When does SLR start to make sense ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by x@x.com, Oct 8, 2006.

  1. Guest

    I understand that the bigger sensors in the current SLRs will give a better
    image than the sensors in the compacts, but when does the difference start
    to show ? And how ?

    Say comparing a good quality 6 MP compact (say Fuji F30) with a good quality
    6 MP SLR (say a Pentax DS2 or K100D), will you see the difference on the
    screen ? What will be the difference, more noise ?

    What about when you print, with both at 6 MP, how big to do you need to enlarge
    to see the difference ? And again, how will the difference show ?

    I do understand the advantage of the SLR if you want a whole bunch of different
    lenses, flashes, etc... but I am not concerned about that here.


    Thanks.
     
    , Oct 8, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    wrote:
    > I understand that the bigger sensors in the current SLRs will give a better
    > image than the sensors in the compacts, but when does the difference start
    > to show ? And how ?
    >



    Photos taken under perfect conditions --- bright light, tripod, and/or
    stationary subject --- most people will not be able to easily
    distinguish between the ones from a $2000 dSLR, and a $300 compact. At
    least, not for A4 size prints or smaller.

    The difference will only become apparent when shooting under less than
    ideal situations. Low lighting and/or fast moving subjects will make
    for blurry photos on a compact. And even if you can get a decent low
    light shot off a compact camera, chances are it'll only look good on
    small prints (5" x 7", or internet size, etc). Try printing it on A3
    size, and it'll look downright ugly.
     
    , Oct 8, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    wrote:

    > The difference will only become apparent when shooting under less than
    > ideal situations. Low lighting and/or fast moving subjects will make
    > for blurry photos on a compact. And even if you can get a decent low
    > light shot off a compact camera, chances are it'll only look good on
    > small prints (5" x 7", or internet size, etc). Try printing it on A3
    > size, and it'll look downright ugly.


    So a 6 MP pixel compact blown up to A3 will be ugly, but the same from an
    SLR will look good ?

    Ugly/good in what sense, not enough contrast ? Noise ? I am assuming that
    a 6 MP image will look pixelated no matter how big the sensor was, when it's
    blown to A3, right ?
     
    , Oct 8, 2006
    #3
  4. Bill Funk Guest

    On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 14:43:13 GMT, wrote:

    > wrote:
    >
    >> The difference will only become apparent when shooting under less than
    >> ideal situations. Low lighting and/or fast moving subjects will make
    >> for blurry photos on a compact. And even if you can get a decent low
    >> light shot off a compact camera, chances are it'll only look good on
    >> small prints (5" x 7", or internet size, etc). Try printing it on A3
    >> size, and it'll look downright ugly.

    >
    >So a 6 MP pixel compact blown up to A3 will be ugly, but the same from an
    >SLR will look good ?


    That's not what he said.
    Plastic was talking about pics taken in low light. And, for the most
    part, he's right.
    >
    >Ugly/good in what sense, not enough contrast ? Noise ? I am assuming that
    >a 6 MP image will look pixelated no matter how big the sensor was, when it's
    >blown to A3, right ?
    >

    Yes, noise.
    --
    Bill Funk
    replace "g" with "a"
     
    Bill Funk, Oct 8, 2006
    #4
  5. Hi Yves,

    Ok, here is my take. Compacts take great images and I use one a lot when
    I don't have my slr with me. But here are the issues with compacts IMHO:

    1. Image noise. because the sensor chips are smaller, for lower cost and
    other reasons, they have more inherent noise than bigger ones in an SLR.
    Especially noticeable in areas of flat color, like blue skies.

    2. Lens maximum aperture. The maximum aperture on some compacts are
    pretty small, meaning less light to the film, meaning you must either
    use flash, a tripod or raise the ISO (noise) earlier than with an SLR
    with a decent lens.

    3. Shutter lag. Many compacts suffer from longer delays between when you
    press the shutter and the picture is taken than slrs do. This makes no
    sense because the slr has more to do, but it happens.

    4. Slow write times to memory. Many compacts are very slow writing to
    the card, especially if they support RAW mode.

    5. Heavy JPEG processing. I've noticed many compacts do pretty heavy
    JPEG compression even in minimum mode and most do not offer the RAW
    option. Thus many compact images when you zoom to 100% look over
    sharpened, cover contrast enhanced and have some visible JPEG noise.

