Response to P&S reasons list
Paul Furman
P&S guy <man of many names> wrote:
> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
No, it is not seamless.
> 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
> DSLR glass in existence.
The more expensive ones can but there is no free lunch: the smaller
sensor gathers less light and is more noisy. Diffraction limits how much
you can stop down which just empasizes the fact that there's less range
to work with.
> 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
This is complete nonsense!
> 4. P&S cameras are cost efficient.
Agreed. The improvement in a DSLR for the money shows a declining return.
> 5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient.
Yep. Although the better ones are as big & expensive as a DSLR, if you
want the zoom range in a smaller size, P&S is king. As long as you are
shooting in full sun.
> 6. P&S cameras are silent.
Yep, if this is important, get one.
> 7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them,
That is pretty cool I will admit. Kinda geeky but yeah I'd like to see
more of this in the future. Shame on them all for not allowing more of
this but that probably will be the trend. I'll bet that hack doesn't
work on the newest crop of P&S anyways. If you have a real need for this
or desire to tinker, get an old P&S for that. Cheers!
> 8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second.
Very rarely useful or meaningful but yeah if you need that for a science
project by all means get one.
> 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
> of 1/40,000th of a second.
Same deal as #8. With shutter speeds that fast you don't get much out of
the flash so it's not useful or meaningful.
> 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.
Rarely useful or meaningful. Those problems were minimized to
irrelevance decades ago for the vast majority of situations. I've
certainly never encountered the problem.
> 11. ...change lenses
Right, no lens changing with P&S. You can always get an 18-200 for a
DSLR though.
> 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.
See #2 (no free lunch). Cranking ISO on a DSLR evens them out & makes it
a wash. It is easier to get macros on a P&S but DSLR macros have better
quality, commensurate with #4 (declining return). In the end, people
serious about macro shooting do not use P&S. I personally hate flash but
serious macro shooters get nice natural results with two flashes mounted
to the sides, or even one on a bracket.
> 13. P&S cameras include video
And so do DSLRs now, and cell phones for that matter.
> 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder
And DSLRs have live view now. I don't use it on mine much but it's
there. The little bit of crop doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as
a little grainy washed out LCD view in the sun.
> 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.
And so do DSLRs now. Rarely useful or meaningful but yeah.
> 16. Without the need to use flash in all situations... you are not disturbing your wildlife
Very rarely useful or meaningful but yeah.
> 17. ...focal-plane shutter
de ja vu!
> 18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times
Yes this is a problem for P&S in the real world.
> 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
Yeah I thought I would miss real live view but I don't and now that I
have it again I don't use it, the optical viewfinder is that much
better, it really is.
> 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
Possible but rarely practical to back up 500 feet. You are simply
rationalizing a big limitation here. DSLRs have a whole lot more
flexibility in this regard.
> 21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
> just as much resolution as any DSLR camera.
LOL then why don't studio photographers use them :-)
I agree it's not a big difference in bright sun but...
> 22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
> determine the quality of your photography.
It merely expands possibilities but yes you can take good shots on the
crappiest cell phone.
> 23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
> photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro"
Go ahead, put us to shame :-)
I've done & seen lots of great photography from compact digitals but
somehow I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that from you.
> 24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did
Yep, that's why I'm thinking of getting one.
> 25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent.
OK.
> The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!"
Not at all, it's a trade-off and modest P&S are a much much better value
for most people. High-end P&S have their place where you need long zoom
on a compact body and some other peculiar reasons but in my biased
opinion, most people would get better party/vacation/baby/garden pics
with an entry level DSLR if they are willing to spend over $500 and a
couple brain cells. For tighter budgets, simplicity and portability, P&S
makes a *lot* more sense and you can certainly take spectacular photos
on a P&S. They are simply amazing these days under good lighting.
I *would* recommend a compact P&S though to anyone for the portability.
There's a lot to be said for a camera that you actually have with you.
If pocket size isn't a requirement (and it often is) I'd recommend a
compact fixed normal to wide-ish lens on a small DSLR over a super zoom
P&S to most people for most situations (budget permitting) though I
recognize that doesn't play well in the marketing. If I was looking for
a $800 camera to meet all my needs (and most people) it would be a
compact DSLR like a D60 with a 27mm f/2 pancake lens. Alas there is no
such thing as there is no such P&S as you describe.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Paul
news:tv8dh498cs9chd076...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:16:32 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>
>>P&S are fine but the claims are way over rated in many cases.
>>
>
> are not
> over-rated.
>
>>
>>P&S guy <man of many names> wrote:
>>
>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>
>>No, it is not seamless.
>
>
> 0.25x adapter (an excellent zero-CA one, yes, they exist) = 6.75mm to
> 27mm+
> (cutting off the zoom where camera's own zoom picks up again)
>
> 1.7x + 1.7x teleconverters (yes, when the right ones (hint, from different
> companies) are stacked in the right order some can provide excellent
> results
> with no aperture loss, see
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg for a
> 2197mm
> f/3.5 handheld example) = top zoom range of 486mm (low-end cutoff where
> camera's
> own zoom stops) to 1405mm f/4.4 lens.
>
> Seamless zoom range from 6.75mm f/2.8 to 1405mm f/4.4
>
> No need to buy 10 expensive DSLR lenses (whose performance is only good at
> one
> f-stop per lens), to cover the same range. Nor can you even get those
> apertures
> at those longer zoom ranges, even if you begged and pleaded with the
> universe
> and even agreed to sell your soul to make it possible for you.
>
>>
>>
>>> 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths
>>> than any
>>> DSLR glass in existence.
>>
>>The more expensive ones can but there is no free lunch: the smaller
>>sensor gathers less light and is more noisy. Diffraction limits how much
>>you can stop down which just empasizes the fact that there's less range
>>to work with.
>
> optimally at one f-stop. You're right, there's no free lunch. I'll take
> the
> convenience of having good images at all f-stops, diffraction limited
> across the
> full range of the lens, rather than one expensive lens that is only
> diffraction
> limited at one f-stop.
>
>>
>>
>>> 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
>>> larger
>>
>>This is complete nonsense!
>>
>
> insert it
> again so you aren't poking your own eyes out to retain your
> bliss-of-ignorance.
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
>
>
>>
>>> 4. P&S cameras are cost efficient.
>>
>>Agreed. The improvement in a DSLR for the money shows a declining return.
>>
>
> number of
> missed shots from having to change lenses, dust and dirt on sensor, not
> having
> the right lens when needed, not being able to take a camera into a public
> event
> or ceremony due to obnoxious audible noise, etc. etc. then the "declining
> returns" of the DSLR becomes all too clear.
>
>>
>>> 5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient.
>>
>>Yep. Although the better ones are as big & expensive as a DSLR, if you
>>want the zoom range in a smaller size, P&S is king. As long as you are
>>shooting in full sun.
