slr versus compact

[tarzieboy]

hi folks, i am getting the olympus 400 slr to hopefully get better photo,s in the sense of, low light shots, better quality shots of my great grandaughter, & many other items, do you think the cost will be worth it, as i think it will, your comments would be appreciated,,, john (tarzieboy)

[Ian]

Re: slr versus compact

The key DSLR advantages are:

• Larger image sensor, so more dynamic range and less noise at higher ISO speeds. Greater latitude for image adjustment.
• Interchangeable lenses.
• More flexible depth of field, so you can blur backrounds (and foregrounds) more effectively with a bigger aperture.
• More usable f-stop range - smaller sensors in compact cameras mean smaller f-stop settings suffer from more deterioration in image quality due to diffraction effects than SLRs. SLRs also offer the possibility if using very fast aperture lenses.
• Optical TTL viewfinder, great for critical focusing.
• Better AF responsiveness through phase detection focus sensing.
• Better low light AF - dedicated AF sensors in SLRs usually operate more effectively in very low light.
• Better system accessories.

There are probably some others..., but there are also some drawbacks:

• Weight and bulk (though the E-400 should minimise this problem).
• Dust on the sensor (again the Olympus dust prevention system is very effective).
• Mechanical noise - the focal plane shutter and reflex mirror on a SLR are more audibly noticeable than a compact camera's virtually silent operation.
• Lack of live view - most DSLRs (apart from the Olympus E-330 and its related cousins (Panasonic Lumix DMC-L1 and Leica Digilux 3) do not offer a live TTL view.
• Potential focus problems - SLRs focus using a second set of sensors (or the focus screen of course) but as these are not at the sensor plane, they can go out of adjustment. Compact cameras focus using the sensor that will record the image, so no calibration for error is required.
• Lens quality - there is more risk of fitting a poor or mis-matched lens to a DSLR, especially cheaper lenses and lenses not optimised for digital sensors.
• AF point flexibility - some compacts let you assign a focus point or points anywhere on the frame. SLRs have a finite number of fixed points only.
• AF lock reliability - compact cameras may have slower AF systems but as they use contrast detection instead of phase detection, they are less prone to problems caused by the subjects shape at certain angles. Some SLRs use two-dimensional AF sensors or 'cross' sensors to over come this problem but sometimes only on the central AF point.

In the end, there is no question that a DSLR is very desirable, but I probably use a compact almost as much, if only for convenience.

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: slr versus compact

hi folks, i am getting the olympus 400 slr to hopefully get better photo,s in the sense of, low light shots, better quality shots of my great grandaughter, & many other items, do you think the cost will be worth it, as i think it will, your comments would be appreciated,,, john (tarzieboy)

Great if you are willing to do so.

[tarzieboy]

Re: slr versus compact

hi ian & patrick, many thanks for your comprehensive reply,s which have given me much food for thought, i will come back to the subject later, bought this weeks a.p surprised the canon 400d only rated at 84%, good review though i thought, that is my second choice , should the olympus ,not come up to spec, on review, i,d get a better lens than the kit one supplied, i think my main concern is, would i use the s.l.r enough to merit the outlay,,, still thinking, regards,,, john

[Ian]

Re: slr versus compact

Ok, spell it out, Patrick

Ian

[Pops]

Re: slr versus compact

After several years with various prosumer's I recently purchased my first slr.
The canon 400d.
One thing I learnt straightaway, on this forum, a cheap lens will not do it justice. I started off with a Tamron 70-300 and, while it gave good results from 70mm up to around 200mm, it just did not come up to scratch at full focal distance. (not for what I wanted it for anyway)
So: prepare to cough up a bit more cash for a better quality lens in addition to the camera cost.
Having said that I never regreted my purchase for 1 minute and the darned thing is practically glued to my hand.

[tarzieboy]

Re: slr versus compact

thanks for that pops. i agree, as i read almost everything i can about photography ha,ha,dont think i.ll ever be a photographer though as i,m too lazy to go out & get the photo,s, but one never knows, i may eventually get the 400 d, any suggestions for a short zoom,,, john

[Pops]

Re: slr versus compact

thanks for that pops. i agree, as i read almost everything i can about photography ha,ha,dont think i.ll ever be a photographer though as i,m too lazy to go out & get the photo,s, but one never knows, i may eventually get the 400 d, any suggestions for a short zoom,,, john

If you just want to take family/domestic sort of pics why not just start out with the kit lens. It is the 55mm that comes with the canon, not sure what will be included with the Olympus.
You can think about adding another lens when you think your ready for it.

[tarzieboy]

Re: slr versus compact

hi , yes i had intentions of doing just that, but the ap review , which i have just read , says the images are soft with the canon kit lens, so why not get a decent lens to start with, saving the cost of the kit lens, do you agree, john

[Patrick]

Re: slr versus compact

Ok, spell it out, Patrick

Ian

[Pops]

Re: slr versus compact

hi , yes i had intentions of doing just that, but the ap review , which i have just read , says the images are soft with the canon kit lens, so why not get a decent lens to start with, saving the cost of the kit lens, do you agree, john

The kit lens of any camera will certainly not be anything like a top range lens but it is ok to use while getting familiar with the camera and it's controls.
Beyond that I feel it depends entirely upon what type of photographs the user will be taking.
Extreme closeups will require a Macro for instance while wildlife photography will require a telephoto. Being new to slr myself I'll let the experts in here make specific recommendations.
I did say that I started with the Tamron 70-300 but it was pointed out that it just was not going to be up to the job for me. (bird shots)
I since bought the Canon 70-300 is usm and the difference is amazing. Even this is not a top range lens but...it is adequate for my present needs.

