P&S Teleconverters
Eric Stevens
telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000JILHF0/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
"If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
in, or better still, a digital SLR."
"This lens works very well outdoors or when there is a lot of light
but is terrible indoors and takes very dark grainy photos. The
photos taken outside with full sun exposure were very good though.
Another problem is that for closer subjects you will see a circle
in the center of your photo until you zoom out enough to move past
this circle. "
"this add-on lens completely obscures the view through the optical
viewfinder, so you have to rely on the LCD screen for framing your
shots. You will need good light to be using a shutter speed that is
fast enough to hold the camera at arm's length, like you need to do
to see the screen, and the visibility of the screen in bright
sunlight can be less than ideal. It can be done. A tripod or
monopod would work better, provided your subject doesn't move
too quickly or erratically. My percentage of keepers shooting birds
in flight, for example, was pretty low. "
"While the G7/G9 lens zooms from 35mm to 210mm (equivalent in
35mm terms), and this 2x converter gets you out to 420mm at the
long end, you can't use it down to the 70mm (=2x35mm)you might
expect, as you will run into severe vignetting. I *think* you can
use it for all or most of the range above 210mm. "
The Nikon TC-E3ED 3X teleconvertor lens from Amazon
http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B00005218D/ref=dp_top_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
"When I first saw tis lens I was excited about the possibility of
converting my coolpix from a 38-115mm to a 114-345mm lens.
Since this lens front mounts to the existing lens it vignettes at
the wider end of the lens all the way to approx 85mm. Leaving
you with an effective approx. range of only 250-345mm. While
shooting in this range you better have a lot of light on your
subject or a tripod. Otherwise you will get the predictable blurs
from using such a long lens hand held. Since the cool pix is not
the greatest in low light situations this extender compounds those
blur problems. It also blocks the crappy built in flash if you are
using it. Another problem you may notice is the size of this
converter. It's huge for such a small camera. If you bring your
camera for some quick snaps you may not want to lug this lens
around."
... there is a down side.
Eric Stevens
Dudley Hanks
"Eric Stevens" <eric.s...@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:q67vg4l7e8o68nqte...@4ax.com...
If people are careful when they buy their p&s, there's no reason to use a
converter.
How many times have we seen DSLR shooters post pics taken with a zoom ending
in the 200mm range? Picking up a p&s with a 200mm zoom isn't that
difficult, and I doubt there are many times when the typical family /
recreational pic will need anything longer.
If one does need something longer, cameras in the 400mm to +500mm range are
available for a cheaper cost than an equivalent DSLR setup.
As for the p&s teleconverters, themselves, as noted above, it is possible to
find some that give good results in bright sunlight. While the setup isn't
going to work for indoor concerts, sporting events, etc, I'm guessing most
people would buy something like that mainly for outdoor usage. Typically, a
420mm lens just isn't going to be of much use at a family reunion,
kindergarten xmas concert, etc...
Just my thoughts,
Dudley
Toby
Thanks for your comments. I believe that Eric posted this to debunk the
rantings of a delusional troll who has been posting absurd and grandiose
claims for prime tele attachments on P&Ss on this NG.
Toby
"Dudley Hanks" <photos....@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in message
news:fXNPk.97$A73.42@edtnps82...
ResidentTrollSpotter
Yes, there is a downside. Listening to your lame, inexperienced, DSLR-troll
advice is the biggest downside. You list the 2 worst ones made. To top it off,
you take the words of those who don't even know how to use their camera
properly. That alone is proved in their descriptions of how they use their
cameras and lenses.
But then ... how would YOU know that. You've NEVER held any camera. You prove
that over and over and over again.
bugbear
> ... there is a down side.
In other news there is NO ultimate camera.
Resolution, sharpness, convenience, ease of use,
weight, cost, speed of response all vary,
and in some cases conflict.
BugBear
Toby
"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
news:DO6dnS8_kf2jg43U...@posted.plusnet...
And that is the basic truth of the matter. Each type of camera and lens and
accessory offers some advantages and some disadvantages. Wise users research
the pros and cons of each, and then make an informed choice according to
their needs and desires.