>
> carry
> to make your DSLR equivalent to that P&S camera. But then, go ahead and
> keep
> fooling yourself and all others. It's fun being self-deceptive, isn't it.
> You
> can convince yourself of anything.
>
>>
>>
>>> 6. P&S cameras are silent.
>>
>>Yep, if this is important, get one.
>>
>>
>>> 7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them,
>>
>>That is pretty cool I will admit. Kinda geeky but yeah I'd like to see
>>more of this in the future. Shame on them all for not allowing more of
>>this but that probably will be the trend. I'll bet that hack doesn't
>>work on the newest crop of P&S anyways. If you have a real need for this
>>or desire to tinker, get an old P&S for that. Cheers!
>
> Canon
> G9 and are working on the new SX series and G10s.
>
> But I agree, some of the earlier CHDK cameras provide much better image
> quality
> with more dynamic range, pre-pixel-war madness. Some of those cameras
> still
> easily rival the image quality on most any DSLR.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second.
>>
>>Very rarely useful or meaningful but yeah if you need that for a science
>>project by all means get one.
>>
>
>
> Though I have to admit, the scientists doing studies of magnetic
> reconnection in
> helium plasma at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory using a "lowly"
> Canon
> Powershot A700 with CHDK's ultra-fast shutter speeds is rather impressive.
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/3014649023_ec609452ba_o.jpg
>
> They can't find any cameras that are as capable for analysis of this
> nature.
> They most certainly can't use a focal-plane shutter for a subject like
> this. In
> no way can it provide the speed and accuracy needed. (I.e. no DSLR on
> earth is
> good enough, its very architecture prevents it from being the least bit
> useful
> for anything faster than its X-Sync shutter speed.)
>
>>
>>> 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
>>> shutter-speeds
>>> of 1/40,000th of a second.
>>
>>Same deal as #8. With shutter speeds that fast you don't get much out of
>>the flash so it's not useful or meaningful.
>
> biggest
> drawback of using high-speed sync modes on DSLRs, those that require those
> specialty and expensive strobing focal-plane flash units. With a
> leaf-shutter
> you are not limiting the amount of flash getting through if the flash
> duration
> is shorter than the shutter speed. If your flash is providing full output
> at
> 1/40,000th of a second and you set your shutter to 1/40,000th of a second,
> there
> is zero light lost from the flash on that exposure. Do try to keep up with
> why a
> leaf-shutter is far superior to any slow, noisy, easy to damage,
> image-jarring,
> image-distorting, focal-plane shutter.
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>Rarely useful or meaningful. Those problems were minimized to
>>irrelevance decades ago for the vast majority of situations. I've
>>certainly never encountered the problem.
>>
>
> camera,
> much less use one of they have it. Those who actually do use their cameras
> in a
> wide variety of situations and for a wide variety of subjects will always
> eventually run into this brick-wall of focal-plane shutter limitations.
> See the
> photo link that you conveniently snipped out because you don't want anyone
> to
> see it.
>
>>
>>> 11. ...change lenses
>>
>>Right, no lens changing with P&S. You can always get an 18-200 for a
>>DSLR though.
>
> mentioned 27mm-486mm (that's only an 18x super-zoom, some have a 20x range
> now).
> With a ease of using a bayonet adapter (on some models) or with no more
> effort
> than screwing on a polarizing filter, you can extend that range even more
> with
> some exceptional adapter lenses, WITHOUT losing any aperture.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>See #2 (no free lunch). Cranking ISO on a DSLR evens them out & makes it
>>a wash. It is easier to get macros on a P&S but DSLR macros have better
>>quality, commensurate with #4 (declining return). In the end, people
>>serious about macro shooting do not use P&S. I personally hate flash but
>>serious macro shooters get nice natural results with two flashes mounted
>>to the sides, or even one on a bracket.
>
> rob all
> macro images of life and their surroundings (by blackening-out any natural
> environment of the subject) will become something worthy of capital
> punishment
> one day.
>
> Sorry, try as you might, you will never get hand-held deep DOF macro shots
> in
> the field, putting your macro subject in a natural setting, with no DSLR
> and
> lens on earth, no matter what you do. Been there, done that, moved to P&S
> cameras as my original motive just for this purpose, where it now becomes
> as
> easy as child's play.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 13. P&S cameras include video
>>
>>And so do DSLRs now, and cell phones for that matter.
>>
>>
>>> 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder
>>
>>And DSLRs have live view now. I don't use it on mine much but it's
>>there. The little bit of crop doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as
>>a little grainy washed out LCD view in the sun.
>
> subject in the viewfinder to make use of its vast benefits? Oh, that's
> right,
> you've never experienced the convenience of an EVF live-view. Where you
> get all
> the data you need (and more, see CHDK) superimposed right on your subject
> in the
> viewfinder in transparencies.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>>And so do DSLRs now. Rarely useful or meaningful but yeah.
>
> good
> quality EVF. Where you get all the benefits of low-light amplified,
> real-time-shutter-speed-effects, bright DOF preview qualities of a
> live-view
> plus an OVF as exists in ALL EVF displays.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 16. Without the need to use flash in all situations... you are not
>>> disturbing your wildlife
>>
>>Very rarely useful or meaningful but yeah.
>>
>>
>>> 17. ...focal-plane shutter
>>
>>de ja vu!
>
> many
> of them that exist. The problem is that there are just so many drawbacks
> to that
> shutter design that it's easy to forget some from their extensive
> drawbacks-list.
>
>>
>>
>>> 18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times
>>
>>Yes this is a problem for P&S in the real world.
>
> shutter-lags on P&S cameras can be even shorter than on DSLRs? Which is
> very
> true these days. Your personal insecurities and biases are loud and clear.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>Yeah I thought I would miss real live view but I don't and now that I
>>have it again I don't use it, the optical viewfinder is that much
>>better, it really is.
>
> You'll
> never go back to that inaccurate, useless in low-light, optical
> viewfinder. I
> certainly don't miss mine. Funny thing ... I was recently packing up some
> of my
> old SLRs to put them into storage. I looked through the viewfinder on some
> of
> them. Wow. I can't believe I put up with such dim images in them all those
> years. Going from a good EVF to an optical viewfinder (some of the
> brightest
> ones in existence at the time, on Olympus SLRs) sure was an eye-opener
> about how
> inefficient a supposedly "good quality" OVF truly is. Go ahead, keep
> trying to
> enjoy using your OVF. But be careful, the moment you use a good EVF
> there's no
> going back. Remember that I warned you.
>
>>
>>
>>> 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
>>
>>Possible but rarely practical to back up 500 feet. You are simply
>>rationalizing a big limitation here. DSLRs have a whole lot more
>>flexibility in this regard.
>>
>
> selectively
> edit important text to try to keep convincing yourself of misconceptions
> and
> untruths.
>
>
>>
>>> 21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs
>>> with
>>> just as much resolution as any DSLR camera.
