Comments on: Dinocams – The legacy of SLR cameras in the 21st century

By: Polaroid Sunglasses

Polaroid Sunglasses — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 13:45:53 +0000

Well in my opinion, DSLR is much better that regular digital cameras.

By: Brad Templeton

Brad Templeton — Mon, 18 May 2009 13:15:12 +0000

Your points are valid, though you miss a lot of why many people will tolerate all the problems of SLRs. A larger sensor allows shallower depth of field, which is a must for certain types of photos. (It would be interesting to see if techniques could be developed to adequately simulate it. This should be doable on static shots but much arder on dynamic ones.)

Larger sensors also produce much lower noise. That's why my full frame 5D can shoot at 3200 ISO with barely any noise, and can even do monitor-resolution shots at 12,500 ISO. I can shoot in a dimly lit room handheld. The other cameras can't and for now, this is a matter of physics.

However, there is a possible solution for the future -- lenses with integrated sensors, and a "body" that is just a holder, screen, computer and storage device. No mirror, so TTL viewing is lost, but as you point out, the mirror has many downsides.

You may want to read and comment on this issue here: http://ideas.4brad.com/professional-lenses-built-sensors

By: Jen

Jen — Wed, 01 Apr 2009 11:30:03 +0000

I don't think DSLR's will be going away anytime soon, but it is akward to carry around a bunch of different lenses to get the perfect shot.

By: Brian

Brian — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 15:52:05 +0000

Those are all very good points, but the one thing that makes my DSLR better than my decent quality small digital camera is the quick shutter response and focus. When I run around and take pictures of moving kids, the tiny delay in looking at the LCD screen and then pressing the shutter inevitably catch a blinking eye or a look away, while the DSLR seems slightly more responsive. Also, it is easier to see when the focus on the DSLR is correct.

By: DaveTheGrinch

DaveTheGrinch — Wed, 18 Mar 2009 14:42:34 +0000

When the Kodak company invented roll film in 1888, along with the factory processing and the phrase “You Press The Button and We Do The Rest”, they enabled the masses to embrace the technology of photography without actually knowing anything about the technology of photography. That paradigm is alive and stronger than ever today. However, throughout the history of the medium, we the human masses, have either demanded or been fed the promise of wrestling control back from the technology. Inter-changeable lenses on consumer grade DSLRs are one such example and, consumer grade DSLRs are another. Most people do not know an f-stop from an EV or depth of field from ISO yet they will happily buy $1000 worth of equipment that allows them to influence any and all of those parameters. The fact that these cameras have a green colored switch labeled “AUTO” implies that the manufacturer knows the skill level of their consumer all to well. How many of the (excellent, BTW) Digital Rebels would Canon sell if they didn’t have an “AUTO” mode? The advantage of prime lenses and smaller zooms are optical quality. Period. CRAP-IN CRAP-OUT. The better sensor the more CRAP-IN you’ll see (unless the camera is equipped with firmware to mitigate the CRAP-IN and then you will see the FIRMWARE-CRAP instead). However, nobody understands what they’re looking at anyway – especially when most are happy looking at images on their iPhones or poorly rendered JPGs on facebook. Could you reconcile the chromatic aberration of your lens against the Nyquist Frequency of your camera? Thought not. Me neither.

I say:
1) Let the people continue to buy interchangeable lenses. That revenue funds better lens research and better products for those of us who do know what we’re looking at.

2)Let the people take millions of pictures of absolute crap with their interchangeable lenses.

3) Let the people take millions of pictures of absolute crap with their super zoom compact cameras.

4)Let me take considerably less pictures with by film based, fixed, plastic lens camera or my film based, very expensive, professional, medium format camera with the interchangeable unbelievably sharp and pristine lenses that put all the digital consumer and pro-sumer grade equipment to shame.

Great post Leo.

By: R(k)

R(k) — Sat, 07 Mar 2009 23:44:51 +0000

Interesting post!

You overlooked something though- the crazy advances outside of photography that cameras have made. Most cameras now can print directly to a printer without cables or any physical connections. Tonight in fact, I learned my camera can connect to my WLAN and push pics to an FTP server, whoa!

I'm a little confused though. I think that what you really want as a user is the power of an SLR without the bulk or noise (I love the lockup, personally), but you seem to indicate that this new super camera could replace professional DSLRs.

I don't think it could, regardless of sensor specs or on-board processing, and the reason is that chunk of glass.

Cameras with fixed lenses can, as you point out, hit into the 10x optical range and generally look OK if the cam also has image stabilization. No cam that I have seen will go into digital zoom to a high degree without producing pics that look like they were shot with an iPhone.

That tiny sensor you mentioned is partly to blame, but the other part is that little all-purpose lens, it can't cope with long range distortions and definition. Where zoom is concerned, interchangeable lenses will always win over anything that is out now or will be any time soon. 300mm to 500mm equivalency from a lens that can also do 18-55mm? Hmmm, something tells me that's not likely.

Even with an *outstanding* sensor like those RED has produced for the Scarlet and Epic (go look at the Epic 617, holy cow!) you will still need superior optics in order to translate light outside the camera into the sensor. A good sensor simply can not cover up or overcome junk optics. Even if those optics are crisp in the near range, those same optics won't work equally well at macro or long zoom focal lengths.

The best lens designs are all aided by computers but that doesn't reduce the cost of manufacture- the material and quality of the grind and polish on the glass plays the biggest role in cost.

The legacy. Using DSLR doesn't keep one from participating in technological advances, it actually makes it easier, and certainly cheaper! This is where interchangeable lenses really pay off.

For example, when is the last time you had a superior lens become obsolete? It is the camera bodies that sink into obsolescence, not that chunk of glass. The sensors improve all the time, but like I said earlier, you still need good glass to make use of it.

Great post Leo, I enjoyed it thoroughly.

If you're interested, I encourage you to hit up:

Sigma, just came out with a RGB censor stack (one for each) for their new D14 - http://www.sigma-sd14.com/

Scarlet and Epic from Red go further than any other camera ever in terms of obsolescence protection where it matters most- the sensor and cam body - http://www.red.com/epic_scarlet/

A really excellent look at lenses by NK Guy - http://photonotes.org/articles/beginner-faq/lenses.html