A newbie request help selecting digital camera
Kris Krieger
I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
develop "experiments".
So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
go digital.
But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the
huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying
to make my way through this site
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Digital-SLR-Camera-
Reviews.aspx
but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup
where I might be able to get some basic guidance.
So here I am.
WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects,
such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes)
been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to
see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice
to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops
develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make
their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my
Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens.
What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where
*I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery
of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).
At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price
is a consideration
Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I
wouldn't reject that ability, either ;)
So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
Many Thanks in Advance!
Kris K.
Charles
Kris Krieger
@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf
>
>
>
Wow, That was fast! I'm thinking that mylenses won't do - they're early-
1970's vintage. So it's good to know that I can't jsut buy a camera body -
that will save me some grief ;)
I saved that document for future reference. I'm also opening the website in
a new window ;)
THanks!
- Kris
Charles
"Kris Krieger" <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:Xns9C28B1A3AC2...@216.168.3.70...
Kris, you are most welcome. It's always a good idea to build on what we
already have and what we already know.
As to modern digital SLRs, they are mostly all very good. I don't think you
can go very far wrong.
ASAAR
> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
> lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
> develop "experiments".
>
> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
> go digital.
>
> But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the
> huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying
> to make my way through this site
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Digital-SLR-Camera-
> Reviews.aspx
> but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup
> where I might be able to get some basic guidance.
>
> So here I am.
>
> WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects,
> such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes)
> been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to
> see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice
> to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops
> develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make
> their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my
> Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens.
For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.
By the way, all of these cameras have sensors smaller than a 35mm
film frame (usually called DX sensors), so the images you'd get with
55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like what you'd get with an
82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same for the Minolta
lenses. The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and 1.6 for
Canon's lenses. I don't know what the multiplier is for Sony DSLRs,
but it's sure to be in this vicinity. Sony's A900 and Nikon's D3,
D700 and D3x are exceptions, all having large sensors (called FX or
Full Frame) that are the same size as your film SLRs, so there won't
be any need for a focal length multiplier. Unfortunately, these
tend to be much more expensive DSLR bodies. They're good for wide
angle photography, such as landscapes, because a 20mm lens on an FX
DSLR is very wide, what you'd expect from a 20mm lens on a film SLR.
But it would be only slightly wide on a DX DSLR (30mm on Nikon, 32mm
on Canon). On the other hand, a 300mm lens that might be desirable
for some nature/wildlife photography would perform like a 450mm or
480mm lens on a DX DSLR, which is why most wildlife photographers
prefer using DX DSLRs.
> What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
> control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where
> *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery
> of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
> taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).
That shouldn't be a problem with Nikon's DSLRs, even the cheapest.
It's probably also true for Sony's DSLRs, but I'm not the person to
ask about them.
> At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price
> is a consideration
>
> Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I
> wouldn't reject that ability, either ;)
Reject it. DSLR videos can be ok if you use a tripod, but for
following moving subjects you'd be much better off with videos taken
with much cheaper P&S cameras.
> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
Here, for replies that others will provide, and DPReview's forums
might be a better place. See
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/
and check out these forums:
Beginners Questions
Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000
Nikon D300 - D100
Nikon SLR Lens Talk
Sony SLR Talk
as well as any others that may pique your interest. You don't
have to register unless you want to post questions or replies. DPR
also has very good full reviews of many DSLRs, and while they may
seem overwhelming to some readers at first (there may be more than
30 pages per camera), with time and osmosis they'll eventually
become very readable. Until then, don't miss the Conclusions page
that's near the end of each "full" review.
Matt Ion
> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
http://www.dpreview.com is a good place to start comparing features.
Some here will debate the "objectivity" of some of their reviews and
articles, but the side-by-side feature is handy for comparing different
cameras, and there's a Search function that lets you select which
features are important to you, to help narrow your selection.
Now, use of your existing lenses and accessories is something you're
interested in, and others have given you some info there that can also
help with your selection.
To that, then, I would add my standard advice: once you've narrowed your
search to two or three models, go to your local store (camera specialty
store, Best Buy, etc.) and actually try them out. Pick them up, handle
them, snap some lenses on and fire off some test shots... work all the
controls, look through the menus and settings. In the end, your best
choice will be the one that you're most comfortable with.
At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the
specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll
probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's
users over another... but at the end of the day, all of these cameras
will give you great results and serve you well for years, and so it's
important to have a camera that *YOU* enjoy using. If it feels awkward
for *YOU* to handle, or the menus are confusing for *YOU* to navigate,
or the controls are poorly-placed for *YOUR* hands, then you won't enjoy
using it, and the camera is much more likely to simply sit on a shelf
collecting dust, where all those arguments become moot.
Two different friends of mine were shopping for DSLRs not long ago, and
asked me what they should get... I told them both to get Canons, so I
could borrow their lenses and accessories :) Then I gave them both this
same advice... one ended up with a Nikon D80, the other with a Pentax
*ist, based largely on their own preferences after handling and trying
out several different bodies.
One other thing: ASAAR makes a good point in that cheaper DSLRs' sensors
are smaller than a 35mm film frame, and thus will give a cropped view
from what you're used to with your existing lenses. However, I should
clarify one of his statements: "By the way, all of these cameras have
sensors smaller than a 35mm film frame (usually called DX sensors), so
the images you'd get with 55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like
what you'd get with an 82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same
for the Minolta lenses. The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and
1.6 for Canon's lenses."
The multipliers apply to the BODY, not the lens. A 55mm lens is
*always* a 55mm lens - that number refers to the lens's focal length and
has nothing to do with the size of the imaging device it projects onto,
be it film or digital. What the "crop factor" gives you, is a relative
comparison to the 35mm frame. For example, you know what sort of view
you normally get out of your 55mm lens... on a Nikon body with a 1.5X
crop factor, then, you would need about a 36-37mm lens to achieve the
same view. Or conversely, as ASAAR notes, that lens on a 1.5X sensor
will look about the same an 82.5mm lens on your Minolta.
It's nit-picking, to a degree, and again, it's not something you'll
probably spend a lot of time comparing on the different DSLRs you look
at, but it's something important to just keep in mind - that for any
given lens length, the view is going to be "tighter" than you're used
to. That is, of course, unless you go for a body with a full-frame
sensor, but that's probably getting well out of your price range.
Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer
cameras). You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S
models. Full manual control and much more. You'll wonder why you've waited
so long. The convenience and adaptability of an all-in-one camera can't be
beat. No more missed shots and you'll get your live-preview of exactly what
you'll get on your final image at all times. (Not to mention high-quality
video recording too.) Don't listen to the throngs dSLR-pushing trolls. They
know not of what they speak.
Here's a good example of how an inexpensive P&S super-zoom camera beats a
new dSLR hands-down in resolution and chromatic aberration problems.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
In order to get the same image quality and zoom-reach (of the P&S camera)
from that dSLR it would cost over $6,500 in lenses and an extra 20 lbs. in
weight for the dSLR. This would include the cumbersome and heavy tripod to
be able to use the longer-focal length lenses with it. I did the math.
Since you've been shooting with ASA100 film all this time you won't even
have need for ISO's (ASAs) above 400. That's the one and only thing that
dSLRs are better at, at the great cost of their crippling smaller apertures
on all longer dSLR lenses. The larger apertures at longer zoom settings on
P&S cameras easily makes up for a dSLR's piddly higher ISO benefit.
For your macro-photography needs there is no better choice than a P&S
camera. You will finally be able to do hand-held available light macro
photography without having to use a tripod and flash to get enough
depth-of-field due to a stopped-down SLR lens. You also won't have to worry
about all your photos being ruined because you got dust on your dSLR's
sensor while out shooting and fumbling around swapping cumbersome lenses.
This is the 21st century, it's time to ditch the outmoded concepts of the
1900's. The same way we ditched the wet-plates, flash-powders, and
horse-drawn covered-wagon darkrooms before. It might take you a while to
adapt and learn to use these newer cameras effectively but in the end the
convenience and adaptability of them far outweighs what you've been doing
all along.
If you want even more control and features than any dSLR ever made, or will
ever be made, check out any of the Canon P&S models supported by the free
CHDK software add-on for them.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
See this camera-features chart http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures
for what new capabilities each model might have, beyond what was originally
provided by the manufacturer.
Some models support manual shutter speeds from 2048 seconds (and even
longer in the extended "Factor" shutter-speed mode) to a record-breaking
1/40,000th second. With 100% accurate flash sync up to the highest speed.
You're no longer limited and crippled by a focal-plane shutter's maximum
1/250th second X-Sync speed when trying to use flash to fill shadows in
harsh sunlit conditions. They also have built-in motion detection for
nature and lightning photography. Their shutter response times are fast
enough to catch a lightning strike triggered from the pre-strike
step-leader of a lightning event. One person even doing hand-held lightning
photography during daylight this way. Using short shutter speeds and the
built-in motion detection to trigger the shutter at the right time. That's
never been done before in the history of photography. No need for a tripod
and keeping the shutter open hoping for a random lightning event. Just hold
the camera in the direction of the storm, composing your shot. The camera
snaps off a frame only when there's an actual strike.
Some of the more amazing uses of CHDK cameras have been lofting them in
weather balloons into the upper atmosphere, running an internal
intervalometer script to record the whole event. A dSLR's lenses and
archaic mirror contraptions would freeze-up solid at those temperatures.
Some images taken from so high that you can see the curvature of the earth.
Kite-aerial photography is another popular use for CHDK cameras that run
internal scripts.
If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK
equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
CHDK Photos" at this link:
http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
type" P&S cameras.
tony cooper
wrote:
>What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
>control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where
>*I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery
>of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
>taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).
I know of no digital camera that focuses everything in the center. I
have a low-end point-and-shoot that my wife uses and a dslr that I
use. In both cases there is one or more focusing brackets in view.
In both cases, if you focus on an object using in the focusing
bracket, depress the shutter button half-way, and move the camera, the
camera will retain the focus as set. In other words, you can focus
using the center focus bracket and then move the camera to have what
is in focus in the edge of your image.
My dslr can be set to full manual. As far as I know, all dslrs are
the same.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
J�rgen Exner
>Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>users over another... but at the end of the day, all of these cameras
>will give you great results and serve you well for years, and so it's
>important to have a camera that *YOU* enjoy using. If it feels awkward
>for *YOU* to handle, or the menus are confusing for *YOU* to navigate,
>or the controls are poorly-placed for *YOUR* hands, then you won't enjoy
>using it, and the camera is much more likely to simply sit on a shelf
>collecting dust, where all those arguments become moot.
100% ACK.
This advise above it the most important factor. If the camera doesn't
feel right for *YOU* then it is the wrong camera for you.
jue
J�rgen Exner
>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
Dear Ignoring
Would you mind keeping to a single ID? It becomes tiresome to killfile
you over and over again.
[...]
>>So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>>confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>
>Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer
>cameras).
Most old lenses will be fully functional on most newer cameras. Famous
exceptions are e.g. non-AF-S lenses on entry-level Nikons or FD lenses
on Canon EOS bodies.
>You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S
>models.
[Rest of standard boiler plate drivel snipped]
Yeah right, keep on dreaming.
jue
J�rgen Exner
>On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in>
>wrote:
>
>>What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
>>control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where
>>*I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery
>>of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
>>taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).
>
>I know of no digital camera that focuses everything in the center. I
>have a low-end point-and-shoot that my wife uses and a dslr that I
>use. In both cases there is one or more focusing brackets in view.
>In both cases, if you focus on an object using in the focusing
>bracket, depress the shutter button half-way, and move the camera, the
>camera will retain the focus as set. In other words, you can focus
>using the center focus bracket and then move the camera to have what
>is in focus in the edge of your image.
Furthermore most (all?) dSLRs allow you to select which focus area(s)
should be taken into consideration by the camera. If you know that your
subject will be in the upper right corner for the next 20 shots, then
set the focus to the upper right corner.
jue
ASAAR
> One other thing: ASAAR makes a good point in that cheaper DSLRs' sensors
> are smaller than a 35mm film frame, and thus will give a cropped view
> from what you're used to with your existing lenses. However, I should
> clarify one of his statements: "By the way, all of these cameras have
> sensors smaller than a 35mm film frame (usually called DX sensors), so
> the images you'd get with 55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like
> what you'd get with an 82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same
> for the Minolta lenses. The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and
> 1.6 for Canon's lenses."
>
> The multipliers apply to the BODY, not the lens. A 55mm lens is
> *always* a 55mm lens - that number refers to the lens's focal length and
> has nothing to do with the size of the imaging device it projects onto,
> be it film or digital. What the "crop factor" gives you, is a relative
> comparison to the 35mm frame.
Yes, but it may be easier for some to say that it's a multiplier
for all lenses on that body. For instance, if a lens is zoomed to
120mm, you're already looking at the lens's markings, and won't
really consider the body or sensor other than to determine if you
should or shouldn't apply the multiplier, and that should have been
known long before.
Your point is good though in that when the owners of DX DSLRs buy
DX lenses, they shouldn't assume that the DX lens's focal length has
been "pre-multiplied". Even if they can or will never be used on FF
bodies, the DX lenses are (as you said) always identified by the
manufacturer with the true focal length, never with the application
of a multiplier or crop factor, which would really add confusion.
Josh Grolger
wrote:
How convenient and typical of a pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll to snip out
the very part that makes you out to be a deceptive liar, or ignorant. Most
likely both. Here again is the proof of your ignorance and lies that you
didn't want to have to admit to, nor want anyone else to pay attention to.