    Cheers,

    Wayne


    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Oct 8, 2006
    #5
  6. ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 08 Oct 2006 05:07:20 GMT, wrote:

    > I understand that the bigger sensors in the current SLRs will give a better
    > image than the sensors in the compacts, but when does the difference start
    > to show ? And how ?
    >
    > Say comparing a good quality 6 MP compact (say Fuji F30) with a good quality
    > 6 MP SLR (say a Pentax DS2 or K100D), will you see the difference on the
    > screen ? What will be the difference, more noise ?


    In addition to what others have said, DSLRs can focus much quicker
    and more accurately than P&S cameras. So one difference will be
    that DSLRs will be better able to take shots that you intend while
    P&S compacts will sometimes get shots where the subject has turned
    around or has vanished completely from the frame. Even if the
    compact has an excellent lens (for a compact) if its focus is
    slightly off, the shots it takes will be noticeably inferior. It
    doesn't matter if under ideal conditions the compact's pictures can
    be hard to distinguish from the DSLRs, since real world conditions
    will frequently intrude, and DSLRs are much better able to cope than
    compacts, and therefore will more often produce better images.

    One other place where a difference will show is if you really want
    sharper, clearer pictures from the camera and don't mind paying for
    it. The compact might take pictures nearly as good as many DSLRs
    using cheap kit lenses, but there are reasons why photographers are
    willing to pay for lenses that in some cases cost several times more
    than either complete compact cameras or DSLR bodies. One of several
    is that better optics can produce higher quality images.
     
    ASAAR, Oct 8, 2006
    #6
  7. Creative Guest

    <> wrote in message news:588Wg.107641$1T2.23612@pd7urf2no...
    > wrote:
    >
    >> The difference will only become apparent when shooting under less than
    >> ideal situations. Low lighting and/or fast moving subjects will make
    >> for blurry photos on a compact. And even if you can get a decent low
    >> light shot off a compact camera, chances are it'll only look good on
    >> small prints (5" x 7", or internet size, etc). Try printing it on A3
    >> size, and it'll look downright ugly.

    >
    > So a 6 MP pixel compact blown up to A3 will be ugly, but the same from an
    > SLR will look good ?


    I have exhibited and sold quite a few photos that have been enlarged to A3
    size from a 5 MP compact, even low light sunset ones. Perhaps my most
    popular pic is a sunset taken a few years ago with a 3 MP compact, which has
    enlarged perfectly well to A3 size (but it wouldn't enlarge well beyond
    this). No one to my knowledge has said these pictures are ugly because I
    didn't use a better camera!

    But if you want to enlarge just a small portion of a picture, or if you want
    an enlargement way beyond A3 size, then I would use a good SLR or a fixed
    lense camera like the Sony R1, which has 10.3 mp and a large sensor.
     
    Creative, Oct 8, 2006
    #7
  8. POHB Guest

    Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    > Hi Yves,
    >
    > Ok, here is my take. Compacts take great images and I use one a lot when
    > I don't have my slr with me. But here are the issues with compacts IMHO:
    >


    IMHO the biggest difference between compacts and SLR is the same as it
    was with film, it is all about what-you-see-is-what-you-get.
    With SLR you look through a viewfinder and see what you'll get on the
    picture, with compacts you get a viewfinder that shows you roughly what
    you're pointing at providing you allow for parallax differences between
    the finder and the lens.
    With digital compacts you often don't even get a viewfinder and have to
    hold the thing at arms length and try to pick a shot from a blurry
    little screen that's lagging behind what the subject is doing and is
    hard to see in bright sunlight.
    With SLR you can use the viewfinder to focus (or see what the autofocus
    has done), check depth-of-field and capture the decisive moment. With
    compacts you point and hope.

    The other big advantage of an SLR viewfinder is it doesn't consume
    batteries, you can squint down the finder for as long as you like
    waiting for the child/wildlife/sunset to be in just the right position.
    With a compact LCD the clock is ticking.
     
