SLR and not SLR

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Jul, Jan 22, 2006.

  1. Jul

    Jul Guest

    Please compare these 2 cameras : Canon Rebel XT/EOS 350D and Canon PowerShot
    Pro1
    My idea, compare top not SLR and first SLR from the same mufactures.

    What (+) and (-) of moving to next level ? Does the changed lenses are so
    good, does it main reason to go to SLR?
     
    Jul, Jan 22, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Jul

    paul.busse Guest

    Shutter lag for sports photography was the main reason to switch from
    Canon Pro90 IS to Digital Rebel 300D then 350 D for me!
     
    paul.busse, Jan 22, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. See:
    http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/does.pixel.size.matter

    Roger
     
    Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark), Jan 22, 2006
    #3
  4. That's one of the very biggest reasons. I commonly use lenses from
    12mm to 200mm on my DSLR (and have lenses out to 500mm). Also
    extension tubes and macro bellows, as well as a macro lens.

    SLRs generally also focus much faster than P&S cameras (they use
    phase-detection autofocus rather than contrast-detection). They can
    work with a wider range of flash equipment. They respond to the
    shutter button faster. They let you set exposure much more easily
    (many P&S have manual exposure, but so buried in menus you can't
    really use it).

    They also produce better pixels, especially at higher ISOs; most
    notably with less noise.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 22, 2006
    #4

  5. ....................and you need a wheelbarrow to lug the lenses and camera
    around!
     
    Dennis Pogson, Jan 22, 2006
    #5
  6. Jul

    Celcius Guest

    Jul,

    I had a Powershot Pro1 and now have a Rebel XT. I've taken great (to my
    liking) photos with both.

    On the one hand, I didn't have to change lens with the former, but I
    had to buy a 70-300mm USM IS with the XT.

    I also had to pay extra not to have the kit lens on the XT.
    My Powershot Pro 1's lens died on me twice. The first time, 2 days
    after I bought the Pro 1, the lens started making noises whenever I
    turned the camera on or off. The second time, I was in Greece, a few
    days before the warranty was up, I turned the camera off and the lens
    came in and out several times, making an awful noise and died on me. I
    had to take the battery out to shut the camera off and couldn't use it
    the rest of the trip.

    Under certain circumstances, both cameras "suffered" from a slight
    fringing, corrected with Photoshop.

    I had to clean my sensor on the XT while the Pro 1 had no such problem.

    However, by and large I much prefer the camera I have now.

    Marcel
     
    Celcius, Jan 22, 2006
    #6
  7. Jul

    Tim Hobbs Guest

    I use a small bag.
     
    Tim Hobbs, Jan 22, 2006
    #7
  8. Per :
    I'll second the shutter lag.
     
    (PeteCresswell), Jan 22, 2006
    #8
  9. Jul

    SMS Guest

    The biggest reasons are image quality and shutter lag. If you don't care
    about either of those, then stick with the non-SLR.
     
    SMS, Jan 22, 2006
    #9
  10. Jul

    Jul Guest

    Both of them 8M, does the image quality will be also different?
     
    Jul, Jan 22, 2006
    #10
  11. Jul

    Clyde Guest

    You will read in newsgroups, forums, blogs, and other open sources of
    "absolute" knowledge that non-dSLR camera couldn't possibly take a
    useful picture. The big reason is that they have way too much digital
    noise. Apparently this noise is absolutely catestrophic to photographs.

    As a photographer who used to love shooting with Ilford Delta 3200 B&W
    film, the obsession with noise seems very overrated to me. Yes, you can
    see noise when you zoom into 200% or more. Yes, really bad noise will
    tend to cover up some minute detail in some pictures. However, almost
    all noise can be dealt with satisfactorily.

    First, it may not matter. I take pictures with a Konica Minolta A2
    camera. If you read all the accounts on the Internet about it, it has
    horrible noise at ISO 800. It is often referred to as "unusable". Yes,
    you certainly can see noise at 100% zoom in Photoshop. Oddly, to most,
    you don't see it when printed. I have printed 8x10" pictures on my
    Epson R800 that were shot at 800. It is very hard to see any noise at
    all.

    Second, use a good noise reduction program. I use Noise Ninja and have
    experimented with many ways to use it. By using NN and a few other
    techniques, I can get 8x10" prints that show NO noise at all - at all
    ISO speeds. I don't care if you can see any noise at 200% zoom; I don't
    expect anyone to view my pictures like that.

    I am a professional wedding photographer and give my brides and grooms
    beautiful pictures that are smooth, sharp, and they are very happy
    with. I do the best with what I have and try not to shoot above ISO
    200, but sometimes I have to.

