Digital SLRs - why?

[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).

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)?

Correct, but, having said that, a typical portrait lens is around 80mm.  That's long enough to get shallow depth of field and short enough not to flatten the subjects features.  Maybe a longer lens would give a decent effect (combines with a wide aperture).  Does anyone do a 100mm F2?  I'd be interested to see results from that.


Otherwise, check out DPREVIEW samples.  They usually print the focal length of the lens used plus apreture details.

Find an image you like and see what camera they used.

Note.  I wouldn't buy any camera without it getting a HIGHLY RECOMMENDED within last 12 months on DPREVIEW

Here's a dpreview image from a Canon G10 set to 99mm F5.0

I'd be surprised if you couldn't set a wider aperture than F5 and get even less DoF



Note.  a 24-60mm lens doesn't really lend itself to such an effect really.  even a 35mm film camera would struggle not to have a large DoF from 24mm - 40mm

[Biggsy]

Harrumph, with a compact digital camera, with typical subjects, the background can only be made slightly out of focus at most.  Yes it is a significant drawback to add to the numerous other significant drawbacks.

Diopter correction and magnifying eyepieces are available for some (all?) digital SLR viewfinders, including Pentax.  And some dSLRs offer LCD live view like Polar Bear's.  (K20D has live view as well, though it's not implemented very well apparently).

I do understand wanting something more compact, though, and so do I most of the time.  I'm sure you would enjoy a good digital compact despite the drawbacks.  I'm particularly impressed by the sharpness of my LX2's Leica lens.  It rivals an SLR lens.

Maybe you could still get a dSLR as well for occasional use?  They are remarkably cheap for what they are nowdays.  Second-hand is a good option too.

[mike]

DOF is a huge difference.  I just had a play with the flowers in the kitchen, using the G9 and my 5D (good work-avoidance)



The G9 was at the widest it'd go (35mm equiv.) and full open at f2.8, the 5D has a fixed length lens (last years bonus) and has pics at 2.8 and 1.4.  The DOF difference when they're both at 2.8 is huge.  As others have said though, a good photographer will take much better pics with a compact than I could with an SLR.

[Biggsy]

Good demo, & nicely presented 

Note.  I wouldn't buy any camera without it getting a HIGHLY RECOMMENDED within last 12 months on DPREVIEW

Why 12 months?  You get better VFM with a model that's been around a while.

[mike]

Note.  I wouldn't buy any camera without it getting a HIGHLY RECOMMENDED within last 12 months on DPREVIEW

[/quote]

Why 12 months?  You get better VFM with a model that's been around a while.

I dunno about this one.  I used to tell anyone that'd listen to go buy a 10D on ebay for 150 quid, but the new breed of chips are so much better in low light that I'm not sure if I would any more.  I think I'd get the best one of them that I could, with the kit lens, then get more lenses when I could.

the 10D would be nicer to hold and use though, especially if you have fat hands like me - some of the new SLRs are absolutely tiny.

[Rob S]

Good demo, & nicely presented 

Note.  I wouldn't buy any camera without it getting a HIGHLY RECOMMENDED within last 12 months on DPREVIEW

Why 12 months?  You get better VFM with a model that's been around a while.

Because Phil no longer does all the camera reviews.

[Biggsy]

There's no way I could have afforded any of the cameras I've bought if I was an early adopter.  The price reductions as the months and years pass are tremendous: hundreds of pounds in the case of dSLRs.  I'd rather have a good old camera than a new cheap one any day - be it second hand or new old stock.

You might get better image quality with a new cheap one in some cases, but being as nice to use as well is another matter, and at least as important.

[Rob S]

There's no way I could have afforded any of the cameras I've bought if I was an early adopter.  

With the LX3 the price actually went UP after I bought mine!! I got mine in October from UK Digital Cameras for £297....within a couple of weeks it was up to £329....I've just looked again and it's £349! Oh and they are out of stock and have 10 coming at the end of the month.

[frankly frankie]

The viewfinder is certainly not the only major advantage over a digital compact anyway.

Its the only advantage which is peculiar to SLRs.  And even then, this is being challenged by the Panasonic G1.  And in any case its only an advantage if you happen not to prefer the LCD view - lots of people do prefer the LCD, and for good reasons (eg, 'head-up' display of shooting info).

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.

None of these are intrinsic to SLRs.  Especially since you include film!  Some of them are intrinsic to 'large-bodied' cameras in general.  Interchangeable lenses - not even that.  Again the Panasonic G1 breaks new ground in its potential to accept lenses from almost any other camera system, something that is only possible because its a (fairly) small camera ...

The SLR is, like it or not, a dinosaur breed.  Lets face it, its had 50-odd good years ...

[Biggsy]

The fact that not all the good features of an SLR are intrinsic to SLRs is unimportant.  What I'm talking about is the whole package, and comparing that with a compact camera.

It doesn't have to be an SLR to have powerful electronics and interchangeable lenses, but combine all that with an excellent optical viewfinder, and you have a really superb piece of kit.  Far from being a dinosaur, the SLR continues to be improved and is more affordable to the man on the Clapham omnibus than ever.

I would guess that the majority of people who prefer LCDs haven't used a good optical viewfinder (or have forgotton how good they are), and that the majority of keen photographers who currently use an optical viewfinder wouldn't want to swap it for an LCD-only viewfinder for the majority of their stuff.  Those who like both can have both with some dSLRs now.

A fair amount of shooting info can be included in an optical viewfinder, by the way, via LED panels and projections.

It won't be the LCD that kills off the optical viewfinder in top-end cameras anyway.  It will be a brain implant.  And we'll have to wait 50 years for a really good one of those.

