P&S cameras exist for one reason
RichA
nearly every "labour saving" device ever invented. If these weren't lazy,
they'd put up with the extra EFFORT needed to shoot with a DSLR and marvel
at the vast quality increase instead of crying about "wanting to put it in
their pocket."
gavinmcready
Here's 25 more reasons that only apply to advanced photographers, people unlike
like yourself:
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
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."
Jeff R.
Yeah.
I feel the same way about wheelbarrows.
Lazy bastards!
You should carry sand around construction sites in buckets - or, even
better - fill your pockets.
Wheelbarrows cause unemployment!
--
Jeff R.
Ray Fischer
> Because users of them are congenitally lazy people.
_____________________
/| /| | |
||__|| | Do not feed the |
/ O O\__ | trolls. Thank you. |
/ \ | --Mgt. |
/ \ \|_____________________|
/ _ \ \ ||
/ |\____\ \ ||
/ | | | |\____/ ||
/ \|_|_|/ | _||
/ / \ |____| ||
/ | | | --|
| | | |____ --|
* _ | |_|_|_| | \-/
*-- _--\ _ \ | ||
/ _ \\ | / `
* / \_ /- | | |
* ___ c_c_c_C/ \C_c_c_c____________
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
WheresTheResidentTrolls
______________________
| |
| Please ignore all |
| the morons who call |
/| /| | smarter people |
||__|| |"trolls", due to their|
/ O O\__ | own insecurities. |
/ \ | Thank-you. |
/ \ \|______________________|
Ron Hunter
and who are too lazy to walk the 20 miles to work each day, and the same
lazy people who are too lazy to visit a few million people to talk about
cameras every day, so we do it the easy way, we use the internet. Yep,
lazy indeed.
Of course, there are some few of us who are not physically able to cart
around a large camera and 10 kilos of 'kit', too.
Elmo von Thud
wrote:
> Because users of them are congenitally lazy people.
[sneep]
It must be quite hard to con the genitals of lazy people.
Elmo
SMS
They do marvel at the vast quality increase, but you're wrong about the
reason.
A D-SLR can be used in full auto mode just as a P&S can be used in full
auto mode, and it's no more effort. In fact, it's when the P&S user
starts trying to turn the P&S into "a system" with various kludges such
as lens adapters remote flashes, etc., that they're expending the extra
effort and not achieving the increase in quality that they expect.
There are two reasons that people buy P&S cameras:
1. P&S cameras are cheaper.
2. P&S cameras are smaller.
If you shoot mainly outdoors, at low ISO, and don't do action shots,
then a P&S is just fine.
DSLRTrollsShouldReadThis
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
SMS
Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
utmost importance compared to convenience.
There's a good web site with the trade-offs of D-SLR versus P&S at
"http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps".
Alfred Molon
> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
> utmost importance compared to convenience.
enough.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
SMS
> In article <ntDRk.3351$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
>> utmost importance compared to convenience.
>
> Or because for most purposes the image quality of P&S cameras is good
> enough.
Yeah, that too. Though it is rather bad that those same people were
taking far better photos in the olden days with a film P&S. No shutter
lag, very good low light performance, no constant worrying about batteries.
J. Clarke
Well, there's a web site. How good it is is debatable. Some of it is
pure opinion--he for example steers people away from P&S with high
pixel density and makes assertions about the size of print that can be
achieved that are at variance with blind tests conducted by another
photographer.
He would be more credible if he supported his arguments with evidence
rather than just making assertions.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
ArlanAdams
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
J. Clarke
Do you have some examples that prove this or are you just repeating
something that you read on a Web site?
Bill Grisham
He lost all credibility when I read this: "He has photographed over 800 weddings
and other life events, as well as doing studio photography."
Taking photography and camera advice from a remedial wedding photographer is
like taking advice about driving from Mr. McGoo.
He doesn't even realize that largest apertures at longest focal lengths are only
the realm of the high-quality P&S camera. The guy knows nothing.
No wonder that the resident DSLR trolls here would find this in any way a
reference source, as they too know nothing.
ASAAR
>> There's a good web site with the trade-offs of D-SLR versus P&S at
> "http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps".
