Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Oct 7, 2006, 6:20 AM   #31
Senior Member
 
Monza76's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 4,093
Default

annie57 wrote:
Quote:
as someone who is interested in joining the SLR digital world, is there an SLR digital camera that can accomodate 20 year old yashica lenses? I have a panasonic FZ30 and luv it but just looking at what else is out there?
Check out http://www.cameraquest.com/adapt_olyE1.htm

These adaptors will work on the full E-series range of Olympus DSLRs, including the E-330 which combines live optical view and LCD "viewfinder" function.

Ira
Monza76 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2006, 7:00 PM   #32
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 163
Default

For $400 I could get a Kodak P712 with a 432mm zoom, 7.1mp,
hot shoe, and A/S/M priority, EVF;
for $600 a Lumix FZ-50, more mp, 420mm, flip LCD;
no mirror, no mucho $ for lenses.
Yes, the sensor is smaller, but unless you are doing weddings, skip the DSLRs.


romphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 9, 2006, 7:35 PM   #33
Senior Member
 
annie57's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,613
Default

thanks rompeg. I don't want to be a professional and maybe I should just work at mastering the camera I have. Can't believe what I have learnt from the Pansonic forums. Great bunch of people.!!!
annie57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2006, 9:53 AM   #34
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

(Note, I haven't read all of this thread)
annie57,
Don't consider upgrading until:
1) The camera you have doesn't do all that you want.
2) You understand what equipment you need to get the photos you want.

If you feel your current camera can still has some legs in it, and you can still learn more by using it... then keep using it. Cameras will only get cheaper or better (or both!) if you wait awhile. But once you find you can't do what you want, frustration will set in - then you should look at an upgrade. Life is too short to live with inferior equipment (assuming you can afford to upgrade.)

romphotog,
I'm sorry but you said something which is just so wrong I can't let it lie:
Quote:
Yes, the sensor is smaller, but unless you are doing weddings, skip the DSLRs.
I'm sorry, but there are more reasons to buy a DSLR than just weddings. That comment is just so blatently wrong I can't let it go uncorrected.

For starters, most P&S cameras have serious shutter lag (Not all - I didn't say that. Just most.) So if you need a responsive shutter, a DSLR is the fastest shutter around. I bet a few specific (probably high end) P&S cameras are as fast... I honestly don't know. But the vast majority aren't.

If you need a higher frame rate. Between 3 & 5 frames per second is common on DSLRs. If you are taking action shots, you will benefit from a higher FPS, and DSLRs have that.

If you need to shoot at higher ISO values (say 'cause your kid does highschool gymnastics - action and really bad lighting) then a DSLR is probably almost your only choice.

If you want the flexability of really wide angle and long telephoto (is there a P&S with a 17mm lens and a 400mm lens at the same time? All the long telephoto P&S I've seen have between 28mm & 35mm lenses. Not wide enough for fall foliage shots where I live. You can add-on after-market lenses, and maybe they are good enough. Not for me.

Now, are there P&S cameras with some of those features? Yes. Are there any with all those features? Maybe, I don't honestly know. But I bet its very few... and I bet they will have other drawbacks that you'll have to accept.

But to say that a DSLR isn't worth it unless you shoot weddings is blatently wrong.
The absolute real advantages a P&S have over a DSLR are very simple to state:
- They are cheaper
- They are lighter & smaller
- They have a larger depth of field (and for some photography, that is a *bad* thing.)

If you don't have one of those as a requirement, then a DSLR is worth considering. For my mom, a P&S fit her needs just fine. My dad went with a P&S but should probably have gotten a DSLR (and he doesn't shoot weddings.)

Eric

ps. Ok, I read this over again and concluded that maybe I over reacted to his comment. Still, there is useful info in this post so I'm going to leave it like it is.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2006, 1:47 PM   #35
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Just keep in mind that good wide angle lenses for a dSLR can be very costly. Furthermore, good long zooms for dSLRs are going to be just as costly or evenmore.

Some potential camera buyers will be more interested in good quality all in one cameras, such as the Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-R1 fix lens pro-sumer. http://www.steves-digicams.com/2005_reviews/r1.html

The 24 mm - 120 mm (35 mm equivalent) F/2.8 - F/4.8 Carl Zeiss Vario Sonnar T* optics of the Sony DSC-R1 is equivalent to high quality dSLR lenses in optical quality. A lens withsuch quality and reach in a dSLR is going to cost thousands (As claimed by Phil Askey of dpreview)A dSLR will clearly have to go two lenses to match or exceed the range of the R1's lens. Clearly with lenses of such quality,it is going to be far frombeing cheap.

My point is to say that there are competent pro-sumer camerasaround as well, such as the R1.

My point is also to say that individual buyers will not necessary want or need a dSLR.

For some others (such as me), a high end pro-sumer like the R1 will be more than satisfying. (If I should choose to go that path)
BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2006, 3:19 PM   #36
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

There are VERY FEW times when you can say a P&S is *better* than an slr without using the words cheaper or lighter. There are MANY times when you can say a P&S is *good enough*, though.

I'm not likely to settle for good enough, if there is some improvement to be made in technique or equipment, I'll try to make it. I draw the line at using a view camera, as that type of equipment dosent suit my needs. There are some things I cannot afford, or justify the expenditure.

I replaced my P&S cameras with a DSLR, then I replaced my cheap lenses with better ones, then again with primes. My technique has improved enough at each step to take advantage of the new equipment.

It may have been (HA!) cheaper to start with the good stuff in the first place.