Toby
TrentBaxter
Those even more wise, borne of lifetime of true real-world photography
experience, attempt to correct just a small portion of all the blatant
misinformation and foolishness that is being ignorantly spread by others--those
hoards of internet-idiots who know no better than to parrot what they've read
elsewhere.
Their ignorance and inexperienced opinions corrected with lists like this:
In case you missed them, here's just a few of the vast benefits of P&S cameras
and the huge related drawbacks of ALL DSLRs (some sections further edited for
clarity):
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) (100% proved in another thread.)
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5), and higher quality
full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views
than any DSLR and its glass in existence. (100% proved in another thread.)
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg )
4. P&S cameras are silent. They will not endanger your life when photographing
potentially dangerous wildlife by alerting them to your presence. Or for the
more common snap-shooter/photographer, you will not be barred from using your
camera at public events and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots,
you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious
noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images.
5. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. Allowing
you to capture fast subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings)
WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light
alone. Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane
shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed
with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example image link in #7.)
6. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations.
Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter
distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
8. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast, able to
capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may capture more elusive
and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence
at all might prevent their appearance. Without the need of carrying a tethered
laptop along or any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your
range, distance, and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image.
It also allows for unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a
time, so that you may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in
nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a
mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse
hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the
creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all here.
See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
9. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or concrete while you do, and not
worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having gotten
dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no longer
weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to carry
more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek much
further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks.
10. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
11. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice.
12. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
13. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
14. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
15. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
16. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
17. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
18. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the background included is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
19. ..... this is getting tedious, restating again just some of the
resident-troll's misinformation that I've already disproved, dozens of times
over. I just thought it might be fun to list a few of them all in one place to
make their glaringly obvious stupidity (and the ignorance and inexperience of
all the other virtual-photographer DSLR-trolls) even more glaringly obvious to
the world.
Roy G
"ResidentTrollSpotter" <spam...@uknownisp.org> wrote in message
news:vb40h41srn8tr0lc6...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 14:32:50 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.s...@sum.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
>>For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
>>>>>>Snipped
>>... there is a down side.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Eric Stevens
>
> Yes, there is a downside. Listening to your lame, inexperienced,
> DSLR-troll
> advice is the biggest downside. You list the 2 worst ones made. To top it
> off,
> you take the words of those who don't even know how to use their camera
> properly. That alone is proved in their descriptions of how they use their
> cameras and lenses.
>
> But then ... how would YOU know that. You've NEVER held any camera. You
> prove
> that over and over and over again.
>
You are saying that he lists only the 2 worst ones.
How often have I asked you to tell us which "High Quality" ones you claim to
use.
Your failure to respond leaves the field open for others to make counter
claims. So why are you complaining.
Put up or shut up.
Roy G
Roy G
"TrentBaxter" <tba...@noneofyourbusiness.org> wrote in message
news:5sa0h45hok08ic5ts...@4ax.com...
> On 4 Nov 2008 04:30:03 -0600, "Toby" <kymar...@ybb.ne.jpp> wrote:
>
>>
>>"bugbear" <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim> wrote in message
>>news:DO6dnS8_kf2jg43U...@posted.plusnet...
>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
>>>> ... there is a down side.
>>>
>>> In other news there is NO ultimate camera.
>>>
>>> Resolution, sharpness, convenience, ease of use,
>>> weight, cost, speed of response all vary,
>>> and in some cases conflict.
>>
>>And that is the basic truth of the matter. Each type of camera and lens
>>and
>>accessory offers some advantages and some disadvantages. Wise users
>>research
>>the pros and cons of each, and then make an informed choice according to
>>their needs and desires.
>>
>>Toby
>>
>
> Those even more wise, borne of lifetime of true real-world photography
> experience,
> all the other virtual-photographer DSLR-trolls) even more glaringly
> obvious to
> the world.
>
I do not make claims for any particular type of equipment, and happen to
agree with Toby.
You make claims for only one type of equipment, and seem to state that P & S
cameras are the ultimate in every respect.