    The A2 is small, light, and I don't have to change lenses. My Minolta
    5600HS(D) flash works very well with it and gives me the light I need.
    The camera has Anti-Shake that is a great help for those shots during
    the ceremony. Just as important, it is absolutely silent taking
    pictures. That is very important during the ceremony.

    There is no dSLR that is as small, light, and quiet as this. There is
    no dSLR lens that will give me 28-200mm f/2.8-3.5 without having to
    change lenses. Important things always happen at weddings when you
    don't have the right lens and are changing.

    My A2 doesn't shoot blazing fast, but more than fast enough for a
    wedding and reception. I always pre-focus and that makes any camera
    faster. (I like to know what is in focus.) It certainly doesn't do
    everything, but it doesn't need to. It is the best wedding camera I've
    ever used. That certainly goes for those all manual film cameras that I
    used in the distant past.

    Don't forget that my KM A2 is miles ahead of the picture capturing
    cababilities of the cameras/film that most of the world's great
    photographs were taken with. Those old masters would have killed for
    what I carry. If I do my part, it will capture pictures that DO give me
    beautiful, stunning, pictures that my brides love - and no one is
    pickier than a bride, with the possible exception of her mother.

    My point is that you need to carefully and honestly evaluate what you
    take pictures of. Answer the question: what does MY camera really need
    to do? Then match the camera to that. If it works, use it. (BTW, I have
    had brides select pictures from a Canon SD10 taken by my assistant. It
    is a great camera to sneak in and get shots that no will be clinching
    up for.) Never forget that the final picture is all that matters.

    Clyde
     
    Clyde, Jan 22, 2006
    #11
  12. I've never resorted to a wheelbarrow, or even a rolling case. I've
    very occasionally traveled out of town with more than one bag of
    camera equipment (leaving some of it in the hotel when I go out with
    other bits).

    My normal DSLR shoulder bag last time out held a Fuji S2 body, Tokina
    12-24mm f/4 zoom, Tokina 28-70mm f/2.8 zoom, Nikkor 58mm f/1.2 NOCT,
    Nikkor 135mm f/2, probably 4 sets of spare batteries, spare CF cards,
    and misc. small accessories. Haven't weighed it lately, probably less
    than 25 pounds. For a different event, possibly a very different
    collection of lenses. I skipped the ultra-fasts for the Muir Woods
    trip (although I added a 24mm f/2), and I took the Sigma 100mm f/2.8
    macro lens.

    I've been carrying that kind of collection pretty routinely for nearly
    40 years now. A lot of the time I'd have *two* camera bodies, and
    piles of film; it's simpler now with digital.

    But it's certainly true that there are tradeoffs between convenience
    and quality of results. You have to *work* to get the best photos.
    If I really had wanted the *best* photos of Muir Woods, I should have
    taken the 4x5, some wider lenses than I own, lots of sheet film
    holders, and a tripod; but I wasn't that committed to the best photos
    I could take of Muir Woods, so I just carried the DSLR.
     
    David Dyer-Bennet, Jan 22, 2006
    #12
  13. Jul

    Celcius Guest

    Clyde,
    You're absolutely right.
    Many of these discussions stem from the fact that in this day and age,
    we tend to think in superlatives: we're taught to seek the best, the
    most, and what not, although these differences are simply not
    noticeable to the majority of the viewers.
    I am not a wedding photographer, nor close to a professional. However,
    I took photos of two weddings a few years ago with my Canon G1 and
    420EX flash and gave the newly weds a CD and a small album. They were
    delighted and frankly, the shots were good, at least to the judgement
    of all who saw them.
    To my way of thinking, if the shots are well cropped, crisp, clear and
    meaningful, they are acceptable to most, but the critically minded
    person and the perfectionist.
    Cheers,
    Marcel
     
    Celcius, Jan 23, 2006
    #13
  14. Jul

    RK Guest

    Clyde has nailed it in a very good response. I have an Olympus 5060 and
    E-300 and get equally beautiful images from both. When I am going to a
    sporting event or another situation where I want no shutter lag the
    E-300 with my collection of beautiful old lenses comes along. But for
    ordinary travel, candids,etc. the 5060 with its tilting/swiveling lcd
    and tiny conversion lenses fits the bill. So, about 80% of the time I
    use the 5060. As for noise, the 5060 is just fine up to ISO200 and the
    E-300 up through 800. Sure a little cleaning in shadows, etc. is
    sometimes desirable, but it is easy and incorporated into regular
    post-processing. I remember the days when ASA64 was breakthrough and so
    shooting at 200 is a piece of cake in 98% of all situations.
     