>>
>>LOL then why don't studio photographers use them :-)
>>I agree it's not a big difference in bright sun but...
>
> can
> keep all your lenses on a sturdy table so it won't collapse, where you can
> control every bit of light that hits your subject ... yes, for the studio
> a DSLR
> will be great! Last time I checked, staged photos in a studio are not real
> life.
> Unless you live in one and never go outside your studio door.
>
>>
>>
>>> 22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any
>>> way
>>> determine the quality of your photography.
>>
>>It merely expands possibilities but yes you can take good shots on the
>>crappiest cell phone.
>>
>
> shot with
> a pinhole in tinfoil and a shoe-box.
>
>
>>
>>> 23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
>>> photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro"
>>
>>Go ahead, put us to shame :-)
>>
>>I've done & seen lots of great photography from compact digitals but
>>somehow I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that from you.
>>
>
> enjoy
> their dejected and forlorn expression and demeanor in print. Only
> in-person is
> it worth the effort. There's just not enough emoticons to encompass the
> breadth
> and depth of their disappointment in themselves for having wasted so much
> of
> their life and money on DSLR gear.
>
> It truly is a fun thing to experience. May you get good enough on P&S gear
> to
> experience the same one day. Even more fun? When that same self-deceived
> "DSLR
> Pro" wants to buy some of your photos, and then (here's the funnest
> knee-slappingest part of all), you REFUSE to sell it to them no matter
> what they
> offer! LOL! Oh gawd, the times that's happened, I can't tell you how much
> and
> how deeply I've laughed. Really, any P&S camera owner needs to experience
> this a
> few times in life. It will pay for every bit of photography gear you've
> ever
> owned in life. :-)
>
>>
>>> 24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did
>>
>>Yep, that's why I'm thinking of getting one.
>>
>
> more
> you'll find your D & SLR gear collecting dust. Mine does. Just like my
> film
> cameras started to collect dust first, then my DSLRs started doing the
> same (but
> I sold them while they still had some market value).
>
>>
>>> 25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent.
>>
>>OK.
>>
>>
>>> The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!"
>>
>>Not at all, it's a trade-off and modest P&S are a much much better value
>>for most people. High-end P&S have their place where you need long zoom
>>on a compact body and some other peculiar reasons but in my biased
>>opinion, most people would get better party/vacation/baby/garden pics
>>with an entry level DSLR if they are willing to spend over $500 and a
>>couple brain cells. For tighter budgets, simplicity and portability, P&S
>>makes a *lot* more sense and you can certainly take spectacular photos
>>on a P&S. They are simply amazing these days under good lighting.
>
> exposed areas on the sensor in long-exposures have no more noise than
> properly
> exposed areas in bright sunlight. (What? You did not know this? That's
> what you
> get for listening to all the anti-P&S propaganda and believing it I guess.
> Some
> things you just have to test for yourself to find out "they" are all
> wrong.)
>
> Stack twenty 60-second exposures and you get NOISE-FREE 10 minute
> exposures from
> a P&S camera. Yes, it's true. Don't believe me? Try it.
>
>
>>
>>I *would* recommend a compact P&S though to anyone for the portability.
>>There's a lot to be said for a camera that you actually have with you.
>>
>>If pocket size isn't a requirement (and it often is) I'd recommend a
>>compact fixed normal to wide-ish lens on a small DSLR over a super zoom
>>P&S to most people for most situations (budget permitting) though I
>>recognize that doesn't play well in the marketing. If I was looking for
>>a $800 camera to meet all my needs (and most people) it would be a
>>compact DSLR like a D60 with a 27mm f/2 pancake lens. Alas there is no
>>such thing as there is no such P&S as you describe.
>
> extended wilderness outings, museums, etc. where a DSLR would be
> disallowed or
> not welcomed, then yes, get a DSLR. For the rest of us that live in the
> real
> world, and like to respect others so as not to annoy them with the sounds
> of a
> DSLR, then there's no other option but a good P&S camera.
>
> I give you credit for finally exploring the "dark side", you might find
> out that
> the "dark side" has been the DSLR side this whole time, once you hone your
> talents on a good P&S. Therein lies the rub, a person without talent will
> find
> fault with any camera, especially one that's not as P&S-automatic as their
> all-too familiar DSLR, if they are that amateurish that they need all
> those
> automatic features, that is.
I would like to do some comparisons. What P&S do you recommend?
Toby
Well-thought-out response and I agree with you 100% on all points. But this
will just be more food for the troll.
Toby
Toby
>
> Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
>
> 0.25x adapter (an excellent zero-CA one, yes, they exist) = 6.75mm to
> 27mm+
> (cutting off the zoom where camera's own zoom picks up again)
0% CA? Not bloody likely. And how's the corner resolution?
>
> 1.7x + 1.7x teleconverters (yes, when the right ones (hint, from different
> companies) are stacked in the right order some can provide excellent
> results
> with no aperture loss, see
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg for a
> 2197mm
> f/3.5 handheld example) = top zoom range of 486mm (low-end cutoff where
> camera's
> own zoom stops) to 1405mm f/4.4 lens.
It's OK as a snapshot but this poor quality would never be accepted by my
agency, for instance.
>
> Seamless zoom range from 6.75mm f/2.8 to 1405mm f/4.4
Not seamless if you have to start putting on prime converters
>>
>>
>>> 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than
>>> larger
>>
>>This is complete nonsense!
>>
>
> Only if you snip out the link that proves you 100% wrong. Here, I'll
> insert it
> again so you aren't poking your own eyes out to retain your
> bliss-of-ignorance.
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
Such an apocryphal post is of no meaning without better references.
Real world: here's a quote from dpreview's review of the Canon G9:
"As we saw with the G7 (and virtually every high resolution compact we test)
the G9 suffers from highlight clipping in bright contrasty conditions, a
result of the limited dynamic range of sensors with such small pixels."
The Fuji sensors are a bit better in this regard, but not much.
Toby
J. Clarke
CHDK works with the Canon DIGIC III firmware. In theory it can be
made to work on their DSLRs as well, although the use of a CMOS vs CCD
sensor would prevent the use of the high shutter speeds. And so far
nobody has made it work on DIGIC IV, so there's some question over
whether it will have continued utility.
>> 8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a
>> second.
>
> Very rarely useful or meaningful but yeah if you need that for a
> science
> project by all means get one.
>
>> 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
>> shutter-speeds
>> of 1/40,000th of a second.
>
> Same deal as #8. With shutter speeds that fast you don't get much
> out
> of
> the flash so it's not useful or meaningful.
>
Actualy it can be useful if you're trying to suppress a bright
background while maintaining wide aperture for depth of field control.
1/40,000 perhaps is not, but 1/1000 is four stops beyond 1/250 and
will admit most of a full power flash.
