You have a digital SLR (DSLR) for the same reason you have a film SLR - so you can see exactly what you're photographing. You also have the flexibility of changing lenses with a DSLR just as you do with a film SLR. I can't imagine not looking directly through the lens and not changing lenses.
Many digicams have the option of full manual control and support off-camera flash. The technology of the camera-flash interface has changed with the use of off-sensor (or film) flash metering in the camera. This is called "TTL" and was introduced by Minolta with the X-700 and X-570 cameras back in the 1980's. With TTL the camera controls the flash duration and gives you more creative flexibility.
Some DSLR's allow multiple exposures but you'd have to do a detailed search to find which ones offer it.
The sensor in a DSLR is also bigger than in a digicam. This gets you into the "less is more" scenario when the number of megapixels is debated. (See the Nov. 2007 issue of Shutterbug Magazine for an article titled "The Pros & Cons of Pixel Packing" - on line at shutterbug.com). Canon and Nikon both offer a "full frame" (the same size as a 35mm film frame) sensor in their top of the line DSLR cameras.
A "pixel" is short for picture element. Megapixel (mp) is one million pixels, so a camera with 3mp will produce lower quality images than one with 6mp - all other things being equal, i.e., sensor size and lens quality. Of course, its rare to find a 3mp camera with the same quality lens or same size sensor as one with 6mp. Refer to the aforementioned article for more information.
Based on your equipment list, IMO you'd be frustrated with anything less than a DSLR. I'm still using film and will until its no longer available.
2007-10-30 23:16:51
·
answer #1
·
answered by EDWIN 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
Have a look at the Pentax K10D. I just ordered mine.
Why a DSLR.
Direct viewing - WYSIWYG.
Interchangeable lenses
Larger sensor size (APS-C, or with Nikon and Canon's premium cameras full 35 mm size). If money is no object, the Hasselblad digitals go up to something like 39 mega pixels.
All DSLRs have x-sync. Not all SLRs have a PC terminal, if you need it for studio type flashes.
All DSLRs have Bulb mode.
Some DLSRs have multiple exposure capability.
Megapixels are the details available. Think of a pixel as a colored spot. A DSLR with 6 Megapixels and an APS-C sensor takes images about 3000 spots wide by 2000 spots deep. More is not necessarily better. As you increase the number of megapixels in a same size sensor, the amplification has to be increased, resulting in digital noise, like film grain.
My camera history includes twin lens Ricohflex 120 and mostly Pentax film SLRs, having bought my first one in 1960. At this very minute, I own 3 bodies and 6 lenses, all Pentax.
For me the perfect DSLR is the Pentax K10D, and I just ordered it. I can still use all my lenses - even the ones dating from the 1970s. If I still had any screw mount lenses, I could use them with an adapter. It has all the capabilities you specified, except PC terminal, and was European "advanced amateur" camera of the year in 2006.
The K10D is a 10 megapixel camera. It has bulb, multiple exposures, but does not have a PC terminal for studio flashes. I use slaves for mine, and use the in camera flash to trigger them, or use a shoe mount flash with the head turned away from the subject when I don't want the camera flash to be visible in the image. It is weather proofed, and has interchangeable viewfinder screens, rarely found in the $900 DSLR camp.
Check them all out. You may want one of the Canons - but make sure the model you check out can use your existing lenses. I personally have found Canon's controls excessively complicated compared to Nikon and Pentax, but you might feel more at home with Canon as you already have the Elan.
The closest competitors in the under $1000 camp are the K10D and the Nikon D40x. (The D40 is 6 Mp, the D40x is 10). The Canon XTi also rates well.
Only you can decide which camera is best for you. Do a cost/feature comparison on the models you can afford.
If I won the lottery, I just might consider the Nikon D3 full frame - but then again, I might prefer a yacht.
2007-11-03 14:02:23
·
answer #2
·
answered by Albert B 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
1) why a single lens reflex when there's no film?
ANSWER: With an SLR, you're viewing the actual photons from your subject, not an LCD screen that has a delay. There's no smearing if your subject moves and no delay between what your subject does and it being displayed on a screen. The SLR has advantages in resolution and focusing accuracy that cannot be matched by the use of today's LCD screens.
2) Do you get features like X-sync, B, and multiple exposure?
ANSWER: All digital SLRs have X-sync. That's because SLRs have a mechanical shutter of some kind, and the X-sync allows the whole sensor to be exposed at once. Most SLRs have bulb exposure too; it's just another shutter speed. Some SLRs even allow flash sync at speed above X-sync because they use electronic shutters above the X-sync speed. Multiple exposures can be done in-camera, depending on the camera (the fujifilm S2, S2 and S5 offer this for example), and you can always do multiple exposures via the computer by layering images.
3) Megapixels = 1 megapixel is 1 million "picture elements." It's a measure of the size of the finished image, which is sometimes called the "resolution" of the camera. You can determine the number of effective pixels by simply multiplying the height by the width of the final image at 100%. Do not confuse megapixel resolution of the camera with "resolution" as used in the camera's ability to resolve fine detail.
4) 35mm--today's digitals do as good as or better than 35mm, particularly at high ISOs whereas 35mm will get lots of grain.
110--far better than 110 cartridge film
120 medium format--digital is about as good as medium format for most common printing applications, but at large blowups of 120 medium format low grain slide film...I'd take the medium format. For 120 negative film, I'd rather have a high resolution digital SLR instead.
220 medium format--more shots than 120, but the film isn't as flat. Quality-wise, I find the dSLRs to be better and certainly more portable.
2007-10-31 12:31:50
·
answer #3
·
answered by anthony h 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
One can certainly make the case that through the lens reflex viewfinders(ie SLRs) are no longer necessary with digital cameras.
With that said, however, the reflex viewfinder does still offer a number of advantages over so-called electronic viewfinders, whether they are just an LCD screen on the back of the camera or a little peephole you look through to see an LCD screen inside the camera.
The biggest advantage of a reflex viewfinder is the fact that the image is, for all intents and purposes, instantaneous. Electronic viewfinders often show a delay of about .1 seconds. This may not seem significant, but if you're following a basketball player to the goal through the viewfinder, you're actually seeing what happened .1 second ago, which is significantly different from what's happening in front of the lens.
The second is the issue of resolution. The typical SLR today uses a high-tech laser-etched plastic focusing screen overlaid with both a condenser lens and fresnel lens to provide for even illumination. This type of screen also provides a bright image and makes it really obvious when the image is in focus. LCD screens, especially not the ones found on cameras, still don't offer that kind of resolution.
So, as you can see, the SLR viewing system, despite its limitations is still really the best option for digital cameras with current technology.
2007-10-31 11:40:14
·
answer #4
·
answered by Ben H 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
The only digital cameras that have multi frame (double exposure) that I'm aware of are the Nikon's D80, D200, D2Xs, D2Hs, and soon to be release D300, D3.
2007-10-31 09:43:37
·
answer #5
·
answered by Brian Ramsey 6
·
0⤊
0⤋