Talk:Digital single-lens reflex camera

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A concise and easy-to-read introduction[edit]

Here are three versions of the introduction to this article:

Version of 9 Sept. 2007:

A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or D-SLR) is a digital camera that operates on the same optical and mechanical principles as a modern electronic autofocus 35mm film single-lens reflex camera. The key difference is that the film is replaced with a CCD or CMOS image sensor plus accompanying electronics, thus creating images digitally in-camera, without the need to first chemically develop a latent image on film.

The problem with this, in my opinion, was that it implied that the reader should become familiar with film SLRs in order to understand DSLRs.

Version of 10 Sept. 2007, after I had rewritten the introduction, plus some tweeks by Dicklyon:

A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses an automatic mirror system placed between the lens and the image sensor to direct the image from the lens through the viewfinder where it can be viewed by the photographer. The viewfinder includes a matte focusing screen at its focal plance, to allow accurate focusing and to allow the light into the prism that directs the light through the viewfinder.

As in film SLRs, the through-the-lens optical viewing is primarily to support accurate fast viewfinding with interchangable lenses.

The basic operation of a DSLR, having the mirror reflecting the image away from the image sensor except briefly during the exposure, precludes the ability to see the image in the LCD display before the picture is taken, a major difference from the way an ordinary digital camera works. Some newer DSLR models feature an option generally known as "live preview" that does allow the image to be seen on the LCD display, although with certain limitations and while the optical viewfinder is dark.

In most other respects a DSLR is similar in principle and operation to a standard digital camera; the image captured by the CCD or CMOS image sensor is processed electronically and stored on a removable memory device. The price range and extra features and options available vary widely from model to model, and newer and better models arrive every year.

This may be a bit long-winded, but in my opinion includes the important points about what a DSLR is, and in particular emphasises the very important limitation of not being able to compose the picture on the LCD (unless "live preview" is present), something that many, many people who buy DSLRs don't realize, because they assume that's how all digital cameras work.

Version of 8 Oct. 2007:

A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses an automatic mirror system placed between the lens and the image sensor to direct the image from the lens through the viewfinder where it can be viewed by the photographer. The viewfinder includes a matte focusing screen, to allow accurate focusing and to allow the light into the prism that directs the light through the viewfinder.

The basic electro-mechanical operation of a DSLR is as follows: for viewing purposes, the mirror reflects the light coming through the attached lens through the fresnel lens and the condenser lens where it is further reflected by the pentaprism (or pentamirror) to the photographer's eye. During exposure, the mirror swings upward from its 45 degree viewing angle, thus providing light to be received by the image sensor, and this action precludes the ability to view the image shown on the LCD display screen before the image is exposed. This is a major operational difference from the way an ordinary digital camera (digicam) works. Some newer DSLR models feature live preview, allowing the image to be seen on the LCD display, although with certain limitations and with the optical viewfinder disabled.

In most other respects, a DSLR is similar in principle and operation to a standard digital camera; the image captured by the CCD or CMOS image sensor is processed electronically and stored on an internal, removable, or external memory device. The price range and extra features and options available vary widely from model to model, and newer, more improved and more featured models arrive almost every three to four months.

Now I fear that the introduction is drifting into excessive techno-babble. These latest changes are technically correct (which is great, of course), but are not of interest to "Joe six-pack" who is wondering whether he should buy a DSLR. It can be argued that the 10 Sept. version was also too technical, but the justification was that it was necessary to explain why the heck the LCD was black, something that surprises many, many people.

Other opinions? --RenniePet 19:02, 8 October 2007 (UTC) --RenniePet 19:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think I liked the oldest one best. It seems to me OK to start by saying it's an SLR with a sensor in the place film; that's what the name means, obviously. After that, one can get into what it means to be an SLR. The thing about the LCD not showing a preview when the reflex mirror is down does not belong in th lead, in my opinion; or certainly not in the first paragraph of the lead. Just because a bunch of people are clueless about this, as they are with all other aspects of DSLRs, doesn't mean it has to go right up front. The expanded lead is OK, but the "matte focusing screen" is anothing thing that probably shouldn't show up in the lead paragraph. I recommend you work on it, but if you'd prefer, let me know I'll try a rewrite myself. Dicklyon 22:38, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> I think I liked the oldest one best.

