Digital SLR technology in a compact?

M

matman

Messages
1
Name
Matt
Edit My Images
No
Hello all,

First post on the forum so be gentle ;)

I currently have a digital kodak easy share camera DX3700. Its a bit dated now and i would like something a lot better.

I have been doing a bit of reading, and i am astonished at the difference between standard digital cameras you can buy in the shops and these SLR cameras.

So i would like the quality images an SLR takes...but in a compact size.

See this artical: http://news.cnet.com/Wheres-the-SLR-style-compact-camera/2100-1041_3-6197459.html

I am not interesting in taking thee perfect photo...i just want a camera that produces really good photos, but is also light weight & small.

I would also like it to have a decent optical zoom.

I like the sound/look of this one:
http://www.jessops.com/online.store/products/75930/show.html

But i thought i would ask you guys (the pros!) on what other models/cameras there is.

I know panasonic do a "lumix" that is supposed to be good...but having had a panasonic video camcorder that i wasnt too pleased with is putting me off.

I am happy to spend upto £200 but would go to £300 if the camera is worth the extra £100

Any help is much appreciated.

Thanks
Matt:bang:
 
You could look at something like a Canon Powershot.. latest model G11 but you might get a good deal on the G10 or G9.. unusually for a compact it has modes you'd normally find on a SLR, i.e. manual, aperture/shutter priority as well as program. It also has a hotshoe for an external flash.

A.
 
The style of camera you want is quite new and dubbed an 'ILC' for Interchangeable Lens Compact. Small as a compact but with a much bigger DSLR size sensor, and interchangeable lenses of course. Only from Panasonic, Olympus and Samsung at the moment, but more brands coming soon.

Pano GF1 is the best of the bunch but is over your budget. Maybe one of the Olympuses? Don't think the Samsung is on sale yet.
 
How small do you want it to be?

I have got a Canon G11... its small - pocket/handbag/ammo pouch size.

Does a pretty good job, has lots of manual modes like a SLR, can shoot raw files etc etc

However I'm fairly convinced its not suitable for shooting motorsport action.

It does meet my requirement of being portable and handy to use when my main aim of the day is not photography.

Going up to the next size (bridge or those G1 things) would defeat the purpose of getting another camera for me, despite any technical advantages. If its left at home/car/base its no use.
 
GF1 with 20mm pancake is no bigger than a G11 is it? But then you'd have no zoom and it's quite a bit more expensive I suppose.

Those new Fuji HS10 thingies might be worth looking into - still over budget though.
 
"I am happy to spend unto £200 but would go to £300 if the camera is worth the extra £100"

The cheapest new DSLR's complete with a lens seem to start at about £350. Used examples can be had within budget. A micro four thirds camera like the Panasonic GF1 is way over budget. I don't know if the high end compacts like the Canon Powershot or Panasonic Lumix range would suit you as although they have a higher degree of manual control than an average digital compact camera they are still not as responsive as a DSLR and have tiny sensors compared to a DSLR or a GF1, and they'd probably cost you as much as a used DSLR.

If you want to make the move to DSLR's it might be worth reading up on the subject more and buying a photography mag so that you can scan both the new and used ad's and get a feel for what is available.
 
Camera technology changes very quickly and the article in the above link is already out of date. The mirrorless micro 4/3 format mentioned is sure to generate enquivalents by other manufacturers, and there has been endless speculation on the Alpha mount forums, for instance, that Sony will soon jump on the bandwagon. This format dispenses with the optical viewfinder, relying on an image direct from the main sensor to provide framing capability. It's essentially an extension of the Live-View that many DSLRs already have. The image in the new format can be displayed via an electronic viewfinder or the rear screen and means the mirror and pentaprism of traditional SLRs can be dispensed with. As a result there's a gap that can be utilised to make the camera smaller, and also bring the lens rear element closer to the sensor. Because the lens mount to sensor distance is reduced it is quite easy to make adapters to use legacy lenses from many different sources besides those from the camera in question.
So, why doesn't every camera manufacturer use this method?
Well, there are still a number of caveats.
One, the micro 4/3 sensor, despite being much bigger than in traditional compacts is still smaller than most DSLRs (excepting the Olympus DSLR) meaning a higher pixel density for the same total number of megapixels. The technology required to keep noise down is therefore more acute. When compared with compacts, it's still pretty good mind.
Two, like compacts, micro 4/3 uses contrast detect autofocus which is slower than the phase detect autofocus used in normal DSLRs. Again, the new designs are faster than compacts, but you'll still have to work hard to catch birds in flight.
Three, the viewfinder, if the camera still has one, is electronic instead of optical. Digital display technology is improving all the time but it still has a way to go to catch up with DSLR optical viewfinders.
 
