Community Newsletter: Q&A: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras

Wow! Bold statements.

The problem with your post is that it reflects the same thinking that my Toyota has all the sophistication and features of a Porsche. Yes they both drive, they both have air conditioning and similar features. One major thing sets them apart, the Porsche is made as a high performance high end luxury vehicle that handles well and has a feel of its own in terms of responsiveness to driving. The Toyota can't compare they are 2 different animals.

There is no such thing as an SLR-like camera. This is a sales tactic for the unsuspecting. True some non SLR cameras may have some of the same features and yes many are sophisticated, but that means nothing if you are in the middle of a photo shoot and the camera locks up because of poorly written software that runs the camera.

There is no mystique to an SLR. With the SLR your are looking through the lens at your subject. There are some digital models that will look through the lens, but I am skeptical and they suck a lot of power.

The lens quality of SLR's are exponentially better than your typical point and shoot cameras. After all with SLR cameras you are mainly paying for the lenses. It all comes down to what the end product is - how the picture looks. Are any optical artifacts present because of poorly ground glass or cheap lenses? Would you rather go to a cheap eye doctor that cuts the bottom of a coke bottles and uses them for your eye glasses or would you go to the eye doctor that fits you with precision made hand ground eyeglasses with no optical distortions.

Many single lens point and shoot consumer cameras have severe optical distortions that are inherent in the cheaply made components.

Some people actually like to look through their lens and compose a photograph using the lens instead of post production using computer software. You also can grow and experiment with different types of lenses on an SLR. Does your point and shoot do true non digital macro photos, can you take fisheye photos with your point and shoot?

I guess I and the other millions of people around the world using SLR cameras must be wrong

Wow! Bold statements.

Yes, I have been taking fish eye photos using Nikon CoolPix 4500 which is a Point-And-Shoot camera

Sing

Selecting a digital SLR for newbies

In reply to: Newbie to dSLR: Taking the next step beyond point-and-shoot cameras by Lee Koo (ADMIN) 

Well, this goes beyond your question, but I’m going to suggest that you reconsider the move to a DSLR. Personally I find the move to DSLR’s hard to understand, and I think that the camera industry could make a much better camera, that almost (ALMOST !!) all non-professional photographers would prefer to a DSLR, if it wasn’t for the “mystique” of being a DSLR.

Now let me say that I’m a fairly sophisticated photographer, and I’ve owned SLRs with multiple lenses ever since my Minolta SRT-101 back around 1970. And all of my film cameras were SLRs. But there were two reasons for that:

-I wanted “what you see is what you get” -- a viewfinder image that was exactly what I would shoot
-I wanted lens flexibility, wide angle to long telephoto

But in a digital camera, “what you see is what you get” is inherent ... you can’t get anything other than the image you will actually shoot through the very same sensor that records the image when you do shoot.

And as for lenses, where I am suggesting that you do go is to a “super zoom”, a non-SLR camera with a 10:1 or 12: zoom lens .... in terms of 35mm equivalents, a lens that is roughly 24mm to 290mm.

Thus, I think that in the rush to DSLRs, the entire reason for [film] SLRs in the first place has been lost, and the industry and the consumers have made a move that really doesn’t make a whole lot of sense.

So tell me, are you so professional (definitely some photographers are), or so perfectionist (and that is your right also) that the lenses in “super zooms” really are not acceptable, and you must actually change lenses to get acceptable wide angle and zoom? Because for myself, I’ve found that not being a professional photographer, and taking pictures for my own pleasure during my own vacations and leisure activies, the act of carrying around a camera bag with multiple lenses that borders on being a suitcase, and fooling with those lenses and other accessories detracts from my own enjoyment of the moment.

Yes, I want the pictures, and so I’m willing to carry around a relatively large and heavy, relatively sophisticated camera. But not a whole suitcase of lenses, etc. And if you are not going to be changing lenses, then the whole point of an SLR starts to get lost. I mean, what does all of the mechanical complexity and cost of a flip-up reflex lens system really buy you? It only really buys you two things, interchangeable lenses, and a true optical viewfinder (more on that below).

So what should you be looking for? And as much to the point, what should the camera companies be making for customers like me who take a lot of pictures, who understand exposure and depth of field and composition, but who don’t want the pleasure of a vacation experience to be burdened by equipment that, really, only a professional photographer would NEED:

1. An SLR-like “Super-Zoom” camera with one really good fixed lens that is likely to meet all of your needs. 24 to 290mm, give or take at bit at either or both ends (but not less than 10:1). And all of the features (and complexity and sophistication) of an SLR. But no reflex optics, and no interchangeable lenses.

2. An electronic viewfinder that is as good as optical. Bright, very high resolution and refreshed fast (at least 60 times per second). Easily possible; but many cameras “cheap out” and don’t do it.

3. A large image sensor, possibly 35mm full-frame, but not less than APS size. Big enough, and good enough, that ISO 800 (and maybe even 1,600) is not only present, but useable.

