Digital SLR Cameras

[kevlightyear]

In regards to digital photography, is there any real advantage to going SLR instead of just a regular digital camera? Is there more flexibility? Is it simply just more like regular 35 mm photography as far as settings go? Which do you use and prefer? Is this the next new wave in digital photography?

 

[DisneyCP2000]

I'm hooked on SLRs (got a Canon G2) now and will never go back to point and shoot cameras. With a SLR, the camera will take perfect pictures all the time (well it also depends on the photographer too ). It knows the perfect setting for any time of the day. With an SLR you can also be more creative with your shots. On my past trip to WDW I opted to take pictures with a focused foreground and a blurred background. It turned out perfect and now i have some great pictures to add to my library. Other great features include shooting in macro mode (taking closeups), and making the pictures the way YOU want. Also if all the controls seem a bit overwhealming you can always let the camera do all the work by putting it in AUTO (that's what i do :lol: ).

As for a regular point and shoot camera, the camera won't adjust to the time of day. That way some of your images will be bright white or too dark. Focusing is also locked too, so all your images will all be 'the same'. The flash is also a bit off at times too. With my old 35mm I used to get nasty photos of a gray background and white washed faces from a flash. With my SLR, it manages to take photos just right so everyone and thing still looks natural.

As you can see I'm biased towards a SLR...it's opened up a whole new way of taking photos for me. Hope this helps

 

[PhotoDave219]

Originally posted by kevlightyear
In regards to digital photography, is there any real advantage to going SLR instead of just a regular digital camera? Is there more flexibility? Is it simply just more like regular 35 mm photography as far as settings go? Which do you use and prefer? Is this the next new wave in digital photography?

Yes, there are lots more reasons. Mainly, a D-SLR gives you added creativity, as well as changing the lens, setting ISO speeds, color balance, etc. I used a Nikon D-1 for 3 years and put it through the disney test (see photo album for results) as well as three seasons of college basketball and countless stuff in downtown DC. No real problems (except battery, but thats just specific to the D1 family of cameras or the old Kodak ones built on EOS or F5 frames). No complaints.

It is very similar to 35mm photography. You can set whatever you want. Nikon and Canon are very similar and you cant go wrong with either of those two. Personally, i prefer Nikon but at ths stage of the game it really doesnt matter much. They're the superpowers of making cameras.

Prosumer wise, you're looking at either the Canon 10D ($1499) or the Nikon D100 ($1699). Now is a good time to get into digital photograhy, the prices keep coming down, and quality wise, the average person doesnt notice the difference between film/digital. Yes there are contrast issues and noise issues in poorly lit situations, but that keeps getting corrected, and usually isnt noticed by the average person.

Keeping in mind that the average price of film keeps going up as well as processing, if you shoot 100-200 rolls, the camera has pretty much paid for itself. (Based on an average of $5 per roll and $10 for developing)

If you have any specific questions, feel free to PM me.

 

[popkid]

after years with a point and shoot digital (sony dsc s70) i finally made the leap to a digital SLR.

the sony offered some basic manual controls, but i really wanted full reign over my camera and something i could get much more creative with. picking up a SLR was the way to go for me.

like PhotoDave219 said, the SLR gives you full control over your camera plus the freedom of inter-changeable lenses. this is completely liberating in the world of digital photography, because most point and shoot digital cameras have horrendous zooms (when shopping for a camera, disregard 'digital zoom' completely and only pay attention to the 'optical zoom').

though the prices of the lenses for SLR's can go thru the roof, the freedom and flexability is available.

i went with the canon 10D based on reviews and price and although i've only had it for a couple of days now, i know i made the right descision.

digital SLR's might be intimidating at first, but due to the fact that your shooting digitally and not on film there is a huge margin for error and learning... i spent the first few nights with the camera shooting a bunch of arranged objects to get a better grasp on depth of field as well as getting a feel for aperature priority, shutter priority and fully manual modes... yes, full auto mode is there, and great - but the reason i got an SLR was to get away from fully auto shooting

as far as quality versus film, i am totally digitally biased... i think the differences in quality is so miniscule (does this make me the average person) and with such a slight difference in quality and such a huge difference in cost (film and developing) it's just a no contest for me - DIGITAL wins this is of course just my personal opinion tho...

to go digital SLR or point and shoot is really based on your needs:

point and shoots are great (i'm definately going to keep my sony around), and will take stellar shots - tho light on manual control over the camera's settings. they're great for a 'grab and go' camera - or for people who just want to take pictures without a hassle.

