25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)
A REAL-Pro Photographer
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
PeteD
Thats fantastic, all my D-SLR gear is going.
Just one thing, can you give me a few links to all these amazing wonderful
shots you are taking so I can enjoy them too.
Thanks.
Pete
Paul
news:kbl2h41j2k0pe6ilm...@4ax.com...
I went for a hybrid and get on really well with it:
http://i36.tinypic.com/fcmyx0.jpg
Stephen Hawks
Had you shot that joke with a good P&S camera it would have all been in sharp
focus. P&S cameras will always excel at hand-held micro to macro to close-up
photography.
Paul
news:jru2h4hkbv7b84s29...@4ax.com...
>>I went for a hybrid and get on really well with it:
>>http://i36.tinypic.com/fcmyx0.jpg
> Had you shot that joke with a good P&S camera it would have all been in
> sharp
> focus. P&S cameras will always excel at hand-held micro to macro to
> close-up
> photography.
I couldn't. The P&S was in the photo. ;-)
SMS
So that's how our favorite troll gets that long zoom range!
B?wser
lenses at the football games, PJ events, etc start to disappear and soon!
Now that they know that a simple P&S will do a better job at capturing pro
football than their silly SLRs, why would they keep them?
"A REAL-Pro Photographer" <namea...@withheld.org> wrote in message
news:kbl2h41j2k0pe6ilm...@4ax.com...
Carl_Devonston
>Wow. Thanks to this post, I expect to see all those big white and black
>lenses at the football games, PJ events, etc start to disappear and soon!
>Now that they know that a simple P&S will do a better job at capturing pro
>football than their silly SLRs, why would they keep them?
As they improve and as more people realize how much more efficient they are for
all purposes, then yes you will see D/SLRs disappear. Just as you saw all
view-cameras disappear nearly a century ago at all major events.
Get it?
If not, then perhaps you should stand in the bleachers at the next sporting
event holding a view-camera on a heavy wooden tripod, with your flash-powder
tray in the other hand, both lofted high above your head. Then maybe you'll
begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a couple years,
before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely disappear from
common usage.
Get it yet?
Roy G
"B?wser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote in message
news:WhgQk.127$X6...@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
> Wow. Thanks to this post, I expect to see all those big white and black
> lenses at the football games, PJ events, etc start to disappear and soon!
> Now that they know that a simple P&S will do a better job at capturing
> pro football than their silly SLRs, why would they keep them?
>
It's not the P & S that is simple.
Its any idiot who believes any of your fairy tales.
Roy G
Toby
"B?wser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote in message
news:WhgQk.127$X6...@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
> lenses at the football games, PJ events, etc start to disappear and soon!
> Now that they know that a simple P&S will do a better job at capturing
> pro football than their silly SLRs, why would they keep them?
Silly, it's to impress the girls...
Toby
tony cooper
<cdevo...@privateaddress.net> wrote:
>Then maybe you'll
>begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a couple years,
>before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely disappear from
>common usage.
>
You can have my gun, but you'll have to pry my dslr from my cold,
dead, hands.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Steve
>On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 07:26:30 -0500, "B?wser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>
>>Wow. Thanks to this post, I expect to see all those big white and black
>>lenses at the football games, PJ events, etc start to disappear and soon!
>>Now that they know that a simple P&S will do a better job at capturing pro
>>football than their silly SLRs, why would they keep them?
>
>As they improve and as more people realize how much more efficient they are for
>all purposes, then yes you will see D/SLRs disappear. Just as you saw all
>view-cameras disappear nearly a century ago at all major events.
>
>Get it?
You may see the current crop of DSLRs disappear years from now. But
you definitely won't see them replaced with P&S. Not if any serious
sports photographer wants to keep their job. But you'll see
convergance, which you're already seeing. DSLRs that have live-view,
HD video recording, etc. Things that were first introduced in P&S and
can be applied to a DSLR. Hell, you may even see electronic shutters
although those compromise image quality so maybe not. But if they can
figure out how to do them without compromising image quality, then why
not?
Steve
Roy G
"A REAL-Pro Photographer" <namea...@withheld.org> wrote in message
news:kbl2h41j2k0pe6ilm...@4ax.com...
>
Remind us again, you must have told us already, which Professional
Organisation you belong to.
I presume you have had your thesis about P & S published in the trade
newsletter.
I am sure the association of picture editors will be giving you some kind of
award, because of the vast sums they must have saved, now that they no
longer need to buy DSLRs and big lenses. The award ceremony will, no doubt,
get a mention on the main TV News, but you will need to make sure they get
your name right..
Has anyone thought of recommending you for a Nobel Prize, yet.
Roy G,
Ps
Does my Leica 3g count as a P & S ?
BÝ€wser
"Carl_Devonston" <cdevo...@privateaddress.net> wrote in message
news:3b53h45mruemb2b59...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 07:26:30 -0500, "B?wser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>
>>Wow. Thanks to this post, I expect to see all those big white and black
>>lenses at the football games, PJ events, etc start to disappear and soon!
>>Now that they know that a simple P&S will do a better job at capturing
>>pro
>>football than their silly SLRs, why would they keep them?
>
> As they improve and as more people realize how much more efficient they
> are for
> all purposes, then yes you will see D/SLRs disappear. Just as you saw all
> view-cameras disappear nearly a century ago at all major events.
>
> Get it?
Yeah, sure. Call me when you see a Panasonic FZ28 show up on the sidelines
of a night football game. I shoot HS sports in weak lighting, and I need to
shoot at ISO 6400. Yeah. I get it.
>
> If not, then perhaps you should stand in the bleachers at the next
> sporting
> event holding a view-camera on a heavy wooden tripod, with your
> flash-powder
> tray in the other hand, both lofted high above your head. Then maybe
> you'll
> begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a couple
> years,
> before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely disappear
> from
> common usage.
>
> Get it yet?
And utterly pointless comparison. I'm not holding my breath.
>
BÝ€wser
"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:a893h49hn25v2sbjk...@4ax.com...
DSLRs will disappear eventually, all tech changes. But to claim that they
can replace them now? Kinda silly...
Thomas-PL
"You can't blow the dust away without making a lot of fools cough." - Prince
Philip Duke of Edinburgh
Cough away! :-)
harvey porter
Yeah, kinda like those idiots 3 years ago that said digital cameras would
replace film cameras as being more popular. What idiots! What nonsense! What
fools! Digital replacing film? That's impossible. That will take at least 2 more
decades before we even get to the point of thinking like that!
Ken Hart1
"Carl_Devonston" <cdevo...@privateaddress.net> wrote in message
news:3b53h45mruemb2b59...@4ax.com...
Actually, if you were using such a rig (view camera/tripod/flash-powder),
you could get a photo of truly amazing quality. It would completely depend
on your personal talent and skill, including an intimate knowledge of the
sport in question, so that you could predict where the action is likely to
be. You just wouldn't be able to shoot 30 frames per second, hoping that one
of them might be a winner.
I frequently shot football games from the sidelines with a KoniOmega 6x7 and
a potato-masher strobe. The trick is very simple: pre-focus on the near
hash-mark, and wait for the action to cross that point.
KenKenseth
>Hell, you may even see electronic shutters
>although those compromise image quality so maybe not. But if they can
>figure out how to do them without compromising image quality, then why
>not?
Where on earth did you get this nonsense?
They already have them in P&S cameras that don't compromise anything in image
quality. High-speed full-frame captures up to 1/40,000 of a second without any
scanned bands of the sensor being read off the chip, as used to exist in all
DSLR electronics. See this photo for DSLR sensor readout technology at work
with high-speed objects.
http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//b/b3/Sensor_readout_anomaly.jpg
It's not bad enough that focal-plane shutters have their own image-distorting
problems, but many of their sensors have this problem too.
The curved bars are the propeller being slowly scanned electronically in
horizontal banks across the sensor. That doesn't happen in any P&S cameras (that
I know of).
You people invent the silliest things to perpetuate on the net. No doubt due to
your experiences with the lame electronic architecture and hardware of your
DSLRs. You need to get out more and get away from that ancient camera design.
I wonder what other technology you're going to steal from P&S cameras to try to
make your DSLRs fully functional one day.
tn...@mucks.net
What did photographers used to say, just a few years back about
film cameras versus digital?
