• TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
  • Follow
    • Follow
    • facebook
    • twitter
    • google+
    • instagram
    • youtube
Hearst Corporation
  • TV
  • MOVIES
  • MUSIC
  • SHOWBIZ
  • SOAPS
  • GAMING
  • TECH
  • FORUMS
Forums
  • Register
  • Login
  • Forums
  • Gadgets
  • Tablets and e-Readers
Digital SLRs
<<
<
1 of 2
>>
>
victoriaxxneal
12-10-2010
Hi
Im thinking of getting a digital SLR but im not sure what i need to look for in terms of spec ,
Also can anyone tell me the major differences between a normal digital camera and a digital SLR .
The answer is probably really obvious im just not that good with these things
Thanks for any help
sirpipe
12-10-2010
SLRs have upsides and downsides.

The most important upside is that you take a picture of what you see in the viewfinder. Another upside is that you choose the lens you want.

The downsides are that they are noisy when the photo is taken because of all that mechanical movement. They are heavy ... and the lenses can be an additional weight. They tend to be bulky too, so slipping them in a pocket isn't so easy.

Each to their own. How serious are you about photography?
Darthchaffinch
12-10-2010
This tells you the differneces between an slr and a compact superzoom (pretty much same as normal comact minus zoom).

Look an avforums digital photogrpahy section for any help with anything else.

What do you want out of the camera?
clonmult
12-10-2010
I've always loved the sound of the shutter on an SLR, from the first time I tried the Canon A1/AE1 back when i was about 10 years old. The AE1 was still working perfectly 30 years later ..... that got me into the idea of trying to get the picture as right as possible in camera prior to any post-processing.

The big advantages (for me) with DSLRs are ...
- the range of lenses with generally considerably better optical quality than virtually every compact (or even bridge) camera.
- easily pop filters over the end - ND, star effects, skylight, circular polarising and infrared (which I'm aching to try)
- full control over shutter speed and aperture (although thats normally available on bridge cameras)
- picture quality is the biggie though. With a considerably larger sensor you get a lot less noise between the pixels.
- ability to use external flashes/bounce the flash off the ceiling/walls to reduce (or remove) redeye and improve the quality of light (direct flash has its place, but can give some unnatural results)

As others have said, it ultimately depends on what you want to do. If its just casual shots, then a decent compact or bridge camera is probably more than sufficient.

And at the end of the day, the quality of the pics is more down to what you do with the camera rather than any inherent ability in the camera itself ... unless you have some very specific requirements.
sirpipe
12-10-2010
A good list of positives for an SLR.

However, noise from a shutter might satisfy you as the photographer but it can be really annying to people around you if you wish to take candid shots.

Photographers who want reportage shots prefer a silent shutter. You can only get a silent shutter with a compact or rangefinder camera.
clonmult
13-10-2010
Originally Posted by sirpipe:
“However, noise from a shutter might satisfy you as the photographer but it can be really annying to people around you if you wish to take candid shots.

Photographers who want reportage shots prefer a silent shutter. You can only get a silent shutter with a compact or rangefinder camera.”

Rangefinder ... that takes me back to my first camera. I would have never considered one of those. Extreme niche these days ....

But I would have thought that any reportage photographer would primarily be after quality - which would generally omit the compact and be more likely to include a bridge camera.
brangdon
14-10-2010
Originally Posted by victoriaxxneal:
“Hi
Im thinking of getting a digital SLR but im not sure what i need to look for in terms of spec ,”

Any of the entry-level DSLRs of £400+ will be good.

The only caveat is that some of them include kit lenses which aren't very good, so if you are keen you may want to budget for better lenses. The lens is more important than the camera. It's really the family of lenses you are buying into.

Personally I like Pentax DSLRs, and their kit lenses are good enough that you don't need to replace them immediately. And you can get old manual lenses which still fit modern cameras, very cheaply second-hand. Manual lenses are harder to use, but educational, and usually very good quality.

Quote:
“Also can anyone tell me the major differences between a normal digital camera and a digital SLR.”

An SLR gives you more control and flexibility. This is a mixed blessing - to benefit you have to know what you want in a photo. It should offer better quality pictures (especially in low light conditions), and ought to be faster. For example, my Pentax can shoot 5 photos a second. I find this makes them more pleasant to use.

