Talk:Digital single-lens reflex camera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Digital single-lens reflex camera article. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

Contents 1 Requested move 1.1 Voting 2 Cleanup requested 3 Why digital SLR? 4 Lifetime of digital cameras (including DSLR) 5 Total cost of ownership 6 Attraction of interchangeability 7 "Rapid obsolescence"?? 8 Picture 9 More info requested on physics 10 Parallax? 11 Movie making 12 Speculation? 13 Slight update for Olympus

[edit] Requested move

Digital single-lens reflex cameras → Digital single-lens reflex camera – plural title; originally created as DSLR Christopherlin 07:16, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Voting

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your vote with ~~~~

• Support, straightforward case of maintaining the house style. Aapo Laitinen 11:01, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Scoo 12:47, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
• Support Shotgunlee 12:52, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

This article has been renamed as the result of a move request. Jonathunder 16:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup requested

Unwikified; but first needs attention from a camera enthusiast as there seems to be considerable overlap with other camera / digital photography articles. As I'm not a camera enthusiast I've marked as needs attention; corrected the category and removed the author's signature from the body of the article. --Cje 10:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree this page needs a lot of work, and it's an important and interesting topic that could be expanded. I started by rewriting the entire article from common and publicly available knowledge. I wikified it and will go back to verify and modify the links to make sure they're all focuses on photography articles. I've retained the original text just below this comment. I believe the majority of it is not informative, and is mostly outdated and irrelevant (especially the cost analysis). I do think some points may have merit, but need to be investigated. Specifically, the issue of improved performance over HP-type products because of lens quality. This seems interesting to me, but needs to be expanded, better explained, and backed up by some sources. I plan on taking this project on a bit further, so bear with me while I work out the kinks. Anyone with knowledge/expertise, feel free to dig in with me. Zephlon 14:56, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Original text:

Digital photography's attempt to rival silver haloide film became a reality with a camera body which required an independent lens attachment replicating the 35 millemeter camera. The quality of the sensor in the camera and its complex algorithm to process the image became totally dependent on the quality of the prime or zoom optics attached. This allowed huge optical companies such as Nikon, Canon, Pentax, Minolta-Konica, Sigma to rival and better computer driven companies such as Hewlet Packard et al. Sensor and electronics companies such as Sony now supply their wares to Nikon as Panosonic[Mitsubishi] suppies Leica.This extraordinary and entangled web of interdependent competition has driven digital slr prices down from 30,000 dollars U.S. for a 3 megapixel Canon D 30 to a 8.2ega pixel 1,500 dollar Cano 20D in fall of 2004.The buyer has been the great gainer and film cameras and film have dropped precipitiously. Only medium format film based cameras continue to reign in the professional market. Optical glass prices have not dropped comensurately with Camera bodies.

Don't have time to help much here, but have added UK name of Digital Rebel model (EOS 300D). Not sure which name is used in the rest of the world. If 300D, might be worth changing it around so that the US name is in brackets. HTH.

--Swaldman 22:32, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Why digital SLR?

What is the advantage of an upmarket digital SLR camera as compared to a hypothetical digital non-SLR camera with exactly the same features, but no SLR mirror? (Both cameras to have a screen display; the non-SLR to have an addtional optical viewfinder subject to parallax but not using power)

The only advantages I can see are:

• depth-of field-preview.
• parallax-free viewfinder that you put to your eye, instead of at arm's length.
• no need to use battery-draining screen display if you want an accurate view.

You could of course fit fisheyes, etc., to the non-SLR and see the image on the screen.

If users like a viewfinder that you put to your eye, our hypothetical non-SLR could include an eye-level optical viewfinder showing the sensor image (in other words, a view of the screen), eliminating the second SLR advantage..

Lens interchangeability, large sensor, etc., are all "SLR" features dictated by the market, not by limitations of what can be done without SLR.

I used to use a film SLR, but now use a zoom non-SLR digital with additional optical (no-power) viewfinder with parallax error. I find I can do everything I want, though I'm not a pro. I often use the optical viewfinder if I don't need accurate framing.

I'm not trying to make any particular point, I just want to see how useful true SLR is in a camera with a digital sensor.

Pol098 10:38, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, rangefinder cameras can also have interchangable lenses. For a time they had superior wide-angle lenses because the rear lens element could extend a long way into the camera body, getting much closer to the film.