>If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK
>equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
>CHDK Photos" at this link:
>
>http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>
>It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>type" P&S cameras.
It looks like the data-mining done there allows a few snapshots and
test-shots to slip through here and there, but overall the images are
exceptional. Far more creative and interesting than anything that I've ever
seen from any DSLR user's collections. That's for damn sure.
Savageduck
> Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls <noco...@noaddress.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>
> Dear Ignoring
>
> Would you mind keeping to a single ID? It becomes tiresome to killfile
> you over and over again.
J,
Don't worry about using a KF for our P&S troll. It is easy enough to
recognize him from his verbiage, the clues in his full headers and his
twisted agenda.
Just recognize him for what he is, ignore and move on.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
<noco...@noaddress.com> said:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>
>> Hello!
>>
>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
>> lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
>> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
>> develop "experiments".
>>
>> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and
>> go digital.
>> <--------->
<-----Diatribe snipped------>
> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK
> equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best
> CHDK Photos" at this link:
>
> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>
> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
> type" P&S cameras.
If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of
these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them
were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
J.K.
Yet another POS deceptive liar DSLR-Troll.
Savageduck
Oh well! Check on the metadata on any of thes right from the site you provided:
http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/nikon/Interesting
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck is a fucking idiot and just proved it
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
You STUPID FUCKING MORON! Can't you even see that you changed the search
URL to all Nikon tags? NO Nikons are supported by CHDK. NO DSLRS are
supported by CHDK.
Holy fuck are you ever a useless idiot. After you were born how the hell
did you even manage to find a tit to suckle on. Darwinism should have taken
you out, right then and there.
Savageduck
proved it <sdi...@address.com> said:
Hey! It's your site.
Methinks you doth protest too much. Sort of hoisted on your own petard.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Bob Larter
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>> Kris K.
>
>
> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
want to downgrade to a digicam.
--
W
. | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because
\|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est
---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Larter
Gee, so the P&S troll was talking through his arse again? What a surprise.
DSLR-Troll Killer
wrote:
>Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>> Kris K.
>>
>>
>> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>
>Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
>complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
>want to downgrade to a digicam.
Dear Resident-Troll,
Many (new & improved) 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 (telextender) 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 telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm
f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two
high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the
photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage
of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled
directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a
JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already
lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally
empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/3060429818_b01dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that
any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with
more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5
aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent).
Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their
teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than
any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. 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 usually performs well at only one aperture setting per
lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best
DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that
the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the
amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x
P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens.
After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th
the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get
comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length
ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or
equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at
the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a
heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer
focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment
to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S 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 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in
the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that
*might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to
lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.)
You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses 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, by the obnoxious
clattering 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 pulse their light-output for the full duration of the
shutter's curtain to pass slowly 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 at longer
focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent
macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements.
All done 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. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters
who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the
same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do
then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even
your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the
DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and
the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)
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!" If they just throw enough money at their
hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right
offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that
they never had in the first place--talent. 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. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might
one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is
that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been
all along. 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. It also
reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them
any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth.
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."
Bob Larter
Still waiting to see a few of your no-doubt magnificent photos, kook.
Educating the Idiots
wrote:
>Savageduck wrote:
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
that befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and
posts:
The phenomenon of the pretend-photographer usenet trolls yelling "You NEED
ASAAR
> "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing,
> it remains a foolish thing."
You can also repeat your massive itemized lists that are almost
never read because of the nonsense and drivel they contain 5 billion
times, and they remain nonsensical and full of drivel, immediately
recognized as coming from your fevered imagination, no matter how
many times they're posted under different names, sock puppet. The
only thing you've ever killed is your own credibility, and that
happened long, long ago. How does it feel to have wasted a good
part of your life doing what you can only honestly share with
similarly diseased minds?
dan jorrelson
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics
that befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and
posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
The phenomenon of the pretend-photographer usenet trolls 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."
sligoNo...@hotmail.com
wrote:
>Hello!
>
>I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto
>lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had
>trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
>develop "experiments".
I have to say you seem to know what you want and are headed in
the right general direction.
You have also gotten some good advice and I believe you can
weed out what applies to you and what does not.
I will make on suggestion. Many of the contributors here are
tend to think in terms of their own personal wants and needs and fail
to recognize that other people don't always share their needs. Many
of us are professionals or advanced armatures. Often we may be more
interested in how to photograph a subject that the actual results.
Often the typical Consumer Reports or other general media
evaluation or recommendations are overlooked or rejected, when they
are very good sources for the average photographer. You seem to fit
in the middle somewhere, so I suggest you review both sets of
recommendations and then make up your own mind.
John Navas
wrote in <4a333f53$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>> Kris K.
>>
>> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>
>Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
>complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
>want to downgrade to a digicam.
Stooping to his level by insulting other cameras only serves to
undermine your own credibility.
Cameras are just tools, and no one tool is best for all jobs. dSLR
cameras have their place. Compact bridge cameras have their place. P&S
cameras have their place. Even cell phone cameras have their place.
<http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/04/bart.transit.officer.murder.charge>
The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches
behind it. ~Ansel Adams
A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into. ~Ansel Adams
There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good
photographs. ~Ansel Adams
Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it
isn't a very interesting photograph. If it were, they would have more to
say. ~Author Unknown
Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon
owner. ~Author Unknown
Your Camera Doesn't Matter, by Ken Rockwell
<http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm>
--
Best regards,
John
Panasonic DMC-FZ28 (and several others)
John Navas
<u89735h41a0efvdu9...@4ax.com>:
> I will make on suggestion. Many of the contributors here are
>tend to think in terms of their own personal wants and needs and fail
>to recognize that other people don't always share their needs. Many
>of us are professionals or advanced armatures.
Some, but most are really just wannabes.
>Often we may be more
>interested in how to photograph a subject that the actual results.
Then, and with all due respect, you're not even an advanced amateur,
much less a professional.
"Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it
isn't a very interesting photograph. If it were, they would have more to
say." ~Author Unknown
> Often the typical Consumer Reports or other general media
>evaluation or recommendations are overlooked or rejected, when they
>are very good sources for the average photographer. You seem to fit
>in the middle somewhere, so I suggest you review both sets of
>recommendations and then make up your own mind.
CR is a good general consumer resource, but does a poor job of
evaluating specialized products like audio gear (especially speakers),
cameras, and the like. Much better advice is contained in reviews by
qualified reviewers, which are readily available on the Internet.
Some of the best (IMHO):
* http://www.dpreview.com
* http://www.cameralabs.com
* http://www.imaging-resource.com
* http://www.steves-digicams.com
* http://www.dcresource.com
ASAAR
>> Often we may be more interested in how to photograph
>> a subject that the actual results.
>
> Then, and with all due respect, you're not even an advanced amateur,
> much less a professional.
How unfortunate that you've returned after slinking away in
disgrace many months ago. As usual, with your penchant to seek
things to blindly criticize, you didn't understand the thought
behind the words and took a too literal interpretation, a weakness
of yours. The "we" was intended to mean "many in this newsgroup".
It wasn't self referential, as you've chosen to twist the meaning.
Matt Ion
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>
> specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll
> probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's
> users over another...
Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll
battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad.
Troll Spotter
ASSAR, don't you have another camera manual that you can download and read
so you can pretend to have used that camera too? That'll still make zero
cameras that you've ever actually owned and used. You virtual-life trolls
are a hoot. Anyone who's ever taken even one photograph with an Instamatic
can see right through your pretend-photographer act. Most children grow out
of playing-pretend by the time they are 5 or 6. Are you 6 yet? And please
refrain from using the word "we" when referring to your own inane beliefs
and ideas founded on a ignorant lifetime of text-only experiences. The only
"we" that you belong to are the other dozen or so pretend-photographer
trolls that infest this newsgroup, spewing their nonsense too.
P.S.
"If I had read as many books as other men, I should have been as ignorant
as they are." - Thomas Hobbes
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
� "Kris Krieger" <m...@dowmuff.in> ������ ��� ������
news:Xns9C28AE33D3B...@216.168.3.70...
> Hello!
>
> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
> telephoto
> lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have
> had
> trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to
> develop "experiments".
>
> and
> go digital.
>
> huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was
> trying
> to make my way through this site
> http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Digital-SLR-Camera-
> Reviews.aspx
> but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo
> newsgroup
> where I might be able to get some basic guidance.
>
> So here I am.
>
> WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural
> subjects,
> such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes)
> been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice
> to
> see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be
> nice
> to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the
> shops
> develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make
> their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use
> my
> Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens.
>
> What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
> control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to
> where
> *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been
> leery
> of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for
> taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs).
>
> price
> is a consideration
>
> Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I
> wouldn't reject that ability, either ;)
>
>
> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>
>
Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography. There are good, hi-end
P&S for example, if you are looking for convenience and compact size. And,
there are entry level dSLRs, from Nikon or Canon, you can start for example
with the kit lens, usually a zoom, and then buy more, if you feel like to.
It would be difficult to find a dSLR that will use both of your old
lenses;my suggestion would be to retire them, and buy all-new. I personally
like Canon more, but that's my opinion. You will find that with digital you
have much more control in your workflow, you'll do everything on your
computer, which you have anyway. You can then print your photos, with a
photo printer, or have them printed in a lab, but in this case only your
"keepers", and the crap ones will just be deleted. Advanced dSLR users use
what is called RAW, or digital negative, which is the raw output from the
camera sensor, with as few manipulation as possible (demosaicing and
compressing-you will do these on your computer, instead on-camera). You will
find that today's dSLRs are very sophisticated, and you can find one that
you'll like.
HTH,
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
rwalker
wrote:
snip
>>
>>Gee, so the P&S troll was talking through his arse again? What a surprise.
>
>
>Dear Resident-Troll,
>
> Your reply is completely off-topic.
Bow wow, woof woof. Roll over and play dead, idiot.
Bob Larter
Still waiting to see some of your P&S shots, kook.
John Navas
in <h10odt$6b3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a result
of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs and those
who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the fires as well.
It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive. [sigh]
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a result
> of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs and those
> who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the fires as well.
> It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive. [sigh]
sounds like you're fueling the fire too by referring to dslr owners as
'insecure'.
John Navas
wrote in <4a347b2b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>Still waiting to see some of your P&S shots, kook.
You've long since made your point, whatever it is.
If you keep posting this over and over you'll be killfiled as a spammer.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:23:06 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a347b2b$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
> >Still waiting to see some of your P&S shots, kook.
>
> You've long since made your point, whatever it is.
> If you keep posting this over and over you'll be killfiled as a spammer.
you've got the wrong person
John Navas
in <140620091043202518%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
I used no names. I just made a general observation.
But "if the shoe fits..." ;)
John Navas
<no...@nospam.com> wrote in <h110cp$37r$1...@mouse.otenet.gr>:
>Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography.
True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is
the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take great
pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot take great
pictures without a great photographer.
>There are good, hi-end
>P&S for example, if you are looking for convenience and compact size.
Damned with faint praise. "P&S" is a favorite pejorative of insecure
dSLR owners that badly mischaracterizes the better compact digital
camera, no more appropriate for them than for a dSLR in automatic mode.
The Panasonic DMC-FZ28, for example, has full manual control, RAW mode,
and more total capability than any dSLR.
>... Advanced dSLR users use
>what is called RAW, or digital negative, which is the raw output from the
>camera sensor, with as few manipulation as possible (demosaicing and
>compressing-you will do these on your computer, instead on-camera). ...
Some do; others do not. RAW is not essential to great photography.
nospam
<spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> >Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography.
>
> True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is
> the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take great
> pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot take great
> pictures without a great photographer.
but a great photographer can take better pictures with a better camera
since it offers more opportunities and more configurations for what he
may want to create.
> >There are good, hi-end
> >P&S for example, if you are looking for convenience and compact size.
>
> Damned with faint praise. "P&S" is a favorite pejorative of insecure
> dSLR owners that badly mischaracterizes the better compact digital
> camera, no more appropriate for them than for a dSLR in automatic mode.
bullshit. p&s is common usage for non-dslrs by the public, by stores
that sell cameras and even by some camera makers. deal with it
already.
you keep insisting it's an insult. what were you saying about
'insecure' ?
> The Panasonic DMC-FZ28, for example, has full manual control, RAW mode,
> and more total capability than any dSLR.
more total capability? since when does the lens comes off so that any
lens can be attached? what if someone wants to use a tilt/shift lens
or a lensbaby?
> >... Advanced dSLR users use
> >what is called RAW, or digital negative, which is the raw output from the
> >camera sensor, with as few manipulation as possible (demosaicing and
> >compressing-you will do these on your computer, instead on-camera). ...
>
> Some do; others do not. RAW is not essential to great photography.
nobody said it was essential but it's needed for the utmost quality.
John Navas
in <140620091046595624%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
I've actually got them all.
John Navas
in <140620091106024217%nos...@nospam.invalid>:
>In article <5f3a35tuil28qq8hv...@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> >Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography.
>>
>> True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is
>> the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take great
>> pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot take great
>> pictures without a great photographer.
>
>but a great photographer can take better pictures with a better camera
>since it offers more opportunities and more configurations for what he
>may want to create.
Many (most?) great photographers would disagree. The better camera just
makes the job easier, and a number of great photographers (e.g., Henri
Cartier-Bresson) have used modest cameras.
The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches
behind it. ~Ansel Adams
A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into. ~Ansel Adams
There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good
photographs. ~Ansel Adams
Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it
isn't a very interesting photograph. If it were, they would have more to
say. ~Author Unknown
Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon
owner. ~Author Unknown
Your Camera Doesn't Matter, by Ken Rockwell
<http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm>
>> Damned with faint praise. "P&S" is a favorite pejorative of insecure
>> dSLR owners that badly mischaracterizes the better compact digital
>> camera, no more appropriate for them than for a dSLR in automatic mode.