Worse, you very clearly insult the intelligence of anyone who does not agree
with you.
You never seem to post on any other topic, except to extoll the virtues of P
& S or damn the shortcomings of SLRs.
You keep changing your alias, and have replied to your own postings using
another alias.
AND you seem unwilling or unable to specify which make or models you use.
It is long past the time for you to come clean, and start giving some real
information, instead of just spouting far fetched theory and poisonous bile.
Steve
On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:09:51 -0600, TrentBaxter
<tba...@noneofyourbusiness.org> wrote:
[...]
>In case you missed them, here's just a few of the vast benefits of P&S cameras
>and the huge related drawbacks of ALL DSLRs (some sections further edited for
>clarity):
>
[snipped a bunch of crap but I figured I'd comment on this one:]
>7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations.
>Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter
>distortions, e.g.
>http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
>do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
I've taken a lot of pictures of helicopters and prop planes with a
DSLR and the blades in all sorts of various directios and not one
shows a curved blade like that
[snipped a whole bunch more crap]
You can spout all the reasons you think P&S cameras are better but the
fact remains that DSLRs and good lenses in general have much better
image quality than any P&S.
Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed,
the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly
by using physical dials and buttons instead of going through onscreen
menus) is most important, use a DSLR. Where convenience is most
important, use a P&S. That's why I have several of both.
Steve
frank_temmor
>Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed,
>the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly
>by using physical dials and buttons
That's why I would rather choose the P&S cameras that I have. Every button,
option, and adjustment that I need is right under each finger. Only the
occasionally used options are on menus, usually no more than 1 click away. The
image quality is about the same as, and in some instances (DSLR glass dependent)
can even be better from my P&S cameras. Shutter-lag is shorter on my P&S cameras
too because I rarely depend on auto-anything. Real pros are like that. I might
use the "instant AF override" button press to get the lens into the range I need
rapidly, but then I focus manually. See, I know how to use my cameras, most do
not. You have revealed that you do not.
You need to learn how to do your research before wasting your money on cameras
that won't do what you want them to do.
If you think a DSLR is the only kind that will do what you need and want, you
are sorely mistaken, and a REALLY bad shopper. Then on top of it, because of
your stupidity and ignorance you advise all others to follow in your footsteps.
How completely foolish.
J. Clarke
> On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 05:09:51 -0600, TrentBaxter
> <tba...@noneofyourbusiness.org> wrote:
>
> [...]
>> In case you missed them, here's just a few of the vast benefits of
>> P&S cameras and the huge related drawbacks of ALL DSLRs (some
>> sections further edited for clarity):
>>
> [snipped a bunch of crap but I figured I'd comment on this one:]
>> 7. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
>> limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
>> (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
>> http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
>> do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground,
>> 90-degrees
>
> I've taken a lot of pictures of helicopters and prop planes with a
> DSLR and the blades in all sorts of various directios and not one
> shows a curved blade like that
Nontheless that is a known issue with focal plane shutters when
photographing propellers at high shutter speed.
> [snipped a whole bunch more crap]
>
> You can spout all the reasons you think P&S cameras are better but
> the
> fact remains that DSLRs and good lenses in general have much better
> image quality than any P&S.
>
> Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed,
> the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly
> by using physical dials and buttons instead of going through
> onscreen
> menus) is most important, use a DSLR. Where convenience is most
> important, use a P&S. That's why I have several of both.
Know what they do, use what you need.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
ASAAR
anti-DSLR sock puppet troll wrote:
> 4. P&S cameras are silent.
Then you are a DSLR, Biddy.
Me Here
> telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
>
> The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
> http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000JILHF0/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
>
> "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
> cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
> already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
> focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
> in, or better still, a digital SLR."
>
>
>
Al_Parker
That would only be true for some snapshooter that has to depend on
auto-everything. REAL pros know how to use hyperfocal settings and manual focus,
making the lag-time of P&S cameras even less than *all* DSLRs. But then ...
you'll never know this, you're a troll that's never figured out how to use ANY
camera professionally.