Anyway, I've never understood the need for an SLR configuration in a digital camera. The digital sensor is not consumed in using it (like film is), so what's the problem with constantly exposing the sensor and having a live update on the LCD? Consumer digital cameras do this. Is it just that D-SLR's (or their users) want to look more sophisticated? It wouldn't surprise me if that was a major reason, there's a lot of ego masturbation that goes on nowadays with digital cameras. Imroy 14:51, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd tend to keep "rangefinder camera" for film cameras; don't all digital cameras have rangefinders? I wan't aware of any digital non-SLR cameras with interchangeable lenses (besides film cameras with digital backs; e.g., view cameras); do you have any information?

If other people agree that the SLR feature proper is not very useful for a digital camera, maybe we need to edit the article? I did write stuff to that effect, but held off from actually asking why DSLRs are so popular. A high-end digital non-SLR (dNslr?) might be cheaper, smaller, lighter (or less heavy).Pol098 16:09, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Pol098, there's actually a large market of people who strongly prefer the SLR-style viewfinder to a rangefinder and to an electronic viewfinder. The key feature of the SLR makes the market for DSLRs. You don't happen to be a part of that market. Why not let the people who understand it describe it? Dicklyon 07:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

dSLRs clumsy setup involving mirrors allows it to use a phase detection autofocus, as opposed to contrast detection in non-SLR digital cameras. If I understand correctly, the former is faster and more sensitive. Indeed, my 350D focuses much faster than my compact, whether USM motor or no USM motor --60.51.64.132 04:40, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lifetime of digital cameras (including DSLR)

I've taken the following out a couple of times; while true it is utterly irrelevant, as it is inconceivable that a digital camera of today would be of any use 25 years after manufacture. Why should this sentence be preserved? What is relevant is that the camera should last until it becomes obsolete, without falling to bits first.

"It remains questionable whether today's digital cameras can ever achieve, in mass volume, the 25-year lifespan of some older 35mm film SLR and rangefinder cameras of traditional design, such as the Nikon F3 or Leica."

Pol098 01:19, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah, but that's the beauty of film photography. I can buy a decades-old rangefinder or SLR through eBay, load it with film that didn't exist when it was made, and take great photos with it (in the proper hands of course). Until I can no longer get film in the correct format, a film camera isn't really "obsolete". That's a major problem with digital photography: the camera is no longer merely a light-tight box for holding film and a lens. It's a major electronic device with a sensor that cannot be changed. So it's obsolete as soon as you buy it. Imroy 02:08, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I took it out again, as it had nothing to do with explaining what a DSLR is, and it was right up in the top section. I took out a lot more, too. If anyone wants that stuff back in, find a good lower place for it. There's a bit left about fast obsolescence causing increased total cost of ownweship, which is really probably plenty for an article on DSLRs Dicklyon 06:57, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Total cost of ownership

I made an addition to the article, when comparing digital and non-digital, about the total cost of ownership of a series of digital cameras being vastly greater than a non-digital which might last 25 years. What I meant, and perhaps it should be spelt out, though it does get a bit long-winded, is that a fair comparison of the cost of owning DSLR equipment should be compared with non-D over the full useful lifetime of the non-D (alternatively, the resale value of the non-D camera at the end of the life of the D should be accounted for).

This is very relevant and should be left in. Typically people look at the purchase price of a camera: but the useful life of a digital camera is just a few years, limited by obsolescence. In the first instance we can compare the price of a good (25-year) non-digital SLR with, say 5 or more digital SLRs. Can be refined For greater accuracy, add to the respective side film, processing, batteries, etc.

Myself, I have a Pentax Spotmatic II which works fine; it cost, I think, $200 (or $100??) a great many years ago. A digital camera I bought a couple of years ago for about the same price in real terms is ready to be retired.

This isn't a reason not to buy digital, but it must be a factor.

There are a few other points that are debatable. I won't revert anything about this or other points without looking here.

Pol098 01:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if you thought I edit out your comment about TCO. I was just trying to keep it brief, simplifying it to "High TCO, compounded by their shorter useful lifetimes". I thought this was a more succinct way of saying essentially the same thing. After all, someone might not buy a series of DSLR's, just one or two. Doesn't change the fact that they're only "useful" for a few short years. You don't think the two statements are equivalent? Imroy 02:17, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's quite an important practical point, worth spelling out. Technically yes, you can just say TCO. But you used to buy a camera and use it for decades (my Pentax), without thinking in terms of TCO. If you go digital (SLR or not), you don't necessarily realise that you're in for a lot of expense over the years if you want to have a usable camera to hand. Probably less relevant for the pro who'll do cash-flow forecasts when investing.

