why only nikon and canon???

I have a canon s95 which i consider more than enough for most of my shooting.
It offers me video as well as high quality images which i can print at large file sizes and even canvases without much detail loss.

The reason i use a dslr is for macro and studio photography.
If the canon s95 could trigger the studio flashes i would give it a go in studio! :)
 
Rankbadyin said:
its just stuff he has read somewhere.
Click to expand...
Unless you do the experiments yourself, knowledge is generally gained from reading ;)

If you want to do some reading:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field

and particularly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field#DOF_vs._format_size

There's also:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion

which is more complex to get your head around, but it is the embodiment of the DoF maths in the previous articles.

For better higher ISO, take a look here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image_noise#Effects_of_sensor_size

The bottom line is the bigger sensor gives better pictures (in a variety of ways). It's why I have a full frame camera and not an APS-C sized one. It's also why I have a m4/3 camera (in fact I have two) because they give a good tradeoff of physical size and picture quality. The 5D2 pictures are clearly better, but there are times I'd like to carry something that is almost pocketable with me.

At the end of the day, it's down to physics - pure and simple.
 
Rankbadyin said:
Just to clear things up for those I seem to have offended, most of what is said here is correct except I don't think I said an iphone is better than a DSLR, I don't own either so could not offer an opinion like that.

I know little or nothing about Photography,
Click to expand...

But you still insist that those who do know have it wrong in so many ways.

You've never used a DSLR but you can tell everyone that there's nothing to be gained from so doing.

I like guitar music, and I have some opinions about some guitars. They might be valid opinions but I wouldn't dream of telling guitarists that their opinions were invalid if they disagreed with me.

That'd make me sound like a madman.
 
Rankbadyin - why exactly can't you afford a DSLR? My DSLR and two lenses cost less than a Sony NEX (even a used Sony NEX)

Most people commenting here have probably tried most forms of camera (I certainly have) and they have no reason to say they prefer DSLRs if they don't mean it, why would they?

You really need to try a DSLR. At least you could then backup why you don't like them but I imagine it would just be waffle. :)
 
Last edited:
Rankbadyin said:
Just to clear things up for those I seem to have offended, most of what is said here is correct except I don't think I said an iphone is better than a DSLR, I don't own either so could not offer an opinion like that.

I know little or nothing about Photography, I have never been able to afford a DSLR, I asked the question "What advantages a DSLR has over a CSC for a Pleasure Photographer."
The nearest thing to an answer I got was this ....

Originally Posted by arad85
It has a better picture quality for a given print size, has better (i.e. lower) depth of field for any given shutter/F number combination, handles higher ISO better, has a better range of high quality lenses, higher quality focusing system - especially for moving objects, better battery life, better in the hand for those with larger hands (like me)...


Should I go on?

Which to me is meaningless, arad65 does not attach any test figures to support anything said here, what does "better picture quality at a given print size mean" how did he measure Depth of Field. Better Battery Life, one battery lasts me all day, I have a spare battery and an in-car charger.

Which Cameras were used as a comparison here, was it a £500 CSC against a £5,000 (back only) DSLR or something else. Maybe a Leica M9 against an entry level DSLR, he does not tell us.

It all sounds very definate, unquestionable, handed down from above, but without actual test figures produced by a recognised body, it means nothing, its just stuff he has read somewhere.

I'm still reading this thread because in among the offensive posts made by some who have nothing else to offer, are some very informative and knowledgeable posts which add to my understanding of the world of Photography. If on the other hand you all just want to ignore me, chase me off the Forum with offensive comments, deride the equipment of choice, then thats ok. it happens in the Photography Clubs too and this is just a big Photography Club, if you think that the Elite can do nicely without the biggest slice of equipment buyers in the world (dummies like me) then carry on, I thought maybe 5 years but it could be less.
Click to expand...

Actually most of the offensive comments have come from yourself when you describe those who's views you disagree as 'waffle etc - it certainly seems that you have very little else to offer , especially as you have never used a DSLR

If you don't think DSLRs are suitable for you , then that fine - but to make a sweeping statement that they have nothing to offer the pleasure only photographer is ridiculous, and unsubstantiated

It is also odd that you accuse Arad (and my implication, phil, myself and numerous others who have wasted our time in answering you question) of not substantiating opinions with evidence, but then offer wholly unsubstantiate opinion yourself - where are your tests that show a CSC out performs a DSLR, where are the tests that show that the various points mentioned are incorrect.

oh and by the way on the thread about whether the gap between canera phones and DSLR was so great (from march) you said

Rankbadyin said:
dslr cameras, great for Flickr and.......... thats about it really.
Click to expand...

