DSLR vs. non-DSLR ?

[Senzelian]

I'll probably buy some kind of "photo-making-machine" in the near future. So I want to get some informations and learn a few things about cameras first.

 

I've already looked up what the difference between a DSLR and non-DSLR camera is, but I don't know how that affects picture quality.

I only see DSLRs beeing quite a lot more expensive than "normal" digital cameras.

Does it affect picture quality and how does it affect it?

 

Thanks!

[Zenedge]

it's really up to you.

dslrs give more settings for your images, but there are times where you just wanna point-and-shoot quickly. so a non-dslr would be handy

[awesomes8wc3]

It doesn't affect picture quality, its just how the light gets into the sensor.

DSLRs use mirrors and prisms to get the light into the viewfinder, then flipping up when the shutter button is pressed letting light into the sensor without using a secondary lens (hence Single Lens Reflex)

Mirrorless cameras, well, don't use mirrors, hence why they have electronic viewfinders.

[Senzelian]

it's really up to you.

dslrs give more settings for your images, but there are times where you just wanna point-and-shoot quickly. so a non-dslr would be handy

 

It doesn't affect picture quality, its just how the light gets into the sensor.

DSLRs use mirrors and prisms to get the light into the viewfinder, then flipping up when the shutter button is pressed letting light into the sensor without using a secondary lens (hence Single Lens Reflex)

Mirrorless cameras, well, don't use mirrors, hence why they have electronic viewfinders.

Thanks!

So what makes a DSLR so expensive? I mean they start at around 200€ here in Germany while digital mirrorless cameras are already available at 50€. (The really cheap ones)

Is there something a DSLR can do that a non-DSLR is not capable of?

[ALwin]

snip

 

Compact cameras, the type of mirrorless you are thinking about, are cheap because the lenses are fixed onto the main camera body and tend to have smaller sensors and less control over the camera settings whilst DSLRs tend to give you full control over almost every setting on the camera.  There exists another type of mirrorless cameras called mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras that can be just as expensive as DSLRs, and provide more or less the same features.  What makes them expensive is the size of the sensor, the features and functionality, and the lenses.

 

Additionally, image quality is not affected by the type of camera but rather by sensor size, lens, and other factors.

[ALwin]

There is a whole world of difference between a $20 camera like this

and a $500 camera like this, and both cameras are technically mirrorless.

And the $500 camera above produces more or less the same image quality as this DSLR below.

[zenodio]

When you say non-DSLR, are you talking about compact point-&-shoot cameras or mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses?
If you're talking about point-&-shoot cameras, there are quite a few differences between those and a DSLR, one notable thing is the fact that you don't have the ability to upgrade lenses (lenses have a big impact on image quality) over time, point-&-shoot cameras have small sensors compared to DSLR or mirrorless cameras and you generally have a lot more control over your images with a DSLR camera.
The point-&-shoot camera will probably be fine most of the time, but there will probably be moments where you wish you had a bit more control over the camera options (depending on what kind of photos you take as well as your experience with photography)

 

That being said, there are some excellent point-&-shoot cameras out there, like the Sony RX100.

When it comes to mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lens mounts, both DSLR and mirrorless cameras take equally good photos, they both allow you to change lenses and both DSLR & mirrorless cameras usually come with either a micro 4/3's, APSC or Full Frame sensor.
The only notable difference being the actual camera size, ergonomics and lens options.

[Senzelian]

Compact cameras, the type of mirrorless you are thinking about, are cheap because the lenses are fixed onto the main camera body and tend to have smaller sensors and less control over the camera settings whilst DSLRs tend to give you full control over almost every setting on the camera.  There are more expensive mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras that can be just as expensive as DSLRs, and provide more or less the same features.  What makes them expensive is the size of the sensor, the features and functionality, and the lenses.

 

Additionally, image quality is not affected by the type of camera but rather by sensor size, lens, and other factors.

 

When you say non-DSLR, are you talking about compact point-&-shoot cameras or mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lenses?

If you're talking about point-&-shoot cameras, there are quite a few differences between those and a DSLR, one notable thing is the fact that you don't have the ability to upgrade lenses (lenses have a big impact on image quality) over time, point-&-shoot cameras have small sensors compared to DSLR or mirrorless cameras and you generally have a lot more control over your images with a DSLR camera.

The point-&-shoot camera will probably be fine most of the time, but there will probably be moments where you wish you had a bit more control over the camera options (depending on what kind of photos you take as well as your experience with photography)

 

That being said, there are some excellent point-&-shoot cameras out there, like the Sony RX100.

When it comes to mirrorless cameras with interchangeable lens mounts, both DSLR and mirrorless cameras take equally good photos, they both allow you to change lenses and both DSLR & mirrorless cameras usually come with either a micro 4/3's, APSC or Full Frame sensor.

The only notable difference being the actual camera size, ergonomics and lens options.

Thanks guys. 

Yes I was talking about point-&-shoot cameras.  But now that I heard all the advantages of a DSLR (or mirrorless cameras) I think I would rather like to have one of those.

