My DLSR is a P&S
Alfred Molon
playing with the settings.
--
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
> I switch it on, point and shoot. Most of the time I don't waste time
> playing with the settings.
Watch professional photographers, they rarely are using manual settings,
except in exceptional circumstances like shooting in snow.
QuentonA.
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."
ransley
My P&S fits in my pocket
Elmo von Thud
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I switch it on, point and shoot. Most of the time I don't waste time
>playing with the settings.
Are you referring to your new electric penis?
Elmo
Don Stauffer
> I switch it on, point and shoot. Most of the time I don't waste time
> playing with the settings.
Anyone else who used to keep their film SLR set to f/16, shutter at one
over the film speed, and the focus set to the hyperfocal distance at
f/16? The original P & S.
Steve
>I switch it on, point and shoot. Most of the time I don't waste time
>playing with the settings.
Not only that, but some of the bridge cameras that many people refer
to as P&S (because they don't have interchangable lenses) are bulkier
and heavier than a consumer DSLR (like a D40) with a small zoom, like
an 18-105. So by saying they're a P&S camera, they get the implied
benefit that you can carry them in your shirt pocket when in reality,
you would need one huge shirt pocket to carry them in.
Steve
Rich
> I switch it on, point and shoot. Most of the time I don't waste time
> playing with the settings.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon
> ------------------------------
That's why they make "P" settings on DSLRs for soccer moms. Oops!
Damn! Shot blurred because the Program mode only gave me 1/40th
second!!!
Alfred Molon
@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
> That's why they make "P" settings on DSLRs for soccer moms. Oops!
> Damn! Shot blurred because the Program mode only gave me 1/40th
> second!!!
At 1/40s the photo will come out sharp, unless you are unable to hold a
camera in your hands.
--
Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Fred
news:MPG.23834d01c...@news.supernews.com...
> In article <0af34422-6f8a-4f97-af94-5ea8649585a6
> @k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>
>> That's why they make "P" settings on DSLRs for soccer moms. Oops!
>> Damn! Shot blurred because the Program mode only gave me 1/40th
>> second!!!
>
> At 1/40s the photo will come out sharp, unless you are unable to hold a
> camera in your hands.
>
>
Alfred Molon
> >> That's why they make "P" settings on DSLRs for soccer moms. Oops!
> >> Damn! Shot blurred because the Program mode only gave me 1/40th
> >> second!!!
> >
> > At 1/40s the photo will come out sharp, unless you are unable to hold a
> > camera in your hands.
> >
> >
> But the soccer action won't!
What's wrong with some motion blur?
Rich
> In article <0af34422-6f8a-4f97-af94-5ea8649585a6
> @k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>
> > That's why they make "P" settings on DSLRs for soccer moms. Oops!
> > Damn! Shot blurred because the Program mode only gave me 1/40th
> > second!!!
>
> At 1/40s the photo will come out sharp, unless you are unable to hold a
> camera in your hands.
How about if your P&S is set for a 300mm equivalent or you're shooting
action?
Dan Schmidt
And the problem with that, is? I shoot at that focal length, hand-held, and much
more when shooting photos of birds in flight with a high-quality super-zoom P&S.
Did you really want to reveal your lack of talent and experience by stating what
you did? Think about it--for your future virtual-photographer-troll reference.
Alfred Molon
6e187c...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
> How about if your P&S is set for a 300mm equivalent or you're shooting
> action?
The lens is 24-120.
Rich
> In article <57bf769e-90ac-45be-852c-
> 6e187ca4f...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>
> > How about if your P&S is set for a 300mm equivalent or you're shooting
> > action?
>
> The lens is 24-120.
Very limited. Back to awkward screw-on tele-converters for greater
reach. Trust me, I owned the C-8080, a great P&S for what it was.
SMS
> In article <0af34422-6f8a-4f97-af94-5ea8649585a6
> @k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>
>> That's why they make "P" settings on DSLRs for soccer moms. Oops!
>> Damn! Shot blurred because the Program mode only gave me 1/40th
>> second!!!
