Thirteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
SMS
personalities, I thought that it would be a good idea to repost the
facts regarding the advantages of digital SLRs over digital P&S cameras.
If I've missed any of the advantages please follow-up with them.
Thirteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
1. You shoot in low light.
Modern digital SLRs are able to produce low noise images at ISO speeds
up to 1600, depending on the camera. Point and shoot cameras, with their
small sensors, begin to exhibit noise at ISO 200, with some poorer
models being too noisy even at 100 ISO.
2. You want to use flash attachments.
While a few higher end point and shoot digital models have hot shoes for
an external flash, most do not. Some Canon P&S models without hot shoes
can use a wireless flash, but it's not a great flash unit.
3. You need a wide-angle lens.
Digital SLRs have super-wide-angle zoom lenses available with an
effective focal length of as little as 16mm. There are no point and
shoot digital cameras with lenses that wide. With some point and shoot
cameras you can add on adapters to increase the wide-angle range, but
even the best adapters are of mediocre quality.
4. You need a long telephoto lens.
Whether it’s doing wildlife photography in Alaska, or shooting at
sporting events, only a digital SLR can use long telephoto lenses. If
you only need a specialty lens for rare occasions, you can even rent one
for a couple of days. With some point and shoot cameras you can add on
adapters to increase the telephoto range but even the best adapters are
of mediocre quality.
5. You need fast auto-focus.
Most digital SLRs (with the exception of Pentax) use lenses with
internal high-speed focusing motors). Point and shoot digital cameras
cannot focus nearly as fast.
6. You need low shutter lag.
Whether it’s photographing your child on a merry-go-round, or capturing
the crack of the bat against the baseball, you cannot obtain these shots
with a digital point and shoot camera because the time between when you
press the shutter and the image is captured is far too long. A digital
SLR has a mechanical shutter that opens instantaneously when the shutter
release button is pressed. In a point and shoot camera, the sensor is
activated electronically after it is used to focus the shot.
7. You want to produce images that can be printed in large sizes.
Only a high-resolution digital SLR is suitable for poster size prints.
8. You want an optical viewfinder.
While a few point and shoot cameras have retained an optical viewfinder,
it’s been cost-reduced out of most models. Composing a picture on the
LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is very difficult.
9. You want full manual control.
While some high-end point and shoot models have retained some level of
manual control, most have cost-reduced it out. On some Canon models,
there is third-party software that can get some of the manual control
back, but it's very flaky and complicated.
10. Expandability and upgradability.
Not only a wide variety of specialty lenses, but flash attachments,
filters, vertical grips, remote shutter releases, etc. If you eventually
want to upgrade to a better D-SLR body, a lot of the lenses and
accessories can be used on the new body if it’s from the same manufacturer.
11. Rapid sequencing. For action shots, both of sports and people, you
can get the exact shot you want, even when the people are moving.
12. Cost. Say what? Yes, it’s true. With the free-fall of digital SLR
prices, you can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost
of a high end point and shoot camera.
13. Wide-range walk-around lenses. It used to be that people would buy a
wide-range “SLR-like” P&S because they could achieve a wide zoom range
from wide-angle to telephoto without needing to change lenses, even
though the quality of these wide-range lenses wasn’t very good at the
ends. Now with several new wide-range D-SLR lenses, there is the option
of not having to change lenses. You can still use higher end wide angle
and telephoto lenses when the need arises, while enjoying the simplicity
of a wide-range zoom lens when you choose to be m
Charles
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:B6LPk.5966$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> With all the misinformation being posted by our friend with multiple
> personalities, I thought that it would be a good idea to repost the facts
> regarding the advantages of digital SLRs over digital P&S cameras. If I've
> missed any of the advantages please follow-up with them.
>
> Thirteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
Nothing significant that I would argue with (as to your 13 reasons). But,
please face the fact that P&S cameras are all that MOST common folks really
need. And, the P&S cameras are getting better faster than the DSLRs ...
just my take on this issue.
Alan Browne
> With all the misinformation being posted by our friend with multiple
> personalities, I thought that it would be a good idea to repost the
> facts regarding the advantages of digital SLRs over digital P&S cameras.
> If I've missed any of the advantages please follow-up with them.
>
> Thirteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
<snipped>
Good list for SLR's.
I know you're putting this up to fight or bait a particular troll, but
really, that's not what the NG is about, is it?
So, what Charles said is quite right as well.
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
tn...@mucks.net
The 13 reasons for a Digital SLR camera over a P&S camera reminds me
of another discussion a few years ago.
That thread could of been titled.. Thirteen Reasons to choose a Film
camera over a Digital camera.
I wonder how that thread was resolved?.....
Dudley Hanks
cameras just isn't right, so I had to add my 2 cents worth...
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:B6LPk.5966$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> With all the misinformation being posted by our friend with multiple
> personalities, I thought that it would be a good idea to repost the facts
> regarding the advantages of digital SLRs over digital P&S cameras. If I've
> missed any of the advantages please follow-up with them.
>
> Thirteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
>
> 1. You shoot in low light.
> Modern digital SLRs are able to produce low noise images at ISO speeds
> up to 1600, depending on the camera. Point and shoot cameras, with their
> small sensors, begin to exhibit noise at ISO 200, with some poorer
> models being too noisy even at 100 ISO.
In general, this is true. But, for most p&s photographers, prints won't
usually get enlarged past 4 x 6, so the noise isn't that big of a deal.
>
> 2. You want to use flash attachments.
> While a few higher end point and shoot digital models have hot shoes for
> an external flash, most do not. Some Canon P&S models without hot shoes
> can use a wireless flash, but it's not a great flash unit.
I disagree. The Canon HF DC1 is a great flash. It's easy to use and
produces good results in most situations. It's biggest drawback is its
price -- about $125 to $150. But, even after adding the price of the flash
to most 'A' series cameras, the total cost is reasonable for the results
obtained.
>
> 3. You need a wide-angle lens.
> Digital SLRs have super-wide-angle zoom lenses available with an
> effective focal length of as little as 16mm. There are no point and
> shoot digital cameras with lenses that wide. With some point and shoot
> cameras you can add on adapters to increase the wide-angle range, but even
> the best adapters are of mediocre quality.
I'll agree with this one. However, anyone who wants a lens in the 16mm
range will probably be looking for a DSLR anyway.
>
> 4. You need a long telephoto lens.
> Whether it’s doing wildlife photography in Alaska, or shooting at
> sporting events, only a digital SLR can use long telephoto lenses. If
> you only need a specialty lens for rare occasions, you can even rent one
> for a couple of days. With some point and shoot cameras you can add on
> adapters to increase the telephoto range but even the best adapters are of
> mediocre quality.
>
I have to disagree again. My A720 comes with a 35mm to 210mm equiv lens.
It's pretty good for shooting animals, kids, etc. If you want better, there
are plenty of ultra-zoom lens p&s cameras on the market. The Canon
Powershot SX 1 / 10 is rated at 28mm to 560mm equiv... How much more zoom
does an amateur photog need?
> 5. You need fast auto-focus.
> Most digital SLRs (with the exception of Pentax) use lenses with
> internal high-speed focusing motors). Point and shoot digital cameras
> cannot focus nearly as fast.
Not always true. The higher end p&s cameras aren't all that much slower at
focusing than the lower end DSLRs. For the money, most are pretty good.
>
> 6. You need low shutter lag.
> Whether it’s photographing your child on a merry-go-round, or capturing
> the crack of the bat against the baseball, you cannot obtain these shots
> with a digital point and shoot camera because the time between when you
> press the shutter and the image is captured is far too long. A digital
> SLR has a mechanical shutter that opens instantaneously when the shutter
> release button is pressed. In a point and shoot camera, the sensor is
> activated electronically after it is used to focus the shot.
Total hogwash. Before the DSLR shutter can be activated, the mirror has to
be moved out of the way. It all boils down to timing. The more a
photographer uses his / her camera, the better they get at compensating for
shutter and focusing delays. Right now, all of the p&s shooters out there
are sitting back and laughing, thinking to themselves, "I guess I must have
been using a DSLR when I got those great shots of my kids baseball game, day
at the beach, ride on the merry-go-round...
>
> 7. You want to produce images that can be printed in large sizes.
> Only a high-resolution digital SLR is suitable for poster size prints.
>
Strangely enough, not everybody wants to print poster sized prints. Some of
us are contented doing 8 x 10s, 11 x 14s, and there are a number of p&s
cameras that can take pics at ISO 100 clean enough to print at these sizes.
> 8. You want an optical viewfinder.
> While a few point and shoot cameras have retained an optical viewfinder,
> it’s been cost-reduced out of most models. Composing a picture on the
> LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is very difficult.
If everybody wants an optical viewfinder, why aren't camera manufacturers
building them? And, why are DSLRs going "Live View"? I think you have that
one back asswards.
>
> 9. You want full manual control.
> While some high-end point and shoot models have retained some level of
> manual control, most have cost-reduced it out. On some Canon models,
> there is third-party software that can get some of the manual control
> back, but it's very flaky and complicated.
You really need to do more research. The Canon 'A' series and SX 1 / 10 are
just a few of the p&s cameras that feature full manual control. There's no
difference from using the manual modes on these cameras than using the
equivalent modes with DSLR units.
>
> 10. Expandability and upgradability.
> Not only a wide variety of specialty lenses, but flash attachments,
> filters, vertical grips, remote shutter releases, etc. If you eventually
> want to upgrade to a better D-SLR body, a lot of the lenses and
> accessories can be used on the new body if it’s from the same
> manufacturer.
You need to be more creative.
If you start with the Canon SX 1 / 10, you can work with the same flashes
used on the EOS DSLR cameras. It's a great way to get started in the Canon
line. Just think what it would cost you to start off with a camera equipped
with a 28mm to 560mm lens going the DSLR route...
It is my understanding that the Canon SX 1 / 10 comes packaged with a remote
control. How many DSLRs do that?
You won't need a vertical grip with a camera that fits in the palm of your
hand...
As for filters, who uses filters now? Get a copy of Photoshop instead.
>
> 11. Rapid sequencing. For action shots, both of sports and people, you can
> get the exact shot you want, even when the people are moving.
Hate to break it to you, but p&s cameras shoot multiple pics, too. Sure,
the burst rate isn't as quick, but your odds are still pretty good. And, if
you aren't prepared to lug the heavier DSLR around all the time, your odds
are WAY better with the p&s camera you have in your pocket than they are
with the DSLR back at home...
>
> 12. Cost. Say what? Yes, it’s true. With the free-fall of digital SLR
> prices, you can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost
> of a high end point and shoot camera.
????
Even if you can find such a deal, I think I'd go with the high end p&s over
the low end DSLR...
>
> 13. Wide-range walk-around lenses. It used to be that people would buy a
> wide-range “SLR-like” P&S because they could achieve a wide zoom range
> from wide-angle to telephoto without needing to change lenses, even though
> the quality of these wide-range lenses wasn’t very good at the ends. Now
> with several new wide-range D-SLR lenses, there is the option of not
> having to change lenses. You can still use higher end wide angle and
> telephoto lenses when the need arises, while enjoying the simplicity of a
> wide-range zoom lens when you choose to be m
But, can you stick the DSLR in your pocket?
I don't go anywhere without my p&s camera.
How many DSLR shutterbugs can say that?
Don't get me wrong. I think that DSLR cameras are great, and I hope to
upgrade to one, eventually. But, after I upgrade, the DSLR will be used
only for images I will want to print very large, or for the ones I want to
catch in extreme lighting conditions. I'm guessing I'll still take more
pics with the p&s than I will with the DSLR.
Take Care,
Dudley
Evad Remlu
the area of P&S and Cell Phone cameras. When it comes to camera
Usefulness,,,, Size, and Carryability matters. If you don't have the camera
with you, you won't get the shot. Lugging around 20lbs of DSLR equipment is
only for the real diehards.
NM
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:B6LPk.5966$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
PaulMcGowan
>
>Thirteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
With an honest reply to this highly deceptive sack-of-shit DSLR-troll.
>
>1. You shoot in low light.
>Modern digital SLRs are able to produce low noise images at ISO speeds
>up to 1600, depending on the camera. Point and shoot cameras, with their
>small sensors, begin to exhibit noise at ISO 200, with some poorer
>models being too noisy even at 100 ISO.
Not true.
The only drawback, for the untalented photographer, is not having very high ISO
images devoid of excessive noise. This is offset when needing long-zoom ratios
at the P&S camera's available larger apertures where there is then no real need
for high ISOs, the time when DSLRs' long lenses with much smaller apertures
require it the most. Talented and experienced photographers grew up on ASA25 and
ASA64 film, some using nothing more than that their whole lives. Talented
photographers see no real need for high ISOs (unless to compensate for drawbacks
in the equipment, or when needed by an inexperienced or talentless hack). That's
it, that's the only thing going for the larger sensor cameras. Nothing more than
that. A minor perk that's not even needed by a talented photographer.
If you really need high ISOs, then ome P&S cameras have noise-free ISOs up to
3200 and more. Catch up.
>
>2. You want to use flash attachments.
>While a few higher end point and shoot digital models have hot shoes for
>an external flash, most do not. Some Canon P&S models without hot shoes
>can use a wireless flash, but it's not a great flash unit.
Not true.
Every last one of them can trigger off-camera digital slave triggers,
inexpensively, using any flash unit available. Compensating for any pre-flashes
that any digital camera's on-board flash will produce.
E.g. http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
>
>3. You need a wide-angle lens.
>Digital SLRs have super-wide-angle zoom lenses available with an
>effective focal length of as little as 16mm. There are no point and
>shoot digital cameras with lenses that wide. With some point and shoot
>cameras you can add on adapters to increase the wide-angle range, but
>even the best adapters are of mediocre quality.