Oh, dear. :-)

> ... or certainly not in the first paragraph of the lead.

Actually, it isn't / wasn't.

I feel fairly strongly that the introduction should

1. Not be dependent on film SLRs or even mention them. More and more of the people getting into DSLRs are young and never used a film camera and consider film to be ancient like vinyl LPs.

2. Sould mention in some way the lack of an image on the LCD. I hang out on a DSLR photography forum and again and again there are newbies who ask how to turn on the LCD - it comes as a total shock to them that it is not possible.

If nobody else wants to try doing a rewrite of the introduction I'll make another attempt in a couple of days. OK? --RenniePet 17:20, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind if you give it another try, but as I said, I think introducing the DSLR without mentioning the SLR is silly, and the dark LCD feature is not so important as to be in the lead; OK, maybe in the lead, but certainly not in the opening paragraph, and certainly not more prominent than explaining "SLR". Dicklyon 01:11, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An easier to read intro is welcome - I would also be in favor of an intro that helps out "Joe six-pack" but the lead shouldn't selectively pick and choose personal favorite advantages of DSLR's. How about an 'advantages' section that jumps to the many advantages noted within the article?211.209.30.29 15:53, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

> Now I fear that the introduction is drifting into excessive techno-babble.
"The basic electro-mechanical operation of a DSLR is as follows: for viewing purposes, the mirror reflects the light coming through the attached lens through the fresnel lens and the condenser lens where it is further reflected by the pentaprism (or pentamirror) to the photographer's eye. During exposure, the mirror swings upward from its 45 degree viewing angle, thus providing light to be received by the image sensor, and this action precludes the ability to view the image shown on the LCD display screen before the image is exposed."
The latest revision of the introduction, with talk of "fresnel lens" and "condenser lens" and "pentaprism (or pentamirror)" is too technical in my opinion for the introduction. All this can be explained in detail later, but not in the introduction.
Also, "the mirror swings upward from its 45 degree viewing angle, thus providing light to be received by the image sensor, and this action precludes the ability to view the image shown on the LCD display screen before the image is exposed" is not really correct. It is not the swinging up of the mirror that prevents the image being displayed on the LCD, it is the existence of the mirror and the fact that it is normally in the path of the light.
Well, that's my opinion, for what it's worth. --RenniePet 18:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Agreed, - I've edited to take out such stuff. I also added some characteristics, seaparated into advantages and disadvantages, that I hope would make the article more "Joe six-pack" friendly. You only have to look at some of the comments on the talk page (e.g. 'dslr's are for ego masturbation') to see that there is a need for advantages and disadvantages to be a bit more prominent - did I do a bad thing by putting these in? did I miss anything? Could we link these advantages and disadvantages to relevant sections of the article? My problem with previous leads that mentioned advantages was that they were so selective... 211.209.30.29 05:37, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think we need to help Joe six pack buy a camera. This is an encyclopedia. A list of purported advantages and disadvantages does not belong in the lead. So I took it out. Dicklyon 06:08, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A list of purported advantages and disadvantages does not belong in the lead. So I took it out
Fair enough.... I have moved it into the DSLRs compared to other digital cameras section. How do you like it there?
undo addition of a whole section worth of unsourced stuff to the lead
If you still dislike this list in its new location, please add why you think this needs to be sourced. The individual statements are hardly contentious, and as a list, I hoped it was an inclusive and balanced enough not to be POV. 211.209.30.29 15:48, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Version of 31st Dec. 2014:

I added a more explicit explantion and link to SLR as link in the second paragraph, as the link in the first paragraph is somewhat burried in the text. The earlier link may be missed by someone fast scanning through article. By putting an explicit line in a singl short paragraph the significance of SLR to DSLR will be retained for people who want fast read/jump betwen articles as opposed to read them in depth. The second advnatage is that people buying DSLR lenses can discover that SLR lenses are availble and will work manually - which is fine for some applications such as videography. Another use of them is on micro four thirds camera's through the use of telecompressors AKA metabones X-mass (talk) 05:33, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Reinserted Section On Fuji Infrared/Ultraviolet DSLR[edit]