Are there also "low-budget" options? Something in the 200-300 € range that is easy to work with? 

[ALwin]

snip

 

Indeed!

 

Point-n-Shoot cameras are available in many price ranges with the more expensive models being capable of competing against entry level DSLRs or MILC (Mirrorless Interchangeable Lens Cameras) to a certain degree.

 

Something like this (see image below) or a modern phone camera is good enough if you're just looking to capture memories or upload to Instacrap.

While a more expensive compact like a Canon S120 or Canon G16 or G1 X, while still being considered a Point-n-Shoot, has more advanced features and the ability to capture RAW.

 

But if you want to have control over creativity, explore various photography techniques, do a lot more things than just pointing your camera at something you find interesting and take a snapshot, go for a camera with an Interchangeable Lens System which can be either a DSLR or mirrorless.

[ALwin]

Are there also "low-budget" options? Something in the 200-300 € range that is easy to work with? 

 

Yes there are some good starter Interchangeable Lens Cameras.  Some examples listed below.

 

DSLR

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ns=p_PRICE_2|0&ci=6222&setNs=p_PRICE_2|0&N=4288586280&srtclk=sort

 

MILC

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?atclk=Category_Mirrorless+System+Cameras&ci=16158&Ns=p_PRICE_2|0&N=4288586281

[Lockless]

Click the spoiler if you don't mind a fairly long post.

First off, if you guys know the Ricoh GR, it has an APS-C sized sensor that has a built-in lens of a fixed focal length. There's also the Fuji X100 series, which is, by category, the same as the Ricoh GR in which both have a fixed focal length and an APS-C sized sensor. Both are mirrorless, except the X100 series has a built-in rangefinder viewfinder (I do not totally know the technically correct name for it, but I'll go with that for the lack of a better term) while the Ricoh GR has one that has to be mounted on the hot shoe. Oh, did I mention the Sony RX1? Same category as both stated, but it has a full-frame sensor. And yeah.... its viewfinder is external and aftermarket... Oh, I forgot to mention that Fuji offers lens converters that are attached as if they are filters to their X100 lineup, so there's a bit of flexibility there.

Then, there's the Pentax MX, Fuji X30, Sony RX100, and a butt load of mirrorless cameras that have a built-in lens... but with variable focal lengths depending on what the manufacturer put on them. I am not sure how big the Pentax MX and the Fuji X30's sensor sizes are, but I'm sure that the Sony RX100 has a sensor thats smaller the MFT. Some have sensors that are bigger than MFT, so on and so forth.

Then there's the mirrorless interchangeable lens cameras. The Sony A6000's, Fuji XT/E/Pro lineup, Panasonic GH/GX/G lineup, Olympus OMD EM lineup, even Nikon and Canon has one, too. They pretty much covered the full spectrum... on what sensor size you can put in a camera body.

Then... there are DSLRs... I don't mind people preferring DSLRs. As a matter of fact, I hate people who tell DSLR users they are inferior, oldschool, or force them to convert. That tiny Rebel DSLR from Canon... I kind of find it impractical to use because when you do decide to put something like a Sigma 18-35mm 1.8 or even something like the 85mm 1.8 (not 1.4) on it... it loses out on portability IMMEDIATELY. Yes, you can adapt lenses to DSLRs, but the fact that it has a much, much, MUCH more substantial flange distance, which also explains why its complicated to adapt Canon EF/EFS lenses to Nikon bodies despite Canon not having as much of a problem (there's an adapter that lets you control the aperture in Nikon lenses for Canon bodies, if I remember correctly. It allegedly works on G lenses...), while Sony, Fuji (not so much on Fuji, tbh, and I primarily use a Fuji ILC), Panasonic, Olympus, and... some other companies that I can't remember or don't know of, have a near invisible flange distance. Sure, they can't interchange lenses with one another, except Panasonic, Olympus, and other manufacturers that sell/produce MFT bodies that follow the MFT standard, but they can use more lenses than DSLRs... even with adapters... That said, I find DSLR's superior for flash photography because of an optical viewfinder. I have yet to personally experience an EVF or even the screen of any camera that doesn't just fuck itself up in night photography (even with exposure preview turned off). Thats one of the reasons why I keep my 7D MK1 (aside from sentimental value and how a Sigma 18-35 1.8 just gave it new life) around because of flash or LED photography in pretty much close to pitch black darkness. Oh yeah, in terms of autofocusing, I can't comment on that and I don't intend to. All I can say is that many photographers, mirrorless or DSLR users, claim that DSLRs are superior in autofocusing... but that was like 2-3 years ago and I can't comment on that right now.

For the TL;DR version: SLRs have a mirror and a prism while non-SLR's are rangefinders or mirrorless. The D in DSLR is digital. Which means it is very unlikely that it uses film.

To answer the question of how it will affect image quality... counting out talent/experience/the human factor, as well as practicality, it just depends on what you want in terms of compactness, rigidity, flexibility, features, etc...