DSLRs with fold-out displays?

glitch · 21 May 2007 at 13:57

Concorde Rules said:
I don't get why people are arguing about D-SLR Vs. Compacts.

D-SLRs are better in nearly every area, thats why we buy them!

Plus the fact you can now buy a 300/350D with 18-55 for £200/250 and that will kick the backside off any compact.

End.

It doesn't matter what camera you own; it's how you use it. There's no point in someone buying a DSLR (or SLR) if they're not going to take full advantage of the features that it offers.

In the right hands (and with the right skills) a non-SLR can match an SLR for quality. People only buy the damn things because they are sold on being better quality - a poor photographer will still get poor results, no matter what the camera.

^^Gord^^ · 21 May 2007 at 15:59

glitch said:
It doesn't matter what camera you own; it's how you use it. There's no point in someone buying a DSLR (or SLR) if they're not going to take full advantage of the features that it offers.

True.

glitch said:
In the right hands (and with the right skills) a non-SLR can match an SLR for quality. People only buy the damn things because they are sold on being better quality - a poor photographer will still get poor results, no matter what the camera.

AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

You first statement is correct and then you follow up with repeating your statement that non-SLR cameras can produce the same QUALITY as a DSLR. It's been pointed out many, many, many times already that is simply not true for so many reasons. In the right hands a good photographer can produce a better photo on a non-SLR that a bad photographer can with the top of the range DSLR but that is NOT quality.

You really do seem to be very narrow minded when you look at this subject. I can understand people sticking up for their choice of camera. I can understand good photos can be taken with compacts and bridges (spent a few years doing that myself). But the simple fact is that DSLRs are better technology that compacts or bridge cameras. So far, you haven't provide any evidence against this.

I think it's about time you put your money where your mouth is and post some of these motorsport pictures that are as good as what people are getting with DSLRs! Make sure you include the EXIF info as well!

MajorPart · 21 May 2007 at 16:20

The reason pro and keen photographers use dSLR's is because in everything but phyiscial size a dSLR is better. I mean i still use a digital compact but ONLY when I'm not allowed to or would be stupid to ie concert (and i have no press pass, and i've paid for the seat to watch) or night out. Sometime i regret it due to inferior PQ and Photoshop can only bring it up to a certain level... which still is no where near a decent dSLR. HAVE YOU EVEN USED ONE OUTSIDE OF A SHOP?

Even the film v's digital argument is irrelevant as there are digital cameras which have better exposure latitude, which currently is digitals ONLY negative issue at the moment in the budget to mid section.

The images of the horses is not any special technique that the photographer has used that is the plain difference in image quality between a half decent compact camera and a decent dSLR. You can have as many pixels as you like in your case your on about 9 million, but it's all about the glass that is attached to your camera and the size of your sensor.. larger the better and thats what dSLR's have.

Also about flash since when has a compact been able to do angled bounce flash or a decent high speed sync... pretty much all canon/nikon dSLR can do 4000th flash sync.

Just for s**ts n giggles here's some car related pix i've taken on various dSLR's (not my best just the ones that i've not sold/are rights managed)
http://www.bebo.com/PhotoAlbumBig.jsp?MemberId=5876837&PhotoNbr=1&PhotoAlbumId=2349049631
(rally2005.jpg done on a 1V film camera scanned on a Nikon scanner)

glitch · 21 May 2007 at 22:09

^^Gord^^ said:
AAARRRRRGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

You first statement is correct and then you follow up with repeating your statement that non-SLR cameras can produce the same QUALITY as a DSLR. It's been pointed out many, many, many times already that is simply not true for so many reasons. In the right hands a good photographer can produce a better photo on a non-SLR that a bad photographer can with the top of the range DSLR but that is NOT quality.

I think we're talking cross-purposes about quality here. You're talking about technology I'm talking about artistic merit. Bad choice of word on my part perhaps.

^^Gord^^ said:
You really do seem to be very narrow minded when you look at this subject. I can understand people sticking up for their choice of camera. I can understand good photos can be taken with compacts and bridges (spent a few years doing that myself). But the simple fact is that DSLRs are better technology that compacts or bridge cameras. So far, you haven't provide any evidence against this.

I think it's about time you put your money where your mouth is and post some of these motorsport pictures that are as good as what people are getting with DSLRs! Make sure you include the EXIF info as well!

