Fixed Lens or Digital SLR About This Page:

[kandlsutton5]

Hope someone can help me here. We have an upcoming trip in December to WDW - staying at the Poly and cruising too! Of course, I am using this as a reason to get a new camera.

I have a Sony point and shoot. It is 3 years old and I am not happy with the zoom. My kids play sports and I can never get close enough to them on the field to get decent shots. And it's only 3 Megapixels, and I would like to upgrade.

I just started looking at cameras and the fixed lens camera seem like they would satisfy my zoom issues. However, I have an old Canon EOS SLR (film) with a 50mm lens. Is it possible to use that lens on a new Canon Rebel?

Any suggestions are appreciated. TIA....

[bradk]

if it's manual focus or FD mount, you can't use it with the Rebel which uses EF and EF-S mounts. and chances are even if you could, you probably wouldn't want to.

dSLR is a sound investment, but a good p&s like the S5 won't kill you either. plus it and many other p&s's sell multipliers that can be attached to the camera to either give you more of a telephoto or WA shot.

[Dave Marx]

I'm really happy with my fixed-lens Fujifilm S9000. It's got a 28mm-300mm equivalent zoom, which is enough for most purposes. Your 50mm Canon lens, even if it turns out to be compatible with modern DSLRs, won't give you a very useful focal length. You'd still need to buy another lens to give you the sports capabilities you're looking for, and you have to spend mondo bucks on a DSLR lens to get something with the wide angle to telephoto capabilities of the lens on my camera (yes, the maximum aperature and optical quality would probably be better for all that extra money, too, but maybe not enough to matter to a non-professional). So, maybe you'd buy two, more affordable zooms to get what I've got fixed onto my camera, and spend some time changing lenses at inopportune moments.... or not.

Further, the electronic viewfinder on my camera displays what you're actually shooting (all effects, exposure controls, etc.), while the optical viewfinder on DSLRs don't show you what the camera's sensors are doing - you have to review your shots after-the-fact on the LCD display. Pros are used to that - they have faith in their experience and skills, so they just frame and shoot. Give a pro an accurate frame, and the rest doesn't matter so much. But for amateurs, the more WYSIWYG capabilities you have, the better off you're likely to be.

The DSLRs have larger and better sensors, so you will get better technical performance, but if you've been a point-and-shoot photographer, the stepup to one of the better fixed-lens "pro-sumer" cameras like mine will still be dramatic.

[wendybell]

I also have the Fuji S9000 and find the zoom to be more than enough. My only tiny complaint with the Fuji is the shutter lag...

[bradk]

i'm not sure what Dave is referring to about dSLRs not showing what the sensor sees through the viewfinder? it might be cropped just a bit, but the entire point to the SLR (single lens reflex) is to see exactly to see what the lens sees. (detailed info here: Single-lens reflex camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

traditional p&s's have a viewfinder which is just a window straight through the camera. in that case, what the photographer sees is not what the lens sees, which is lower and to the center.

but an SLR uses mirrors so that what the lens sees is reflected up into the viewfinder. this is why when you take a shot that the viewfinder goes black (the mirror drops down to let the image hit the sensor instead) and you hear the clicking sound which is the mirror jumping down and back up.

on that token, with my dSLR (EOS 20D), my LCD screen can't be used as my viewfinder. which is okay by me personally. i rather find it uncomfortable using p&s cameras that don't have an optical viewfinder (and those that do today are usually mini EVFs as well).

[mattjs]

I think the confusion is you're thinking composition, whereas Dave is talking about exposure. It's what you see is what you get in terms of exposure, and any filtering effects. Where the LCD on a P&S adjusts the live preview image to appear as it will when captured, rather than just "how it is" in real life.

In the extreme, if I'm shooting in manual at night, and I set aperture to f8, and shutter to 1/1000th, the LCD will be completely black. I'll know I'm a bit underexposed Shift to f2.8 and shutter 1/2 second and suddenly I have a preview image. As I make adjustments, the preview image keeps adjusting on the fly to show the actual exposure of the captured image before I even take it. Point & Shoots are even including live preview histograms, and metering these days too. Don't have to half press the shutter button anymore to see the meter anymore. The histogram and meter continually adjust on the LCD.

[LizardCop]

Originally Posted by bradk

i'm not sure what Dave is referring to about dSLRs not showing what the sensor sees through the viewfinder? it might be cropped just a bit, but the entire point to the SLR (single lens reflex) is to see exactly to see what the lens sees. (detailed info here: Single-lens reflex camera - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )

Dave's reference here, as it always has been with any SLR camera, is that the viewfinder "normally" only shows approximately 95% of what is actually recorded. This was the case with the old film SLR's and has been continued in the DSLR's.

If you buy one of the newer DSLR's with the "live view" screen ability, you will be looking at what the camera will record, otherwise there will be a little more recorded than what you're looking at in the viewfinder.