To the unknown user 211.209.30.29 who removed the following:

===Unusual features – infrared and ultraviolet photography===
On July 13, 2007, FujiFilm announced the FinePix IS Pro, which uses Nikon F-mount lenses. This camera, in addition to having live preview, has the ability to record in the infrared and ultraviolet spectrums of light. (See [1] for a discussion of same)

Let's understand that a number of people new to photography (especially those involved in law enforcement and forensic photography, to name a few) would certainly be interested in this reference. This is not so much a 'PR' for Fuji (as you put it in your edit) as just simply "mentioning a tool of the trade". It could be further argued about the whole page that any picture or mention of a certain manufacturer's DSLR model is also a 'promo' for that manufacturer's company, which is simply not true for this page so I stand by my reinsertion of the text. It informs readers in general of peculiar types of cameras in photography that are an answer to a particular type of photographic problem, and this is generally true in photography and with most manufacturers. Canon, for example, makes a 24mm tilt/shift lens; nobody else makes this lens including Nikon (and I wish they would). So, a mention of this lens might solve a certain kind of problem that an architectural photographer or landscape photographer might have, and that photographer would need this information. A general reader of this web-encyclopedia would also appreciate the variety of SLR and DSLR models that are out in the marketplace.--MurderWatcher1 17:09, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, that was user 128.84.59.234. And I agree that there's no problem with briefly mentioning particular DSLRs that have interesting characteristics.124.50.57.143 23:31, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

SLR question[edit]

From an earlier version of the article:

Because the viewfinder shows the image as seen by the light coming through the lens, it is possible to build cameras that allow interchangeable lenses; all currently available DSLRs do support interchangeable lenses. Being able to change the lens makes it possible to invest in the lenses that are best suited for the kind of photography one is interested in.

I must be missing something, but how is the ability to exchange lenses inherently unique to SLR cameras? JIP | Talk 17:55, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ability to exchange lenses is not inherently unique to SLR cameras, and there's even a little section at the end of the article that mentions this: Digital single-lens reflex camera#Other digital cameras that allow the lens to be changed.
As author of that previous version of the introduction, I'd like to mention that I don't think that what I wrote implied that only SLR techniques could allow interchangeable lenses, although the text could have been more clear on that point. --RenniePet 09:26, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is not inherently unique to SLR cameras does not mean that it is not very strongly associated with them. At the time of writing you'll struggle to find many DSLR cameras that do not have an interchangable lens design, and you'll also struggle to find many non-DSLR digicams that do. 211.209.30.29 15:59, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DSLRs compared to other digital cameras[edit]

Added references to this section re. advantages / disadvatages. Obviously given the nature of the subject, most of these are enthusiast sites and not peer-reviewed academic journals. However, I feel they are 'Sources ... appropriate to the claims made' as per WP:V. Any help with finding further sources is of course appreciated.219.251.88.109 02:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olympus E-10 and E-20[edit]

