# Digital Slr Vs. Digital Compact...



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

I've consistently been impressed, if not amazed, by the excellent quality of the watch photographs that are displayed here on the forum.

I used to own a lot of 35mm SLR kit with various macro lenses that would have been excellent for taking photos of this type (notwithstanding the inconvenience of having to develop the film) but, much to my current regret, I don't have all this gear anymore. My current Sony digital compact takes great point-and-shoot photos but seems lacking when it comes to macro capability, even when I set up everything properly and don't just take a "quick and dirty" snapshot.

So, I'm thinking about combining the advantages of digital with my old SLR kit and getting a digital SLR. Perhaps a Nikon D70??? On the other hand the current breed of digital compacts/fixed lens cameras seem superbly capable at pretty much everything even a reasonably good photographer might care to throw at them.

But, I'm not just talking about watch photos here, but getting a camera to end all cameras. I'm also interested in astronomy and last year bought myself quite a nice telescope. The ability to bolt the camera onto the telescope for astrophotography use would be good.

So, I'm looking for a camera that can be used for taking photographs at distances ranging from a couple of centimetres all the way out to several light years









What do you think? Digital compact? Digital SLR? Or more than one camera?


----------



## Bjorn (Jun 10, 2004)

I'm in more or less the same situation. The difference is that I've still got my old 35mm SLR with macro.

I tried using a cheap 2.1MB digital for a while but the results where really crappy so I reverted back to the 35mm. But in the long run that's not going to work - as you said having to wait for the developed film and all is very impractical. Itâ€™s not fun to discover that the result wasnâ€™t what you had expected and go thru the whole process againâ€¦

I have been contemplating buying a Nikon coolpix 5400 or a D70. The stupid thing about the compact camera is that you can't see the effect of a polarizer filter. Of course it's possible, like the guy in the photo store said; to take a couple of shots and turn the filter around 90 degrees in between them and hopefully one will turn out OK.

So for me it feels like the SLR (D70) would be the one I'd choose. But then there's the prize! It's not exactly free, especially not with a good macro lens!!! So I have decided to stay in the analog camp a while longer and wait for the prices to drop a bit more. Maybe next yearâ€¦

Bjorn


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Hi Rich,

This is the very reason I just got the secondhand Nikon Coolpix 990. The resolution is fine (3Mp) and the macro amazing, 2cm. I have a friend who has one fitted to a telescope as it seems an adaptor is readily available. I got my camera yesterday and I'm putting some time into learning its quirks and such but it seems a very promising tool.

The current version of the camera is the Coolpix 4500 but I think it is about to be discontinued.

If you get a digital SLR you may have to invest in a macro lens too. With the CCD imaging area being less than 35mm film you need to multiply the stated focal of a 35mm fit lens by 1.6x (with almost all digital SLRs). This is a pain, I won't be buying a digital SLR until the CCD or CMOS sensors are full format or until suitable focal length lenses become available.


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Thanks for the input chaps









Happy to hear you still have your 35mm kit Bjorn. I still have a cheap but effective Konica TC-X camera body and a 28-200mm Tamron zoom lens but all my best kit has long gone. I miss it very much









Stan, your latest Nikon pics look superb. My uncle has been an avid photographer for many years and has owned many cameras of varying makes and formats. He's something of a Nikon fan (it was he who recommended the D70) and he has at least one Nikon compact, but recently he bought a Canon Powershot G5. The pictures from that are excellent too. It has a filter thread on the lens that, with an adaptor, I could use to attach the camera to my telescope. It's also small and light so the weight of the camera would not put any strain on the telescope motors and require any counter-balancing.

But then I keep looking at that D70. God it's gorgeous







But, like Bjorn said, not exactly cheap. And yes, the difference between the stated focal length and the actual imaging area I can imagine will be a pain in the arse. I'm definitely after lens quality rather than lots of megapixels though, so the ability to change the lens, and use the right lens for the job, would be a big plus point.

Then there are the dedicated astrophotography CCD's which are truly astronomical in price (pun intended







)

Decisions, decisions


----------



## Bjorn (Jun 10, 2004)

Stan said:


> If you get a digital SLR you may have to invest in a macro lens too. With the CCD imaging area being less than 35mm film you need to multiply the stated focal of a 35mm fit lens by 1.6x (with almost all digital SLRs). This is a pain, I won't be buying a digital SLR until the CCD or CMOS sensors are full format or until suitable focal length lenses become available.


I wasn't aware of this.

What does it in mean in real life? Is it that a 50mm macro (for 35mm) lens is turned into an 80mm (50 x 1.6) when I use it on the digital SLR? And that you get less depth of field that way?

I assume the digital SLR still manages to show the correct content in the viewfinder (what you see is what you get)?!?

This may sound like stupid questions Stan. Hope you understand what I mean. I'm not sure I do that myself.









Bjorn


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

Hi Bjorn,

I think you are spot on.









As an 80mm lens is a short telephoto it will have less DoF than a standard lens.

The format size of a (most) digital SLR is about the same as an APS (







) camera, quite different from a 35mm camera and requring different focal lengths of lenses. A standard lens on a digital SLR would be about 32mm. This being a standard lens will have similar DoF properties to a 50mm on 35 mil but larger format cameras have greater inherent depth of field, I seem to remember.