>
> At 1/40s the photo will come out sharp, unless you are unable to hold a
> camera in your hands.
I do a lot of bird photography. It's nearly impossible to get good shots
of birds in flight with a P&S that has a super-zoom because the shutter
lag/focus lag is so long.
Try getting shots of a California Condor with a P&S! You'll have some
nice pictures of clouds and sky if you use a ZLR, and some dots in the
sky with a regular P&S. You really want an SLR that has spot-focusing,
which gave Nikon a big lead among birders.
Bradford Whendt
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <0af34422-6f8a-4f97-af94-5ea8649585a6
>> @k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>>
>>> That's why they make "P" settings on DSLRs for soccer moms. Oops!
>>> Damn! Shot blurred because the Program mode only gave me 1/40th
>>> second!!!
>>
>> At 1/40s the photo will come out sharp, unless you are unable to hold a
>> camera in your hands.
>
>I do a lot of bird photography. It's nearly impossible to get good shots
>of birds in flight with a P&S that has a super-zoom because the shutter
>lag/focus lag is so long.
Wow, your photography skills sure are shitty.
>
>Try getting shots of a California Condor with a P&S! You'll have some
>nice pictures of clouds and sky if you use a ZLR, and some dots in the
>sky with a regular P&S. You really want an SLR that has spot-focusing,
>which gave Nikon a big lead among birders.
Wow, your photography skills sure are shitty.
Alfred Molon
4262b8...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
> > The lens is 24-120.
>
> Very limited. Back to awkward screw-on tele-converters for greater
> reach. Trust me, I owned the C-8080, a great P&S for what it was.
Limited? That's 5x. If you care about quality, avoid the superzooms.
Alfred Molon
> I do a lot of bird photography. It's nearly impossible to get good shots
> of birds in flight with a P&S that has a super-zoom because the shutter
> lag/focus lag is so long.
A number of P&S have IS and can be used for that kind of photography.
Vizier of Pittsburgh
> "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
> foolish thing."
Please allow me to correct you, foolish troll:
"If a fool says and does the same thing 5 billion times, he remains a fool."
P&S is for snapping photos.
SLR's are for photography.
Clear foolish P&S troll?
SMS
> In article <bLlSk.8021$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>
>> I do a lot of bird photography. It's nearly impossible to get good shots
>> of birds in flight with a P&S that has a super-zoom because the shutter
>> lag/focus lag is so long.
>
> A number of P&S have IS and can be used for that kind of photography.
The problem isn't solved by IS because it can be very difficult to
follow them across the sky while you're waiting for the AF to finish and
the shutter to fire. You really want a D-SLR with very fast auto-focus,
and image-stabilization in the lens, not the body.
The lenses on those ZLRs aren't good for birding, far too much chromatic
aberration at the long end. A 70-300IS is a decent birding lens for the
Canon (for Nikon use 70-300 VR). I'd avoid the Olympus system for
birding because the auto-focus is slower than Canon or Nikon. If you
really want to go professional, use the Canon EF 600mm L IS, with a
teleconverter when needed.
That's not to say you can't photograph birds with a ZLR, just that
you'll get sub-optimal results.
TrollManager
wrote:
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
Jeremy Adams
>Alfred Molon wrote:
>> In article <bLlSk.8021$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>>
>>> I do a lot of bird photography. It's nearly impossible to get good shots
>>> of birds in flight with a P&S that has a super-zoom because the shutter
>>> lag/focus lag is so long.
>>
>> A number of P&S have IS and can be used for that kind of photography.
>
>The problem isn't solved by IS because it can be very difficult to
>follow them across the sky while you're waiting for the AF to finish and
>the shutter to fire. You really want a D-SLR with very fast auto-focus,
>and image-stabilization in the lens, not the body.
Holy crap man. A condor is perhaps one of the slowest flying birds of all out
there. You already know where to focus for it. Are you trying to tell us that
you are this big of an idiot and this uncoordinated?
WOW!