>
>bullshit. p&s is common usage for non-dslrs by the public, by stores
>that sell cameras and even by some camera makers. deal with it
>already.
By your pejoratives we shall know ye. ;)
>> The Panasonic DMC-FZ28, for example, has full manual control, RAW mode,
>> and more total capability than any dSLR.
>
>more total capability? ...
Yep. Without question.
>> Some do; others do not. RAW is not essential to great photography.
>
>nobody said it was essential but it's needed for the utmost quality.
This is about *photography*, not "utmost quality" (whatever you think
that is), and isn't true in any event.
Deep Reset
"John Navas" <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:848a35l2647gfh83a...@4ax.com...
<paraphrase>"I've never handled or even seen this camera but I'm sure it
isn't very good" - Ken Rockwell </paraphrase>
I don't think I've ever seen Rockwell and Adams quoted in the same posting.
That's quite amusing.
DSLR-Troll Killer
wrote:
You poor pitiful moron. Can't you realize that they're never going to
understand it unless someone mirrors their own behavior but from the
opposite point of view? We're dealing with the most immature of adults
here, the DSLR Trolls. Adults who can't treat others like adults deserve to
be treated like the useless perpetual children that they are. It's the ONLY
way that life-forms as low as they will ever learn. They'll never change by
showing them reason and logic. They can't comprehend more than what is now
happening to them, due to their OWN fucked-up behavior and useless values
based on their total ignorance. When they stop behaving like the useless
children that they are then I'll stop treating them as such. NO sooner.
This whole thing started because I've had it up to here <grabbing crotch>
with their idiotic values over hardware. They'll never understand that the
camera matters little when it comes to photography of excellence. You know
as well as I do that photography is all about the talents of the person
behind the recording device. A pinhole shoe-box camera in the right hands
will blow away anything that they'll ever accomplish with $50,000 worth of
overpriced glass and high-tech electronics.
They are now reaping what they have sown for the last decade or two. And it
won't stop until they figure it out. I suspect that's going to take another
year ore two of mirroring their idiotic behavior relentlessly. They're that
fuckingly slow and amazingly stupid. They've already proved that many times
over. I suspect that's why they adamantly choose DSLRs too. This does not
bode well for being one of the DSLR clan. If they're that amazingly stupid
then it only follows that all the reasons they choose to buy and promote
the purchase of DSLRs is just as amazingly stupid and ignorant. "Show how
fuckingly stupid you are! Blindly buy a DSLR just because another huge
idiot told you to!" That's the ONLY message that they have EVER sent out
into the world.
Savageduck
Agreed.
Many DSLR users are also P&S or bridge users.
Some P&S users will never have the need for a DSLR, and there are
certainly many DSLR users who will appear holier than thou in their
chase for bragging rights to ownership of whatever, to justify their
purchase.
Each camera type has its place in the World, however the manner in
which some individuals make the argument for their prefered camera
make/camera type/PP software etc. creates a provocative, hostile
situation, which can only be damaging to the NG.
Our resident P&S troll has done one thing though, anything he posts now
is mostly discounted, even if there might be some valid points made
within his diatribe of the moment.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:41:13 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:42:18 -0700, Matt Ion <soun...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <h10odt$6b3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>> Matt Ion wrote:
>>>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>>>>> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>>>>
>>>> At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the
>>>> specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll
>>>> probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's
>>>> users over another...
>>>
>>> Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll
>>> battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad.
>>
>> That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a result
>> of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs and those
>> who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the fires as well.
>> It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive. [sigh]
>
> You poor pitiful moron. Can't you realize that they're never going to
> understand it unless someone mirrors their own behavior but from the
> opposite point of view? We're dealing with the most immature of adults
> here,
Now that is funny coming from you. Talk about immature!
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Replying to Idiots
Nyaa nyaa NYAAA nyaa nyaa... So are you but what am I?
Get a fucking clue you useless immature moron.
Replying to Idiots
<savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
Nyaa nyaa NYAAA nyaa nyaa... So are you but what am I?
nick c
> Matt Ion <soun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>
>>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>>> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>
>> users over another... but at the end of the day, all of these cameras
>> will give you great results and serve you well for years, and so it's
>> important to have a camera that *YOU* enjoy using. If it feels awkward
>> for *YOU* to handle, or the menus are confusing for *YOU* to navigate,
>> or the controls are poorly-placed for *YOUR* hands, then you won't enjoy
>> using it, and the camera is much more likely to simply sit on a shelf
>> collecting dust, where all those arguments become moot.
>
> 100% ACK.
> This advise above it the most important factor. If the camera doesn't
> feel right for *YOU* then it is the wrong camera for you.
>
> jue
Applause .......
I may be a lurker but I recognize good advice and feel compelled to
say something. In the days of film I was (with momentary exceptions)
a devoted Nikon user. With the onset of digital, I thought it wise to
change to Canon 'cause Canon seemed to be more advanced than Nikon. I
sold my F4 and F5 Nikon's, and all the associate equipment and went
totally Canon. I've experienced the need of some repairs for my Canon
equipment but on the whole, I've found the Canon system to be a good
system. But I wasn't comfortable using Canon and I can't specifically
say why. Several years passed and my pictures didn't reflect any
technical problems, so to speak of. Least wise I was happy with them
and since I pay my bills, that's all that counts. Yet, I didn't quite
feel comfortable with the use my equipment.
I'm not a pro but I do know pros. Discussing my situation with them, I
was advised to think about going back to Nikon simply because I may
have some sort of psychological attachment to Nikon equipment, since
I've used Nikon equipment for over 50 years (I'm 81 years old and my
right hand shakes). Since I have the means to indulge myself, I rented
a Nikon D300, a Nikon 16-85 lens, and a Nikon SB-600 flash. A week
later, I felt great. I felt comfortable using the Nikon D300, in fact
I was so sold on the camera I sold all my Canon equipment and bought
the D300 and the D700 Nikon cameras along with a bunch of lenses. I'm
as happy now as a frog would be if he discovered he had two peckers.
My pictures my not be the greatest and they certainly do not justify
the money spent for a total change in equipment, but as Rhett Buttler
said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Frankly Madam, I don't give a damn."
tony cooper
wrote:
>My pictures my not be the greatest and they certainly do not justify
>the money spent for a total change in equipment, but as Rhett Buttler
>said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Frankly Madam, I don't give a damn."
>
In the movie, it was "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." A
Southerner would never call a woman, even a Scarlett one, a "madam".
In the novel, the word "Frankly" is not in the statement.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
nick c
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:27:48 GMT, nick c <nche...@cloudnine.net>
> wrote:
>
>> My pictures my not be the greatest and they certainly do not justify
>> the money spent for a total change in equipment, but as Rhett Buttler
>> said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Frankly Madam, I don't give a damn."
>>
> In the movie, it was "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn."
I stand corrected. You are correct. RB, in the movie, did not use the
word Madam.
> A
> Southerner would never call a woman, even a Scarlett one, a "madam".
Southerner or not, according to Wikipedia, such women in the South
were not even referred to as Scarlett. They were said to be "fast."
>
> In the novel, the word "Frankly" is not in the statement.
I've never read the book, however, I consider that to be an
informative statement which I'll remember that for the rest of my
days; for as long as I'm on this side of the sod. :)
Thanks.
Kris Krieger
news:01l535h413r8i8prf...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>> telephoto lens. [etc - snipped]
>
> For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
> and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
> familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
> lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
> AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
> since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
> screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
> D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
> that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
> D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
> your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.
Thanks! I saw a link here to the Luminous Lansdscapes website, and the info
about the Sony "Alpha DSLR-A200" (if I got that right) - since I'd like to
take pics outdoors, the Sony sounds like ti is worth looking into in detail.
I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler ;)
>
> By the way, all of these cameras have sensors smaller than a 35mm
> film frame (usually called DX sensors), so the images you'd get with
> 55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like what you'd get with an
> 82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same for the Minolta
> lenses.
OH!! I had seen info via another link that the DSLR sensors are smaller, btu
I didn't realize that woudl magnify the image! THanks 4 that info :) , I'll
have to think about that one - unsure whether it'd be an advantage or a
disadvantage. Depending upon what's seen on the little "screen" (neo-
viewfinder), it might not be a good thing...
> The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and 1.6 for
> Canon's lenses. I don't know what the multiplier is for Sony DSLRs,
> but it's sure to be in this vicinity. Sony's A900 and Nikon's D3,
> D700 and D3x are exceptions, all having large sensors (called FX or
> Full Frame)
Another great explanation, thanks!
(THe people in Best Buy sure didn't know any of this!)
> that are the same size as your film SLRs, so there won't
> be any need for a focal length multiplier. Unfortunately, these
> tend to be much more expensive DSLR bodies. They're good for wide
> angle photography, such as landscapes, because a 20mm lens on an FX
> DSLR is very wide, what you'd expect from a 20mm lens on a film SLR.
> But it would be only slightly wide on a DX DSLR (30mm on Nikon, 32mm
> on Canon). On the other hand, a 300mm lens that might be desirable
> for some nature/wildlife photography would perform like a 450mm or
> 480mm lens on a DX DSLR, which is why most wildlife photographers
> prefer using DX DSLRs.
Ah! Good to know!
It sounds like I need a good book...
>
>
>> What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away
>> my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed
>> to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So
>> I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like
>> they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to
>> decent-quality photographs).
>
> That shouldn't be a problem with Nikon's DSLRs, even the cheapest.
> It's probably also true for Sony's DSLRs, but I'm not the person to
> ask about them.
'S'OK, you're giving me loads of info I didn't know about :)
>
>> At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so
>> price is a consideration
>>
>> Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video,
>> tho' I wouldn't reject that ability, either ;)
>
> Reject it. DSLR videos can be ok if you use a tripod, but for
> following moving subjects you'd be much better off with videos taken
> with much cheaper P&S cameras.
>
>
>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this
>> totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>
> Here, for replies that others will provide, and DPReview's forums
> might be a better place. See
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/forums/
>
> and check out these forums:
> Beginners Questions
> Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000
> Nikon D300 - D100
> Nikon SLR Lens Talk
> Sony SLR Talk
>
> as well as any others that may pique your interest. You don't
> have to register unless you want to post questions or replies. DPR
> also has very good full reviews of many DSLRs, and while they may
> seem overwhelming to some readers at first (there may be more than
> 30 pages per camera), with time and osmosis they'll eventually
> become very readable. Until then, don't miss the Conclusions page
> that's near the end of each "full" review.
Great info! THanks! I don't have a problem with info volume; I'm used to
that. Knowing where to look, tho' is 80% of the battle so to speak - I tried
Google but didn't know how to limit the search.
So I'll save this (prob otehr posts, too) because it's a great place to get
started.
Thanks again!
- Kris
Kris Krieger
september.org:
> Kris Krieger wrote:
>
>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>
> http://www.dpreview.com is a good place to start comparing features.
> Some here will debate the "objectivity" of some of their reviews and
> articles, but the side-by-side feature is handy for comparing different
> cameras, and there's a Search function that lets you select which
> features are important to you, to help narrow your selection.
Yup; no review is 100% objective, because each user of any product has
different goals, methods, and so on, ergo a different perspective. But if
a number of perspectives from reasonably-experienced/knowledgeable people
are seen, a decent conclusion can be arrived at. So that link is very
sueful :)
>
> Now, use of your existing lenses and accessories is something you're
> interested in, and others have given you some info there that can also
> help with your selection.
>
> To that, then, I would add my standard advice: once you've narrowed your
> search to two or three models, go to your local store (camera specialty
> store, Best Buy, etc.) and actually try them out. Pick them up, handle
> them, snap some lenses on and fire off some test shots... work all the
> controls, look through the menus and settings. In the end, your best
> choice will be the one that you're most comfortable with.
I dod a *little* bit of that, didn't bring my lenses but did try the
display items at Best Buy (best local selection and prices), which is what
got me to post here, so yup, that's always good advice - it's like test-
driving a car before plunking down the money.
>
> At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the
> specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll
> probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's
> users over another...
Oh, yeah - like computer-shoppers ;) But it's all grist for the proverbial
mill :) and I appreciate all info.
> but at the end of the day, all of these cameras
> will give you great results and serve you well for years, and so it's
> important to have a camera that *YOU* enjoy using. If it feels awkward
> for *YOU* to handle, or the menus are confusing for *YOU* to navigate,
> or the controls are poorly-placed for *YOUR* hands, then you won't enjoy
> using it, and the camera is much more likely to simply sit on a shelf
> collecting dust, where all those arguments become moot.
THat's a great point, I'll keep that in mind!
>
> Two different friends of mine were shopping for DSLRs not long ago, and
> asked me what they should get... I told them both to get Canons, so I
> could borrow their lenses and accessories :) Then I gave them both this
> same advice... one ended up with a Nikon D80, the other with a Pentax
> *ist, based largely on their own preferences after handling and trying
> out several different bodies.
>
> One other thing: ASAAR makes a good point in that cheaper DSLRs' sensors
> are smaller than a 35mm film frame, and thus will give a cropped view
> from what you're used to with your existing lenses. However, I should
> clarify one of his statements: "By the way, all of these cameras have
> sensors smaller than a 35mm film frame (usually called DX sensors), so
> the images you'd get with 55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like
> what you'd get with an 82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same
> for the Minolta lenses. The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and
> 1.6 for Canon's lenses."