So, that P&S wasn't cheaper after all. Whats it got going for it then? Its good enough, for some people, in some situations. If that dosent sound like you, then beware! A SLR is good enough in practically any situation, so long as you can afford to buy it and carry it. Understand the compromises to avoid dissapointment.

Iso400-800, f/2 - f/2.8 (shallow DOF), continuous drive 3fps, panning (something you cant do with a lcd), and somewhat specialized lenses all came into play when I decided to shoot an ATV race this weekend. I can clearly see that my results would NOT have been pleasant had I been using a fixed lens P&S EVF camera. For ME, only an SLR is good enough. In fact, many have found on thier own after following all sorts of varying advice, that anything short of an SLR is not good enough for general creative photography.

tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 10, 2006, 8:56 PM   #37
Senior Member
 
annie57's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 1,613
Default

thanks for the additional information. I digital SLR maybe later down the road. I think for now I will stick with what I have until I have more $$ and more knowledge!!!
annie57 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 2:05 AM   #38
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:
anything short of an SLR is not good enough for general creative photography.
That is a blatantly sweeping statement and I am in disgust. :roll:


I believe that itwill bethe creative talent of the photographer that will come into play most of the time. I have seengreat shots captured by the R1 before that are just as good an those captured by thedSLRs (With high quality lenses). I have seen R1 panned shots in the evening light beforethat are just great enough to beplaced ina magazine's front page/cover. I have seen city skylines captured at the R1's wide end that have quality so good, that I could easily say it was captured by a professional quality dSLR and lens combination. I have also seen closeup night shots of foliage & nature captured by the R1 with the ring light that are just nothing short ofbreathtaking.

And if you say that the R1 is not good enough for creative photography;

I have seen photographers with the R1 capturing artistic shotsatthe city of Paris/France. Photos that dictate artistic qualities and mood.

You may wonder wherehave Iseen all those great achievements: Well, I have seenall thosefrom the various partsof the forum at dpreview.com (Not all are from the Sony Talk Forum). Some of them I have seen long time ago, and some of them quite recent. Unfortunately, due to the ever changing patterns of the forum threads; I cannot point you to a definite location. (Try the Sony Talk forum and other dSLR forums as well)

The bottom line is; a dSLR is not required for general creative ~ artistic photography.

Quote:
anything short of an SLR is not good enough for general creative photography.







In fact (I would like to express this part), the R1 have a very flexible top mounted LCD that can enable photographers to shoot at waist level (Like a medium format), or atground level with ease. (Compared to a dSLR with the viewfinder) This enablesa photographerto capture candid shots of peopleor create a different angle perspective of the scene. (Allvery easily) Thestrategic position of the LCD alsoencourages creativity in shooting styles that can produce creative results.

Don't forget that with the live preview, aperson can see live W.B. (Fine tuning), exposure, and histogram presentations. This can encourage a person to experiment morewith different settings as well. (Compared to a dSLR)

The R1 also have a very flexible spot focus and grid-lines. It enablesthe photographer to seta tinyfocus pointanywhere on the screen and focus on a particular delicate object. (Even at the corner of the frame) This can be very useful in nature photography when you want tobe creative on a scenewith complex layouts of plantsand flowers.the RGBhistogram also enables you to check on the individual color channelsof the colorful nature's scene.

Quiet shutter release? The R1 can take photos inquiet art museums and (or) peaceful natural surroundings without disrupting the processes.

From my experiencewith macro photography, the live previewLCD is very important.I would never havebeen able to get inhalf the shots if I have to depend on the viewfinder alonefor composition (They're times that you can't have your eye to the viewfinder all the time). The varyangleLCD of the R1 will be veryuseful for macro photography or for countering the complex nature of nature photography. If you need to be creative as well, all thisbecomes all the more essential.

All in all:The live preview with the live W.B. & exposure representation, live histogram, top mounted vary angle LCD, spot focus, RGB histogram, accurate colors, great qualityCarlZeiss T* optics, andgreat image quality all make the R1 a very compelling nature camera as well.

Finally,there are things that a dSLR can do that which the R1 can't.Examples like adding alongertelephoto lens on, or having a faster or more fps in multi burst capture mode etc...However,do note that the R1 have it's strengths as well, which the dSLR doesn't.

The R1 is a unique camera!













BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 8:03 AM   #39
Senior Member
 
tmoreau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 477
Default

Yes, its a generalization. Yes, it suffers from the same problem as all generalizations, it is not finite nor all encompasing. Don't take it so personally.

Also, do you even have a camera? Seriously.

I have owned several types of cameras, and the shortcomings of an R1/Minolta A1 type camera are FAR more than you give credit for. OF COURSE they can create good pictures. Thats not what I am saying, and this is ALL I'm going to say. Grow up kid. Its uninformed advice like yours that leads people to think of cameras like the R1 as something that they arent, they are great tools and capable of many things, but they are NOT a dslr.
tmoreau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Oct 11, 2006, 8:12 AM   #40
Senior Member
 
BenjaminXYZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Posts: 788
Default

Quote:

Grow up kid.


Now, that is very insulting. :roll:

I currently owned the 8 MPSony DSC-N1, the old Konica Minolta pro-sumer and I'm planning for a dSLR too. (I have done many research)

Code:
and the shortcomings of an R1/Minolta A1 type camera are FAR more than you give credit for
dSLRs have their shortcomings as well. Every form of technology havetheir shortcomings today.

Code:
Its uninformed advice like yours that leads people to think of cameras like the R1 as something that they arent, they are great tools and capable of many things, but they are NOT a dslr.

And I did not disagreed about that.

EDIT:

BTW, "uninformed advice likemine???" Correct me ifmy above facts are wrong. (In my previous post)







BenjaminXYZ is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:07 PM.