Prosumer vs. DLSR thoughts

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Mike, Nov 12, 2004.

  1. Mike

    Skip M Guest

    It isn't called "chimping" for nuttin'!
    Skip M, Nov 13, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  2. Also, the DSLRs tend to have an image quality that looks less
    For good reason... because it isn't. My brother has a high-end Canon DSLR
    and has been learning the ropes... and discovering that post-processing is a
    requirement, not an option. Zero sharpening in-camera. Makes sense when you
    think about it; once an image has been sharpened, you've altered it forever
    (you can't go back when it's the original image). Plus, sharpened images
    introduce extra "detail" (we can debate forever whether it's real or not)
    and that increases the stored file size of a jpg image.

    A P&S or even Prosumer camera carries with it an expectation by the user
    that they can simply download and print (and expect decent results). It
    makes sense to handle images in such a way that they're ready to go right
    after they're taken. Anything else would greatly frustrate a lot of users,
    including many who will pay a whole lot of $$$ for something only if it's
    very easy to use.

    Don't get me wrong; my Oly 5050 has taken some phenomenal photos. And I
    couldn't document my bike rides without something small like my Oly D40 or
    Fuji E510. But there's definitely a place for a DSLR. Still, I have a
    difficult time understanding why more of the features of a DSLR (cmos sensor
    for lower noise, faster shooting rates, etc) can't be incorporated into a
    non-DSLR format.

    --Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
    Mike Jacoubowsky, Nov 13, 2004
    1. Advertisements

  3. Mike

    dj_nme Guest

    Mike Jacoubowsky wrote:
    My pet theory on this is that the sensor is such a large proprtion of
    the camera production cost that to sell any "lesser" camera than a SLR
    for the same price would cause too much sticker-shock in the camera
    buying public to make it worthwhile.

    Look at the digital Voigtlaender (Epsom RD-1), it costs around US $3000
    body only and it has virtualy none of the features that some people
    think are indespensible, such as AF, autowinder, anti-shake or even DOF
    preview (plus added viewfinder paralax error).
    I suppose that the RD-1 does have added mechanical complexity of the
    rangefinder mechanism and switchable frameline viewfinder, but is no
    more (excluding the digital electronics) complicated than the Cosina
    rangefinders that sell for between US $240 ~ $500 it is based on.

    I could buy 2 Canon 300D ($800 ~ $900 each) and 2 Voigtlaender ($200 ~
    $500 each [model dependant]) bodies for the price of a single RD-1.
    dj_nme, Nov 13, 2004
  4. I go along with all of that.

    For many years I used a film SLR and wqas strongly wedded to the SLR
    concept.However,they are bulky and heavy and don't do a lot more that
    a compact camera can - certainly for an amateur like me.

    To refer to all non SLRs as 'pont and shoot'is rather derogatory - the
    spcification of cameras like the Canon G6(I have one) is probably more
    comprehensive than most owners will want, far beyond 'point and shoot'
    - and it produces excellent photos - 10"X8"is well within its
    capabilities.The user manual incidentally has 207 pages - a basic P&S
    would hardly need that!

    Before buying the G6 I weighed up the alternative of a Canon
    300D(Digital Rebel)which I find a very appealing camera - but on
    balance I prefer the 'compactness' of the G6.

    I CAN see why a professional would want an SLR however - 'horses for
    courses' as they say!

    Denis Boisclair
    Cheshire, England
    Denis Boisclair, Nov 13, 2004
  5. Mike

    Alfred Molon Guest

    The lens has a lot of effect on how sharp the image on the slide is.
    Alfred Molon, Nov 13, 2004
  6. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    Maybe it will happen when camera companies start thinking how they could
    move on from last-century's SLR format and actually help their users!

    David J Taylor, Nov 13, 2004
  7. YAG-ART wrote:
    No angle finder I've seen or read about allows this. A swivel LCD (or
    split body) is the way to go.

    David J Taylor, Nov 13, 2004
  8. Denis Boisclair wrote:
    So that they "look" the part? <G>

    Many great photographs have been taken by professionals /not/ using SLRs -
    where they need to be unintrusive and not make a noise, for example.