[Jaded]

It won't be the LCD that kills off the optical viewfinder in top-end cameras anyway.  It will be a brain implant.  And we'll have to wait 50 years for a really good one of those.

Yeah, and then someone will have to design an implant for it.

[andyoxon]

There's no way I could have afforded any of the cameras I've bought if I was an early adopter.  

With the LX3 the price actually went UP after I bought mine!! I got mine in October from UK Digital Cameras for £297....within a couple of weeks it was up to £329....I've just looked again and it's £349! Oh and they are out of stock and have 10 coming at the end of the month.

some cheaper deals available.  £299 Bristol cameras  £313 Amazon    Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 from £299.00, UK Specialist Price Comparison Site, Camera Price Buster

The LX3 is a very interesting camera, not least because it's arguably a good wide angle/fast lens supplement to any dSLR kit...

[Rob S]

There's no way I could have afforded any of the cameras I've bought if I was an early adopter.  

With the LX3 the price actually went UP after I bought mine!! I got mine in October from UK Digital Cameras for £297....within a couple of weeks it was up to £329....I've just looked again and it's £349! Oh and they are out of stock and have 10 coming at the end of the month.

some cheaper deals available.  £299 Bristol cameras  £313 Amazon    Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX3 from £299.00, UK Specialist Price Comparison Site, Camera Price Buster

The LX3 is a very interesting camera, not least because it's arguably a good wide angle/fast lens supplement to any dSLR kit...

I was just comparing the price of the site I got mine which at the time was the cheapest place you could get it....Jessops were selling it for £399 in their shops at the time (though £349 on their website both then and now).
Finding one on sale seems to be a problem though.

[LEE]

Good demo, & nicely presented 

Note.  I wouldn't buy any camera without it getting a HIGHLY RECOMMENDED within last 12 months on DPREVIEW

Why 12 months?  You get better VFM with a model that's been around a while.

Because time and sensors move on so quickly.

A camera with "Highly Recommended" from 2006 would most likely equate to a "Not Recommended" in 2008/2009 when compared with it's latest incarnation.

For one thing the price of the latest and greatest incarnation will most likely be less than the older camera was.

You're on safer ground with DSLRs I think but even so, newer features such as Dust-Removal and Live-view have found their way onto budget DSLRs.

Remember as well that the fella who took these photos last year on YACF took them on a sub £200 Canon 'compact' (A650).  There's no doubt he's got a natural eye for a photo but I initially guessed he was using a DSLR.

Simply Stunning

He's have needed several separate lenses to capture that range of photos with a DSLR.

Edit:  I forgot how amazing these images were and how jealous I am.

[frankly frankie]

The fact that not all the good features of an SLR are intrinsic to SLRs is unimportant.  What I'm talking about is the whole package, and comparing that with a compact camera.

Well I'm sorry - I do accept you know what you're talking about - but I just get a bit disconsolate whenever I see this sort of SLR vs compact comparison, which leads to all sorts of illogical assumptions.  Compare big with small by all means, or one method of viewfinding with another, but to compare a method of viewfinding with a form factor is a bit bizarre, IMO.

A SLR = a big, serious, competent camera - no argument there.

But you can't just swap the terms of that equation round and somehow come up with the conclusion that a small camera is therefore not serious, or not competent.

FWIW I do have, and occasionally use, a DSLR - but for preference I use a smaller camera (I wouldn't quite call it 'compact') that was, co-incidentally, also mentioned in the previous post while I was writing this ...

[Biggsy]

Two or three years for a compact, and four-ish years for a dSLR, is not too old for a digital camera to be a good buy, in my opinion and experience.

Lee:

For one thing the price of the latest and greatest incarnation will most likely be less than the older camera was.

But it won't be less than what the older camera is now.  In most cases, the price falls as a model gets older, to the point of becoming cheap after it's been discontinued, especially on the second-hand market.

Of course it won't have all the latest technologogy, but an ex high-end model may be more satisfying than a new bottom-of-the-range model if it has better ergonomics and ease-of-use.  In some cases even the image quality will be better if it has a better lens or less noisy sensor thanks to fewer pixels.

The digital cameras I've bought in order are: Pentax Optio s5i, Pentax *ist DS, Pentax K10D, Panasonic LX2, Pentax K20D (last one not quite bought yet).  All of these I could not have afforded when they were first introduced, and all were better for me than anything newer at the time.  Two were second-hand, the rest were new at greatly knocked down prices compared to the initial prices.  The total difference was well over £1000.

Early-adopting is a game for rich people, and I ain't rich, yet I have managed to aquire some very good stuff by being one or two steps behind.  Same with bike components as well.

Actually I'm finally coming up to date with the K20D, but it won't be long before Pentax bring out a new model (probably costing at least £400 more at first), then I'll be happily one step behind again.

[Biggsy]

I just get a bit disconsolate whenever I see this sort of SLR vs compact comparison, which leads to all sorts of illogical assumptions.  Compare big with small by all means, or one method of viewfinding with another, but to compare a method of viewfinding with a form factor is a bit bizarre, IMO.

We're talking about the whole form factor of a typical digital SLR camera, not just a method of viewfinding.  It just so happens that the popular term for this form factor is named after its viewfinding method, as it has been for fifty years for the film versions.  So we're comparing one form factor with another.

A SLR = a big, serious, competent camera - no argument there.

But you can't just swap the terms of that equation round and somehow come up with the conclusion that a small camera is therefore not serious, or not competent.

I can come to the opinion that a small camera can't be *as* competent if such powerful electronics can't be fitted in it, or ergonomical enough controls be fitted on it, or if its viewfinding method is inferior.  I do accept though that small cameras are becoming increasingly competent as technology improves.  I like small cameras, too.