> taking frames since they are virtually free

>>
>> .. and, of course, that any camera with an LCD or EVF finder offers
>> exactly the sort of live framing advantages only previously
>> available with SLR cameras.
>>
>> David

> Up to a point. But a (as yet) there is no camera with an LCD or EVF
> that is capable of resolving detail sufficiently accurately to take
> macro 'photos or to accurately evaluate D.O.F ..... I accept that
> they are vastly better than optical viewfinders. But still
> (currently) limited in capability.


Which is precisely why I said "framing", and made no claim that a DSLR
finder was the same as an EVF or LCD finder. Focus is not so much of an
issue with macro, though, due to the much larger depth-of-field on the
smaller sensor P&S.

How disappointing, though, to see the one manufacturer who had actually
made progress in that area with an excellent VGA resolution EVF cut the
cost on their next camera with a much poorer resolution EVF. Perhaps they
were starting to compete with their new DSLR line....

Cheers,
David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dumb, Dumb Vista Au79 Computer Support 4 02-11-2007 03:40 PM
how to expect eof with expect+pty Simon Strandgaard Ruby 4 12-20-2006 04:00 PM
Bug in $obj->expect() ... ? (Expect 1.15) Phil Perl Misc 0 07-07-2006 07:25 AM
Dumb, dumb dumb Qestion David Napierkowski Digital Photography 6 10-31-2004 11:14 PM
dumb newbie question (or newbie dumb question) Jerry C. Perl Misc 8 11-23-2003 04:11 AM



Advertisments