It seems that about half of the argument against P&S cameras is
justified, and half of the argument is just a defensive posture of
the inevitable.
SMS
> You may see the current crop of DSLRs disappear years from now. But
> you definitely won't see them replaced with P&S. Not if any serious
> sports photographer wants to keep their job. But you'll see
> convergance, which you're already seeing. DSLRs that have live-view,
> HD video recording, etc. Things that were first introduced in P&S and
> can be applied to a DSLR. Hell, you may even see electronic shutters
> although those compromise image quality so maybe not.
You may see options for it, just like you can shoose live view and
contrast detection focusing or the optical viewfinder and phase
detection focusing.
> But if they can
> figure out how to do them without compromising image quality, then why
> not?
That's the big issue. D-SLR owners are less willing to compromise on
image quality, which is inherent in electronic shutters.
Steve
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:08:22 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Hell, you may even see electronic shutters
>>although those compromise image quality so maybe not. But if they can
>>figure out how to do them without compromising image quality, then why
>>not?
>
>Where on earth did you get this nonsense?
Just because you don't know something doesn't make it false. The fact
is that if you take two sensors, one that has an electronic shutter
and one that does not, the one that does not will give you better
performance. It's because of the additional space taken up on the
substrate for the electronics needed for the electronic shutter. That
allows less room for light collecting pixels. If/when they put
sensors with electronic shutters that don't rob it of light
sensitivity you'll see them in more widespread use on high-end
cameras.
Steve
Paul Furman
>
> You people
Hi Vern.. Ken... Harvey... Real Pro... etc.
Toby
"KenKenseth" <mailno...@mydomain.com> wrote in message
news:a2n3h4p4niar9etapgtl3ofqklqh8g5ov7@domain...
the death. This is nonsense. Camera companies are not stupid. The
appropriate technology is used in the appropriate place. As technology
advances camera design will change in the interest of improving capture and
image quality (and putting money into the manufacturer's pockets).
Toby
Toby
"B?wser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote in message
>
> "Carl_Devonston" <cdevo...@privateaddress.net> wrote in message
> news:3b53h45mruemb2b59...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 07:26:30 -0500, "B?wser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote:
>>
>>>Wow. Thanks to this post, I expect to see all those big white and black
>>>lenses at the football games, PJ events, etc start to disappear and soon!
>>>Now that they know that a simple P&S will do a better job at capturing
>>>pro
>>>football than their silly SLRs, why would they keep them?
>>
>> As they improve and as more people realize how much more efficient they
>> are for
>> all purposes, then yes you will see D/SLRs disappear. Just as you saw all
>> view-cameras disappear nearly a century ago at all major events.
>>
>> Get it?
>
> Yeah, sure. Call me when you see a Panasonic FZ28 show up on the sidelines
> of a night football game. I shoot HS sports in weak lighting, and I need
> to shoot at ISO 6400. Yeah. I get it.
>
You are obviously not a "Real Pro" like the OP. With a little more skill
perhaps he will soon be able to acquire his stunning images (none of which
has ever been seen) without a camera at all!
Toby
Glenn-Franken
>Camera companies are not stupid.
No, but typical amateur-photographer consumers, are.
Camera companies are all too willing to provide what those people will buy. Even
better if the camera company can produce something for $10 and sell it for $1000
dollars. As in the case of most DSLRs and all their required accessories. They
could sell any DSLR glass, L-Glass included, for under $100 a shot. But you? Not
knowing a thing, gleefully hand out your dough, just for the social-prestige of
promoting an antiquated technology. And attempting, but failing, to look like a
"Pro".
Ain't this fun.
David J Taylor
Pete D
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message
news:491257ed$0$9407$bb4e...@newscene.com...
Spoken like a true non believer, he has them of course, lots of them but he
does not have to justify himself by showing them here. ;-)
Ron Hunter
Ron Hunter
I rather suspect that a good 10mp P&S makes a better picture than older
DSLRs of only a few years ago. At some point, most people will probably
go with the smaller, lighter, option.
Steve
FINALLY you admit that real pros use DSLRs.
Ain't this fun.
Pete D
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:3qCdnYzLKeZLM4_U...@giganews.com...
Nope, not yet because they keep raisingMP counts. My 3 1/2 year old Pentax
DS still takes very good noise free photos.
Pete D
You forgot the nyuk,nyuk, nyuk's...... ;-)
frank nolen
Yes, watching you make an even bigger fool of yourself is always fun.
How you misread any of the above to admit(?) that real professionals all use
DSLRs, is beyond me. It's an observation about those who are so stupid as to
think they need a DSLR to be a "Pro" and throwing away exorbitant amounts of
money in their attempts to do so.
C'mon steve, are you reading usenet through your coke-bottle-bottom glasses
again, and then just hitting the reply button, typing anything, and hoping it
will make sense to someone other than you? No, wait. I've got it figured out.
You are hoping someone will try to explain your ideas to you so they will
finally make sense to you. That's it, isn't it.
Stick your fingers in your ears and hum a tune, then you also don't have to
actually take in any audio information while you sit there imagining what you
want to see.
I'm beginning to understand now why there's so little worthwhile photography in
the world. With people as unperceptive as the "Steves" displaying an interest in
photography how can any of them know when and where to click a shutter-button at
the right time, let alone anything else.
J. Clarke
And a good photographer makes a better picture than either.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Steve
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:29:33 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:07:43 -0600, Glenn-Franken
>><gfra...@youmustbekidding.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5 Nov 2008 20:34:02 -0600, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Camera companies are not stupid.
>>>
>>>No, but typical amateur-photographer consumers, are.
>>>
>>>Camera companies are all too willing to provide what those people will buy. Even
>>>better if the camera company can produce something for $10 and sell it for $1000
>>>dollars. As in the case of most DSLRs and all their required accessories. They
>>>could sell any DSLR glass, L-Glass included, for under $100 a shot. But you? Not
>>>knowing a thing, gleefully hand out your dough, just for the social-prestige of
>>>promoting an antiquated technology. And attempting, but failing, to look like a
>>>"Pro".
>>>
>>>Ain't this fun.
>>
>>FINALLY you admit that real pros use DSLRs.
>>
>>Ain't this fun.
>
>Yes, watching you make an even bigger fool of yourself is always fun.
>
>How you misread any of the above to admit(?) that real professionals all use
>DSLRs, is beyond me. It's an observation about those who are so stupid as to
Everything seems to be beyond you.
B?wser
"harvey porter" <harvey...@spamstopper.org> wrote in message
news:cic3h4lnj81hgl3rk...@4ax.com...
Let me know when you see P&S cameras on the sidelines of any major sporting
event. Until then, well...
savvo
On 2008-11-06, Toby <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
> "B?wser" <i...@bowzah.ukme> wrote in message
> news:17iQk.128$X6...@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
>>
>> "Carl_Devonston" <cdevo...@privateaddress.net> wrote in message
>> news:3b53h45mruemb2b59...@4ax.com...
>>> are for
>>> all purposes, then yes you will see D/SLRs disappear. Just as you saw all
>>> view-cameras disappear nearly a century ago at all major events.
>>
>> of a night football game. I shoot HS sports in weak lighting, and I need
>> to shoot at ISO 6400. Yeah. I get it.
>>
>
> You are obviously not a "Real Pro" like the OP. With a little more skill
> perhaps he will soon be able to acquire his stunning images (none of which
> has ever been seen) without a camera at all!
Whatever gave you the impression any of his multiple personalities
require a camera? It's all in his deranged mind.
--
savvo orig. invib. man
savvo
> I rather suspect that a good 10mp P&S makes a better picture than older
> DSLRs of only a few years ago. At some point, most people will probably
> go with the smaller, lighter, option.
I rather suspect you've never examined the output of those two cameras,
whichever two you choose.
B?wser
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message
news:491257ed$0$9407$bb4e...@newscene.com...
>
True enough, I'm not a real pro. But I guess neither are the countless other
shooters at sporting events who are NOT shooting P&S cameras. I shall choose
to wallow in my amateur ignorance and continue supplying images that, for
some ungodly strange reason, please my "customers."
HEMI-Powered
>> I rather suspect that a good 10mp P&S makes a better picture
>> than older DSLRs of only a few years ago. At some point,
>> most people will probably go with the smaller, lighter,
>> option.