>
> Well, there's a web site. How good it is is debatable. Some of it is
> pure opinion--he for example steers people away from P&S with high
> pixel density and makes assertions about the size of print that can be
> achieved that are at variance with blind tests conducted by another
> photographer.
>
> He would be more credible if he supported his arguments with evidence
> rather than just making assertions.
The layout and content on this website strongly resembles that on
SMS's other websites. The language, biases, camera recommendations
as well as the proclamation of features that are "essential" and the
need to stick with Canon or Nikon is pure SMS, lifted unchanged from
his newsgroup replies. The bogus assertion :
> All the experts agree that a D-SLR is the only choice when image
> quality is your primary concern.
has been challenged often by experts. One was made recently by
Michael Reichmann, favorably comparing Canon G10's low ISO detail
with that of medium format cameras. It's also quite odd that in the
"About the Author" section :
> The Digital Camera Academician is professional photographer who
> has been shooting professionally since 1980. He has photographed
> over 800 weddings and other life events, as well as doing studio photography.
that this "pro" doesn't identify himself, giving himself a title
intended to imply that he is another expert, self proclaimed just as
SMS identifies himself as a battery expert (who often lacks or
forgets basic battery knowledge). Also odd is that this wedding and
studio pro wouldn't provide a link for anyone that might be
interested in his seeing examples of his work or even hiring him.
No, I'm afraid that this is most likely just another of SMS's
"expert" sock puppet websites.
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>> Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <ntDRk.3351$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>>>
>>>> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
>>>> utmost importance compared to convenience.
>>> Or because for most purposes the image quality of P&S cameras is
>>> good
>>> enough.
>> Yeah, that too. Though it is rather bad that those same people were
>> taking far better photos in the olden days with a film P&S. No
>> shutter
>> lag, very good low light performance, no constant worrying about
>> batteries.
>
> Do you have some examples that prove this or are you just repeating
> something that you read on a Web site?
Not from a web site, from people bitching about their digital point and
shoot cameras, usually parents of young or teenage kids, upset about the
crappy images they're getting at birthday parties, school sporting
events, etc., or complaining about how quickly the batteries run out.
They were much happier bringing their film to Costco and getting prints
back two days later for $4. Now if they want prints, it's more of a
hassle than it was in the past to do the uploading or take the memory
card into the store.
When they see how good the images are, of the same events or sporting
event, from my D-SLR, they're amazed. For the school sports, I just
upload them to a web site at full resolution, and give them the URL.
stevenstamford
>They were much happier bringing their film to Costco and getting prints
>back two days later for $4. Now if they want prints, it's more of a
>hassle than it was in the past to do the uploading or take the memory
>card into the store.
I fail to see how buying a DSLR is going to alleviate this HUGE set-back of
theirs. In fact, if they are this brain-dead then buying a DSLR and trying to
match the right lens to their camera is going to dumbfound them to no end even
more.
Do try to not be so blatantly obvious in your trollish DSLR propaganda bullshit.
That's a good boy.
Thanks.
Your mother is calling you from upstairs on the first floor. I think she wants
another sponge-bath from you.
Ray Fischer
> Because users of them are congenitally lazy people. Same can be said for
>nearly every "labour saving" device ever invented.
I bet you drive to work (or take public transit) because you're a lay
fatass. Same reason you're posting your nonsense instead of telling
people in person.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> Because users of them are congenitally lazy people. Same can be said for
>nearly every "labour saving" device ever invented.
I bet you drive to work (or take public transit) because you're a lazy
J. Clarke
Now, is the crappiness the result of anything inherent in the camera
or is it that they can't manage something of that complexity when
they're used to simply shoving in a roll of film and clicking the
shutter?
> They were much happier bringing their film to Costco and
> getting prints back two days later for $4. Now if they want prints,
> it's more of a hassle than it was in the past to do the uploading or
> take the memory card into the store.
>
> When they see how good the images are, of the same events or
> sporting
> event, from my D-SLR, they're amazed. For the school sports, I just
> upload them to a web site at full resolution, and give them the URL.
One suspects that if they had your DSLR they'd still get crappy
results.