Steve
>On Tue, 04 Nov 2008 13:20:14 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Pick the tool for the purpose. Where image quality, reaction speed,
>>the ability to change important settings (Tv, Av, ISO, etc.) quickly
>>by using physical dials and buttons
>
>That's why I would rather choose the P&S cameras that I have. Every button,
>option, and adjustment that I need is right under each finger. Only the
>occasionally used options are on menus, usually no more than 1 click away. The
>image quality is about the same as, and in some instances (DSLR glass dependent)
>can even be better from my P&S cameras. Shutter-lag is shorter on my P&S cameras
>too because I rarely depend on auto-anything. Real pros are like that. I might
>use the "instant AF override" button press to get the lens into the range I need
>rapidly, but then I focus manually. See, I know how to use my cameras, most do
>not. You have revealed that you do not.
>
>You need to learn how to do your research before wasting your money on cameras
>that won't do what you want them to do.
Why do you think I have both and use the one that's appropriate for
the situation?
>If you think a DSLR is the only kind that will do what you need and want, you
>are sorely mistaken, and a REALLY bad shopper. Then on top of it, because of
>your stupidity and ignorance you advise all others to follow in your footsteps.
>How completely foolish.
A DSLR is the only kind that will do what I want in certain
situations. The fact that you don't realize that and think a P&S can
do everything proves just foolish you really are and how little you
really know about cameras.
Steve
RichA
"hyperfocal" distance isn't something someone wants every time and is
useless if you are talking about something that simply can't be captured
with a dog-slow response time.
Also, "add on" teleconverters are putrid when it comes to optical quality.
I've never seen one yet that didn't horribly degrade the original lens's
image. But then P&S lenses, especially "superzooms" at their longest length
have so many optical aberrations and so many focus problems people using
crappy teleconverters probably don't even notice the difference.
"Al_Parker" <keepyo...@anonymouse.com> wrote in message
news:ebk1h4hq3vca5vj8b...@4ax.com...
Brandon Grant
>P&S's are cursed when it comes to lag time. They stink, and a wide
>"hyperfocal" distance isn't something someone wants every time and is
>useless if you are talking about something that simply can't be captured
>with a dog-slow response time.
>Also, "add on" teleconverters are putrid when it comes to optical quality.
>I've never seen one yet that didn't horribly degrade the original lens's
>image. But then P&S lenses, especially "superzooms" at their longest length
>have so many optical aberrations and so many focus problems people using
>crappy teleconverters probably don't even notice the difference.
>
And thus, you quickly reveal your amateurish photography ability and lack of
experiences with better P&S cameras and their related accessories so quickly and
completely.
How does it feel to have outted yourself as a totally inexperienced DSLR troll?
Toby
don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I do
demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would be a
simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his claims. His
consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he is so frightened
of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a simple matter to
heavily edit the files in a way that would make them unsuitable for use. He
could easily overlay a thick grid, through which the frame could still be
seen.
He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues, who
gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.
Toby
"Roy G" <roy.g...@virgin.net> wrote in message
news:3MWPk.40700$D04....@newsfe25.ams2...
Toby
"Brandon Grant" <bgr...@ipt.aol.com> wrote in message
news:8sp1h4pu3h8buq0di...@4ax.com...
Just more garbage spewing from this troll, Not a single shred of evidence to
back up his assertions.
Toby
John McWilliams
> My sentiments exactly. I am perfectly willing to be educated (I certainly
> don't claim omniscience). I don't even really mind being insulted, but I do
> demand some proof of the assertions this character is making. It would be a
> simple matter for him to post some pics somewhere to back up his claims. His
> consistent refusal to do so obviously discredits him. If he is so frightened
> of people ripping off his magnificent work it would be a simple matter to
> heavily edit the files in a way that would make them unsuitable for use. He
> could easily overlay a thick grid, through which the frame could still be
> seen.
>
> He's nothing but an immature individual with extreme emotional issues, who
> gets off on in a masturbatory way through this kind of trolling.
That's why most have ceased replying to him.
Please put your replies following what you respond to.
