Explain what an SLR camera is to me.....

[Radiohead]

....and why are they considered good?

Why would a Canon EOS-300D be better than, say, a Nikon Coolpix 8700?

Also - can someone explain ISO and metering to me in simple terms, or point me in the direction of a site than can do it?

Thanks all

:)

[gZa]

Since Digital came along and made most cameras work like a SLR, in the sense that what you see in the view finder is what you're photographing it muddy the water a bit.

Basically if the LENS on the front is interchangable then it's a SLR camera.

http://www.dpreview.com/

[burn]

All fairness to those who like their digital SLR's but I am totally old school as far as SLR's go. For me a film based SLR out strips a digital everytime, especially seeing as mine is all manual, etc. The digital aspect takes all the fun out of it, but that said i do own a digital, but its not an slr.

So I think ill stick with my Olympus OM-1 :)

[thescrounger]

All fairness to those who like their digital SLR's but I am totally old school as far as SLR's go. For me a film based SLR out strips a digital everytime, especially seeing as mine is all manual, etc. The digital aspect takes all the fun out of it, but that said i do own a digital, but its not an slr.

So I think ill stick with my Olympus OM-1 :)

A digital SLR is fully manual. Actually a lot of prosumer Digicams are as well.

FIlm is going the way of the dinosaur. Nikon and Canon will be pulling out of the film market very soon.

[IAmATeaf]

I thought SLR (Single Lens Reflex) just meant that that when looking through the viewfinder to compose the picture to be taken you were actually looking through the actual lens, a system of mirrors and prisms are moved in and out when the shot is taken so that the shot you composed is then captured. Nothing to do with the fact the lens are interchangable or that the camera has full manual capabilities although in the main most cameras will possess these features as the general SLR field is favoured by the professsionals.

[still average joe]

I thought SLR (Single Lens Reflex) just meant that that when looking through the viewfinder to compose the picture to be taken you were actually looking through the actual lens, a system of mirrors and prisms are moved in and out when the shot is taken so that the shot you composed is then captured. Nothing to do with the fact the lens are interchangable or that the camera has full manual capabilities although in the main most cameras will possess these features as the general SLR field is favoured by the professsionals.


I believe you are totaly correct.

[emeyedeejay]

The term SLR used to mean mostly that you were looking "through the lense" when you looked through the viewfinder ... As stated above, since most digital cams these days show on an lcd or electronic viewfinder, you are seeing what is coming through the lense and onto the sensor...

So, now, it has much more to do with performace in terms of shutter lag (the time between pressing the shutter release button and the camera actually taking the shot...

In an SLR, there is virtually 0 delay - you press the button, the mirror and prism unit flips out of the shutters way, the shutter opens and exposes light to the film ... shot taken. This is the same in a Digital SLR (dSLR), the only differnece is that the "film" is a light sensor and the image is stored digitally.

In a modern digital camera (non SLR), the shutter is actually always open so that you can see what is coming through the lense. This means that when you press the shutter release button, the shutter has to close, the light sensor needs to de-charge and only then can the shutter open and expose the sensor to light. This results in a significant delay (even .3 of s second is a significant delay when trying to shoot a moving subject).

Another thing that is differnet is the way that dSLR and "normal" digital cams autofocus and measure exposer... The dSLR has far superior ways of doing both compared to a "normal" digital camera...

As noted above, something like a Nikon D70 or Cannon EOS 300D are able to be used in full manual modes - just like an older manual SLR...

[emeyedeejay]

All fairness to those who like their digital SLR's but I am totally old school as far as SLR's go. For me a film based SLR out strips a digital everytime, especially seeing as mine is all manual, etc. The digital aspect takes all the fun out of it, but that said i do own a digital, but its not an slr.

So I think ill stick with my Olympus OM-1 :)

I think you'll find that if you looked at a decent dSLR, you would find that it would be able to perform exactly as your OM-1...

[downhillbiker]

Oh, and another thing - a DSLR will totally own any normal digicam in terms of battery life, as the smaller cameras have to continuously refresh the CCD chip, and update the TFT screen on the back when using the little screen to frame shots.

