Why DSLRs are better than compact digital cameras

Cross-section view of a single-lens reflex cam...
Image via Wikipedia

For a start, you can use many lens. Not that I have more than one, but it is better than the compact lens I had. You can also push up the ISO to 1600 or more for fast moving objects, like people, children, animals and so on.

You can shoot multiple times. You see the object you want to shoot and the focus and press button function seems very fast. It is almost what you see is what you get.

I’m sure there are many more advantages, like the ability to alter so many more settings.  What I worry about while using one though is that I am a softer target for theft. Not stealing me, but the camera. I don’t know how I’d go overseas with one.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

More digital camera terms

My camera, being a compact point and shoot one, does not produce RAW images, but jpegs. RAW imaging is better. RAW images are recorded unprocessed and uncompressed from the sensor onto a memory card. You then use special software to process it further.

The new DSLR cameras have focal lengths like the old film cameras. A 50mm lens on a DSLR camera has the same angle view as a 75mm lens on a film camera. With the compact digital cameras, sensors come in different sizes. One camera with a focal length of 6.2 mm is equal to 35mm lens on a film camera, while another might be 7.6mm equalling 35mm.

In digital cameras the white balance setting is usually set to auto, but there are possible settings: “auto”, “shade” “tungsten, and “fluorescent”. With film cameras, I remember lessons where we had to learn about getting a proper black and white photo by setting the aperture against a grey background.