I forgotten so much.


----------



## Bjorn (Jun 10, 2004)

Thanks Stan!

I will bear that in mind when the time comes. Either use a lens specified directly for the digital camera or be prepared for the 1.6 conversion.

Bjorn


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

APS was nearly as bad as disc, both of which I have / had!







Anyone want any APS film?









My compact is good enough for me as a "family camera" for now, but as the digi slr market opens up and prices tumble I can see me getting one (esp as I'm begining to enjoy photography again).

I wonder where my old Zenith 11 and 12 got put?


----------



## Sargon (Feb 24, 2003)

I think it is a tad early to invest in a digital SLR. There will be an aweful lot of them coming to market in the near future, and the prices while dropping now are sure to head further south.

I would hang on to that APS camera. They are a bit like Accutrons. Last gasp of an old technology if you know what I mean.


----------



## Stan (Aug 7, 2003)

APS and Accutrons?

Iain, behave yourself.









If APS had been a stunning, technological break through (like the Accutron) I would agree.









But APS was always a bag of s***, as we said in the "trade", when it was introduced.

Oops, I let something slip.


----------



## USMike (Mar 16, 2003)

Digital SLR's are great but still limited because of the electronic viewfinder. Most are around 5 or 6 MP but Nikon (D70) has fantastic macro choices if you have the Â£ Â£. A D70 with one zoom lens and one of the micro Nikkors gets close to $2,000.00 and the Canon isn't far behind. It isn't an easy choice to get the right camera and lens set and its harder when the $ $ are limited.

Coolpix 995 has great macro range but is limited by 2 MP. I recently chose the Coolpix 5700 for its 8X optical zoom range, 5 MP and a macro range that covers about a third of the zoom range. The reviews I read about the new 8 MP digitals left me cold because of problems.

2 or 3 MP cameras just don't give the enlargement capability needed to really play with watch pics. If you're just posting to fora, etc. the additional resolution of the higher MP cameras seems to get lost depending on the screen resolution of the viewing PC and makes it difficult for dial-up connections.

Still using the old Canon F-1 and AE-1P with the macro lenses when the budget permits film development.

Its hard to control the pursuit of a 'holy grail' digital camera and save in anticipation of some upcoming private edition watches due soon. I may have to apply for a job as a greeter at Wal-Mart to help pay for some of these goodies.


----------



## Silver Hawk (Dec 2, 2003)

Isn't it true that modern digital compact cameras have partially removed the need for a true SLR?

In the 70's and 80's I was a very keen amateur rock photographer --- had many photos published in Sounds and New Musical Express magazines. Take at look at the 4th photo down in this link about the highly under-rated group "Magazine" with front man Howard Devoto....crikey, I took that photo in 1978







(and I thank whoever owns this site for acknowledging ownership of my photo







) I never used flash at these events, always set camera to 6400 ASA and spent hours in the darkroom pushing the ASA 400-rated film to this speed... Used the superb Canon AE-1 ....I'm digressing; I'm getting all nostalgic.









But I used an SLR in those distant days because it gave me 1) interchangable lenses and 2) I saw the potential image through the lens (SLR).

With modern digital compacts, the back LCD panel meets my view finder needs in a much better way than any 35mm or digital SLR ever could. And with something like the Canon A80 with a fully rotating 180 degree panel, even better. I can hold it way above my head / crowds / other obstructions etc, and by tilting that panel, can be sure of a good shot.

And if the fixed zoom lens meets your needs, then why go for an SLR? At the risk of sounding like a Canon sales person, the A80 with it manual shooting modes gives me exactly what I want from a modern digital. For family use, I usually just stick it on Auto, but when I want Aperture-priority or Shutter-priority or manual focus or macro or total control...it's all there.

Cheers

Paul


----------



## Bjorn (Jun 10, 2004)

Silver Hawk said:


> In the 70's and 80's I was a very keen amateur rock photographer --- had many photos published in Sounds and New Musical Express magazines. Take at look at the 4th photo down in this link about the highly under-rated group "Magazine" with front man Howard Devoto....crikey, I took that photo in 1978
> 
> 
> 
> ...


OT, but anyway;

I loved their second album, Secondhand Daylight. Still play it now and then.

Bjorn


----------



## pg tips (May 16, 2003)

My dad is a big Canon fan, has quite a bit of stuff, gone eos but hasn't got a digi body......yet.

He gave my mum his old AE1 programme as her point and shoot camera! She's quite a good photographer actually although everything is shot on auto.

Never heard of Magazine Paul. I must be too young!


----------



## rhaythorne (Jan 12, 2004)

Silver Hawk said:



> In the 70's and 80's I was a very keen amateur rock photographer --- had many photos published in Sounds and New Musical Express magazines. Take at look at the 4th photo down in this link about the highly under-rated group "Magazine" with front man Howard Devoto....


Cool. I used to like Sounds. Much rockier than NME









I think I might have a copy of "Shot by Both Sides" somewhere around. I was more of a Clash fan at the time though









I'll check out the Canon A80, it sounds promising.


----------