Not true.
P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in existence.
(E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) (100% proved in another thread.) By use of
high-quality add-on lenses that don't degrade the image.
>
>4. You need a long telephoto lens.
>Whether it’s doing wildlife photography in Alaska, or shooting at
>sporting events, only a digital SLR can use long telephoto lenses. If
>you only need a specialty lens for rare occasions, you can even rent one
>for a couple of days. With some point and shoot cameras you can add on
>adapters to increase the telephoto range but even the best adapters are
>of mediocre quality.
Not true.
P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any DSLR
glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5), and higher quality
full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views
than any DSLR and its glass in existence. (100% proved in another thread.)
>
>5. You need fast auto-focus.
>Most digital SLRs (with the exception of Pentax) use lenses with
>internal high-speed focusing motors). Point and shoot digital cameras
>cannot focus nearly as fast.
>
Not true.
P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
>6. You need low shutter lag.
>Whether it’s photographing your child on a merry-go-round, or capturing
>the crack of the bat against the baseball, you cannot obtain these shots
>with a digital point and shoot camera because the time between when you
>press the shutter and the image is captured is far too long. A digital
>SLR has a mechanical shutter that opens instantaneously when the shutter
>release button is pressed. In a point and shoot camera, the sensor is
>activated electronically after it is used to focus the shot.
Not true.
Electronic triggering will always be faster than any last-century mechanical
contraption.
Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
>
>7. You want to produce images that can be printed in large sizes.
>Only a high-resolution digital SLR is suitable for poster size prints.
Not true.
Newer P&S cameras have just as much resolution as any DSLR.
>
>8. You want an optical viewfinder.
>While a few point and shoot cameras have retained an optical viewfinder,
>it’s been cost-reduced out of most models. Composing a picture on the
>LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is very difficult.
Not true.
P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
>
>9. You want full manual control.
>While some high-end point and shoot models have retained some level of
>manual control, most have cost-reduced it out. On some Canon models,
>there is third-party software that can get some of the manual control
>back, but it's very flaky and complicated.
Not true.
See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK Many low-end P&S models now have had full
manual control given back to them.
>
>10. Expandability and upgradability.
>Not only a wide variety of specialty lenses, but flash attachments,
>filters, vertical grips, remote shutter releases, etc. If you eventually
>want to upgrade to a better D-SLR body, a lot of the lenses and
>accessories can be used on the new body if it’s from the same manufacturer.
Very true.
DSLRs require all those add-ons to make them the least bit useful. Whereas a P&S
camera has all those features self-contained in one compact, inexpensive,
lightweight camera.
>
>11. Rapid sequencing. For action shots, both of sports and people, you
>can get the exact shot you want, even when the people are moving.
See the P&S cameras with burst modes at 60 full-frames per second, and up to
1,200 frames per second at reduced resolution.
Why must you lie so much to retain your false beliefs?
>
>12. Cost. Say what? Yes, it’s true. With the free-fall of digital SLR
>prices, you can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost
>of a high end point and shoot camera.
Now add in the price of all the lenses and accessories to make that DSLR camera
body functional. Again you lose. You always will. Because you are a loser.
>
>13. Wide-range walk-around lenses. It used to be that people would buy a
>wide-range “SLR-like” P&S because they could achieve a wide zoom range
>from wide-angle to telephoto without needing to change lenses, even
>though the quality of these wide-range lenses wasn’t very good at the
>ends. Now with several new wide-range D-SLR lenses, there is the option
>of not having to change lenses. You can still use higher end wide angle
>and telephoto lenses when the need arises, while enjoying the simplicity
>of a wide-range zoom lens when you choose to be m
P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in existence.
(E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) (100% proved in another thread.)
In case you missed them, here's just a few of the vast benefits of P&S cameras
and the huge related drawbacks of ALL DSLRs (some sections further edited for
clarity):
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) (100% proved in another thread.)
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5), and higher quality
full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views
than any DSLR and its glass in existence. (100% proved in another thread.)
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg )
4. P&S cameras are silent. They will not endanger your life when photographing
potentially dangerous wildlife by alerting them to your presence. Or for the
more common snap-shooter/photographer, you will not be barred from using your
camera at public events and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots,
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious
noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images.
5. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. Allowing
you to capture fast subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings)
WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light
alone. Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed
with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example image link in #7.)
6. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations.
Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter
distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
8. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast, able to
capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may capture more elusive
and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence
at all might prevent their appearance. Without the need of carrying a tethered
laptop along or any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your
range, distance, and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image.
It also allows for unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a
time, so that you may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in
nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all here.
See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
9. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or concrete while you do, and not
worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having gotten
dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no longer
weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to carry
more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek much
further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.
10. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
11. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice.
12. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
13. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
14. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
15. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
16. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
17. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
18. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the background included is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
19. ..... this is getting tedious, restating again just some of the
resident-troll's misinformation that I've already disproved, dozens of times
over. I just thought it might be fun to list a few of them all in one place to
make their glaringly obvious stupidity (and the ignorance and inexperience of
all the other virtual-photographer DSLR-trolls) even more glaringly obvious to
the world.
Roy G
"PaulMcGowan" <pmcg...@pamblock.net> wrote in message
news:g03vg49midik5dtuf...@4ax.com...
Oh no! Here we go again.
I quite agree that a lot of the 13 reasons given for DSLRs are not exclusive
to DSLRs.
However you are again claiming that your 19 reasons have been proved, when
they are in fact only claims.
Your long winded arguments without ever naming any of the equipment you
claim to use, do not prove anything. This reticence prevents others from
attempting to replicate your experiments, and thus verifying it.
The fact that you keep using different names, and sometimes appear to be
replying to your own postings, does tend to indicate that you are not the
most trustworthy poster.
Insulting others does not in any way make your claims more believable.
Roy G
Ps
I am not a moron or a troll.
Morton
I used to carry around 2 SLR film bodies, 5 lenses, flash, motor drive,
etc. with 16 pounds (about 7 kilos) on my shoulder. Yes, I got great
pictures, but yes, the outfit often stayed home. I now use a digital
point-and-shoot with a 4:1 zoom lens, and very little time lag. I get
excellent pictures which I print up to 11 x 14" even when cropped. I
carry the camera with me all the time. I'm not worried about an
expensive bunch of equipment beings stolen from me, as it was twice.
For flash boost, I use the small Canon slave-type flash.
My camera fits in my jacket pocket. To me, a good camera in my pocket is
better than a great camera outfit left at home.
Each type of camera has its place, and its supporters. So be it.
Regards,
Morton
Dudley Hanks
>
> Regards,
>
> Morton
This is why camera companies have marketing divisions as well as research
and development divisions...
Take care,
Dudley
Eric Stevens
<pmcg...@pamblock.net> wrote:
>P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any DSLR
>glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5), and higher quality
>full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views
>than any DSLR and its glass in existence. (100% proved in another thread.)
You have been asked to identify this lens system before. So far I have
not seen you do it.
What's more, I have a strong suspicion that you are not talking focal
length but equivalent focal length.
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
<pmcg...@pamblock.net> wrote:
>P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second.
Which one is that?
I've asked you that before but so far I have not seen an answer.
Eric Stevens
Dudley Hanks
"Gary Edstrom" <GEds...@PacBell.Net> wrote in message
news:0i9vg4hbmtlth93ar...@4ax.com...
> Why do you have to pick one over the other?
>
> I use both.
>
> My DSLR is for serious photography. Enough said.
>
> My P&S is outstanding and convenient for everyday use. The primary
> reason I carry it is because it takes a LOT less space than my DSLR and
> is inconspicuous on my belt. I ALWAYS have it with me. I take it
> places where it would be too awkward or inadvisable to take a bigger
> camera. It's great for those candid shots. Under daylight conditions,
> it performs almost as well as my DSLR. It is also an excellent backup
> camera in case my DSLR malfunctions in a critical situation, or the
> battery goes dead. I took both to Hong Kong with me last spring and got
> excellent pictures with both.
>
> Another excellent reason to carry it is for documentation! It probably
> saved me some money a couple of years ago. I had parked in the parking
> lot for a McDonalds. While I was getting out of my car, I lost my
> balance and swung my door open and against the car next to me. The
> owner immediately launched into a tirade about how I had ruined her car
> and how she was going to make me pay for it. I examined the 'damage'.
> It was almost invisible. Literally, a chip of paint, less than a
> sixteenth of an inch had been knocked off the bottom edge of her right
> rear wheel well. If you weren't looking for it, you never would have
> seen it. I got out my P&S camera with a ruler to take a picture of the
> 'damage'. The driver objected. I told her that if I was going to pay
> for the repair work, then I wanted documentation of the damage.
>
> I never heard from her again!
>
> Gary
That's the best reason I've heard, yet, to carry a p&s....
Take Care,
Dudlley
Dudley Hanks
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:njavg4hp1fciucnj5...@4ax.com...
I'm guessing that a digital zoom is factored into the equation, which kind
of defeats the argument...
Take Care,
Dudley
ray
There is another option: an ElectronicViewFinder. Looks and works pretty
much like an optical viewfinder, only better. It shows exactly what the
sensor sees. canon and some others have typically distributed models with
grossly undersampled EVFs, but it's not difficult to find a decent one -
Kodak, for example.
>
> 9. You want full manual control.
> While some high-end point and shoot models have retained some level of
> manual control, most have cost-reduced it out. On some Canon models,
> there is third-party software that can get some of the manual control
> back, but it's very flaky and complicated.
Like the Kodak P series which has full manual modes.
>
> 10. Expandability and upgradability.
> Not only a wide variety of specialty lenses, but flash attachments,
> filters, vertical grips, remote shutter releases, etc. If you eventually
> want to upgrade to a better D-SLR body, a lot of the lenses and
> accessories can be used on the new body if it’s from the same
> manufacturer.
>
> 11. Rapid sequencing. For action shots, both of sports and people, you
> can get the exact shot you want, even when the people are moving.
>
> 12. Cost. Say what? Yes, it’s true. With the free-fall of digital SLR
> prices, you can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost
> of a high end point and shoot camera.
A decent lens pretty much does away with about half of your other claims
which are based on (mostly expensive) additional lenses.
>
> 13. Wide-range walk-around lenses. It used to be that people would buy a
> wide-range “SLR-like” P&S because they could achieve a wide zoom range
> from wide-angle to telephoto without needing to change lenses, even
> though the quality of these wide-range lenses wasn’t very good at the
> ends. Now with several new wide-range D-SLR lenses, there is the option
> of not having to change lenses. You can still use higher end wide angle
> and telephoto lenses when the need arises, while enjoying the simplicity
> of a wide-range zoom lens when you choose to be m
You forgot portability. Oh, that's right, the P&S has a definite advantage
there - perhaps, if you do much in the out of doors, an overwhelming one.
David J Taylor
[]
> If you really need high ISOs, then ome P&S cameras have noise-free
> ISOs up to 3200 and more. Catch up.
Which one would that be, Paul.
Ron Hunter
> With all the misinformation being posted by our friend with multiple
> personalities, I thought that it would be a good idea to repost the
> facts regarding the advantages of digital SLRs over digital P&S cameras.
> If I've missed any of the advantages please follow-up with them.
>
> Thirteen Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
>
> 1. You shoot in low light.
> Modern digital SLRs are able to produce low noise images at ISO speeds
> up to 1600, depending on the camera. Point and shoot cameras, with their
> small sensors, begin to exhibit noise at ISO 200, with some poorer
> models being too noisy even at 100 ISO.
>
> 2. You want to use flash attachments.
> While a few higher end point and shoot digital models have hot shoes for
> an external flash, most do not. Some Canon P&S models without hot shoes
> can use a wireless flash, but it's not a great flash unit.
>
> 3. You need a wide-angle lens.
> Digital SLRs have super-wide-angle zoom lenses available with an
> effective focal length of as little as 16mm. There are no point and
> shoot digital cameras with lenses that wide. With some point and shoot
> cameras you can add on adapters to increase the wide-angle range, but
> even the best adapters are of mediocre quality.
>
> 4. You need a long telephoto lens.
> sporting events, only a digital SLR can use long telephoto lenses. If
> you only need a specialty lens for rare occasions, you can even rent one
> for a couple of days. With some point and shoot cameras you can add on
> adapters to increase the telephoto range but even the best adapters are
> of mediocre quality.
>
> 5. You need fast auto-focus.
> Most digital SLRs (with the exception of Pentax) use lenses with
> internal high-speed focusing motors). Point and shoot digital cameras
> cannot focus nearly as fast.
>
> 6. You need low shutter lag.
> the crack of the bat against the baseball, you cannot obtain these shots
> with a digital point and shoot camera because the time between when you
> press the shutter and the image is captured is far too long. A digital
> SLR has a mechanical shutter that opens instantaneously when the shutter
> release button is pressed. In a point and shoot camera, the sensor is
> activated electronically after it is used to focus the shot.
>
> 7. You want to produce images that can be printed in large sizes.
> Only a high-resolution digital SLR is suitable for poster size prints.
>
> 8. You want an optical viewfinder.
> While a few point and shoot cameras have retained an optical viewfinder,
> LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is very difficult.
>
> 9. You want full manual control.
> While some high-end point and shoot models have retained some level of
> manual control, most have cost-reduced it out. On some Canon models,
> there is third-party software that can get some of the manual control
> back, but it's very flaky and complicated.
>
> 10. Expandability and upgradability.
> Not only a wide variety of specialty lenses, but flash attachments,
> filters, vertical grips, remote shutter releases, etc. If you eventually
> want to upgrade to a better D-SLR body, a lot of the lenses and
>
> 11. Rapid sequencing. For action shots, both of sports and people, you
> can get the exact shot you want, even when the people are moving.