I can get crisp clear shots of Swifts and Swallows zooming by at only 20 feet
away with every one of my P&S cameras, and you're trying to tell me that you
can't even focus on and follow something that's near motionless in the sky?
Something tells me that you were never allowed to have a driver's license after
taking the behind-the-wheel portion too. But then again, I doubt you've ever
moved out of your mommy's basement either.
The rest of your lunacy about CA is just that, lunacy.
There you have it folks. Someone that can't even follow a slow soaring condor
with any camera who is trying to hand out photography advice to the world.
What's that illness where you can't control the motion of your eyes? Maybe this
twit suffers from that and he thinks that everyone in the world is similarly
afflicted. Could be the only excuse left.
SMS
Those kludgy tele-converters are even worse in terms of distortion and
CA than the super-zoom P&S cameras.
I can't wait to see the Canon SX1 IS with its CMOS sensor. Will there
finally be a super-zoom P&S that can give excellent quality results? Or
will it be yet another failed try to provide a "D-SLR like" camera to
those that haven't yet realized the advantages of D-SLRs? I know that
the auto-focus will still be slow, but if the lens doesn't distort or
exhibit CA up to 300mm of the 560mm, then that would be a great success.
Looks like it'll sell for about $650, which is not bad if the lens is
good, and the noise is acceptable.
Terry Andersen
>Those kludgy tele-converters are even worse in terms of distortion and
>CA than the super-zoom P&S cameras.
You'd find out different if you have actually used any.
SMS
> Not only that, but some of the bridge cameras that many people refer
> to as P&S (because they don't have interchangable lenses) are bulkier
> and heavier than a consumer DSLR (like a D40) with a small zoom, like
> an 18-105. So by saying they're a P&S camera, they get the implied
> benefit that you can carry them in your shirt pocket when in reality,
> you would need one huge shirt pocket to carry them in.
Very true.
It's like getting all the disadvantages of a P&S combined with all the
disadvantages of a D-SLR. You're already seeing the lighter and smaller
D-SLRs putting these super-zoom P&S models out of their misery.
Funny thing is, if some D-SLR company decided to build an SLR without
interchangeable lenses, using a wide-range zoom, a large CMOS sensor,
phase-detect auto-focus, etc., you'd finally get all the benefits of an
SLR other than lens choice, but then you'd soon here the complaint, "gee
it's a great camera, but too bad they didn't make it accept
interchangeable lenses.
For now, the best thing to do is to carry a pocket camera when you don't
need wide-range zoom or fast auto-focus, or low-light performance, and a
D-SLR when you image quality is of paramount importance or when shooting
in sub-optimal lighting, or action shots.
I wouldn't take the Camry on 4 wheel drive roads, and I wouldn't take
the Land Cruiser on long highway trips. I wouldn't take the P&S birding
and I wouldn't take the D-SLR bicycling (but I would take the D-SLR
hiking and backpacking).
Clark McGowen
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
Rich
> In article <d6cbd703-3cb8-4f7d-a03d-
> 4262b83e7...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>
> > > The lens is 24-120.
>
> > Very limited. Back to awkward screw-on tele-converters for greater
> > reach. Trust me, I owned the C-8080, a great P&S for what it was.
>
> Limited? That's 5x. If you care about quality, avoid the superzooms.
Absolutely, which means the only way to get long reach and quality is
with a DSLR.
Rich
> Rich wrote:
> > On Nov 11, 2:21 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> In article <57bf769e-90ac-45be-852c-
> >> 6e187ca4f...@u18g2000pro.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>
> >>> How about if your P&S is set for a 300mm equivalent or you're shooting
> >>> action?
> >> The lens is 24-120.
>
> > Very limited. Back to awkward screw-on tele-converters for greater
> > reach. Trust me, I owned the C-8080, a great P&S for what it was.
>
> Those kludgy tele-converters are even worse in terms of distortion and
> CA than the super-zoom P&S cameras.
>
> I can't wait to see the Canon SX1 IS with its CMOS sensor. Will there
> finally be a super-zoom P&S that can give excellent quality results?
