Digital SLR's

by GreeneBerry - 4/11/09 2:12 AM

In Reply to: Digital - vs - Dsl by Ancient-One

I very much appreciated your reply. I hope you won't mind if, as an old amateur (more video than stills), I ask you, as the ex pro. a couple or three banal questions.

1) When I used 35mm film and an SLR, I seem to recall that the advantages were that my viewfinder was almost WYSIWYG, particularly of the frame composition, and ...

2) I could attach alternative lenses very quickly with the bayonet type fitting.

3) None the less I would often take several shots of the same subject with slight alterations just to be more certain of a "result." That was a bit expensive on film, but the worst penalty was probably the need to load film more often. That led me to the need of a second cheaper camera that I used for "snapping" if necessary.

Here are my digital SLR questions: -

Surely nearly ALL digital cameras have a WYSIWYG viewfinder. The real need becomes an eye piece alternative so as to be able to see in the sun, or when in a situation where the picture viewer is obtrusive to others.

Lens swapping. It's not an operational advantage to be able to swap lenses unless they bring something that can't be had any other way. They are just more expensive bulk to carry around. Some of these cameras are so full of features that you hardly need another lens.

These modern cameras do a good job of automating the dynamics. Over-rides and partial o/rides aren't needed that much. I am used to video where one needs to have an eye on so much going on that any automated features are a definite boon. {e.g. Focus, colour temperature & exposure}. The same features in a stills camera do not offend me. Should they?

Automation takes the old fashioned fun out of things but removes it to a different place. I mean the modern "dark room" where the editing possibilities can be daunting, but very rewarding.

Therefore please tell me, what is the real advantage of a modern dSLR?