>
> The multipliers apply to the BODY, not the lens. A 55mm lens is
> *always* a 55mm lens - that number refers to the lens's focal length and
> has nothing to do with the size of the imaging device it projects onto,
> be it film or digital.
Ah, OK, that's what I'd thought so it's good to be sure (given my lack of
expertise!)
> What the "crop factor" gives you, is a relative
> comparison to the 35mm frame. For example, you know what sort of view
> you normally get out of your 55mm lens... on a Nikon body with a 1.5X
> crop factor, then, you would need about a 36-37mm lens to achieve the
> same view. Or conversely, as ASAAR notes, that lens on a 1.5X sensor
> will look about the same an 82.5mm lens on your Minolta.
Oh, you know what, I read ASAAR's post backwards then. What i'm thinking
is that I ought to actually just get a "package", IOW, a camera with a
couple lenses that are designed to eb used with it. That seems less
confusing, which translates into "less frustrating" ;)
>
> It's nit-picking, to a degree, and again, it's not something you'll
> probably spend a lot of time comparing on the different DSLRs you look
> at, but it's something important to just keep in mind - that for any
> given lens length, the view is going to be "tighter" than you're used
> to. That is, of course, unless you go for a body with a full-frame
> sensor, but that's probably getting well out of your price range.
>
But it's so tempting... And it depends on 1) how much I save up and
especialy 2)how many stained-glass pieces I can make *and sell*. So it's
actually an impetus to make me "work" harder (if you can call it work)!
THanks for the great info, I'll save all these posts :)
- Kris
Kris Krieger
news:oXdZl.2415$u86...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
Wow. That is a real object-lesson.
OTOH, when I was first selecting computer 3D modelling software soem years
back, I went through a similar thing - people kept *telling* me that Max
was *THE* program, or Lightwave, btu I tried both and thoroughly loathed
them. I ended up getting a program that has no menus whatsoever, only
icons that have associated settings windows - this was perfect for me,
because I'm a visual/spatial thinkger, whereas it was impossibly "linear"
for me to keep track of endless menus and sub-menus. I continued to
upgrade that program. Meanwhile had I gone with the "must haves", I'd
haev quit doing 3D modelling before I could even get into it.
So there ya go. To each his own.
- Kris
Kris Krieger
september.org:
> Matt Ion wrote:
>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>
>>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>>> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>>
>> At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the
>> specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll
>> probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's
>> users over another...
>
> Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll
> battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad.
Well, given that I had specifically asked for info about DSLR, because I'm
used to using my Film SLR and wish to continue with th elevel of control it
gives me, there was no "degradation" - people simply were generously giving
their time to answer the question I'd rather specifically asked, which I
appreciate very much, since it's not like anyone is making money or gaining
personal advantage from doing so.
Sorry you had a negative perception of this.
- Kris
Kris Krieger
news:2009061412301727544-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom:
See my answer 2 Matt Ion.
I had specifically asked about DSLR. SLR is what I'm comfortabel with in
film, and what i like, so I naturally am therefore looking at DSLR. I
really don't have any issue or problem with what other people use; I simply
asked what I did becuase, as someone new to digital, I am looking to find
what *I* am comfortable using.
- Kris
Savageduck
> ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote in
> news:01l535h413r8i8prf...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
>>
>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>>> telephoto lens. [etc - snipped]
>>
>> For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
>> and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
>> familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
>> lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
>> AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
>> since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
>> screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
>> D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
>> that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
>> D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
>> your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.
>
> Thanks! I saw a link here to the Luminous Lansdscapes website, and the info
> about the Sony "Alpha DSLR-A200" (if I got that right) - since I'd like to
> take pics outdoors, the Sony sounds like ti is worth looking into in detail.
>
> I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
> interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
> dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
> that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler ;)
One thing to remember with the DSLR and some of the bridge & P&S
cameras is the ability to have focus points other than the center of
the viewfinder.
With my D300 for example you can have up to 51 different AF focus
point. These can be select for composition as you frame the image, they
can be set to track a moving target, or any number of variables.
AF is not all bad (pretty good actually) and could probably deal with
most of your demands..
--
Regards,
Savageduck
LOL
You do realize that you are taking advice from someone who has never even
held a camera, don't you? All he does is read downloaded camera manuals and
read websites about photography his whole sad life. Then he comes here and
tries to pretend to know something about real cameras and real photography.
He thinks he wins if he can fool others into believing that he's a some
kind of "photographer", like some sad virtual-reality-game in his head.
ASSAR is THE longest-lived resident pretend-photographer TROLL. Everyone
who has subscribed to this group for less than month knows this.
Enjoy your (ahem) "advice". :-)
Too too funny! LOL!
Savageduck
Then follow your instincts and your own interpretation of the reviews.
Try and evaluate what you read in this Group and go with what will meet
your requirements, handling comfort and price point.
Sometimes it is best to lurk in these groups to get a feel for the
various regular contributers before raising an issue. That way you
might be better prepared to filter the information.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
Savageduck
> On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 19:12:26 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
> <----------------->
>> Great info! THanks! I don't have a problem with info volume; I'm used to
>> that. Knowing where to look, tho' is 80% of the battle so to speak - I tried
>> Google but didn't know how to limit the search.
>>
>> So I'll save this (prob otehr posts, too) because it's a great place to get
>> started.
>>
>> Thanks again!
>>
>> - Kris
>>
>
> You do realize that you are taking advice from someone who has never even
> held a camera, don't you? All he does is read downloaded camera manuals and
> read websites about photography his whole sad life. Then he comes here and
> tries to pretend to know something about real cameras and real photography.
> He thinks he wins if he can fool others into believing that he's a some
> kind of "photographer", like some sad virtual-reality-game in his head.
> ASSAR is THE longest-lived resident pretend-photographer TROLL. Everyone
> who has subscribed to this group for less than month knows this.
>
> Enjoy your (ahem) "advice". :-)
>
> Too too funny! LOL!
...and Kris, if you hadn't noticed before, the above remark is from our
resident P&S troll who will try to hide his identity via constant
change, and has an agenda which is more destructive than helpful.
There are doubts in this Group of his ability to produce images as he
has yet to submit any sample of his work.
The best advice remains buy what works for you.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
tony cooper
wrote:
>I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
>interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
>dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
>that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler ;)
I still suggest that you are a bit confused on this issue. You will
not find a dslr to be different than a slr as far as focussing. The
dslrs are not restricted to center focussing in auto focus. You can
focus at any point in the frame. You also have the ability to change
from auto focus to manual focus and never use auto focus. (That's
with a dslr and not a point & shoot. Some point & shoots have a
manual setting, but not all of them.)
You will not be restricted by the camera no matter what brand of dslr
you purchase. There may be something different to get used to, but I
can't imagine an experienced photographer not adapting in a matter of
minutes. You may have to read, or at least skim, the manual though.
I spent years using a slr before changing to a dslr. The only thing I
had to get used to was not being stingy with my shots. I still take
fewer shots than many dslr users because there's something ingrained
in my mind about more shots costing more money.
LOL
OH LOOK! It's the useless piece of shit pretend-photographer DSLR-TROLL
AGAIN! Don't believe anything he ever says!
LOL
You fuckingly childish idiot.
ASAAR
> I may be a lurker but I recognize good advice and feel compelled to
> say something. In the days of film I was (with momentary exceptions)
> a devoted Nikon user. With the onset of digital, I thought it wise to
> change to Canon 'cause Canon seemed to be more advanced than Nikon. I
> sold my F4 and F5 Nikon's, and all the associate equipment and went
> totally Canon. I've experienced the need of some repairs for my Canon
> equipment but on the whole, I've found the Canon system to be a good
> system. But I wasn't comfortable using Canon and I can't specifically
> say why. Several years passed and my pictures didn't reflect any
> technical problems, so to speak of. Least wise I was happy with them
> and since I pay my bills, that's all that counts. Yet, I didn't quite
> feel comfortable with the use my equipment.
>
> I'm not a pro but I do know pros. Discussing my situation with them, I
> was advised to think about going back to Nikon simply because I may
> have some sort of psychological attachment to Nikon equipment, since
> I've used Nikon equipment for over 50 years (I'm 81 years old and my
> right hand shakes). Since I have the means to indulge myself, I rented
> a Nikon D300, a Nikon 16-85 lens, and a Nikon SB-600 flash. A week
> later, I felt great. I felt comfortable using the Nikon D300, in fact
> I was so sold on the camera I sold all my Canon equipment and bought
> the D300 and the D700 Nikon cameras along with a bunch of lenses.
I hope that your 81 years haven't contributed to the discrepancy
shown by what some guy named nick posted about 5 months ago. If you
care to tie up the loose ends it would be appreciated.
> I have used both Canon and Nikon systems and have accumulated lenses
> for both systems. The camera in my bag has been the Canon 1DMKll. Many
> months ago I had been bitten by the update bug and pondered the
> thought of buying either the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. I looked at
> other cameras and many were reported as being good cameras but I
> favored getting either the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. Try as I
> might, I did my very best to zero in on getting one or the other
> camera. I read reports, questioned users, and could not readily decide
> which one to buy. Indecision led to procrastination. Finally, I could
> contain myself no further and I did the only thing one could do who
> labored with a muddled mind; I bought both cameras. Yeah, I bought
> the Canon 40D and the Nikon D300.
> I'm as happy now as a frog would be if he discovered he had two peckers.
If he discovered that both of them were his one assumes, and not
from two friends (or a single friend) happy to see him. :)
ASAAR
> I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still not,
> interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace other than
> dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be able to handle
> that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler ;)
Autofocus really can handle that concern, and that's pretty simple
compared with some of the added AF features that have evolved. Some
of today's P&S cameras also have multiple AF points. Nikon's entry
level DSLRs (D40, D60) only have three AF sensors, laid out in a
horizontal line and you can select the one that is used for some
shooting modes, but that's pretty limited. The older D50 has five AF
sensors, adding one above and one below the central AF point. The
D5000 isn't really an upgrade for the D60. It's positioned between
the D60 and the D90 which has 11 focus points as does the D5000.
The D300 and all of the Nikon's full frame DSLRs provide many
more. The D300 lets you use 11 or 51 autofocus points, 15 of the 51
being the more sensitive cross-type that are sensitive to both
horizontal and vertical patterns. In continuous servo mode where
you're shooting many consecutive shots of fast moving objects, such
as in nature or sports photography, the D300 will track the moving
objects as they move away from the selected AF sensor, transferring
control to adjacent AF sensors. For this you can choose to use 9,
21 or 51 focus points. Many DSLRs from other manufacturers also
have many AF focus points, but none of them are spread as widely
across the frame. Since the 51 point AF module is similar (or
identical), these 51 points aren't spread quite as widely across the
frame in the Full Frame D700, D3 or D3x as they are in the D300.
Kris Krieger
news:rcp53592mhqpk3l22...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>
>>Hello!
>>
>>I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>>telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos,
>>but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs
>>more and more to develop "experiments".
>>
>>So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st
>>century, and go digital.
>>
>>But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and
>>the huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was
>>trying to make my way through this site
>>http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-Digital-SLR-Camera-
>>Reviews.aspx
>>but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo
>>newsgroup where I might be able to get some basic guidance.
>>
>>So here I am.
>>
>>WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural
>>subjects, such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've
>>(sometimes) been able to get using the above non-digital combination,
>>BUT it'd be nice to see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital
>>cameras, and it'd be nice to not have to pay so much for "experimental"
>>film shots (esp since the shops develop *everythign*, even the complete
>>junk, since that's how they make their money). I've been *hoping* to
>>get a digital camera that would use my Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm
>>lens.
>>
>>What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
>>control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to
>>where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've
>>been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are
>>merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality
>>photographs).
>>
>>At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so
>>price is a consideration
>>
>>Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho'
>>I wouldn't reject that ability, either ;)
>>
>>
>>So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally-
>>confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>>
>>Many Thanks in Advance!
>>
>>Kris K.
>
>
> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
> lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer
> cameras). You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S
> models. Full manual control and much more. You'll wonder why you've
> waited so long. The convenience and adaptability of an all-in-one camera
> can't be beat. No more missed shots and you'll get your live-preview of
> exactly what you'll get on your final image at all times. (Not to
> mention high-quality video recording too.) Don't listen to the throngs
> dSLR-pushing trolls. They know not of what they speak.
I feel compelled to note that nobody is pushing SLR on me. As mentioned
elsewhere, I'm used to using my film SLR, so I did ask about DSLR.
I'm looking for my first digital camera (I don't count the crappy little
web-cam thingy I got for $20 in Target in 1999), so I just asked what was
an obvious Q. for me (i.e., about DSLR). So in all fairness, nobody can
blame people for answering the question I admittedly asked.
Meanwhile, the link you offered is excellent, and give me additional food
for thought:
> Here's a good example of how an inexpensive P&S super-zoom camera beats
> a new dSLR hands-down in resolution and chromatic aberration problems.
>
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results
> .shtml
That's certainly useful info, esp. the info re: macro photography...I will
add that model to the things I'll look at in detail.
>
> In order to get the same image quality and zoom-reach (of the P&S
> camera) from that dSLR it would cost over $6,500 in lenses and an extra
> 20 lbs. in weight for the dSLR. This would include the cumbersome and
> heavy tripod to be able to use the longer-focal length lenses with it. I
> did the math.
Yeah, $500 is absolute upper limit - $300 is preferable upper limit. A
"Pro" setup simply is not in the budget.
>
> Since you've been shooting with ASA100 film all this time you won't even
> have need for ISO's (ASAs) above 400.