    POHB, Oct 9, 2006
    #8
  9. Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

    Have a look at Leica's V-Lux1 or its equivalent the Panasonic Z50.
    The lens has a 55 mm diameter and max aperture of F/2.8. IMHO, it might
    be a good reason not to buy a DSLR i.e. no lenses to change and no dirt
    on sensor issues.
    An SLR does have advantages over both, but then its film and not
    digital for instant gratification.

    regards
    -kamal

    > Hi Yves,
    >
    > Ok, here is my take. Compacts take great images and I use one a lot when
    > I don't have my slr with me. But here are the issues with compacts IMHO:
    >
    > 1. Image noise. because the sensor chips are smaller, for lower cost and
    > other reasons, they have more inherent noise than bigger ones in an SLR.
    > Especially noticeable in areas of flat color, like blue skies.
    >
    > 2. Lens maximum aperture. The maximum aperture on some compacts are
    > pretty small, meaning less light to the film, meaning you must either
    > use flash, a tripod or raise the ISO (noise) earlier than with an SLR
    > with a decent lens.
    >
    > 3. Shutter lag. Many compacts suffer from longer delays between when you
    > press the shutter and the picture is taken than slrs do. This makes no
    > sense because the slr has more to do, but it happens.
    >
    > 4. Slow write times to memory. Many compacts are very slow writing to
    > the card, especially if they support RAW mode.
    >
    > 5. Heavy JPEG processing. I've noticed many compacts do pretty heavy
    > JPEG compression even in minimum mode and most do not offer the RAW
    > option. Thus many compact images when you zoom to 100% look over
    > sharpened, cover contrast enhanced and have some visible JPEG noise.
    >
    > Cheers,
    >
    > Wayne
    >
    >
    > --
    > Wayne J. Cosshall
    > Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    > Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
     
    Kamal R. Prasad, Oct 9, 2006
    #9
  10. D Russell Guest

    I think that an SLR starts to make sense when you're really committed to
    spending a lot more money on your hobby. Since a crappy photographer with a
    £2k DSLR will take worse photos than a keen amateur with a £200 compact
    there's a lot to be said for buying yourself a nice compact first.

    See how much you use it, see what results you get, check to see if a DSLR
    really would offer you much of an improvement on what photos you've got
    then decide if you want to invest the extra money.

    For me a DSLR would help with manual focus, since i've not yet seen a really
    good manual focus on a compact, and taking photos of birds in flight the
    auto-focus just isn't fast enough, not even on most DSLR's. That and maybe
    a very long exposure setting for e.g. star pictures, or meteor trails.
    However I don't judge either of these conditions to be important enough to
    make the DSLR worth buying just yet.

    D


    wrote:

    > I understand that the bigger sensors in the current SLRs will give a
    > better image than the sensors in the compacts, but when does the
    > difference start to show ? And how ?
    >
    > Say comparing a good quality 6 MP compact (say Fuji F30) with a good
    > quality 6 MP SLR (say a Pentax DS2 or K100D), will you see the difference
    > on the screen ? What will be the difference, more noise ?
    >
    > What about when you print, with both at 6 MP, how big to do you need to
    > enlarge to see the difference ? And again, how will the difference show ?
    >
    > I do understand the advantage of the SLR if you want a whole bunch of
    > different lenses, flashes, etc... but I am not concerned about that here.
    >
    >
    > Thanks.
     
    D Russell, Oct 9, 2006
    #10
  11. Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
    > Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >
    > Have a look at Leica's V-Lux1 or its equivalent the Panasonic Z50.
    > The lens has a 55 mm diameter and max aperture of F/2.8. IMHO, it might
    > be a good reason not to buy a DSLR i.e. no lenses to change and no dirt
    > on sensor issues.
    > An SLR does have advantages over both, but then its film and not
    > digital for instant gratification.
    >
    > regards
    > -kamal


    Hi Kamal,

    Yup, I have an FZ50 in front of me right now that I have been testing.
    Nice camera but not the same as my 350D and just arrived 400D (I'm
    having the 350D converted to IR). The FZ50 is a lot noiser than the 350D
    and the electronic viewfinder is not a substitute for a real one.

    BTW the FZ50 is only f2.8 at the wide end.

