As Far as i'm concerned, there is not much difference. Is the only real attraction to a Digital SLR the idea of interchangeable lenses and being easier to use?
I'll bet in the future Digital cams might be just as good, with a longer optical lens and perhaps for cheaper? Who knows.
At the moment I can't justify spending up to 3 times as much on a camera that is only going to give you marginally better results and better flexibility.
2912n From United States, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, RR: 12 Reply 1, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1074 times:
Dan- Whats your point here? There are many attractions to digital-
-Ease of manipulation without scanning photos.
-Not having to run around after film
-Ability to review and delete photos at will without waiting for processing
One can argue the merits of film vs. digital all day long and no one will be a winner. Both are here to stay. If you can't afford the high end digital at the moment, hang around a couple of years. Like computers they will be more and more afordable as time goes on. Because I enjoy the hobby I have made the plunge into a high end D-SLR. Not for any other reason than to enjoy my hobby.
Take two rolls of K-64 (or Sensia if you prefer), head to the airport and RELAX.
Ckw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1057 times:
Dan - I doubt the size of image on A.net can really give an indication of the potential of current digital cameras of, say, 3mp plus. Having used both the D30 and D60, I really cannot distinguish between A.net type images from either of these - though some contend that the larger pixels of the D30 sensor actually produce better output than the D60 up to about 6x9 in prints. However, A4 prints from the D60 are significantly better.
So in part it does depend what you're using it for.
As to DSLR vs other digi cams - well the big advantage of using a Nikon or Canon DSLR is that you can choose from the best glass available - fixed lens digicams won't approach this. But again, if you choose to use "budget" glass from these ranges, there won't be much in it.
EGGD From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2001, 12377 posts, RR: 52 Reply 4, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 6 days ago) and read 1031 times:
Oh yeah, the large version I am pretty sure is better on the Digital SLRs, but not by as much as the price tag would suggest. Why are Digital SLRs £2000+?
I've got a couple of photos that are a.net quality at 1856x1392, which is pretty big. But I think that unlike SLR's and compact cameras, there isn't that much difference between a low end digi cam and a top-of-the-range SLR.
Dazed767 From United States, joined May 1999, 5076 posts, RR: 59 Reply 5, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 22 hours ago) and read 1013 times:
I see a huge difference in quality (say the 2100 and the D30). The 2100 produces that green or purple fringing on edges, and the sky isn't all that clear (kinda blochy).
Ckw From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 7, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 5 days 19 hours ago) and read 987 times:
Dan - sorry, but I think you've got this wrong way round - not only will a low end digicam suffer from poorer quality glass, features etc. (as per compact cameras vs SLR), but also an inferior recording medium. At least you can put decent film in a compact, but you can't change the chip in the digi-cam.
It is NOT simply a matter of pixel counts that makes the difference - how the data is processed is probably of even greater importance as images from the (now) relatively low pixel count of the D30 show - whatever improvements this years crop of cameras have, there is no 3mp camera around that can touch it ... and it certainly out performs many 4 and 5mp cameras.
The other factor is the handling - there are very few digicams around with anything like the responsivness of even a basic SLR.
Bruce From United States, joined May 1999, 4950 posts, RR: 28 Reply 8, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 744 times:
Guess what? The friendly UPS man brought my D30 & wide angle lens today! I unwrapped it at work and everybody was like.. "ooooooohhhh aaaaahhhhh"
I took a few non-aviation pics on my dinner break and I was simply blown away. this camera is amazing. Yes, as a lot of people say Canon's pictures are a little on the "soft" side - I have read that in many reviews and I experienced this - but it's your choice how much sharpen, edge sharpen, or unsharp mask to apply so you can tailor the shot to your taste. IMO that's better than an aggressive sharpening processing by the camera.
The D30 is a bit heavier than it's EOS film counterpart though. No biggie...it feels solid in my hand - better than those little tiny digital cams.
Compared to the Olympus C2100 that I used last week: the battery charges quicker on the D30, you get more pics on the standard D30 card than the C2100. PLus, the olympus' motorized zoom was slow compared to the manual zoom on the canon lens. THe Canon software was no problem - I was hooked up and downloading within 10 minutes. And that's just the beginning.
My most important criticism of the C2100 was the "purple fringe". I noticed was NO purple around bright/high contrast areas on the D30. That was common on the C2100.
I'm going to do a more thorough test very soon and shoot under more and various conditions. But I like this D30 already...... I mean I REALLY like it.!
bruce
Bruce Leibowitz - Green Bay, WI (GRB/KGRB) - Canon 20D/100-400L IS lens
LGW From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 9, posted (7 years 6 months 1 week 3 days 18 hours ago) and read 712 times:
You simply can't compare an olympus C-2100 with a Canon D-30. They are aimed at different markets with differerant purposes. The prices have differance of somewhere around £1,000 so I would expect you to foind the D30 a big improvement on the 2100
I think a major problem nowadays is people thinking they can but a digital camera from the lower end of the market, saving hundreds on a DSLR and think they expect and deserve the same quality as a DSLR.
To be honest to all people, you DO get what you pay for and I dont see why people should expect the earth of a camera costing less than £500
Sponsor Message: 
.gif){kind=small}
From United Kingdom (England), joined Feb 2001, 12377 posts, 
From United States, joined Oct 2001, 2013 posts, 
!!
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Panama, joined Jan 2002, 331 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
