Digital SLRs - why?

[harrumph]

Please would somebody explain, because I am a novice and don't understand: why, in the era of digital photography, are SLR cameras still considered more desirable, other things being equal, than non-SLRs?

As I understand it, the principle advantage of the SLR format for film cameras is that what is seen in the viewfinder is exactly what is seen by the lens, whereas that is not the case in film cameras which do not view through the lens.

But do people ever use a viewfinder on a digital camera? I find the digital camera's composition-on-a-screen a huge advance over trying to visualise the final image through a little hole with glass in it!

[hubner]

I wouldn't say they're more desirable, it's just that for certain situations and types of photography, they're more suitable.

[токамак]

Superior quality lenses, interchangeable lenses, it's all about the lenses.

[pcolbeck]

Other things are not equal unfortunately.  A DSLr will have a much bigger sensor thanm a compact camera which is better (as in physically bigger not megapixel bigger). You got detachable lenses again which are bigger than those on compact camera so let in more light which is good and can have better magnification or low light performance.
Looking through the viewfinder is often an advantage rather than a disadvantage. The screen on the back of a camera is doesn't work that well in bright conditions. The viewfinder also helps cut out unnecessary distractions and lets you focus your attention on the shot you are trying to take.

[nuttycyclist]

As everybody else has said, interchangeable lenses 

I also prefer to take the shot through the viewfinder as I get a steadier picture than I do when holding a camera out at arms length in front of me.

[rae]

+1 on the lenses.  

Most digital cameras come with some sort of 25 - 70mm lens of varying quality.   If you want a 400mm or a 200mm for sports work, or a 35mm F1.2 for portraits or a 12mm wideangle...you're stuffed.   A decent lens will cost more than the camera, and if it is part of the camera, then when the camera dies, the lens dies.  Digital cameras are upgraded rather regularly.  

I'd say that in a digital world, the SLR model is even more important...

[andrew_s]

1) picture quality - leaving aside the lens, there's less noise in an SLR image at ISO 3200 than there is on a compact at 200
2) a viewfinder - the screen on the back can be virtually impossible to see anything on in bright sunlight. It's also difficult to view at all for those who forgot their reading glasses.
3) responsiveness - with a DSLR the picture is taken within 0.1s of you pressing the button. With compacts the photo can be taken as much as 2 or 3 seconds later
4) a much wider range of accessories - eg flashes that stand a chance of lighting up more than the backs of the heads of the people in the next few rows of seats.

[mr magnolia]

3) responsiveness - with a DSLR the picture is taken within 0.1s of you pressing the button.

just out of curiousity, how does that compare with film cameras?

[LEE]

The main improvement in quality comes from the sensor.
Next comes the lens.  
A DSLR lens wouldn't add much benefit using small sensor but a DLSR Sensor would noticeably improve the results from a compact's lens.

Small sensors are noisy (grainy) when comapred to larger sensors.  This effect gets dramatically worse as you increase the 'film speed'.  DSLR sensors produce superb results at high iso.

There are some pretty good lenses on 'compact' cameras but they are always, even on the best (Canon G10 for example) let down by the sensor in less than ideal situations.

Of course a small sensor allows for huge zooms in a small package which is nice.
Canon's latest offering has a 28 - 560mm zoom which is pretty remarkable really.

A large DSLR sensor opens up a few more creative doors, like small depth of field (hard to get with a small sensor).

A quality external Flash makes a HUGE difference over the built in ones but some compacts have a hot shoe as well.

Viewfinder quality varies between cameras (and that includes DSLRs).  I like having an LCD screen to compose with but you can't beat a Prism SLR viewfinder.

Budget DSLRs can have some very poor viewfinders, very dark and hard to use, but the more expensive ones are nice and bright.

Shutter lag has improved greatl yon quality compacts to the point that, if you are pre-focussed, there is no noticeable diference.

A quality DSLR, with the correct lens and in the correct hands will ALWAYS produce a better result than a small compact in the hands of a novice BUT, there are some things to consider:

1. You are more likely to carry a compact camera with you.  A DSLR will not produce good results unless you have it with you.

2. An expert will most likely produce as good, or better, results using a quality 'compact' as a novice using a high-end DSLR.  Good photos are mainly about subject and composition (quality compacts do a great job of exposure and focus)

3. The latest 'superzoom' compacts produce amazing results, they are comparitively small, easy to use, accept external flash guns, have every lens you need in one zoom and cost about half the price of a DSLR (before you start adding lenses).

For prints up to A4 and used in 'normal' conditions I doubt whether anyone could tell the difference.  Once you start 'pushing the envelope' (dark conditions or high iso sports actions for example) then DSLRs will start to come into their own.