No, it is simply too expensive to produce a superzoom that could
render the quality of more modest DSLR zoom ranges. Plus, when these
P&Ss get bigger sensors, the zoom lens gets larger and larger, making
the camera larger than the smallest DSLRs...
SMS
> No, it is simply too expensive to produce a superzoom that could
> render the quality of more modest DSLR zoom ranges. Plus, when these
> P&Ss get bigger sensors, the zoom lens gets larger and larger, making
> the camera larger than the smallest DSLRs...
Yes, that's the root of the problem with the super-zoom P&S cameras. If
they make the sensor large enough to solve the noise and dynamic range
issues, the lens becomes so large that you've got a camera that is as
large and heavy as a D-SLR yet still suffers from the other drawbacks of
a P&S such as the slow auto-focus, and plus it's not any cheaper. Plus
you're stuck with the compromise of the wide range zoom lens with its
distortion and CA.
Fortunately, increasing D-SLR sales indicate that more and more people
understand the advantages of D-SLRs.
AlexanderB
tony-atkinson
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
Darnel Taylor
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
Alfred Molon
@x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
I meant "avoid the DLSR superzoom lenses".
Rich
Rich
> In article <f73c21ab-0554-4ccb-b89a-aef26ab20f32
> @x16g2000prn.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>
> > On Nov 11, 5:04 pm, Alfred Molon <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > In article <d6cbd703-3cb8-4f7d-a03d-
> > > 4262b83e7...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>
> > > > > The lens is 24-120.
>
> > > > Very limited. Back to awkward screw-on tele-converters for greater
> > > > reach. Trust me, I owned the C-8080, a great P&S for what it was.
>
> > > Limited? That's 5x. If you care about quality, avoid the superzooms.
>
> > Absolutely, which means the only way to get long reach and quality is
> > with a DSLR.
>
> I meant "avoid the DLSR superzoom lenses".
Lets say we establish a min sensor size (apart from oddball designs
like the Fuji sensors) that can produce acceptable images under most
circumstances. My belief is that the 2/3" sensor is a bare min.
Everything below it simply cannot do the job. Now, the fact is, a
superzoom capable P&S with that sensor size is heavier than a DSLR
with a medium sized zoom lens. So what is the point of carrying it,
especially since the extreme ranges of such a zoom produces such bad
images?
Carrying the DSLR with the longer zoom and a wide to normal lens in a
belt pouch, doing just that much more will yield far better image
results.
Daniel Garfield
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
Alfred Molon
35g2000pry.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
> Lets say we establish a min sensor size (apart from oddball designs
> like the Fuji sensors) that can produce acceptable images under most
> circumstances. My belief is that the 2/3" sensor is a bare min.
> Everything below it simply cannot do the job. Now, the fact is, a
> superzoom capable P&S with that sensor size is heavier than a DSLR
> with a medium sized zoom lens. So what is the point of carrying it,
> especially since the extreme ranges of such a zoom produces such bad
> images?
> Carrying the DSLR with the longer zoom and a wide to normal lens in a
> belt pouch, doing just that much more will yield far better image
> results.
My brother has a 6MP Fuji which has a sensor smaller than 2/3". It takes
very good pictures and has a usable ISO400. It does not have a
superzoom, but Fuji could have built a superzoom and IS into the camera,
thereby creating a compact superzoom 6MP with good image quality.
Ron Hunter
There is little difference in size between the larger super-zoom P&S
cameras, and the smaller DLSRs. One wonders why anyone would mention
this as a 'difference'. There IS, however, a significant difference in
price, and I suspect this is the main reason the P&S super-zoom cameras
have smaller sensors. It certainly isn't physical limitation.
David J Taylor
[]
> There is little difference in size between the larger super-zoom P&S
> cameras, and the smaller DLSRs. One wonders why anyone would mention
> this as a 'difference'. There IS, however, a significant difference
> in price, and I suspect this is the main reason the P&S super-zoom
> cameras have smaller sensors. It certainly isn't physical limitation.
