File :-(, x, )
Sub-SLR? Namefag
/P/hotography, I choose you!


Some whore stole my cybershot camera at work some months ago and It can't be proven. I like photography and I like quality, consistency and a certain amount of proffesionalism in my photos, which lead me to SLR's, however I also like the accessability and flexability of digital pictures, this lead me to D-SLR's.

So I was reading this UK mag called computer active and it mentioned the Olympus SP550. They categorised it as a "Sub-SLR". Now I can only assume this is some sort of forfeit or watered down SLR at a substantially lower price.

I'm very curious of the category and I don't believe I've noticed it before. Can someone explain "sub SLR" a bit more for me and say explain the benefits and forfeits of it and what SLR qualities it has?

Thanks /P/
>> Anonymous
"sub slr" would just be a way of saying an expensive and large point and shoot likely with some semblance of manual controls, ie. don't bother unless you're not going to take your photography seriously
>> Namefag
>>76119
Just before you start there, something I'd like to say is the vast majority of the photos I take end up being manipulated or painted on in some way.

Basically what I've used SLR's before back in my college days and I didn't consider its outcome (even though impressive) worth for what I was doing. I used a simple powershot in France for 2 weeks and loved the results with that alone!
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
"Sub-SLR" = "Point and Shoot that's too big to fit in your pocket"

I.e., all of the quality and speed advantages of a Point & Shoot combined with the weight, size, and convenience advantages of an SLR.

I.e., don't bother. Either get a pocketable camera (like a Canon PowerShot, for instance) or get a DSLR.
>> Anonymous
>>76121
True for a lot of cameras, but not entirely correct in the case of SP-550 and some other compact ultra zooms.
SP-550 has inferior image quality (vastly inferior at ISO 400 and up) and too little manual controls, but no DSLR can offer a 28-500mm equivalent zoom range with IS at less than four times the weight and price of SP-550.
It's definitely not a replacement for a DSLR, but it may be useful to take along on trips when you want zoom power, but don't feel like hauling a backpack full of lenses.
>> Anonymous
>>76121
1. "Sub-SLRs" (why do these people think they can get away with this marketing junk?) handle much better than normal point-and-shoots.

2. At low ISOs, the thing limiting the quality of point-and-shoots is that most of them have horrible lenses, even worse than a DSLR kit lens. A photograph from a point-and-shoot with a good lens is of pretty much equal quality to that of a DSLR.

For low light, yeah, a DSLR or a propensity to use more flash than Bruce Gilden is needed. But for up until twilight and/or for scenes one can use a tripod for, a point-and-shoot will do just fine.

3. Almost all top-end point and shoots have full manual controls. I know you didn't argue this point, but others did, so I'm just including this in this post.

4. And lastly, top-end point and shoots have eliminated shutter lag, so long as everything (focus, exposure, etc.) is set before the shutter is pressed.

The thing about point-and-shoots is that the label includes everything from a camera phone to the Panasonic FZ-50 or Fuji S9100, which even have focusing rings on the lens. The only thing they have in common is sensor size and the lack of interchangeable lenses, and to throw them in together is like putting Canonet and a disposable camera in the same basket because they both use 35mm film and have one lens.

And like a prior poster said, try carrying a DSLR with one of their superzoom lenses, and then another telephoto zoom to make up the difference, into some places. It won't work, either for reasons of convenience, allowance, or civility.
>> Anonymous
I guess "sub-SLR" is what they call super-zoom P&S now? They try to dress up technology with new words just how old dot-matrix printers are now "impact printers." If you don't really want an dSLR, then go for one. It's probably good for an enthusiast. But if you decide you want to pursue photography even more, you'll have to dish out more for the dSLR body and lenses anyway. It's your choice.
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
Bah. Zoom range. Fast prime + pair of legs!
</curmudgeon>

Seriously, though, I haven't missed any zoom range with my switch from a superzoom to a dSLR. The fact that ISO400 is way clearer than ISO100 on my superzoom more than makes up for it. And the fact that it goes from off to having-taken-a-picture in less than the blink of an eye (along with 3fps rate of fire when I need it) really drives home the point.