[Ian]

Re: slr versus compact

I recall similar scepticism about automatic exposure, programmed AE and autofocus, all features we now take for granted. I wasn't around at the time, but I'll bet there were grumbles about letting the camera do the metering all those years ago .

Your feeling is certainly logical and I respect your preference, but I'm convinced that this is a feature that is here to stay. I don't see it as adding a great deal to the cost as all DSLRs have a screen anyway. It's not expensive or unreliable in compact cameras. It's early days, but I already find it increasingly useful (I'm using an E-330, which has live view, most of the time at present). It's great for difficult shooting angles, for candid shots and for some critical focus situations. Will pros go for it? I can see press photographers valuing the tilting down screen for over head views in press scrums, for example. I certainly don't think it's a gimmick.

Live view has a long way to go before it's fully exploited in a DSLR, though. Some compact cameras are much better at exploiting live view than the E-330. Olympus doesn't yet provide a live view histogram (though Panasonic does in their version) and you can't judge exposure accurately by looking at the screen - it's purely a status display and composition aid. There is no true live view AF yet (both the Olympus and Panasonic implementations redeploy the reflex mirror for conventional SLR AF rather than use the main sensor to determine focus) and you can't gauge white balance by looking at the live view yet. Motion video recording mode isn't yet implemented. But these are all development issues more than fundamental technical hurdles.

Consumer electronics companies like Panasonic, Samsung and Sony will make live view in DSLRs a standard feature, I'm sure of it. Not everyone will want or need it, but it will be there for (I believe a majority) people that eventually will.

You can use any decent DSLR right now using manual focus and manual exposure, but that doesn't devalue AE and AF at all. You have the choice

Ian

[Patrick]

Re: slr versus compact

I recall similar scepticism about automatic exposure, programmed AE and autofocus, all features we now take for granted. I wasn't around at the time, but I'll bet there were grumbles about letting the camera do the metering all those years ago .

Your feeling is certainly logical and I respect your preference, but I'm convinced that this is a feature that is here to stay. I don't see it as adding a great deal to the cost as all DSLRs have a screen anyway. It's not expensive or unreliable in compact cameras. It's early days, but I already find it increasingly useful (I'm using an E-330, which has live view, most of the time at present). It's great for difficult shooting angles, for candid shots and for some critical focus situations. Will pros go for it? I can see press photographers valuing the tilting down screen for over head views in press scrums, for example. I certainly don't think it's a gimmick.

Live view has a long way to go before it's fully exploited in a DSLR, though. Some compact cameras are much better at exploiting live view than the E-330. Olympus doesn't yet provide a live view histogram (though Panasonic does in their version) and you can't judge exposure accurately by looking at the screen - it's purely a status display and composition aid. There is no true live view AF yet (both the Olympus and Panasonic implementations redeploy the reflex mirror for conventional SLR AF rather than use the main sensor to determine focus) and you can't gauge white balance by looking at the live view yet. Motion video recording mode isn't yet implemented. But these are all development issues more than fundamental technical hurdles.

Consumer electronics companies like Panasonic, Samsung and Sony will make live view in DSLRs a standard feature, I'm sure of it. Not everyone will want or need it, but it will be there for (I believe a majority) people that eventually will.

You can use any decent DSLR right now using manual focus and manual exposure, but that doesn't devalue AE and AF at all. You have the choice

Ian

[Ian]

Re: slr versus compact

Live view in a DSLR is an option - you can use it or not. That's the beauty of it.

There is no comparison with the E-10/E-20, the larger and higher resolution screens and better refresh rates make the E-330 live view experience completely different.

I don't feel photography is just about the eye to the viewfinder. Witness decades of TLR and SLR (35mm and medium format) use with waist level finders.

I do think it's a challenging time for the established camera marques. A lot of changes are just around the corner and the CE companies will be the driving force, no doubt, just as they have been with camcorders.

Things do change, I can recall Canon being very dismissive of the Olympus supersonic wave dust filter and now something remarkably similar is featured on the Canon EOS-400D. That's just one of many examples you can find in history.

Time will tell

Ian

[coupekid]

Re: slr versus compact

Live view in a DSLR is an option - you can use it or not. That's the beauty of it.

There is no comparison with the E-10/E-20, the larger and higher resolution screens and better refresh rates make the E-330 live view experience completely different.

I don't feel photography is just about the eye to the viewfinder. Witness decades of TLR and SLR (35mm and medium format) use with waist level finders.

I do think it's a challenging time for the established camera marques. A lot of changes are just around the corner and the CE companies will be the driving force, no doubt, just as they have been with camcorders.

Things do change, I can recall Canon being very dismissive of the Olympus supersonic wave dust filter and now something remarkably similar is featured on the Canon EOS-400D. That's just one of many examples you can find in history.

Time will tell

Ian

I can see advantages and disadvantages of the live screen, I am sure battery life will suffer, but if that is going to be a problem, then you can always turn it off if needed.

You guys mention auto focus, (now excuse my ignorance, as I havent used a manual focus SLRs that often) I seem to remember that the old manual focus non digi slrs used to have a split circle, in which you could line up the verticles to ensure the subject was in focus. Why has that dissapeared from the digitals?