New Digital SLR Camera - Going back to the store...

[Don Plumley]

What about the Leica M8?



It's just a couple of dollars more...

[911pcars]

Oly E330. I've got one, and one reason why I did was for the live view feature, the only DSLR with live view and removeable lenses. That said, it's not the perfect camera. No company has produced the perfect DSLR yet. The high ISO images (ISO 800+) are soft and noisy and the shutter response is not as fast as Canon or Nikon, thus their advantage in sports photography. At lower ISO speeds, it's more than enough. Some do value high ISO images though, and it was the high ISO noise issue that one prominant photo website based their review on. However, Oly 4/3rds system lenses, though limited in numbers at this time, are excellent. Even the cheap Oly kit lenses are sharper, have less distortion than the kit lenses supplied with Nikons and Canons. It's a versatile camera and allows recording some scenes not otherwise convenient. Wayne might recognize this one:





Prices are dropping which makes this more attractive. When introduced early this year, it was $1000 for the body. I heard Adorama has excess inventory and is currently selling the body for $500+. On Ebay, Cameta Camera is the main source for Oly cameras at discount prices.

Sherwood

[fastpat]

Wayne, Nikon's flagship of the Coolpix series, the 8800 has what you want except for removable lenses. The ED glass in the lense the camera is equipped with should produce very good images, I'd suggest you take a look.

[AFC-911]

Hi Wayne,

have you looked at the Canon Powershot S3IS? It's so much cheaper than a DSLR, and it has live preview and a rotating LCD screen. It's certainly worth a look.

[StevoRocket]

Steves digicams review

http://www.steves-digicams.com/2006_reviews/s3is.html

Like its predecessor the S2, the PowerShot S3 IS is a very capable entrant in the megazoom digicam market. With 6-megapixels of resolution, a high-quality image-stabilized 36-432mm zoom lens, very good image quality and industry-leading support for moving images, the S3 IS offers a compelling combination of quality and versatility. It will please both the beginner and the advanced photographer with its consistently well-exposed and sharp results. The S3 IS presents a worthy alternative for consumer digicam users considering an upgrade to a consumer dSLR. While its image quality, responsiveness and viewfinder quality are not quite up to dSLR standards, the S3's versatility, especially its movie mode and articulating LCD viewfinder, is unmatched by any dSLR available today. If you have a need for megazoom focal lengths, the S3 IS also represents a terrific value; while dSLR image-stabilized long focal length lenses sell for thousands of dollars, the S3 IS can be had for under $500, image-stabilized zoom lens included. Please have a look at our sample pictures to see what this camera is capable of.

[VaSteve]

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts


I may be crazy, but I think this whole SLR "craze" is overrated and will soon become a thing of the past. I believe that that market is crying out for a professional quality camera that allows for interchangeable lenses and "real time" viewing of the CCD through either a big display on the back of the camera, or a CCD inside the viewfinder. I just don't get the whole SLR concept/benefit with respect to digital cameras. With film cameras, it made absolute perfect sense. However, with digital, I *want* to see what's hitting the CCD - not some redirected light through the viewfinder. It really seems to me like the camera companies are trying to mate the old technology concepts with the new digital millenium, and not really seeing the "big picture."

Just my opinion, I know that many of you probably disagree...

-Wayne

Yeah, I have to disagree. Yes, they are not perfect "consumer" cameras. However, they are more of a camera "enthusiast" piece. I love my D70. Took me 10 min to learn from my 6006. No wacky menus, no weird button presses. And it's FAST...really, really fast.

But, as I have said it before:
Digital SLR = 911
Regular Digital Camera = Toyota/anything else.

Many of us waited for a faster, better digital camera. Perhaps one of the other high digitals would have suited my purposes, but this is all a case of you have to know what you are getting. It comes down to marketing in this case...if you know what you're getting you're fine. If you don't...you're not going to be happy.

[Eli K]

Originally posted by Wayne at Pelican Parts

I may be crazy, but I think this whole SLR "craze" is overrated and will soon become a thing of the past. I believe that that market is crying out for a professional quality camera that allows for interchangeable lenses and "real time" viewing of the CCD through either a big display on the back of the camera, or a CCD inside the viewfinder. I just don't get the whole SLR concept/benefit with respect to digital cameras. With film cameras, it made absolute perfect sense. However, with digital, I *want* to see what's hitting the CCD - not some redirected light through the viewfinder. It really seems to me like the camera companies are trying to mate the old technology concepts with the new digital millenium, and not really seeing the "big picture."

Just my opinion, I know that many of you probably disagree...

-Wayne

Wayne, I couldn't agree more, it's a craze indeed. SLR, whether digital or not is a "specialized concept". General market can be very well satisfied with any high end/high resolution digital camera.
I view it as more of digital benefits SLR than SLR benefits digital.

[K.B.]

I'm no expert, but I have taken about 40 - 50,000 pictures a year for the last 4 years - 100 times what I did predigital, mostly kids in various sports at school where I teach. Here's my 2 cents.

Single Lens Reflex cameras should be purchased for the lenses they use, not the camera body itself. The camera will be obsolete in 3 years but the lenses are good for 10+

Nikon lenses are generally known for their accurate reproduction of color, especially human skin, hair eyes etc. - portrait cameras deluxe.

Cannon lenses are faaaast. Ergo they are known to be great for sports and action shots.

After using using a viewfinder for a while you learn to have "frog eyes". Each eye learns to work independently. You don't close your "other" eye as it is looking at the big picture, while your camera eye is looking at the shot. You just can't do this with an LCD. I also take a number of shots where I just hold the camera sitting in the grass on the ground or up in the air, as high as I can reach. A quick check tells me if I need to make an adjustment and shoot again. Who needs an LCD view? If the shot needs to be reshot, you've only wasted a few electrons.