With a DSLR, framing up with the TFT is impossible, as the CCD is not exposed to the light until the shutter is actually released. As a result, battery life is much longer, and you actually have to learn how to take photos rather than just pointing the camera in the general direction of any action - shutter delay is also usually a lot less with the DSLR.

[tinder]

All fairness to those who like their digital SLR's but I am totally old school as far as SLR's go. For me a film based SLR out strips a digital everytime, especially seeing as mine is all manual, etc. The digital aspect takes all the fun out of it, but that said i do own a digital, but its not an slr.

So I think ill stick with my Olympus OM-1 :)


...my Nikon D70 is fully manual
:shrug: and the fact that you can do any post processing required on a PC and then print from the finished file means that digital is much more fun, not to mention less time consuming and expensive, in my opinion...really cant see what point you are trying to make :?:

[Radiohead]

Thanks all - that's all helpful and I now look forward to the inevitable Film vs Digital bunfight.

[thescrounger]

Film is dead. There's no argument in that. ;)

[Sam]

All fairness to those who like their digital SLR's but I am totally old school as far as SLR's go. For me a film based SLR out strips a digital everytime, especially seeing as mine is all manual, etc. The digital aspect takes all the fun out of it, but that said i do own a digital, but its not an slr.

So I think ill stick with my Olympus OM-1 :)

I had a similar attitude until I got a DSLR and now I can't see me using film again other than on a paid job as a back-up. My 300D has vastly improved my photography because I'm now far more willing to experiment with aperture and shutter speeds as there isn't the cost of film to worry about.

Each to their own - but don't knock it until you've tried it! :)

[cluderi]

I don't see film dying while so many professionals are using it, the low end film market might reduce dramatically (I think Nikon have already announced they intend to pull out of this end of the market) but with the amount of professional photographers still using film I don't see them ceasing production of film SLR's anytime soon.

But, digital SLRs have really taken off in the past few years and are comparable to film (apart from the full frame sensor which has only just arrived and isn't really an option from all manfacturers yet)

[Me Too]

ISO relates to the sensitivity of the film to light. The higher the ISO the more sensitive the film is. However to make the film more sensitive the grain has to be larger. All film is make up from minute particles of "grain" in different layers sensitive to red, blue green and often yellow. This makes even well exposed high ISO negatives grainy when printed and the contrast and colour saturation are much less than a lower ISO film. The premise is similar to digital cameras. Lower ISO settings provide sharper more colourful and contrasty images whereas high ISO settings suffer "noise" and the common problems.

[emeyedeejay]

Very good explaination of the major differences here ...
http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm

[thescrounger]

Looks like Burn got burned. :D Good burn!

[papalaz]

....and why are they considered good?

Also - can someone explain ISO and metering to me in simple terms, or point me in the direction of a site than can do it?


This is a pretty good page about exposure... so tells you about ISO and metering and other things, drop me a line if you have any specific questions on technique (but I've decided to stay out of camera model debates) :thumbs:

http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/exposure

[Panavision]

All fairness to those who like their digital SLR's but I am totally old school as far as SLR's go. For me a film based SLR out strips a digital everytime, especially seeing as mine is all manual, etc. The digital aspect takes all the fun out of it, but that said i do own a digital, but its not an slr.

So I think ill stick with my Olympus OM-1 :)

Well I've got a FujiFilm S2 Pro DSLR at work, and once you see the image taken with one of these...I think you won't be using film anymore; although, film still has a place for Pro users!

The top end digital ones can be used manually just like a film SLR.

[Radiohead]

This is a pretty good page about exposure... so tells you about ISO and metering and other things, drop me a line if you have any specific questions on technique (but I've decided to stay out of camera model debates) :thumbs:

http://www.photo.net/making-photographs/exposure

Thanks very much for the offer of help.


:thumbs:

[DeadKenny]

SLR = Single Lens Reflex

As I understand it...

