| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/19/2004 11:25:24 AM · #1 |
Is it just me, or are there instances where you can easily identify that a shot has been taken with a dSLR? What is it about it that makes us able to differeniate?
|
|
|
|
09/19/2004 11:28:17 AM · #2 |
Shallow depth of field is an obvious one..
|
|
|
|
09/19/2004 11:41:43 AM · #3 |
whats the difference if its a DSLR or a P&S...
I mean, they can both take equally good looking images.
|
|
|
|
09/19/2004 11:45:22 AM · #4 |
Also, and this doesn't help if the image has been cropped, but DSLRs generally have an aspect ratio of 3:2 (=1.5) while most compact digicams have a ratio of 4:3 (~1.333). So the DSLR pics are much longer and skinnier.
Not good when I'm trying to make 8x10s. Or 11x14s. Or 16x20s. Or any size at all except for 4x6 and 30x20 (!). Basically about 10% of the pixels are wasted, in most cases for common print sizes. |
|
|
|
09/19/2004 01:46:44 PM · #5 |
Shallow DOF and lack of noise do not necessarily mean the shot was taken with a DSLR.
 |
|
|
|
09/19/2004 02:13:52 PM · #6 |
Techinally, I don't think there should be any difference. P&S and dSLR cameras in theory should be just as good. But the common trend is for dSLR's to have better lenses and sensors. Someday, I envision "Point and Shoot" to dominate, but not under that name (EVF is the correct term). The concept I'm getting at is that why do you need an optical viewfinder? It isn't absolutely necessary, and it also makes movie mode and live view impossible, and makes the camera bigger. While today's electronic viewfinder (tiny, hi-res LCD's under a lens) does not have the resolution to compete with optical-through-the-lens, in the future this will not be the case. EVF's with intense resolution could not only make focusing easier, they could also display a live histogram and many, many other settings onscreen. Now, when I say that focusing can be made easier, I envision that there will be a portion of pixels that are magnified more so that focusing can be made absolute. If the LCD/EVF has as many pixels as the sensor, then why bother with optical? Exposure and depth of field would be the same onscreen as in the picture, even before you take it.
For today, dSLR's take better pictures. This is not because they are dSLR's, but because the camera companies simply put it into an SLR format camera instead of an EVF camera.
Message edited by author 2004-09-19 14:15:33. |
|
|
|
09/19/2004 02:17:19 PM · #7 |
Well, sometimes the background has circular patches, like here:  But it's also not 100%, I have also seen a few photos which were made by non-SLR camera-s and had the same effect on the background lights.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/17/2025 03:36:03 AM EDT.