    Cheers,

    Wayne

    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Oct 9, 2006
    #11
  12. wrote:
    > I understand that the bigger sensors in the current SLRs will give a better
    > image than the sensors in the compacts, but when does the difference start
    > to show ? And how ?
    >
    > Say comparing a good quality 6 MP compact (say Fuji F30) with a good quality
    > 6 MP SLR (say a Pentax DS2 or K100D), will you see the difference on the
    > screen ? What will be the difference, more noise ?
    >
    > What about when you print, with both at 6 MP, how big to do you need to enlarge
    > to see the difference ? And again, how will the difference show ?
    >
    > I do understand the advantage of the SLR if you want a whole bunch of different
    > lenses, flashes, etc... but I am not concerned about that here.
    >
    >
    > Thanks.


    There is another point here. Even well below 6MP, the sensor
    resolution is far better than the screen resolution on typical LCD
    screens, which are usually well below 1MP. Even good EVF are less
    resolution than chip provides. If you are trying to do something
    manual such as manual focusing, the LCD screens and EVF don't do the
    job. If all you usethe viewfinder for is aiming the camera, then the
    LCD or EVF is okay. Beyond that, the SLR provides an advantage.

    I do a lot of macro work, and SLR is very important here. One must use
    manual focus to place the plane of best focus at the right point on the
    volume representing the main object. This takes critical focusing.
     
    Don Stauffer in Minnesota, Oct 9, 2006
    #12
  13. ASAAR Guest

    On 9 Oct 2006 05:58:07 -0700, POHB wrote:

    > IMHO the biggest difference between compacts and SLR is the same as it
    > was with film, it is all about what-you-see-is-what-you-get.
    > With SLR you look through a viewfinder and see what you'll get on the
    > picture, with compacts you get a viewfinder that shows you roughly what
    > you're pointing at providing you allow for parallax differences between
    > the finder and the lens.
    > With digital compacts you often don't even get a viewfinder and have to
    > hold the thing at arms length and try to pick a shot from a blurry
    > little screen that's lagging behind what the subject is doing and is
    > hard to see in bright sunlight.
    > With SLR you can use the viewfinder to focus (or see what the autofocus
    > has done), check depth-of-field and capture the decisive moment. With
    > compacts you point and hope.


    How convenient, that you avoided mentioning EVFs, which often come
    closer to showing 100% of what the captured image will be than many
    DSLRs. Many of the cheapest cameras using EVFs don't allow manual
    focusing but the better ones do, and some of those can focus quite
    well manually (unfortunately my S5100 is not one of those).
     
    ASAAR, Oct 9, 2006
    #13
  14. Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    > Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
    > > Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    > >
    > > Have a look at Leica's V-Lux1 or its equivalent the Panasonic Z50.
    > > The lens has a 55 mm diameter and max aperture of F/2.8. IMHO, it might
    > > be a good reason not to buy a DSLR i.e. no lenses to change and no dirt
    > > on sensor issues.
    > > An SLR does have advantages over both, but then its film and not
    > > digital for instant gratification.
    > >
    > > regards
    > > -kamal

    >
    > Hi Kamal,
    >
    > Yup, I have an FZ50 in front of me right now that I have been testing.
    > Nice camera but not the same as my 350D and just arrived 400D (I'm
    > having the 350D converted to IR). The FZ50 is a lot noiser than the 350D
    > and the electronic viewfinder is not a substitute for a real one.
    >

    whats 350D and what is IR? Try the coresponding one from Leica. It
    supposedly costs $200 more -and Im not sure if that is without reason.

    > BTW the FZ50 is only f2.8 at the wide end.
    >


    yes -it is F/4.1 at full zoom. Does Leica have a better lens? Nikon has
    a lot of fast lenses, but none built into non-slr cameras,

    regards
    -kamal

    > Cheers,
    >
    > Wayne
    >
    > --
    > Wayne J. Cosshall
    > Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    > Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
     
    Kamal R. Prasad, Oct 9, 2006
    #14
  15. Guest

    wrote:
    > wrote:
    > > I understand that the bigger sensors in the current SLRs will give a better
    > > image than the sensors in the compacts, but when does the difference start
    > > to show ? And how ?
    > >

    > Photos taken under perfect conditions --- bright light, tripod, and/or
    > stationary subject --- most people will not be able to easily
    > distinguish between the ones from a $2000 dSLR, and a $300 compact.


    Well... It depends on what you're shooting. If you're talking about
    landscape shots, you're probably right in some cases. But when it comes
    to, for example, portraits, the difference between a compact
    point-and-shoot and a DSLR will be readily apparent to anyone. Same
    thing with high dynamic range scenes.