>
> of a high end point and shoot camera.
>
> 13. Wide-range walk-around lenses. It used to be that people would buy a
> of not having to change lenses. You can still use higher end wide angle
> and telephoto lenses when the need arises, while enjoying the simplicity
> of a wide-range zoom lens when you choose to be m
I have to disagree with a few of your items.
First, number 6. Most of the newer P&S cameras have quite short shutter
lag. It is the auto-focus that is slow. Shooting in 'landscape' mode
works well for dealing with this problem, and pre-focusing is something
done by almost any sports photographer, and should be a technique added
to the 'toolbox' of any moderately serious photographer.
Number 7. Huh? With many P&S cameras producing 10mp, this isn't even
close to valid.
Number 8. Sure, many P&S cameras don't have optical viewfinders, and I
consider that a serious omission. But as long as there are models that
do, I don't consider that a real problem.
Number 9. Most of the better P&S cameras have some level of manual
control, even though it might not be convenient to use.
Number 11. My P&S camera will 'burst' 6 shots in a bit over 2 seconds.
That is pretty adequate for most purposes.
Number 12. That depends on what you call 'decent' when it comes to
lenses, I guess. It is pretty easy to spend $1500 for just one lens.
Number 13. You are re-hashing number 10.
benjamin_toft
Not "one", that's "ones".
It's been answered MANY times. Apparently your newsgroup visual acuity is just
as myopic and astigmatic as your resident-troll virtual-photographer's visual
acuity.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures
To also restate what's already been stated, which you also failed to notice,
apparently:
Not all cameras listed there have been tested, mostly due to the difficulty of
the extreme layman having to set up the proper high-speed laser-scanning system
to test them properly (see notes on that page). Nor can they simply use the
light-levels from any lines-voltage source due to its cycling luminosity levels.
You can be quite certain that those untested models that use similar lenses and
firmware as those models already recorded on that chart can do the same high
shutter-speed rates. Their ultra-fast leaf-shutters being an integral part of
the lens designs, the CCD electronic shuttering integral to the similar firmware
in each.
SMS
> Nothing significant that I would argue with (as to your 13 reasons). But,
> please face the fact that P&S cameras are all that MOST common folks really
> need. And, the P&S cameras are getting better faster than the DSLRs ...
> just my take on this issue.
Yet many common folk are fed up enough with the negatives of P&S models
that they _are_ buying D-SLRs in droves. In 2007 D-SLR sales were up by
41%. A report yesterday stated "Canon and Nikon are likely to see an
increase in market share as consumers increasingly switch from compact
cameras to digital SLRs, according to an InfoTrends survey." See
"http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Canon_and_Nikon_to_increase_market_share_news_271300.html".
There's too much of a tendency to dismiss "common folk" as being too
naive technologically to understand the differences between types of
products in a category, but with the proliferation of information
sources this is no longer the case. Few people read Usenet and will see
the misinformation posted by our favorite troll, but many people will do
on-line research by typing something like "digital slr advantages" into
Google.
Now that D-SLRs have broken the $500 price point, you see more and more
so-called "common folk" buying them. The top reasons are shutter lag (or
auto-focus lag) and zoom range.
"Common folk" is vague. I was up in Yellowstone and Grand Tetons this
past summer, with too many of the "common folk" and I was amazed at the
proliferation of D-SLRs, probably at least 25% of the cameras I saw were
D-SLRs). But of course the type of "common folk" that chooses to go to
national parks on summer vacation is very different than the "common
folk" that choose to go to theme parks. Yet all of those national park
visitors, taking photographs of bears and moose with long zoom lenses
also own P&S cameras to take along when they are willing to put up with
the limitations. It would be nice to have some Minox-sized digital SLRs.
HEMI-Powered
> Yet many common folk are fed up enough with the negatives of
> P&S models that they _are_ buying D-SLRs in droves. In 2007
> D-SLR sales were up by 41%. A report yesterday stated "Canon
> and Nikon are likely to see an increase in market share as
> consumers increasingly switch from compact cameras to digital
> SLRs, according to an InfoTrends survey." See
> "http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Canon_and_Nikon_to_i
> ncrease_market_share_news_271300.html".
Not everyone needs or wants a DSLR, no matter the many
advantages. I finally succumbed a couple years back and like my
Canons - now shooting with a Rebel XSi. But, when all I want is
to haul a small camera in my pocket that can do a lot more than a
cell phone, then the Canon PowerShot SD-1100 I bought for my wife
this spring is the cat's meow.
> There's too much of a tendency to dismiss "common folk" as
> being too naive technologically to understand the differences
> between types of products in a category, but with the
> proliferation of information sources this is no longer the
> case. Few people read Usenet and will see the misinformation
> posted by our favorite troll, but many people will do on-line
> research by typing something like "digital slr advantages"
> into Google.
Again, some folk just want something small, light, simple to use,
and inexpensive.
> Now that D-SLRs have broken the $500 price point, you see more
> and more so-called "common folk" buying them. The top reasons
> are shutter lag (or auto-focus lag) and zoom range.
But, DSLRs are notoriously BAD for zoom range! It takes a really
huge, very expensive lens to match the 10:1 or more of a P & S or
EVF, but zoom range isn't the only consideration.
> "Common folk" is vague. I was up in Yellowstone and Grand
> Tetons this past summer, with too many of the "common folk"
> and I was amazed at the proliferation of D-SLRs, probably at
> least 25% of the cameras I saw were D-SLRs). But of course the
> type of "common folk" that chooses to go to national parks on
> summer vacation is very different than the "common folk" that
> choose to go to theme parks. Yet all of those national park
> visitors, taking photographs of bears and moose with long zoom
> lenses also own P&S cameras to take along when they are
> willing to put up with the limitations. It would be nice to
> have some Minox-sized digital SLRs.
>
Everybody wants to be called "common folk" or "average" or some
such but when they think about it in terms of a grade in school -
a lowly "C" - suddenly they no longer think they're "average".
Also, most people secretly believe they are actually far above
average whether they really are or not. It's sort of an American
thing that probably extends to other countries. Doesn't make
"common folk" good or bad any more than being part of the
educated intelligencia or the wealth is good or bad.
I would venture to say, though, that only "superior sombitches"
buy anything solely because they are technologically superior. As
proof, I would cite the explosion of small, light, cheap cameras
coming to market at the same time as you correctly observe that
DSLRs are getting into the entry price range. Now, add glass and
maybe a bigger flash and you're not only carrying around a lot of
plastic which is both heavy and bulky but it may just be that the
"common folk" have no clue how to properly use one.
Isn't freedom of choice great?
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!" -
increasingly seen on bumper sticker
Pete D
> I would venture to say, though, that only "superior sombitches"
> buy anything solely because they are technologically superior. As
> proof, I would cite the explosion of small, light, cheap cameras
> coming to market at the same time as you correctly observe that
> DSLRs are getting into the entry price range. Now, add glass and
> maybe a bigger flash and you're not only carrying around a lot of
> plastic which is both heavy and bulky but it may just be that the
> "common folk" have no clue how to properly use one.
Not sure what the flash has to do with anything here but the new 18-250mm
zooms are of a high quality, light weight and quite modestly sized, with the
far superior sensors they easily surpass the results from the so called
"superzooms".
Alan Browne
>> 6. You need low shutter lag.
>> Whether it’s photographing your child on a merry-go-round, or capturing
>> the crack of the bat against the baseball, you cannot obtain these shots
>> with a digital point and shoot camera because the time between when you
>> press the shutter and the image is captured is far too long. A digital
>> SLR has a mechanical shutter that opens instantaneously when the shutter
>> release button is pressed. In a point and shoot camera, the sensor is
>> activated electronically after it is used to focus the shot.
>
> Total hogwash. Before the DSLR shutter can be activated, the mirror has to
> be moved out of the way. It all boils down to timing. The more a
> photographer uses his / her camera, the better they get at compensating for
> shutter and focusing delays. Right now, all of the p&s shooters out there
> are sitting back and laughing, thinking to themselves, "I guess I must have
> been using a DSLR when I got those great shots of my kids baseball game, day
> at the beach, ride on the merry-go-round...
Total hogwash yourself there Duds.
P&S cameras are notorious for their shutter lag that measures somewhere
in the 1/4 - 1 second range on most all P&S cameras.
This makes shooting any kind of action difficult or guess work at best.
Most DSLR's have a shutter lag of about 1/20 - 1/15 of a second. At
1/20, shooting sports is fairly easy. At 1/10 you start to have a
higher miss rate on those critical instants.
>> 8. You want an optical viewfinder.
>> While a few point and shoot cameras have retained an optical viewfinder,
>> it’s been cost-reduced out of most models. Composing a picture on the
>> LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is very difficult.
>
> If everybody wants an optical viewfinder, why aren't camera manufacturers
> building them? And, why are DSLRs going "Live View"? I think you have that
> one back asswards.
Not at all. All DSLR's still have the optical viewfinder path to date.
The acuity in an optical VF is well beyond that of any monitor and
does not use battery power when used.
I didn't read your other points.
SMS
> Not everyone needs or wants a DSLR, no matter the many
> advantages. I finally succumbed a couple years back and like my
> Canons - now shooting with a Rebel XSi. But, when all I want is
> to haul a small camera in my pocket that can do a lot more than a
> cell phone, then the Canon PowerShot SD-1100 I bought for my wife
> this spring is the cat's meow.
Yes of course. I'm sure that nearly every D-SLR owner owns P&S cameras
for when they want to travel light. I carry my SD800 IS everywhere, but
the D-SLR is used more and more because of its superior capabilities.
> Again, some folk just want something small, light, simple to use,
> and inexpensive.
That's true. But many folks, especially parents that are fed up with
shutter lag taking pictures of their kids, have embraced digital SLRs
now that they're more reasonably priced.
> But, DSLRs are notoriously BAD for zoom range! It takes a really
> huge, very expensive lens to match the 10:1 or more of a P & S or
> EVF, but zoom range isn't the only consideration.
Used to be the case, but with the Canon EF-S 18-200/3.5-5.6 IS or the
Nikon 18-200mm AF-S VR DX, this has been solved, albeit at a relatively
high price. If you insist on a single lens, then this is the one to get,
although it has the same sort of limitations as the wide-range zoom
lenses on the ZLRs.
> I would venture to say, though, that only "superior sombitches"
> buy anything solely because they are technologically superior. As
> proof, I would cite the explosion of small, light, cheap cameras
> coming to market at the same time as you correctly observe that
> DSLRs are getting into the entry price range. Now, add glass and
> maybe a bigger flash and you're not only carrying around a lot of
> plastic which is both heavy and bulky but it may just be that the
> "common folk" have no clue how to properly use one.
They're a lot easier to use than the SLRs of yesteryear. Even
professionals only go to full manual mode in exceptional circumstances
these days.
tn...@mucks.net
>Total hogwash yourself there Duds.
>
>P&S cameras are notorious for their shutter lag that measures somewhere
>in the 1/4 - 1 second range on most all P&S cameras.
Where have you been? Many P&S cameras have extremely fast shutter
times as long as you pre-focus. Even with a DSLR you do take a little
time to focus don't you? Here's an old Sony P&S camera that ha a 0.011
pre-focused shutter lag.
Alan Browne
Been right here. I did say "most all P&S cameras", so please continue
your list...
IAC even if P&S cameras generally got to 5 ms (why not? Leica
rangefinder (mechanical) cameras have done this for decades) they still
would not come close to larger sensor cameras in the ways that really count.
Eric Stevens
Now that you have condescended to give a reference I find it is to a
page which tells you what your dials might read if you use software to
'hot rod' your camera. Before taking this too seriously one should
read the introduction, particularly the last paragraph:
"Important! -- Just because you can set an override shutter-speed
or f/stop on your camera with CHDK, it doesn't mean your camera
can actually do that shutter-speed or f/stop. Be sure you have
tested to make sure that extreme setting is actually making a
difference in your resulting images. Listing here the available
numbers that are built into CHDK will do no good. Those numbers
can go well outside of your camera's capabilities. You might select
an f/stop of f/16, but it doesn't mean you are actually obtaining
that desired setting. EXIF will even record your chosen setting,
but it may not actually be applying it to your image. Find ways to
test them, to be sure you are actually getting those limits. This
list should be a reference of TRUE limits of your cameras, not the
possible ones that are only written into CHDK. "
In other words, this is what the software says, not what the computer
actually does. You have several times quoted a possible shutter speed
of 1/40,000 sec. I presume this is on the basis of the speed quoted
for SX 100 IS in the last row. There is no other camera in the list
which will produce that speed.
The links towards the end of the article
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
and particularly http://chdk.setepontos.com/index.php/topic,32.0.html
- are very interesting. It seems that no one really knows what
effective lens aperture or shutter speed they are getting and are
relying on the light from a bright light source (e.g. flash) slamming
its way through a partially opened shutter/diaphragm.
I was interested in the efforts of a guy who was pointing his camera
directly at an incandescent lamp in order to get enough light with
which to test.
By the way, the speedometer on my car is calibrated to 250 km/hr.
Changing an internal jumper changes it to read 250 mph. I've always
been tempted to change the setting so that I can blow everyone else
into the weeds. Do you think I should try it?
Eric Stevens
Amazing
>
>
>By the way, the speedometer on my car is calibrated to 250 km/hr.
>Changing an internal jumper changes it to read 250 mph. I've always
>been tempted to change the setting so that I can blow everyone else
>into the weeds. Do you think I should try it?
Wow, you ARE a total moron. I was willing to give you the benefit of the doubt
but now you have removed ALL doubt.