Which was an absolutely ridiculous statement with absolutely nothing to back it up, especially as you now say you've not used a DSLR
 
Last edited:
Phil Young said:
That's what I can't get over! It's like saying lamb tastes exactly the same as beef when you've never even eaten lamb!

That is definitely a new one to me.
Click to expand...

I've had both and beef definitely tastes better than a DSLR.
 
I am using Canon here for years because it truly satisfies my needs in photography. I don't even thinking of replacing it with either Nikon or Sony.
 
It was a good point to raise about the DSLR and what advantages they offer now over a CSC for a 'pleasure photographer'. The Nikon J1/V1 is faster to focus than the D3 or Sony and their brilliant APS-C sized 24MP sensor in the NEX7 with Zeiss glass and the Fuji XPro1 sensor noise and colour control better than the 5D MKII (which it also smokes at high ISO) the CSC is more than a viable alternative to bulky DSLRs.
 
It was a good point and there were many good answers why users of DSLRs had chosen a DSLR. Nobody said a CSC is not viable, there seemed to be just one person with a closed mind...
I am a 'pleasure photographer' (why does that sound pervy?) and I get most pleasure from using a DSLR. I am not right or wrong for that, it is just what I prefer.
 
Laudrup said:
It was a good point to raise about the DSLR and what advantages they offer now over a CSC for a 'pleasure photographer'.
Click to expand...
You could equally ask the question: what does a CSC offer over a bridge or even a compact?

The answers are identical as the same principles apply.
 
arad85 said:
You could equally ask the question: what does a CSC offer over a bridge or even a compact?

The answers are identical as the same principles apply.
Click to expand...

Then you could say what does a compact offer over a DSLR? A CSC vs DSLR is a more level playing field as you can have the same size sensors in a crop DSLR and CSC and change the lenses and the image quality and ISO of a CSC can match or exceed a DSLR.

Both cameras have their place though.
 
Laudrup said:
Then you could say what does a compact offer over a DSLR? A CSC vs DSLR is a more level playing field as you can have the same size sensors in a crop DSLR and CSC and change the lenses and the image quality and ISO of a CSC can match or exceed a DSLR.
Click to expand...
I have to say, I don't consider the APS-C sized CSCs as CSCs.. They're just thinner bodied mirrorless crop cameras IMHO. The lenses are effectively the same size as the APS-C lenses make so you might as well just buy a xxxD/Dxxxx IMHO. I always take CSCs to mean m4/3rds.

As long as you aren't pushing the envelope (i.e. heavy cropping and zooming or trying to pull a very low signal out of the noise floor) and you have well exposed images, quality will scale with sensor size. Not only do you have to magnify the image formed more to get a given print size (so it is easier to see any flaws), you are also making the optics work harder with the smaller sensors (HoppyUK has explained this several times). Of course, the newer sensors can be pushed more and still deliver "well exposed images" (e.g. ability to shoot on the latest FF DSLRs at stupid ISOs and still have a clean image will allow you to get images you wouldn't have otherwise got), but the magnification problem still raises it's head. Sensor size is king for "overall picture quality".

Choice of body, given equal sensor size, is down to a mixture of desirability, included features, ergonomics (i.e. handling), compatibility with other products you might have and cost. The tradeoffs there will be different for different people.
 
To quote myself...

arad85 said:
I always take CSCs to mean m4/3rds.
Click to expand...

How many people take the Leica-M9 as a CSC? After all, it is one and it has a sensor that is larger than an APS-C sized sensor (and produces images that are better than APS-C sized sensors too).
 
There's a thought, the variation in CSCs, from the Nikon 1 system to the Leica via all the m4/3rds and APS-C cameras in between, maybe the question should have been which CSC compared to which DSLR. :shrug:

The Nikon 1 system may have good focusing, but most others don't. And then that system has a very small sensor with all the effects it has on DoF and light gathering ability, and there is not as many lenses to choose from as other systems. :shrug:

The CSC sector really is a minefield. :eek:

I mean, with DSLR's you can just stick to Canon or Nikon! :shrug:















;) That is a joke btw, just to bring this thread back to the beginning. :LOL:
 
I think you are right though. With a DSLR you get everything as a given (good viewfinder, speed of operation, speed of focus, IQ etc, etc,.) With a CSC you get some of these but very rarely all.
 
To be fair its not really that suprising that this is the case - CSC is a much newer technology after all. I had the dubious pleasure of using a Canon D30 when it first came out as the first 'affordable' DSLR and it was considerably clunkier than they are now. CSC and DSLM will doubtless evolve along a similar path
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top