    David J Taylor, Nov 13, 2004
  9. None of the P&S cameras I use require you to do that - they all have EVFs.
    They do give me the flexibility of either being obvious and using my
    camera in a SLR-like mode, or not as I choose.

    David J Taylor, Nov 13, 2004
  10. Mike

    Charlie Self Guest

    Alfred Molon responds:
    That's the kind of generality that gives me a headache. You mean MOST of the
    BETTER prosumer cameras, don't you? Even there, some I've used have superb
    lenses, others have lenses not worth squat. And if the lens is not worth squat,
    you're stuck. You can't reach into your camera bag and pull out another one,
    nor can you go on-line and order another.

    Charlie Self
    "It is inaccurate to say that I hate everything. I am strongly in favor of
    common sense, common honesty, and common decency. This makes me forever
    ineligible for public office." H. L. Mencken
    Charlie Self, Nov 13, 2004
  11. Be aware that /some/ sharpening is required in any digital processing
    chain purely to main a flat overall frequency response (MTF) to overcome
    the sin(x)/x effect of sample-and-hold.

    David J Taylor, Nov 13, 2004
  12. Mike

    Don dunlap Guest

    I think that part of the reason that there is no LCD preview on SLRs is
    because the manufacturers want them to be seen as a big step up from the
    point and shoot. There is a visible difference when you see someone holding
    a P&S, as it is held away from the body, but the SLR is close and becomes
    part of the photographer.

    I know this is esoteric and maybe BS, but it is just an opinion.

    Don Dunlap
    Don dunlap, Nov 13, 2004
  13. Don dunlap wrote:
    I think you're right, Don. It's clear from the "Brand Wars" that we see
    here that marketing has a lot to do with it. People have said to me: "Oh,
    I wouldn't buy a camera from Panasonic!". Within the brand, the companies
    will want to distinguish the "serious kit" from the "amateur rubbish", and
    we see that reflected in many of the attitudes here.

    My advice to people always includes the questions: what do you want to do
    with your camera and how much are you prepared to pay? A DLSR is not the
    single solution that fits everyone's needs.

    David J Taylor, Nov 13, 2004
  14. Mike

    Alfred Molon Guest

    He is obviously referring to the crop factor typical of almost all
    Alfred Molon, Nov 13, 2004
  15. Mike

    Alfred Molon Guest

    Could it be that the 20D applies a lot of noise reduction internally
    which results in image softness ?
    Alfred Molon, Nov 13, 2004
  16. Mike

    Alfred Molon Guest

    CMOS sensors usually have more noise than CCDs (and they are found in a
    lot of cheap noisy webcams for instance). It's just that Canon put in a
    lot of effort to come up with a low noise CMOS sensor.
    Alfred Molon, Nov 13, 2004
  17. Mike

    YAG-ART Guest

    I thought we are talking resolution not sharpness.
    YAG-ART, Nov 13, 2004
  18. Mike

    YAG-ART Guest

    I suggest you look at the one Canon makes, Angel Finder C (or some
    other such name)
    YAG-ART, Nov 13, 2004
  19. Mike

    Chris Brown Guest

    Most of their users are more than happy with optical viewfinders.

    I don't want to pay extra for an SLR with a digital viewfinder, and I simply
    wouldn't buy one that didn't have an optical finder.
    Chris Brown, Nov 13, 2004
  20. Mike

    Alfred Molon Guest

    I wrote "decent" not "most of the better".

    But there is a lot of competition in the prosumer camp, so manufacturers
    who are aiming at the ambitioned amateur who doesn't want to buy a DLSR,
    will make sure that the lens is matched to the CCD, so that the lens
    does not reduce the nominal resolution of the camera to a lower
    effective one. I skipped for instance the Minolta 8MP prosumer and got
    the Olympus 8080 because tests showed that the lens of the Minolta isn't
    up to the task, while the lens of the 8080 is.

    With a DLSR instead you might buy an 8MP or 11MP high end unit, but end
    up with less effective resolution if you combine it with a cheap bad
    quality zoom (for instance).
    Alfred Molon, Nov 13, 2004
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.