Single Lens refers to the camera only requiring one lens rather than having to resort to convertor lenses on fixed lens cameras, however that doesn't mean SLRs can't have a fixed lens (there are some rare ones I believe). The key point is it's one lens to take the shot (if you swap the lens for another, it's still a single lens being used, not a fixed lens + convertor).

Reflex refers to the action of swinging the mirror away internally.


However the main key points of most SLRs are...

Optical TTL viewfinder, not LCD (even though some non-DSLRs have TTL viewfinders, they're LCD ones generally which are low resolution and suffers from lag when focusing and shooting because of the way you are seeing what the sensor is seeing and are tied to delays in the sensor, which is one of the major drawbacks. SLRs don't have that problem though you do briefly lose the picture when you push the shutter).

Interchangeable lenses that follow a standard so that you can use any SLR lens for the system your camera uses (which may be the same as other brand cameras), and doesn't matter whether the camera is digital or film.

The lenses can be of much higher quality than non-SLRs (some lenses cost £1000s though). Also, because of the interchangeability, you have the option of using prime lenses (fixed focal length), unlike with a zoom compact/non-SLR where you have a zoom lens that you can't remove and obviously can't replace with a prime lens.


Generally a much higher quality camera compared to non-SLRs with only the top of the range SLR-like cameras coming close. This is especially true of digital cameras and DSLRs.



With a Digital SLR the sensor size is generally larger than a non-DSLR sensor, though usually smaller than 35mm film.


With DSLR vs SLR the only real difference is it's a digital sensor instead of film. The important part of the camera is the lens which is not really any different whether you use film or digital. The way the camera works is identical in almost every other way (other than most DSLRs are comparable feature-wise with expensive SLRs, not the cheaper ones).

[DeadKenny]

I don't see film dying while so many professionals are using it

Most professionals are switching to digital. Just look at any press photographers you see on TV, they'll probably have a DSLR (albeit a very expensive one with much higher resolution, not a cheapy like a D70 or 300D :D).

Studio work medium format is another matter. I saw a feature on a guy using digital medium format cameras to increase productivity in studio work (no need to wait for the film to develop) and that seemed to make out that it was a rare thing, but that was a while back now.

[byronbayer]

All fairness to those who like their digital SLR's but I am totally old school as far as SLR's go. For me a film based SLR out strips a digital everytime, especially seeing as mine is all manual, etc. The digital aspect takes all the fun out of it, but that said i do own a digital, but its not an slr.

So I think ill stick with my Olympus OM-1 :)

No offence, I dont think you fully know what you are talking about when it comes to digital.

Get yourself down a camera shop and ask them to print out a large digital photo (A3) from one of the new DSLR's.

I couldnt believe it when i saw the quality and it changed my mind on DSLR's.

[Dave B]

I use both a D100 (digital) and a F80 (film), both cameras are Nikon and the D100 is actually based on the F80. For sports stuff and news stories where I have a deadline then the D100 is fantastic but for landscape and studio work you still can't beat good old film (esp. Velvia 50).

Dave

[darftblerk]

I use both a D100 (digital) and a F80 (film), both cameras are Nikon and the D100 is actually based on the F80. For sports stuff and news stories where I have a deadline then the D100 is fantastic but for landscape and studio work you still can't beat good old film (esp. Velvia 50).

Dave

I totally agree. Fuji Velvia 50 will be now more soon (or at least when stocks run out), but I'll still take my 801 with a roll of 50-64 in it than my digital. It's only when you start to blow stuff up to poster size that digital loses the edge. The stuff that I've seen from the D2x has a slightly softer feel to it, which is useless for the macro work I'm used to.

JMO :shrug:

[Sprout Crumble]

Why would a Canon EOS-300D be better than, say, a Nikon Coolpix 8700?

:)

Most DSLR's also have larger and more sensitive sensors. I have to laugh when I hear about 3 and 5 mega-pixel cameras being put in phones. The tiny sensor will produce appalling results... :shrug:

[NicolaUK]

:thinking:

[Sam]

Smaller the senser, the greater the digital noise generally.

[Radiohead]

How did this get dredged up from almost a year ago?