--
john mcwilliams
Toby
"John McWilliams" <jp...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:BNSdnfFJAKx9v4zU...@comcast.com...
Yes, I will stop replying as well.
Though I understand the reason for your request, and I know that many people
consider top-posters to be a step down the evolutionary ladder, I sometimes
prefer to place my response at the top where it is easily visible when
reading through threads (especially if the individual messages get very
long).
There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
this time at the bottom.
Toby
>
Eric Stevens
Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups. I understand the
problem when the thread has grown so long that it is multiple
scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new text is, but
the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_ rubbish at
the top and mark the fact that have done so with
--- snip --- [snip] [snippage] or something similar.
This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to threads
becoming intolerably long.
Eric Stevens
robert_manx
These off-topic control-freak comments (as are all your off-topic comments in
all threads) and the resulting replies that are coming from someone without a
spine, kneeling to your advice, are what is commonly referred to in
animal-behavior studies as "displacement activity".
Google and educate yourself.
ASAAR
>> There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
>> this time at the bottom.
>
> Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
> long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups.
Yes.
> I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it
> is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new
> text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_
> rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with
Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to
get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies
are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be
placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was
done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist.
Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it
will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses.
> This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
> but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to
> threads becoming intolerably long.
Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
trim the irrelevant text.
Toby
"ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote in message
news:bs23h41qi8il8rarg...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>> There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place
>>> it
>>> this time at the bottom.
>>
>> Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
>> long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it
>> is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new
>> text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_
>> rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with
>
> Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to
> get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies
> are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be
> placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was
> done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist.
> Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it
> will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses.
I agree that inline posting is always appropriate when the reply is specific
to particular parts of a message. And it is clear that top posting confuses
the hierarchy of messages in a long thread. But I still think that top
posting can be appropriate in many cases, especially if the reply does not
directly reference the earlier text.
I also recognize that generally this is not considered appropriate posting
etiquette on usenet.
>
>> This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
>> but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to
>> threads becoming intolerably long.
>
> Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
> could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
> Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
> and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
> were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
> re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
> trim the irrelevant text.
OTOH I presently scroll past reams of text, vainly looking for replies, only
to find a three-word response buried a number of pages down. This is more
than annoying. In a perfect world text would be trimmed appropriately, but
given that that is never going to happen, I think that at times top posting
can be justified for speed and visibility, although I know that is not a
popular view here.
But things evolve according to the exigencies of the time, and just as we
are now dropping the 'm' from the objective case of 'who' and saying,
'that's the place I went' without collective gasps of horror, I think you
are fighting a rearguard action against top posting.
FWIW,
Toby
John McWilliams
> "ASAAR" <cau...@22.com> wrote in message
>> Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
>> could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
>> Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
>> and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
>> were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
>> re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
>> trim the irrelevant text.
>
> OTOH I presently scroll past reams of text, vainly looking for replies, only
> to find a three-word response buried a number of pages down. This is more
> than annoying. In a perfect world text would be trimmed appropriately, but
> given that that is never going to happen, I think that at times top posting
> can be justified for speed and visibility, although I know that is not a
> popular view here.
>
> But things evolve according to the exigencies of the time, and just as we
> are now dropping the 'm' from the objective case of 'who' and saying,
> 'that's the place I went' without collective gasps of horror, I think you
> are fighting a rearguard action against top posting.
Thanks, Toby for a reasoned and polite response; all too rare in 2008.
Yes, trimming is really the thing, and I try to do so in every post,
esp. if I'm contributing such gems as "Me, too!" or "OMG I am so LOL".
I try to think that if I spend one second deleting pages of garbage,
it'll save hundreds some fraction of a second in non-scrolling. Same
with watching where replies are going, but here some are just ignorant
of where they go; others don't care, and still others do so to be annoying.
There's also an add-on or two for OE, so that sig lines are auto-trimmed
if properly formatted, the old dash dash space return.
--
John McWilliams
ASAAR
> But things evolve according to the exigencies of the time, and just as we
> are now dropping the 'm' from the objective case of 'who' and saying,
> 'that's the place I went' without collective gasps of horror, I think you
> are fighting a rearguard action against top posting.