Pol098 03:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Unless you include an analysis of film and processing costs, and the costs of the relative difficulty of keeping track of negatives and such compared to digital, how can you make any useful statement about total cost of ownership? Dicklyon 07:03, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attraction of interchangeability

"A major attraction of digital SLR cameras as compared to non-SLR digitals has been to allow photographers to convert from 35mm film cameras using the lenses and equipment that they are familiar with. For this reason, camera manufacturers design digital SLRs to be as similar as possible to their film counterparts."

The previous sentence implies that digital SLRs have a capability inherently, due to their nature. This isn't so: it just so happens that DSLRs have been built with support for interchangeability, while non-SLR digitals mostly haven't. It IS true that DSLRs actually manufactured at the moment have this advantage over most (but not all) digital non-SLRs

Pol098 01:42, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure exactly what your complaint is here. Is it with my edits or the basic wording/structure?

My edits:

• "A major attraction of digital SLR cameras as actually implemented over non-SLR digitals..." => "A major attraction of digital SLR cameras as compared to non-SLR digitals...". I wasn't sure what you were trying to say and substituted simpler words that I thought were appropriate.
• "...allow experienced photographers to...". Removed 'experienced', I didn't think it necessary. All sorts of photographers might want to re-use lenses from their 35mm cameras.
• "...that they are familiar with, while adding the advantages of using a digital camera.". Removed the part after the comma, I thought it redundant and a little biased. Of course there are advantages, why only mention them and not disadvantages as well?

Imroy 02:30, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The point I'm trying to make is that many of the advantages of DSLRs over D non-SLRs (interchangeability, big sensor) aren't advantages of the DSLR architecture, but simply because of what manufacturers choose to make. So the attraction is in "actual implementations" of DSLRs, or DSLRS "actually available" (I think I used those words in two revisions), not in the use of DSLRs just because they're DSLRs. Maybe I'm being pedantic and people won't notice the difference.

By the way, in my comments about the Epson non-SLR with interchangeable lenses, I'd assumes the sensor was 35mm size; it's actually smaller. I don't know if the interchangeable lens non-SLR concept will catch on; if it does, some of the stated advantages of the DSLR will apply to them too.

I'm a great believer in cutting out verbosity, but the meaning needs to be preserved.

Pol098 03:59, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the Olympus E-10 and E-20 were DSLR's with non-interchangeable lenses. Phr 12:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not like this section either, not sure what it tries to say and why it is so high up in the article, but I want to take it out, or possible move it down to Digital SLR ... / Compact section! It sounds like non SLR digitals are equal to DSLR and the only reson to use a DSLR is that you happen to have old lenses, if not use a compact digital instead, and BTW there are 35mm film compacts also, so no the sentence does not make sense to me! I would be brave, but since you already have the discussion here I will wait a bit before I edit. Stefan 09:22, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Rapid obsolescence"??

"Rapid obsolescence, which increases total cost of ownership" is quoted as one of the disadvantages in the section about pros and cons. First of all, a camera, PC, TV etc. is just as good ten years later as it was new (save for wear and tear, of course). The fact that technological advances may make it seem inferior when compared to newer models doesn't change that; it is still doing the job it was intended to do just as well as it did the first day. Also, total cost of ownership is a term normally referring to a specific item, not to a person's cost for such items during his/her lifetime. Even if someone buys a new camera every three months, because he/she feels a need to constantly have the latest, this will not increase the cost of each single camera. It will increase the overall cost of owning cameras, but it is an individual choice not related to the camera itself. Even in the old days of "analogue" SLR's, there were professional photographers who would buy a new body as soon as they saw a scratch on their current one, while others would continue to use their beloved cameras until they were unrepairable. Also, it may be worth noting that before digital cameras were invented, the manufacturers were constantly improving (or at least changing) their traditional SLRs, in order to get the gadget nerds to upgrade, So, it's only because that side has stagnated that there is a perceived difference here.

I suggest that line is removed from the pros and cons. Thomas Blomberg 10:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said, though I'd remove the pros/cons section in its entirety, as it's already in the digital photography article's digital vs. film section. Generally I'd say that we should be careful when adding comparisions to articles, in most instances the same information is present in the article alreay in plain view or between the lines (i.e. no need for a pencil vs. ballpoint pen discussion, both accomplish the same thing but in different ways and one particular may be more suitable for one particular task, or in other words, we should describe things not pass judgement on them). Scoo 12:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

My view exactly. I'll remove the whole section, and then we'll see if anyone reacts. Thomas Blomberg 13:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Picture

