The purpose of the linked site is to explain, in layman's terms, the differences between the two types.
What he's saying is that an electronic view finder (EVF) is slow and unsuited to capturing fast-moving subjects, because what you see in the viewfinder is in the past by some fraction of a second. For many subjects it isn't an issue, but if you're trying to capture the instant a ball is caught, two aircraft at an airshow meeting at the bottom of a loop, or a fleeting expression on a child's face then it makes a huge difference.
The mirror transmits images at the speed of light to your eye. You are viewing in realtime, so you capture the image you see when you press the shutter button.
What, in general, makes an SLR faster is the beefy motors and speed of the autofocus processing system. They do things like predictive focus and object tracking in real time.
The main reason for larger sensors isn't to work with legacy lenses. It is mainly for better image quality due to lower noise (less amplification of the electrical signal). If legacy issues were the reason, every DSLR would have a sensor that is 24mm x 36mm. There are a few sensors that big (or bigger), but they are expensive due to wafer yield. Hence, cameras that have them are expensive. But with those cameras you can set them to ISO 400 and get better image quality than a P/S set to ISO 50. Setting them to ISO 100 or lower results in really fine image capture.
I shoot medium format, and I've had the opportunity to use a digital back with an image sensor that is 36mm x 48mm. Typical manufacturing yield is about 6 per wafer, making the sensor increadibly expensive (back runs upwards of $30K). For a pro that's not bad, probably less than they spend on film in a year. But for mere mortals it's rediculous. However, you can go directly to pre-press setup, which saves you a bundle in terms of efficiency.
The point of a digital SLR is superior image quality and immediate response. There are two DSLR attributes that result in better image quality: sensor size and lens quality.
CCD (or CMOS) sensors in current DSLR's are at least three times larger than the largest sensor currently found in most point and shoots. The bottom line on a larger sensor is that, for the same number of pixels, you get much better sensitivity to light. This translates into lower noise. The practical application of this is that you can set a DSLR's light sensitivity to something like ISO 400 and have less noise in your image than if you set a Point and Shoot's sensitivity to ISO 100. A larger sensor set to the same sensitivity will give you fewer artifacts than a smaller sensor.
The second attribute, lens quality, isn't as absolute. But in general, a manufacturer's [D]SLR lens has excellent optical properties. They are not as compromised by form-factor or packaging considerations. Many point and shoot cameras have optics that exhibit exposure falloff in the corners or suffer from various optical and/or chromatic problems such as flare and color fringing. This is not true of all point and shoot cameras, digital or otherwise, but you can't use price as a determining factor. The $250 point and shoot I currently own has a much better lens than the $500 point and shoot I purchased originally.
This link: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm/ gives a much better summary of the two different types of camera than I can give. But, IMHO, if you're going to spend $800-1000 on a digital camera, you're far better off getting a DSLR than a point and shoot.
The spine and binding of a textbook are different than those found on your typical bestseller. Textbook bindings are designed to withstand much more use and/or abuse. That in itself accounts for some of the added cost. Plus, no matter how popular this book is, it still doesn't sell in the quantities that, say, the latest John Grisham or J. K. Rowling novel does.
It's been confiscated by the Department of Homeland Security along with your jetpack and personal helicopter. These items are too easily modified to deliver weapons of mass destruction to be left in the careless hands of the average citizen. Move along now, there's nothing to see here.
Slashdot Mirror
The purpose of the linked site is to explain, in layman's terms, the differences between the two types.
What he's saying is that an electronic view finder (EVF) is slow and unsuited to capturing fast-moving subjects, because what you see in the viewfinder is in the past by some fraction of a second. For many subjects it isn't an issue, but if you're trying to capture the instant a ball is caught, two aircraft at an airshow meeting at the bottom of a loop, or a fleeting expression on a child's face then it makes a huge difference.
The mirror transmits images at the speed of light to your eye. You are viewing in realtime, so you capture the image you see when you press the shutter button.
What, in general, makes an SLR faster is the beefy motors and speed of the autofocus processing system. They do things like predictive focus and object tracking in real time.
The main reason for larger sensors isn't to work with legacy lenses. It is mainly for better image quality due to lower noise (less amplification of the electrical signal). If legacy issues were the reason, every DSLR would have a sensor that is 24mm x 36mm. There are a few sensors that big (or bigger), but they are expensive due to wafer yield. Hence, cameras that have them are expensive. But with those cameras you can set them to ISO 400 and get better image quality than a P/S set to ISO 50. Setting them to ISO 100 or lower results in really fine image capture.
I shoot medium format, and I've had the opportunity to use a digital back with an image sensor that is 36mm x 48mm. Typical manufacturing yield is about 6 per wafer, making the sensor increadibly expensive (back runs upwards of $30K). For a pro that's not bad, probably less than they spend on film in a year. But for mere mortals it's rediculous. However, you can go directly to pre-press setup, which saves you a bundle in terms of efficiency.
The point of a digital SLR is superior image quality and immediate response. There are two DSLR attributes that result in better image quality: sensor size and lens quality.
CCD (or CMOS) sensors in current DSLR's are at least three times larger than the largest sensor currently found in most point and shoots. The bottom line on a larger sensor is that, for the same number of pixels, you get much better sensitivity to light. This translates into lower noise. The practical application of this is that you can set a DSLR's light sensitivity to something like ISO 400 and have less noise in your image than if you set a Point and Shoot's sensitivity to ISO 100. A larger sensor set to the same sensitivity will give you fewer artifacts than a smaller sensor.
The second attribute, lens quality, isn't as absolute. But in general, a manufacturer's [D]SLR lens has excellent optical properties. They are not as compromised by form-factor or packaging considerations. Many point and shoot cameras have optics that exhibit exposure falloff in the corners or suffer from various optical and/or chromatic problems such as flare and color fringing. This is not true of all point and shoot cameras, digital or otherwise, but you can't use price as a determining factor. The $250 point and shoot I currently own has a much better lens than the $500 point and shoot I purchased originally.
This link: http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/2dig.htm/ gives a much better summary of the two different types of camera than I can give. But, IMHO, if you're going to spend $800-1000 on a digital camera, you're far better off getting a DSLR than a point and shoot.
The spine and binding of a textbook are different than those found on your typical bestseller. Textbook bindings are designed to withstand much more use and/or abuse. That in itself accounts for some of the added cost. Plus, no matter how popular this book is, it still doesn't sell in the quantities that, say, the latest John Grisham or J. K. Rowling novel does.
It's been confiscated by the Department of Homeland Security along with your jetpack and personal helicopter. These items are too easily modified to deliver weapons of mass destruction to be left in the careless hands of the average citizen. Move along now, there's nothing to see here.