Digital SLR question - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

#16 05-09-2011, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ah-kay

Digital SLR is a very complicated subject. Basically the larger the sensor ( CCD device ) the more expensive is the camera. A sensor the size of the film is very expensive to make. The camera needs to 'crop' the picture for smaller sensor and it affects the 'angle of view' and focal length etc.

I am not really into photography but the advantage of SLR is you get what you see from the view finder. Easy to change lens and take picture at low light condition etc. I have a P&S and my wife uses a DSLR and you can tell the difference in the quality of the pictures, especially in low light condition.

The camera/lens quality makes a difference. Here is some stuff I shot yesterday with a Nikon D5000 and a 55-200 zoom. The D5000 is a decent mid-range DSLR (DX format). I've thought about buying a full frame format DSLR, but I can't really justify the price.

http://gallery.me.com/cbaronxxx#100362&view=grid&bgcolor=black&sel=2

Botnst · #17 05-09-2011, 06:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dee8go

My biggest beef with DSLRs and other digital cameras is not having comvenient controls for the basic functions (aperture, shutter speed, and focusing). Having to learn how to navigate all the various menus is much harder to me than just knowing how to make a good photograph using those three elementary controls.

Unfortunately, I think only the more esoteric, and highest-priced models have those controls located on the body where they are easily accessible.

Not being a digital expert frees me from any actual knowledge, so I'll speculate like I know something.

I'll bet many of the concepts we learned using optical/chemical photography is not directly translatable into the digital domain. Things like "film speed" for example. That used to be related to emulsion characteristics. How does that translate into some chip thingie?

So in my world of foil-hattedness, I think that electronics engineers got with human factors types and ask, "How can we easy these old farts into this new type of imagery acquisition?" The answer is to make it as similar to what we know as possible. This is why the high-end cameras look like they have a film advance system and the same general shape as a 'real' camera. I'll bet there is no good reason in electro-optics to make a camera any particular shape other than ease of handling and control of the lens.

What do you think?

#18 05-09-2011, 07:22 PM

One factor is that you want people to be able to use their existing film lenses on a DSLR, that will influence the design. There is an ISO adjustment on a DSLR, I keep it set relatively low to get reasonable shutter speeds and apertures for depth of field control. Of course, ISO is really just a film metaphor. The shape of film bodies is pretty familiar and comfortable for most people; there were some flaky shapes at first, but they weren't very popular.

MS Fowler · #19 05-09-2011, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Botnst

Not being a digital expert frees me from any actual knowledge, so I'll speculate like I know something.

I'll bet many of the concepts we learned using optical/chemical photography is not directly translatable into the digital domain. Things like "film speed" for example. That used to be related to emulsion characteristics. How does that translate into some chip thingie?

So in my world of foil-hattedness, I think that electronics engineers got with human factors types and ask, "How can we easy these old farts into this new type of imagery acquisition?" The answer is to make it as similar to what we know as possible. This is why the high-end cameras look like they have a film advance system and the same general shape as a 'real' camera. I'll bet there is no good reason in electro-optics to make a camera any particular shape other than ease of handling and control of the lens.

What do you think?

You cynic!
That sort of anti-establishment thinking is what lead to my question.
I think the answer is that they could have done it anyway they chose, but suspect that modeling after high end 35mm SLR helped the marketing. After all, they could put interchangeable lenses on a non SLR.

#20 05-09-2011, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

You cynic!
That sort of anti-establishment thinking is what lead to my question.
I think the answer is that they could have done it anyway they chose, but suspect that modeling after high end 35mm SLR helped the marketing. After all, they could put interchangeable lenses on a non SLR.