Exactly. I'm definitely a "dew on dragonfly sidelit by morning sun" type.
Or "lie on freezing ground for 30 min to get *perfect* upshot of frosted
grass-blades against Winter sunset sky". I also would really love to be
able to do low-light photos, like "running brook in moonlight", or "full
moon over snow", and the like, which I don't even bother attempting with
film.
My frustration w/ film is that, all too often, I get the light wrong, and
end up with pneumonia, or covered with mosquito bites, or whatever, for
nothing but a smear of blobs (that cost a lot fo money to get developed).
It's not the medium I don't like - it's the utter frustration of not
getting the settings right, with no way of knowing they're wrong until
after getting them developed.
But with digital, you can see the shot on those little screens, so you know
instantly whether, and how, it needs to be tweaked. That's the attraction
for me.
> That's the one and only thing that
> dSLRs are better at, at the great cost of their crippling smaller
> apertures on all longer dSLR lenses. The larger apertures at longer zoom
> settings on P&S cameras easily makes up for a dSLR's piddly higher ISO
> benefit.
>
> For your macro-photography needs there is no better choice than a P&S
> camera. You will finally be able to do hand-held available light macro
> photography without having to use a tripod and flash to get enough
> depth-of-field due to a stopped-down SLR lens. You also won't have to
> worry about all your photos being ruined because you got dust on your
> dSLR's sensor while out shooting and fumbling around swapping cumbersome
> lenses.
That's a good point I hadn't thought of.
>
> This is the 21st century, it's time to ditch the outmoded concepts of
> the 1900's. The same way we ditched the wet-plates, flash-powders, and
> horse-drawn covered-wagon darkrooms before. It might take you a while to
> adapt and learn to use these newer cameras effectively but in the end
> the convenience and adaptability of them far outweighs what you've been
> doing all along.
>
> If you want even more control and features than any dSLR ever made, or
> will ever be made, check out any of the Canon P&S models supported by
> the free CHDK software add-on for them.
>
> http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page
>
> See this camera-features chart http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures
> for what new capabilities each model might have, beyond what was
> originally provided by the manufacturer.
>
> Some models support manual shutter speeds from 2048 seconds (and even
> longer in the extended "Factor" shutter-speed mode) to a record-breaking
> 1/40,000th second. With 100% accurate flash sync up to the highest
> speed. You're no longer limited and crippled by a focal-plane shutter's
> maximum 1/250th second X-Sync speed when trying to use flash to fill
> shadows in harsh sunlit conditions. They also have built-in motion
> detection for nature and lightning photography. Their shutter response
> times are fast enough to catch a lightning strike triggered from the
> pre-strike step-leader of a lightning event. One person even doing
> hand-held lightning photography during daylight this way. Using short
> shutter speeds and the built-in motion detection to trigger the shutter
> at the right time. That's never been done before in the history of
> photography. No need for a tripod and keeping the shutter open hoping
> for a random lightning event. Just hold the camera in the direction of
> the storm, composing your shot. The camera snaps off a frame only when
> there's an actual strike.
Wow, now that's pretty nifty...
>
> Some of the more amazing uses of CHDK cameras have been lofting them in
> weather balloons into the upper atmosphere, running an internal
> intervalometer script to record the whole event. A dSLR's lenses and
> archaic mirror contraptions would freeze-up solid at those temperatures.
> Some images taken from so high that you can see the curvature of the
> earth. Kite-aerial photography is another popular use for CHDK cameras
> that run internal scripts.
>
> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of
> CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's
> Best CHDK Photos" at this link:
>
> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
Wow, I never realized!
Nice think is the links to the site where you can get the info of what
camera was used. So it's easy to see who takes the kids of photos I'd like
to take, and see what they used, so I then can look into those models =:-D
>
> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
> type" P&S cameras.
>
Since I don't know squat about them, that wouldn't be hard <LOL!!>
Anyway, thanks for all the great info, and links!
- Kris
Kris Krieger
news:2009061219480928524-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom:
> On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
> <noco...@noaddress.com> said:
>
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>>> telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature
>>> photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and
>>> it costs more and more to develop "experiments".
>>>
>>> So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st
>>> century, and go digital.
>>> <--------->
>
> <-----Diatribe snipped------>
>
>> If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of
>> CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+
>> "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link:
>>
>> http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk
>>
>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>> type" P&S cameras.
>
> If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of
> these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them
> were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch.
>
Oh! Well, I'll add that to my list of things to look at in more detail,
too...Thanks for the heads-up...
- Kris
Kris Krieger
@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
> Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>> Kris K.
>>
>>
>> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>
> Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
> complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
> want to downgrade to a digicam.
>
I thought DSLR is a type of digicam? I want to get away from film because I
missed too many shots (that I suffered to get) because of not getting the
settings just right, and not finding out until paying a lot to get the film
developed.
I'm looking for info, so I can be an educated consumer and get what will work
for me. If the Canon Power Shot models are worth looking at, that's good to
know; if DSLR will be closer to what I want, it's good to know which are
reliable (and outdoors-capable).
I didn't mean to spark a war. I'm mainly trying to separate mere "snapshot
boxes", from cameras I can use to take decent-to-good photographs. My first
thought was DSLR, for the reasons I'd described, and I want to retain control
over focusing my pictures in whatver area of the frame I want, so I don't
like the sound of "auto-focus" - but if "point and shoot" includes some
quality items, I'm open to info on them as well.
Right now, the variety of types is bewildering, tho' I'm not impressed by
what I've seen in the under-$200-range (esp. when a lot of hoo-ha is made
over "color choice" - black is fine by me), so the info and links people have
generously provided here are a starting point for good cameras within my
price-range.
I know it takes time for people to offer info, regardless of their viewpoint,
so I appreciate that, and really did not mean to start an argument... =:-o
- Kris
Kris Krieger
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:55:31 +1000, Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com>
> wrote in <4a333f53$1...@dnews.tpgi.com.au>:
>
>>Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>>> Kris K.
>>>
>>> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>>
>>Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
>>complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
>>want to downgrade to a digicam.
>
> Stooping to his level by insulting other cameras only serves to
> undermine your own credibility.
>
> Cameras are just tools, and no one tool is best for all jobs. dSLR
> cameras have their place. Compact bridge cameras have their place. P&S
> cameras have their place. Even cell phone cameras have their place.
> <http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/04/bart.transit.officer.murder.charge>
Like paint brushes. I use a 90-cent boar-bristle thing for brushing flux
onto my stained-glass copper foil prior to soldering; I also OTOH once paid
$75 (and that was back when a dollar was much "bigger") for an absolutely
perfect Kolinskij Sable art brush for doing lines that would range from 1/3"
thick, to *barely* a hairline, that's how perfectly the brush responded (now
my hands shake too much for that kind of work, but the principle stands).
I know the end result I want; also the $$ the budget allows me to spend. So
I need to mesh those. I was thinking DSLR, but maybe I do need to widen my
investigations? THe info is grist for the mill and I appreciate people
taking the time to offer me that info.
Good qoutes from Adams, BTW ;)
- Kris
Kris Krieger
news:1rn535tcdk5m79rsb...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in>
> wrote:
>
>>What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my
>>control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to
>>where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've
>>been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are
>>merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality
>>photographs).
>
> I know of no digital camera that focuses everything in the center.
Oh, OK! See, I didn't even know *that* =:-o Now I do ;)
> I
> have a low-end point-and-shoot that my wife uses and a dslr that I
> use. In both cases there is one or more focusing brackets in view.
> In both cases, if you focus on an object using in the focusing
> bracket, depress the shutter button half-way, and move the camera, the
> camera will retain the focus as set. In other words, you can focus
> using the center focus bracket and then move the camera to have what
> is in focus in the edge of your image.
>
> My dslr can be set to full manual. As far as I know, all dslrs are
> the same.
>
Full manual sounds closest to my old film camera. I often like to do things
like, get close to, say, a big palm frond, and focus on, say, a tree frog
that I've "placed" in the lower third of the frame, so that it will be what
is in sharp focus. So that's why I have reservations about auto-focus - it
sounds cumbersome, BUT that might just be because it isn't what I think it
is...
- Kris
Kris Krieger
[...]
>
> CR is a good general consumer resource, but does a poor job of
> evaluating specialized products like audio gear (especially speakers),
> cameras, and the like. Much better advice is contained in reviews by
> qualified reviewers, which are readily available on the Internet.
> Some of the best (IMHO):
> * http://www.dpreview.com
> * http://www.cameralabs.com
> * http://www.imaging-resource.com
> * http://www.steves-digicams.com
> * http://www.dcresource.com
>
THanks for the links!, all are now saved =:-D
- Kris
Kris Krieger
> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:28 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
> <no...@nospam.com> wrote in <h110cp$37r$1...@mouse.otenet.gr>:
>
>>Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography.
>
> True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is
> the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take great
> pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot take great
> pictures without a great photographer.
My worrry, tho' is spending a couple hundred $$ on one, and finding out that
it doesn't take crips pictures, or that the colors are off, or some other
flaw, because I didn't know what I was buying...
Granted, a True Artist can cerate art using ground rocks and a frayed reed
(liek the Lescaux etc cave art), but having th ebest tool one can get isn't a
bad thing, either <G!>
>
>>There are good, hi-end
>>P&S for example, if you are looking for convenience and compact size.
>
> Damned with faint praise. "P&S" is a favorite pejorative of insecure
> dSLR owners that badly mischaracterizes the better compact digital
> camera, no more appropriate for them than for a dSLR in automatic mode.
> The Panasonic DMC-FZ28, for example, has full manual control, RAW mode,
> and more total capability than any dSLR.
I wrote that one down ;)
>
>>... Advanced dSLR users use
>>what is called RAW, or digital negative, which is the raw output from the
>>camera sensor, with as few manipulation as possible (demosaicing and
>>compressing-you will do these on your computer, instead on-camera). ...
>
> Some do; others do not. RAW is not essential to great photography.
>
But it's good to know, because I also do computer graphics and 3D modeling,
so that part I understood :)
It's all grist for the proverbial mill :)
- Kris
Kris Krieger
news:h0ulam$rif$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "Kris Krieger" <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
> news:Xns9C28B1A3AC2...@216.168.3.70...
>> "Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in news:h0uk4r$iem$1
>> @news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>
>>> http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Wow, That was fast! I'm thinking that mylenses won't do - they're
>> early- 1970's vintage. So it's good to know that I can't jsut buy a
>> camera body -
>> that will save me some grief ;)
>>
>> I saved that document for future reference. I'm also opening the
>> website in
>> a new window ;)
>>
>> THanks!
>
> Kris, you are most welcome. It's always a good idea to build on what we
> already have and what we already know.
>
> As to modern digital SLRs, they are mostly all very good. I don't think
> you can go very far wrong.
>
Ah, OK, good to know, thanks :) Despite the "firestorm" ;) I'm getting some
great info and links, so I think i'm getting a great launching point to look
into this. I guess maybe most people go throguh several cameras, but I tend
to be a person who expends much thought deciding about my purchases, so I can
get something that will be a companion/partner, so to speak, for many years.
- Kris
tony cooper
wrote:
>Bob Larter <bobby...@gmail.com> wrote in news:4a333f53$1
>@dnews.tpgi.com.au:
>
>> Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>>>> Kris K.
>>>
>>>
>>> Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old
>>
>> Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to
>> complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't
>> want to downgrade to a digicam.
>>
>
>I thought DSLR is a type of digicam?
Any camera that uses digital media to capture the image, and not film,
can be called a "digicam". The terms most commonly used are dslr
(digital single lens reflex) or, for cameras without
interchangeability of lenses, Point & Shoot or compact camera.
>I'm looking for info, so I can be an educated consumer and get what will work
>for me. If the Canon Power Shot models are worth looking at, that's good to
>know; if DSLR will be closer to what I want, it's good to know which are
>reliable (and outdoors-capable).
The Canon Power Shots are Point & Shoots or compact cameras. They
come with a wide variety of features, but - from what you have
described in your other posts - you should be looking at a dslr. The
entry level price for a dslr is about $450 with one kit lens. The
prices go up from there.
If you do look at the compact camera (Point & Shoots) models, read the
specs to make sure the model can be set to manual focus because that
seems to be important to you. The Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX1 is one that
does, but it sells for as much as a dslr does.
I'm not recommending the Lumix or any other camera. You have a long
way to go in research, and you should do it on your own.
ASAAR
>> It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot
>> type" P&S cameras.
>
> Since I don't know squat about them, that wouldn't be hard <LOL!!>
>
> Anyway, thanks for all the great info, and links!
Virtually all of it intended to be misleading. This was, after
all, the pathetic anti-DSLR troll you were responding to, who is
easily recognizable and changes his name *very* frequently because
he knows that if he doesn't do so, most people will quickly add his
name to their newsreader's kill files.
It's true that some *good* P&S cameras are capable of taking
excellent photos and they may be that you need, but they *all* have
severe limitations in many areas. First, if there isn't enough
light available, all digital cameras need to increase the ISO (in
other words, boost their light sensitivity - ISO is practically the
same as the ASA value used with film). Because they use much
smaller sensors than DSLRs, even a slight increase in sensitivity
degrades the image considerably. When the low base ISO is boosted
to 200 or 400 the images from P&S cameras become "noisy" and is
often easily seen without substantial magnification. Many DSLRs can
be used at ISO 1600 and ISO 3200 and produce cleaner images than P&S
cameras. I have several of the better Canon Powershots and they're
nice, but they turn into little noise boxes when the lighting is
low.