The Nikon d50, d70, and d70s also have high speed flash synch
capability (but not using TTL), they just don't go as high as
CHDK-modified DIGIC III cameras (but they do go about as high as is
useful). The issue here is really CCD vs CMOS, not DSLR vs
point-and-shoot. And even there the high speed shutter is only
available if the CCD is designed to support it.
>> 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.
>
> Rarely useful or meaningful. Those problems were minimized to
> irrelevance decades ago for the vast majority of situations. I've
> certainly never encountered the problem.
>
>
>> 11. ...change lenses
>
> Right, no lens changing with P&S. You can always get an 18-200 for a
> DSLR though.
Uh, if you want extreme, you can get an 18-270 for APS-C Canon or
Nikon for about 600 bucks.
>> 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.
>
> See #2 (no free lunch). Cranking ISO on a DSLR evens them out &
> makes
> it
> a wash. It is easier to get macros on a P&S but DSLR macros have
> better
> quality, commensurate with #4 (declining return). In the end, people
> serious about macro shooting do not use P&S. I personally hate flash
> but
> serious macro shooters get nice natural results with two flashes
> mounted
> to the sides, or even one on a bracket.
Point and shoots do have good depth of field in extreme close ups.
Personally I've never found "subject irritation" to be an issue with
macros. If having the camera that close doesn't result in it running
away or biting or stinging me then the flash doesn't make much
difference. As for "natural look", if one can't get a "natural look"
with a flash then he needs to learn how to use one. In any case, few
point-and-shoots have apertures wider than the f/2.8 of my Canon macro
lens.
>> 13. P&S cameras include video
>
> And so do DSLRs now, and cell phones for that matter.
>
>
>> 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder
>
> And DSLRs have live view now. I don't use it on mine much but it's
> there. The little bit of crop doesn't bother me anywhere near as
> much
> as
> a little grainy washed out LCD view in the sun.
>
>
>> 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.
>
> And so do DSLRs now. Rarely useful or meaningful but yeah.
>
>
>> 16. Without the need to use flash in all situations... you are not
>> disturbing your wildlife
>
> Very rarely useful or meaningful but yeah.
And birders with thousands of bucks worth of wide aperture long glass
use fill flash regardless. That's the market that the "better beamer"
is aimed at.
>> 17. ...focal-plane shutter
>
> de ja vu!
And some DSLRs have electronic shutters.
>> 18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times
>
> Yes this is a problem for P&S in the real world.
>
>
>> 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
>
> Yeah I thought I would miss real live view but I don't and now that
> I
> have it again I don't use it, the optical viewfinder is that much
> better, it really is.
That was one of the main things that drove me to a DSLR--live view
isn't, quite.
>> 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
>
> Possible but rarely practical to back up 500 feet. You are simply
> rationalizing a big limitation here. DSLRs have a whole lot more
> flexibility in this regard.
And you can't achieve the _same_ result. Changing camera-to-subject
distance changes perspective.
Still, every once in a while it's nice to be able to trot out the old
FZ7 and use the long macro on it--keeps me safely away from that
really scary huge spider for example.
>> 21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower
>> ISOs with
>> just as much resolution as any DSLR camera.
>
> LOL then why don't studio photographers use them :-)
> I agree it's not a big difference in bright sun but...
I want to see the point and shoot that has the same resolution as a 50
megapixel Hasselblad.
>> 22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will
>> in
>> any way
>> determine the quality of your photography.
>
> It merely expands possibilities but yes you can take good shots on
> the
> crappiest cell phone.
As long as you don't want to see them at higher than cell phone
resolution . . .
>> 23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional
>> P&S
>> photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro"
>
> Go ahead, put us to shame :-)
>
> I've done & seen lots of great photography from compact digitals but
> somehow I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that from you.
And that is the crux of the problem with this discussion. He's
clearly a gearhed and not a shooter.
>> 24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did
>
> Yep, that's why I'm thinking of getting one.
>
>
>> 25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent.
>
> OK.
I'd like to see his reasoning on that. If you fill it with C4 and put
a radio detonator on it maybe . . .
>> The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!"
>
> Not at all, it's a trade-off and modest P&S are a much much better
> value
> for most people. High-end P&S have their place where you need long
> zoom
> on a compact body and some other peculiar reasons but in my biased
> opinion, most people would get better party/vacation/baby/garden
> pics
> with an entry level DSLR if they are willing to spend over $500 and
> a
> couple brain cells. For tighter budgets, simplicity and portability,
> P&S
> makes a *lot* more sense and you can certainly take spectacular
> photos
> on a P&S. They are simply amazing these days under good lighting.
The thing that bugs me is the kind of person who has a 30d with the
kit lens and he's looking to upgrade so instead of lenses or lighting
or training or something else that will make a real difference he gets
a 50d with the kit lens.
> I *would* recommend a compact P&S though to anyone for the
> portability.
> There's a lot to be said for a camera that you actually have with
> you.
>
> If pocket size isn't a requirement (and it often is) I'd recommend a
> compact fixed normal to wide-ish lens on a small DSLR over a super
> zoom
> P&S to most people for most situations (budget permitting) though I
> recognize that doesn't play well in the marketing. If I was looking
> for
> a $800 camera to meet all my needs (and most people) it would be a
> compact DSLR like a D60 with a 27mm f/2 pancake lens. Alas there is
> no
> such thing as there is no such P&S as you describe.
Yup. Big downside to my old FZ7 is that it's really no more
pocketable than a 30d with a 300mm lens. Yeah, it's smaller, but not
_enough_ smaller. I've been thinking about one of those
drop-and-water-resistant models that fits in a pocket and will be
usable in situations where the 30D would either get destroyed or be
too much in the way of other activities (although the last time I had
the kayak on the water "DSLR" meant a film Nikon that had been hacked
up by Kodak).
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Assertions:
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.)
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)
The fast f/ratio assertion assumes the full aperture of the
front teleconverter delivers all the light to the main lens
so the f/ratio does not change.
Front teleconverters are Galilean telescope designs
(at least all the designs I have seen), in that they have
a positive lens to do the magnification, like a telescope
objective, and a negative lens as the eyepiece. But the rays
out of the back end only diverge, whereas in a normal telescope
with a positive focal length eyepiece, the exit rays cross in
what is known as the exit pupil. For such front teleconverters,
(Galilean or positive eyepiece designs) the f/ratio of the system is:
f/ratio = teleconverter_exit_pupil / camera_focal_length
With front teleconverters, the exit pupil is inside the converter.
But you can measure the exit pupil by using a very distant
light source, like the full moon, distant street lamp, or
perhaps the sun (be careful about heating; although at the
typical 2x magnification, there should not be much heating).
Measure the diameter of the light right at the back end of
the teleconverter, then use the above equation. Compare the
f/ratio you get to the camera's normal f/ratio? Report
your results here.
For the design to work without vignetting, the exit pupil
must be SMALLER than the entrance pupil of the camera lens.
