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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Nov 27, 2003, 1:10 PM   #1
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 8
Default Digital vs Digital SLR ? F828 vs Rebel ?

I am going to buy a new camera and am considering the Digital Rebel or the F828. I have done a lot of research but the one question that remains unanswered is, what is the difference between digital and DSLR??

I know the DSLRs have changeable lenses and the view finder sees through the actual lens but that doesn't answer my question as to why they provide so much higher quality images even for the same number of pixels?

Is it only because you can use better lenses?

I also noticed that with the digitals, they have specs that describe the size of the "CCD" . Where as the SLR specs sometimes describe it as a "CMOS image sensor plate". I am assuming they are the same thing but maybe not? Is this the source of the improved quality? What's the difference?

What factor does pixel count play? I had thought that more pixels essentially equaled better quality but this is obviously not the case?

I want the F828 for the features but after seeing the Rebel sample photos I am very impressed. For only a 6mp camera the quality of the photos is unbelievable and much better than any similar MP normal digital cameras, which makes me think the sony will not be able to match it in quality, despite it's 8mp spec.
brisky is offline   Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
Old Nov 27, 2003, 4:04 PM   #2
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Posts: 77
Default Re: Digital vs Digital SLR ? F828 vs Rebel ?

Quote:
Originally Posted by brisky
I am going to buy a new camera and am considering the Digital Rebel or the F828. I have done a lot of research but the one question that remains unanswered is, what is the difference between digital and DSLR??

I know the DSLRs have changeable lenses and the view finder sees through the actual lens but that doesn't answer my question as to why they provide so much higher quality images even for the same number of pixels?

Is it only because you can use better lenses?

I also noticed that with the digitals, they have specs that describe the size of the "CCD" . Where as the SLR specs sometimes describe it as a "CMOS image sensor plate". I am assuming they are the same thing but maybe not? Is this the source of the improved quality? What's the difference?

What factor does pixel count play? I had thought that more pixels essentially equaled better quality but this is obviously not the case?

I want the F828 for the features but after seeing the Rebel sample photos I am very impressed. For only a 6mp camera the quality of the photos is unbelievable and much better than any similar MP normal digital cameras, which makes me think the sony will not be able to match it in quality, despite it's 8mp spec.
SLRs normally come with added baggage (not bad baggage). I can't 100% say why SLRs are top-notch compared to P&S other than the fact that is how manufacturers make them to be. P&S cameras such as the F828 are built with the newbie photographer in mind. Little features, compact size, along with inferior technology. Your grandmother won't likely notice that the camera cannot handle highlights very well - for example. It's basically built for people who literally just wants to Point & Shoot.

SLRs are more for hobbyists and professionals who take photography a bit more seriously. At this level, people will be fickle towards image quality and image sharpness. When you're shooting for a magazine or selling fine art, of course it matters.

Lenses play a huge factor in image quality. You will hear people suggest that you should buy a cheap SLR (ie. 300D, 10D, D100) and invest on quality lenses than vice versa. Optics seem to progress at a slower rate than Camera bodies, and especially with digital, there is such a huge room for improvement in making the internals work better. There are still a lot of professionals and hobbyists who use old lenses to produce quality results. Having said that, a $200 zoom lens might not be a good investment (although I hear the f1.8 50mm Canon - $80US - is a very good buy though).

As for CMOS and CCD, it is just the type of chip/plate used to gather light. All compact digicams use CCD, while CMOS is often used in SLRs. Neither one seems to be better than the other. Both have advantages/weaknesses. People will say that it's the CMOS that gives the 10D and 300D that silky-smooth look. But, you'll also have to think about the internals that support the chip.

Personally, I'd go with the 300D Rebel over the Cybershot F828. From what I've been reading, the F828 doesn't look like a good camera for sports (which I do quite a lot with). The 300D is quite versatile, because all of a sudden, you have 40 Canon lenses to choose from (not to mention 3rd party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, etc). However, the F828 wouldn't be a bad choice either. Its lens is super sharp, and image capture capabilities are excellent.

Regards,

Oz
The_Oz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 27, 2003, 11:54 PM   #3
Administrator
 
steve's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 2,535
Default

Well first off the F828 is far from a P&S camera, it is a very high end consumer digital camera with a full range of exposure modes and options. And it has a very high quality Zeiss lens and an 8-megapixel imager.

The biggest reason that the dSLR cameras yield better images is because the sensor (both CMOS and CCD) are physically larger than those used in consumer digicams. Megapixels aren't the only thing that matters. The F828 has 8mpixels but it is a smaller physical chip with the pixels crammed much closer together. The larger sensors can more efficiently gather the light coming in from the lens (which is also usually higher quality than consumer cameras) and because the pixels are spaced further apart there is less chance of blooming - if too much light hits a pixel it causes a loss of highlight detail and this can often "spill over" onto adjacent pixels too.

The dSLRs also usually have more sophisticated image processing circuitry and exposure metering systems. The lenses are usually higher quality and more importantly, they're physically larger in diameter which improves the optical quality.

For some buyers the F828 will be the one because it has all they need and they don't want to have to buy and carry extra lenses. For others the dSLR is more attractive because of its interchangeable lenses, true through the lens viewing and shorter shutter lag time and burst shooting capabilities. Canon and Nikon dSLRs also have the benefit of more sophisticated flash systems as well as some of the best lenses made.

-Steve
steve is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Nov 28, 2003, 4:27 PM   #4
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 37
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by steve
Well first off the F828 is far from a P&S camera, it is a very high end consumer digital camera with a full range of exposure modes and options. And it has a very high quality Zeiss lens and an 8-megapixel imager.

The biggest reason that the dSLR cameras yield better images is because the sensor (both CMOS and CCD) are physically larger than those used in consumer digicams. Megapixels aren't the only thing that matters. The F828 has 8mpixels but it is a smaller physical chip with the pixels crammed much closer together. The larger sensors can more efficiently gather the light coming in from the lens (which is also usually higher quality than consumer cameras) and because the pixels are spaced further apart there is less chance of blooming - if too much light hits a pixel it causes a loss of highlight detail and this can often "spill over" onto adjacent pixels too.

The dSLRs also usually have more sophisticated image processing circuitry and exposure metering systems. The lenses are usually higher quality and more importantly, they're physically larger in diameter which improves the optical quality.

For some buyers the F828 will be the one because it has all they need and they don't want to have to buy and carry extra lenses. For others the dSLR is more attractive because of its interchangeable lenses, true through the lens viewing and shorter shutter lag time and burst shooting capabilities. Canon and Nikon dSLRs also have the benefit of more sophisticated flash systems as well as some of the best lenses made.

-Steve
Steve I agree with you.
I will add to your considations : the reson because a DSRL is better than a compact is that the lenses have a limited resolution. With the compact small sensors the resolution is non enouth to get the same results than wit a larger sensor in a dslr. The lens must work with higer spatial frequency and its MTF (Modulation Transmission Function) decreases proportionally to the frequency. So the detail of the imagine are soft and with less contrast.
In other words the problem is that with a small sensor you must enlarge the imagine to print a picture more than with a larger sensor.
It is the same problem that we have with the film cameras. A 6x6 has a better resolution than a 24x36!
In addition the lens for the dsrl are better than the compact lens (and cost more). You cannot hope to have a higt quality lens with a attached camera for a price less than a single lens.
FrancescoC 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 7:34 PM.