A DSLR will be heavier and bulkier, especially if you carry several lenses for it. Apart from that, the biggest drawback is their shallow depth of field. With a compact, usually everything is in focus. With a DSLR, often only part of the scene is in focus and the rest is more or less blurry. They all have auto-focus but the camera will often pick the wrong thing to focus on, and then because focus is so critical the subject you intended is blurry. A compact in the same situation would also focus on the wrong thing, but it wouldn't matter because the whole scene would be sharp anyway.

This shallow depth of field is also a benefit. You can effectively remove a distracting background by making it blurry, and so isolate and emphasis your subject. And if you don't want the background blurry, you can achieve that too with the right choice of focal length and aperture. This is an example of needing to know what you want from the photo, and of needing to know how to set the controls to get that result.
gemma-the-husky
14-10-2010
i thought infra-red was a film choice, not a filter - i am not sure whether digitals can do infra-red.

technically in a camera, a shutter physically moves across for a small amount of time 1/1000th of a second upwards, and allows light in to record an image.

in a SLR, the camera includes a (pentaprism) prism and a mirror, so that the image reflects internally on the mirror, which then folds around the prism, so that you can see exactly the miage through the lens - rather than an approxiamtion.

when you click the shutter, the mirror has to mechanically fold flat, as well as the shutter opening.

thats why they are much harder to make and consequently dearer.


i never use it now, but i had a fujica ST905 film camera, and a fuji 135 lens - and this combination was absolutely brilliant, although not a "name" in the way of mikon, olympus, canon, minolta etc.

at that time japanese glass was well well nigh unbeatable also - not sure whether it stil is.
dodgygeeza
14-10-2010
Originally Posted by brangdon:
“The only caveat is that some of them include kit lenses which aren't very good, so if you are keen you may want to budget for better lenses. The lens is more important than the camera. It's really the family of lenses you are buying into.”

Generally good advice regarding budgetting for more lenses, although in my experience Nikon's kit lenses are excellent. They aren't built as tough as pro-spec lenses, but neither are any of the standard models. The 18-55mm VR that is often supplied as a kit lens with their entry level models is excellent. I have had my camera for around a year and only just bought my second lens, a 55-200mm tele zoom with VR for £150. Not had chance to really test it yet but a couple of basic test shots in the garden are very encouraging.
Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky:
“i thought infra-red was a film choice, not a filter - i am not sure whether digitals can do infra-red.”

They can, but you need an infra red filter on the lens and almost all models also require an internal modification.
Eddie Badger
14-10-2010
My normal kit is two SLRs and assorted lenses - quite a bit to lug around and I wanted something lighter but good quality.

I had a look at the Panasonic Lumix GF1 and it was love at first sight. Ended up buying it with the 14-45mm zoom and the 20mm f1.7 lens and have hardly touched the SLR since. It's well worth considering if you want a good camera but not the weight of an SLR kit.

Plenty of reviews online, just google away.
brangdon
15-10-2010
Originally Posted by Eddie Badger:
“I had a look at the Panasonic Lumix GF1 and it was love at first sight.”

Indeed. I'd say there are 4 categories now:[list][*]Normal Compacts.[*]Super-zoom "bridge" cameras.[*]"EVIL" - electronic viewfinder, interchangeable lens cameras.[*]DSLRs.[/list]The GF1 is an EVIL. Much smaller than a DSLR because it doesn't have the mirror, but with a similar emphasis on performance, control and quality.

I have used an Fujifilm HS10, which is a bridge camera with 30x zoom lens and a lot of control, but it's small sensor didn't deliver high quality, and it's focusing and shot-to-shot times were painful to work with. It also had an electronic viewfinder which could be a bit laggy. So I wouldn't recommend it. A proper SLR with a superzoom lens (I have the Tamron 18-250) is more pleasant to use.

There are also weird things like the Fujifilm X100: big sensor, high quality, lots of control; but fixed lens and not an SLR. It has both optical and electronic viewfinders. It's so innovative that it doesn't really fit any of the four categories above,
tony13579
15-10-2010
I didnt get on with my electronic view finder on my olympus c-720uz. I found it grainey. I hope that they have significantly improved. It was impossible to find small targets and zoom in ... such as a bird of prey.