A lot of the information here is only relevant to current dSLR. However, the E-10 and the E-20N/P from Olympus were of SLR design and share only a few of the characteristics of current dSLRs. This article needs to be updated to reflect that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.73.6.35 (talk) 11:27, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not happy about seeing the Olympus E-10 and E-20 categorized as DSLRs, with the result that the E-10, rather than the E-330, is proclaimed to be the first DSLR with "live preview". That doesn't make sense in the modern context.
Aren't the E-10 and E-20 more commonly talked about as being "SLR-like"? http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Olympus/oly_e20.asp
For me, the lack of an optical viewfinder means that they are not real SLRs or DSLRs. --RenniePet (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
... I'm not familiar with these cameras myself, but other sources (http://www.steves-digicams.com/e10.html; http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E10/E10A.HTM) seem to confirm that this was indeed an SLR design using a 'beam-splitter' to drive the LCD view. 219.251.88.91 18:42, 4 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
DP Review also says it's true-SLR - "Real TTL viewfinder (beam split prism)". Why shouldn't it be included as an SLR? Because the lens is fixed ? Semantically, that definitely means it's a 'Single-Lens'. (Lol !) For an historic precedent, see Canon Pellix, a 1965 SLR with a thin-film beamsplitter. The key word here is 'Reflex' which comes from the same root as 'reflect', implying a mirror or prism. The term SLR was coined to distinguish them from TLRs 'Twin Lens Reflexes' - ie Rolleiflex, Mamiyaflex, Yashicamat, Lubitel etc. TLRs have completely separate chambers for viewing & taking : SLRs have one or more mirrors in a single chamber, to fold the optical path from one lens to the eye or sensor as required.
'No moving parts' is a great & notable design feature - cost, reliability, silence, battery-life, vibration ... only disadvantages are loss of light (half-a-stop?) and potential fogging via the viewfinder.
The big debate here seems to be that there's nothing magic about a mirror which is 'necessary and sufficient' to make DSLRs wonderful. However, even though the mirror itself does not cause excellence, there are many desirable features that correlate extremely strongly with the existance of a mirror in practice. The excellence is more likely to be caused by the price, which also correlates positively with the 'reflex' feature. It is almost as though weight and bulk justified the expense. It reminds me of a period in photographic history (between F and EM reigns in the Nikon dynasty) when black was the 'professional' colour, and silver cameras looked 'amateur'. That may still persist to an extent.
There have been a few attempts to make a quality digital non-SLR, but it seems to remain a 'niche market', very similar to the film-rangefinder market - only room for a few suppliers, and high-priced. It could make an interesting article or category. On the other hand, no-one has come up with the digital equivalent of the 'Nikon EM', which was a £100 ($200) 'budget SLR' in ~1980. The D40 at £250 ($500) is getting close, though!
The Sigma DP1 seems to fit the definition of "quality digital non-SLR", but isn't this getting OT?

Perhaps it is possible to mention the E-10 and E-20 as technically SLRs, but ones that use an unconventional design. Conventional being a moving mirror. Yes, they are similar to the Pellix and the Nikon F3H [2] Micahmedia (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

--195.137.93.171 (talk) 08:07, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Early Summary[edit]

Why do I have to read the entire page AND the talk page to get a basic understanding of why DSLR cameras are used over digicams by many photographers. I come to Wikipedia to gain understanding about topics, rather than revel in scientific explanations. Sure, keep the detail but please add a sentence to the top (above the toc) which simply explains WHY the distinctions are. Something like: "DSLRs are preferred over standard digicams by many photographers due to the optical viewfinder, which shows the true image which will be captured, rather than a low-resolution LCD image of an Electronic Viewfinder (EVF)." Perhaps adding: "Most DSLRs come with the ability to equip a range of lenses, unlike most digicams, however there are some exceptions to this." - surely this is not too much to ask? Gerardtalk 16:56, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds good, but it would need to be verifiable... if you can cite a book or other reliable source that explains this preference, then go for it! ǝɹʎℲxoɯ (contrib) 17:05, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, but surely that is simply common knowledge - the point of the Single-Lens Reflex. Check the OVF vs EVF section, or the 2nd paragraph on SLR. The Burden of Evidence applies to "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged", which I think doesn't apply to that summarisation of content already in this article (and others). Gerardtalk 20:25, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The properties of the DSLR are common knowledge. But inferred reasons why someone prefers them should be omitted, or sourced. Dicklyon (talk) 20:31, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, perhaps rephrase my sentence. you could say (in a brief sentence early on) that the optical viewfinder offers more precise (?) higher resolution (?) images, which more accurately (?) represent the photograph taken (because the mirror redirects the light etc etc). Obviously the old "some people say" is inappropriate, but surely we can list the advantages, or the resulant differences of use? Gerardtalk 20:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What works best is to find a source, and write what you learn from it, and cite it. Try some of these books. Dicklyon (talk) 04:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dSLR's with movie mode[edit]

Just released today is the Nikon D90, first dSLR with a movie mode.