SLR's on the other hand, give you full control over your camera, offer much more flexibility and creativity, but are quite higher priced and dont fit so nicely into your pocket

hope this helps - and welcome to the world of digital photography

 

[popkid]

ps - a great reference site for digital photography:

Digital Photography Review

***just thought of something else***

some of the point and shoot digital cameras have the ability to record video. while quality and length vary from camera to camera - it is something that a digital SLR cannot do (at least i haven't seen one that could).

 

[PhotoDave219]

However, when it comes to letting other people take a pic of you and your lady, hand over the small P&S camera....

 

[kevlightyear]

I probably should have mentioned that am already "into" the world of digital photography--albeit, not as far as others. I got a Sony Cybershot (3.2 megapixels, 3x zoom) for Christmas in 2001. My mom has had three digital cameras over the years, including an old mavica, a 20x zoom cd-r mavica, and just recently a Sony F-717 (5 x zoom, 5.1 megapixels). I think the F-717 is as close as you can get to D-SLR without actually being there. Aside from lens interchangeability (did I make that word up?) it offers basically full control over color balance, aperture, and f. stop functions.

I completely agree with you guys in the digital vs. 35 mm photography debate. I think in the long run, digital is more economical, and easier on me, without having to buy and process film. The thought of buying a 35 mm SLR camera entered my mind for a short while upon thinking of photo cd's. I do a lot of work in photoshop with my pictures, and that was the reason for going digital before. A 35 mm camera would be cheaper, but I guess it would hurt quality, if they're scanning--digital just cuts out the middle man.

Everything you guys have said has made perfect sense. I appreciate all your input. But don't take that to mean you can stop Feel free to add anything. Thanks for everything!

 

[llewdroc]

I've just recently got into photography. I got a 35mm SLR about a year ago and i've been thinking about switching to a digital SLR.

In some of my research i found a 35mm negative scanner. It makes a digital off of your negatives and is not suppose to lose much of the quality.

do a little research this might be an option that is less expensive up front.

 

[PhotoDave219]

While that is a viable option, and lord knows i wish i had a decent Neg scanner, my experience with the four ive used has sucked.

Plus throw in the costs of development and the film and its still a losing money proposition.

I've used an old Poloroid Sprint Scan 35 (The Wash Post i think still uses them), its an "OK" scanner until it just broke one day. Cheaper to buy something else. The CanoScan 2710 (or whatever its model number is) has problems with shadow detail and giving you exactly what you had a picture of. (I know this sky was blue in the picture!) This week, i've been using a flatbed HP w/ a neg adapter and IMO this just sucks for what i'm doing, which is scanning in slides. The qualitty just isnt there.
My best results have come from using a Nikon Coolscan 4000, and those go for $1400 - which is about the price of a new Canon 10D or Nikon D100.

The best thing i love about a DSLR over a P&S is that there's no lag time. You push the button, it takes the picture instantly. The main disadvantages is that theyre much bigger and a bit more expensive.
I'd go to a local camera store and try one out or see about renting one for a weekend to try it out before you buy one...

 

[wdwmagic]

It might also be worth considering something inbetween a P&S and a DSLR, something like the Nikon Coolpix 5700. It has pretty much all the manual features of the SLR, but without interchangeable lenses. Although the inbuilt 35-280mm zoom is pretty felxible for a fixed lens!

 

[pisco]

Originally posted by wdwmagic
It might also be worth considering something inbetween a P&S and a DSLR, something like the Nikon Coolpix 5700. It has pretty much all the manual features of the SLR, but without interchangeable lenses. Although the inbuilt 35-280mm zoom is pretty felxible for a fixed lens!

I ave been shooting with such a camera for th last couple of years. Mine is a Fuji 6900z. It has full manula control and ISO up to 400. However, I wouldn't consider it being anywhere near having a DSLR. Not because of the ability to changes lenses, but mainly in the quality of the image. The results I have seen from (almost) all of the DSLRs on the market are much lower in noise and have greater dynamic range than their consumer cousins. Add to this the relatively poor quality of the video based viewfinders on most of the prosumer type digital cameras and they just can't compete.

This si why I am saving up my pennies for a Canon 10D!

 

[kevlightyear]

Yep, that's it. Ok, here's another:

"One day I was sitting in my apartment."

 

[DisneyJedi]

I'm jealous of you guys with your SLR and digital SLR cameras. Someday I hope to be able to afford a really nice one. I'm happy with my Olympus D-460Z 1.3MP camera for now. Here's one of my better shots:

Yes, she bites!

 

[kevlightyear]

Originally posted by kevlightyear
Yep, that's it. Ok, here's another:

"One day I was sitting in my apartment."

Wow, how did that post end up here. That must have been some major mind lapse last night. Wrong thread--wrong forum. My apologies. :lookaroun