DSLR Information

[jtimmons]

I am thinking about getting into this DSLR craze but, I really don't know anything about it, could someone give me a synopsis on what is DSLR and why is it so good.

 

[Master Mason]

you can check out this site for some information

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_SLR


What I get from my camera, is the ablity to take pictures as I want them, or as my skill allows me to take them I guess is a better way of putting it. The shutter speeds are faster, so sports shots are better for me. I have contol over the various aspects that make a picture, and I have the ablity to change lenses, thereby increasing the pictures and types of pictures I can take.

Hope that is helpful somewhat. If you have specific questions, please ask as there is a wealth of knowledge on this board.

Regards,

 

[handicap18]

There are many many things a dSLR (or film SLR) will give over a P&S camera. On the digital side, the sensor (film equivilent) is bigger. Even when the mega pixels are the same, the dSLR camera has a larger sensor which allows it to capture more information. This is most prevelent in high ISO settings (400 and above). DSLR's more often than not will have a lot less noise than a P&S.

Startup and shutter release is MUCH faster. With my dSLR I can power on and take up to 5 pictures before many P&S can finish powering on and take 1 picture. Shutter delay is almost non-existant on dSLR's. You press the shutter it takes a picture compared to pressing the shutter and waiting up to 1 second before the camera actually captures the image.

Lenses are abundant. You have many many many options. You can get different zoom lenses at all different focal lengths and at varied aperture's (lens openings). Same for prime lenses (no zooming, just a single focal length). But in these cases you can take pictures in low light situations that a P&S wont be able to take. Focal Lenghts are available in both zoom and prime lenses starting at 10mm (VERY VERY WIDE) up to 1000mm (if not longer). Its been said that the human eye sees at about the equivilent of 50mm. So that gives you an idea of the lens ranges. Granted there are many of those lenses that are out of most peoples budgets, but they are available.

One thing dSLR's aren't are convenient. Meaning that they wont fit in your pocket or in a pouch that can clip to your belt. Although many lenses will. Also zoom range on a P&S is greater. Many P&S's have 10x or 12x zoom. Very few lenses for dSLR's are that high. Most are in the 4-6x range. But what you give up in zoom range is made up by aperture width. More often than not, the glass on a lens for an SLR camera is better than a lens for a P&S. Flash capabilities/options are also better on SLR's, especially when you add an external flash.

 

[Groucho]

I would disagree with the term "DSLR craze" and I would also say that if you're happy with your current digital camera, then consider yourself fortunate and call it a day. (I think it's more important to be happy than to have the best of everything!) "Craze" sounds more like a fad, which I don't think is valid.

Things are really no different than they were before digital came along. The "average" photographer had a point-and-shoot camera using whatever type of film. If they craved more quality or more control over the photographs, they bought an SLR. Same thing with digital.

Some of the PnS and/or "bridge" cameras are very nice. However, DSLRs will offer more speed, quality, features, and primarily control over your pictures.

The "craze" is that DSLRs are finally getting to the point where the prices come close to the higher-end PnS cameras, and those of us who used an SLR in the 35mm days (even an old fully-manual one!) can finally make the step up to a digital SLR. There was a little bit of time there were a very nice DSLR was as cheap as $367 after a $100 rebate. Currently, I think you can find a Pentax, Nikon, or Canon in the $550-650 range. (I'm not sure what the cheapest Sony, Olympus, etc go for.)

The first thing is to do a little research on what an SLR is and decide if that's for you. IMHO, if you're not interested in playing with focus, exposure, depth of field, etc, you might be just as happy with a higher-end "bridge" point-n-shoot camera.

But, a DSLR will offer a better photo (don't be fooled by megapixel count, either - more megapixels does not automatically mean better picture, often the opposite) and room to grow.

For me, I was never happy with point-n-shoots and have always loved shooting with an SLR, so that's definitely best for me. But I don't think it's fair to automatically lump all PnS cameras into the junk pile or think less of someone who preserves the dimunitive size or simplicity of a PnS. This is not like DVD and VHS where VHS really was garbage and was quite rightly killed off by DVD - PnS digicams aren't going anywhere.

 

[extreme8]

I agree with Groucho.
If have to ask, you probably don't need one.

If you're not familiar with SLR's from the 35mm world there will be a huge learning curve. It might take some time before you get pictures that rival those from even the most modest P&S.

If you do decide to take the plunge let us know - I'm sure we can give you about 100 conflicting opinions about how to proceed.