[3] [4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.107.0.53 (talk) 08:35, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And also now the 5d MkII. What's the best section to add this? Micahmedia (talk) 02:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Apologies, it's there already! Micahmedia (talk) 02:48, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hello all, I just wanted to chime in that I helped update this section today with information about a couple new Single Lens Reflex cameras capable of recording HD movies, and changed the title of this section to what is now the common vernacular of the subset of DSLR cameras with a specific HD movie options- HDSLR.

I tried to find reference to the first instance I could find of the term HDSLR, and the best I could do is an ebook released this past April. To be fair I know at least 3x professional commercial photogs in New York, and a professor in Santa Barbara (Brooks Institute of Photography) that have been using the term HDSLR to describe DSLR cameras with HD movie capabilities since sometime last year. Unfortunately I couldn't find anything in writing to link to.

About me, I'm new to wikipedia, very new.... so I'm still getting the hang of some of this. But I'm not to photography- with a little more than 30-years under my belt, had my own studio at one time and about 7-years of teaching at the college level. Semi-retired now (you never really retire from photography), I've got the time to put into "wiki" so I'm going to try to help out the other editors of this page (and other pages) by tracking down reputable sources where needed. CameraPHD

I might also add, there are now six DSLRs with movie mode. I order of the release date, here they are:
--The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 03:58, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You forgot Pentax K-7 and, just last week, Pentax K-m Moxfyre (ǝɹʎℲxoɯ | contrib) 04:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And also the Canon EOS 1500D. But how come the article on the Pentax K-m doesn't mention the movie mode? --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 23:40, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the Canon EOS 1500D doesn't exist. I think someone was playing with the template. But still, are you sure about the Pentax K-m? The article doesn't say anything about video. --The High Fin Sperm Whale (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

New Lede--suggestions?[edit]

The lede for this article is in dire need of a re-write. How's this for starters:

A digital single-lens reflex camera (digital SLR or DSLR) is a digital camera that uses an mechanical mirror system and pentaprism to direct light from the lens through an optical viewfinder on the back of the camera.
The basic operation of a DSLR is as follows: for viewing purposes, the mirror reflects the light coming through the attached lens upwards at a 90 degree angle. It is then reflected twice by the pentaprism rectifying it for photographer's eye. During exposure, the mirror assembly swings upward, the aperture narrows (if set smaller than wide open), and a shutter opens, allowing the lens to project light onto the image sensor. A second shutter then covers the sensor, marking the end of exposure, and the mirror lowers while the shutter resets. The period that the mirror is flipped up is referred to as "viewfinder blackout", with a shorter time being preferred.
DSLRs are often preferred by professional still photographers because they allow an accurate preview of framing close to the moment of exposure, and because DSLRs allow the user to choose from a variety of interchangeable lenses. Most DSLRs also have a function that allows accurate preview of depth of field.
Many professionals also prefer DSLRs for their larger sensors compared to most compact digitals. DSLRs have sensors which are generally closer in size to the traditional film formats that many professionals started out using. These large sensors allow for similar depths of field to film, for a given focal length.
The term DSLR generally refers to cameras that resemble 35mm format cameras, although some medium format cameras are technically DSLRs.

Micahmedia (talk) 03:54, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

HDSLR section needs cleanup[edit]

The HDSLR section meanders between historical coverage ("the first HDLSR was...") and a market survey of current models. There are merits to covering both angles, but the current article is too cluttered with impertinent trivia. Or perhaps some of the trivia needs to be expanded upon.

For example, the Canon 5D Mark II "firmware 2.0.3/firmware 2.0.4". That's an awkward sentence. The important point is that the 5DM2 lacked broadcast-compliant video at introduction, then was later given that feature through a firmware introduction. It's enough to simply say "firmware 2.0.4", or even leave the version out altogether, because the main point is that the feature is present/not present. When/how the feature got added is irrelevant trivia, and it should only be included in the article if it doesn't disrupt the flow of writing.