>
> I rather suspect you've never examined the output of those two
> cameras, whichever two you choose.
>
Being that "more mega pixels means better pictures" being the sales
and marketing watchwords of late, much like the "horsepower wars"
of the car industry, I'd say you are right.
However, it is also the nature of both innovation and marketing
that competitors in a highly charged market segment such as digital
cameras, often leapfrog each other with either incremental or
revolutionary improvements. So, to any prospective buyer, the
absolute image size may well be secondard to other valid criteria
and it may well be difficult or impossible to determine whether any
given P & S, EVR, or DSLR from even the same manufacturer is the
same, better, or worse than another.
For any basic set of buying criteria such as size, price, features,
AND image quality, I generally advise newbies to ask people who
actually own what they're contemplating buying but before they do
anything, simply go to their fav store and just pick up the cameras
and handle them a bit. It is often surprising how revealing that
can be.
--
HP, aka Jerry
"Laid off yet? Keep buying foreign, and you soon will be!" -
increasingly seen on bumper sticker
Leo Lichtman
the openings of a cyclone fence. This saved me a trip home for a ladder,
and also provided a more advantageous angle.
Reason 27: I can reach in my pocket, come out with the camera and get the
shot before it is gone. The big camera in my gadget bag, if I have it with
me, takes much longer to get into action.
Reason Minus 1: The viewing screen on the back of most point-and-shoots is
hard to see in bright light, and hard to use for careful composition in all
cases.
SMS
> Reason Minus 1: The viewing screen on the back of most point-and-shoots is
> hard to see in bright light, and hard to use for careful composition in all
Never buy a P&S without an optical viewfinder.
J. Clarke
Reason 28--if someone nicks the point and shoot, good riddance.
Reason 29--you can get a cheap drop resistant waterproof point and
shoot, and after you take a little sandpaper and brown rust-oleum to
it nobody's going to _want_ to nick it.
Reason 30--if you drop your motorycle and land on the point-and-shoot
it hurts a _lot_ less.
Leo Lichtman
"SMS" wrote: Never buy a P&S without an optical viewfinder.
My P & S has an optical viewfinder, but viewable image is cropped a little,
so I don't like to rely on it. I solved the viewing problem another way: I
use the viewing hood from a Hasselblad pressed against the back of my P & S.
It shades the screen perfectly, and provides wonderful magnification.
Referring to item 30 in J Clarke's post: I have never had my motorcycle
fall on the camera, but it did wipe out the screen on my Palm organizer.
Which reminds me to mention, I also use my Hasselblad shade/viewer/magnifier
to look at my Palm in bright daylight.
larry_adler
You really should read this list that totally disproves why anyone would need or
want an optical viewfinder, if they had any intelligence that is.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
BÔwser
"J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:gevnl...@news3.newsguy.com...
Drop the bike? Damn. Now that's just wrong.
Gerald Clough
to implant the USB port.
(I'd ask for suggestions, but we all know where that would go.)
(Besides, that space is reserved for the preview display.)
(Close one eye and look real close. Closer. Now wink rapidly.)
--
"Nothing has any value unless you know you can do without it."
John McWilliams
Firewire much faster and more reliable.
Pete D
Blah, blah, blah........
pixt...@gmail.com
> <snip>
>
> Blah, blah, blah........
Interesting to see this topic in a 35mm group. Whether film (which I
continue to use, I even have a Mamiya C330 TLR), DSLR or P+S, the main
component in any camera is the LENS!! Without a quality lens, all the
megapixels, sensors, etc will not improve the technical quality of
pictures. In the 35mm film era, there were far more slr's in use, film
P+S was always thought of as the other camera or as in digital, the
convenience camera, much easier to use than digital P+S because there
was only one quality, the highest resolution possible, obtained by
using a high quality optical viewfinder + an excellent automatic
exposure system. Contrast that with the menus of settings on some of
the digital P+S. If anything P+S continues to diminish the creative
level of photography. Because folks can shoot, delete gigs of
pictures, much less thought is given to composition which even trumps
lens quality. On the matter of price, when you can now buy an entry
level Nikon or Canon with 3 to 1 zoom lens for less than $550. + can
use 35mm camera lenses (without complete functionality) on your DSLR
body, there is no P+S rational for someone who actually cares about
their photography. If one must buy a P+S, there are 3 things to
remember. Always get an optical viewfinder (the screens are usless in
bright sunshine), always wear it around your neck (if they fall on a
hard surface they're toast), always read the manual, press the buttons
while you are reading the manual, that's the only way you'll get the
full potential out of the camera. Even an entry level DSLR Nikon,
Canon, Olympus, Pentax will blow any digital P+S out of the water.
Just check the manufacturer's websites, all the info is there to
compare both formats.
Stephen Henning
lousy DSLR lenses such as the Olympus Zuiko 14-45 and 18-180. Good P&S
are cheaper, smaller and lighter than good DSLR's because the sensor is
smaller and hence the lens is smaller and much easier to make.
According to early reviews, the new Canon G10 appears to be better than
some of the poorer DSLRs. A DSLR only makes sense if you are using more
than one lens. For those not needing specialized lenses, and wanting
light weight compact models, the best P&S fit the bill nicely.
The DSLR is still the workhorse camera for a person that wants a system
camera, but for the typical amateur, they are no longer the only game in
town.
"pixt...@gmail.com" <pixt...@gmail.com> wrote:
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhod...@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net
Toby
"Stephen Henning" <pig...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:pighash-4664BE...@news.isp.giganews.com...
> Their are quality P&S such as Leica Digital Rangefinders. There are
> lousy DSLR lenses such as the Olympus Zuiko 14-45 and 18-180. Good P&S
> are cheaper, smaller and lighter than good DSLR's because the sensor is
> smaller and hence the lens is smaller and much easier to make.
>
> According to early reviews, the new Canon G10 appears to be better than
> some of the poorer DSLRs. A DSLR only makes sense if you are using more
> than one lens. For those not needing specialized lenses, and wanting
> light weight compact models, the best P&S fit the bill nicely.
>
> The DSLR is still the workhorse camera for a person that wants a system
> camera, but for the typical amateur, they are no longer the only game in
> town.
There are decent P&S cameras, such as the new Lumix and the G-10, as well as
the larger fixed-lens models with OVF. Our troll is correct, that some of
those fixed lens P&Ss such as those from Olympus, have a zoom range that
ends with the 35mm equivalent of a 500+mm lens at an aperture of around f/5.
Some even have resolutions equal to low-mid range DSLRs. The major fly in
the ointment is the noisiness of those tiny sensors: The Canon starts to
seriously fall apart at ISO 400 and the Panasonic, while a bit better, is
hardly in the class of a decent DSLR. It's simply physics. Nor are those
extreme zoom lenses of the quality of a good DSLR lens.
But all told, these P&Ss are quite respectable for casual shooting: and
considering the performace to size and price, they are really pretty
astounding.
There are apparently some possible advances on the horizon in terms of
sensors, and it is concievable that within five years P&Ss will essentially
match today's DSLRs in image quality (though not in handling or versatility
or lens quality achievable with interchangeables).
Of course by that time larger-sensor cameras will be that much farther ahead
as well.
Toby
Jim Hurst
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
SMS
> According to early reviews, the new Canon G10 appears to be better than
> some of the poorer DSLRs. A DSLR only makes sense if you are using more
> than one lens. For those not needing specialized lenses, and wanting
> light weight compact models, the best P&S fit the bill nicely.
You're forgetting about auto-focus lag and low-light performance. These
are issues that P&S users complain about endlessly, because these
problems didn't exist when they were using P&S film cameras.
Hank Thomas
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:04:23 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>The other problem is that these people got very used to using film P&S
>>cameras which never has the long auto-focus delays inherent in P&S
>>digital cameras. Now they're told that they have to "work around" the
>>limitations of digital P&S cameras. They're also often very disappointed
>>with the results in sub-optimal lighting conditions, compared to what
>>they used to get with film. With film, everyone bought the same sensors
>>on rolls.
>
>Yes, all at ASA25, ASA64, ASA80, ASA100, rarely ASA200, and all managed to get
>those photos just fine. What's your problem today? Oh, that's right, you are a
>talentless idiot who has never used any camera. Those wanting to do starscapes
>then delved into the very grainy ASA400 and ASA800 films, often using more
>elaborate darkroom processes like push-processing and hypering. If they could
>first wrap their minds and exposure times around reciprocity failure in those
>films.