Back of the camera displays are usless in sunlight conditions
clonmult
15-10-2010
Originally Posted by tony13579:
“I didnt get on with my electronic view finder on my olympus c-720uz. I found it grainey. I hope that they have significantly improved. It was impossible to find small targets and zoom in ... such as a bird of prey.

Back of the camera displays are usless in sunlight conditions”

Apparently they are much improved - I've read comments on some of the newer Sony electronic viewfinders, apparently almost as good as the real thing, but with more information on display.

I'm still happy with mine, the optical viewfinder displays aperture, shutter speed, level of anti-shake in play, focus lock, etc. More than enough.

Normally camera displays are lousy in direct sunlight, but I was pleasantly surprised by my Panasonic FT1 - out in Orlando, very strong sunlight - it was absolutely fine.
JulesandSand
15-10-2010
This is a good place to start,

http://www.whatdigitalcamera.com/equ...igitalslr.html

I've recently bought a Canon EOS 550D, my third Canon DSLR and it's really good.

I bought it 'body only' and paired it with a Tamron 18-270mm lens, a good general combination IMO.

A more serious photographer would prefer several lenses rather than an 'one for all'.
clonmult
15-10-2010
Originally Posted by JulesandSand:
“I bought it 'body only' and paired it with a Tamron 18-270mm lens, a good general combination IMO.

A more serious photographer would prefer several lenses rather than an 'one for all'.”

Even a more serious photographer would appreciate the benefits of a decent walkabout lens.

I'm using a Sigma 28-300, which was bought whilst on holiday when my Sony 17-70 croaked (leaving me with a 70-300). Its a pretty good all round lens.

Doesn't stop me wanting to buy a bunch of others though
brangdon
16-10-2010
I have a Tamron 18-250, which I'm planning to take on an upcoming holiday along with a couple of small primes (15mm, 50mm). I'm trying to decide whether to also take my 55-300 kit lens. It's supposed to be better quality than the 18-250, and the extra reach is welcome, but I'm not sure it's worth the weight and bulk.
Oldhippy
21-10-2010
There are many variables for buying a camera at the bottom of the pile is the compact, then the bridge camera, then the DSLR.

I have been shooting since 2002, I started with a bridge camera...

you will outgrow compacts and a bridge camera as your eye and creativity change.

But....


The biggest factor that decides is budget followed by photography genre, there are many different styles from: Wildlife and landscape to people and machinery.

The compacts and bridge cameras, will struggle to focus on birds in flight and moving cars etc...

So the most important thing to do is work out a budget, then think about the following kit to add to the camera...

A bag ( back pack type is best)
Decent memory cards ( I use www.mymemory.co.uk) Spend a bit more and get one of the decent Sandisk Extreme or Lexar Pro cards, lifetime warranty etc and will save the images faster and will transfer them to your computer faster.

A memory card reader- much better that a cable to your camera and faster too... Also means you are not wasting the camera's battery... I pulled my camera to the floor a couple of tmes before I got the reader...

lens cloths (Jessops large blue ones are pretty good @ £5each) lens cleaning fluid...

Other lenses.. now this is something to think about seriously as the glass in the lens is your biggest and best investment. Worth spending the money on what is known as fast glass- ie. lenses with a constant wide open aperture of F2.8 or in the case of some 50 and 80mm lenses F1.4 this means more light can enter your camera....

A good sturdy tripod ( doon't be tempted to skrimp on this as it needs to be solid for slower shutter speeds or longe exp-osure photos)

Adding a flashgun.... There are cheaper alternatives to be had like the Yongnuo flashes from ebay two of those for the coast of a Jessops flash, then you can add radio triggers, umbrellas etc...

Then there are the studio type flashes, but that is for another day...

There is a new DSLR coming from Nikon the D7000 which is 16 mega pixels and should be good at higher ISOs.. If you have the money have a look at the D300s.

I am self taught, but it may be worth you signing up to a course at your local college..

Courses like this one might be a good starting point as you will then see things differently...

http://www.bca.ac.uk/courses/pt/photography.htm

If you want some ideas here is my Flickr page...


http://www.flickr.com/photos/sounds-and-images/
gemma-the-husky
26-10-2010
just one other thought

how much do you have to pay for a camera with a T (press twice) or B (press once and hold) shutter setting. That doesnt seem to be a standard feature on most cameras.

surely essentially for any night time shots etc.
clonmult
26-10-2010
Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky:
“just one other thought

how much do you have to pay for a camera with a T (press twice) or B (press once and hold) shutter setting. That doesnt seem to be a standard feature on most cameras.

surely essentially for any night time shots etc.”