There are several cameras on that list where the 1/40,000 shutter speeds have
been confirmed. If you read further you'll find out how a simple 1/30,000 RPM
motor and a first-surface mirror and laser-pointer may be used to confirm those
shutter speeds. As well as photographic proof of those shutter speeds.
Nothing like putting the blinders on, eh? Just so you can keep believing what
you want to believe. You have made yourself look like the total fool that you
are. Thanks, but I already knew that. Others may still have had their doubts
though.
Enjoy your bliss of psychotic ignorance. The rest of us have moved on with the
knowledge and wisdom of reality.
Dudley Hanks
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:Mr6dneIko6kEK43U...@giganews.com...
Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> 6. You need low shutter lag.
>> Whether it’s photographing your child on a merry-go-round, or capturing
>> the crack of the bat against the baseball, you cannot obtain these shots
>> with a digital point and shoot camera because the time between when you
>> press the shutter and the image is captured is far too long. A digital
>> SLR has a mechanical shutter that opens instantaneously when the shutter
>> release button is pressed. In a point and shoot camera, the sensor is
>> activated electronically after it is used to focus the shot.
>
> Total hogwash. Before the DSLR shutter can be activated, the mirror has
> to be moved out of the way. It all boils down to timing. The more a
> photographer uses his / her camera, the better they get at compensating
> for shutter and focusing delays. Right now, all of the p&s shooters out
> there are sitting back and laughing, thinking to themselves, "I guess I
> must have been using a DSLR when I got those great shots of my kids
> baseball game, day at the beach, ride on the merry-go-round...
Total hogwash yourself there Duds.
P&S cameras are notorious for their shutter lag that measures somewhere
in the 1/4 - 1 second range on most all P&S cameras.
This makes shooting any kind of action difficult or guess work at best.
Most DSLR's have a shutter lag of about 1/20 - 1/15 of a second. At
1/20, shooting sports is fairly easy. At 1/10 you start to have a
higher miss rate on those critical instants.
But, Alan, I'm betting that the longer a shooter uses his her camera, the
better the hit to miss ratio gets. Also, that quicker DSLR lag time is as
dependant on lighting conditions as is a p&s camera's. Granted the DSLR
camera will tend to have better specs than p&s models, but, you put a DSLR
and a p&s side by side at, let's say a Yankee's game after dark when play
goes on under the lights, and the skill of the photographer will be a larger
determinate of a good pic than the camera's lag time. The DSLR will be
hunting for focus too -- especially if the DSLR is equipped with a kit lens
that has roughly the same specs as the p&s's lens. Actually, I'd rather use
a Canon SX 1 / 10 with an ultra zoom lens than the Rebel XSi's kit lens.
One could probably get a faster shutter speed by shooting at the lower end
of the zoom range with a wider effective aperture.
I have a pic I took of my daughter playing catch with Dima, my former guide
dog. She has just thrown the ball, and it is in mid-air with Dima staring
intently at it, mouth open and ready to catch it. It is exactly what I
wanted, and it didn't take me 50 retries. I think I only shot about 4 or
five shots. Also, it wasn't taken using burst mode either. Just good old
fashion timing.
Now, if I can do it, why can't other, more traditional, shooters do it?
r
I'll ask my daughter to look for it and I'll try to post it for your
benefit...
>> 8. You want an optical viewfinder.
>> While a few point and shoot cameras have retained an optical viewfinder,
>> it’s been cost-reduced out of most models. Composing a picture on the
>> LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is very difficult.
>
> If everybody wants an optical viewfinder, why aren't camera manufacturers
> building them? And, why are DSLRs going "Live View"? I think you have
> that one back asswards.
Not at all. All DSLR's still have the optical viewfinder path to date.
The acuity in an optical VF is well beyond that of any monitor and
does not use battery power when used.
Now, Alan, I didn't say that DSLRs don't have optical viewfinders. My point
was that, if people wanted optical viewfinders on low-priced p&s cameras,
then manufacturers would put them there. But, since the market is going LCD
on these models, that is an indication of how many people are voting with
their dollars for LCDs over optical. Also, the fact that "Live View" is
becoming more standard on DSLRs, is an indication that, while people like
optical viewfinders, there are obviously some situations where at least a
large portion of DSLR customers are voting with their dollars for the
electronic screens as well.
As I've noted in other posts, this is why camera companies have marketing
departments as well as R&D departments. Not every shutterbug wants the same
features on their particular dream camera. I think that, overall, Canon has
done the best job at providing a batch of cameras that, while offering a
core group of fairly standard features 90% of shooters want, the company has
been able to add other more specific bells and whistles more tightly
targeted.
I didn't read your other points.
That's OK, Alan, my wife and kids tune me out sometimes too... :)
Take Care,
Dudley
sammy_collins
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>P&S cameras are notorious for their shutter lag that measures somewhere
>in the 1/4 - 1 second range on most all P&S cameras.
This is only true for snapshooters that don't know how to use cameras
professionally. Why is that you ask? HAH! I'd rather watch you make a continuous
fool of yourself than tell you why.
If you can't figure it out, you deserve to keep making a total fool of yourself.
Alan Browne
Set your news client for proper attribution.
The longer the anticipation period is, the higher the hit variance will be.
Also, that quicker DSLR lag time is as
> dependant on lighting conditions as is a p&s camera's. Granted the DSLR
No connection at all. A DSLR meters with light meters. A P&S meters
with the sensor. There are possible advantages to metering with the
sensor, but speeding up the shutter in poor lighting is definitely not
one of them.
I have two SLR's (four actually) but let's talk about two:
Maxxum 9: very fast shutter; 50ms (maybe better)
Maxxum 7D: shutter (timed by me in a test) 100 - 125ms.
Now, after shooting hundreds of volleyball shots where do you think the
most 'on the action' shots occured?
Once I realized how slow the 7D was, I did as you say, I "trained" to
hit the spot. But, nature is what nature is: the "keeper" ratio went
down due to variance. You just can't control what people are doing in a
fast moving sport.
I just pray that the a900 will be up to the Maxxum 9 in this regard.
>>> 8. You want an optical viewfinder.
>>> While a few point and shoot cameras have retained an optical viewfinder,
>>> it’s been cost-reduced out of most models. Composing a picture on the
>>> LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is very difficult.
>> If everybody wants an optical viewfinder, why aren't camera manufacturers
>> building them? And, why are DSLRs going "Live View"? I think you have
>> that one back asswards.
>
> Not at all. All DSLR's still have the optical viewfinder path to date.
> The acuity in an optical VF is well beyond that of any monitor and
> does not use battery power when used.
Duds: could you set your news client for proper attribution?
>
> Now, Alan, I didn't say that DSLRs don't have optical viewfinders. My point
> was that, if people wanted optical viewfinders on low-priced p&s cameras,
> then manufacturers would put them there. But, since the market is going LCD
> on these models, that is an indication of how many people are voting with
> their dollars for LCDs over optical. Also, the fact that "Live View" is
> becoming more standard on DSLRs, is an indication that, while people like
> optical viewfinders, there are obviously some situations where at least a
> large portion of DSLR customers are voting with their dollars for the
> electronic screens as well.
And still won't replace them.
GarrisonB
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>Maxxum 9: very fast shutter; 50ms (maybe better)
>
>Maxxum 7D: shutter (timed by me in a test) 100 - 125ms.
Wow, that's really piss-poor. My two favorite P&S cameras have shutter-lag times
of 45ms and 50ms respectively.
John McWilliams
> tn...@mucks.net wrote:
>>> Total hogwash yourself there Duds.
>>>
>>> P&S cameras are notorious for their shutter lag that measures
>>> somewhere in the 1/4 - 1 second range on most all P&S cameras.
>>
>> Where have you been? Many P&S cameras have extremely fast shutter
>> times as long as you pre-focus. Even with a DSLR you do take a little
>> time to focus don't you? Here's an old Sony P&S camera that ha a 0.011
>> pre-focused shutter lag.
>>
>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/H1/H1DATA.HTM
>
> Been right here. I did say "most all P&S cameras", so please continue
> your list...
>
> IAC even if P&S cameras generally got to 5 ms (why not? Leica
> rangefinder (mechanical) cameras have done this for decades) they still
> would not come close to larger sensor cameras in the ways that really
> count.
>
nym-shifting pest, and you're carrying on with this guy about lag times
for compacts???
--
john mcwilliams
Taylor_Thomas
>> Now, Alan, I didn't say that DSLRs don't have optical viewfinders. My point
>> was that, if people wanted optical viewfinders on low-priced p&s cameras,
>> then manufacturers would put them there. But, since the market is going LCD
The reason that they don't, is that people who have grown to enjoy the vast
benefits of electronic viewfinders (focusing and composing in low light by just
increasing sensor gain, real-time shutter-speed preview, 100% framing accuracy,
etc.) find that the inaccurate framing and dark image OVF's are superfluous to
the newer electronic technology. There's zero reason to include ancient and
inaccurate optical viewfinders with all their drawbacks compared to the vast
benefits of a modern electronic viewfinder.
RichA
"Gary Edstrom" <GEds...@PacBell.Net> wrote in message
news:0i9vg4hbmtlth93ar...@4ax.com...
> Why do you have to pick one over the other?
>
> I use both.
>
> My DSLR is for serious photography. Enough said.
>
> My P&S is outstanding and convenient for everyday use.
So would be a small DSLR, but then there is the lazy factor, or the one
where (for some unknown reason) people feel the need to hide the fact they
are carrying a camera.
Stan Taft
Or those DSLR snapshooters that have to lazily and amateurly depend on
auto-focus speeds, burst machine-gun shooting method speeds, etc. etc.
It's fun watching DSLR-fan responders post on this newsgroup. Invariably they
value the very features in their cameras that reveal themselves to be nothing
but extremely rank amateurs. It's all quite amusing.
tn...@mucks.net
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tn...@mucks.net wrote:
>>> Total hogwash yourself there Duds.
>>>
>>> P&S cameras are notorious for their shutter lag that measures somewhere
>>> in the 1/4 - 1 second range on most all P&S cameras.
>>
>> Where have you been? Many P&S cameras have extremely fast shutter
>> times as long as you pre-focus. Even with a DSLR you do take a little
>> time to focus don't you? Here's an old Sony P&S camera that ha a 0.011
>> pre-focused shutter lag.
>>
>> http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/H1/H1DATA.HTM
>
>Been right here. I did say "most all P&S cameras", so please continue
>your list...
You said "P&S cameras are notorious for their shutter lag"
Sounds like you are including all of them to me.
There are many,many P&S cameras that have fast pre-focused
shutter lag.
I will not take the time to list them. It's just like any other list.
Some make the list, some don't.
Dudley Hanks
"Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
Dudley Hanks wrote:
> "Alan Browne" <alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:Mr6dneIko6kEK43U...@giganews.com...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>>> 6. You need low shutter lag.
>>> Whether it’s photographing your child on a merry-go-round, or capturing
>>> the crack of the bat against the baseball, you cannot obtain these shots
>>> with a digital point and shoot camera because the time between when you
>>> press the shutter and the image is captured is far too long. A digital
>>> SLR has a mechanical shutter that opens instantaneously when the shutter
>>> release button is pressed. In a point and shoot camera, the sensor is
>>> activated electronically after it is used to focus the shot.
First of all, let me frame my response. According to the OP,
>>> Whether it’s photographing your child on a merry-go-round, or capturing
>>> the crack of the bat against the baseball, [YOU CANNOT] obtain these
>>> shots
>>> with a digital point and shoot camera
Ok, the OP says it is IMPOSSIBLE to obtain action shots with a point and
shoot. Had he said it is more difficult, I wouldn't be quibbling the point.
But, to say that nobody can take good action shots with a p&s is absurd and
is a slap in the face to all the p&s photographers who HAVE taken exactly
the shots the OP says can't be taken.
Do we have any problems this far?
>> Total hogwash. Before the DSLR shutter can be activated, the mirror has
>> to be moved out of the way. It all boils down to timing. The more a
>> photographer uses his / her camera, the better they get at compensating
>> for shutter and focusing delays. Right now, all of the p&s shooters out
>> there are sitting back and laughing, thinking to themselves, "I guess I
>> must have been using a DSLR when I got those great shots of my kids
>> baseball game, day at the beach, ride on the merry-go-round...
Now, keep in mind my argument is simply that experience can compensate for
any delays in a p&s -- exactly like DSLR shooters compensate for similar
(though not identical) delays inherent in DSLR cameras. Note, the point is
NOT that DSLRs have the same delays...
>
> Total hogwash yourself there Duds.
>
> P&S cameras are notorious for their shutter lag that measures somewhere
> in the 1/4 - 1 second range on most all P&S cameras.
I don't dispute this, although I think it is doing the better p&s cameras a
bit of an injustice...
>
> This makes shooting any kind of action difficult or guess work at best.
More difficult, yes, guesswork, not really. Once again, experience is the
key...
>
> Most DSLR's have a shutter lag of about 1/20 - 1/15 of a second. At
> 1/20, shooting sports is fairly easy. At 1/10 you start to have a
> higher miss rate on those critical instants.
For some shooters with some cameras, but many cameras used by many shooters
ARE getting the job done. For those who are having problems, will buying a
DSLR irradicate the problem? I doubt it, since these shooters aren't the
best shooters to begin with. Even pros using the best and most expensive
equipment have bad shots due to bad timing, misfires, etc...
>
> But, Alan, I'm betting that the longer a shooter uses his her camera, the
> better the hit to miss ratio gets.
Experience is the key ...
Set your news client for proper attribution.
Sorry, Alan, as I've often explained, my screen reader won't work if I
change my settings. What you see is what I'm stuck with...
The longer the anticipation period is, the higher the hit variance will be.
That sounds good, but you are discounting experience...