>
>You were saying?
>
>Ah, that's right, you were saying even more uneducated and clueless crap....
>
Toby
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:3qhRk.4408$W06....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
Apparently the lens on the G10 is quite good. However the high (even medium)
ISO performance is abominable. Resolution at low ISO is like a medium-grade
DSLR--not bad. But like all P&Ss it is much too menu-driven for my
tastes--no way to quickly change exposure comp on a dial, or shutter
speed/aperture combo in program mode. And the lack of an optical viewfinder
is a fatal flaw IMO, especially in bright conditions. I hate having to rely
on flaky AF and there is no good way to focus manually quickly.
Still and all, for a pocket cam, it's great (in sunlight).
Toby
Toby
Nathan Browne
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
SMS
> And the lack of an optical viewfinder
> is a fatal flaw IMO, especially in bright conditions. I hate having to rely
> on flaky AF and there is no good way to focus manually quickly.
Huh? The G10 most certainly does have an optical viewfinder.
mich...@fromcardiff.com
"Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message > Apparently the lens on the
> ISO performance is abominable. Resolution at low ISO is like a
> medium-grade DSLR--not bad. But like all P&Ss it is much too menu-driven
> for my tastes--no way to quickly change exposure comp on a dial, or
> shutter speed/aperture combo in program mode. And the lack of an optical
> viewfinder is a fatal flaw IMO, especially in bright conditions. I hate
> having to rely on flaky AF and there is no good way to focus manually
> quickly.
>
> Still and all, for a pocket cam, it's great (in sunlight).
>
> Toby
at low ISO its passable in quality, which mean carrying a tripod a lot of
the time. Being menu driven is a problem in the cold because I lose fine
control in my fingers! And the manual focusing is a total pain, I have to
turn the dial with a finger nail. My other gripe is the lack of remote
shutter control. In summary, I have a G9 and use it rarely. I'm glad to
have it though.
Jeff R.
> Apparently the lens on the G10 is quite good. However the high (even
> medium) ISO performance is abominable.
No - just "typical".
>...Resolution at low ISO is like
> a medium-grade DSLR--not bad. But like all P&Ss it is much too
> menu-driven for my tastes--no way to quickly change exposure comp on
> a dial,
Re-read the specs.
The G10 most certainly does have an exposure compensation dial on the top
face.
>...or shutter speed/aperture combo in program mode.
...and a jog wheel for that;
>...And the lack
> of an optical viewfinder is a fatal flaw IMO,
...no lack - it has an optical VF
>.. especially in bright
> conditions. I hate having to rely on flaky AF and there is no good
> way to focus manually quickly.
Aye!
*There* you are correct.
A split-image rangefinder would complete the package.
>
> Still and all, for a pocket cam, it's great (in sunlight).
...and other light.
>
> Toby
--
Jeff R.
J. Clarke
> "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote in message > Apparently the
> lens
> on the G10 is quite good. However the high (even medium)
>> ISO performance is abominable. Resolution at low ISO is like a
>> medium-grade DSLR--not bad. But like all P&Ss it is much too
>> menu-driven for my tastes--no way to quickly change exposure comp
>> on
>> a dial, or shutter speed/aperture combo in program mode. And the
>> lack of an optical viewfinder is a fatal flaw IMO, especially in
>> bright conditions. I hate having to rely on flaky AF and there is
>> no
>> good way to focus manually quickly.
>>
>> Still and all, for a pocket cam, it's great (in sunlight).
>>
>> Toby
> Are you sure about the optical viewfinder?
It does have an optical finder.
> The G9 has one. I agree
> that at low ISO its passable in quality, which mean carrying a
> tripod
> a lot of the time. Being menu driven is a problem in the cold
> because
> I lose fine control in my fingers! And the manual focusing is a
> total pain, I have to turn the dial with a finger nail. My other
> gripe is the lack of remote shutter control.
There is a wired remote release RS60-E3 available. Yongnuo
http://szyongnuo.en.alibaba.com/ has an infrared release ML-3AC1, a
wired timer release TC-80C1, a simple wired release RS-C1, and an RF
remote WRSII-C1 for the Digital Rebel that should work fine on the G9
and G10. http://www.dealextreme.com/ carries most of them with prices
starting around 5 bucks (you may have to hunt a bit--dealextreme
doesn't always use the same product identification as Yongnuo. The RF
remote is new and I don't think they have it yet.
Note that they make versions of all of these for the non-Rebel Canons,
Nikon, and a couple of other brands.
> In summary, I have a
> G9 and use it rarely. I'm glad to have it though.
--
Toby
<mich...@fromCardiff.com> wrote in message
news:hLKdnY50l-DmeIjU...@bt.com...
Sorry, I stand corrected.
Toby
Toby
"Jeff R." <conta...@this.ng> wrote in message
news:49162b35$0$18428$afc3...@news.optusnet.com.au...
Sorry to spout without enough research. Can the controls be accessed without
taking your eye from the viewfinder?
Toby
Jeff R.
>
> Sorry to spout without enough research. Can the controls be accessed
> without taking your eye from the viewfinder?
>
> Toby
Yes - but not with comfort. My thumb hits my forehead, but it's possible.
Easier to drop it to waist level, adjust, then lift again.
Big complication, though - because the VF is optical you won't see the
(preview) results of adjusting the compensation knob while you do it. You
do, however, see that when you use the LCD... or a reasonable approximation
thereof.
I have both G9 & 10. Very happy with both.
I sure hope the G11 has a split-image rangefinder.
--
Jeff R.
Stephen Bishop
There are just five reasons why dslrs are superior, and each of them
trump your 25 reasons.
1. Noise. The smaller sensors of P&S cameras simply cannot handle
higher ISO settings without introducing objectionable noise.
2. Speed. The shutter lag time of most P&S cameras is unacceptable
for most photography where capturing the exact moment is important.
3. Flexibilty. A dslr can be used in far more situations than any
P&S due to its ability to accept a far wider selection of lenses and
accessories.
4. Overall image quality. Much better lenses are available for
dslr's, and the higher pixel density of P&S cameras makes for lower
overall image quality at the same megapixel count. In spite of what
you've heard, dynamic range is worse with P&S cameras.
5. Lack of RAW capability. The vast majority of P&S cameras do not
support a RAW format, which means you lose even more dynamic range and
image quality potential.
However, ONE advantage that P&S cameras do have is that they are more
portable so it is easier to have a camera with you at all times. Even
a picture from a P&S can be better than no picture, assuming the
photographer knows what he/she is doing.
Paul Furman
> Hogwash.
>
> There are just five reasons why dslrs are superior, and each of them
> trump your 25 reasons.
To be fair, let me make a few corrections (and additions).
> 1. Noise. The smaller sensors of P&S cameras simply cannot handle
> higher ISO settings without introducing objectionable noise.
With enough light, P&S are not bad. The better DSLRs also have a dynamic
range advantage, though not a vast difference at low ISOs, see #5.
> 2. Speed. The shutter lag time of most P&S cameras is unacceptable
> for most photography where capturing the exact moment is important.
AF speed is the bigger problem, and startup time to extend the lens is
awful. Manual focus is generally impractical so it is effectively
shutter lag.
> 3. Flexibilty. A dslr can be used in far more situations than any
> P&S due to its ability to accept a far wider selection of lenses and
> accessories.
>
> 4. Overall image quality. Much better lenses are available for
> dslr's,
Yep. Although some P&S lenses are quite good, none are f/1.8 or faster,
most have purple fringing CA problems & there are no really wide
recitilear options on P&S.
> and the higher pixel density of P&S cameras makes for lower
> overall image quality at the same megapixel count.
It's looking like pixel density isn't all that critical as the
technology advances. Yes it matters but not by a huge amount. Sensor
size really does matter a lot though. One thing sensor size effects is
the range of usable apertures available. P&S cannot isolate subject with
background blur without using huge effective focal lengths and
diffraction puts a stop on the other end so the have a very narrow range
of choices, and ISO can't go far either.
> In spite of what you've heard, dynamic range is worse with P&S cameras.
See under #1 for dynamic range.
