Newfangled gadgets

L

littlewoman

Longterm Registered User
I'm looking into getting a DSLR, I have an old analogue SLR and so am familiar with them, but with the advent of digital it seems that things have got whole lot more complicated.

Firstly, there's these Compact System Camera's, pretty much like a compact but with interchangeable lenses like an SLR. Whereas an old compact was simply point and shoot, the modern ones have more features than an old SLR. These have an LCD screen and a viewfinder, but the viewfinder is actually a very small screen, so it seems like an optical viewfinder, but isn't.

Another interesting thing is that one "DSLR" camera, instead of having a mirror that moves when you take a shot, has a translucent mirror that directs most of the light onto the sensor and some of it up to the viewfinder.

These systems have two advantages over the SLR, firstly, they're quiet as there's no mirror moving, secondly they can take more frames per second.

So I was wondering, does anyone have any experience of actually using any of these newfangled gadgets? And if so, are they any good?
 
Good question.

It's been years since I picked up any stills camera, all I've ever used professionally are various forms of video, from 'ebay cheap' to the budget of a very large house. I'll be following this one with interest !
 
Dslr

Hi bud hope this helps, not long complicated a course and they are using Nikon D200 and up to 600mil lenses I have a Nikon D80 and they are really the same bar the mega pix but would be ok for surveillance, you will need good lenses this is where the cost will come in try to get a fast lens with a low F stop number this will allow for better results at low light and a x2 tel converter will save you a fortune but you will loss a few F stops from the lens, but It depends on the type of use. I would all so get a old copy of photo shop you can get this all off old E-Bay, Hope this helps.
:D
 
x2 convertor will effectively double your f stop, ie; 2.8 becomes 5.6.

x1.4 is a better bet, as you dont lose as much, you'll get better definition, even if you don't get the ultimate range.
 
Sorry, obviously I didn't make it clear about what advice I was after.
There are various other threads about which is the best camera and I didn't intend to start another one. I wanted to start a thread about the specific things I raised in my original post (CSC's and translucent mirrors) because they are relatively new and I don't know if people aren't recommending them because they haven't tried them and found they are not good, or because they just haven't tried them. (Unless I'm mistaken and its just not clear in the spec, the Nikons mentioned are normal SLR's with moving mirrors)
 
Ahah !

The 'semi-silvered' mirror bit has been around for years, but only started to be usable in the context of DSLR's when they started getting decently low light sensitive.

In film cameras, you needed all the light you could get, to get to the film plane, as normal film stock needed a decent amount of light. That's why the mirror flipped out of the way.

DSLR's light sensitivity is a different story, unless you're playing at seriously low light levels, you can afford to split some out to go to the viewfinder.

Other factor in play, was that during long exposures for low light work, you didn't want any mechanical movement / vibration, as it'd bugger up the shot, so the mirror could be locked up out of the way. That's still a feature of some DSLR's that may be used for extreme low light / scientific / microscopy applications, etc.
 
Ah so it would only be like using a lower ISO film in the old days? I think its 70% of light to the sensor and 30% to the viewfinder. Considering the old films went up to 1600 (in the normal domestic market), and a £500 DSLR being around ISO 12000 (yes one more 0) you're still loads better than the best film in terms of low light.
 
God, I hate quick learners, make me feel inadequate. :(

Thank the American NSA. They threw HUGE amounts of money at Kodak, to develop ever higher speed film for aerial surveillance. When CCD's came along, they upped the budget, developing ever more sensitive, and even more pixel, sensors, for early satellite surveillance. Kodak got left behind, and the new Silicon Valley industries got in the market. The likes of Texas Instruments (TI) and others, dominated the market, with their top end products being reserved for Uncle Sam, and the lesser stuff filtering doown to industrial and commercial markets.
 
Back
Top