Second, P&S cameras focus using contrast detection, which is
*much* slower than the phase detection used by DLSRs, which under
similar conditions is much quicker and more accurate. Try them out
in a camera store that allows you to test them. You'll see, easily.
P&S cameras have several other drawbacks (which others can point
out if they wish), but they still serve a purpose and most DSLR
owners find it convenient to also use a P&S. So if you get a one
and find that its limitations are sufficient to force you to get a
DSLR, all is not lost.
tony cooper
wrote:
>
>Yeah, $500 is absolute upper limit - $300 is preferable upper limit. A
>"Pro" setup simply is not in the budget.
Why did you wait so long to bring this up? At $300, you are limited
to compact cameras and to a camera that may not have the feature you
want the most: manual focus.
At $500, you are limited to the Nikon D40 with just the 18/55 lens for
a dslr, or some of the better compacts. (I don't know the compacts)
You can forget Canon or Pentax dslr unless you go used.
I suggest you read Steve's Digicams at http://www.steves-digicams.com/
and read the specs very carefully of the cameras in your price range.
David J Taylor
[]
> My worrry, tho' is spending a couple hundred $$ on one, and finding
> out that it doesn't take crips pictures, or that the colors are off,
> or some other flaw, because I didn't know what I was buying...
Kris,
I think you will find that any of today's DSLRs will do what you want.
They all have fine control over the colour rendering - but it may be up to
you to get the colour temperature correct for your shots or using manual
colour balance and a white card. You can usually adjust the sharpness for
the JPEGs produced by the camera.
My prime camera is a Nikon D60 - the bottom of the range - and I've been
very pleased with it. I usually carry the 16-85mm and 70-300mm VR (image
stabilised) lenses, giving me a "35mm equivalent" focal length range of
24-450mm. I also carry a compact P&S camera - the Panasonic TZ3 - for
those times when I need a "pocket-sized" camera.
Cheers,
David
Matt Ion
> In article <5q2a35h0pgj0reu6l...@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>> That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a result
>> of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs and those
>> who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the fires as well.
>> It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive. [sigh]
>
> 'insecure'.
I dunno, read to me like he was blaming on some particular DSLR users
who were insecure. Nothing there intimates that all DSLR users are
insecure... or that insecure people are inherently DSLR users... or any
other crazy combination you can come up with.
Alas, there appear to be at least as many insecure P&S users hereabouts
as well, so why don't we just chalk it up to a mix of "insecure people",
and those who troll just for the sake of trolling (hmmm, isn't that
redundant?)
Matt Ion
> On 2009-06-14 07:41:13 -0700, John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> said:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:42:18 -0700, Matt Ion <soun...@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <h10odt$6b3$1...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>>
>>> Matt Ion wrote:
>>>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> totally-
>>>>> confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>>>>
>>>> specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll
>>>> probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's
>>>> users over another...
>>>
>>> Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll
>>> battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad.
>>
>> of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs and those
>> who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the fires as well.
>> It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive. [sigh]
>
>
> Many DSLR users are also P&S or bridge users.
That would be me.
Well, I don't currently own a P&S, although I sometimes borrow my wife's
Casio.
So if both P&S-only and DSLR-only users are all insecure, what does that
make the likes of us who use both? Bipolar? Bi-cameral? Bi-optic?
Bi-curious?
Bi-bi...
Matt Ion
Not at all - I've been around here long enough, it really doesn't affect
me. These louts argue just for the sake of arguing; in fact, with 20+
years' experience with various online forums, I wouldn't be the least
bit surprised if there's at least one guy using two different names to
argue with himself just for the sake of garnering attention.
My last statement you're replying to there, "it's degraded into the DSLR
vs. P&S troll battles," was merely correcting my previous statement,
"eventually you'll probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing
of one brand's users over another..."
In any case, best of luck with your shopping, and I know I at least
would be interested to know what you end up with. I've been enjoying
Canon SLRs (digital *and* 35mm, and a fantastic little Minolta X-700
before that) for a good many years now as my main creative tools; I too
like the level of control the (d)SLR format affords me... and yes, I
vastly prefer a true optical viewfinder over an electronic one (although
I have found my 40D's LiveView mode extremely useful at times!)
As the saying goes, "Don't feed the trolls"... but do please keep the
rest of us updated on your search!
Matt Ion
> I know the end result I want; also the $$ the budget allows me to spend. So
> I need to mesh those. I was thinking DSLR, but maybe I do need to widen my
> investigations? THe info is grist for the mill and I appreciate people
> taking the time to offer me that info.
At the same time, there's nothing that says you can't own SEVERAL
different types of cameras - as with your brushes, you just pull out the
one you need for the particular job you want to do.
A friend of mine has a Canon Rebel XTi and several very nice lenses
(Canon 10-22mm, 60mm macro, etc.), and he loves the control and the
results it gives him... but he also found it a lot to carry along on his
job with the railroad, and he was always worried about it getting
damaged or stolen... so he got himself a "compact bridge" camera in a
Canon G9, something he can just toss in his truck to carry along at all
times.
nick c
I haven't post anything to this group within 5 or more months
therefore I'm unaware of posted discrepancies. I've never posted
anywhere using just the name Nick. I have always posted using the name
Nick C to avoid confusing folks. Besides, that's who I am. Although I
must confess, during my span of years, some people have taken the
liberty of calling me other names ..... unjustifiably of course. But
that hasn't happened too often.
I did, at one time some 3 or 4 years ago post some pictures in
response to someone asking about lenses and lighting conditions. Other
than that, I've just enjoyed lurking and reading the many posts from
knowledgeable folks who post regularly. Then again, I've been known to
doze off reading posts too. Either way, I've found the discussions of
this group to be beneficial one way or another.
> Snip
nick c
> nick c <nche...@cloudnine.net> wrote in
> news:oXdZl.2415$u86...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:
>
>> J�rgen Exner wrote:
>>> Matt Ion <soun...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this
>>>>> totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look?
>>>
>>>> users over another... but at the end of the day, all of these cameras
>>>> will give you great results and serve you well for years, and so it's
>>>> important to have a camera that *YOU* enjoy using. If it feels
>>>> awkward for *YOU* to handle, or the menus are confusing for *YOU* to
>>>> navigate, or the controls are poorly-placed for *YOUR* hands, then you
>>>> won't enjoy using it, and the camera is much more likely to simply sit
>>>> on a shelf collecting dust, where all those arguments become moot.
>>> 100% ACK.
>>> This advise above it the most important factor. If the camera doesn't
>>> feel right for *YOU* then it is the wrong camera for you.
>>>
>>> jue
>> Applause .......
>>
>> I may be a lurker but I recognize good advice and feel compelled to
>> say something. In the days of film I was (with momentary exceptions)
>> a devoted Nikon user. With the onset of digital, I thought it wise to
>> change to Canon 'cause Canon seemed to be more advanced than Nikon. I
>> sold my F4 and F5 Nikon's, and all the associate equipment and went
>> totally Canon. I've experienced the need of some repairs for my Canon
>> equipment but on the whole, I've found the Canon system to be a good
>> system. But I wasn't comfortable using Canon and I can't specifically
>> say why. Several years passed and my pictures didn't reflect any
>> technical problems, so to speak of. Least wise I was happy with them
>> and since I pay my bills, that's all that counts. Yet, I didn't quite
>> feel comfortable with the use my equipment.
>>
>> I'm not a pro but I do know pros. Discussing my situation with them, I
>> was advised to think about going back to Nikon simply because I may
>> have some sort of psychological attachment to Nikon equipment, since
>> I've used Nikon equipment for over 50 years (I'm 81 years old and my
>> right hand shakes). Since I have the means to indulge myself, I rented
>> a Nikon D300, a Nikon 16-85 lens, and a Nikon SB-600 flash. A week
>> later, I felt great. I felt comfortable using the Nikon D300, in fact
>> I was so sold on the camera I sold all my Canon equipment and bought
>>
>> the money spent for a total change in equipment, but as Rhett Buttler
>> said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Frankly Madam, I don't give a damn."
>>
>
> Wow. That is a real object-lesson.
>
> OTOH, when I was first selecting computer 3D modelling software soem years
> back, I went through a similar thing - people kept *telling* me that Max
> was *THE* program, or Lightwave, btu I tried both and thoroughly loathed
> them. I ended up getting a program that has no menus whatsoever, only
> icons that have associated settings windows - this was perfect for me,
> because I'm a visual/spatial thinkger, whereas it was impossibly "linear"
> for me to keep track of endless menus and sub-menus. I continued to
> upgrade that program. Meanwhile had I gone with the "must haves", I'd
> haev quit doing 3D modelling before I could even get into it.
>
> So there ya go. To each his own.
>
> - Kris
>
Yes Sir, to each his own.
I too have used mucho software hoping to find something that's simple
to use and yet produces good results; something that satisfies me.
Like that Greek Diogenes, who spent a lifetime looking for an honest
man, I'm still looking for a simple program that produces good
results. There are times I do miss my wet darkroom.
ASAAR
>>> I'm not a pro but I do know pros. Discussing my situation with them, I
>>> was advised to think about going back to Nikon simply because I may
>>> have some sort of psychological attachment to Nikon equipment, since
>>> I've used Nikon equipment for over 50 years (I'm 81 years old and my
>>> right hand shakes). Since I have the means to indulge myself, I rented
>>> a Nikon D300, a Nikon 16-85 lens, and a Nikon SB-600 flash. A week
>>> later, I felt great. I felt comfortable using the Nikon D300, in fact
>>> I was so sold on the camera I sold all my Canon equipment and bought
>>> the D300 and the D700 Nikon cameras along with a bunch of lenses.
>>
>> I hope that your 81 years haven't contributed to the discrepancy
>> shown by what some guy named nick posted about 5 months ago. If you
>> care to tie up the loose ends it would be appreciated.
>
> I haven't post anything to this group within 5 or more months
> therefore I'm unaware of posted discrepancies. I've never posted
> anywhere using just the name Nick. I have always posted using the name
> Nick C to avoid confusing folks. Besides, that's who I am. Although I
> must confess, during my span of years, some people have taken the
> liberty of calling me other names ..... unjustifiably of course. But
> that hasn't happened too often.
Sorry. I said "some guy named nick" not in an attempt to fool
you, but to give you an opportunity to remember. The post that I
referred to was actually made by you five months ago unless it was a
forgery posted by someone else. Here's a copy of it, minus a couple
of header items that aren't relevant :
> From: nick c <nche...@cloudnine.net>
> Reply-To: nche...@cloudnine.net
> User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.19 (Windows/20081209)
> Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
> Subject: Re: Crap!
> References: <ifsm36-...@news.infowest.com>
> In-Reply-To: <ifsm36-...@news.infowest.com>
> Message-ID: <Omdal.5017$BC4....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 03:06:22 GMT
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 96.229.54.102
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@verizon.net
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 22:06:22 EST
> Xref: core-iad-easynews rec.photo.digital.slr-systems:143697
>
> SteveB wrote:
>> One of my ships reached port yesterday, and now I am going to toodle off to
>> buy a dslr. I have investigated the Nikon D300, the Canon 40d, and the
>> Lumix dmc g1, as my friend has one of those, and he really likes it and
>> takes some great pictures with it.
>>
>> There are a ton of suppliers and packages available. And prices are all
>> over the map. The lens packages are enough to bewilder the average human.
>>
>> Questions: does it make a difference where you get it? If you get it from
>> a big supplier, can you depend on service and repair? I have a Sony that
>> has been in the shop now for a month, and I just want it back for a work
>> camera. What would be a good lens package for wildlife, family, and close
>> up hummingbird photography. I would like to buy the two lenses that are
>> matching brand names with the camera, and buy them as a package deal.
>>
>> Lastly, I read the Nikon 300d vs. Canon 40d google article, and it seems
>> that one can get a very good camera in the 40d at about half the price of
>> the d300. For the average user, and entry level person (me), is it worth
>> all that extra cash? I know I can go down to the Lumix or even Olympus and
>> get a decent camera, but the jump to a 40d isn't that much. However, the
>> jump to a d300 is.
>>
>> Thanks for bearing with me. I'm going to spend more for this camera than
>> I've spent for cars in my life, and just want to get a good one that I will
>> be satisfied with and not outgrow.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> PS: I no longer have the urge to buy a bigger camera than my SIL who has a
>> D300.
>>
>>
>
> I have used both Canon and Nikon systems and have accumulated lenses
> for both systems. The camera in my bag has been the Canon 1DMKll. Many
> months ago I had been bitten by the update bug and pondered the
> thought of buying either the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. I looked at
> other cameras and many were reported as being good cameras but I
> favored getting either the Canon 40D or the Nikon D300. Try as I
> might, I did my very best to zero in on getting one or the other
> camera. I read reports, questioned users, and could not readily decide
> which one to buy. Indecision led to procrastination. Finally, I could
> contain myself no further and I did the only thing one could do who
> labored with a muddled mind; I bought both cameras. Yeah, I bought the
> Canon 40D and the Nikon D300.
>
> Regrets? I have none; IMO, both cameras are very good and may well
> exceed your photographic needs and expectations. However, having had
> the opportunity to take the time to use both cameras I must say I tend
> to favor using the Nikon D300. Couple the D300 to a MB-D10 Grip and
> you have a winner. There is much to learn about using the D300
> capabilities and it is not likely that as your photographic knowledge
> improves you will out grow the camera.