> 5. Lack of RAW capability. The vast majority of P&S cameras do not
> support a RAW format, which means you lose even more dynamic range and
> image quality potential.
Plenty do offer raw but they tend to be dog slow writing those files. It
is a kludge.
> However, ONE advantage that P&S cameras do have is that they are more
> portable so it is easier to have a camera with you at all times. Even
> a picture from a P&S can be better than no picture, assuming the
> photographer knows what he/she is doing.
P&S are also a much better value for the dollar spent. Even the
expensive ones, as long as the caveats above aren't a deal killer.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
RichA
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:dJ1Vk.8200$be....@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...
P&S users are characteristically timid (creepy?) and lazy. They are too
timid to tote around and point at DSLR at anyone for fear of...what? That
they are too lazy to carry a DSLR goes without saying.
"Not bad" doesn't cut it. Why knowingly produce images that are "not bad"
unless your whole like consists of compromises leading to mediocrity?
My guess is ADA suffering P&S users compromise everywhere in life because
doing things well takes an effort.
McPhotos
> Stephen Bishop wrote:
>> Hogwash.
>>
C'mon, guys, no reasonable statements go unpunished by the pest whom I
command to post his nonsense to this.
IOW, please do not respond to any of this pest's posts. Only then will
he seep away on mildewed flippers.
Please!
--
john mcwilliams
CashTownsend
>Stephen Bishop wrote:
>> Hogwash.
>>
>> There are just five reasons why dslrs are superior, and each of them
>> trump your 25 reasons.
>
>To be fair, let me make a few corrections (and additions).
>
>
>> 1. Noise. The smaller sensors of P&S cameras simply cannot handle
>> higher ISO settings without introducing objectionable noise.
>
>With enough light, P&S are not bad. The better DSLRs also have a dynamic
>range advantage, though not a vast difference at low ISOs, see #5.
>
Incorrect, not all DSLRs have more dynamic range. (Proved in point #3) Nor is a
large dynamic range a requirement of someone that knows what they are doing. The
sensor of most any digital camera is already a greater dynamic range than film
ever was. Film never stopped anyone from being a pro photographer in the past.
Why do you feel you need more? You're that bad at photography? A P&S is also
better at adjusting for proper exposure because it uses the same sensor that is
going to record the image. No different than the highly accurate OTF exposure
metering of the past. No discrepancies from light entering the back of an OVF
lens, no discrepancies in metering due to using different focal length lenses
(which throws off the angle that the light is hitting the exposure sensors in an
OVF, when using focal-lengths different than it was optimized for). Since the
P&S is more accurate at metering you need less dynamic range to make up for the
camera's and your own errors.
>
>> 2. Speed. The shutter lag time of most P&S cameras is unacceptable
>> for most photography where capturing the exact moment is important.
>
>AF speed is the bigger problem, and startup time to extend the lens is
>awful. Manual focus is generally impractical so it is effectively
>shutter lag.
>
Auto focus speed is only a problem for the DSLR snap-shooter that doesn't know
how to use hyperfocal settings when using it in daylight. Why do you fail to
mention that a P&S camera will focus faster and more accurately in low-light
levels, in light levels so low that you can't even use the OVF in your DSLR? I
find that the minimal start-up time is a red-herring argument. By the time you
turn on any P&S camera it is operational before you get it to your eye. You also
lie about shutter-lag. Some P&S cameras have even less shutter lag than DSLRs.
See point #18. Manual focus is only impractical to someone who is a total klutz.
>
>> 3. Flexibilty. A dslr can be used in far more situations than any
>> P&S due to its ability to accept a far wider selection of lenses and
>> accessories.
>>
>> 4. Overall image quality. Much better lenses are available for
>> dslr's,
Correction: Much more expensive lenses are available for dslrs. It doesn't mean
they are better.
>
>Yep. Although some P&S lenses are quite good, none are f/1.8 or faster,
>most have purple fringing CA problems & there are no really wide
>recitilear options on P&S.
>
You failed to read to what you are trying to refute. Already covered and
disputed. Points #1, #2, etc.
Purple fringing is a problem of ALL digital cameras. It is NOT caused by the
lens, but by the sensor (are you actually this stupid?). Some DSLRs are worse in
this regard than the better P&S cameras. Purple fringing is not just in the
realm of P&S cameras. But only a moron would say something like that.
Lenses faster than f/2.0 are often subject to optical aberrations due to being
difficult to figure properly. They can only be used effectively at one aperture
to gain optimum use from them.
>
>> and the higher pixel density of P&S cameras makes for lower
>> overall image quality at the same megapixel count.
Please explain why this is so. They can both have the exact same resolving
power. In fact the higher pixel density sensor can actually out-resolve the
larger sensor. It has to, by its very design.
>
>It's looking like pixel density isn't all that critical as the
>technology advances. Yes it matters but not by a huge amount. Sensor
>size really does matter a lot though. One thing sensor size effects is
>the range of usable apertures available. P&S cannot isolate subject with
>background blur without using huge effective focal lengths and
>diffraction puts a stop on the other end so the have a very narrow range
>of choices, and ISO can't go far either.
Already disproved. Points #20, etc.
You really should read what you are trying to dispute. You've already been
proved wrong.
>
>
>> In spite of what you've heard, dynamic range is worse with P&S cameras.
>
>See under #1 for dynamic range.
>
>
>> 5. Lack of RAW capability. The vast majority of P&S cameras do not
>> support a RAW format, which means you lose even more dynamic range and
>> image quality potential.
>
>Plenty do offer raw but they tend to be dog slow writing those files. It
>is a kludge.
ALL cameras are slow at writing RAW files, and this is only a limitation of the
writing speed of the storage media. I can take full-frame continuous burst RAW
frames, non-stop to the size of the card, every 1.1 seconds on my P&S camera. A
DSLR has to store that data in a large buffer and then dump it after 3-8 frames
have been shot. The write time being much much longer. More missed shots waiting
for that buffer to get written to the card.
>
>
>> However, ONE advantage that P&S cameras do have is that they are more
>> portable so it is easier to have a camera with you at all times. Even
>> a picture from a P&S can be better than no picture, assuming the
>> photographer knows what he/she is doing.
>
>P&S are also a much better value for the dollar spent. Even the
>expensive ones, as long as the caveats above aren't a deal killer.
The only caveat that would be a deal killer is the skill level of the
photographer. If they can't take an award-winning photo with a P&S camera,
they'll never take one with a DSLR either.
The interesting thing about all your arguments, is that they all scream but one
thing over and over again:
You're not a very good photographer and you need every crutch, auto-assist, and
safety backup possible before you can consider a camera. Your list says so much
more about you than anything about any real cameras.
You want the best possible AUTOMATIC POINT & SHOOT (dslr) camera, because you
have no skill, no talent, you're not anywhere near being a real photographer.
Your list of what you value in a camera proves it. You want a camera that can
turn you into a "Pro". That's never going to happen. It works the other way
around. The person is the Pro, any camera is good in the hands of a real Pro.
All you've done is reveal your sub-amateur status.
henry bates
>P&S users are characteristically timid (creepy?) and lazy. They are too
>timid to tote around and point at DSLR at anyone for fear of...what? That
>they are too lazy to carry a DSLR goes without saying.
>"Not bad" doesn't cut it. Why knowingly produce images that are "not bad"
>unless your whole like consists of compromises leading to mediocrity?
>My guess is ADA suffering P&S users compromise everywhere in life because
>doing things well takes an effort.
>
Calvin Orland
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
begin with. The irony is that, by them thinking that they only need to throw
stephen thomas
wrote:
>McPhotos wrote:
>
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>> > Stephen Bishop wrote:
>> >> Hogwash.
>> >>
>>
>> C'mon, guys, no reasonable statements go unpunished by the pest whom I
>> command to post his nonsense to this.
>>
>
>Vern (rhymes with learn) will have a rebuttal shortly, perhaps even
><gasp> film at eleven...
>
>> IOW, please do not respond to any of this pest's posts. Only then will
>> he seep away on mildewed flippers.
>>
>
>Somehow, someway, somewhere... maybe, maybe not! I don't care *if* he
>goes or stays, I just wish he would only post his cut and paste message
>once per month (as a sort of P&S FAQ)... but that is just me.
>
>> Please!
>>
>
>Thank You!