I'm against listing individual models and their features. wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a product guide. And the product listings tend to get outdated very quickly (e.g. what about the Rebel 550D/T2i, and the 1D Mark IV?) Specific models should only be listed if they are notable with respect to the topic at hand. For me, the Nikon D90 being the first DSLR with HD movie-mode passes that 'notability test', flawed as it is. Most of the other models do not. They're just refinements/evolutionary-improvements along the evolution of digital cameras. I suppose the 5D Mark 2 is notable since it's the only one with full 35mm sensor-size. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.41.58.37 (talk) 14:50, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning of "digicam"[edit]

The word "digicam" needs to be defined. The digicam page disambiguates to digital cameras, or digital camouflage. Obviously the relevant article is the former, but this article includes DSLRs as well as every other kind of digital camera. Yet, in the DSLR article (and in this very talk page) DSLRs are often compared and contrasted to digicams. Many might assume that "digicam" means compact digital camera, but Wikipedia's articles do not make this clear at any time, and it's not an assumption that I made. In the article, the following sentence made little sense to me:

Therefore, many older DSLRs do not provide "live preview" (allowing focusing, framing, and depth-of-field preview using the display), a facility that is always available on digicams although today most DSLRs offer live view.

So, I'd recommend either not using the word "digicam," or defining it unambiguously. - Random anonymous UK user on 188.220.91.30 (talk) 23:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What's with the Sensor-Size -Comparison picture ?[edit]

The photo shows the two cameras lop-sided/dipping towards the center ? 203.34.154.24 (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the pictures? Please give me a sample of an image using these lens. Thanks Yhabe of blank blu ray discs — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yhabe30 (talk • contribs) 06:33, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What would that accomplish? The sensor size comparison is pretty useful and interesting. —Ben FrantzDale (talk) 16:10, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Viewfinder[edit]

A significant fact is that old fashioned 35mm SLRs almost entirely provided a fresnel lens in the viewfinder, providing a bright image. Most, or even all, DSLRs use a matte screen which is far darker and requires light adaption of the photographers eye. Can an explanation be included please, I do not know why. Reg nim (talk) 22:16, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In SLR (not digital) viewfinder is also use to focus instead of framing, but in DSLR a Hybrid AF can take the picture in almost dark.Gsarwa (talk) 15:38, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Aspect Ratio[edit]

Aspect ratio is mentioned only two times (!) in the entire article. In my opinion, in an article which extensively talks about the "sizes" of images, sensors, and lenses; aspect ratio is one of the most important issues because of the fact that aspect ratio is the actual definitve unit of measurement in terms of rectangular images.

Especially in the "Table of sensor sizes" as well as the image captioned as "Drawing showing the relative sizes of sensors," aspect ratio should be mentioned. I suggest adding a line to Table of sensor sizes and modifying the aforementioned image to depict aspect ratios. --98.199.22.63 (talk) 20:28, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Major restructering[edit]

  • Introduction done.
  • Moved digicam comparison and quickly merged.
  • Added image in Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera#DSLR_design_principles. Related text makes educationally only really sense with this image, has to be EXPANDED by electronics/display, the "D" in SLR. Probably in the next days.
First version done. Tagremover (talk) 12:37, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Electronics sub-section planed. Although its good the article explains other features, the "D" is essential in DSLR. Probably in the next days. Tagremover (talk) 11:46, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obviously written by editors who want to repeat ALL details and disadvantages of "point-and-shoot" cameras. Again and again. Comparison moved to the section. Tagremover (talk) 13:08, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

DOF[edit]

In this diff, we heard that "Compact digital cameras mostly have an even smaller image sensor, additionally providing a larger depth of field." This is extremely misleading. The only way a smaller sensor provides a larger depth of field is if the photo is taken with a smaller absolute aperture diameter (e.g. same f-number and smaller focal length with same field of view), and therefore gets fewer photons from the scene. The same larger DOF can be obtained by the DSLR by stopping down to the same aperture diameter. So I took this out. Dicklyon (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Someone already updated back to saying compact give larger DoF, so I just add here in support. We should compare DoF for same picture, i.e. same FoV and same aperture, that is the only thing that makes sense? Therefore as long as the compact have a smaller sensor, therefore receiving less photons and having a shorter focal length it does have larger DoF. Obviously it is not the small sensor that give larger DoF, but the shorter lens. I hope we can agree that compacts in general have smaller sensors? We can update and make the relation ship between, smaller sensor -> shorter lens -> larger DoF more clear, if that is the issue? --Stefan talk 06:03, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dynamic range[edit]