My superzoom is the only piece of camera equipment I sold after upgrading instead of keeping around "just in case". I knew I'd never want to go back to it.
>> extermin8tor
>>76121
tru dat, i have a s5600 that kinda sucks sometimes
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
Yeah i agree with that the super zooms are a faux pas in that... they're pretty useless when go super... the IS is pointless since you need a tripod.

But i think we've missed the point, although i too am a SLR whore... i don't think everyone needs it.

The Bridge SLR like camera (or whatever marketing gurus are calling them these days) provide a great package for the novice to intermediate photographer.

It usually combines VR or IS with a nice ranged zoom that is also very capable of macro photography.

For people who want the same setup on SLR it would cost them bucket loads more than the few hundred dollars a bridge camera would cost them.

There is a huge market for these cameras, that's why they exist, the average shooter will shy away from SLRs for all sorts of reasons.

But back on track, i'd recommned AGAINST the SP550 simply because the range of zoom is pointless... the IQ after 300mm EQUIV... is just horrible and it doesnt have IS does it?

The girlfriend has a FZ-50 Lumix, great Leica lens and it's got manual control for shutter speed and aperture.
>> Anonymous
>>76146

I realize this is somewhat off topic, but impact printers and dot-matrix printers have nothing to do with each other, and never did.

I'm sure you know what a dot-matrix is already.

An impact printer could be a dot-matrix, or it could be a daisywheel or some other design. Impact printers are used to print on pressure-sensitive paper such as business forms. They hit the paper very hard. An impact printer is designed to print multiple identical copies at the same time.

These days nobody makes normal dot matrix printers anymore as lasers and inkjets have taken over the market. However, impact printers are still around for business use.
>> Anonymous
>>76194and it doesnt have IS does it?
It does, but it's still not going to help at 500mm equiv.
>> Anonymous
>>76226
It's going to help at 500mm if you know what you're doing and don't expect miracles like shooting handheld at 1/50s.

By the way, the photo on the left was shot at 1000mm equivalent, handheld, with a manual focus lens and no IS.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>76283
Oops forgot photo

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeOLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.Camera ModelE-500Camera SoftwareAdobe Photoshop CS3 WindowsMaximum Lens Aperturef/1.0Color Filter Array Pattern654Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution240 dpiVertical Resolution240 dpiImage Created2007:09:14 11:46:08Exposure Time1/1250 secExposure ProgramAperture PriorityISO Speed Rating200Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceUnknownFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width768Image Height1024RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceAutoScene Capture TypeStandardGain ControlLow Gain UpContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessSoft
>> Anonymous
>>76224
ORLY?

http://www.epson.com/cgi-bin/Store/ProductCategory.jsp?oid=-8185

Here are your 9- and 24-pin dot matrix printers that print on plain paper.

In b4 deletion/gb2/g/
>> Anonymous
>>76131
no, but one can buy a K100D (with IS) for less than $100 more with kit lens and buy a separate lens and still be under the price limits :P
>> Anonymous
>>76964
uh, you'll need at least 2 extra lenses (50-200 + Sigma 70-300?) to get that zoom range, and you'll have to swap them.
>> eku !8cibvLQ11s
>>76194
>For people who want the same setup on SLR it would cost them bucket loads more than the few hundred dollars a bridge camera would cost them.

I doubt there's any superzoom which would beat any lens made for any slr in image quality. It would just cost too much.
>> Jeremo !iKGMr61IHM
>>77006

For 4x6 prints you'll be hard pressed to notice a HUGE difference to justify the HUGE increase in price.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
Superzooms are expensive picture takers.

SLRs take photographs.

As we (or is it just me) keep saying, the glass is what makes a picture, if you are stuck with just one lense you will never be able to take photos better than its limits.
>> Anonymous
>>77058
Whoa. The person behind the camera decides if it becomes a picture or photograph. Gear just might limit you from obtaining what you want (clarity, bokeh, etc). Trust me, as I have taken a lot of bad, expensive pictures on my SLR before.