Also, that quicker DSLR lag time is as
> dependant on lighting conditions as is a p&s camera's. Granted the DSLR
Alright, here is where I skrewed up with my argument. Let me rephrase it.
The point I was trying to make is that the "lag time" a shooter has to work
with is not just shutter lag. When shooting fast paced sporting events,
kids playing in the playground, etc, there are a host of delays in
auto-everything cameras. Sometimes, focusing delays (especially in cheaper
DSLRs) are as much of an annoyance and need to be factored into, and
compensated for, as much as the shutter lag in a p&s. Yet, the DSLR guys
don't want to talk about that.
No connection at all. A DSLR meters with light meters. A P&S meters
with the sensor. There are possible advantages to metering with the
sensor, but speeding up the shutter in poor lighting is definitely not
one of them.
I agree. And, if I would have phrased my argument better, I wouldn't have
steered you down that road...
I have two SLR's (four actually) but let's talk about two:
Maxxum 9: very fast shutter; 50ms (maybe better)
Maxxum 7D: shutter (timed by me in a test) 100 - 125ms.
Now, after shooting hundreds of volleyball shots where do you think the
most 'on the action' shots occured?
Once I realized how slow the 7D was, I did as you say, I "trained" to
hit the spot. But, nature is what nature is: the "keeper" ratio went
down due to variance. You just can't control what people are doing in a
fast moving sport.
But, Alan, would you have given up so easily if you didn't have the faster
camera? I'm guessing your keeper rate would have gotten much better if you
didn't already have a camera you felt more comfortable with. Plausible? I
think so...
No, you can't control the players, but you can improve your own technical
skills, and I think you would have done so if you didn't have a better
alternative...
I just pray that the a900 will be up to the Maxxum 9 in this regard.
I wish you luck, there, Alan. But, getting back to my argument...
With the argument framed by the OP as being that p&s cameras CANNOT take
good action shots, and my point being that it is possible, albeit more
difficult than with a DSLR. But, with practice, it CAN be done.
Am I being unreasonable?
>>> 8. You want an optical viewfinder.
>>> While a few point and shoot cameras have retained an optical viewfinder,
>>> it’s been cost-reduced out of most models. Composing a picture on the
>>> LCD screen, in bright sunlight, is very difficult.
>> If everybody wants an optical viewfinder, why aren't camera manufacturers
>> building them? And, why are DSLRs going "Live View"? I think you have
>> that one back asswards.
>
> Not at all. All DSLR's still have the optical viewfinder path to date.
I never said they didn't. In fact, if the optical viewfinder was eliminated
from a DSLR, then it would no longer qualify as a member of the SLR
family... Right?
As in the previous case, let's get back to what the OP wrote:
>>> 8. You want an optical viewfinder.
My argument is that most people who buy p&s cameras now DO NOT WANT optical
view finders, at least they don't want it bad enough to pay for it. And,
they WANT a LCD in DSLR cameras bad enough TOO pay extra for it...
If the OP had said, "I want an optical viewfinder ...", or "An optical
viewfinder is nice because ...", then I would not have quibbled.
But, the OP is generallizing the wrong side of the argument. Clearly, if
most manufacturers are dropping viewfinders in favour of LCD displays in
most compact digital cameras then the MAJORITY of people DO NOT WANT THEM,
so the OP has the argument back assward...
Am I so far off base?
> The acuity in an optical VF is well beyond that of any monitor and
> does not use battery power when used.
I don't dispute that, but it has nothing to do with the OP's point...
Duds: could you set your news client for proper attribution?
Alan, I really wish I could... But, as noted before, I have to work within
some rather abnormal software limitations, and my current setting
configuration is the best I can do. I'm sorry for the inconvenience...
>
> Now, Alan, I didn't say that DSLRs don't have optical viewfinders. My
> point was that, if people wanted optical viewfinders on low-priced p&s
> cameras, then manufacturers would put them there. But, since the market
> is going LCD on these models, that is an indication of how many people are
> voting with their dollars for LCDs over optical. Also, the fact that
> "Live View" is becoming more standard on DSLRs, is an indication that,
> while people like optical viewfinders, there are obviously some situations
> where at least a large portion of DSLR customers are voting with their
> dollars for the electronic screens as well.
And still won't replace them.
As noted above, getting rid of the optical viewfinder would, by definition,
move the resulting model into a different catagory. It would no longer be a
DSLR.
I think that, on the whole, you and I agree about these cameras. My reply
to the OP was based on the "either or" premise of the original arguments,
not on the merits of p&s cameras being even close to comparable to DSLRs..
Take Care,
Dudley
Fred
news:TKSdnaNVHZqLQo3U...@giganews.com...
>
> "Gary Edstrom" <GEds...@PacBell.Net> wrote in message
> news:0i9vg4hbmtlth93ar...@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> My P&S is outstanding and convenient for everyday use.
>
> So would be a small DSLR, but then there is the lazy factor, or the one
> where (for some unknown reason) people feel the need to hide the fact they
> are carrying a camera.
>
>
around your neck for potential muggers to see (in certain dodgy areas), plus
I've yet to see a DSLR and lens small enough to fit in even a jacket pocket,
let alone a shirt or trouser pocket.
It's all horses for courses really, you choose which camera to take with you
according to each individual situation. You're hardly going to go
mountaining lugging a large camera bag full of lenses (unless you're a
masochist), but if you are taking pictures whilst on a car journey, the
weight of a bag full of DSLR gear isn't such a burden.
-hh
>
>
> You said "P&S cameras are notorious for their shutter lag"
> Sounds like you are including all of them to me.
>
> There are many,many P&S cameras that have fast pre-focused
> shutter lag.
The Common Joe includes focus time when he thinks of "shutter lag".
As such, having a minimal lag after being pre-focused isn't germane to
what Joe thinks he needs...he simply wants a "faster camera".
-hh
tn...@mucks.net
<recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
>t...@mucks.net wrote:
>>
>>
>> You said "P&S cameras are notorious for their shutter lag"
>> Sounds like you are including all of them to me.
>>
>> There are many,many P&S cameras that have fast pre-focused
>> shutter lag.
>
>The Common Joe includes focus time when he thinks of "shutter lag".
No. It's the ignorant Joe, not the common Joe. The ignorant Joe
doesn't realize that if he wants to capture an action shot, the type
that requires a fast shutter response, he must prefocus first.
>
>As such, having a minimal lag after being pre-focused isn't germane to
>what Joe thinks he needs...he simply wants a "faster camera".
>
>
>-hh
It's germane to anyone that isn't ignorant. Is it germane to you?
Alan Browne
>
> No. It's the ignorant Joe, not the common Joe.
What camera would Joe the plumber use?
Joe the plumber would not laugh at us as we try to fix a leaky drain
pipe with the wrong tool.
He would help us select the right tool and maybe offer a word or two of
encouragement and advice.
It's the same with cameras. And when total idiots like the P&S troll
show up, confusion ensues and noise reigns.
Best thing is to ignore and never reply to the P&S troll. He needs the
oxygen more than anyone here needs him.
tn...@mucks.net
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>tn...@mucks.net wrote:
>
>>
>> No. It's the ignorant Joe, not the common Joe.
>
>What camera would Joe the plumber use?
>
>Joe the plumber would not laugh at us as we try to fix a leaky drain
>pipe with the wrong tool.
>
>He would help us select the right tool and maybe offer a word or two of
>encouragement and advice.
>
>It's the same with cameras. And when total idiots like the P&S troll
>show up, confusion ensues and noise reigns.
>
>Best thing is to ignore and never reply to the P&S troll. He needs the
>oxygen more than anyone here needs him.
As far as I am concerned my part of this thread was to correct the
false belief that a P&S camera can not have a fast shutter response.
So if that makes me a troll, then I guess I'll continue to be a troll.
-hh
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >
> > The Common Joe includes focus time when he
> > thinks of "shutter lag".
>
> No. It's the ignorant Joe, not the common Joe.
But its the same guy. Joe is utterly indifferent to the nuances that
we're trying to apply and motivationally (and right or wrong!), Joe
doesn't want to be bothered with getting mired down in all of those
confusing details that were in the instrution manual.
--> In fact, Joe probably didn't read anything past the "Quick Start"
section in the instruction booklet that showed how to insert the
battery & memory card. <--
Joe (or his parents) were from the old school of simple fixed-focus
(and fixed-everything-else) film cameras: 110's, Polaroids, etc.
There was one button and when you pushed it, the camera immediately
went "Click!" and you got the picture. Very non-intimidating.
Fast forward to the autofocus generation and the problem is that Joe
still just wants one button to push and for the magic of picture-
taking to promptly happen.
But...if the system delays because it is focus-seeking under poor
lighting, or whatever, Joe doesn't say anything more than: "Lousy
Camera!" and goes and Joe eventually goes out and buys a replacement
camera.
Needless to say, the manufacturers aren't particularly inclined to
complain about this situation, for they're able to sell all the Joes
more (and probably more expensive) cameras each year.
> > As such, having a minimal lag after being
> > pre-focused isn't germane to what Joe thinks
> > he needs...he simply wants a "faster camera".
>
> It's germane to anyone that isn't ignorant.
> Is it germane to you?
Yes, it is germane to me, but that's not the point: the point is that
you & I can't go force Joe consumer to get trained properly.
I wholeheartedly agree that applying the fix of prefocusing
(technique) is technically superior, but the problem is that
pragmatically, Joe would rather go buy a new widget instead of
learning how to use his existing one properly. Right or wrong, Joe
believes that these technology advancements exist so that he doesn't
have to be "bothered" with the detailed minutia.
Thus, this is not the first time that skills/training is (broadly
speaking) being replaced with technology, nor will it be the last.
-hh
tn...@mucks.net
>> No. It's the ignorant Joe, not the common Joe.
>
>But its the same guy. Joe is utterly indifferent to the nuances that
>we're trying to apply and motivationally (and right or wrong!), Joe
>doesn't want to be bothered with getting mired down in all of those
>confusing details that were in the instrution manual.
snip
All Joe's are not the same, but for the sake of argument
we have this Joe that can't be bothered reading a manual.
Is it then your recommendation that Joe purchase a DSLR
and continue to not read the manual? How do you change Joe?
If Joe won't change what camera should Joe use?
>> > As such, having a minimal lag after being
>> > pre-focused isn't germane to what Joe thinks
>> > he needs...he simply wants a "faster camera".
>>
>> It's germane to anyone that isn't ignorant.
>> Is it germane to you?
>
>Yes, it is germane to me, but that's not the point: the point is that
>you & I can't go force Joe consumer to get trained properly.
>
>I wholeheartedly agree that applying the fix of prefocusing
>(technique) is technically superior, but the problem is that
>pragmatically, Joe would rather go buy a new widget instead of
>learning how to use his existing one properly. Right or wrong, Joe
>believes that these technology advancements exist so that he doesn't
>have to be "bothered" with the detailed minutia.
Do you do math long hand even if you have a calculator sitting
right next to you?
>
>Thus, this is not the first time that skills/training is (broadly
>speaking) being replaced with technology, nor will it be the last.
>
>
>-hh
Technology replacing skill can be a good thing. Slide rules,
Calculators, Microwave dinners, Wal-Mart digital photo processing
machines, and eventually DSLR cameras.
tn...@mucks.net
Correction: replace DSLR ^ with P&S
Dudley Hanks
A720 is quite respectable. For a full shutter press, it clocks in at 0.5
seconds, but that is including average focus time and Live View delay. For
prefocused shots, it drops to 0.13 seconds, including the Live View drag.
Excluding everything but the actual shutter lag? 0.03 seconds. That's a
long way from the 0.25 to 1 seconds bandied about this group.
So, at least with the Canon 'A' series cameras, you can get some pretty
decent performance, read pretty decent action pics, with these
point-and-shoot cameras...
Good Luck,
Dudley
tn...@mucks.net
Believe it or not the Cannon P&S cameras, including yours are among
the slowest of P&S cameras. Compare the shutter times on Sony P&S
cameras. They are generally the fastest.
shawn_williams
>Do you do math long hand even if you have a calculator sitting
>right next to you?
Yes, I do. On occasion I do this just to remind myself that I know how to do it.
Just last night as a matter of fact. I realized that I forgot something as
simple as doing long-division manually. How silly is that! (Quick, divide
72,019,265.7 by 78.903 without using a calculator) I wanted to refresh those
brain-cells so that I wouldn't forget the ability to think in that manner. It's
also faster and easier to apply a 6x focal-length multiplier in my mind than
wasting my time picking up a calculator to get the result. Just as no
photographer should ever not know how to manually focus a camera, manually set
the shutter speed, manually set the aperture, and more importantly know WHY. But
in this instance doing at least these 3 things for a camera is far more crucial
to knowing how to be a photographer than knowing how to do long-division just so
you can remember how. Just knowing shutter speed alone will determine if you can
get that shot or can't, independent of the camera doing the rest.
The kind of "photographer" that you and others suggest that should exist will be
outfitted with a 100% automatic hands-free camera, that encircles his head in an
orbit all his life, taking full-frame images at 30 fps or more, while everything
from a wide-angle to an extreme telephoto lens is switched in and out for each
successive frame. Later, when his life is over, someone else can go through all
the recorded imagery of everything he's ever been around and near in his life to
see if there was anything significant about that person ever having been alive.
Yeah ... that's never going to happen. I can already tell you that that person
wasted their time and the time of everyone else by having been born in the first
place. But at least that person enjoyed imagining that they were a
"photographer" with the camera that they bought. Some people get so much
pleasure from their self-induced delusions.
tn...@mucks.net
Delusions? No shortage of that ^
Bart-L-Harris
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
> Live View drag
This is such a huge misnomer. There really is no such thing as "live view drag"
in any camera with an EVF/LCD system these days. A true live-view delay will
never be more than about 1/60th of a second, and in many cameras much faster
than that as a minimum, far shorter than any human perception. This is the
refresh rate of the EVF/LCD display.
