Rant: Why DSLR's suck
Dach
Registered Users Posts: 16 Big grins
It's always been a problem seeing what your lens sees. In the olden days, you had to guess. Then, someone added a viewfinder that looked above the lens. A little better, but not all that great.
Then, the SLR was invented. It allows you to look right through the lens, and see exactly what the film is going to see. When you push the button, the mirror drops away, the film gets exposed, then the mirror moves back into place. Brilliant, actually. This worked for a long time.
Then came the digital camera. instead of film, there's an energized square with a lot of pixels on it (hereinafter referred to as the sensor). Well, someone figured out that you can now see exactly what the sensor sees by putting a small LCD monitor on the camera. Brilliant!
Then, in a big step backward, someone insisted on mounting an SLR mechanism on a digital camera. All this does is prevent you from using the LCD to line up the shot, which means you can't easily shoot over your head, around corners, or even below your shoulders. It also means the sensor is exposed to the elements, because no one has thought of trying to make a sealed camera body.
The only advantage I can think of to the DSLR is interchangeable lenses, which a lot of prosumer and even compact cameras are allowing you to use.
I don't have a lot of theories as to why the DSLR even exists. The only thing I can think of is there are a number of 20th Century holdouts who fear change, and want something familiar.
Why should I care? For the most part I don't, but every now and then I run into people who aren't professional photographers, but who think it's all about the hardware, and insist I will never be taken seriously as an amateur photographer as long as I don't have a DSLR.
Someday, I will probably want a high-end digital camera. But I don't want one where i can't use that fancy LCD to line up the shot. It's completely pointless to even have one on the camera if you can't use it as a viewfinder. And while we're at it, get rid of optical viewfinders altogether in point-and-shoot cameras. They all lie anyway.
I welcome comments, disagreements, &c.
Note: this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I don't HATE DSLR's or the people who use them. I just think it's the wrong direction to be doing research. If you disagree, I don't want you to be seething mad about it, but feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, politely.
Then, the SLR was invented. It allows you to look right through the lens, and see exactly what the film is going to see. When you push the button, the mirror drops away, the film gets exposed, then the mirror moves back into place. Brilliant, actually. This worked for a long time.
Then came the digital camera. instead of film, there's an energized square with a lot of pixels on it (hereinafter referred to as the sensor). Well, someone figured out that you can now see exactly what the sensor sees by putting a small LCD monitor on the camera. Brilliant!
Then, in a big step backward, someone insisted on mounting an SLR mechanism on a digital camera. All this does is prevent you from using the LCD to line up the shot, which means you can't easily shoot over your head, around corners, or even below your shoulders. It also means the sensor is exposed to the elements, because no one has thought of trying to make a sealed camera body.
The only advantage I can think of to the DSLR is interchangeable lenses, which a lot of prosumer and even compact cameras are allowing you to use.
I don't have a lot of theories as to why the DSLR even exists. The only thing I can think of is there are a number of 20th Century holdouts who fear change, and want something familiar.
Why should I care? For the most part I don't, but every now and then I run into people who aren't professional photographers, but who think it's all about the hardware, and insist I will never be taken seriously as an amateur photographer as long as I don't have a DSLR.
Someday, I will probably want a high-end digital camera. But I don't want one where i can't use that fancy LCD to line up the shot. It's completely pointless to even have one on the camera if you can't use it as a viewfinder. And while we're at it, get rid of optical viewfinders altogether in point-and-shoot cameras. They all lie anyway.
I welcome comments, disagreements, &c.
Note: this is somewhat tongue-in-cheek. I don't HATE DSLR's or the people who use them. I just think it's the wrong direction to be doing research. If you disagree, I don't want you to be seething mad about it, but feel free to tell me why I'm wrong, politely.
0
Comments
You want a toy that does everything for you. There's nothing wrong with that, but to me it's not photography. An slr isn't for you and probably never will be. An explanation wouldn't do you any good.
This is similar to telling a car enthusiast that automatic transmissions are progress and it's stupid his new sports car only comes in manual because you hate driving stick.
I have always felt that there was no better camera in a universal manner. I shoot with the Sony 707/717 for a few years and loved the live preview and histogram. The adjustable lens was nifty too. Now that I have switched to DSLRs I appreciate their strengths also.
When I lived in NYC my 7X7 allowed to get shots like this
Now with my DSLR I can get shots like this
Which one is better? Neither just different tools for different jobs. If you gotta have a live LCD then get one. Just be prepared to sacrifice the advantages that you get with a DSLR. If you want what a DSLR can give you then you have to live w/o the features the other options can give you. Photography had always been about making compromises.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
I'm still learning my dSLR, but more advantages I can see are no shutter lag and superior high ISO performance...getting shots I could not get with my point-and-shoot. And my battery lasts longer when the LCD isn't on all the time.
I'll give you one thing. My point-and-shoot's live LCD viewfinder does give me an idea about whether I need to go into manual exposure mode, before I take the shot.
As I said earlier, the LCD screen is horrible. The lighting on the screen is also way off compared to the actual image that's captured. It's made for previewing only, to see what the scene looks like. Not for comprehensive studying of the image.
