Hyperrealiti.com

I just bought a Nikon D50 dSLR and totally in love with it.

Before I ramble on about this camera, let me tell you a bit about my history with digital cameras. I am pretty hopeless with photography but I love gadgets and digital cameras in all their forms are right at the top of my lust list.

I started off with a 1.3 Megapixel Fuji some time in 2000. The picture quality was awful but I justified it as a time saving equipment for my work. After that I got myself a Sony Clie organiser with a built in 0.3 megapixel camera. The pictures were beyond awful but I like the portablity and actually took quite a lot video clips of my young family.

By 2002, the technology has moved on a bit, so decided to get a proper camera and ended up with a Olympus 5050 (at that time dSLR was beyond my budget) - 4 Megapixel, 3 time zoom, manual setting and the lot. It was a damn good camera and I loved it. However, during one busy spell of work, I left it with the batteries in for a few weeks and they leaked. I tried to get it repaired by Olympus said the damage was too serious. It was still functional then but started to develop all kind of problems that got worse by the day.

I got fed up and decided to get something portable and usable and end up with a Nikon Coolpix 4200. It was also 4 megapixel and 3 times zoom amera but the the picture quality was now here like the Olympus. The lack of manual control also means that I could never do proper "photography". I used it a lot but never really love it. In the end I gave it to my sister.

By late last year, I was really itching for a cameraphone. I had delayed getting one because of the poor image quality which I was already getting with my Clie. So early this year, when the technology have sort of matured, I got myself a Sony Erricsson K750i with a 2 megapixel built-in camera. I love its brilliant output (for a camera phone) and extreme portability.

By then I am getting nice pictures but without the quality that can be considered "decent photography". I started to miss my Olympus, which by this time has practically disintegrated.

So when Nikon came out with its entry level D50 to rave reviews, I decided that enough is enough. It was time for a dSLR. Only later I discovered that dSLR is one of (if not the) hottest big boys toys for this year.

Why a dSLR?

After all a Nikon D50 only does 6 Megapixel and with a middling 3 times zoom lens. A non-dSLR Fuji S9000 for example does 9 megapixel and 10 times zoom for slightly less. A Sony Cybershot R1 does 10 megapixel and uses lens similar to a much more expensive dSLR for just a bit more than the D50. Or you can get a much more portable Olympus A700 with 6 megapixels and 6 times zoom for less than half the price.

Why not?

1. Portability is not everything.
If you are at all concerned about size or partability then do not even think about a dSLR. Most people who own dSLR also owned smaller, less specialised cameras (like my SE 750i) but when they do take out the dSLR, portability is never the issue. Actually, the more expensive a dSLR, the heavier and bulkier they tend to be.

2. Megapixels is not everything
Actually many photo journalists shot at 6Mp or even less. Even for the pros, the higher resolution is mainly used for studio shoots or very specialised landscape photography. So a 10 Mp for a consumer or even amateur camera is beyond overkill.

3. 10 times zoom is not everything
I have purposely left out digital interpolations as I would not dignify this marketing hype by discussing about it. However, even when talking about purely optical mechanism, zoom factor does not tell the whole story. If your image is sharp enough, you can always blow it up using image editing softwares. On the other hand, extreme zoom is only usable either by using tripod or on extremely bright days. Under other situations, more often that not, they tend to be blurred due to the amplication of the camera movement.

The image is everything...

Olympus A700

Fujifilm S9000

Sony Cybershot R1

Nikon D50

image sources is from http://www.dcresource.com

The fact is, regardless of the pixels count, dSLR pictures simply look better. There is less noise, better tone, contrast and detail in the pictures taken with dSLR. The main reason for this phenomena have to do with the sensor.

As in traditional photography, it seems that the basic rule of thumb that "the bigger the sensor/film the better" still applies. DSLR tend to use sensors comparable in size to 35mm film. High end dSLR such as Canon EOS1D Mk2n uses a sensor the same in size to 35mm film (known as full frame) while entry level dSLRs like Nikon D50 uses sensors that maybe around 30% smaller.

Consumer digital cameras tend to use much smaller sensors which produces the level of noise unacceptable for dSLRs. Putting aside the question of cost, smaller sensors enable the manufacturers to use smaller lenses to come up with smaller and lighter cameras. Smaller sensors also enables the incoming light to be concentrated on smaller area, making it more sensitive to low lighting level.

If you remember, the traditional 35mm snap cameras with small lenses were notoriously intolerant to low lighting level. They take decent pictures under bright outdoors but without flash, practically useless indoors. The manufacturers of digital cameras seemed to have decided that the option to operate under low lighting levels more than compensates the slightly noisier images.

The optical imperfections in the smaller lenses also have proportionaly greater effect on the final image, making it less accurate.

There are exceptions to this rule. Equipped with large senses and wide lenses, some high end fixed lens cameras like Sony R1 or Fuji S9500 are designed to operate and thus produces images similar to dSLR. Where they are compromised is in having to use a single lens for all photographic tasks.

The fundamental advantage of SLR and dSLR is that by using interchangeble lenses, it frees the camera from the compromise of having a single lens to cater for all ocassions. Referring to above 2 examples, it is interesting to note that Fuji offers a much bigger focal range. To achieve that, it has to sacrifice the image quality by having smaller sensor. The Sony on the other hand uses similar sensor and lens to high end Nikon dSLR. The price it pays is a much limited focal range, which is only 3 times zoom as opposed to Fuji's 10.

For dSLR, you can cover different focal range simply by changing the lens, without compromising on the quality of the sensors and ultimately its image. That, in a nutshell is the conceptual difference between a dSLR and fixed lens digital cameras.

The other advantages are mainly due to design rather than concept. It is taken for granted that dSLR users would go the extra mile to get the perfect images. Hence function such as viewfinder only viewing which enables longer battery life, fast access to image at high quality, robust construction and additional accessories such as numerous types of flash, filters etc.

In theory, there is nothing to stop manufacturers from putting these functions on a fixed lens camera. However, it is assumed that fixed lens users would rather have the convenience even it compromises the image quality to a certain degree.

As a conclusion, the argument whether dSLR is really any better than fixed lens is moot. If you just want to take snaps, go for fixed lenses. Bigger budget will buy you better quality and greater flexibility. On the other hand, if it is image quality and shooting flexibility that are uppermost in your mind, there is only one choice - go dSLR!