>
>
> - JT
>digital photography equals instant gratification
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some 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
begin with. The irony is that, by them thinking that they only need to throw
Stephen Bishop
Of course there are individual exceptions, but there is no question
that the larger pixel size of dslr sensors results in greater dynamic
range and lower noise at all ISO settings.
So why do you take an indisputable point and try to suggest that those
who don't agree with you are bad photographers? Let's see some of
the amazing work that you do with your P&S.
>
>
>>
>>> 2. Speed. The shutter lag time of most P&S cameras is unacceptable
>>> for most photography where capturing the exact moment is important.
>>
>>AF speed is the bigger problem, and startup time to extend the lens is
>>awful. Manual focus is generally impractical so it is effectively
>>shutter lag.
>>
>
>Auto focus speed is only a problem for the DSLR snap-shooter that doesn't know
>how to use hyperfocal settings when using it in daylight. Why do you fail to
>mention that a P&S camera will focus faster and more accurately in low-light
>levels, in light levels so low that you can't even use the OVF in your DSLR? I
>find that the minimal start-up time is a red-herring argument. By the time you
>turn on any P&S camera it is operational before you get it to your eye. You also
>lie about shutter-lag. Some P&S cameras have even less shutter lag than DSLRs.
>See point #18. Manual focus is only impractical to someone who is a total klutz.
You try to refute another indisputible point. As a class, dslr
cameras are much faster in all respects than P&S. No matter what
your skill level, dslrs respond better and faster.
>
>>
>>> 3. Flexibilty. A dslr can be used in far more situations than any
>>> P&S due to its ability to accept a far wider selection of lenses and
>>> accessories.
>>>
>>> 4. Overall image quality. Much better lenses are available for
>>> dslr's,
>
>Correction: Much more expensive lenses are available for dslrs. It doesn't mean
>they are better.
Correction to your correction. There is no question that there are
better lenses available for dslr cameras. There are cheap ones and
there are superb ones. You get what you for. With a P&S you are
basically stuck with the one lens that the manufacturer gives you,
which is often there for cost reasons more than its quality.
>
>>
>>Yep. Although some P&S lenses are quite good, none are f/1.8 or faster,
>>most have purple fringing CA problems & there are no really wide
>>recitilear options on P&S.
>>
>
>You failed to read to what you are trying to refute. Already covered and
>disputed. Points #1, #2, etc.
>
>Purple fringing is a problem of ALL digital cameras. It is NOT caused by the
>lens, but by the sensor (are you actually this stupid?). Some DSLRs are worse in
>this regard than the better P&S cameras. Purple fringing is not just in the
>realm of P&S cameras. But only a moron would say something like that.
Correction. The purple fringing that plagues most P&S cameras is
rarely seen in dslrs. The problem is partly the sensor, which is
made worse by the small size of the P&S version. The other part of
the problem is the extremely short focal lengths of lenses on P&S
cameras.
>
>Lenses faster than f/2.0 are often subject to optical aberrations due to being
>difficult to figure properly. They can only be used effectively at one aperture
>to gain optimum use from them.
>
>>
>>> and the higher pixel density of P&S cameras makes for lower
>>> overall image quality at the same megapixel count.
>
>Please explain why this is so. They can both have the exact same resolving
>power. In fact the higher pixel density sensor can actually out-resolve the
>larger sensor. It has to, by its very design.
Resolution is not the most important characteristic of a digital
camera. However, megapixels do sell more cameras to unsuspecting
buyers who think that more is always better.
>
>>
>>It's looking like pixel density isn't all that critical as the
>>technology advances. Yes it matters but not by a huge amount. Sensor
>>size really does matter a lot though. One thing sensor size effects is
>>the range of usable apertures available. P&S cannot isolate subject with
>>background blur without using huge effective focal lengths and
>>diffraction puts a stop on the other end so the have a very narrow range
>>of choices, and ISO can't go far either.
>
>Already disproved. Points #20, etc.
>
>You really should read what you are trying to dispute. You've already been
>proved wrong.
Actually, it is you that haven't proven your case. Quoting technical
mumbo jumbo from websites has little to do with real world shooting
situations. Post your photos that prove that P&S cameras are better
than dslrs under those same conditions. Until then, you are just
making noise.
>
>>
>>
>>> In spite of what you've heard, dynamic range is worse with P&S cameras.
>>
>>See under #1 for dynamic range.
>>
>>
>>> 5. Lack of RAW capability. The vast majority of P&S cameras do not
>>> support a RAW format, which means you lose even more dynamic range and
>>> image quality potential.
>>
>>Plenty do offer raw but they tend to be dog slow writing those files. It
>>is a kludge.
>
>ALL cameras are slow at writing RAW files, and this is only a limitation of the
>writing speed of the storage media. I can take full-frame continuous burst RAW
>frames, non-stop to the size of the card, every 1.1 seconds on my P&S camera. A
>DSLR has to store that data in a large buffer and then dump it after 3-8 frames
>have been shot. The write time being much much longer. More missed shots waiting
>for that buffer to get written to the card.
You have to be kidding if you are trying to say that your P&S can
shoot RAW faster than a dslr. Let's see the actual data, including
specific camera models and times and total number of shots.
>
>>
>>
>>> However, ONE advantage that P&S cameras do have is that they are more
>>> portable so it is easier to have a camera with you at all times. Even
>>> a picture from a P&S can be better than no picture, assuming the
>>> photographer knows what he/she is doing.
>>
>>P&S are also a much better value for the dollar spent. Even the
>>expensive ones, as long as the caveats above aren't a deal killer.
>
>The only caveat that would be a deal killer is the skill level of the
>photographer. If they can't take an award-winning photo with a P&S camera,
>they'll never take one with a DSLR either.
This is very true. But that isn't the point. An award-winning
photographer can and will use the substantial technical advantages of
a dslr to get even better pictures. The klutz will be just as bad no
matter what kind of camera he/she has.
>
>The interesting thing about all your arguments, is that they all scream but one
>thing over and over again:
>
>You're not a very good photographer and you need every crutch, auto-assist, and
>safety backup possible before you can consider a camera. Your list says so much
>more about you than anything about any real cameras.
How can you say that without actually looking at that person's
pictures?
>
>You want the best possible AUTOMATIC POINT & SHOOT (dslr) camera, because you
>have no skill, no talent, you're not anywhere near being a real photographer.
>Your list of what you value in a camera proves it. You want a camera that can
>turn you into a "Pro". That's never going to happen. It works the other way
>around. The person is the Pro, any camera is good in the hands of a real Pro.
>All you've done is reveal your sub-amateur status.
Again, prove to all of us that you are a "Real Pro" with your P&S. It
sounds like you are more interested in ranting against certain types
of cameras and criticizing people whose work you've never seen than
you are in actual photography.
>
Ray Fischer
>Hogwash.
>
>There are just five reasons why dslrs are superior, and each of them
>trump your 25 reasons.
"Hammers are superior to screwdrivers. Here's why."
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Stephen Bishop
>Stephen Bishop <nospam...@now.com> wrote:
>>Hogwash.
>>
>>There are just five reasons why dslrs are superior, and each of them
>>trump your 25 reasons.
>
>"Hammers are superior to screwdrivers. Here's why."
Ah, but what you can do with the combination of a hammer and a
screwdriver is more than the sum of the tasks you can do individually
with either!
Stephen Bishop
<mailno...@mydomain.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:08:22 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Hell, you may even see electronic shutters
>>although those compromise image quality so maybe not. But if they can
>>figure out how to do them without compromising image quality, then why
>>not?
>
>Where on earth did you get this nonsense?
>
>They already have them in P&S cameras that don't compromise anything in image
>quality. High-speed full-frame captures up to 1/40,000 of a second without any
>scanned bands of the sensor being read off the chip, as used to exist in all
>DSLR electronics. See this photo for DSLR sensor readout technology at work
>with high-speed objects.
>
>http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//b/b3/Sensor_readout_anomaly.jpg
>
>It's not bad enough that focal-plane shutters have their own image-distorting
>problems, but many of their sensors have this problem too.
>
>The curved bars are the propeller being slowly scanned electronically in
>horizontal banks across the sensor. That doesn't happen in any P&S cameras (that
>I know of).