Nope, I'm not fighting it at all. At most I criticize some who
provide elaborate but faulty justifications for top posting or as
you noted, appending a three word response below pages of quotes.
As for these types of replies, they never really bothered me, they
just lost a wee bit of respect for such posters. How do you feel
about the new (well, it's been going on for years) penchant for
people, in real life and in commercials to say things such as "That
was the funnest movie I've seen!" or "I had the funnest time."?
Even my spell checker balks at those two examples. :)
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated." -- Baby Hughey
Eric Stevens
<bob...@keepyourmail.net> wrote:
>
>
TOP POSTING CORRECTED
It's not a question of being a control freak. Usenet is not email.
When you respond to a complex point in an article it makes sense to do
so after the point in question. That's why I'm responding to you after
your text and not before it. It makes it easier for other people to
follow the argument. Of course, if you don't want that ....
Eric Stevens
Eric Stevens
>On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 22:35:58 +1300, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>> There are advantages both ways, but in deference to your request I place it
>>> this time at the bottom.
>>
>> Posting at the bottom of the thread makes sense and is the
>> long-standing (+20yr) convention for news groups.
>
> Yes.
>
>
>> I understand the problem when the thread has grown so long that it
>> is multiple scroll-downs before you get to the bottom where the new
>> text is, but the way to deal with that is to delete all the _irrelevant_
>> rubbish at the top and mark the fact that have done so with
>
> Yes and no. Yes, it's a problem when much scrolling is needed to
>get to new text. No, bottom posting won't be a problem if replies
>are *properly* bottom posted. The entire reply text should not be
>placed at the bottom, but in pieces at appropriate locations (as was
>done in this reply) and the bottom posting problem won't exist.
>Each part of the reply will be much easier to understand since it
>will immediately follow the quoted text that it addresses.
I agree entirely.
>
>
>> This used to matter in the old days when every line posted counted
>> but, even now, it matters when interminable arguments lead to
>> threads becoming intolerably long.
>
> Another reason why it mattered in the old days was because people
>could read text much faster than it was delivered by slow modems.
>Being able to quickly scroll past reams of text was not possible,
>and if you watched the screen as many replies were retrieved, you
>were quite aware that a lot of time was wasted reading and
>re-reading the same text posted by those too clueless or too lazy to
>trim the irrelevant text.
But then came Microsoft email which instructed people to top post.
This might be OK for short messages but Usenet is not email.
Eric Stevens
SMS
> For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
> telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
>
> The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
> http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000JILHF0/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
>
> "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
> cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
> already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
> focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
> in, or better still, a digital SLR."
<snip>
You have to be really careful when choosing tele-converters and wide
angle converters. You don't need to choose the same brand as the camera.
Find the best tele-converter on the market, and find a lens tube and
adapters that connect it to the camera. I.e., the wide angle converter I
got for my Canon G series was not the Canon brand, it was much higher
end and much more expensive, and it worked with the Lensmate tube. Of
course it was also discontinued, greatly increasing the resale value on
eBay!
Needless to say, you can spend a lot of money on a kludge with those
conversion lenses, and achieve only moderate results. That's why the
advent of reasonably priced digital SLRs has destroyed the market for
high end point and shoot cameras.
The Panasonic G1 is essentially a high-end point and shoot but with
interchangeable lenses. For someone willing to put up with the major
disadvantages of a P&S, but that wants lenses for wide-angle and
telephot, the G1 at least is better than the kludgey adapters, but it's
certainly no bargain compared to a D-SLR that has far more capability.
Dudley Hanks
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:4FoQk.6222$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> For those tempted to believe that P&S cameras might be able to offer
>> telephoto capabilities similar to a DSLR see:
>>
>> The Canon TC-DC58C teleconvertor on Amazon
>> http://www.amazon.com/review/product/B000JILHF0/ref=dp_db_cm_cr_acr_txt?_encoding=UTF8&showViewpoints=1
>>
>> "If you want a field-of-view equivalent to a 420mm lens on 35mm film
>> cameras, but not all the time, this is a good choice, assuming you
>> already have a G7 or G9. If you are a frequent user of such long
>> focal lengths, you will likely prefer a camera that has it built
>> in, or better still, a digital SLR."