While I'm at it, the lead states, "often using a larger image sensor format providing a higher dynamic range". Why does larger image sensor give higher dynamic range?? In the text there is one requested ref for the same statement and one ref [5] that does not talk about dynamic range at all. I think DSLR might often have better dynamic range, since they have newer sensors, and more expensive image engines but I do not think that the actual size of the sensor matters at all? Any comments? --Stefan talk 06:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I felt Brave and removed the claims that large sensor -> higher dynamic range, I tried to do a bit of research, and my conclusion (all OR) is that DSLRs does often have higher dynamic range, but there is not much that say that it is because of a large sensor, much more of the 'size' of the pixels. And a small compact sensor will have much smaller pixels than a DSLR, and therefore less dynamic range, but this is not directly related to sensor size. I did not update this on the page since I do not have any good sources. Please correct me and revert if I'm wrong, but please discuss here after your reverts, --Stefan talk 06:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move (short-form)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved. Strong and well-argued consensus against. Andrewa (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Digital single-lens reflex camera → Digital SLR – Widely known by the short-form name [6] [7] [8] and lately even better known by the acronym "DSLR" [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19]. I'll compromise and content myself with Digital SLR for the foreseeable future. Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 18:05, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Use varies - digital single lens reflex is still commonly used on the web, 9,020,000 times, but not as commonly as digital slr, 40,000,000 times. DSLR appears 148,000,000 times on the web. In news digital single lens reflex is used 92 times, digital slr 5,120 times, dlsr 10,700 times, and in books dslr is used 82,000 times, digital slr is used 44,900, while digital single lens reflex is used 7,680 times. I am going to have to oppose the move, as the abbreviation fails the "unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation (e.g. NATO and Laser)" test. Apteva (talk) 04:13, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ACRONYMTITLE allows for acronyms if the term is "widely known" in that form. As much as I like Google as a company, it tends to greatly exaggerate its search returns or even behave like a random number generator. See WP:SET#What a search test can do, and what it can't. Paging through, there appears to be 1000+ Google Books returns (not all in English) for "DSLR" (like Google Scholar, Google won't let me get past page 100), 780 for "Digital SLR", and 300 for "Digital single-lens reflex". Digital SLR is in line with other common acronyms like YMCA, CNN, NBC NASA, DARPA, MRAP, HIMARS, STS-135 and HMMWV (HMMWV would be acceptable if Humvee weren't more popular). Marcus Qwertyus (talk) 06:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, perhaps I should have provided a link. The MOS does not define titles, even though it would appear to want to. WP:ACRONYMTITLE, despite being about titles, links to the MOS, which says "if the subject is almost exclusively known by its acronym or is widely known and used in that form". What the MOS is for is to format text within articles. WP:TITLE is used to establish titles, and it says "Avoid abbreviations: Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation (e.g. NATO and Laser). The abbreviation UK, for United Kingdom, is acceptable for use in disambiguation. It is also unnecessary to include an acronym in addition to the name in a title." Within an article it is acceptable to use either standard, "widely known and used", and "almost exclusively known", but why both are included is unknown. The MOS should be linking to WP:TITLE, instead of summarizing it, and summarizing it incorrectly. Apteva (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: MOS: "Avoid abbreviations: Abbreviations and acronyms are generally avoided unless the subject is almost exclusively known by its abbreviation (e.g. NATO and Laser)."
Says it all. Google is NOT Wikipedia. Tagremover (talk) 07:13, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: abbreviations in title should be avoided per WP:TITLE, and it is still clearer to use its full name of Digital single-lens reflex camera. The title 'Digital SLR' looses the clarity that the article is referring to a type of camera. Therefore not precise enough to unambiguously define the topic of the article, especially for readers who are not familiar with the technical side of cameras. Yes - it is quite a common useage but maybe later.--Michaela den (talk) 18:47, 25 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:TITLE and also because SLR is not as obvious as camera buffs might think. E.g. it means self-loading rifle in some quarters, something SLR (disambiguation) picks up. In ictu oculi (talk) 09:10, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Larger sensor sizes not directly give better image quality[edit]