If it were the same, the light fall-off would be extreme.
So the claim of front teleconverters delivering the same f/ratio
is bogus if the design is like that of a Galilean telescope.
Roger
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Oops. It seems I am dyslexic before coffee in the morning.
The equation should be:
f/ratio = camera_focal_length / teleconverter_exit_pupil
Roger
"mcdonaldREMOVE TO...@scs.uiuc.edu
>
> Assertions:
> 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.)
>
> 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)
>
> The fast f/ratio assertion assumes the full aperture of the
> front teleconverter delivers all the light to the main lens
> so the f/ratio does not change.
>
> Front teleconverters are Galilean telescope designs
> (at least all the designs I have seen), in that they have
> a positive lens to do the magnification, like a telescope
> objective, and a negative lens as the eyepiece. But the rays
> out of the back end only diverge, whereas in a normal telescope
> with a positive focal length eyepiece, the exit rays cross in
> what is known as the exit pupil. For such front teleconverters,
> (Galilean or positive eyepiece designs) the f/ratio of the system is:
>
> f/ratio = teleconverter_exit_pupil / camera_focal_length
>
> With front teleconverters, the exit pupil is inside the converter.
Are you sure that the combined system exit pupil is in the converter?
It might be at the usual place in the main lens.
Remember that the 1248mm f/3.5 is not a "real" 1248 mm ... it's
35mm equivalent for a 6x crop camera ... in other words, 1248/6 = 208mm
actual effective focal length. 208/3.5 = 60 mm, roughly. This is
a perfectly feasible entrance pupil for an extreme tele (which this
would of course be.) The main lens would be of course itself a
fair tele effect, so the real lens would not have to
be much bigger than that to avoid vignetting entirely.
But a zero CA claim is ludicrous.
Doug McDonald
David J Taylor
Roger,
I've just checked this for the 2X teleconverter for my Nikon 990, As far
as I can tell, the exit pupil for fairly distant light has a diameter of
around 17mm, but I am not sure of this measurement (not enough sun
today!). The camera has a stated focal length range of 8-24mm, f/2.5-f/4,
so the entrance pupil must be around 6mm at the tele end, and the camera
did have a reputation that you could put it behind a microscope or
telescope eyepiece and capture a good image. So it would seem that, for
this combination at least, the teleconvertor does have an adequate exit
pupil.
Of course, this is only achieving a 35mm equivalent of 230mm at f/4.0,
with an actual 72mm focal length. The teleconverter takes 62mm filters,
FWIW.
Cheers,
David
Anti-DSLRtrolls
wrote:
>Paul Furman wrote:
>
>> P&S are fine but the claims are way over rated in many cases.
>>
>
>Paul, nice well thought out response... In the end it isn't going to
>matter, as the P&S man of many names *is* going to continue his on-going
>tirade vs. the newsgroup for as long as he gets responses... period. It
>really doesn't matter what you, or anyone else replies with.
>
>IGNORE his postings no matter what he follows up with, and in time he
>might just disappear, doubtful, but worth a shot... unless of course you
>or others hellbent on replying enjoy being referred to as morons, or
><gasp> resident-trolls. It is after all a GAME for him, one that none of
>you currently replying will ever win...
>
>
It's not a matter of being a game. It's making sure that the resident
DSLR-trolls with their overrated and VERY deceptive and misinformed posts aren't
going to continue to spread their misinformation and nonsense on the world
without someone revealing them for just what they are. Do I tell people to
ignore your inane rantings about DSLRs that don't hold up in reality and in
real-world use? No. I let people read your blatant nonsense. I don't care what
you post. As long as I post the truth about P&S cameras then they can make their
own FULLY INFORMED decisions. Where as you? You know you are lying about cameras
all the time, so you don't want the truth to get out that reveals you to be
nothing but a liar and a fake. As are all the rest just like you.
So, here it is again, to offset your misinformation and lies that you just
posted again.
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."
DSLRTroll-Spotter
Are you sure that's all that you got wrong? You seem to have also gotten wrong
the part about how simple optics work.
Hey moron, if the entrance pupil of that teleconverter has enough aperture to
provide all the f-ratio needed for the new focal-length, and if the exit pupil
of that teleconverter is larger than or the same size as the entrance pupil of
the camera's lens, then there is ZERO aperture lost. You really are a bigger
moron than you give yourself credit for, and you've just proved it, AGAIN.
You'll do anything in your power to try to justify why you wasted $15,000+ on a
camera, won't you. Right up to including deceiving yourself (and all others)
about some of the most basic principles of light and refraction of glass. It
must hurt to have spent that much and you still only get crappy photos out of
that $15,000. But then, that's user error (and purchasing error). Can't blame it
on the camera. Once a snapshooter, always a snapshooter, no matter the price of
their gear. That's the part that really really hurts, doesn't it. That's the
only thing that motivates every last one of your posts during your whole life.
Trying to not look in the mirror to see what the real problem is. YOU. You're
just a shitty photographer. No matter how much money you want to throw at it, no
matter how much you want to try to reinvent the most basic of optic principles
in your mind, it's still never going to change the fact that you are a shitty
photographer. Get over it.
You just get sadder and sadder.
KevenBacon
>
>
>CHDK works with the Canon DIGIC III firmware. In theory it can be
>made to work on their DSLRs as well, although the use of a CMOS vs CCD
>sensor would prevent the use of the high shutter speeds. And so far
>nobody has made it work on DIGIC IV, so there's some question over
>whether it will have continued utility.
CHDK works with all DigicII and DigicIII cameras. Firmware dumps of DigicIV
cameras have already been done and they're finding some amazing similarities in
the firmware. It's only a matter of time and effort.
While some of the features of CHDK can be made to work with DSLRs, 90+% of the
features, those that depend on live-view and precision leaf-blade shutters, will
never be implemented on any DSLR. The DSLR simply lacks the right hardware for
more advanced camera features. The most than any DSLR owner can hope for is the
simple scripting features.
Do try to keep your misinformation to a minimum, thanks.
One then wonders how much of everything else that you say is just more
misinformation.
Steve
On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 04:46:20 -0600, William Clinton
<wcli...@invaliddomain.org> wrote:
>Typo edit:
>
>Stack twenty 60-second exposures and you get NOISE-FREE 20 minute exposures from
>a P&S camera. Yes, it's true. Don't believe me? Try it.
>
>(dang that 1 key being so close to the 2 key.)
It's not NOISE-FREE, but could be close to that for practical
purposes.
Steve
Paul Furman
> far as I can tell, the exit pupil for fairly distant light has a
> diameter of around 17mm, but I am not sure of this measurement (not
> enough sun today!). The camera has a stated focal length range of
> 8-24mm, f/2.5-f/4, so the entrance pupil must be around 6mm at the tele
> end, and the camera did have a reputation that you could put it behind a
> microscope or telescope eyepiece and capture a good image. So it would
> seem that, for this combination at least, the teleconvertor does have an
> adequate exit pupil.