>
>You people invent the silliest things to perpetuate on the net. No doubt due to
>your experiences with the lame electronic architecture and hardware of your
>DSLRs. You need to get out more and get away from that ancient camera design.
>
>I wonder what other technology you're going to steal from P&S cameras to try to
>make your DSLRs fully functional one day.
>
Why do you invent a different name for yourself each time you post
here?
You're happy with your little P&S, so just leave it at that. The fact
that other people do better work than you do with their better dslrs
shouldn't threaten you.
Stephen Bishop
<gfra...@youmustbekidding.org> wrote:
>On 5 Nov 2008 20:34:02 -0600, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>Camera companies are not stupid.
>
>No, but typical amateur-photographer consumers, are.
>
>Camera companies are all too willing to provide what those people will buy. Even
>better if the camera company can produce something for $10 and sell it for $1000
>dollars. As in the case of most DSLRs and all their required accessories. They
>could sell any DSLR glass, L-Glass included, for under $100 a shot. But you? Not
>knowing a thing, gleefully hand out your dough, just for the social-prestige of
>promoting an antiquated technology. And attempting, but failing, to look like a
>"Pro".
>
>Ain't this fun.
So seriously, whatever your name really is, where do you get this
whacky idea that the only people who buy dslr cameras are clueless
amateurs who don't know which end of the camera points where?
Stephen Bishop
<fno...@youwantthiswhy.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 11:29:33 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 21:07:43 -0600, Glenn-Franken
>><gfra...@youmustbekidding.org> wrote:
>>
>>>On 5 Nov 2008 20:34:02 -0600, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>>>
>>>>Camera companies are not stupid.
>>>
>>>No, but typical amateur-photographer consumers, are.
>>>
>>>Camera companies are all too willing to provide what those people will buy. Even
>>>better if the camera company can produce something for $10 and sell it for $1000
>>>dollars. As in the case of most DSLRs and all their required accessories. They
>>>could sell any DSLR glass, L-Glass included, for under $100 a shot. But you? Not
>>>knowing a thing, gleefully hand out your dough, just for the social-prestige of
>>>promoting an antiquated technology. And attempting, but failing, to look like a
>>>"Pro".
>>>
>>>Ain't this fun.
>>
>>FINALLY you admit that real pros use DSLRs.
>>
>>Ain't this fun.
>
>Yes, watching you make an even bigger fool of yourself is always fun.
>
>How you misread any of the above to admit(?) that real professionals all use
>DSLRs, is beyond me. It's an observation about those who are so stupid as to
>think they need a DSLR to be a "Pro" and throwing away exorbitant amounts of
>money in their attempts to do so.
>
>C'mon steve, are you reading usenet through your coke-bottle-bottom glasses
>again, and then just hitting the reply button, typing anything, and hoping it
>will make sense to someone other than you? No, wait. I've got it figured out.
>You are hoping someone will try to explain your ideas to you so they will
>finally make sense to you. That's it, isn't it.
>
>Stick your fingers in your ears and hum a tune, then you also don't have to
>actually take in any audio information while you sit there imagining what you
>want to see.
>
>I'm beginning to understand now why there's so little worthwhile photography in
>the world. With people as unperceptive as the "Steves" displaying an interest in
>photography how can any of them know when and where to click a shutter-button at
>the right time, let alone anything else.
OK, lets see examples of your worthwhile photography.
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
>On 8 Nov 2008 04:43:02 -0600, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Stephen Henning" <pig...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>news:pighash-4664BE...@news.isp.giganews.com...
>>> Their are quality P&S such as Leica Digital Rangefinders. There are
>>> lousy DSLR lenses such as the Olympus Zuiko 14-45 and 18-180. Good P&S
>>> are cheaper, smaller and lighter than good DSLR's because the sensor is
>>> smaller and hence the lens is smaller and much easier to make.
>>>
>>> According to early reviews, the new Canon G10 appears to be better than
>>> some of the poorer DSLRs. A DSLR only makes sense if you are using more
>>> than one lens. For those not needing specialized lenses, and wanting
>>> light weight compact models, the best P&S fit the bill nicely.
>>>
>>> The DSLR is still the workhorse camera for a person that wants a system
>>> camera, but for the typical amateur, they are no longer the only game in
>>> town.
>>
>>There are decent P&S cameras, such as the new Lumix and the G-10, as well as
>>the larger fixed-lens models with OVF. Our troll is correct, that some of
>>those fixed lens P&Ss such as those from Olympus, have a zoom range that
>>ends with the 35mm equivalent of a 500+mm lens at an aperture of around f/5.
>>Some even have resolutions equal to low-mid range DSLRs. The major fly in
>>the ointment is the noisiness of those tiny sensors: The Canon starts to
>>seriously fall apart at ISO 400 and the Panasonic, while a bit better, is
>>hardly in the class of a decent DSLR. It's simply physics. Nor are those
>>extreme zoom lenses of the quality of a good DSLR lens.
>>
>>But all told, these P&Ss are quite respectable for casual shooting: and
>>considering the performace to size and price, they are really pretty
>>astounding.
>>
>>There are apparently some possible advances on the horizon in terms of
>>sensors, and it is concievable that within five years P&Ss will essentially
>>match today's DSLRs in image quality (though not in handling or versatility
>>or lens quality achievable with interchangeables).
>>
>>Of course by that time larger-sensor cameras will be that much farther ahead
>>as well.
>>
>>Toby
>>
>
>Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
>bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
>continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
>newsgroup-troll and a fool.
Ummm... insulting people while repeating the same irrelevant points
does not make them true. Let's see your pictures that prove what you
believe really holds water.
>begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
Stephen Bishop
wrote:
Is there an echo in here??
marty-sedgeworth
Better work with their "better" dslrs? LOL. Okay, you keep believing that if you
want. But then why are you and they threatened by a pro using a P&S camera for
all their pro needs? Because it reveals something to them, and YOU, that they
can never possess nor buy. It's called "Talent". Ever hear of it? Try it
sometime. It'll save you tons of money and from having to carry backbreaking,
publicly annoying, last-century technology equipment as well as expand your
photographic possibilities and creativity. You'll never know this though, you
are like all the others that are convinced that you can buy "talent in a box".
Btw: "Threatening" has nothing behind the reason I do it. But you've already
proved you're not very bright.
Now to address your troll's off-topic portion of your post:
On Wed, 22 Oct 2008 08:01:16 -0400, "J. Clarke" <jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>Why don't you just use your real name and stay with it?
>
Good grief, the parade of resident-trolls never ends.
1. Because it drives resident-trolls up the wall and they're too amazingly
stupid to figure out why anyone would do it, even when just told why, so they
keep asking why.
2. Resident-trolls reveal themselves more rapidly so I know which ones they are
and then know to never take anything that they post seriously. They live on the
net with no real experiences, photographic or otherwise. Then I laugh when they
try to give advice to anyone. With luck, others might see how this works and
also realize who the resident-trolls are from the trolls having quickly outted
themselves.
3. I don't like promoting mindless followers. Let insecure need-to-be leaders
fall into that trap. They too are stupid enough.
4. To prove to others that your name is meaningless. What knowledge and wisdom
that you can convey is what matters. The ego of a public identity is of no real
use in life. The need for that is reserved for the terminally insecure.
5. I don't need any support from others to voice and back-up my opinions. The
moment that I find some mindless idiot applauding what I say from one day to the
next it's time to change names.
6. What good is a real name online. Are you coming for dinner? You'll bring the
wrong wine anyway. Just stay away because you're nothing but a fucking idiot.
You've already proved that. I don't allow idiots into my personal life. They're
for you to have as "friends". You deserve them, I don't.
7. If I didn't make this entertaining for myself I couldn't stand to be here
trying to help those that might deserve the help. The resident-trolls like
yourself make this tedious enough. It's not much, but the entertainment quotient
of watching resident-trolls, like you, freak out and jump around helps offset
the drawbacks. It's fun knowing how much of their day they waste trying to hunt
down everyone's names, sort them out, and make their meaningless screen-name
lists that only reveals their emotional and psychiatric problems.
8. I'm not so insecure that I need your recognition nor the recognition of
anyone. In fact if I got continual recognition from an idiot like you I'd
probably want to kill myself for having any connection at all with something as
amazingly stupid as you.