[bradk]

huh.. well if p&s's really do that in terms of exposure, i'm gonna go back to p&s. it's a pain in my butt on my slr, i'll tell you that. although i think my issue is really not metering properly and using exposure lock enough.

but yes, i mentioned the cropping issue (meaning you don't see the entire image in the viewfinder) but there's no real way to account for that anyway because it's all you can see. you actually can't really see your subject when you're focused on a viewfinder. which is why it's good to use a tripod even under ideal lighting, because you can study your subject without having to worry about the framing.

getting more of an image isn't a problem anyway when you can crop in an image editor. trying to fix exposure is another animal.

i still don't see how an ECV on a LCD is going to help much though even with exposure. unless you're indoors in which case exposure issue isn't as big a threat anyway. it's when you're outside and you can barely see the screen at all let alone the nuances. as it is, i can't review photos reliably on my LCD screen outside.

[mattjs]

No you're right. Really the only times I use full manual are situations where seeing the exposure value isn't any help. But, if you're trying to learn how things effect exposure it's a really nice learning tool. The live preview histogram though...is awesome! I love that thing.

Plus the LCD screens are getting bigger, and increasing resolution. The LCD I have now is like an inch and a half bigger, and twice the resolution of my last camera. Also, with the new one I can really crank up the brightness so it's useable outside in bright sun. All around, it's just much easier to see the preview (and review) images these days. The latest LCDs are really nice.

It's no substitute for a viewfinder, but it's all I got The G7 has an optical VF but it's pretty much useless. In terms of exposure though, the WYSIWYG preview is a huge help for me.

[Dave Marx]

Some further explanation is in order here.

The electronic viewfinder (EVF) I'm referring to is not the big LCD on the back of the camera (which is subject to glare and washout in bright sun). Pro-sumer digitals have a second LCD for viewing through the eyepiece. Not only does that solve the glare problem, but it also lets you review your shots in even the worst lighting conditions. It's like using a camcorder's eyepiece.

Now, the EVF uses a small LCD, so you won't see the same resolution you're shooting, but if you need to, there's usually a magnify feature so you can look more closely at the detail for focus, etc.

The difference between an SLR (digital or otherwise) and what I've been talking about is all about WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get). Imagine, if you will, that your film SLR's viewfinder could show you not only what was coming through the lens, but what the results would be when you developed the film - contrast, grain, over/under exposure, color saturation, etc.

There was a time when technology only allowed seeing what came through the lens. Absolutely, the features of an SLR were superior to the problems you'd have with parallax or interchangable lenses with either a rangefinder or twin-lens reflex, or the upside down, reversed left-to-right image you'd see looking at the ground glass backplate of a press/view camera.

In the days of the Speed Grafix press cameras, those photographers rarely even looked at the image on the ground glass - they set their lenses and aperature to a hyperfocal, and used wire, open-frame "viewfinders" that had no optics - it was like a movie director making a rectangle with the thumbs and forefingers of both hands to simulate the way the shot would be framed. That was the "speed" in Speed Grafix - they had a tool for quickly framing the shot. They were shooting 4x5 sheet film, so they knew their editors could crop and enlarge to their hearts' content and the technical quality would still be adequate. Essentially, they were shooting from the hip. With the shift to 35mm film for press work (lighter, more compact cameras and lenses, cheaper film), an accurate viewfinder was essential, because they couldn't enlarge and crop such small negatives and still get acceptable technical results. The goal became getting a publication-worthy full-frame shot, which is what an SLR delivers.

But we've gone beyond that. Effectively, all digitals are video cameras, and videographers have always viewed their work through a monitor - the actual results that come out of the vidicon tubes (in the old days) or the imaging sensors today. Why limit yourself to viewing only what comes through the lens, when you can also view what happens beyond the lens? Surely, since an EVF is viewing what comes off the imaging sensor, it is also seeing exactly what is coming through the lens.

The 95% cropping that typically occurs in an SLR viewfinder is beside the point. That's just a function of cropping. If the viewfinder showed more, (say 105%) of what reached the film/imaging sensor, that'd be a problem. But to get slightly less? If you must know, that goes back to one of the realities of enlarging negatives - the negative carrier in an enlarger always has to crop the negative just a little bit, in order to avoid showing the clear (unexposed) areas around the image. And you had to crop a second time when projecting the image onto the paper - you needed a slightly amount of cropping by the paper easel to get a sharp border. So, by seeing 95% in the viewfinder, you came close to seeing what you'd get out of the typical enlarger later on. That is, until it became fashionable for photographers to file away at the edges of their negative carriers so that the full dimensions of the negative were displayed (to prove that the photographer intended and composed the shot to be viewed without cropping). To me, the funky, irregular borders on those images were like a potter intentionally making his/her work imperfect - an affectation. Meantime, digital images can be "enlarged" all the way to the edge without problems, so any DSLR that shows anything other than 100% of the frame is doing the photographer a disservice - he/she has to crop in order to get exactly what was composed in the viewfinder.

The SLR has been the be-all and end-all for about 40 years now. When I started in photography, pros out in the field were still using Leica rangefinders, Roliflex twin-lens reflexes, Speed Graphix... I think the Vietnam war (and the Nikon F, which was so readily available in Asia) was the turning point for professional adoption of the 35mm SLR format. Until the Nikon F came along in 1959, rangefinder cameras (like those used by photojournalistic legend Henri Cartier-Bresson) were king for hand-held shooting, although plenty of pros and serious amateurs still dissed the small, 35mm negative of both formats.