>
> <snip>
>
> You have to be really careful when choosing tele-converters and wide angle
> converters. You don't need to choose the same brand as the camera. Find
> the best tele-converter on the market, and find a lens tube and adapters
> that connect it to the camera. I.e., the wide angle converter I got for my
> Canon G series was not the Canon brand, it was much higher end and much
> more expensive, and it worked with the Lensmate tube. Of course it was
> also discontinued, greatly increasing the resale value on eBay!
>
> Needless to say, you can spend a lot of money on a kludge with those
> conversion lenses, and achieve only moderate results. That's why the
> advent of reasonably priced digital SLRs has destroyed the market for high
> end point and shoot cameras.
It would seem Canon never got that memo. With the introduction of the
Powershot SX 1 / 10 cameras, it has that market covered. By the time you
pick up a p&s camera, a wide angle and tele converter, you will likely have
shelled out more than the cost of either of these models, and your pics
won't be as good.
Also, with the SX 1 / 10 cameras, you can start building up some flash
accessories which will work with EOS DSLRs, should your interest in
photography develop as your skills increase...
Take Care,
Dudley
SMS
> It would seem Canon never got that memo. With the introduction of the
> Powershot SX 1 / 10 cameras, it has that market covered.
Yes, I was referring to the high end P&S cameras like the G10.
> By the time you
> pick up a p&s camera, a wide angle and tele converter, you will likely have
> shelled out more than the cost of either of these models, and your pics
> won't be as good.
Yes, it's true, but the SX1/SX10 leave out other important features like
the ability to use filters, though perhaps a third party will make a
tube that mounts to the grooves for the lens hood attachment. At least
with the G10 you can use a lens tube and have filters in addition to the
junky converter lenses.
> Also, with the SX 1 / 10 cameras, you can start building up some flash
> accessories which will work with EOS DSLRs, should your interest in
> photography develop as your skills increase...
Same with the G10 (as far as the flash).
It's just silly to try all these work-arounds when something like the
XSi is so much more capable for not much more money. You're building a
system that will grow with your skills from the get-go, rather than
spending a ton of money on interim solutions. I was one of those people
that tried the converter lenses. You get decent results in some
circumstances, but it's a huge kludge. A ZLR is a better choice if you
need wide-angle or telephoto, but it's an interim step to a D-SLR which
solves the inherent limitations of a P&S.
Toby
>
> Yes, trimming is really the thing, and I try to do so in every post, esp.
> if I'm contributing such gems as "Me, too!" or "OMG I am so LOL".
>
> I try to think that if I spend one second deleting pages of garbage, it'll
> save hundreds some fraction of a second in non-scrolling. Same with
> watching where replies are going, but here some are just ignorant of where
> they go; others don't care, and still others do so to be annoying.
After due consideration, I think that is the answer for me: to take the
extra seconds to remove extraneous text and post inline. I'm not by nature a
neat person in my own sphere, but I do try to be considerate to others and I
try not to spread my garbage around. I appreciate you bringing it to my
attention.
Thanks to you too for your politeness. It is, as you point out, rare.
Toby
SMS
> Also, with the SX 1 / 10 cameras, you can start building up some flash
> accessories which will work with EOS DSLRs, should your interest in
> photography develop as your skills increase...
Yes, it's true that at least the SX1 and SX10 obviate the need for those
horrid tele-converter and wide-angle adapters.
But the SX1, with the CMOS sensor, will be about $650 (and it's not
being released in the U.S. for now). How big is the market for a large,
$650, point and shoot camera, when D-SLR bodies are available for under
$400? Apparently Canon doesn't think it's too big since they aren't
marketing it in the U.S..
Love that 28mm-560mm lens, at least on paper, but those types of zooms
invariable have quality issues at each end, while doing okay in the
middle. Plus you're still putting up with all the other drawabacks of a
P&S, such as the poor dynamic range and the slow AF.
