BetterPhoto Q&A
Category: New Answers

SLR Digital Camera Vs. 35mm SLR

To love this question, log in above
July 22, 2002

The CCD, the device that turns light intensities and colors into digital data, is smaller than the standard 35-mm film frame. Depending on the exact size of the CCD, you'll need a wider lens (shorter focal length, expressed in mm) for the same image size you got with a conventional film camera. For example, if I like a 50-mm lens, I'll need to use a 25 or so to get 50 coverage. Lenses below 28-mm or so tend to be more expensive.
One thing in favor of Nikon's digitals is that they can use some of Nikon's manual focus lenses. For your applications when autofocus is not important (still-lifes, macro, landscapes) you can save money by getting the older and still very fine Nikkor lenses.

This problem will work itself out. As the companies offer bigger megapixel capacity, the CCD's may be sized the same as the 35 frame. So far, Contax has done that, but for the price of a good used mid-size car. If I were you, I'd wait. They'll get better and cheaper.

To love this comment, log in above
July 23, 2002

If you do a lot of wildlife, sports etc then a digital SLR would be great for you. But if you like landscapes AND you like to use wide angle lenses with focal lengths such as 19-24mm then you'd have to settle with composing landscapes with slightly longer focal lengths.

Personally I've managed and it hasn't been to big a loss for me. I love my 19-35mm lens which has now become a 30.4-56mm lens... and I still do. One advantage I now have with digital is I don't have to be afraid of using too much film and worrying about processing and printing costs cause I only need to print the ones I like.

Also you can get panorama software which you can use to stitch several of your photos together to make a panorama scene. You can do this with film but you have to process it and then scan it with digital the turnaround time is much faster.

The other difference which I deem important is the issue of dust on the CCD or the CMOS. As I understand it CCD sensors tend to use more power and hence has a bigger charge which in turn tends to attract more dust to it than CMOS sensors do... whatever the case you'll most likely have to clean the very sensitive sensor at one point in time.

If you like go check out websites like dpreview.com, luminous-landscape.com, robgalbraith.com has good digital forums for professionals (but its good for amateurs to have a read to see what would be issues could arise - just remember not all issues for pros are issues for prosumers/amateurs).

Just on an side-note I managed to pick up my D30 brand new for $3000 Australian which is about $1500US... they're hard to find now cause they've been discontinued but most places will sell them cheap now since the D60 is priced the same as what the D30 used to be priced as.

Hope that helps :)

To love this comment, log in above
August 05, 2002

I love taking pictures of anything that moves, especially children. Candid shots are my best. Well, I will shop around. Thank you.

To love this comment, log in above
August 05, 2002

Hi,
just wondering what kind of camera you decided on and how you like it. I'm beginning the search myself now. Thanks for your time. DeDe

To love this comment, log in above
March 10, 2003

Zerina

To love this comment, log in above
March 10, 2003

To love this comment, log in above
March 11, 2003

Zerina

To love this comment, log in above
March 11, 2003

To love this comment, log in above
May 19, 2003

To love this comment, log in above
May 19, 2003

Some of that class of camera can have features that even DLSRs don't. The Fuji had up to 1/10,000 sec, Video at full 30fps 640x480 (not 320x240 15fps as most others) and you can fill a 1GB Microdrive with 15mins of it if you wanted. It's last 5 frames motor drive feature was great for sports as you hold down the shutter and once the acton you were trying to capture has happenned you release and it keeps the last 5 frames (also has 1st 5) and many many more features available. I am not saying that these cameras are lacking in features as they are not. You can get beautiful pictures with any of these units and they are smaller and lighter than a DSLR.

None of these cameras are DSLR's though. I personally call them DSLR wannabe's. Their quality and performance is not even close. They are sophisticated point and shoot cameras. They are excellent for what they are especially when considering costs but they can not compare to DSLRs in performance. After I got my 10D, I was amazed on the lack of noise and responsiveness of the camera. The quality of pictures and the feel in my hands brought me back to my 35mm days (Canon A-1). A DSLR has a very similar feel and familiarity as 35mm SLRs whereas the P&S type although even sometimes similarly shaped are just not the same.

Of course, there is a large money difference. The Canon 10D which is currently the best in its class for the bucks is still $1499 without a lens and of course, the better quality a lens you put on it the better your capabilities of capturing a great picture (not accounting for lack of ability of the photographer of course).

On the other cameras you can only add a wide (.7 or .8x) or tele-converter (1.4-1.7x) and a filter (many of the cameras need a extension tube to be able to put even a filter on the lens) whereas the availability of lenses are endless for DSLRs. The same goes for all the accessories available.

If you do not Need a DSLR and do not want to pay all that money, Cameras like the Fuji S602, Minolta 7Hi, Nikon 5700, Sony 717, Canon G3 will ALL give you great pictures and all have many manual or auto settings to please virtually every photographer.

Personally, I will stick happily to my Canon 10D and the long (and expensive) list of stuff I already purchased for this camera. IMO, it's worth every cent!

Michael Kaplan
Montreal, Canada
Canon EOS-10D
http://www.pbase.com/mkaplan

To love this comment, log in above
July 25, 2003