>
> I would say the Canon 40D is a camera that is suitable for use by
> serious amateur and pro alike while the D300 is definitely a pro
> camera. What I mean to say is the Canon 40D straddles the market
> fence, enticing a broader span of users, while the D300 is all pro. If
> you're financially strapped and feel the Canon 40D fits into your
> photo equipment budget, then by all means, the Canon 40D is the camera
> of necessary choice. But if you could fit procuring the Nikon D300
> into your budget, then go for it. There are many good reasons why some
> 5 or 6 photo publications have chosen the Nikon D300 as the best
> camera in its class.
>
> When film cameras reigned, there were cameras that when production
> stopped, buyers would pay more to get an obsolete camera that was in
> mint condition than the original cost of the camera when it was in
> production. I guessing that the Nikon D300 might very well become one
> of those type sought after digital cameras.
>
> Nick
Chris Malcolm
> Full manual sounds closest to my old film camera. I often like to do things
> like, get close to, say, a big palm frond, and focus on, say, a tree frog
> that I've "placed" in the lower third of the frame, so that it will be what
> is in sharp focus. So that's why I have reservations about auto-focus - it
> sounds cumbersome, BUT that might just be because it isn't what I think it
> is...
In your manual focussing SLR you probably had a special central
focussing aid, such as a split prism. So you pointed that at what you
wanted to focus on, got the focus right, and then swung the camera
round to compose the shot as you wanted.
I don't know of any good digital camera which doesn't allow you to use
its autofocus in the same way. You first set it to central spot focus
and single shot focus (if applicable). You then aim that central focus
point (indicated by aiming marks in the viewfinder or LCD) at what you
want in focus, and half press the shutter button. That autofocusses on
the chosen thing, and locks that focus so long as you keep the button
half pressed.
You then swing the camera round to compose the shot, holding the
focus, and finish pressing the shutter when you're done.
Unless you have one of the more expensive DSLRs with unusually
accurate focussing aids this is not only much the fastest way of
focussing, it is also the most accurate, because good modern autofocus
systems are better than even the trained manual eye and hand. There
are the usual special exceptions of course, such as shooting through
wire netting or twigs when the autofocus will probably choose the
wrong thing to focus on.
The best modern autofocus systems can also do all sorts of new
wonderful things, but only if you specifically ask them to do them,
such as select the best compromise focus for a group shot, or track
the rapidly changing focus of a bird in flight even when you can't
keep it in the centre of the image.
The same kind of choose-and-lock facility can be selected for
autoexposure as well, e.g. in a portrait of someone looking at a
sunset you can choose to set and lock the exposure on the face and
then compose the shot.
I suggest you borrow the manual of a camera you fancy, or print a copy
from the maker's web site, and have a good lengthy browse through
it. I think you may be in for some pleasant surprises :-)
--
Chris Malcolm
ASAAR
>> sounds like you're fueling the fire too by referring to dslr owners as
>> 'insecure'.
>
> I dunno, read to me like he was blaming on some particular DSLR users
> who were insecure. Nothing there intimates that all DSLR users are
> insecure... or that insecure people are inherently DSLR users... or any
> other crazy combination you can come up with.
You just aren't aware of Navas' stormy history here. Part of it
was repeatedly referring to DSLR owners (not just specific ones) as
being insecure and making all kinds of mystical, magical claims for
his P&S cameras. He also never (that I can recall) admitted to
being wrong, even when it was obvious to virtually everyone in the
newsgroup that he was. He apparently eventually tired of all of the
argumentative threads that he caused and fled, only to return after
a suitably long absence. Not once. He's done this several times.
> Alas, there appear to be at least as many insecure P&S users hereabouts
> as well, so why don't we just chalk it up to a mix of "insecure people",
> and those who troll just for the sake of trolling (hmmm, isn't that
> redundant?)
There are some in each camp, but I'll give Navas one thing. He
apparently believes everything that he writes, unlike the
nym-shifting anti-DSLR sock puppet troll that doesn't believe much
of what he writes and is here just to cause trouble and to try to
ruin the newsgroup - which he recently admitted.
ASAAR
> Well, I don't currently own a P&S, although I sometimes borrow my wife's
> Casio.
>
> So if both P&S-only and DSLR-only users are all insecure, what does that
> make the likes of us who use both? Bipolar? Bi-cameral? Bi-optic?
> Bi-curious?
>
> Bi-bi...
Bye Bye (watch the) Birdie.
Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
camera hunting needs:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 23:25:50 -0500, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> wrote:
>
>Exactly. I'm definitely a "dew on dragonfly sidelit by morning sun" type.
>Or "lie on freezing ground for 30 min to get *perfect* upshot of frosted
>grass-blades against Winter sunset sky". I also would really love to be
>able to do low-light photos, like "running brook in moonlight", or "full
>moon over snow", and the like, which I don't even bother attempting with
>film.
>
The only problem you'll have is over-exposing your moonlit scenes. I have
to constantly remind myself to highly underexpose those shots compared to
what my P&S cameras are suggesting. Lest they always come out looking as if
they were taken in sunlight. One of my more favorite nighttime shots is of
a moonset with just as many colors in it as a vivid sunset. It was quite a
remarkable sight when I got up well before sunrise to see what was making a
noise outside of my tent. The moonset photo taken from a cliff over a
remote island-dotted lake in the wilds of Canada. A spectacular view, day
or night. The problem being that it's hard to get it to look like a moonset
when printed. If it weren't for the few brighter stars in the sky (the
dimmer stars being washed out by the full-moon light) people would always
mistake it for a sunset. In either case, they are in awe as much as I over
that scene. Taken with a "lowly" P&S camera. All of my P&S cameras can
easily capture stars as dim as magnitude* 8 or 9 on a dark night. Your
naked eye can only see stars as dim as magnitude 5 or 6 on most decent
dark-sky nights. Just to give you an idea of how dim of an image you can
capture.
*The higher the number, the dimmer the light, in case you aren't familiar
with astronomical terms. 1 magnitude difference is ~2.5 times (2.512 to be
more exact) dimmer or brighter. A good P&S camera with manual shutter
speeds of 30 to 60 seconds can record stars 5 to 7.5 times dimmer than you
can see with your naked eye.
>My frustration w/ film is that, all too often, I get the light wrong, and
>end up with pneumonia, or covered with mosquito bites, or whatever, for
>nothing but a smear of blobs (that cost a lot fo money to get developed).
>It's not the medium I don't like - it's the utter frustration of not
>getting the settings right, with no way of knowing they're wrong until
>after getting them developed.
>
>But with digital, you can see the shot on those little screens, so you know
>instantly whether, and how, it needs to be tweaked. That's the attraction
>for me.
This is why getting a camera with an EVF/LCD viewfinder combo is essential.
You'll see exactly what you are going to get on your final image before you
even press the shutter. The vast majority of them also display the chosen
shutter-speed effects in real-time preview. If you want to soften flowing
water into a milky mist, just crank down the shutter speed. The EVF/LCD
display will show you exactly the very same effect that you'll get when you
press the shutter. The converse is also true. Increase the shutter-speed to
1/3200 of a second (or much much higher on CHDK supported cameras) and
watch in your EVF/LCD display as those rapidly thrumming hummingbird or
dragonfly wings in flight are now outlined in crisp detail as your
viewfinder scene matches the shutter-speed and freezes their motions. There
is no greater preview convenience, something that DSLR owners will never
comprehend with their "superior" optical viewfinders. :-)
The other upside to cameras with LCD/EVF viewfinders is that they
automatically increase the gain in them in lower light levels so you are
able to accurately frame and focus your shots well beyond what was useful
in any optical viewfinder. Contrast-detection focusing is also much more
accurate than phase-focusing (dslr) methods. It can be slower at times, but
the accuracy of it pays off handsomely. What good is faster auto-focusing
if it's always out of focus 75% of the time, more missed shots, that's what
it's good for. To ensure fast focusing times when using contrast-detection
focusing cameras (P&S cameras), try to keep your image as steady as
possible. The camera needs to find sharp edges to latch onto. If they are
moving from camera-shake or your inability to pan accurately on a moving
subject then it will take longer to focus. People who complain about slow
auto-focusing times in P&S cameras are only revealing their really poor
hand-holding skills and how badly they suffer from camera shake, this is
all they are revealing. However, slower focusing is a greater problem with
super-zoom P&S cameras when used at long focal lengths. The camera shake
now amplified from the magnified image. We grew up at a time where 250mm
focal length was considered a long reach and you put it on a tripod to use
it correctly. Now you will have lightweight cameras in your hand that
easily go to 430 to 520mm or more at the touch of a control or zoom ring. A
very steady-hand is important at those focal lengths. Never blame the
camera, due to your own inability to hold it steady enough to allow it to
focus quickly at those focal lengths. This is why I laugh so much at "PRO"
reviews of these P&S cameras online. The idiot reviewers don't even know
how to hold a camera steady enough to use if properly, and then they have
the gall complain about the slow auto-focus speeds when it's their own damn
faults and stupidity that caused it! Garbage in, garbage out. :-)
Most cameras also have some form of image stabilization (IS) in them too
these days. You'll be able to take photographs, hand-held, at speeds up to
1 full second and make them tack sharp, if your hand-holding skills are up
to snuff. I've done this many times. I doubt I'd buy a camera without some
form of IS in it anymore. It really is a huge benefit to hand-held nature
photography.
When you get a good EVF/LCD viewfinder camera, do something fun after
you've used it for a while. Go back and pick up your old SLR and look
through the viewfinder. You'll wonder why you put up with that dim view all
your life and how you ever managed to get photos with it. I always used an
Olympus system in the past. It has the brightest optical viewfinder ever
made for any SLR camera. The last time I looked through it I was amazed at
how dim that image is compared to the EVF viewfinders in the P&S cameras
that I own and use today. Another upside to an EVF/LCD display is that it
matches 100% of the FOV of the scene in the final image. It isn't only
approximating the FOV by some arbitrary 95% or 97% coverage as happens in
nearly all optical viewfinders. You can now make every pixel count with
less post-processing cropping needed, if you have a good eye for
composition at the time of snapping that shutter.
You mention crawling or laying in the mud or some-such to get your photos.
Then I highly recommend any of the excellent P&S cameras that have what is
known as an articulating LCD viewfinder. The display swings out from the
body of the camera so that you may reposition it to a new viewing angle.
Some of the Canon P&S cameras have articulated LCDs with the greatest
amount of motion. Even inverting them to the direction that the lens is
pointing. This allows you to easily compose self-portraits when nobody else
is around on that mountain-peak to help frame your shot for you. Some of
the Sony super-zoom models also incorporate an articulating LCD display,
with more limited up and down-only motion. But still, this allows you to
get low to the ground, then point the lens up underneath a mushroom-cap and
compose your scene of the mushroom's gills and colorful slug without any
other part of your body touching the ground, nor doing a contortionist's
act trying to get your eye by a viewfinder lens.
I know all too well about crawling in 'gator infested swamps and mud (or
snows) to get "just the right shot" of some of the world's rarest orchids
and other life-forms. I wouldn't buy a camera without an articulating LCD
to save my life now, they are that necessary of a feature for any
well-rounded wildlife and nature photographer. No DSLRs that I know of have
this highly beneficial feature. Is that rarest-of-the-rare orchids on that
little branch about 2 feet above your head and there's no way to get up
there because you're already standing in 2 ft. of mud and could sink in
further? No problem. Swing out the LCD display, hold the camera at arm's
length and compose your shot. Simple as that. Some even use the camera on
the ends of their walking-sticks with a ball-head clamp and reach even
higher, then trigger the camera with a remote cable release. (All CHDK P&S
cameras can use an easy to make USB cable for the remote shutter release,
to any length you want. Since it's an analog voltage pulse that triggers
the shutter on these cameras you're not even limited to the standard
16-18ft limit of USB cable lengths for distance, go half a mile for a
remote shutter release if you want.) All the while that the camera is high
above your head at the end of that walking-stick you just watch in the LCD
display to compose the shot. Some also get the (relatively) inexpensive
electricians' gaffs made of telescoping fiberglass poles and mount their
cameras to the ends of those to reach a "bird's-eye" view of what's inside
of those rare-birds' nests without having to climb the trees and disturb
the birds even further. The light weight of a P&S camera and the LCD
display allow you to use them this way. Granted, you might need to
incorporate some little Amici-prism binoculars from your pocket to observe
the LCD view from that far away. That's generally what's used when doing
"pole-photography".
Having fun on a train ride going over a curved trestle above a canyon? Hold
the camera out the window at arm's length (make sure that camera strap is
wrapped good & safe around that arm!) and compose your shot in the LCD.
It'll look like you hired a crane and crew to record that amazing view. Are
you crawling through a narrow cave and there's no room to get that camera
close enough to one cave-wall while looking through the viewfinder in order
to capture that never-seen-before cave-painting? No problem, swing out that
LCD display and put the back of the camera up against the wall of the cave.
Get your head out from behind the camera to give the camera more room, your
silly head doesn't have to be there anymore. :-) People who photograph the
interiors of homes for magazines also love this feature, putting the camera
right up against the walls of narrow hallways and rooms. You'll wonder how
you ever did without an (articulating or other) LCD/EVF viewfinder after
you find all the new uses for them. Your creativity and unique shots will
increase exponentially. Something that will never happen if you've never
used them.