Also, if you were to use it in the daylight, you probably wouldn't be able to see the screen anyways.
The only digital camera with an interchangeable lens is the Digital SLR. There are no compact digital cameras other than small body DSLRs (Like the Rebel or the pentax Ds) that have interchangable lenses.
Actually, Digital SLRs, like Standard SLRs, use a shutter, therefor they do have a shutterlag.
Well, of course what I meant was that the capture response time on my dSLR (Rebel XT) makes my point-and-shoot seem positively glacial!
But consider this. When you have to use the sensor to display the shot, you automatically build in a lag time for taking the shot. That lag time is one of the biggest reasons I wanted to switch to a DSLR. Also, the boot up times on the prosumers is ridiculous. The battery life is horrendous. The image quality suffers because of the smaller chips. If the lens gets damaged, whoopse, time to get a new camera. If the lens is a smidge too narrow on the wide end (the C750 went from 38mm to 380mm) either move back or, if you can't, too bad for you. If the lens isn't long enough, too bad. You want more than f/8 (or maybe f/11)? Too bad.
Prosumers are all about matching the needs of the widest number of consumers (most of whom don't know jack about photography anyhow). That isn't to say you can't get good shots with a prosumer, you just have to work around many more limitations to get those good shots. DSLRs take care of many of those limitations. Yes, they have limitations of their own, but by and large, DSLRs open a whole new world of photography for people.
But only those who are willing to look through a viewfinder.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
I bought my daughter a used fuji s3100 on ebay this week because hers was broken, and I had a blast playing around with it. Nice photos too. I suppose if someone was good enough, no one could tell what camera he used...???
Maybe in the old days they compared the "instant" cameras to the slr's too. The pendulum swings...
Dach, I understand your frustration, but you are lashing out from a position you can't defend. You need some vital pieces to the puzzle that may temper your view and cool the fires
I started out my pro photographic life with a Sony F717 for many of the reasons you mention, dust, live preview, no need to swap lenses, etc, etc. I used this arrangement for about a year. I heard all the same things you have that pro work can't be done on P&S cameras* and I have the work and customers that prove them wrong in that assertion.
However, I did wind up switching to the SLR format. The reason why is interesting, at least I think so, and so I shall begin my epic saga of "Shay and the DSLR" now...
What drove me to go DSLR was performance. DSLR's just have the horsepower to shoot fast action...well...fast. My 717 and 828 had a slow (by comparison and in actual use) shot to shot speed, a slow flash response, small image buffer, and pitiful RAW capture performance. I of course compensated for these performance issues by better anticipating what and when things I wanted to capture would happen. And I will be the first to admit the training was invaluable. But I reached a point where the training ended, and I needed to get more done, faster.
My other dread in going to DSLR was lens swapping and image dust. Now while lens swapping is still an inconvenience, the image quality boost I get from this arrangement has mostly made up for it. If you want a quality lens using today's technology, it needs to be 3x zoom, you start getting more, and you are going to compromise image quality.
When swapping a lens, dust can get in the camera and settle on the sensor. But in the 2 years I have been using SLR, I have only had to clean a sensor once, just a few weeks ago with a sensor swab and alcohol arrangement, the rest of the time (infrequent) I can use a dust blower to clean the sensor. So the dust issue, at least for me has been a big non-issue. Even my 717 had two little pieces of dust on it, but being a sealed body, there was nothing I could do about it. At least now with a removable lens, I can do something about it if needed. I won't go back and loose that capability now that I have it.
I thought shooting over my head and down low and on the side and upside down would be nearly impossible with an SLR. But as it turns out, it is nearly as easy as with a digicam. You just point it and shoot. I do it all the time in my line of work and it works just as good as when I used to do the same thing with a digicam. Now, doing so on an SLR is a compensation, so I do look forward to live preview and movie mode, don't get me wrong, but it is so easy to work around, that I don't worry about it for now and will wait for the merger of technology (which is now underway) to solve that for me.
My prejudice against the DSLR format has mostly evaporated since I began using it. I do look forward to the merger of the the two technologies, whereby I can get live preview (it's just dang handy) and movie mode and still get to keep the swapping lens capability on a camera with tons of image processing horsepower to keep up with whatever I am doing.
We need the best of both worlds combined in one camera, we don't need half of the equation dumped just because it is perceived to be worthless legacy technology. When all is said and done, in a few years time, we will all be mocking the very existence of the two separate technologies, heartily chortling that they had not combined forces long ago
Don't believe me? just look at gasoline and electric vehicles...the hybrid is going to bury them both, I am sure. Oops, that is probably a heated subject for another thread...hehehe
*P&S cameras, any camera that has full auto mode is a point and shoot camera. Lame-brains use the P&S label to try and denigrate digicam users. Just let such losers know that the Canon 1Ds Mark II is a P&S in P mode. They probably won't get it, but then again, what do you expect from a lame-brain?!?!