>
> Of course, this is only achieving a 35mm equivalent of 230mm at f/4.0,
> with an actual 72mm focal length. The teleconverter takes 62mm filters,
> FWIW.
David, Does the exposure remain unchanged with & without the converter?
Alan Browne
> Typo edit:
>
> Stack twenty 60-second exposures and you get NOISE-FREE 20 minute exposures from
> a P&S camera. Yes, it's true. Don't believe me? Try it.
There is no such thing as noise free ... much less noise perhaps ...
I can't see using this method for shooting volleyball, birds or studio
models...
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
Ray Fischer
>On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:16:32 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>
>>No, it is not seamless.
>
>Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
Which lens is that? You don't say andanybody can make up numbers that
don't have anything to do with reality.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Ray Fischer
> JT's Keeper <justa...@mad.scientist.com>
>>IGNORE his postings no matter what he follows up with, and in time he
>>might just disappear, doubtful, but worth a shot... unless of course you
>>or others hellbent on replying enjoy being referred to as morons, or
>><gasp> resident-trolls. It is after all a GAME for him, one that none of
>>you currently replying will ever win...
>
>It's not a matter of being a game.
Of course it is, asshole. Everybody knows it and nobody takes you
seriously. You're a joke.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
TheParadeOfTrolls
Thanks for revealing just how non-observant you are. Any camera review site in
the world will list that camera with that lens on it.
Do you want someone to wipe your nose and ass too? Easier solution, go back to
wearing diapers and quit wasting everyone's time with your incessant displays of
ignorance.
stanley-oxford
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>William Clinton wrote:
>> Typo edit:
>>
>> Stack twenty 60-second exposures and you get NOISE-FREE 20 minute exposures from
>> a P&S camera. Yes, it's true. Don't believe me? Try it.
>
>There is no such thing as noise free ... much less noise perhaps ...
>
>I can't see using this method for shooting volleyball, birds or studio
>models...
LOL!!! Uh ... have you ever used a camera? Have you ever been outside of your
door?
HINT: You won't be taking 20-minute long shots of a volleyball event, unless you
want everything to be a blur but the court. An effective means of making photos
of famous landmarks devoid of multitudes of people around them, but 20-minutes
is more than will ever be needed, 1 to 5 minutes is good to effectively
"disappear" all the moving people from a public landmark in daytime or
nighttime.
You won't be taking 20-minute long shots of some lame studio set-up unless it's
for some scientific research. Quick example: the luminosity levels, patterns,
and colors of barely detectable phosphorescence in some plants.
You MIGHT take a 20-minute exposure of some rare bird that's sleeping and nested
at night that's only lit by starlight, but you'd probably wait until morning.
Unless you were trying to document some particular feature of their sleeping
position or nest.
Go see what reality is like someday. It will do you a world of good.
Doncha just hate when these terminally-ill agorophobics want to play on the net
and pretend to be photographers?
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>William Clinton <wcli...@invaliddomain.org> wrote:
>>>On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:16:32 -0800, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>>>
>>>>No, it is not seamless.
>>>
>>>Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
>>
>>Which lens is that? You don't say andanybody can make up numbers that
>>don't have anything to do with reality.
>
>Thanks for revealing just how non-observant you are. Any camera review site in
>the world will list that camera with that lens on it.
Which camera is that? You don't say and anybody can make up numbers
that don't have anything to do with reality.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Owen D Rankin
Then you should read this. See if you really get the "joke". (hint: a mirror
will help you find it)
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.
Ray Fischer
>On 09 Nov 2008 18:41:05 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Anti-DSLRtrolls <bobg...@privateisp.org> wrote:
>>> JT's Keeper <justa...@mad.scientist.com>
>>
>>>>IGNORE his postings no matter what he follows up with, and in time he
>>>>might just disappear, doubtful, but worth a shot... unless of course you
>>>>or others hellbent on replying enjoy being referred to as morons, or
>>>><gasp> resident-trolls. It is after all a GAME for him, one that none of
>>>>you currently replying will ever win...
>>>
>>>It's not a matter of being a game.
>>
>>Of course it is, asshole. Everybody knows it and nobody takes you
>>seriously. You're a joke.
>
>Then you should read this.
It's why you're a joke, asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
[]
>> I've just checked this for the 2X teleconverter for my Nikon 990, As
>> far as I can tell, the exit pupil for fairly distant light has a
>> diameter of around 17mm, but I am not sure of this measurement (not
>> enough sun today!). The camera has a stated focal length range of
>> 8-24mm, f/2.5-f/4, so the entrance pupil must be around 6mm at the
>> tele end, and the camera did have a reputation that you could put it
>> behind a microscope or telescope eyepiece and capture a good image. So
>> it would seem that, for this combination at least, the
>> teleconvertor does have an adequate exit pupil.
>>
>> Of course, this is only achieving a 35mm equivalent of 230mm at
>> f/4.0, with an actual 72mm focal length. The teleconverter takes
>> 62mm filters, FWIW.
>
> David, Does the exposure remain unchanged with & without the
> converter?
Good question, Paul, but it's been so long since I used the camera and
converter that I can no longer be sure. The leaflet which comes with the
converter (Nikon TC-E2) says that the maximum aperture at full zoom
remains unchanged at f/4, but that the converter may vignette towards the
shorter end of the zoom range.
http://www.helixcamera.com/digital/nikon/cpaccess/tce2.html
I would need to dig the camera out, unpack it, find some batteries, etc.
etc. to make the measurements now.
Cheers,
David
GriffonAnthony
Oh look, another troll whose only photography experience is that which he can
obtain from downloading manuals off of the net. What are the odds of seeing THAT
again!
LOL
nospam
<jclarke...@cox.net> wrote:
> The Nikon d50, d70, and d70s also have high speed flash synch
> capability (but not using TTL),
it works with ttl,
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>>
>
> Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
Yes but not 6mm-2100mm or whatever you are claiming.
> 0.25x adapter (an excellent zero-CA one, yes, they exist) = 6.75mm to 27mm+
> (cutting off the zoom where camera's own zoom picks up again)
Fisheye... which is rarely useful and a hassle to de-fish in software,
resulting in soft corners.
> 1.7x + 1.7x teleconverters (yes, when the right ones (hint, from different
> companies) are stacked in the right order some can provide excellent results
> with no aperture loss, see
> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg for a 2197mm
> f/3.5 handheld example) = top zoom range of 486mm (low-end cutoff where camera's
> own zoom stops) to 1405mm f/4.4 lens.
FWIW, the exif says Canon PowerShot S3 IS. No way to tell if a converter
was used.
>>> 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
>>> DSLR glass in existence.
>> The more expensive ones can but there is no free lunch: the smaller
>> sensor gathers less light and is more noisy. Diffraction limits how much
>> you can stop down which just emphasizes the fact that there's less range
>> to work with.