I think the main article picture should be a body with a lens attached: The casual reader who doesn't yet know what a DSLR is is going to expect to see a 'whole camera', and I worry that the current picture might make them think that they can pick up what they see there and take photos. Thoughts? -Maebmij 02:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, interchangeable lenses are one of the key features of SLRs in general. Think the reader will catch on pretty quick as he/she reads on, though I altered the image description a bit. Scoo 03:08, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More info requested on physics

I would like to know more about the specifics of an SLR-camera. I would like to know how exactly the mirror flips away (then the bottom of the film would be more illuminated than the top?), and how the autofocus and light sensor fit into the picture.... -- Parasite, civil engineering student

Well, I'd call it Design or Technology, but you're right, the article doesn't even mention focal-plane shutters or the fact that an SLR can use a phase-difference AF detector, which are critical aspects of typical SLR design that would answer your questions. Dicklyon 23:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Parallax?

The bit on SLR-like cameras mentions parallax-free views with an EVF, which, while true, seems to me to imply that DSLRs have parallax issues. Being as the view's through the same lens as the picture, of course, DSLRs have no parallax. Silvermink 19:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that bit was badly written. I worked on it a bit, along with a few other related bits, like the term "prosumer" that was applied to SLR-like; my search indicated that's not the an appropriate association. See what you think. Dicklyon 20:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

That looks better. I figured that was what you were getting at with the original writing. Silvermink 17:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Not me, but I get your point. That line appears to have been reworked several times before I got involved, not always for the better. Part of the problem is some editors with a non-neutral point of view trying to steer people away from DSLRs. Dicklyon 17:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Movie making

As we know, a Canon digital camera was used to shoot the movie Corpse Bride. But because still cameras are designed to take pictures, not shooting movies, some modifications had to be done. Is there ever going to be produced any still cameras from Canon or others that are specially made for movie production?

As I comtemplated whether that was a dumb question, how should we know, etc., it finally occurred to me that the answer is obvious: no. Dicklyon 21:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course you don't know, you don't even know how to behave yourself. Remember; No personal attacks.

Then who could know? Well, there is a lot of people working in the industry, and if there was any plans or something and they visited this place, maybe they could tell about it. Such a special camera would be a little expensive for ordinary people, but in Hollywood and such that is not a problem, even if just a small amount is made on demand. And in case someone should wonder, when I say movies I mean stop motion animated movies.

The question of a "still camera...specifially made for movie production" just seemed self-contradictory enough to deserve a no, but even if you take it seriously as a camera designed for stop-action movie making, then the idea that a mass market camera brand like Canon would make such a thing is very unlikely, imho; and if a major brand camera company employee knew about something like that in the wings, the chance that they would choose to pre-announce it on Wikipedia is also pretty low. Sorry about admitting contemplating that the question might be dumb, though. What's more likely is that a camera specifically designed as a mass market pleaser might include features that makes it easier to use for stop-action movie; my son just made such a movie using a compact digicam, no special features necessary. The main special feature of that Canon 1Ds, however, was adaptation to Nikon lenses, and you can be pretty sure Canon's not going to provide that feature. So what kind of feature or adaptation do you have in mind? Dicklyon 00:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation?

I have tagged the following statement as "original research":-

DSLRs dominate the high end of the digital camera market. However, if electronic viewfinders with near-zero lag time, increased reliability, very low power consumption, and good brightness are introduced, and if a good fast AF mechanism that is compatible with using the main sensor for viewing is developed, then non-SLR cameras may become a viable alternative for a large number of people who now use SLRs.'

It comes across as if the author her/himself had written this speculation, which is not acceptable (see Wikipedia:No original research).

We can include such speculation if (and only if) it reflects the views of an authoritative/reputable third-party, and is already published elsewhere. In which case we (a) need a reference and (b) Need to rewrite to show whose view it is.

If no reference/evidence is provided sometime soon, it will be removed for the normal reasons.

Fourohfour 22:47, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Note: I wasn't the person who removed this; I'd prefer that the person who did had included their reason in the edit summary, but I've no qualms with it otherwise. Fourohfour 11:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

I noticed that it was removed before I noticed the tag. I agree with the removal; it's just opinion. Dicklyon 15:16, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slight update for Olympus

The lower section refers to Olympus having four DSLRs including the E-330 with Liveview however there are now currently five in the range - E-1, E-300, E-330, E-500 and the E-400. The E-400 is significant as it's the smallest and lightest DSLR available, coupled with newer compact kit lenses. Since this is a general DSLR page I don't know if the four should be updated to a five and th E-400 information left out although on the other hand it does have significance on the whole. 148.177.129.213 21:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)