What you are experiencing as "live view drag" is the live-view recreating the
shutter-speed in real time. This is how an EVF/LCD viewfinder is able to
accurately represent those soft moving-water effects at slow shutter speeds and
stop-motion flapping bird wing images at high shutter speeds. The reason this
"live-view drag" has become a mantra of those with less experience is that they
test their P&S camera in the store. Never once realizing that the slower shutter
speed used indoors is what causes this perceived "live view drag".
For the experienced/advanced photographer that has come to understand the vast
benefits they wouldn't buy any camera without this feature. Having what you call
this "live view drag" is even more important to someone like me than being able
to use a bright DOF preview (as also exists on all P&S cameras). I want to
instantly see what happens to the final capture of my moving subjects as I
change shutter speeds. I enjoy having that instantaneous film-to-print preview
in real-time as I frame my shots.
D-SLR owners who have never had this great feature all their lives won't
recognize it for what it is, nor will they understand how to make use of it.
They at first, wrongly and ignorantly, consider this some kind of drawback
instead of the great asset that it is. Until they finally learn on their own.
This is why "live view" is becoming more commonplace in D-SLRs, to slowly
introduce them to the vast benefits that P&S cameras have had for a decade.
The mindless D-SLR owner/buyer/promoter will eventually figure it out, one day.
But then, come to think of it, the D-SLR owner lost use of something as simple
as having a bright DOF preview (as used to exist in better SLRs of the past, and
still exists on all P&S cameras). They don't consider that any great loss nor
even realize why its important. Some will just never figure it out.
J. Clarke
What I want to see is this guy doing follow-focus with the "manual"
focus control on a typical point-and-shoot.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
J. Clarke
Well, now, you see the difficulty is that in those situations where
you have the time to hand-focus, generally the lag isn't an issue.
Jimbo-Ganter
>What I want to see is this guy doing follow-focus with the "manual"
>focus control on a typical point-and-shoot.
They don't have to rely on those gimmicks. A snap-shooter needs those gimmicks.
A pro will know their subject and set the in-focus range accordingly. In the
event that the subject moves outside of that range then a momentary tap on the
"AF Assist" button gets you right back in range.
You haven't used many "typical" high-end P&S cameras, have you.
Please refrain from expressing your opinion on things to which you can do
nothing but display great levels of ignorance due to your lack of experience.
Dudley Hanks
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:getdq...@news2.newsguy.com...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> For those who are interested, the shutter lag time for my Canon
>> Powershot A720 is quite respectable. For a full shutter press, it
>> clocks in at 0.5 seconds, but that is including average focus time
>> and Live View delay. For prefocused shots, it drops to 0.13
>> seconds,
>> including the Live View drag. Excluding everything but the actual
>> shutter lag? 0.03 seconds. That's a long way from the 0.25 to 1
>> seconds bandied about this group.
>>
>> So, at least with the Canon 'A' series cameras, you can get some
>> pretty decent performance, read pretty decent action pics, with
>> these
>> point-and-shoot cameras...
>
> Well, now, you see the difficulty is that in those situations where
> you have the time to hand-focus, generally the lag isn't an issue.
>
keeps the action in focus without having to do the half-press prefocus.
Moreover, if I really wanted quick performance and I was shooting a sporting
event, I would take advantage of the p&s rather deep depth-of-field and
simply set the focus to manual and hyperfocus my shots.
If your mind isn't closed, it's amazing what you can do with a p&s camera.
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
read, the A720 clocks in at about 1/10 second for Live View delay. I'm
assuming somebody measured it in a lab, somewhere.
Take Care,
Dudley
"Bart-L-Harris" <barth...@idontthinkso.org> wrote in message
news:1bc4h4hsav55ivgkt9qeem8h76f57t4i5b@domain...
Dudley Hanks
<tn...@mucks.net> wrote in message
news:ufb4h4lmueotp3bva...@4ax.com...
Slowest, fastest, at 0.03 second for actual shutter lag, I don't have a
problem with that...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
>>focus control on a typical point-and-shoot.
>
If you insist on doing things the hard way, your appreciation of the product
will tend to be a bit skewed...
Take Care,
Dudley
jackgrissom
<photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote:
>Hey, nice rant. But, I'm just quoting specs. According to the specs I've
>read, the A720 clocks in at about 1/10 second for Live View delay. I'm
>assuming somebody measured it in a lab, somewhere.
>
Yes, one of the many online "labs" that are popular review sites that
repetitively make common errors in their testing methods like this. Those
web-site promoters who have a vested interest in making sure people buy the more
profitable DSLR gear from their clickable links. You know, those places where
all the virtual-photographer trolls in newsgroups get all their misinformation
that they re-spew upon the world.
Those places. :-)
Eric Stevens
<jga...@someaddress.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:25:35 -0500, "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>What I want to see is this guy doing follow-focus with the "manual"
>>focus control on a typical point-and-shoot.
>
>They don't have to rely on those gimmicks. A snap-shooter needs those gimmicks.
>A pro will know their subject and set the in-focus range accordingly. In the
>event that the subject moves outside of that range then a momentary tap on the
>"AF Assist" button gets you right back in range.
In that kind of situation I just set my camera on 'Continuous Focus'
and stop worrying about it.
>You haven't used many "typical" high-end P&S cameras, have you.
>
>Please refrain from expressing your opinion on things to which you can do
>nothing but display great levels of ignorance due to your lack of experience.
Eric Stevens
byron_zigfield
>In that kind of situation I just set my camera on 'Continuous Focus'
>and stop worrying about it.
While your shots are delayed more than a good P&S camera as that mirror slaps
out of the way, shaking your camera and blurring the image, and that inaccurate
and noisy focal-plane shutter has to open.
Enjoy!
J. Clarke
>>> What I want to see is this guy doing follow-focus with the
>>> "manual"
>>> focus control on a typical point-and-shoot.
>>
> Why, have you never heard of AI Server?
What do you believe servers have to do with manually prefocusing? Or
are you saying that connecting the camera to some kind of server (now
you have lug a server around?) will eliminate focus lag?
> Or, manually hyperfocusing?
So what's the depth of field wide open at maximum zoom?
> If you insist on doing things the hard way, your appreciation of the
> product will tend to be a bit skewed...
I see, so the solution to shutter lag is to focus manually but then
according to you focusing manually is "the hard way".
Do yourself a favor. Find a someone desperate enough to fuck you.
-hh
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 18:11:49 -0500, t...@mucks.net wrote:
>
> >>> No. It's the ignorant Joe, not the common Joe.
>
> >>But its the same guy. Joe is utterly indifferent to the nuances that
> >>we're trying to apply and motivationally (and right or wrong!), Joe
> >>doesn't want to be bothered with getting mired down in all of those
> >>confusing details that were in the instrution manual.
>
> >snip
>
> >All Joe's are not the same, but for the sake of argument
> >we have this Joe that can't be bothered reading a manual.
> >Is it then your recommendation that Joe purchase a DSLR
> >and continue to not read the manual? How do you change Joe?
> >If Joe won't change what camera should Joe use?
> Correction: replace DSLR ^ with P&S
Actually, you're correct either way: Joe's not going to really RTFM
regardless of what he buys, be it a P&S or dSLR.
He will, however, fat-finger both of them in the store, and possibly
with some salesman's prodding, buy whichever one he believes is
"better" and call it at that.
Now given the scenario that it was a slow AF seek/lock on an existing
older (and quite probably P&S) camera that motivated Joe to go
shopping in the first place, the tendency is that he would thus then
lean towards a "fast focus" camera, where we're not talking about the
knowledgeable enthusiast's technical minutia metric of just shutter
lag, but instead, the more holistic photo-taking process, which
includes the camera's time to acquire focus as well as the shutter
lag.
I'm not claiming that this is right or wrong, but merely that its just
a commonly observed behavior, which does tend to explain some
purchasing preferences and retail patterns.
However, from a common sense standpoint, in addition to having minimal
shutter lag, don't you also want a camera that is faster to acquire
autofocus? If yes (and why not yes?), then you're desiring the same
as Joe, but you are simply able to deconstruct the high level
objective into its smaller constituent elements.
-hh
SheldonBrown
wrote:
>However, from a common sense standpoint, in addition to having minimal
>shutter lag, don't you also want a camera that is faster to acquire
>autofocus? If yes (and why not yes?)
Would be nice, but that's never going to happen. No artificial intelligence nor
algorithm in the world is going to tell the camera what the photographer really
wants in focus. It would require a pupil-following technology incorporated
within the camera's firmware. Then add in some advanced averaging algorithm to
determine where that gaze was held the longest on each portion. Adjusting focus
accordingly to average out the points of interest and weighing them
accordingly..
Until then, I'll make do with manual focusing and minimum shutter-response time
in my "lame" P&S cameras, thank you.
tn...@mucks.net
>However, from a common sense standpoint, in addition to having minimal
>shutter lag, don't you also want a camera that is faster to acquire
>autofocus? If yes (and why not yes?), then you're desiring the same
>as Joe, but you are simply able to deconstruct the high level
>objective into its smaller constituent elements.
>
>
>-hh
Example from one manufacturer:
Sony DSC-H5 P&S Ultra Zoom acquire autofocus .51 sec.
Prefocus .011 sec.
Sony DSLR-A100 DSLR acquire autofocus .31 sec.
Prefocus .116 sec.
Sony DSC-W170 Compact P&S acquire autofocus .36 sec.
Prefocus .008 sec.
As you can see the differences in shutter times are not great
except that the DSLR prefocus is ten times slower.
The "acquire autofocus" time isn't nearly as important to me as long
as
a good prefocus time is available. Actually I want a camera that has
everything, however there is no such thing, therefore I must set my
priorities.
Believe it or not P&S cameras do have good attributes and as
technology advances more reasons will become evident as to
why a P&S purchase makes more sense than a DSLR purchase.
Dudley Hanks
<tn...@mucks.net> wrote in message
news:g2p4h4pn1h449ifgp...@4ax.com...
>
>>However, from a common sense standpoint, in addition to having minimal
>>shutter lag, don't you also want a camera that is faster to acquire
>>autofocus? If yes (and why not yes?), then you're desiring the same
>>as Joe, but you are simply able to deconstruct the high level
>>objective into its smaller constituent elements.
Or, you have a bigger bank account / budget for lenses, flashes, etc, and a
stronger constitution for carrying everything everywhere...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
"jackgrissom" <jgri...@noaddress.co.uk> wrote in message
news:rki4h49rrtl49r2pu...@co.uk...
info they're looking for? It is possible...
Take Care,
Dudley
Dudley Hanks
Or, just start Googling, and Googling, and Googling...
J. Clarke
>> However, from a common sense standpoint, in addition to having
>> minimal shutter lag, don't you also want a camera that is faster to
>> acquire autofocus? If yes (and why not yes?), then you're desiring
>> the same as Joe, but you are simply able to deconstruct the high
>> level objective into its smaller constituent elements.
>>
>>
>> -hh
>
> Example from one manufacturer:
>
> Sony DSC-H5 P&S Ultra Zoom acquire autofocus .51 sec.
> Prefocus .011 sec.
>
> Sony DSLR-A100 DSLR acquire autofocus .31 sec.
> Prefocus .116 sec.
>
> Sony DSC-W170 Compact P&S acquire autofocus .36 sec.
> Prefocus .008 sec.
>
> As you can see the differences in shutter times are not great
> except that the DSLR prefocus is ten times slower.
>
> The "acquire autofocus" time isn't nearly as important to me as long
> as
> a good prefocus time is available. Actually I want a camera that has
> everything, however there is no such thing, therefore I must set my
> priorities.
What kind of photography do you do that you can prefocus on the LCD
screen on a point and shoot using the single-speed electronic zoom
with its little buttons or lever for every shot?
> Believe it or not P&S cameras do have good attributes and as
> technology advances more reasons will become evident as to
> why a P&S purchase makes more sense than a DSLR purchase.
Neither "makes more sense". I have film cameras, DSLR, and
point-and-shoot, and each has its place.
When the point-and-shoot can do _everything_ the DSLR does, _better_
than the DSLR, _and_ continues to do everything the point-and-shoot
does the same way the current ones do, _then_ it will "make more
sense".
J. Clarke
Or you know that if you with your point and shoot and the guy standing
next to you with the big white lens both try to sell your shots of the
same event, the guy with the big white lens is going to have food on
the table and you aren't.
CatchUp
>When the point-and-shoot can do _everything_ the DSLR does, _better_
>than the DSLR, _and_ continues to do everything the point-and-shoot
>does the same way the current ones do, _then_ it will "make more
>sense".
Oh dear. Someone that's not been out shopping for the last 3 years, at least.
You need to get out more. The world has moved on without you. One of my
7-year-old P&S cameras does more and does it better than most any DSLR made.
When compared pixel-for-pixel against an equivalent DSLR with L-Glass, this
favorite 7-year-old P&S of mine wins so far ahead that it's not even a contest.
Tell you which one it is? No. I can't do that, it wouldn't be near as
entertaining. It's much more fun watching you DSLR-trolls jump around wondering
which P&S cameras these might be. You might actually have to go out and buy some
of them someday so you can finally prove that you know what you are talking
about. So far all that I keep reading are opinions from fools that have never
used any of these high-quality P&S cameras.
How do I know this? Easy. If the DSLR-trolls actually did use any of the P&S
cameras that they constantly put down, and more importantly, show one bit of
evidence that they know how to use any camera properly, they'd stop putting down
P&S cameras.