A Non-Optics and Non-Camera Equipment Hint: For macro photography of the
kind you enjoy, get yourself one item for your camera gear that few if any
have ever considered. It's the single-most important addition to my camera
gear that I ever thought of. Go to any department store, in the bike and
sporting goods section. Grab a kid's set of knee and elbow pads for biking
and skateboarding. The next time that you are scrambling over sharp stones
and rocks, trying to compose that macro image of a 1/2" long skittish
beetle, lizard, snake, or butterfly that scurries away at the slightest
danger-alert, you'll be glad you have those pads to keep you from flinching
when you dig your knee into the rubble or a sharp twig, causing the critter
to move off 5 ft. away, time and time again and then go scrambling after it
time and time again. They also prevent the loss of tons of ruined pants and
shirts from getting green-slime stains and tears from crawling in moss and
swamp-edge waters as you're kneeling in those too. They also allow you to
remain motionless much longer, the comfort of them extending any fatigue
level. You are more like a rock-solid stable tripod this way for hand-held
macro photography. The other added benefit is if your knee and elbow joints
are getting a little sorer these days from cold and damp, they allow you to
remain out there much longer protecting you from that too.
From your price limits (wholly understandable) and the kind of photography
you do, you really do need to look into any of the newer super-zoom P&S
cameras. A DSLR kit is just too overpriced to get comparable image quality,
too limited in use and features, and has way too many drawbacks to ever
justify it. I've only suggested two brands of P&S cameras so far with many
of the essential options, there are others. The Lumix line from Panasonic
is also exceptional. One of my other good pro-photo-buddies has one and
I've used it. I almost bought one myself after that, but I like my Canon
and Sony ones better for my photography style. If you are into infrared
nature photography then look into the last few years' models of Sony
super-zoom P&S cameras. Look for a feature called "Night Shot" mode in
them. There are about 5 models in the past that included this (but not this
year's model, I don't think). You'll be able to take nighttime wildlife
photography by infrared light alone. Or if used in conjunction with a
Wratten Green and an IR filter combo (to cut down daytime IR levels to the
higher-sensitivity of the Night-Shot's mode) then you can do hand-held IR
photography in sunlit conditions too. No longer needing a tripod for IR
photography, all done hand-held these days. IR video too.
You'll never regret moving over to digital, no matter which way you go.
What a relief to finally take aurora, nebulae, and meteor-shower photos and
not have them send back a crumpled up roll of negatives with a sticker on
the envelope saying "Remove your lens cap!" or "Hold your camera steady!" I
can't tell you how many times that has happened in the past. The dolts in
processing totally ruining my once-in-a-lifetime shots. Then adding insult
to injury with their lame envelope-stickers, due to them not being able to
recognize any type of photographs other than "Pasty's Birthday Party"
snapshots. Now I am no longer hindered, disappointed, nor my shots ruined
by the infinite-stupidity of others. Nor will you be any longer.
Troll-killer
>
> Sorry. I said "some guy named nick" not in an attempt to fool
>you, but to give you an opportunity to remember. The post that I
>referred to was actually made by you five months ago unless it was a
>forgery posted by someone else. Here's a copy of it, minus a couple
>of header items that aren't relevant :
OH LOOK! The DSLR-TROLL IS STALKING EVERYONE (in error) AGAIN!
What a surprise.
ASAAR
> I don't know of any good digital camera which doesn't allow you to use
> its autofocus in the same way. You first set it to central spot focus
> and single shot focus (if applicable). You then aim that central focus
> point (indicated by aiming marks in the viewfinder or LCD) at what you
> want in focus, and half press the shutter button. That autofocusses on
> the chosen thing, and locks that focus so long as you keep the button
> half pressed.
>
> You then swing the camera round to compose the shot, holding the
> focus, and finish pressing the shutter when you're done.
I've done that too, but it won't guarantee that the intended
subject is precisely focused after swinging the camera round, but it
may be good enough for many people. I think it would work well if
the lens's field of focus was spherical, but I think that most
lenses are somewhere between spherical and the flat fields that are
a property of macro lenses. If lenses were generally of the
spherical focus type, even stopping down to get a large DOF probably
wouldn't generally be enough to take edge to edge sharp multi-person
portraits of people standing in a straight line. Or so it's said by
Thom Hogan and a number of other photographers having similar
knowledge, if lesser accomplishments. Using a corner or edge AF
sensor (if available) is the best way to go.
ASAAR
>> Sorry. I said "some guy named nick" not in an attempt to fool
>> you, but to give you an opportunity to remember. The post that I
>> referred to was actually made by you five months ago unless it was a
>> forgery posted by someone else. Here's a copy of it, minus a couple
>> of header items that aren't relevant :
>
> OH LOOK! The DSLR-TROLL IS STALKING EVERYONE (in error) AGAIN!
>
> What a surprise.
Wrong, as usual. I tend to save useful, interesting messages and
didn't recall having saved any of Nick's previous messages. When I
tried to created "nick..." folder, the newsreader popped up an error
message, saying 'no can do - it already exists'. So I looked to see
what it contained. What is no surprise is that you're wrong again,
but are keenly aware of stalking, as you KNOW that you would be
stalked by many people if you didn't keep changing your nym, troll.
Thanks, BTW for making your reply short and to the point. Based on
your M.O. it might easily have been in the 300 to 400 line range.
Your "(in error)" is also wrong, but that too isn't surprising.
Pete Stavrakoglou
P&S cameras have small sensors and that affects the image quality. An 8 MP
P&S will not give youthe same quality photo as an 8 MP DSLR. The DSLR
sensor is larger, the P&S sensor will generate more noise. When you view a
4x6 or 5x7 photo, you don't see much difference. Blow up a photo and then
the difference will show. Size matters in a camera sensor.
The only P&S that arguably can produce images as good as a DSLR is the Sigma
DP1 and DP2. The reason is that these cameras have and APS-C size sensor
like a DLSR has. It's the same sensor Sigma uses in their DSLR, it's
pricey, and it's not a camera for someone who just wants to P&S. Otherwise,
if you are interested in the image quality that a DSLR has, you won't find
it in any other P&S.
nospam
<nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
> The only P&S that arguably can produce images as good as a DSLR is the Sigma
> DP1 and DP2.
that depends which dslr. they might be comparable to the old digital
rebel or nikon d100, but against a canon 450d or nikon d90 or d5000,
definitely not.
> The reason is that these cameras have and APS-C size sensor
> like a DLSR has. It's the same sensor Sigma uses in their DSLR, it's
> pricey, and it's not a camera for someone who just wants to P&S.
that's because they're both slow and quirky.
> Otherwise,
> if you are interested in the image quality that a DSLR has, you won't find
> it in any other P&S.
olympus e-p1, along with other micro-4/3 cameras that are expected to
be released.
David J Taylor
[]
> The only P&S that arguably can produce images as good as a DSLR is
> the Sigma DP1 and DP2. The reason is that these cameras have and
> APS-C size sensor like a DLSR has. It's the same sensor Sigma uses
> in their DSLR, it's pricey, and it's not a camera for someone who
> just wants to P&S. Otherwise, if you are interested in the image
> quality that a DSLR has, you won't find it in any other P&S.
You might want to add the Sony DSC-R1 to that list as well.
David
Pete Stavrakoglou
news:150620091136010806%nos...@nospam.invalid...
> In article <h15p7m$2b6$1...@news.eternal-september.org>, Pete Stavrakoglou
> <nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> The only P&S that arguably can produce images as good as a DSLR is the
>> Sigma
>> DP1 and DP2.
>
> that depends which dslr. they might be comparable to the old digital
> rebel or nikon d100, but against a canon 450d or nikon d90 or d5000,
> definitely not.
I disagree. The camera can hold it's own in imqage quality with quite a few
current DSLRs.
>> The reason is that these cameras have and APS-C size sensor
>> like a DLSR has. It's the same sensor Sigma uses in their DSLR, it's
>> pricey, and it's not a camera for someone who just wants to P&S.
>
> that's because they're both slow and quirky.
Yes they are but they aren't for the "average" person who wants a P&S, they
are for more serious shooters who want image quality above speed and
convenience.
>> Otherwise,
>> if you are interested in the image quality that a DSLR has, you won't
>> find
>> it in any other P&S.
>
> olympus e-p1, along with other micro-4/3 cameras that are expected to
> be released.
m4/3 aren't P&S cameras. The Oly looks to be larger than the DP1 and DP2
but it (Oly) does have interchangable lenses unlike the DPs.
nospam
<nto...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >> The only P&S that arguably can produce images as good as a DSLR is the
> >> Sigma
> >> DP1 and DP2.
> >
> > that depends which dslr. they might be comparable to the old digital
> > rebel or nikon d100, but against a canon 450d or nikon d90 or d5000,
> > definitely not.
>
> I disagree. The camera can hold it's own in imqage quality with quite a few
> current DSLRs.
such as which ones? 'hold its own' doesn't mean much. how does it
compare and where are the comparison photos? if all you print are
8x10s it's not likely anyone is going to notice a difference no matter
which camera is used (including the better p&s cameras).
current dslrs are 12-15 megapixels and that completely negates any
advantage a 4.7 megapixel foveon might have. in fact, in dpreview's
dp1 review they said it didn't come close to a 10 megapixel nikon d60.
this does not bode well for the forthcoming sd-15, by the way.
what i've seen from the dp1/2 are generally better than tiny sensor
digicams, but often have blown highlights, red dot flare (strange) and
the latest oddity is red rings on blown highlights (truly bizarre).
red dots:
<http://brittonx.smugmug.com/photos/295447995_5t6aU-L.jpg>
<http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3126/2466896214_6e971d6f91_b.jpg>
red rings:
<http://fiveprime.org/blackmagic.cgi?id=3624595756>
full image:
<http://fiveprime.org/blackmagic.cgi?id=3623978153>
> >> The reason is that these cameras have and APS-C size sensor
> >> like a DLSR has. It's the same sensor Sigma uses in their DSLR, it's
> >> pricey, and it's not a camera for someone who just wants to P&S.
> >
> > that's because they're both slow and quirky.
>
> Yes they are but they aren't for the "average" person who wants a P&S, they
> are for more serious shooters who want image quality above speed and
> convenience.
more serious shooters don't bother with quirky products. they don't
need the hassles.
foveon based cameras are for foveon fans and people put up with the
problems just to get the sensor. if the sigma dp1/2 had a large bayer
sensor in it, nobody would buy it.
up until now, the dp1 was the only large sensor compact digicam but
those days are over. micro 4/3 looks like it will easily surpass it,
both in image quality and in ergonomics. if m4/3 gains any traction,
nikon and canon will move into that space and olympus will have a tough
time competing, let alone sigma.
> >> Otherwise,
> >> if you are interested in the image quality that a DSLR has, you won't
> >> find
> >> it in any other P&S.
> >
> > olympus e-p1, along with other micro-4/3 cameras that are expected to
> > be released.
>
> m4/3 aren't P&S cameras.
what would you call this:
<http://43rumors.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/06/2aaecd1.jpg>
> The Oly looks to be larger than the DP1 and DP2
> but it (Oly) does have interchangable lenses unlike the DPs.
it's actually about the same size as a dp1, if not slightly smaller,
plus as you say it has interchangeable lenses rather than a single
fixed focus lens so there's no need to buy multiple cameras if you want
something other than either 28mm or 41mm.
<http://i398.photobucket.com/albums/pp70/orwell_photos/comparison.jpg>
Chris Malcolm
> John Navas <spamf...@navasgroup.com> wrote in
> news:5f3a35tuil28qq8hv...@4ax.com:
>> On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 22:58:28 +0300, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
>> <no...@nospam.com> wrote in <h110cp$37r$1...@mouse.otenet.gr>:
>>
>>>Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography.
>>
>> True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is
>> the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take great
>> pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot take great
>> pictures without a great photographer.
> My worrry, tho' is spending a couple hundred $$ on one, and finding out that
> it doesn't take crips pictures, or that the colors are off, or some other
> flaw, because I didn't know what I was buying...
You can make your own comparisons of picture quality from different
cameras by checking out public photosharing sites such as Flickr and
sites with plenty of technical discussion on user forums such as
dpreview, Digital cameras store camera model and the technical details
such as focal length and aperture along with the digital image, and
these details are still often present and examinable along with the
screen display of the image.
--
Chris Malcolm
Kris Krieger
news:200906141800187987-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom:
> On 2009-06-14 17:12:26 -0700, Kris Krieger <m...@dowmuff.in> said:
>
>> ASAAR <cau...@22.com> wrote in
>> news:01l535h413r8i8prf...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
>>>
>>>> I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest
>>>> telephoto lens. [etc - snipped]
>>>
>>> For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor
>>> and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more
>>> familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some
>>> lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an
>>> AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies
>>> since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus
>>> screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new
>>> D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs
>>> that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70,
>>> D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise
>>> your choice would be between a new D90 or D300.
>>
>> Thanks! I saw a link here to the Luminous Lansdscapes website, and the
>> info about the Sony "Alpha DSLR-A200" (if I got that right) - since I'd
>> like to take pics outdoors, the Sony sounds like ti is worth looking
>> into in detail.
>>
>> I don't have anything that's "auto-focus"; I've never been, am still
>> not, interested because I almost always have my primary focus someplace
>> other than dead-center, and I'm not convinced that auto-focus would be
>> able to handle that. So that at least keeps things a bit simpler ;)
>
> One thing to remember with the DSLR and some of the bridge & P&S
> cameras is the ability to have focus points other than the center of
> the viewfinder.
> With my D300 for example you can have up to 51 different AF focus
> point. These can be select for composition as you frame the image, they
> can be set to track a moving target, or any number of variables.
> AF is not all bad (pretty good actually) and could probably deal with
> most of your demands..
>
I learned a few other tidbits about that from a couple of posts in addition
to your reply - your info is something I'd not realized; I especially had
no idea about the "tracking a moving target"!
The info I'm getting from you all is helping educate me even more than I'd
hoped, thanks! I'll remove "auto-focus" from my "deal-breaker" list and
give it a rethink ;)
THanks!
- Kris