>
> And the larger diameter glass in all DSLR lenses make them only perform
> optimally at one f-stop. You're right, there's no free lunch. I'll take the
> convenience of having good images at all f-stops, diffraction limited across the
> full range of the lens, rather than one expensive lens that is only diffraction
> limited at one f-stop.
I'm not sure what you are thinking but it's P&S which are limited to a
very narrow range of apertures due to diffraction cutting in at rather
small apertures around f/4. DSLRs don't get diffraction limited until
f/11 (DX) or f/16 (FX) and can go a few stops faster than the fastest
P&S. My 105 macro lens goes down to f/45 in the event that I want to
lose to diffraction for more DOF. That's a lot of flexibility.
>>> 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
>> This is complete nonsense!
>
> Only if you snip out the link
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
We have no idea where that comes from.
>>> 4. P&S cameras are cost efficient.
>> Agreed. The improvement in a DSLR for the money shows a declining return.
>
> Depends on how you measure "declining returns".
You misunderstood my point. We agree on this.
>>> 5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient.
>>
>> Yep.
>
> You forgot...
Again we agree. Calm down boy. P&S have their place as do DSLRs. I'm not
making any wild claims.
>>> 7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them,
>>
>> That is pretty cool I will admit.
>> I'll bet that hack doesn't work on the newest crop of P&S
>
> You need to follow the CHDK discussion forum. They just ported it to the Canon
> G9 and are working on the new SX series and G10s.
>
> But I agree, some of the earlier CHDK cameras provide much better image quality
> with more dynamic range, pre-pixel-war madness. Some of those cameras still
> easily rival the image quality on most any DSLR.
You were doing OK before you started making wild claims again <sigh>.
>>> 8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second.
>>
>> Very rarely useful or meaningful but yeah if you need that for a science
>> project by all means get one.
> Though I have to admit, the scientists doing studies of magnetic...
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3191/3014649023_ec609452ba_o.jpg
Yep, good example. Not relevant to most photogs though.
>>> 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
>>> of 1/40,000th of a second.
>>
>> Same deal as #8. With shutter speeds that fast you don't get much out of
>> the flash so it's not useful or meaningful.
>
> Ah, I see where you make your error. You are basing this off of the biggest
> drawback of using high-speed sync modes on DSLRs, those that require those
> specialty and expensive strobing focal-plane flash units. With a leaf-shutter
> you are not limiting the amount of flash getting through if the flash duration
> is shorter than the shutter speed. If your flash is providing full output at
> 1/40,000th of a second and you set your shutter to 1/40,000th of a second, there
> is zero light lost from the flash on that exposure.
OK, I think you got me. However, flash bursts are so fast that if you
need to freeze a bullet in mid air or something, the flash itself will
do that and the shutter speed only controls ambient background lighting.
Another scenario is wanting some fill flash in bright sunlight *and*
wanting shallow DOF for subject isolation in a portrait. This might
require a neutral density filter or a more expensive DSLR where a P&S
simply can't get shallow DOF without stepping back 500 feet and then the
flash won't work. Kind of a specialized need but yeah there might be
situations where it would be useful.
>>> 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.
>>
>> Rarely useful or meaningful. Those problems were minimized to
>> irrelevance decades ago for the vast majority of situations. I've
>> certainly never encountered the problem.
>
> I'm sure you haven't. Most people on these newsgroups don't even own a camera,
> much less use one of they have it. Those who actually do use their cameras in a
> wide variety of situations and for a wide variety of subjects will always
> eventually run into this brick-wall of focal-plane shutter limitations. See the
> photo link that you conveniently snipped out because you don't want anyone to
> see it.
I'm sure it is possible to push this limit but it's rare & specialized.
>>> 11. ...change lenses
>>
>> Right, no lens changing with P&S. You can always get an 18-200 for a
>> DSLR though.
>
> And with no lens changing you can get even more range than the previous
> mentioned 27mm-486mm (that's only an 18x super-zoom, some have a 20x range now).
There is an 18-270mm zoom now, that's a 35mm eq of 24-400mm but yeah P&S
can get an amazing zoom range.
>>> 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.
>>
>> See #2 (no free lunch). Cranking ISO on a DSLR evens them out & makes it
>> a wash. It is easier to get macros on a P&S but DSLR macros have better
>> quality, commensurate with #4 (declining return). In the end, people
>> serious about macro shooting do not use P&S. I personally hate flash but
>> serious macro shooters get nice natural results with two flashes mounted
>> to the sides, or even one on a bracket.
>
> One can only hope that those sterile, lab-staged macro-photographs that rob all
> macro images of life and their surroundings (by blackening-out any natural
> environment of the subject) will become something worthy of capital punishment
> one day.
>
> Sorry, try as you might, you will never get hand-held deep DOF macro shots in
> the field, putting your macro subject in a natural setting, with no DSLR and
> lens on earth, no matter what you do. Been there, done that, moved to P&S
> cameras as my original motive just for this purpose, where it now becomes as
> easy as child's play.
I hate flash but people who learn to use it properly get fantastic
natural looking results with well lit backgrounds. If you don't want
flash, just crank up the ISO & it's a wash.
>>> 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder
>>
>> And DSLRs have live view now. I don't use it on mine much but it's
>> there. The little bit of crop doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as
>> a little grainy washed out LCD view in the sun.
>
> Yeah, just how useful is that? Where you have to remove your eye from your
> subject in the viewfinder to make use of its vast benefits?
Huh?
> Oh, that's right,
> you've never experienced the convenience of an EVF live-view. Where you get all
> the data you need (and more, see CHDK) superimposed right on your subject in the
> viewfinder in transparencies.
I almost got a Sony with EVF when I bought my first DSLR. That would
have been a big mistake. I'm looking at the Ricoh with removable EVF
finder but it's awfully expensive for a pocket P&S. My current DSLR has
live view but it's really not that useful in the real world, I tried it
& found I missed a lot by not being able to see details, just a grainy
TV image.
>>> 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.
>>>
>> And so do DSLRs now. Rarely useful or meaningful but yeah.
>
> Of course it seems not so useful to you. You've still not migrated to a good
> quality EVF. Where you get all the benefits of low-light amplified,
> real-time-shutter-speed-effects, bright DOF preview qualities of a live-view
> plus an OVF as exists in ALL EVF displays.
EVFs have OVF? :-)
>>> 18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times
>>
>> Yes this is a problem for P&S in the real world.
>
> ...Why snip out the part where it says that
> shutter-lags on P&S cameras can be even shorter than on DSLRs?
AF speed is the real issue, and that annoying startup time. Sure it's
possible to work-around sometimes and there might be some odd cases
where there's an advantage but in the real world, DSLRs are much faster
& P&S are a drag. You're arguing in circles to make a negative a
positive and I'm not buying it. This is a no-brainer anyone can see and
doesn't justify all this circular reasoning.