[jyl]

What Wayne is suggesting (do away with optical viewfinder, use electronic viewfinder or LCD display) kind of makes sense, but there's a problem.

The problem is that you are not actually seeing what the image sensor sees.

Instead, you're looking at a tiny display - from <0.25 sq inch (electronic viewfinder) to 4 sq inch (display on the camera body). The resolution is low (typical 200K pixel, or less than 640x480). The refresh rate is slow. The color depth is limited. It may be washed out by ambient light (if on camera body).

So with the electronic viewfinder approach, you're seeing a very degraded version of what the image sensor sees.

If you have a high-quality image sensor, an optical viewfinder (i.e. SLR) is showing you something a lot closer to what the image sensor sees, than what the electronic viewfinder shows.

I think the electronic viewfinder is fine if you are doing documentary-style shots - e.g. disassembly of a 911 engine, kid's first steps, etc.

It may not be fine if you are doing other sorts of photography.

[island911]

Originally posted by island911
... optical vf's are less precise for framing, but more precise for focusing. .. seeing focal length.

having a EVF (electronic view finder - LCD) also often gives a live histogram. Where as the SLR's leave you clueless to clipping issues.

SLR's generally don't do video either.

I agree with Wayne on this one. For certain applications a DSLR is NOT the best tool.

[K.B.]

MY DSLR has a histogram, I use it often. You just can't see it until after you take a shot. What's so bad about taking a "preshot" of the intended image? Seems like a non- issue to me, electrons are cheap!

The only time I don't use a DSLR is when I need the portability or the low cost of of a pocket camera.

[island911]

Time.

yep, electrons are cheap, but time is not.

Woulld you accept focus as a feature that required taking a preshot? .. . .adjust . . .preshot . .adjust . ..

Yes I know that using the focus example is eccentric, wrt clipping issues. But there is no way that a "preshot/adjust" situation is equal to a dynamic/adjustment.

I *get* that a whole lot of people have sunk big buck into their DSLR's ...and thus what them to be w/o ANY short comings. The thing is, in this highly dynamic product-evolution (revolution?) alll you can do is pick a day to pick and a feature set (including price). . .because tomorrow it changes.

[nostatic]

there is another issue, but maybe it is just force of habit. There is a physcial aspect to getting close to the camera and looking through a viewfinder that doesn't happen with a display. An analogy is the difference between playing upright and electric bass. Both have 4 strings (or 5, or...), both are tuned the same. But the upright requires a much more physical interaction with the instrument. Same with a viewfinder. A display makes you have distance from the camera. Not saying one is better, but they are different and have zero to do with technology.

[island911]

Prosumer digicams all seem to have EFV's -- allowing old-school VF, Camera LCD VF, or on some, remote VF. It all depends on the technology.

[VaSteve]

Originally posted by Eli K
Wayne, I couldn't agree more, it's a craze indeed. SLR, whether digital or not is a "specialized concept". General market can be very well satisfied with any high end/high resolution digital camera.
I view it as more of digital benefits SLR than SLR benefits digital.

Eli has a good point here. My needs could have certainly been covered by another good digital (except speed I suppose) but the D70 provided me a 0 degree learning curve and I could reuse my 70-300 lens.

I was willing to accept the loss of "in the camera" image adjusting and the loss of a preview window for easy adjustments on the front end and no learning.

[nostatic]

prosumer digicams generally have crappy EFVs, and the balance and feel of the camera is different than an SLR. But I suppose that is technology too...

I have 4 different cameras (Canon SD500 Elph, Canon A620, Panasonic FZ20, Nikon D70) and I take different ones for different conditions/needs. No one camera can do everything that I need it to...surprise. But forcing the kitchen sink into things and trying to make a product all things to all people is a mistake. You have to compromise somewhere. And with a DSLR, I think the image and glass quality are the issues...leave the rest of the "features" to other cameras if it will compromise the important things.

[jyl]

Originally posted by K.B.
What's so bad about taking a "preshot" of the intended image? Seems like a non- issue to me, electrons are cheap!

Assumes you have a static subject in static lighting and thus all the time in the world to take a shot, peer at histogram, take another shot, etc.

[nostatic]

Also, with digital and a big card, I just keep shooing and toss the photos that weren't right later. I don't do a lot of fiddling with the camera or checking histograms, etc. If I'm shooting raw I'll fix it later. And invariably I'll shoot a bunch of shots from slightly different angles and lighting, then pick the one that works. For me, live preview is not a necessary feature but I understand why people like it. And like I said, my A620 is great for getting shots that I can't "see" like holding the camera over my head, etc.

[island911]

"... compromise the important things."

I thought Wayne did a great job of outlining the important (to him) things. And, I can see that, for his purposes, a DSLR is not the best balance of features.

When answering the question of best balance of features one really needs to consider the weight of the needs.

FWIW, At one time I was very conflicted about which type of prosumer technology to buy. (CCD or CMOS) As others have said, the DSLR's (CMOS) are the comfortable transition from 35mm SLR's. But for my purposes in the feature war (of the "important things" - including image quality, crappy EFVs... ) the digi won. YMMV --the old school paradigm still has a place. (obviously)

[nostatic]

Originally posted by island911


I thought Wayne did a great job of outlining the important (to him) things. And, I can see that, for his purposes, a DSLR is not the best balance of features.

he did. Which is why I don't understand why he bought one

But he then states that live preview is a critical feature to him, and how in the world can DSLRs not have it. Well, they don't. For a lot of good reasons. Hence, buy a different type of camera. But the 911 engine analogy is pretty good...kinda like buying a 911 then complaining because the engine is in the back, and that Porsche should change it because having it in the front is a critical feature that everyone needs...