^Point four: an ILC-type camera like the GF1 is not going to be very balanced and will look pretty silly if you stick something akin to a Canon EF 300mm f/2.8 L lens on it coz you fancy doing a bit of wildlife photography :lol:
 
At a budget of £200-£300 you're not going to get the fancy micro 4/3's cameras. My recomendation at that kind of budget would be the Lumix LX3 (second hand at £200, or new for a couple of quid over £300) It's a good camera, with plenty of scope for you to control it (rather than the camera control you, as some compacts do) It's particularly well suited to landscape type work as it has a very wide angle lens, though this does mean that it's range at the telephoto end is not as good - in order to keep the quality of the lens up they pegged the zoom range back to 2.5 times.
 
Another vote for the LX3 here too. No interchangeable lenses but has full manual controls and RAW so loads of control. Lacks the ability to shoot pics with a shallow depth of field which displeases some but is good in low light and has a very good wide angle lens
 
"Lacks the ability to shoot pics with a shallow depth of field.."

Depends how shallow you want to go. It certainly has a wide enough aperture and will focus close enough to throw the background out of focus.
 
Do you mean it doesn't have an aperture priority mode?
 
eccles said:
<snip>

...there are still a number of caveats.
One, the micro 4/3 sensor, despite being much bigger than in traditional compacts is still smaller than most DSLRs (excepting the Olympus DSLR) meaning a higher pixel density for the same total number of megapixels. The technology required to keep noise down is therefore more acute. When compared with compacts, it's still pretty good mind.
Two, like compacts, micro 4/3 uses contrast detect autofocus which is slower than the phase detect autofocus used in normal DSLRs. Again, the new designs are faster than compacts, but you'll still have to work hard to catch birds in flight.
Three, the viewfinder, if the camera still has one, is electronic instead of optical. Digital display technology is improving all the time but it still has a way to go to catch up with DSLR optical viewfinders.
Click to expand...

There is no reason why an ILC camera needs to be 4/3rds. The new Samsung isn't and I doubt that Nikon and Canon will depart from their established crop formats and respective lens mounts.

woof woof said:
"Lacks the ability to shoot pics with a shallow depth of field.."

Depends how shallow you want to go. It certainly has a wide enough aperture and will focus close enough to throw the background out of focus.
Click to expand...

Unless you shoot at crazy close distance, like a few inches, you just can't get shallow DoF effects with a compact.

Even the LX3 with its f/2 lens is the DoF equivalent of f/10 on a full frame DSLR (using a roughly 5x crop factor).
 
Ahhh yes, I remember now... small sensor vs effective DOF
 
HoppyUK, what I said was...

"Depends how shallow you want to go. It certainly has a wide enough aperture and will focus close enough to throw the background out of focus."

I don't have a LX3, only a LX2 and all I can tell you is that what I posted is possible.

Here's a little example I had on my pc and it wasn't taken at a crazy distance, should be even more possible with a LX3.

5-3-2s.jpg
 
It's worth remembering that two things affect DoF, format size and aperture. However, zoom length / distance to object / background affects what looks like it's in focus on any format, as far as I know.
 
woof woof said:
It's worth remembering that two things affect DoF, format size and aperture. However, zoom length / distance to object / background affects what looks like it's in focus on any format, as far as I know.
Click to expand...

Strictly speaking, it's f/number and magnification (rather than format size).

For comparison, if you frame up a shot with a typical compact (5x crop factor) with the lens at 10mm and f/2.8 you will get a certain amount of DoF. To get exactly the same framing and DoF on a crop format Canon, that would be a 31mm lens at f8.75, and a 50mm lens at f/14 on full frame.

I'm guessing the rose was shot at less than one foot distance to get the shallow DoF, which you can do because the subject is very small. If it was a head and shoulders portrait though, if you don't want more than an eye in the frame, you have to move back, magnification is reduced, and DoF goes up dramatically.

This is a good DoF calculator www.dofmaster.com
 
woof woof said:
If by magnification you mean the same thing a zoom then it doesn't affect dof. All it does is magnify an existing out of focus area.

Look here, I agree with the way these guys see it...

http://www.film-and-video.com/dofmyth.htm

http://cybercollege.com/myths.htm
Click to expand...

I can't open one of the links and the other is pretty much illegible. Not sure what they are trying to say there, maybe something about field of view? I dunno, if so it's certainly a strong visual factor but actually quite separate from depth of field.

Anyway, I managed to extract this line, which is exactly what I was saying: "Bottom line: There are two ways of creating Depth of field; by image size and f-stop." Image size and magnification are the same thing, and vary according to focal length and distance. Format size is different, and fixed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top