When you see a picture taken by an SLR or SLR-like digital camera compared to a regular compact point-and-shoot digital camera, there are obvious differences in quality.
What technology is responsible for the "professional" look in a photo taken by one of the SLR cameras? Is this why they cost so much more than regular cameras?
What's in a lens that make it so expensive?
2006-12-07 05:10:05 · 6 answers · asked by blastradii 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Visual Arts ➔ Photography
The eye, for starters. Then a combination of things such as expression, content, angles and lighting. Any camera can take a great image, but not any person can.
2006-12-07 13:41:17 · answer #1 · answered by visionsofforever 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The answer may be obvious, but it's the truth: the nicer camera has a really smooth and accurate lens. Creating a smooth, clear piece of glass/mirror is extremely expensive, especially for larger lenses (hence why telescopes cost so much). It also helps to have nothing in between the lens and the receptor electronics that would "artificially" effect the picture in any way. SLR's also allow you to look out this same lens that you're shooting with. This way, the picture you see through the lens is exactly what goes on film. The camera that NASA sent up with one of their spacecraft was only 1 megapixel, but because of the clarity of the lens (among other features), it cost a million dollars to build. It's safe to say that a million dollar lens would make an awesome 1-megapixel image, or an effectively seamless composite of many 1-megapixel images.
2006-12-07 13:15:19 · answer #2 · answered by moore850 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In the right circumstance you can get a professional looking shot with any of the modern point and shoot cameras. What makes a good camera better is versatility. I have a fairly good camera (Nikon D-70) and usually am only limited only by my lack of imagination or laziness in getting really good shots. In most situations my camera and lenses will take as good a photo as any camera in the world. What separates my camera (about $1000 new) from the really expensive cameras are things such as build. (mine is hard plastic, a professional camera is metal, and you can take it out in the rain) One thing I really miss is a feature called mirror lock up, so the camera does not vibrate on the tripod during a long exposure from the shutter. This can make a big difference when taking a long telephoto shot. Mine only goes down to ISO 200. Better cameras go down to ISO 100. At very high ISO my camera has lots of noise. A professional camera also will take many more shots in a few seconds
. I use a cheap 70-300 mm zoom lens to take pictures of the moon at times. I use a very good teleconverter to get it out to about 430 mm. I see pics taken with much better 300 mm lenses of the moon and the difference is very evident. The detail from the better lenses is soooo much better. Those white lenses you see on the sidelines at football games run over $5000 just for the lens.
2006-12-09 03:51:56 · answer #3 · answered by Christine J 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Agree with visionofforevers. Its the photographer, not the camera. Of course there are many differences between p&s camera and SLR. The sensor size, bigger and better lenses, better control...etc.
Another reason is those who will buy a SLR or SLR-like camera are those who knows something about photography, not just pointing the camera to somewhere and shoot it. And those people will spend more time to think about how to take better pictures and know how to make the best out of their camera.
2006-12-10 22:43:11 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lens and Pixel size, if you pay 1500 for a slr digital you're getting more pixel size and the lens quality is going to be higher than what you find in the point and shoot that costs 150.
slr cameras have more options as far as aperture settings, speed, blah blah blah, where you're able to finely tune each picture according to exposure, you won't get that on a point and shoot for under 500 bucks.
2006-12-07 13:37:32 · answer #5 · answered by alwaysbombed 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well, i believe that point and shoot are all digital zoom. Once you zoom in, you loose the sharpness of the subject. The SLR (I have a DSLR) looks more "professional" because YOU select the subject and focus to the desired effect. You get a greater depth of field (blurring of the background) which makes you subject more prodominate and interesting.
The lenses cost so freaking much because every lens has a different purpose. Wide angle for landscapes. Telephoto for super zoom. Macro for super close-ups. Standard is good for regular shooting and portraiture.
2006-12-11 03:33:33 · answer #6 · answered by laurabristow5 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