I will advocate for point and shoots because proper zoom lenses are nice to have sometimes. I’ve thought about getting one to stash in my car.
I find myself profoundly frustrated by the low-light performance of every phone compared to my 9yo mirrorless camera but for daytime photos, yeah probably
Oh man, let me put on my nerd glasses.
The important factor (for image quality including low-light performance) is actually sensor size not whether or not it has a mirror.
SLRs typically have an APS-C sensor, so what people equate with SLR quality is actually the quality of an APS-C or larger sensor.
One (common) size down from APS-C, micro four thirds is also a lot better then cell phone sensors.
Mokushka’s sentiment is spot on though, phones have replaced the small sensor point and shoot digital cameras.
At this point use a phone if you don’t want something fancy.
2 Likes
I don’t think what I said implied that that was the case, I was just qualifying my camera. Once you’re used to APS-C levels of low-light performance, it is really hard to go back to phone photos in low-light.
1 Like
beeeeeee
I’m really pretty happy with my $20 lens to attach to the camera I always have on me that lets me do basic editing on device and send the pictures to other people without even having to go home
I’m not saying anyone is wrong for liking better cameras, I’m just a very strong proponent of “the best camera is the one you have with you”. I’ve gotten a lot of joy out of the camera in my pocket!
2 Likes
When the lens showed up my wife immediately asked if I got it to take pictures of bee butts
2 Likes
Likewise, phones are convenient and good for most use cases, it’s just that they are flawed in visible ways for the kinds of photos (night shots) that make me feel things the most
3 Likes
the reason i have a point and shoot is because i hate everything about the process of taking photos on my phone and only do it in the absence of anything else
like sure phones are better cameras in a technical sense but ugh everything else about taking a picture on them is not fun at all
so like what’s the pro of an SLR these days. do they still have better auto-focus or
Battery life!
1 Like
So purely from the most technical point of view, SLR means that the same lens is being used both for the sensor, as well as the view finder. Ie, what you see is what you get. This is in contrast to typical point and shoot cameras where you have separate lenses, and what you see through the view finder might be slightly different from the end result.
In practice, there are quite a few other advantages as well. These are things which don’t necessarily have anything to do with SLR technology, but because SLR cameras are already more expensive, other more expensive features tend to get tacked on as well.
Number one, the sensors tend to simply be higher quality and will produce clear photos in situations where PaS cameras will produce noise and static. This becomes especially noticeable in low light situations, though that’s not the only time.
Number two, the electronics and mechanisms are faster and more responsive. This shows in a number of ways, including the focus ability you mentioned, as well how rapidly you can take successive photos.
Number three, SLRs tend to have many more options and settings available. Depending on what you are doing this may or may not be useful, but it definitely provides more flexibility should you want it.
Number four, the ability to shoot in RAW format. Serious post-capture editing and balancing has to be done in RAW format for greatest effect. Most PaS cameras go straight to JPG without any option otherwise, and editing JPG photos is extremely limited in how far you can push things.
my question was what the actual advantage of the SLR mechanism is when a fancy mirrorless camera can have a nice shiny sensor that’s also used for viewfinding. i had hoped that by mentioning my knowledge of the superior auto-focus mechanism a prism allows, i would have demonstrated that i in fact knew the basics of camera operation
My bad, I really didn’t gather that was your angle. I was just trying to provide as much info as possible, not condescend.
The bit about electronics and speed I mentioned above still hold true for SLR vs Mirrorless. SLR tech tends to be a bit better at focusing and quickly saving pictures so you can keep shooting.
SLR view finding is also superior in this case, though for slightly different reasons. The view finder in a Mirrorless, whether displayed on the main screen, or through a small view port, is just the camera displaying what the sensor is seeing, rather than the actual light from the scene as with an SLR. So view finding can be sluggish and low quality in a mirrorless, especially in low light situations
SLR cameras tend to have better lens selections and support than Mirrorless.
HOWEVER, higher-end Mirrorless cameras tend to be better at capturing video, if that’s a concern.
It should be noted that lots of these things listed above arent really by necessity due to the technology, but just what manufacturers focus on (hah) in their respective models. You can find more recent models from both sides that mitigate their respective disadvantages somewhat, though you’ll probably be seeing that mostly in the expensive high end models.
Hope this was more useful.
Edit: Also left this out since Dementia mentioned it but for the sake of completion and confirming, SLR does tend to have better battery life, largely due to not needing to constantly power a digital view finder while you take photos.
1 Like
much, thanks
1 Like
Took this yesterday afternoon. I haven’t managed to get a recent bee photo but I’m determined to do so, just like km.
I still use a (pretty nice) point-and-shoot camera because I’m used to it and because my cheap phone’s camera is nowhere near the same quality. I’ve considered trying a “real” camera but I like being able to carry my camera in my pocket. (Maybe that’s an argument for getting a fancy phone one day.)
9 Likes
picked up an olympus xa for cheap on ebay - i’m pretty excited to use this thing because it’s so tiny! I found myself leaving the nikon L35af at home more often because I felt like it was a little too big despite being pretty small, so when I found out that even smaller 35mm point and shoots existed I was pretty happy about it
there’s no autofocus on here so it’s not quite as easy to use as the L35AF but it’s not too bad; there’s aperture settings and a focus on there and the light meter seems to work so I want to see how I adapt to having to set all of that stuff up again. maybe on a walk later today
10 Likes