

Reasons to Ditch Your Digital SLR - cwan
http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2010/01/five-reasons-you-should-ditch-your-dslr/

======
Zak
Disclaimer: I'm not a real photographer and I don't have any real experience
with SLRs, digital or otherwise; I may be completely clueless here.

The concept of a digital SLR has always seemed a bit silly to me. The purpose
of an SLR, as I understand it is to show in the viewfinder the same image that
will hit the film. The live preview in an electronic viewfinder or LCD screen
serves the same purpose, but in theory at least can get closer to the image
that will actually be captured. The digital SLR has always seemed like a
stepping stone to me; something that would let a film photographer move to
digital without having to relearn everything all at once.

What am I missing? I'm sure serious photographers aren't just slow to learn.
What's the technological advantage of SLR over EVIL?

~~~
SandB0x
I have a good SLR, and looking through an electronic viewfinder is so poor in
comparison (even on an expensive pro-sumer model) it's hard to describe. Our
visual system can cope with such a huge dynamic range that it makes little
sense to neuter this ability while shooting.

An SLR is able to capture RAW data, which can be mapped to different
jpeg/whatever images, so there's a big disadvantage in looking at a specific
instance through the viewfinder.

In common situations the preview and default jpeg output is absolutely fine,
but when you get to more challenging lighting you need to trust your eyes at
the time, and the awesomeness of RAW later.

~~~
Zak
Your first point makes sense to me, and meshes well with what other posters
are saying.

As for RAW, I don't see what that has to do with an SLR viewfinder versus
digital live preview. A quick google search suggests that all EVIL type
cameras support a RAW format.

~~~
tel
He's referring to the fact that whenever you display an image on an LCD you're
losing an incredible amount of data about the the lighting and color. Data
that the CCD actually does collect.

The comment about RAW is saying that your eye, capturing through a mirror
viewfinder, is aware of this level of detail. If you view it through the LCD
you miss out. This is unimportant if you only use JPG, because that will be
neutered similarly to the electronic viewfinder, but if you are shooting RAW
then you're looking for something more subtle and need analog control.

~~~
SandB0x
Thanks, that's a good explanation. I need to work on my wording.

------
tel
Performance and evaluation of the Lumix GF-1, the EVIL pictured in this
article.

<http://craigmod.com/journal/gf1-fieldtest/>

It's not aimed as a gadget review but instead a caring review of the camera
across one photographer's grand adventure. The photography and review are both
excellent.

------
bootload
_"... surprisingly terrible article ..."_

And thats from the article comments :)

~~~
ja27
The article's a mess. The basic point is that most DSLRs, except for the true
high-end "full frame" models, have sensors that aren't as big as 35mm film
was. So the big 35mm SLR lens is partially wasted, focusing light in areas
where there is no sensor.

So there's a new class of high-end cameras that take the same smaller sensor
size and pair it with interchangeable lenses. That produced the four-thirds
system (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Thirds_system>). Then if you remove
the optical viewfinder and mirror, you get the even smaller micro four-thirds
system (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micro_Four_Thirds_system>).

They're a great system for the "prosumer" or high end amateur photographer.
You get essentially the same quality as the lower-end DSLRs with smaller
cameras and lenses.

The only downsides are that so far they seem to be more expensive than the
low-end DSLRs and I think lots of people just like carrying around a big black
camera with their long kit zoom lens on it.

~~~
silencio
> I think lots of people just like carrying around a big black camera with
> their long kit zoom lens on it.

You have no idea :) I got my first DSLR back in September of last year, and
I've taken it with me to about a dozen holiday dinner meetups and vacation
trips to touristy places like the Grand Canyon and Las Vegas since. If I try
to use my iPhone or a P&S (as a backup camera), a lot of people end up walking
through my picture or can be really rude about giving me a little space to
move around and take pictures.

But....when you've got a comparatively huge DSLR (well, my D5000 isn't even
huge, but it looks intimidating enough with even the 18-55mm kit lens, let
alone my even-bigger-with-hoods 55-200 or 12-24), people around you tend to
give you a little space and courtesy to let you take your pictures to your
heart's content. I also don't get as many people asking me to take pictures
for them, cause they assume big camera must equal pro photographer that should
be left alone. Not that I mind doing that for others, but sometimes it's
inconvenient.

So I did find it a bit odd the article went out of the way to mention that
DSLR's scream "look at me", because that's practically a selling point to a
lot of people. :P

~~~
SandB0x
But if you're trying to photograph people (street photography, events),
they're a lot more relaxed seeing a compact camera than an SLR.

~~~
silencio
I guess it depends on the situation. That's never been a problem for me, and
some of my best photos were of family and friends over Thanksgiving,
especially the kids. They were never tense, they were at most curious if they
even paid attention to me and the camera.

Not to mention that all the P&S and cameraphone pictures everyone else took
were either incredibly noisy, washed out with major red eye because of the
built-in flash, or blurred and unacceptable because of inadequate indoor
lighting.

------
colbyolson
"As a new category, the EVIL is still relatively expensive, and you’ll pay as
much for a body and lens as you would for a prosumer level DSLR."

Fashion vs function, I guess.

~~~
mikebo
I don't think it's purely fashion. In some ways the EVIL cameras are more
functional. Just by being smaller and lighter they're much easier to carry
around with you. As Gretzky said, you miss 100% of the shots you don't take.

------
koevet
Ah, I was hoping that the link was about the joy of film photography.

------
dnsworks
Articles like this preclude the idea of style. Different cameras have a
different style. I'm quite fond of the hyper-real style that comes with long,
low-light exposures with Canon DSLRs. Also, most adapters I've found for using
one lens to another tends to lose something to be desired, whether it's the
various auto-focusing features built into the lenses, or an f-stop of light,
or both.