I was going to get a Canon DSLR until they annouced their SX10 IS compact, now I'm not too sure. (The SX1 IS looks even better with 5 fps frame rate)

[clarion]

I use the vf on my compact.  Well, the LCD screen is broken, but I used to use the vf anyway.

[David Martin]

Today I took a photograph of a colleague.

2 flashes, one of which was slave, the other was off camera but wired TTL.

I could set manually the shutter speed and apeture to suit. I could also adjust the relative weighting that the TTL flash contributed to the image to get the right balance. And at 100iso, there was no noise and a fantastic dynamic range on raw.

Yes I have used off camera flash with a budget compact (Canon A60 - link an optical sensor to a wire and tape it over the camera flash set to manual) and all things are possible, but the SLR does the job so much better.

..d

[Rob S]

The principle reasons for a dSLR being  so desirable have been pointed out....bigger sensor which means bigger photosites which means better low light capability as they don't get so hot. The other reason is the lenses which ae not only interchangeable but are able to be made with far more resolution and able to do single jobs so much better than if required to do a lot of jobs....just like a prime lens over a zoom.

[Frenchie]

Superior quality lenses, interchangeable lenses, it's all about the lenses.

+2

[harrumph]

Thank you, everybody. I think the Panasonic Lumix LX3 still looks like the camera for me, because (as Lee says) I will carry it on walks and bike rides. I have no need of a long lens for the use this camera will see, and I don't use flash anyway. I like the idea of its 24mm wideangle, image stabilisation and f2.0 lens, and its RAW capability is a bonus, because having read a few threads here and elsewhere I am getting quite excited about the post-processing possibilities offered by that format. It seems like a kind of Olympus XA for the digital era.

I am curious about one two things, if there are LX3 owners reading this:

1) does it have autobracketing?

2) if I open the aperture right up to restrict depth of field, will the LCD show the background out of focus? Does it have a DoF preview setting, or will that be the default?

[clarion]

The best camera is always the one you have.

If it's too big to carry easily, it won't be handy.  And no amount of control or interchangeability will change that.

Many of my best shots were taken by a Minox 35PL or GT.  But I have an SLR for more considered shots.

[Rob S]

Thank you, everybody. I think the Panasonic Lumix LX3 still looks like the camera for me, because (as Lee says) I will carry it on walks and bike rides. I have no need of a long lens for the use this camera will see, and I don't use flash anyway. I like the idea of its 24mm wideangle, image stabilisation and f2.0 lens, and its RAW capability is a bonus, because having read a few threads here and elsewhere I am getting quite excited about the post-processing possibilities offered by that format. It seems like a kind of Olympus XA for the digital era.

I am curious about one two things, if there are LX3 owners reading this:

1) does it have autobracketing?

2) if I open the aperture right up to restrict depth of field, will the LCD show the background out of focus? Does it have a DoF preview setting, or will that be the default?

I have one of those for cycle ride use and I'm still very excited about the image quality for a compact

Yes it does have exposure bracketing (as well as bracketing for 'film type') though only up to +/- one stop at the moment. No it does not have depth of field preview.

[LEE]

It's got a small sensor plus a 24-60mm equiv lens.
You won't see much (any?) depth of field effect until you get really close (macro close I expect).

I expect to see some impressive landscapes from you.  The lens sounds perfect for the job.

It looks stunning, almost Leica-like but that 60mm max focal length would be an issue for me. (Consider buying a tele converter for it)

[Biggsy]

Please would somebody explain, because I am a novice and don't understand: why, in the era of digital photography, are SLR cameras still considered more desirable, other things being equal, than non-SLRs?

As I understand it, the principle advantage of the SLR format for film cameras is that what is seen in the viewfinder is exactly what is seen by the lens, whereas that is not the case in film cameras which do not view through the lens.

But do people ever use a viewfinder on a digital camera? I find the digital camera's composition-on-a-screen a huge advance over trying to visualise the final image through a little hole with glass in it!

Note. By "SLR" here, I include digital as well as film SLRs.....

Using the LCD screen is an advantage over an optical viewfinder if the viewfinder happens to be a rubbish one - like a lot of cameras have - but a good optical viewfinder is very satisfying indeed to use.  The clear and reasonably sized image from a good optical viewfinder seems to enter your brain more directly.  It's as if the camera lens becomes your own eye.

The eyepiece of an SLR viewfinder views the focusing screen - onto which the image from the lens is projected when the mirror is down.  It looks much better than the "little hole with glass in it" that you get with non SLR cameras. In fact most digital SLRs don't offer a live view on the LCD screen at all, so you have to use the viewfinder.