Your complaints are the self-evident remarks of an inexperienced fool.
-hh
>
> How do I know this? Easy. If the DSLR-trolls actually did use any of the P&S
> cameras that they constantly put down, and more importantly, show one bit of
> evidence that they know how to use any camera properly, they'd stop putting down
> P&S cameras.
Several months ago, I gave you trolls the opportunity to prove your
claims by going through one of my online photo albums page by page and
telling everyone just which images were taken with a dSLR, which with
a P&S and which were scans from 35mm film.
No one ever took up this challenge. You included.
The details are in the archives...and this opportunity ... to prove
that your claim isn't 100% bullshit ... is still open.
They're all merely tools, that have varying advantages/disadvantages.
-hh
-hh
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 19:11:53 -0800 (PST), -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com>
> wrote:
>
> >However, from a common sense standpoint, in addition to having minimal
> >shutter lag, don't you also want a camera that is faster to acquire
> >autofocus? If yes (and why not yes?)
>
> Would be nice, but that's never going to happen. No artificial intelligence nor
> algorithm in the world is going to tell the camera what the photographer really
> wants in focus. It would require a pupil-following technology incorporated
> within the camera's firmware.
The Canon EOS Elan series (IIe, 7e) had a rudimentary "eye-tracking"
feature; it worked fairly well.
> Then add in some advanced averaging algorithm to
> determine where that gaze was held the longest on each portion.
There's scientific equipment that already does this...full tracking
with dwell times, etc..that's currently being used to conduct research
on human perception to build computerized models. I happened to hear
a paper presented on this just last week; I'll check for when the
proceedings get published.
> Until then, I'll make do with manual focusing and minimum shutter-response time
> in my "lame" P&S cameras, thank you.
There's no reason to be defensive, since I never said that P&S were
"lame": I use them too, as well as other tools.
-hh
-hh
> >However, from a common sense standpoint, in addition to having minimal
> >shutter lag, don't you also want a camera that is faster to acquire
> >autofocus? If yes (and why not yes?), then you're desiring the same
> >as Joe, but you are simply able to deconstruct the high level
> >objective into its smaller constituent elements.
>
>
> Sony DSC-H5 P&S Ultra Zoom acquire autofocus .51 sec.
> Prefocus .011 sec.
>
> Sony DSLR-A100 DSLR acquire autofocus .31 sec.
> Prefocus .116 sec.
>
> Sony DSC-W170 Compact P&S acquire autofocus .36 sec.
> Prefocus .008 sec.
>
> As you can see the differences in shutter times are not great
> except that the DSLR prefocus is ten times slower.
Perhaps this observation here can be blamed on Sony, not the form
(dSLR-vs-P&S)?
Reason I suggest this was because I did a spot-check using the Canon
50D dSLR:
Shutter Lag, Full Autofocus: 0.131 sec
Shutter Lag, Prefocused: 0.063 sec
(source: http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/E50D/E50DA.HTM )
My point is that "Joe" goes into the camera store and compares the
three Sonys that you list, plus the Canon 50D, and because he only
bothers to try the full autofocus, he buys the 50D because he
considers it to have been "the fastest".
Basically, Joe's picture-taking protocol is:
turn on camera
point
shoot
turn off camera.
So at the level that Joe is operating, the only specs that he compared
were:
Sony DSC-H5 : 0.51 sec.
Sony DSLR-A100: 0.31 sec.
Sony DSC-W170: 0.36 sec.
Canon 50D: 0.13 sec
I'm not claiming that this is smart/dumb or right/wrong ... merely
that it is the expected behavior by a healthy segment of product
purchasers, and it is based on Joe's unsophisticated workflow that
their product purchase decisions are based on.
> The "acquire autofocus" time isn't nearly as important to me as long
> as a good prefocus time is available.
Fair enough, but I'm simply considering the use of prefocus to be
something more advanced than what Joe will use.
And please don't blame me...blame Joe! :-)
> Believe it or not P&S cameras do have good attributes ...
Agreed, but that's not my point. My point is that the generic "Joe"
consumer can't be assumed to use the product to its full technological
advantage. The example here was that the Sony DSC-W170 technically
has the smallest shutter lag (pre-focused), but unless Joe is
sophisticated enough to look for that specific feature, he wouldn't
find it, so he won't select that product to buy.
By analogy, consider modern cellphones ... do you really know how to
use (with full proficiency) every single last feature on your current
cellphone? I know that I don't, and I really doubt that I'm the only
one.
The generalized fallacy here is one of feature creep and assuming that
"all" consumers are aware and take advantage of "all" features. If
nothing else, this is a clear violation of the Pareto Principle (aka
80/20 rule).
-hh
MarcusGoodbie
wrote:
>newly minted troll CatchUp <catc...@realitytoday.com> wrote:
>>
>> How do I know this? Easy. If the DSLR-trolls actually did use any of the P&S
>> cameras that they constantly put down, and more importantly, show one bit of
>> evidence that they know how to use any camera properly, they'd stop putting down
>> P&S cameras.
>
>Several months ago, I gave you trolls the opportunity to prove your
>claims by going through one of my online photo albums page by page and
>telling everyone just which images were taken with a dSLR, which with
>a P&S and which were scans from 35mm film.
>
>No one ever took up this challenge. You included.
Someone like me wouldn't even bother going to look at your photography. I
certainly didn't and have no imperative to do so now.
That's because people like me already know that in the hands of someone with
talent that the camera and media used is of no consequence nor can they be told
apart by the final product. Now on the other hand, if your photographic skill is
so poor that you can't get equivalent photos from all types of cameras, then
your test will prove something that you had not intended to prove.
I personally find the convenience and greater advantages of P&S hardware more to
my liking. More focal-length reach, wider apertures, highly portable, resistant
to harsh environments, more DOF for hand-held macro, live-view benefits, video &
audio recording for nature documentation, etc., etc. Include one that uses CHDK
and the possibilities and capabilities become nearly limitless. No other cameras
made, no matter how costly, can even begin to approach the vast capabilities and
adaptability of a top-shelf P&S CHDK camera.
Due to these things P&S's are much more adaptable and functional when applied to
the huge variety of subjects and situations that I photograph. No d-SLR I've
ever used (SLRs included) comes even remotely close to what I can accomplish
with a good P&S camera + highest-quality ultra-wide and telephoto adapter(s) +
(my) skill.
That last component, "skill", will allow someone with a shoe-box and a pinhole
in foil to create award winning photos. Those who lack that last component will
constantly applaud their auto-everything d-SLR. Especially applauding their
auto-focus features. They can't even do that right on their own. For them to
force the d-SLR brick on others they must be erroneously thinking that everyone
on the planet has as little skill as they.
This is why I laugh at those that ignorantly tell others that they need a "Pro
DSLR" camera, or to "get a REAL camera like a DSLR, and get rid of that toy P&S
camera." They don't have a single clue. They have probably never used any camera
at all in their lives. Or, more likely, are just so damned bad at photography
that they need all the help they can get and are willing to pay out the ass in
trying to obtain anything at all that might help. It doesn't, and it never will.
Suggesting that someone needs a more expensive camera to improve your
photography reveals but one thing -- the person who is suggesting it is a REALLY
REALLY BAD photographer. That's all that it will ever reveal.
Dudley Hanks
This is the problem with some of you guys. You seem to think that everybody
is a pro trying to sell their picks.
The whole p&s market segment is NOT geared to pros; it's geared to people
who just want to take nice looking shots they can take of their kids, pets,
neighbours, or community events and keep for sentimental value and, at best,
hang on their walls.
You should realize that, if you and I are taking pics at the same event, you
won't find mine in a magazine because they won't be submitted. You might
see them on my web site, if I'm energetic enough to put them their, but
that's about it.
The food on my table is paid for from other income...
Take Care,
Dudley
J. Clarke
If pre-focus was an acceptable alternative to autofocus for general
use then autofocus would never have gotten a foothold and the M8 would
rule the industry.
-hh
>
> Someone like me wouldn't even bother going
> to look at your photography.
But of course you're not: you're just yet another "one shot"
sockpuppet post from a very old, lame troll. Its not our fault that
you don't have a real life.
> ...in the hands of someone with talent that the camera
> and media used is of no consequence nor can they
> be told apart by the final product.
In other words, you realized that you've been set up, so you're trying
to avoid having to play. Very transparent and lame.
> I personally find the convenience and greater
> advantages of P&S hardware more to my liking.
Regardless of your personal preferences, the camera is merely a tool.
There is always greater utility by having both a "hammer and a
screwdriver" in one's toolbox, rather than just a hammer or just a
screwdriver.
But there is no "one size fits all" solution, including having a full
toolbox, because not all people need or desire that greater degree of
overall utility, amongst other things. We each decide on our trade-
off solutions depending on our own priorities, preferences and
needs.
The hard part is to avoid the temptation of applying one's personal
preferences to another when they solicit advice, and that's something
that you've been spectacularly and repeatedly unsuccessful at, and
part of the reason why you try to continuously run away from your bad
reputation by constantly using new sockpuppets.
-hh
-hh
>
> If pre-focus was an acceptable alternative
> to autofocus for general use then autofocus
> would never have gotten a foothold and the
> M8 would rule the industry.
Very well and very concisely said...much better than my effort.
Thanks,
-hh
SMS
> I'm not claiming that this is smart/dumb or right/wrong ... merely
> that it is the expected behavior by a healthy segment of product
> purchasers, and it is based on Joe's unsophisticated workflow that
> their product purchase decisions are based on.
Teaching people to pre-focus would be a help to many P&S users.
Unfortunately, there are a lot of situations where you simply can't
pre-focus.
The biggest complaints I hear about P&S cameras is from parents trying
to photograph action shots of their kids at sporting events, and from
parents of small children trying to take non-posed photographs of their
kids. A lot of parents have pictures of other people's kids on the
merry-go-round! Very difficult to pre-focus in these situations.
The other problem is that these people got very used to using film P&S
cameras which never has the long auto-focus delays inherent in P&S
digital cameras. Now they're told that they have to "work around" the
limitations of digital P&S cameras. They're also often very disappointed
with the results in sub-optimal lighting conditions, compared to what
they used to get with film. With film, everyone bought the same sensors
on rolls.
With digital, the very small sensors in P&S cameras have made the
problems of low-light photography much worse. In that sense, the
Panasonic G1 does offer some advantage over a typical P&S since the
sensor is much larger and presumably it will work better in high-ISO,
though the 4:3 high-ISO quality is decidedly worse than the quality from
a 1.6 or 1.5 crop CMOS sensor in a Canon or Nikon D-SLR.
Ricoh had the right idea with their phase-detect auto-focus that they
put into some of their higher-end P&S models for a while. Unfortunately
they dropped this feature due to the expense. The market was small
because anyone that really understood what was going on had graduated to
a D-SLR, and those that didn't understand balked at paying so much for a
P&S especially with D-SLR prices coming down so much. Also Ricoh doesn't
sell cameras into the U.S. except gray-market.
As an example, the Ricoh Caplio R2 had an AF speed of an amazing 0.04
seconds, compared to Canon G6 at 0.83 seconds.
The Caplio R6, other than the lack of an optical viewfinder, is probably
the best P&S ever made. As a result they of course had to discontinue it.
robert_neuman
wrote:
>On Nov 6, 9:01 am, MarcusGoodbie <marcg...@mymailbox.com> wrote:
>>
>> Someone like me wouldn't even bother going
>> to look at your photography.
>
>But of course you're not: you're just yet another "one shot"
>sockpuppet post from a very old, lame troll. Its not our fault that
>you don't have a real life.
Awww... someone's upset that nobody looked at his boring and crappy vacation
snapshots. He can't even get anyone to look at his stuff even if he sets up a
lame challenge. One that can only prove one of two things: he's either talented
enough to get excellent photography out of any camera in existence OR he's a
rotten photographer who can't accomplish that simple task.
>
>
>> ...in the hands of someone with talent that the camera
>> and media used is of no consequence nor can they
>> be told apart by the final product.
>
>In other words, you realized that you've been set up, so you're trying
>to avoid having to play. Very transparent and lame.
>
Set up? You set up yourself. If you can tell the photos apart from different
cameras, then you only prove you're not a very good photographer. How come you
didn't address that part? Oh, that's right, you didn't want to fall into your
own set up.
>
>> I personally find the convenience and greater
>> advantages of P&S hardware more to my liking.
>
>Regardless of your personal preferences, the camera is merely a tool.
>
>There is always greater utility by having both a "hammer and a
>screwdriver" in one's toolbox, rather than just a hammer or just a
>screwdriver.
>
>But there is no "one size fits all" solution, including having a full
>toolbox, because not all people need or desire that greater degree of
>overall utility, amongst other things. We each decide on our trade-
>off solutions depending on our own priorities, preferences and
>needs.
>
>The hard part is to avoid the temptation of applying one's personal
>preferences to another when they solicit advice, and that's something
>that you've been spectacularly and repeatedly unsuccessful at, and
>part of the reason why you try to continuously run away from your bad
>reputation by constantly using new sockpuppets.
>
Ah, but you fail to realize, the only time I post advice is in contrast to the
idiot DSLR-trolls that relentlessly tell everyone that they need a DSLR or they
can never be a "Pro". What a bunch of total bullshit that is.
As are you.
>
>
>-hh
(Hey Sammy! No need to set up the traps and baits for this one, it provided them
all on its own this time! (sammy replies) Yeah? Wow. they're getting dumber and
dumber. I thought that would be impossible.)
FentonHarper
>-hh wrote:
>
>> I'm not claiming that this is smart/dumb or right/wrong ... merely
>> that it is the expected behavior by a healthy segment of product
>> purchasers, and it is based on Joe's unsophisticated workflow that
>> their product purchase decisions are based on.