9. Posers can be crafty, it's their only life. They have perfected the art of
deception, self-deception, and being a useless psychotic pretender. It's all
they have in life. It's fun to take away their only reason for being. With luck
they'll finally put that oft-considered suicide option higher on their "What to
do today..." list.
10. Why do just one thing? With this technique I can not only help others but
amuse myself and kill 10 resident-usenet-trolls with one stone. Win win win, all
around.
11. I like typing lists at 130wpm and wasting 4.37 minutes of my time each day.
Because, after all, in the sage advice of Willy Wonka, "A little nonsense now
and then is relished by the wisest of men."
12. And sarcasm, when used judiciously I like sarcasm.
Now copy this post, convert it to a raster-graphic file (GIF format suggested to
conserve file-space), load it into your photo editor, flip it on its vertical
axis--once, print it up, use a staple-gun to affix the resulting print-out to
your upper-lip, then go look in the mirror. Repeat whenever you feel the need to
ask again.
Ray Fischer
No argument from me. I've carried my camera bag up to the top of
Mt. Lassen. I know that a good P&S can be nice to have.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
jerome-stax
>Correction. The purple fringing that plagues most P&S cameras is
>rarely seen in dslrs. The problem is partly the sensor, which is
>made worse by the small size of the P&S version. The other part of
>the problem is the extremely short focal lengths of lenses on P&S
>cameras.
>
I guess you've never seen this
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
I've seen tons of examples of purple-fringing and lateral CA in many photos
taken with DSLRs even with the best of lenses. You can't totally avoid lateral
CA in refractive glass optics, its part of the beast. The best you can do is try
to minimize it as much as possible. This recent camera test being just one
example of poor DSLR performance in this regard. What rock have you been hiding
under?
John McWilliams
All who've replied merely keep him posting, regardless if your post is
reasoning, sweet, truculent or wheedling, etc.
Please make an effort to realize his 111 names and 2-3 "styles". And
then don't reply.....
--
lsmft
I almost had a psychic girlfriend but she left me before we met.
[Stephen Wright]
dustin-pendelton
>Steven and anyone else replying to the pest.
>
>All who've replied merely keep him posting, regardless if your post is
>reasoning, sweet, truculent or wheedling, etc.
>
>Please make an effort to realize his 111 names and 2-3 "styles". And
>then don't reply.....
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some 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
begin with. The irony is that, by them thinking that they only need to throw
Stephen Bishop
Sorry, I've used many dslrs and p&s cameras and by far the p&s cameras
have more fringing than the dslrs. It is rarely if ever a problem
with any dslrs I've used.
Stephen Bishop
<jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>Steven and anyone else replying to the pest.
>
>All who've replied merely keep him posting, regardless if your post is
>reasoning, sweet, truculent or wheedling, etc.
>
>Please make an effort to realize his 111 names and 2-3 "styles". And
>then don't reply.....
Well ya gotta admit that he's entertaining.
Stephen Bishop
You've been invited multiple times to present your "pro" credentials
and give examples of your "talent." We're still waiting.
But apparently it's easier fo you to grind an axe that doesn't even
need sharpening. You think you get "pro" results with your p&s, so
just be happy and stay in that world you've created for yourself.
BTW, I can do very good work with a p&s. I know, I've done it. But
I can do far better work with my dslr, and my back hasn't broken yet.
Bravo! It took you how long to come up with that?
By any chance, do you have any nice portraits of your psychoanalyst
taken with your p&s?
RichA
"henry bates" <hba...@insertdomainhere.org> wrote in message
news:07f9i4hapah84ohnq...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 19:30:58 -0500, "RichA" <ob...@haslittletime.com>
> wrote:
>
>>P&S users are characteristically timid (creepy?) and lazy. They are too
>>timid to tote around and point at DSLR at anyone for fear of...what? That
>>they are too lazy to carry a DSLR goes without saying.
>>"Not bad" doesn't cut it. Why knowingly produce images that are "not bad"
>>unless your whole like consists of compromises leading to mediocrity?
>>My guess is ADA suffering P&S users compromise everywhere in life because
>>doing things well takes an effort.
>>
> 5. P&S cameras are lightweight
Just like their users.
Paul Furman
I have never commented like that before but come on...
Paul Furman
> Vern, <CashTownsend> wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>
>>> Although some P&S lenses are quite good, none are f/1.8 or faster,
>>> most have purple fringing CA problems & there are no really wide
>>> recitilear options on P&S.
>>>
>> You failed to read to what you are trying to refute. Already covered and
>> disputed. Points #1, #2, etc.
>>
>> Purple fringing is a problem of ALL digital cameras. It is NOT caused by the
>> lens, but by the sensor (are you actually this stupid?). Some DSLRs are worse in
>> this regard than the better P&S cameras. Purple fringing is not just in the
>> realm of P&S cameras. But only a moron would say something like that.
>
> Correction. The purple fringing that plagues most P&S cameras is
> rarely seen in dslrs. The problem is partly the sensor, which is
> made worse by the small size of the P&S version. The other part of
> the problem is the extremely short focal lengths of lenses on P&S
> cameras.
It used to be believed that purple fringing was sensor blooming, maybe
it is a part of how tiny pixels emphasize CA in the lens but mostly it
is CA of the sort that you see is super-fast DSLR lenses, or cheap
lenses. I think this is because it is challenging making such tiny
lenses and designing them on the far limits of speed (which still isn't
very fast). Yeah I know that's a pretty wish-washy answer but it's my
best understanding from quite a bit of reading on the subject over the
years and using a lot of different lenses. Feel free to add to that.
I've got a good enough reputation in here, I don't think I need to dig
up links. Take it for what it's worth. It doesn't really matter to me.
Anyways the effect is rare on DSLRs and ubiquitous on P&S as anyone knows.
>> Lenses faster than f/2.0 are often subject to optical aberrations due to being
>> difficult to figure properly.
Yep. Pretty much impossible for P&S, easy for normal focal lengths on
DSLRs harder for wide & super-tele. Yes there are some odd effects, they
are still very useful and can be stopped down to clean them up.
>> They can only be used effectively at one aperture
>> to gain optimum use from them.
Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without
losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play
with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul Furman
See figure 3 here:
http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html
That's purple fringing: axial/longitudinal chromatic aberration.
You only see it in super-fast lenses or cheap lenses in high contrast
and in most all P&S with high contrast scenes.
Paul Furman
RichA
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:otqVk.800$jZ1...@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Jesus Rich, no wonder I've got you plonked in most of these groups.
> I have never commented like that before but come on...
The one all-encompassing reason for buying a P&S is compactness. Everything
else (including quality) comes second. I've heard it 100x in camera stores.
Izzy Sammath
>
>>> They can only be used effectively at one aperture
>>> to gain optimum use from them.
>
>Almost true on P&S. Diffraction won't let you stop down much without
>losing resolution, maybe 2 stops of play versus 6 or more stops to play
>with on fast DSLR lenses on full frame.
>
Some people are revealing their ultimate ignorance and/or their ultimate
self-deception. It is DSLR lenses that are only optimized for one f-stop, P&S
lenses are optimized across the full f/stop spectrum. Due to the DSLR's larger
lens size their physical diameters aren't figured as accurately. They are only
figured as accurately as what the public will accept, due to the consumer's
inability to test their lenses to any greater degree than their sensor's larger
photo-site will allow.Please stop trying to display your financially-supported
biases and your apparently obvious ignorance.
You'd be surprised how much you reveal by your off-handed ignorant comments.
Seth Thomas
>Jesus Rich, no wonder I've got you plonked in most of these groups.
>I have never commented like that before but come on...
andie-barns
Quality is second? You've not used many P&S cameras in the last 3 years, have
you.
Here's a quick recent example where the P&S quality far surpasses the DSLR.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
Just one of hundreds that prove the P&S has surpassed the DSLR, long ago. Catch
up.
FuckingTrolls
>See figure 3 here:
>http://www.vanwalree.com/optics/chromatic.html
>That's purple fringing: axial/longitudinal chromatic aberration.
>You only see it in super-fast lenses or cheap lenses in high contrast
>and in most all P&S with high contrast scenes.
>
Oh dear, an insecure DSLR purchaser proposing a challenge. Let me find all the
links that show even worse lateral CA on all DSLR lenses.
Can you be any more lame? The same CA exists on ALL cameras.