When D-SLRs were over $1000, there was a big market for those super-zoom
P&S models. Now they don't sell well because they were selling them
mainly to enthusiasts that have upgraded to SLRs. Selling expensive P&S
super-zooms to people that don't understand anything about photographic
equipment may not be the best marketing plan.
HarleyTJ
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
newsgroup-troll and a fool.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
RichA
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:NEGSk.6331$x%.4763@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
David J Taylor
> ALL p&s's have sub-par lenses, all of them. That won't change.
But the lenses may be adequate for the job, even if not reaching your high
standards.
David
glen thomas
>ALL p&s's have sub-par lenses, all of them. That won't change.
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
> bullshit.
1. P&S cameras only have 3x zoom range, at most.
2. P&S cameras cannot reach range nor aperture of SLRs, and
where they can, they still cannot compete.
3. P&S cameras have shitty dynamic range.
4. P&S cameras are cheap. Not price worthy, cheap.
5. P&S cameras are badly built and inconvenient to use.
6. P&S cameras have annoying fake shutter sounds.
7. Some P&S cameras have a ridiculous display lag of half a
second or worse.
8. P&S cameras are so slow to focus and to show what they see
right now, a negative shutter lag is commonly needed.
9. P&S cameras have terrible weak flashes and no hot shoes.
10. P&S cameras suffer from heavily distorting lenses.
11. When being off the beaten path, P&S cameras have empty batteries
all the time. Changing them often drops the camera into salt
water, on rocks or in the mud.
12. P&S cameras can't produce macro shots, only dark, distorted
close ups --- and they need ugly direct flash to produce
even that.
13. P&S cameras include video and audio modes designed to
frighten small children by their quality. If they'd been
filming the Hindenburg or Kennedy, all one could see would
be Kennedy bursting into flames or the Hindenburg parading
through streets.
14. P&S cameras have no viewfinder, though a few have a 'dark
hole'.
15. P&S cameras give up focussing at LV6, making them unable to
focus indoors even in daytime.
16. With the need to use their ineffective, puny flash in all
situations, a P&S shooter was trampled to death by an irate
moose.
17. Due to their distortions, CA, rolling shutter effect and
complete colour inaccuracy, people needing even a minimum
of acuracy abhor P&S cameras even more than the devil abhors
holy water.
18. P&S cameras have miss and miss autofocussing, using slow and
painful and noisy lens movements to zero in. P&S also cannot
switch off any of their automatic, misguessing mechanisms.
19. An electronic viewfinder as found in most P&S cameras, is a
terrible source of lag and shows what you'd have gotten had
you pressed the shutter release half a second ago.
20. P&S camera bokeh and 'shallow' DOF isn't in intercontinental
missile range compared to DSLRs.
21. P&S cameras are perfect noise generators for cryptographic
needs.
22. P&S cameras will not allow you to make stunning photographs
unless you can make even better ones with SLRs.
23. Have you ever shown a P&S troll a SLR snapshot? Try it.
See him rotate like mad trying to produce something similar.
Watch him invent new swear words for lag, bokeh, DOF, and
so on.
24. Did we mention always flat batteries and inability to see
anything in sunlight and noise-only shots without direct
sunlight yet? Watch them carry more P&S and more expensive
gear than a full collection of all Canon lenses and still fail.
25. A good P&S camera is one that's stolen so you can buy a
real camera. Unfortunately, even street beggars will give
you money because they pity you and your P&S crap.
> 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
pure crap, unless you want to go begging in the streets.
> The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
> one short phrase:
"Take a P&S when you *don't* want to take photos."
-Wolfgang
Wolfgang Weisselberg
> Eric Stevens wrote:
>> ... there is a down side.
> In other news there is NO ultimate camera.
> Resolution, sharpness, convenience, ease of use,
> weight, cost, speed of response all vary,
> and in some cases conflict.
I'll take a slice of bread as a camera. It's not very good at
taking pictures, but at least it's easy to eat, conveniently
bought, cheap, light, and fast eaten. Who needs resolutions or
a sharp crust?
See, a slice of bread beats a P&S camera hands down. :->
-Wolfgang