SMS
> Now, is the crappiness the result of anything inherent in the camera
> or is it that they can't manage something of that complexity when
> they're used to simply shoving in a roll of film and clicking the
> shutter?
Yes, and yes.
They were used to photography where you stuck in a roll of film and
clicked the shutter, and got pretty good results, even in relatively
poor lighting. The technology allowed this. Now, getting the equivalent
results is a lot more complicated.
A novice going from a $700 film SLR to a $700 digital SLR is going to be
a lot happier with the results than someone going from a $200 film P&S
to a $200 digital P&S. OTOH, they're likely to be using the digital
camera a lot more, because they're not having to pay to print every shot.
I don't think anyone would disagree that PHD digital P&S cameras will
usually give poorer results than PHD P&S film cameras in low light, or
unusual light.
TaylorBAdams
How nice that he has so much experience to speak for every camera owner that
ever lived about every camera ever made.
What a fuckin' useless usenet troll.
LOL
J. Clarke
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Now, is the crappiness the result of anything inherent in the
>> camera
>> or is it that they can't manage something of that complexity when
>> they're used to simply shoving in a roll of film and clicking the
>> shutter?
>
> Yes, and yes.
>
> They were used to photography where you stuck in a roll of film and
> clicked the shutter, and got pretty good results, even in relatively
> poor lighting. The technology allowed this. Now, getting the
> equivalent results is a lot more complicated.
>
> A novice going from a $700 film SLR to a $700 digital SLR is going
> to
> be a lot happier with the results than someone going from a $200
> film
> P&S to a $200 digital P&S. OTOH, they're likely to be using the
> digital camera a lot more, because they're not having to pay to
> every shot.
Uh, how many film P&S with lenses faster than, say, f/5.6 were sold
for under $200? I don't remember any film P&S being particularly good
in low light--indoors I don't care what I put in the ones I had they
still needed flash if I was to get a usable result indoors.
> I don't think anyone would disagree that PHD digital P&S cameras
> will
> usually give poorer results than PHD P&S film cameras in low light,
> or
> unusual light.
Can you give an example of a "PHD digital P&S" and a "PHD P&S film
camera"? I'm not coming up with anything that used 35mm film (or APS
for that matter) that had both autoeverything and a lens fast enough
that 800 speed film could be used indoors without a flash.
SMS
> Uh, how many film P&S with lenses faster than, say, f/5.6 were sold
> for under $200? I don't remember any film P&S being particularly good
> in low light--indoors I don't care what I put in the ones I had they
> still needed flash if I was to get a usable result indoors.
_A lot_. My first 35mm film camera, an Olympus XA, was $150 and had an
f/2.8 lens. My 2nd 35mm film camera, a Ricoh TF-500D, had a two position
lens, which was f/2.8 at 35mm and f/5.6 at 70mm and cost around $180.
Now if you're talking about really cheap 35mm point and shoot cameras,
those selling for under $100, you'd have a point, but at $150 you
started to get some fast lenses. You could get usable results indoors,
with no flash, with ASA 400 film. Oh, and 20-30 years later, those 35mm
film cameras are still working fine. I recently went backpacking and
decided to take the XA along, rather than the digital P&S. No instant
feedback, but the photos were great.
Now to be fair, the focusing on the XA is all manual, and therefore
slow, but it's accurate. The focusing on the Ricoh is much faster than
any P&S digital camera, without the annoying shutter lag.
RichA
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:ntDRk.3351$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
Then why even bother with a dedicated camera? Carry a camera phone and get
the nadir of quality you've always wanted.
RichA
Therein lies the difference between then and now. Back "then" you got a
35mm film format in a $100 camera or a $4000 camera. Today, you get a
putrid little sensor in a $100 camera and a FF sensor in a $4000 camera.
See the difference?
RichA
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:491730be$0$33550$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Ron Hunter
'keychain cameras', but that comparison is really not valid for the
current models, most of which are 2mp or better.
Some even have flash, and optical zoom.
savvo
Wow!
> Some even have flash,
Coo!
> and optical zoom.
Gasp!
Any word as to their quality?
--
savvo orig. invib. man