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
Wrong forum, must've hit the wrong favourites button. I'll get another coffee and try again. Funny though, thought it was ......
http://www.sherbrookephotography.smugmug.com
ginger
New definition:
A snapshot is a photograph taken with a point and shoot camera.
A portrait/whatever (real photograph/art) is a photograph taken with a camera with exchangeable lenses, plus whatever the really "good" photographers used in the 1800s.
Being that a Digital SLR is still a Single Mirror Reflex, it won't ever be able to have a live preview or movie mode. Mainly because what you're viewing is light reflecting off a mirror the reflexes when you take the snapshot. Meaning you're not seeing it through a sensor, so they can't add a live preview without getting rid of the Single Mirror Reflex system, thereby it wouldn't be a DSLR.
(That's also one of the reasons that digital SLRs have the same body as film SLRs, it's setup that way so the reflex mirror will actually work, not just to look like the older bodies. That's why all film SLRs are nearly uniform in that style as well, it's because that body shape works for the SLR system).
Movie mode would also be out do to it being an SLR. (That's why they don't have SLR video cameras).
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
Plus power consumption, with astrol, you want power, and long exposure, right?
Why have a pair of dress shoes if you mainly wear casual shoes?
Why have a shutter priority mode on your camera if you usually use aperture priority?
The reason to keep the mirror is so you can use the camera normally when not shooting nebula and galaxies ;-)
Having options is usually a good thing ;-)
"Failure is feedback. And feedback is the breakfast of champions." - fortune cookie
exactly. sometimes, i like applewood-smoked bacon, sometimes i prefer old fashioned hickory smoked bacon and still other times, only real canadian peameal bacon will do. options, options, options...
Portfolio • Workshops • Facebook • Twitter
how about the eggs, poached, scrambled, boiled, fried, omlettes???
gubbs.smugmug.com
Okay, perhaps calling it a "rant" is a bit overstated. But, it got people thinking and writing back, with well-reasoned and amenable responses (for the most part), so I don't regret bringing it up. But I'll save my rant about how optical viewfinders are worse than useless on non-SLR cameras for another list.
My radio show, My Smugmug site
I need fast glass, and that is only available on an SLR body. Make a nonSLR digital that accepts my $15k of Canon glass, and I will be glad to try it out. And while you're at it, incorporate a pair of virtual reality goggles since I won't need to have my face against the body.
I really think you're comparing apples and oranges here. These cameras serve different purposes. You get whatever one that serves your needs best. I know some have both and actually use both.
But, lets look at the real driving force. Market and profit.
Do you know who's number one in point and shoots? Kodak. Why? More women prefer Kodak when buying a camera. Why is that important? Shopping styles and market share. Men tend to go after the fancier, more, expensive toys, and women look at practical application compared to cost. They want a camera that will take nice pictures of their family, friends, and whatever else. They want it done easily and at a decent price. Guess what, they have it. They also look towards names they can trust, and Kodak is way up there with them.
So, if you're Canon, Nikon, Sony, or whoever trying to compete on that end, investing a ton of money to create somethng that isn't what the market wants would be bad business. So you do the best to imitate and then dominate somewhere else, read slr.
This isn't any different anywhere else. I want so many things that are possible tech wise, but I'm not going to get them anytime soon because the market is elsewhere.
An slr allows you to see exactly what the lens is seeing. If that has to go through any digital process to be shown on a screen, it is not, not matter how high the resolution, exactly what the lens is seeing. Pros want the most control they can have in taking a shot. This doesn't work for them.
So, until you get a consumer market that demands the high quality, quick response, and interchangable lenses of an slr along with its price, in a non slr camera, you aren't going to see it anytime soon.
It will be cheap enough at some time, and it will happen, just not anytime within the next 5 years or so.
I should be able to program my own features (or download other people's programs for it). The touchscreen lcd should be quick enough to allow me to control my army of robots which I'll use only for tasks not associated with taking over the world (I promise).
It should make me rich, famous, and good with the ladies
I demand it! If the corporations cared one bit about their customers, they would do all this and more.
http://photos.mikelanestudios.com/
I demand a point and shoot that thinks the way I do, and does all the editing, lolol.:):
In digital photography, it is possible to hope and wait for what you want, though. If two years ago I said I wanted 8 megapixels and better-than-film 1600 ASA for $800, I'd have gotten laughed out of the room. Now the pros trip over the bottom-rung XT on their way to the 5D.
Just my 2c
Art washes away from the soul the dust of everyday life...Picasso
Anyone remember this? It might be the happy cross solution?
Glass: >Sigma 17-35mm,f2.8-4 DG >Tamron 28-75mm,f2.8 >Canon 100mm 2.8 Macro >Canon 70-200mm,f2.8L IS >Canon 200mm,f2.8L
Flash: >550EX >Sigma EF-500 DG Super >studio strobes
Sites: Jim Mitte Photography - Livingston Sports Photos - Brighton Football Photos
I just wanted to say that one of the main "issues" the OP had with dSLR cams is that he couldn't use the LCD to frame the shot.
Here we are (actually last year) and his prayers have been answered with Live View
So there is hope and definitely anything we can dream up can be done someday.