    For portraits, you'll be able to get a much shallower depth-of-field
    with a DSLR than with a compact, which lets you get the nice effect of
    your subject in focus on a blurry background. For very contrasty
    scenes, a DSLR will have a better dynamic range, and you won't see
    nearly as much clipping of highlights.

    -Gniewko
     
    , Oct 9, 2006
    #15
  16. Creative Guest

    "D Russell" <> wrote in message
    news:egdjh4$l2g$...
    >I think that an SLR starts to make sense when you're really committed to
    > spending a lot more money on your hobby. Since a crappy photographer with
    > a
    > £2k DSLR will take worse photos than a keen amateur with a £200 compact
    > there's a lot to be said for buying yourself a nice compact first.
    >
    > See how much you use it, see what results you get, check to see if a DSLR
    > really would offer you much of an improvement on what photos you've got
    > then decide if you want to invest the extra money.
    >
    > For me a DSLR would help with manual focus, since i've not yet seen a
    > really
    > good manual focus on a compact, and taking photos of birds in flight the
    > auto-focus just isn't fast enough, not even on most DSLR's. That and maybe
    > a very long exposure setting for e.g. star pictures, or meteor trails.
    > However I don't judge either of these conditions to be important enough to
    > make the DSLR worth buying just yet.



    DSLRs have the distinct advantage that you can get a large number of
    different lenses that allow you to get extreme wide angles or telephoto
    shots. But there is then the disadvantage of having to carry several lenses
    with you and changing lenses quite often. With many DSLRs, changing lenses
    can open the way for the dreaded DSLR dust problem, which can cause unwanted
    specks to appear on your pictures.

    Some compact cameras have quite a large zoom range, such as 38mm to 200mm
    (in 35mm equivalent), but when you buy a DSLR, you often get a lense that
    covers just the 28mm to 70mm range, and you are then faced with getting
    another lense to get beyond 70mm. And often the lenses can cost a lot, so
    DSLRs are best suited to professional photographers, or very keen amateurs
    who have a sizeable budget to spend on photography!

    Also, when you are on holiday, for example, DSLR owners carry around large
    camera bags and this can be an inconvenience and a burden. Now that you can
    get 10mp compacts that also take reasonable movies, these make sense for
    many occasions for the amateur photographer. You can keep your camera in a
    shirt pocket without the need to even carry a bag with you. And when you put
    on a slide show, or make prints up to A3 size, they look great, so you have
    to be really dedicated to lug around a bag full of DSLR goodies with you.
    It's even worse if your bag has to include a sizeable camcorder as well, so
    a nice 10 mp compact that takes good stills and reasonable movies has a huge
    appeal to travellers in particular!
     
    Creative, Oct 9, 2006
    #16
  17. Guest

    POHB wrote:

    > IMHO the biggest difference between compacts and SLR is the same as it
    > was with film, it is all about what-you-see-is-what-you-get.
    > With SLR you look through a viewfinder and see what you'll get on the
    > picture, with compacts you get a viewfinder that shows you roughly what
    > you're pointing at providing you allow for parallax differences between
    > the finder and the lens.
    > With digital compacts you often don't even get a viewfinder and have to
    > hold the thing at arms length and try to pick a shot from a blurry
    > little screen that's lagging behind what the subject is doing and is
    > hard to see in bright sunlight.


    I have never had a problem with that. The 2 compacts I've had (Fuji
    F700 and Panasonic Lumix LX-1) have big high resolution screens that
    make picture composition very easy. And actually, it's the LCD screen
    that gives you "what you see is what you get". A viewfinder gives you
    no preview of what the picture will look like when you take it (in
    terms of exposure), but the LCD does.

    The "blurriness" of the LCD screen is only a problem with crappy
    low-resolution screens, and I suppose older people with poor close-up
    vision would have issues, too. I guess that's why you're talking about
    holding the camera "at arm's length", when that's not how you're
    supposed to do it. I hold the camera very close to my face when taking
    a picture, so I can see every little detail.

    > With SLR you can use the viewfinder to focus (or see what the autofocus
    > has done), check depth-of-field and capture the decisive moment. With
    > compacts you point and hope.