Never known them described like that.

The shutter button has tended to be half way press for focus, all the rest of the way to take a picture.

Timed/long exposures is normally readily available on all SLRs and probably all bridge cameras. Its an unlikely feature on compacts, although they may have an option that gives longer exposures (Panasonics FT1 has a fireworks mode that give a longer exposure).
dodgygeeza
27-10-2010
T is time, B is bulb and as far as I'm aware is a pretty much standard setting on all SLR's, although for time exposures you will probably have to buy some sort of remote release, either corded or wireless. You will probably be able to make bulb exposures handheld using just the normal shutter release button but unless you're going for artistic blur I wouldn't bother
gemma-the-husky
27-10-2010
T & B

if you want to take say star trails, with a 30 minute exposure - you need to open the lens, and leave it open for 30 mins. So you need a lens setting that lets you do this.

T - Time, actually takes 2 clicks - 1 to open the shutter and a second to close it - obviously the best solution.
B - (I thought was Brief, but could be Bulb), - 1 click and hold, keeps the shutter open, and closes on release.

so you need a shutter release cable to avoid jerking the camera - which is why there is a screw thread in a SLR shutter button.
clonmult
27-10-2010
Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky:
“T & B

if you want to take say star trails, with a 30 minute exposure - you need to open the lens, and leave it open for 30 mins. So you need a lens setting that lets you do this.

T - Time, actually takes 2 clicks - 1 to open the shutter and a second to close it - obviously the best solution.
B - (I thought was Brief, but could be Bulb), - 1 click and hold, keeps the shutter open, and closes on release.

so you need a shutter release cable to avoid jerking the camera - which is why there is a screw thread in a SLR shutter button.”

There used to be screw threads in SLR shutter buttons (fond memories of my 35mm SLRs), but nowadays its all electronic equivalents.

B definitely used to be bulb.

But if you're doing star trails, you'll want either a gigantic lens or some way of connecting to a telescope?
GaseousClay
27-10-2010
Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky:
“T - Time, actually takes 2 clicks - 1 to open the shutter and a second to close it - obviously the best solution.
B - (I thought was Brief, but could be Bulb), - 1 click and hold, keeps the shutter open, and closes on release.

so you need a shutter release cable to avoid jerking the camera - which is why there is a screw thread in a SLR shutter button.”

My Canon eos300d has the bulb setting as you've described above, however if you use the optional wireless remote controller, it operates similar to the timed setting.
gemma-the-husky
27-10-2010
Originally Posted by clonmult:
“There used to be screw threads in SLR shutter buttons (fond memories of my 35mm SLRs), but nowadays its all electronic equivalents.

B definitely used to be bulb.

But if you're doing star trails, you'll want either a gigantic lens or some way of connecting to a telescope?”

you get pretty star trails with say a 200mm lens, i would think

you dont have to have a telescope
clonmult
27-10-2010
Originally Posted by gemma-the-husky:
“you get pretty star trails with say a 200mm lens, i would think

you dont have to have a telescope”

We had a gigantic telescope years back and were looking at connecting one of the SLRs to it, but had issues with tracking - photos of the moon would have been awesome, but it moved too fast at the magnification we were intending to use .....

I've got a tripod on the way, a 28-300 zoom, DSLR with remote release .... so program mode, one long exposure ..... probably spent out in a field in the middle of nowhere .....

Ta for mentioning star trails, should be fun!
<<
<
1 of 2
>>
>
VIEW DESKTOP SITE TOP

JOIN US HERE

  • Facebook
  • Twitter

Hearst Corporation

Hearst Corporation

DIGITAL SPY, PART OF THE HEARST UK ENTERTAINMENT NETWORK

© 2015 Hearst Magazines UK is the trading name of the National Magazine Company Ltd, 72 Broadwick Street, London, W1F 9EP. Registered in England 112955. All rights reserved.

  • Terms & Conditions
  • Privacy Policy
  • Cookie Policy
  • Complaints
  • Site Map