The viewfinder is certainly not the only major advantage over a digital compact anyway.  A digital SLR operates much more quickly because more powerful electronics can be built into the larger body, and the buttons and dials can be more ergomonic because there's more room for them.  Then there is the larger sensor for better picture quality, and a large choice of available lenses.  These are all massively important points that you shouldn't overlook until you have actually used an SLR.

If you can bear to carry an SLR, do!  Of course compact cameras are wonderfully handy, but you should have one as well, not instead!

I'll soon have a Pentak K20D (just sold my K10D), and also have a Panasonix LX2.  The LX2 is pretty good for a compact, but it's nowhere near as fast and nice to use as an SLR.

The LX3 hardly does telephoto, by the way.  The lens is not just "not long", it hardly provides anything longer than a "standard" view.  For that reason I would regard it as a specialist camera nowdays, rather than a general purpose one.

[Jaded]

DSLR batteries tend to last longer between charges too, because they are bigger and because you don't have to use the energy sapping LCD

[Polar Bear]

An SLR is so much more capable than any compact.   Even the most basic SLR will produce superior images by far than the best compact.   Physical sensor size (something I've only recently come to appreciate myself), larger, optically far superior lenses, and the ability easily (once you've go the kit!!) change lenses, use different lighting and flash setups, etc. just make it a different sort of tool.  

I chose a Sony dSLR for a number of reasons, none of which I regret.  One such feature is Live View on a screen that can tilt up or down.   I agree completely with previous comment that an SLR viewfinder is far superior to anything offered on a compact, but, Live View with a tiltable screen really makes using the camera for overhead, low level and studio type work so very much easier.   For instance, on low level work I no longer need to lay down on my front and try and adjust the tripod setup, frequently checking through the viewfinder.      

[LEE]

Modern 'compacts' (I actually mean non-Dslr as some are not very compact) often have a very good electronic viewfinder.

I am currently stunned by the spec of the Canon SX10 IS. (including a fully articulated LCD)

It costs £50 less than my ancient Fuji 2Mp 'Brick' (that I gave to my Sister-i-L) and seems to do just about everything pretty well.

I'm waiting for a review of the CMOS sensor version (Hi-Def video and 5fps) to see which to buy.

Yes.  DLSRs produce better results.

Yes.  Compact Superzooms are a better choice for most people

[Biggsy]

3) responsiveness - with a DSLR the picture is taken within 0.1s of you pressing the button.

just out of curiousity, how does that compare with film cameras?

With the lens pre-focused, shutter lag for the Pentax K20D digital SLR, for example, is 0.04 seconds.  This is about the same as you get from the Nikon F6 professional film camera according to Shutter lag - Wikipedia

More importantly, the camera is ready for the NEXT shot much sooner than with a film SLR or compact digital.

[mike]

"with the lens pre-focussed" is quite a big disclaimer though.

there's a huge difference in real-life response between my Digital SLR and my canon G9 'compact' because of the focussing speed.  Even with the SLR, different lenses focus at different speeds and different range bodies react differently...

[harrumph]

It's got a small sensor plus a 24-60mm equiv lens.
You won't see much (any?) depth of field effect until you get really close (macro close I expect).

So it won't throw the background out of focus for "subject isolation"? That is a significant drawback... it's something I did regularly with my film SLR when I last took lots of photos, years ago. If the LX3 won't do it, I don't suppose any digital compact will (due, as I now understand, to their small sensor giving them great depth of field, whether you want it or not)?

I suppose the absence of DoF preview is not a fatal flaw, if one can just take a trial shot and immediately look at it in the LCD via replay. Or if everything is always sharp anyway!

Biggsy, I abandoned use of the film SLR (a Canon EOS 650) as my eyesight began to deteriorate with age and I found it increasingly difficult to compose shots the way I wanted them through a viewfinder while wearing glasses. I know that you can get lenses to compensate viewfinders for eyesight deficiencies, but I find that I much prefer to look at an LCD. Most of my pictures are taken in whatever lighting conditions prevail at the time, and in Britain, so excessively bright ambient lighting is not a problem all that often; but camera shake is, which is why I'm thinking about a new one with a faster lens and image stabilisation. But it has to be one I'll take with me and get lots of use from. While carting a film SLR around yielded some good photos, it was only on fairly rare occasions that I took it with me...

[Polar Bear]

...  I abandoned use of the film SLR ... as my eyesight began to deteriorate with age and I found it increasingly difficult to compose shots the way I wanted them through a viewfinder ...

In that case I could recommend Sony.   I am partially-sighted and I have got used to using a screen on the back of a compact (Panasonic TZ3), and now on the Alpha 350.   What is really superior is that if you simply switch out of Live View the screen displays exposure etc. info in a very clear and well laid out manner.   

Sony are experts at making kit very easy to use.