    Again, if you don't hold the camera at arm's length, you can do the
    same thing on the screen - to a certain extent. But yes, you can check
    the focus much easier through an optical viewfinder.

    > The other big advantage of an SLR viewfinder is it doesn't consume
    > batteries, you can squint down the finder for as long as you like
    > waiting for the child/wildlife/sunset to be in just the right position.
    > With a compact LCD the clock is ticking.


    Yup, that's a big advantage of DSLRs.

    -Gniewko
     
    , Oct 9, 2006
    #17
  18. Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
    > Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >> Kamal R. Prasad wrote:
    >>> Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:
    >>>
    >>> Have a look at Leica's V-Lux1 or its equivalent the Panasonic Z50.
    >>> The lens has a 55 mm diameter and max aperture of F/2.8. IMHO, it might
    >>> be a good reason not to buy a DSLR i.e. no lenses to change and no dirt
    >>> on sensor issues.
    >>> An SLR does have advantages over both, but then its film and not
    >>> digital for instant gratification.
    >>>
    >>> regards
    >>> -kamal

    >> Hi Kamal,
    >>
    >> Yup, I have an FZ50 in front of me right now that I have been testing.
    >> Nice camera but not the same as my 350D and just arrived 400D (I'm
    >> having the 350D converted to IR). The FZ50 is a lot noiser than the 350D
    >> and the electronic viewfinder is not a substitute for a real one.
    >>

    > whats 350D and what is IR? Try the coresponding one from Leica. It
    > supposedly costs $200 more -and Im not sure if that is without reason.
    >
    >> BTW the FZ50 is only f2.8 at the wide end.
    >>

    >
    > yes -it is F/4.1 at full zoom. Does Leica have a better lens? Nikon has
    > a lot of fast lenses, but none built into non-slr cameras,
    >
    > regards
    > -kamal


    350D is the same as the Canon Rebel XT, 400D is the same as the Rebel
    XTi, just a different name outside the US. IR is infrared, the part of
    the light spectrum beyond red that sensors are sensitive to but most
    digital cameras substantially block with a filter in front of the sensor.

    The FZ50 has a Leica lens, so I suspect the Leica model is the same. The
    $200 buys the Leica name on the body and the little red circle Leica
    logo probably :)

    Cheers,

    Wayne


    --
    Wayne J. Cosshall
    Publisher, The Digital ImageMaker, http://www.dimagemaker.com/
    Blog http://www.digitalimagemakerworld.com/
     
    Wayne J. Cosshall, Oct 9, 2006
    #18
  19. ASAAR Guest

    On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 07:21:48 +1000, Wayne J. Cosshall wrote:

    > The FZ50 has a Leica lens, so I suspect the Leica model is the same. The
    > $200 buys the Leica name on the body and the little red circle Leica
    > logo probably :)


    A magazine review of an earlier Panasonic/Leica pair (several
    months ago - don't recall the model numbers) said that the cameras
    were identical except for the Panasonic's having more plastic vs.
    the Leica's all metal body, and the Leica version included more
    photo editing software. That probably accounts for $50, with the
    value of the red circle adding the remaining $150. :)
     
    ASAAR, Oct 10, 2006
    #19
  20. Guest

    D Russell <> wrote:

    > For me a DSLR would help with manual focus, since i've not yet seen a really
    > good manual focus on a compact, and taking photos of birds in flight the
    > auto-focus just isn't fast enough, not even on most DSLR's. That and maybe
    > a very long exposure setting for e.g. star pictures, or meteor trails.
    > However I don't judge either of these conditions to be important enough to
    > make the DSLR worth buying just yet.


    Ah ! I have never set a manual focus, and thought this was an old lost art,
    assuming that autofocus was always doing as good a job as could be done, so
    I had not thought of this one.

    Thanks.
     
    , Oct 10, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. william mook

    I got some equipment does it make sense to start an ISP?

    william mook, Oct 9, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    21
    Views:
    772
    Piccolo
    Oct 11, 2004
  2. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    467
    Anne & Lynn Wheeler
    Mar 22, 2006
  3. paul gregory

    does this make sense, fsb question to ecs about my mainboard

    paul gregory, Oct 10, 2005, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    377
    paul gregory
    Oct 15, 2005
  4. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    292
  5. calgden
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    431
    calgden
    Jan 14, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page