There's no technical reason to retain the expensive moving mirror and pentaprism in a DSLR - an electronic viewfinder is cheaper, more mechanically reliable, lighter, and more useful. There's no technical reason why my "pro-sumer" camera has to have a smaller-sized, less sensitive imaging sensor, either. As far as I'm concerned, the right answer sits right in the middle - a "DSLR" with a full, electronic viewfinder.

[bradk]

yeah, that definitely clears up your point for me. i really didn't think the EVFs did that. it's very interesting. i wonder though, if you're shooting in automatic mode what your options really are? if you know the image is going to be over exposed which is my largest nemesis, do you then go make manual adjustments based on that before taking the shot? it definitely would work in some cases, but i'd have to think the minority. unless you're doing some sort of still or portrait photography (and i would expect this is not the route to go for portrait) that affords you that opportunity. i think i'd just end up taking my chances anyway and dealing with it later.

it's off topic, but what i would pay for a fortune for is single point AF. when i bought my camera, i thought 9 point AF would be a good thing. how insane i was.

[Dave Marx]

You can usually stay in auto shooting modes. What you usually have to do is point the camera elsewhere to fool the exposure system, hold-down the shutter half-way to lock-in the settings, then re-frame to the original composition and click. This is common when you have a strong, bright sky and a darker foreground. Depending on how you frame your shot (and whether the meter is in spot metering or one of the zoned/weighted metering modes), you might have a perfect sky and overly-dark foreground, a bright foreground and washed-out sky, or some other variation. By shifting the camera and locking-in the exposure you like, you can usually get the right compromise.

Of course, you can also use it as an aid with "manual" (often these are semi-automatic) shooting modes - you get a much better idea of what will happen in Aperature- or Shutter-Priority modes, for example. You play around with the exposure, and you usually get a very good idea of the result before you click and review.

If you consistently need a bit extra over- or under-exposure, you don't necessarily have to go to manual mode. Many cameras have a control that allows you to intentionally shift the exposure by a certain amount. Some are hard to get to, but on other cameras you could conceivably set it while composing each shot.

The EVF cannot predict the results of some night shooting situations, flash, and fill-flash, because it requires a time exposure and/or flash to get the results the computer is going for. But for standard daylight or well-lit night shooting (such as Main St.), it's very helpful and reliable.

Oh, and I forgot to mention - since under normal settings the camera momentarily displays the shot after you click, with an EVF you don't even have to take your eye out of the viewfinder to check your work (and decide to re-shoot).

[mattjs]

Originally Posted by Dave Marx

If you consistently need a bit extra over- or under-exposure, you don't necessarily have to go to manual mode. Many cameras have a control that allows you to intentionally shift the exposure by a certain amount. Some are hard to get to, but on other cameras you could conceivably set it while composing each shot.

This is a great tip that gets underutilized I think. With Canon (at least in the P&S anyway) they seem to consistently overexpose by about 2/3rds EV. I leave Exposure Compensation (EC) set to -2/3rds in auto, aperture priority and shutter priority modes, and it works out great. If you find your pics in auto and semi-auto modes are coming out consistently over, or under exposed, or the highlights are often blown (white skies, etc.) it may be partly the camera default. EC works great for overcoming some of that and every digital camera has EC options now. Under exposed try setting EC to +1/3rd or +2/3rds. Overexposed -1/3rd or -2/3rds. Once you set it it'll stay that way until you change it (even when you turn off/back on).

Originally Posted by bradk

...if you know the image is going to be over exposed which is my largest nemesis, do you then go make manual adjustments based on that before taking the shot? it definitely would work in some cases, but i'd have to think the minority.

That's usually how I take advantage of it. I use aperture priority mode whenever I can. I can see from the preview histogram whether or not I'm gonna blow out the highlights in Av. Usually like bright lights or windows or something indoors. If yes, I'll switch over to manual. Like Dave said, another option is I could just set the EC even lower in aperture priority (-1 or whatever) for just that pic (with my camera ... -1 would really only be -1/3rd cause the first -2/3rds is just compensating for the camera always overexposing +2/3rds) . Would really work just as well. I usually just go to manual for pics like that though. Only because it's one less thing I have to switch back. That way auto, aperture priority and shutter priority modes are always ready to go at -2/3rds.

But you're right, it is somwhat limited because at night or in a darker room (say World Showcase Mexico), I almost always just use manual since my aperture priority is limited to a max of 1 second shutter. Noise really limits the option of upping the ISO for us P&S users. I suppose if I had a DSLR I might actually use aperture priority more at night and just up the ISO. But even at night, again the live histogram is a huge help for me.

[Dave Marx]

All this under/over exposure stuff takes me back to the days of semi-automatic, match-needle metering. On any decent camera, they designed the meter needle so you could easily over- or underexpose one stop. I found it especially useful when I was shooting color transparencies in good daylight. I almost always prefer those shots to have oversaturated colors, and since I couldn't fix the shot after I took it in those good old days...

[travelinsara]

you guys are awesome with the photo knowledge, thanks for the info. S