Larger sensor sizes not directly give better image quality[edit]

IMHO many people still thinking that the lenses are the main subject for better quality as in film camera, but in digital camera the sensor sensitivity (not the size, because small sensor might be more sensitive than the big ones and the sensitivity is increasing in line with time, so newer sensor is better than the old ones and maybe smaller) is the first important thing. The second is the propietary processor software, if the sensor is good, but the processing is bad, the result will be bad. The third is the lens, but because it is digital, so slight quality different of the lenses will be absorb by the camera processor. In Micro four thirds system, its mount is same and the lenses can be used with camera which support m4/3 without any adapter and we can see the processor take the role more than the quality of the lens itself.

  • Nikon has good quality of sensor and also the propietary processor software
  • Canon has not so good quality of sensor, but its propietary processor software is good
  • Sony and Pentax has better quality of sensor compare to Canon, but its propietary processor software is weak, so even the sensors quality of Sony and Pentax are better than Canon has, the image quality result are poorer than Canon result
  • Olympus and Panasonic have relatively same sensor quality, but when Panasonic lens tested on Olympus gives better result than when Panasonic uses its own lens.

DxO Labs has tested more than 6,000 Combination of Camera & Lens and if we scrutinize the results, we can agree with as mention above. If to scrutinize is too hard for you, so you can pick only several lead of every brands and try to analize it. But if you doubt with the result, you are better to scrutinize all of them.

I propose to add in Larger sensor size and better image quality section as below:

Larger sensor sizes not directly give better image quality[edit]

There are several sensor producers and the sensitivity among it are different each other, so the bigger sensor is not means directly give better result. Light struck the sensor will be processed by each propietary software, so same sensor size from the same producer will give different result when processed by different software. DxO Labs has test more than 6,000 Combination of Camera & Lenses and give us the fact that even Micro Four Thirds image quality can compete with APS-C image quality. Micro Four Thirds sensor size is about 61 to 68 percent of APS-C sensor size.

Thank you so much in advance for your time to read and analyze my proposal.Gsarwa (talk) 15:27, 23 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

First DSLR[edit]

According to my research, this was the first DSLR: http://eocamera.jemcgarvey.com/
Do they see this (in German):

Rudolfo42 (talk) 20:25, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Digital single-lens reflex camera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:16, 13 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Digital single-lens reflex camera. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:08, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Condenser lens[edit]

Why does the DSLR need the "condenser lens" (number 6 in the first image)? I didn't find the answer in the article. --egg 08:33, 17 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Were the Nikon SVC and Nikon QV-1000C really DSLRs?[edit]

The late 1980s seem suspiciously early for a DSLR. Is it absolutely certain that these weren't still video cameras? The "SVC" in Nikon SVC hints that this may be the case. Shiggerino (talk) 22:40, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are right. I think they were SLRs but the video floppys they used were a form of analogue storage, not digital. So it is kind of splitting hairs but they probably don't qualify as DSLRs. I don't suppose there is a term for these electronic but not digital SLRs. They are probably still worth mentioning as predecessors of true DSLRs in the article. It would be nice to have a higher quality source to use either way. Ascendingrisingharmonising (talk) 14:31, 24 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]
These Nikon cameras were NOT D-SLRs, since they used analog recording of monochrome NTSC TV quality images on 2" still video floppy discs. The QV-1000C is described on page 109 of the Dec 1991 issue of Popular Photography as a "SLR-type camera" with an F-mount interchangeable QV Nikkor lens which recorded black and white field (240 line) and frame mode (480 line) images.
These Nikon cameras were somewhat of a step back from Sony's prototype Mavica camera demonstrated in 1981, which recorded color images of similar quality.
It would be more accurate to call all of these cameras SVF-SLRs, since they used analog Still Video Floppy recording, rather than digital recording.
The Canon RC-701, introduced in 1986, was the first electronic still camera sold in the US. It was also a SVF-SLR, which recorded color analog images on these standardized still video floppy discs.
I can add a well-referenced paragraph describing the history of these SVF-SLRs, if that would be helpful. KAPcooney (talk) 17:34, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Digital_single-lens_reflex_camera&oldid=1194472226"