Posted: 6/9/2005 11:29:25 AM EDT
|
The other post on Digital SLR cameras got me thinking about them. Are they vastly superior to regular point-and-shoot digital cameras? The cheapest one I could find for an SLR was about $900 so I was curious what made them so damn expensive. Nikon has one that can take 3 pictures a second, which is damn impressive. Too bad they couldn't make one for about $500...I'd be on one in a heartbeat if they were as good as the price seems to say they are. 
|
|
SLR's can use all kinds of different lenses/flashes/accessories. Think of them as the AR of photography. They are usually fully adjustable. They also usually have a much larger megapixel compaired to P&S cameras. Hence, more expensive. That is just a nutshell answer. ByteTheBullet (-: |
|
Don't worry, they'll continue to come down in price. It might take a while longer for the market to decide what it wants first though. But eventually I'm pretty sure digital cams (both Point and Shoot and DSLR) will end up exactly how film P&S and SLRs wound up. Most people will want a P&S, while people who want a little more control will end up with the low end DSLRs. As for what the difference is? There are many- but image quality is going to be my key point here. Let's say you have a 6 MP P&S and a 6 MP DSLR. The images aren't going to look the same because the imaging chip on the P&S is about the size of your pinkie fingernail... While the imager on the DSLR is almost the same size as a 35mm film frame. And it's more than the size difference too- the smaller size means more heat, and heat is the enemy of digital cameras... It creates noise. And the higher up you go on the megapixel scale, the closer those little spots are together, the more noise you get at even low ISOs. Make no mistake, I've seen some INCREDIBLE pictures from point and shoot digital cameras! But those people are the same types that if you gave them a $20 Polaroid they'd make great shots with that, too. HTH. Oh, BTW this was the easy answer- you can find out TONS more at dpreview.com Duh, and I forgot the whole "interchangeable lens" thing... thanks ByteTheBullet. |
See, you gotta convert that shit for gun nuts to understand. They are thinking about cannons not Canons!  btw, I have no idea if Canon makes a 450mm lens. ByteTheBullet (-: |
| There are several advanced point and shoots that combine the ease of a simple camera with a lot of the features of an SLR. The Nikon 5700 and 8700 come to mind, as I have both. The glass is good, they are lightweight, and they can be used in auto mode, or manual, as well as ap and shutter priority. The cost is typically $500-800 depending on model, and the quality is excellent. They are a good fit for anyone who doesn't want to invest in an SLR, but wants something more than a basic P&S. |
| The most important thing about an image is get the picture first and worry about the fine tech details later. I would settle for a less than optimal image and rather than a technically great image but no image. Most of the situations only stay still for a split second. Take baby pics, those suckers aren't going to even stand still, regardless if you have a $2K SLR and $300 P&S, you've got to get the picture. You fix later some of the shortcomings with photoshop, such as pink-eye etc. |
|
The reason I ask is because a few years back, my Mom owned a regular 35MM SLR that she loved to death. Used it all the time and had great fun with it. She lost it or had it stolen at a sporting event and was crushed. I'm considering buying her a decent digital SLR as a gift for taking care of me so well all these years. Unfortunately, she's not a technological wizard. Would she be able to have fun with the camera and enjoy it? Thanks...... |
I would say yes. Beyond downloading the photos insead of developing them, there's little difference. (Other than being able to take over threehundred shots without changing film). |
I had a 5700 and sold it to get the D100 after about 2 months. The main thing with that was the shutter lag and hunting for focus at times. The 5700 took great photos and I loved the zoom. |
I think so. For the most part it functions just like a regular SLR, with more options if you choose to use them. She can start out using it as she would her old camera, and then get into the other settings if she needs to. I would reccomend getting her Adobe Photoshop Elements for software. Once she gets it down, I would guess she really enjoys the editing end of it as well... |
Good boy! While your mother may or may not figure out the DSLR she could easily figure out how to use a P&S such as a canon a95 or a510/a520. It make take some training on how to download the pictures though... The reason I mention these cameras is because they give you the feel of a quality camera (the a95 and discontinued a85/75 especially) since they have a little weight to them (4 AA batts) with a solid pistol grip and very good, simple shooting quality. I've noticed the Canon Rebel (non-digital) at local walmarts for under $200 if you think she would be happier with a new SLR instead. Just something to think about. If she was happy with the SLR, buy her a new SLR. 
|
Ok, Nikon F6 it is then F6 |
|
Well now that she's taken care of my own interest in DSLRs is way up there now Any other features or abilities that set SLRs above and beyond P&Ss? MaximumPC did a head to head comparison of an SLR vs. a P&S a month or two ago, but I threw that issue out after reading it. Does anyone have a copy they can scan and post? |