>
>Teaching people to pre-focus would be a help to many P&S users.
>Unfortunately, there are a lot of situations where you simply can't
>pre-focus.
Name one.
>
>The biggest complaints I hear about P&S cameras is from parents trying
>to photograph action shots of their kids at sporting events, and from
>parents of small children trying to take non-posed photographs of their
>kids. A lot of parents have pictures of other people's kids on the
>merry-go-round! Very difficult to pre-focus in these situations.
Oh, I see. You tried to name one.
LOL
You can't predict where a merry-go-round is going to go-round the next time
'round?
LOL
>
>The other problem is that these people got very used to using film P&S
>cameras which never has the long auto-focus delays inherent in P&S
>digital cameras. Now they're told that they have to "work around" the
>limitations of digital P&S cameras. They're also often very disappointed
>with the results in sub-optimal lighting conditions, compared to what
>they used to get with film. With film, everyone bought the same sensors
>on rolls.
Yes, all at ASA25, ASA64, ASA80, ASA100, rarely ASA200, and all managed to get
those photos just fine. What's your problem today? Oh, that's right, you are a
talentless idiot who has never used any camera. Those wanting to do starscapes
then delved into the very grainy ASA400 and ASA800 films, often using more
elaborate darkroom processes like push-processing and hypering. If they could
first wrap their minds and exposure times around reciprocity failure in those
films.
You were saying?
Ah, that's right, you were saying even more uneducated and clueless crap....
SMS
> If pre-focus was an acceptable alternative to autofocus for general
> use then autofocus would never have gotten a foothold and the M8 would
> rule the industry.
Yeah, well if P&S film cameras had been as bad as P&S digital cameras in
terms of auto-focus time then user would have accepted the slow response
time instead of realizing that there was indeed a problem.
The single company that actually solved the problem was Ricoh, they've
dropped their fast-focus P&S models because the cost of phase-detect
focus was too high, and the few people willing to pay for it have moved
on to D-SLRs.
-hh
>
> Teaching people to pre-focus would be a help to many P&S users.
Agreed. Unfortunately, the adage of "can lead a horse to water, but
can't make him drink" applies.
> Unfortunately, there are a lot of situations
> where you simply can't pre-focus.
Do you more concisely mean: can't use the camera's AF in its default
mode to achieve a suitable focus lock?
> A lot of parents have pictures of other people's kids on the
> merry-go-round! Very difficult to pre-focus in these situations.
If the image of the "other people's kid" was in good focus, this would
appear to be that the camera did AF okay, but due to the amount of
time that it took to achieve focus, their kid had wizzed by.
> The other problem is that these people got very used
> to using film P&S cameras which never has the long
> auto-focus delays inherent in P&S digital cameras.
> Now they're told that they have to "work around" the
> limitations of digital P&S cameras. They're also
> often very disappointed...
Exactly. Joe's consumer expectation is that its new technology, so it
shouldn't have these sorts of problems.
> With digital, the very small sensors in P&S cameras have made the
> problems of low-light photography much worse.
Hence, complaints about pictures from inddors birthday parties (dark
room lit by the cake's candles).
> The Caplio R6, other than the lack of an optical
> viewfinder, is probably the best P&S ever made.
> As a result they of course had to discontinue it.
I'm still looking for a worthy replacement for the Canon A80...runs on
AA batteries, optical viewfinder, manual controls, a 'flippy' display
screen, and is adequately compact/small. For it to also use CF cards
would be gravy.
-hh
SMS
> I'm still looking for a worthy replacement for the Canon A80...runs on
> AA batteries, optical viewfinder, manual controls, a 'flippy' display
> screen, and is adequately compact/small. For it to also use CF cards
> would be gravy.
SD & SDHC cards are so ridiculously cheap now that it doesn't matter
about CF.
Flip out displays are awesome, but it looks like they're history on P&S
cameras other than the Canon SX10 IS and the Panasonic G1.
Eric Stevens
It depends upon which of the several different focus methods is chosen
(see http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/D300/D300A6.HTM ) but
according to the manual, from pushing the button to getting the
picture displayed on the LCD screen is always less than 0.5 seconds.
Using autofocus the time from button push to image capture is 0.227
seconds and with manual focus it is 0.057 seconds.
Eric Stevens
-hh
>
> SD & SDHC cards are so ridiculously cheap now
> that it doesn't matter about CF.
Agreed, which is why I consider this feature no longer a 'must have',
but merely gravy. Having it would afford greater flexibility and
minimize the number of different types of spares to be carried (FWIW,
the same also applies to batteries).
> Flip out displays are awesome, but it looks like
> they're history on P&S cameras other than the
> Canon SX10 IS and the Panasonic G1.
This had been a place where P&Ss' feature set had a clear advantage
over dSLRs, due to its functional utility for conducting macro work
(and a few oteher instances). With the functional diappearance from
P&Ss, so too has the reason to favor them for this application.
-hh
SMS
> This had been a place where P&Ss' feature set had a clear advantage
> over dSLRs, due to its functional utility for conducting macro work
> (and a few oteher instances). With the functional diappearance from
> P&Ss, so too has the reason to favor them for this application.
The problem is that it's a race to the bottom in terms of P&S models
these days because few people are willing to pay $400+ for a high-end,
comparatively large, P&S when you can buy a far more capable D-SLR for
the same money. There are still some niche products like the Canon SX10
IS and the Panasonic G1 with the flip out display, but sadly Canon
dropped it on the G series and on the A series. Just like Canon dropped
the only sub-compact that had both an optical viewfinder and a
wide-angle lens, the SD800 IS. Megapixels and LCD size is now what sells
P&S models. Anyone that cares about anything else has graduated to a D-SLR.
wallace albertson
In case you haven't heard:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
-hh
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >-hh wrote:
>
> >> This had been a place where P&Ss' feature set had a clear advantage
> >> over dSLRs, due to its functional utility for conducting macro work
> >> (and a few oteher instances). With the functional diappearance from
> >> P&Ss, so too has the reason to favor them for this application.
>
> >The problem is that it's a race to the bottom in terms of P&S models
> >these days because few people are willing to pay $400+ for a high-end,
> >comparatively large, P&S when you can buy a far more capable D-SLR for
> >the same money. There are still some niche products like the Canon SX10
> >IS and the Panasonic G1 with the flip out display, but sadly Canon
> >dropped it on the G series and on the A series. Just like Canon dropped
> >the only sub-compact that had both an optical viewfinder and a
> >wide-angle lens, the SD800 IS. Megapixels and LCD size is now what sells
> >P&S models. Anyone that cares about anything else has graduated to a D-SLR.
>
> In case you haven't heard:
Yeah, we've heard all your purile crap before.
Now if you would only suggest a few more current P&S models that has
the aformentioned features that some of us actually desire (optical
viewfinder, AA batteries, flip screen, small size), then your
miserable life would momentarily have some meaning.
-hh
Alan G.
wrote:
>YA troll sockpuppet wrote:
You virtual photographer trolls can get all your DSLR info on the net, to
support the purchase of all those imaginary cameras that you use. But you can't
use those same skills to search and purchase the better P&S cameras?
Oh my! That says a lot about your skills, doesn't it.
LOL
SMS
> Now if you would only suggest a few more current P&S models that has
> the aformentioned features that some of us actually desire (optical
> viewfinder, AA batteries, flip screen, small size), then your
> miserable life would momentarily have some meaning.
Well he can leave out the AA batteries for me. I greatly prefer Li-Ion
for many reasons. Not that he has the slightest idea of what's available.
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> > Now if you would only suggest a few more current P&S models that has
> > the aformentioned features that some of us actually desire (optical
> > viewfinder, AA batteries, flip screen, small size), then your
> > miserable life would momentarily have some meaning.
>
> Well he can leave out the AA batteries for me. I greatly prefer Li-Ion
> for many reasons.
Not unlike how I've minimized proliferation of flash media cards, I've
tried to standardize on AA's. If something goes wrong, one can find
AA's worldwide instead of having to deal with a proprietary battery
format. I now use NiMH AA batteries even though they have to be
replaced periodically, as they have good enough capacity and score
well in the affordability column these days. I'll cross the bridge to
Li-Ion AA's when the time comes.
> Not that he has the slightest idea of what's available.
The sockpuppet wonder is proving himself a loser by trying to sling
insults instead of putting up the goods to "proving us wrong", namely
by offering up model#s of viable P&S products that meet the
requirements as stated.
BTW, I'll be going offline for awhile later this month; another photo-
safari. Take care.
-hh
J. Clarke
> SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>> Now if you would only suggest a few more current P&S models that
>>> has
>>> the aformentioned features that some of us actually desire
>>> (optical
>>> viewfinder, AA batteries, flip screen, small size), then your
>>> miserable life would momentarily have some meaning.
>>
>> Well he can leave out the AA batteries for me. I greatly prefer
>> Li-Ion for many reasons.
>
> Not unlike how I've minimized proliferation of flash media cards,
> I've
> tried to standardize on AA's. If something goes wrong, one can find
> AA's worldwide instead of having to deal with a proprietary battery
> format. I now use NiMH AA batteries even though they have to be
> replaced periodically, as they have good enough capacity and score
> well in the affordability column these days. I'll cross the bridge
> to
> Li-Ion AA's when the time comes.
First you're going to have to invent them. There is no such thing as
a lithium ion AA. There is a rechargeable 3v battery that is about
the same size but generally is not a good thing to use in equipment
designed for AAs and there is a 1.5v lithium AA that is not
rechargeable. On the other hand, a CR-3V rechargeable is about the
same size as two AAs side by side and can often replace two of them,
but doesn't give much advantage over NiMH.
>> Not that he has the slightest idea of what's available.
>
> The sockpuppet wonder is proving himself a loser by trying to sling
> insults instead of putting up the goods to "proving us wrong",
> namely
> by offering up model#s of viable P&S products that meet the
> requirements as stated.
>
>
> BTW, I'll be going offline for awhile later this month; another
> photo-
> safari. Take care.
>
>
> -hh
--
Ray Fischer
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:17:37 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>-hh wrote:
>>
>>> This had been a place where P&Ss' feature set had a clear advantage
>>> over dSLRs, due to its functional utility for conducting macro work
>>> (and a few oteher instances). With the functional diappearance from
>>> P&Ss, so too has the reason to favor them for this application.
>>
>>The problem is that it's a race to the bottom in terms of P&S models
>>these days because few people are willing to pay $400+ for a high-end,
>>comparatively large, P&S when you can buy a far more capable D-SLR for
>>the same money. There are still some niche products like the Canon SX10
>>IS and the Panasonic G1 with the flip out display, but sadly Canon
>>dropped it on the G series and on the A series. Just like Canon dropped
>>the only sub-compact that had both an optical viewfinder and a
>>wide-angle lens, the SD800 IS. Megapixels and LCD size is now what sells
>>P&S models. Anyone that cares about anything else has graduated to a D-SLR.
>
>In case you haven't heard:
Your'e too stupid to realize that you're a joke. An irrational
zealot pushing a religion that nobody's buying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Dave Amble
Then you really should stop reading things like this:
-hh
> -hh wrote:
> > ... I now use NiMH AA batteries .. I'll cross
> > the bridge to Li-Ion AA's when the time comes.
>
> First you're going to have to invent them.
Plus make them reasonably affordable.
> On the other hand, a CR-3V rechargeable is about
> the same size as two AAs side by side and can
> often replace two of them, but doesn't give much
> advantage over NiMH.
Agreed, and another limitation of the CR-3V's side-by-side
configuration is that its not as easy to find other common electronic
devices that can accept it as a AA replacement; a common example is in
a flashlight.
Essentially, my portable power requirements are:
CR123: 1 device (Image Stabilized binoculars)
BP511A: 2 devices (dSLR, dSLR)
AAA: 2 devices (flashlight, alarm clock)
AA: 6 devices (GPS, flashlight, P&S, 2*Hyperdrives, Strobe)
I find that I now only need to carry 4 different types of spares to
support roughly a dozen discrete devices. This simplification then
trickles-down into the number of rechargers needed as well.
-hh
KevCampbell
wrote:
>Agreed, and another limitation of the CR-3V's side-by-side
>configuration is that its not as easy to find other common electronic
>devices that can accept it as a AA replacement; a common example is in
>a flashlight.
At last, they finally found a topic they know a little something about.
Batteries and flashlights. LOL
(but pay attention, they still don't know much about batteries)
They better leave out LED technology too, that's going to stump them up good.
Ray Fischer
>On 07 Nov 2008 05:57:59 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>wallace albertson <walbe...@anotherisp.net> wrote:
>>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 14:17:37 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>-hh wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This had been a place where P&Ss' feature set had a clear advantage
>>>>> over dSLRs, due to its functional utility for conducting macro work
>>>>> (and a few oteher instances). With the functional diappearance from
>>>>> P&Ss, so too has the reason to favor them for this application.
>>>>
>>>>The problem is that it's a race to the bottom in terms of P&S models
>>>>these days because few people are willing to pay $400+ for a high-end,
>>>>comparatively large, P&S when you can buy a far more capable D-SLR for
>>>>the same money. There are still some niche products like the Canon SX10
>>>>IS and the Panasonic G1 with the flip out display, but sadly Canon
>>>>dropped it on the G series and on the A series. Just like Canon dropped
>>>>the only sub-compact that had both an optical viewfinder and a
>>>>wide-angle lens, the SD800 IS. Megapixels and LCD size is now what sells
>>>>P&S models. Anyone that cares about anything else has graduated to a D-SLR.
>>>
>>>In case you haven't heard:
>>
>>zealot pushing a religion that nobody's buying.
>
>Then you really should stop reading things like this:
What makes you think that I started, clown?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net