I'll assume you've got the wrong person or that's directed at someone else shall I?!

Messiah Khan · 21 May 2007 at 22:14

glitch said:
I'll assume you've got the wrong person or that's directed at someone else shall I?!

Im presuming he is as well.

konicky · 21 May 2007 at 22:39

TheAlex said:
The Fuju S9600 looks quite good, and cheap too.

This thread seems to have lost track of your original post!
A good prosumer such as the Olympus 8080 or the Fuji 9600 is a very versatile tool which can take great pictures at relatively little cost. A DSLR is different technology rather than better although they do have advantages in certain situations. They are also heavy and expensive, especially when you start buying additional lenses!

Only you can decide!

brendy · 21 May 2007 at 23:01

messiah khan said:
Im presuming he is as well.

me too

I think this has built up a strange light on my part with crossed wires, I believe a decent (read: not a pcworld/ebay special) can take a decent picture, I also said that I use my camera for motorsport pictures, I never said they were the best! haha.
I suppose with long term use a dslr would definately convince me but still cant get past the extra expense for what I use it for, ie non professionally, I build and support my companies networks, id love to have more time for my golf and photography but having a family seriously shrinks the time I get to play with my gadgets.

TheAlex · 21 May 2007 at 23:44

SDK^ said:
Alex - check out the Zigview. It attaches to the viewfinder and outputs onto a live swivel display.

It meets your requirements and retails around £150.

Cheers, that looks pretty cool! Seems it can work as a remote too somehow, I found this video of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2oEVRJh4pY

konicky said:
This thread seems to have lost track of your original post!

Hehe...thanks. It has served a purpose though...I looked up some of those busterboy photos and they're rather good...I am going to go with a DSLR rather than a bridge or prosumer, it's just deciding which one. It needs to be a good all-rounder as I want to take photos of anything and everything. I'm hoping Canon EOS 400D or Nikon D40x with a decent lense for under £600. And possibly one of those Zigviews on top of that if they're all they're cracked up to be. I need a new printer aswell. Oh the expense...

Raymond Lin · 21 May 2007 at 23:50

TheAlex said:
Cheers, that looks pretty cool! Seems it can work as a remote too somehow, I found this video of it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R2oEVRJh4pY

Hehe...thanks. It has served a purpose though...I looked up some of those busterboy photos and they're rather good...I am going to go with a DSLR rather than a bridge or prosumer, it's just deciding which one. It needs to be a good all-rounder as I want to take photos of anything and everything. I'm hoping Canon EOS 400D or Nikon D40x with a decent lense for under £600. And possibly one of those Zigviews on top of that if they're all they're cracked up to be. I need a new printer aswell. Oh the expense...

If the pros doesn't need it to make a living, why would us mortals need it?

^^Gord^^ · 22 May 2007 at 00:06

glitch said:
I'll assume you've got the wrong person or that's directed at someone else shall I?!

Yes, the second part was aimed at brendy, that's what happens when you quickly type a reply on your way out! Sorry dude!

brendy · 22 May 2007 at 00:17

^^Gord^^ said:
Yes, the second part was aimed at brendy, that's what happens when you quickly type a reply on your way out! Sorry dude!

I never even posted for that reply though!

the only picture I have on photobucket at the moment (im on my work laptop as the house is having work done so pc is boxed away) is a bloody bird! bare in mind this was taken with the z3 though ill post up pics of the next event I attend, C&C please. No filters or editing only slightly resized from 4mp.

glitch · 22 May 2007 at 07:12

^^Gord^^ said:
Yes, the second part was aimed at brendy, that's what happens when you quickly type a reply on your way out! Sorry dude!

No worries fella, easily done.

On-topic; anyone got one of those Zigview things? They look quite funky.

boycee · 22 May 2007 at 09:01

SDK^ said:
Alex - check out the Zigview. It attaches to the viewfinder and outputs onto a live swivel display.

It meets your requirements and retails around £150.

Was tempted by this for taking candids, as well as when I'm taking either high shots above my head, or low shots where I can't be bothered to bend down all the time!

Messiah Khan · 22 May 2007 at 09:29

I have considered a Zigview for low to the ground macro work. They are quite expensive however, so i might try a right angled viewfinder first.