Ron, if the sensor is four times bigger (sixteen times the area) - the
ratio between a DSLR and a Compact, for the sake of argument - then for
telephoto lenses they would need to be some four times longer, and your
"compact" super-zoom ends up the same size as a 300mm zoom for a typical
DSLR. Look at the size of the Sony R1 which was a huge "compact" camera
with "only" a 24-120mm eq. zoom.
If you talk about small-range, medium zooms (38-114mm eq.), then I would
agree.
David
Rich
$699.00 for a Fuji with a 2/3" sensor superzoom, $500 for a (for
example) Nikon D60 plus two cheap zooms (18mm-300mm)= $800.
SMS
> $699.00 for a Fuji with a 2/3" sensor superzoom, $500 for a (for
> example) Nikon D60 plus two cheap zooms (18mm-300mm)= $800.
D-SLRs have now become a mass-market consumer item, benefiting from
economies of scale and fierce competition. The super-zooms have become a
boutique item, manufactured in smaller and smaller volumes as everyone
moves to D-SLRs. It's great to see D-SLRs coming down in price so much
so everyone can benefit.
Jeff Harrington
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
Alfred Molon
18a415...@f40g2000pri.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
> $699.00 for a Fuji with a 2/3" sensor superzoom, $500 for a (for
> example) Nikon D60 plus two cheap zooms (18mm-300mm)= $800.
I'm afraid if you care about quality you won't want to use those cheap
zooms. You'll need some decent lenses which will cost way more than
$300. For my DLSR I spent more for one zoom lens than for the entire
body + cheap kit lens.
Stephen Bishop
<jad...@REMOVETOREPLY.org> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:12:55 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <bLlSk.8021$YU2....@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com>, SMS says...
>>>
>>>> I do a lot of bird photography. It's nearly impossible to get good shots
>>>> of birds in flight with a P&S that has a super-zoom because the shutter
>>>> lag/focus lag is so long.
>>>
>>> A number of P&S have IS and can be used for that kind of photography.
>>
>>The problem isn't solved by IS because it can be very difficult to
>>follow them across the sky while you're waiting for the AF to finish and
>>the shutter to fire. You really want a D-SLR with very fast auto-focus,
>>and image-stabilization in the lens, not the body.
>
>Holy crap man. A condor is perhaps one of the slowest flying birds of all out
>there. You already know where to focus for it. Are you trying to tell us that
>you are this big of an idiot and this uncoordinated?
>
>WOW!
>
>I can get crisp clear shots of Swifts and Swallows zooming by at only 20 feet
>away with every one of my P&S cameras, and you're trying to tell me that you
>can't even focus on and follow something that's near motionless in the sky?
Let's see these pictures!
Stephen Bishop
<noco...@ipt.aol.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 12:17:29 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>Alfred Molon wrote:
>>> In article <0af34422-6f8a-4f97-af94-5ea8649585a6
>>> @k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
>>>
>>>> That's why they make "P" settings on DSLRs for soccer moms. Oops!
>>>> Damn! Shot blurred because the Program mode only gave me 1/40th
>>>> second!!!
>>>
>>> At 1/40s the photo will come out sharp, unless you are unable to hold a
>>> camera in your hands.
>>
>>I do a lot of bird photography. It's nearly impossible to get good shots
>>of birds in flight with a P&S that has a super-zoom because the shutter
>>lag/focus lag is so long.
>
>Wow, your photography skills sure are shitty.
Let's see examples of your skills!
>
>>
>>Try getting shots of a California Condor with a P&S! You'll have some
>>nice pictures of clouds and sky if you use a ZLR, and some dots in the
>>sky with a regular P&S. You really want an SLR that has spot-focusing,
>>which gave Nikon a big lead among birders.
>
>Wow, your photography skills sure are shitty.
Let's see examples of your skills!
>
>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.
This link puts to rest the nonsense that you keep posting.
http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng/DxOMark-Sensor/Camera-rankings
Notice how when tested according to real-world conditions, even the
best p&s cameras fall FAR short of even the cheapest dslrs.