4. Good, effective image stabilization (electronic or mechanical)

The 3rd point is really WHY DSLRs generally are superior to non DSLR cameras; yet, there is no actual connection between having a reflex SLR mechanism or not and the sensor size. The advantage of a large sensor is low noise, which in turn enables good results at high speed (e.g. low-noise high ISO performance). Most non-DSLRs still use “tiny” sensors (6 to 10 megapixels in a sensor the size of the eraser on a #2 pencil), but a few do use APS size sensors (sensors the size of the film negative on an APS camera), while most DSLRs use sensors the size of a 35mm negative. But there’s no reason that a non DSLR can’t use a full-size sensor, and, actually, for most people an APS size sensor (and these do exist in some non-DSLR cameras) probably is good enough. Of course, it’s harder to do a high-ratio, high-quality lens with a larger image sensor, but it’s not impossible: Tamron has been making some very good quality 28-200mm and 28-300mm lenses for FILM SLR cameras for more than a decade. But this is another reason that an APS sized sensor (but nothing smaller) may be most appropriate.

So why not go SLR?:

-SLR’s generally cannot do video
-SLR’s have really serious problems with dust & dirt getting on the image sensor
-SLR’s are mechanically complex for no really justifiable reason
-SLR’s cost more ... STARTING about double what some very good “Super Zoom” cameras cost

Now no one makes the perfect “Super Zoom” ... yet. But there are some cameras that are very close. As an admitted Fuji fan, I like the Fuji S6000fd (only about $330) and the S9000 (about $100 more). And there are some other very good (perhaps better) choices. But the “perfect” Super Zoom is not far from being realized, and when all things are considered, even existing choices may come closer to meeting your needs than a DSLR unless your really NEED to be able to change lenses. SuperZoom cameras like the S6000fd are very good cameras, they are NOT “point and shoot”, and they have pretty much all of the “bells and whistles” of the DSLRs, without some of the problems, without all of the cost, and with one major feature (video) that for me is a “deal killer”.

Now, however, regardless of the type of camera that you get, I have found the most useful camera site to be www.dpreview.com. They have detailed, exhaustive and very professional reviews there that will answer all of your questions that don’t require spending “hands on” with the camera that you are considering, and the forums will allow you to discuss your candidates with people who already own them and have real-world experience with them. It’s invaluable, and it’s where I’d start.

Best of luck; all of the digital cameras available today are so much better than what we had just 2 or 3 years ago that you almost can’t go wrong.

Regards,
Barry Watzman

Message was edited by: admin

(NT) I edited it for you Barry.

by Lee Koo (ADMIN)  - 5/11/07 2:12 PM

Yes and no ....

On the sensor and lens, it's possible to do a sensor that is low-noise enough for ISO 800 and even 1600 (a useable 1600) and still get good performance with a high lens ratio (10:1 or more). Tamron has been making 8:1 and 10:1 zoom lenses (28-300mm) for FILM 35mm cameras since the early 1990's that are quite good. In fact, I'd argue that the Fuji S6000fd already has a fully acceptable combination of lens and sensor, but it lacks one feature that, thus far, Fuji has been "behind" on, and that is image stabilization. Reportedly, this is coming in the fall.

As to the viewfinder, first, there is a tremendous range in electronic viewfinders as to the resolution, brightness and refresh rates of the viewfinders. But a viewfinder that is entirely acceptable isn't a problem, some cameras have them. You made the point that "most people would agree that it's still easier to see fine details ...". But I'd ask, "is that even relevant?" The only real purpose of the viewfinder is to frame ... compose ... the picture for shooting. Seeing fine details isn't really necessary; the bigger conerns are seeing things in low light, and seeing them in "real time" if you are shooting an "action scene". And, again, it's all possible, it's all being done right now in some cameras.

My point to the camera makers is that while some products have gotten very close (very close indeed), and while all of the elements -- lens, sensor, viewfinder, image stabilization, resolution -- all exist ... IN DIFFERENT CAMERAS ... no one has put it all together yet in a single camera. So, camera makers: PUT IT ALL TOGETHER IN A NON-DSLR SUPER-ZOOM. It's a BETTER solution for most (not all) camera buyers, if you do it right. That means a good (and therefore somewhat large .... that's ok) lens with something like 28-290mm (35mm equivalent), 6 to 10 megapixels, low noise performance useable to ISO 1600, image stabilization and a fast, bright, high resolution viewfinder. You can do it; and we are not expecting it to be a $250 camera, this is, after all, a DSLR alternative, so $400 to $600 is not at all out of the question. All of the components exist (in different cameras), and some of your current products are breathtakingly close. But no camera manufacturer has yet put all of the pieces together in a single product.

And my point to Stefan (the original question) is that he's budget constrined to $500 to $700. Yes, he can get a DSLR (with probably ONE lens) towards the high end of that range. But it might not be the BEST solution, when there are some very, very good non-SLR (but NOT "point and shoot") "Super Zoom" cameras available in the $350 to $600 price range. He may get a better camera, with a lot more lens (zoom) flexibility and the ability to shoot video, and without the issues related to interchangeable lenses, and possibly for half the price of a low end DSLR and lens combination.

Focus does not have to be an issue ....

Fuji has a feature where you press a button and the center section of the viewfinder (or screen) "blows up" to the point where you can easily manually focus. A tiny "spot" of the image takes up nearly the whole viewfinder of screen, but it's so blown up that focusing is not an issue (indeed, that is precisely what the feature is for).