    RK, Jan 23, 2006
    #14
  15. The Pro1 sensor is 2/3" (8.80 x 6.60 mm) CCD versus 22.2 x 14.8 mm CMOS.
    Bigger sensor better quality, lower noise etc..
     
    Darrell Larose, Jan 23, 2006
    #15
  16. Jul

    Clyde Guest

    Yes, Jul. That is all true - at the math level. The question is - does
    it make a difference in the final print? If you can't SEE it, it
    doesn't matter. In my experience and testing, it makes no difference in
    98% of real photography. It's the picture that matters and not the dots
    that make the picture. i.e. I can't see it and if I can't see it, it
    doesn't matter.

    Years ago I shot a 4x5" view camera. I thought I was getting the very
    best. (OK, maybe I should have shot with a 8x10".) I got lots of very
    fine detail in those B&W pictures. Of course, it didn't make my photos
    any better. There are a few pictures where super fine detail makes a
    significant difference in the overall pictures, but they are far more
    rare than most of us would like to admit.

    I guess the proof of that is there are extremely few professional
    photographers who shoot with an 8x10" or any other LF camera. There a
    some, but not many. In the past, a lot more shot with medium format
    cameras. That fit a certain market. As 35mm film got good enough most
    professional photography moved to 35mm. Yes, much of that was the
    quality improvement of the tools, but I'm sure some of it was the
    markets didn't demand the level of detail that the larger format gave
    them.

    One of the interesting tends that caught my attention is the shift to
    digital in the wedding photography market. Wedding photography was one
    of the markets where the old guard stuck to MF very vigerously. These
    people are and have been moving to digital in droves. They are now
    shooting everything from 6 MP up to 16 MP. They are getting just as
    good or better final prints too. Their customers are happy and they
    make money.

    In theory, that shouldn't be the case. If you do all the math, a
    digital SLR shouldn't replace a MF film camera. In practice it does.
    Why? First, digital is pretty darn good. All digital it amazingly good.
    Second, digital has offered a lot of other enhancements to the pro
    wedding photographer. Speed, flexibility, MUCH easier editing, etc.
    These have all made the product better, faster, and cheaper. That's
    good for business.

    Third, is the whole concept of "good enough". We shot with MF in the
    old days because we were all sure that we would be selling those
    expensive 16x20" prints. Nevermind the fact that we rarely did; we
    wanted the market to know that we could. Once we got good digital we
    found out that we can print damn fine 11x14" prints and pretty good
    16x20", if we really needed to. So, we got realistic and have only
    offered 11x14" prints. Since that was most of the market in the past,
    it hasn't hurt the business. Actually 8x10" prints was the vast
    majority of the market and still is.

    So, yes. The absolute pinacle of photographic quality is out there and
    always has been. For 98% of the market is has been and is overkill. We
    just need to be completely honest with ourselves as to what we REALLY
    need for our art and/or market. If we do, we will get the tools we
    really need to get there.

    Of course, we will test everything throughly. They tell us that noise
    is just horrible, so we test that. We see if the noise from our
    processing is going to really hurt our final output. If it doesn't,
    ignore what "they" said. That's what I did. Try it yourself, you may
    find that a lot of what you do will be more than "good enough". That
    should be a relief, as you can then ignore the math and get on with
    creating wonderful pictures.

    Clyde
     
    Clyde, Jan 23, 2006
    #16
  17. Jul

    Jeremy Guest

    Ken Rockwell has a page that goes into some detail describing the practical
    differences (one of which is that the LCD screen on a DSLR does not show the
    image before the shutter is snapped, unlike on a P&S where you can preview
    it prior to snapping.

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm
     
    Jeremy, Jan 23, 2006
    #17
  18. Jul

    Jeremy Guest

    I have had very nice results using the Digital Noise Reduction feature in
    Corel Paint Shop Pro X. True, it adds a layer of additional work, but it
    does mean that even cheap digicams can produce acceptable results.

    And that Perspective Adjustment feature makes virtually any lens--even the
    38-114 zoom on my digicam, into a virtual PC Shift lens. Not bad for an
    upgrade that cost me $29 bucks!
     
    Jeremy, Jan 23, 2006
    #18
  19. Jul

    bj286 Guest

    Lenses like 50/1.4 and 200/2.8 are much better.
    But SLR's FP shutter curtain limit flash options.

    http://digitcamera.tripod.com/#slr
     
    bj286, Feb 7, 2006
    #19
    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.