I do remember some pretty strange looking DSLRs on the market about 10-15 years ago; they didn't stay around very long. There are also plenty of non-SLRs available. Here is a $6500 Leica digital rangefinder that will accept a very nice collection of lenses:

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&safe=off&client=safari&rls=en&q=leica+rangefinder&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=4220815264495890541&sa=X&ei=Xo_ITdWcKcTXiALi38ClBQ&ved=0CGUQ8gIwAQ#

Botnst · #21 05-09-2011, 10:51 PM

I have a nice little Sony SLR that uses all my Minolta SLR lenses. Sony bought Minolta.

#22 05-09-2011, 11:06 PM

I'm not sure what I want to do. I have lots of 35mm nikon film equipment (bodies and lenses), and one nikon DX format digital body with just a couple of zoom lenses. I can use my film lenses on the digital body, but it's not really convenient and the metering does not work correctly. I should probably just upgrade to a full frame size nikon DSLR body so all my lenses will work correctly before I invest any more in DX format lenses. I'm just not that interested in spending $2500 on a DSLR body.

anthonyb · #23 05-09-2011, 11:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

See, I knew there had to be a reason.
So, the image viewed thru the view finder of a DSL is the optical image, right? Couldn't they just as easily use a LCD in the pentaprism so that your eye covering the eyepeice provided the shade to see the image in bright sun light?

I think there are a couple things going on:

1. The LCD will always lag compared to an optical finder, which is a big deal for certain kinds of photography (sports, action, photojournalism, events).

2. The resolution of an LCD isn't quite as good as an optical finder, although you can partly make up for it by magnifying the image.

3. Body-mounted LCDs get washed out in the sun, and hooded viewfinders end up being about the same size as optical finders in order to see the whole screen, so you lose the image size advantage.

4. Most lenses are designed to focus a certain distance back - they're designed to account for the lens-to-sensor distance of an SLR setup. You can't change this without degrading the image quality (with lens converters) or by redesigning the mount. Most of the professional photographers out there probably aren't willing to invest in a whole new set of lenses just to get an LCD.

dlevitt · #24 05-12-2011, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

See, I knew there had to be a reason.
So, the image viewed thru the view finder of a DSL is the optical image, right? Couldn't they just as easily use a LCD in the pentaprism so that your eye covering the eyepeice provided the shade to see the image in bright sun light?

See, my questions are not limited to religion and politics. I question most things.

I agree about navigating endless menus. They were obviously designed by a computer geek--no one who ever used a SLR would make the manual, or semi manual controls so difficult to use. I used to think that the linking of aperture and shutter speed on some RFs was the end-all of technology. The angled front shutter release as pioneered by Practika/ Pentacon should become a standard feature--its the most natural position and aids in holding the camera steady.

The EVIL camera [Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens] like the Panasonic G series, has an electronic eye level viewfinder. Some other cameras [e.g. Olympus PEN] have an electronic finder as an accessory.

Some folks [over on dpreview.com] continue to complain that the electronic finder will always be inferior to the prism / flapping mirror setup. I would expect that after a few generations the electronic finder will be unquestionably better than even today's best pure optical viewfinders.

MS Fowler · #25 05-12-2011, 01:18 PM

I appreciate the responses.
The lag time in digital is indeed a frustration for child photography. I even had a Zorki4 ( Leica-style screw mount RF) CLRed along with the 80(?)mm f2 for just that reason.

LaRondo · #26 05-12-2011, 01:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dlevitt

The EVIL camera [Electronic Viewfinder, Interchangeable Lens] like the Panasonic G series, has an electronic eye level viewfinder. Some other cameras [e.g. Olympus PEN] have an electronic finder as an accessory.

Some folks [over on dpreview.com] continue to complain that the electronic finder will always be inferior to the prism / flapping mirror setup. I would expect that after a few generations the electronic finder will be unquestionably better than even today's best pure optical viewfinders.

I have a G1 and I can surely say it's a A+ camera. Probably the quickest I had so far. Several of my pro friends, who are using top of the line Canons, love the design and size of the G1, as a backup camera. I paid under $400 for it. She rocks!
Besides, it's a 4/3 lens system, which allows for a variety of lens adaptations.