>>> 19. An electronic viewfinder
>
> See above.
deja vu
>>> 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
>>
>> Possible but rarely practical to back up 500 feet. You are simply
>> rationalizing a big limitation here. DSLRs have a whole lot more
>> flexibility in this regard.
>
> You exaggerate so much.
:-)
Again, it's obvious DSLRs have a huge advantage here but go ahead & run
in circles if you like.
>>> 21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
>>> just as much resolution as any DSLR camera.
>>
>> LOL then why don't studio photographers use them :-)
>> I agree it's not a big difference in bright sun but...
>
> Great! If you own a studio, by all means, buy a DSLR! Indoors, where you can
> keep all your lenses on a sturdy table so it won't collapse, where you can
> control every bit of light that hits your subject ... yes, for the studio a DSLR
> will be great! Last time I checked, staged photos in a studio are not real life.
> Unless you live in one and never go outside your studio door.
You got it backward, I'm saying theoretically P&S should do alright in a
studio because you can use a tripod & balance the lighting to compensate
for poor dynamic range but nobody uses them this way. In a controlled
studio or full sun the images are OK but DSLR images are better than
just OK.
>>> 22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
>>> determine the quality of your photography.
>>
>> It merely expands possibilities but yes you can take good shots on the
>> crappiest cell phone.
>
> Finally, he admits, someone with talent can even make an award winning shot with
> a pinhole in tinfoil and a shoe-box.
I've said so before, nothing new.
>>> 23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
>>> photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro"
>>
>> Go ahead, put us to shame :-)
>>
>> I've done & seen lots of great photography from compact digitals but
>> somehow I don't think we'll be seeing anything like that from you.
>
> No
:-)
>>> 24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did
>>
>> Yep, that's why I'm thinking of getting one.
>
> Good for you! The more that you research, the more that you use one, the more
> you'll find your D & SLR gear collecting dust. Mine does. Just like my film
> cameras started to collect dust first, then my DSLRs started doing the same (but
> I sold them while they still had some market value).
I have a high tolerance for hauling around heavy gear but this will fill
the gap where I want something smaller. During the day, running errands
& such it'll be nice to have a camera along.
>>> The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!"
>>
>> Not at all, it's a trade-off and modest P&S are a much much better value
>> for most people. High-end P&S have their place where you need long zoom
>> on a compact body and some other peculiar reasons but in my biased
>> opinion, most people would get better party/vacation/baby/garden pics
>> with an entry level DSLR if they are willing to spend over $500 and a
>> couple brain cells. For tighter budgets, simplicity and portability, P&S
>> makes a *lot* more sense and you can certainly take spectacular photos
>> on a P&S. They are simply amazing these days under good lighting.
>
> And for 60 second exposures too,
Sure but if I'm bringing a tripod I'll bring my DSLR.
>> I *would* recommend a compact P&S though to anyone for the portability.
>> There's a lot to be said for a camera that you actually have with you.
>>
>> If pocket size isn't a requirement (and it often is) I'd recommend a
>> compact fixed normal to wide-ish lens on a small DSLR over a super zoom
>> P&S to most people for most situations (budget permitting) though I
>> recognize that doesn't play well in the marketing. If I was looking for
>> a $800 camera to meet all my needs (and most people) it would be a
>> compact DSLR like a D60 with a 27mm f/2 pancake lens. Alas there is no
>> such thing as there is no such P&S as you describe.
>
> If you live in a studio, and never go to any public events, stage plays,
> extended wilderness outings, museums, etc. where a DSLR would be disallowed or
> not welcomed, then yes, get a DSLR. For the rest of us that live in the real
> world, and like to respect others so as not to annoy them with the sounds of a
> DSLR, then there's no other option but a good P&S camera.
I haven't been backpacking for a while but I do long hikes and can put
together a lightweight kit when I'm not up for a heavy bag.
D700
20mm f/2.8 AF
45mm f/2.8 pancake MF
75-150mm f/3.5 MF (225mm eq on the D200)
two spare lenses, one in each coat pocket.
P&S would be a drag at museums & concerts with low light. For museums or
night clubs I mount the 35mm f/1.4 or 50mm f/1.2 & bring the 85mm f/1.4,
if I want to look subtle for street shooting, the 45mm pancake or the
tiny 20mm.
> I give you credit for finally exploring the "dark side"
I'm not a fanatic. OK well I am more than a little over the top with
DSLR gear but I never called anyone an idiot for choosing a P&S. They
are compact, inexpensive and convenient. Any other suggestions in the
LX3 thread?
Paul Furman
> David J Taylor wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>> []
>>>> I've just checked this for the 2X teleconverter for my Nikon 990, As
>>>> far as I can tell, the exit pupil for fairly distant light has a
>>>> diameter of around 17mm, but I am not sure of this measurement (not
>>>> enough sun today!). The camera has a stated focal length range of
>>>> 8-24mm, f/2.5-f/4, so the entrance pupil must be around 6mm at the
>>>> tele end, and the camera did have a reputation that you could put it
>>>> behind a microscope or telescope eyepiece and capture a good image. So
>>>> it would seem that, for this combination at least, the
>>>> teleconvertor does have an adequate exit pupil.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this is only achieving a 35mm equivalent of 230mm at
>>>> f/4.0, with an actual 72mm focal length. The teleconverter takes
>>>> 62mm filters, FWIW.
>>> David, Does the exposure remain unchanged with & without the
>>> converter?
>> Good question, Paul, but it's been so long since I used the camera and
>> converter that I can no longer be sure. The leaflet which comes with the
>> converter (Nikon TC-E2) says that the maximum aperture at full zoom
>> remains unchanged at f/4, but that the converter may vignette towards the
>> shorter end of the zoom range.
I believe the manual :-)
>> http://www.helixcamera.com/digital/nikon/cpaccess/tce2.html
>>
>> I would need to dig the camera out, unpack it, find some batteries, etc.
>> etc. to make the measurements now.
>>
>> Cheers,
>> David
>
> Oh look, another troll
Relax dude, David has been a respectable poster here for years with the
same name. And he gave a straight answer which actually supports your
point on this.
Alan Browne
Pre-flash I expect. "TTL" used to refer to TTL-OTF ("off the film")
where the duration of flash was determined while the shot was being
made. But that does not work with digital sensors.
Paul Furman
>
> You MIGHT take a 20-minute exposure of some rare bird that's sleeping and nested
> at night that's only lit by starlight, but you'd probably wait until morning.
You'd have to wait till noon when the light was adequate.
Alex R
>Troll wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> P&S guy <man of many names> wrote:
>>>
>>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>> No, it is not seamless.
>>
>> Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
>
>Yes but not 6mm-2100mm or whatever you are claiming.
>
I guess you missed those thread with photos to prove that it can be done, and
done well.
>
>> 0.25x adapter (an excellent zero-CA one, yes, they exist) = 6.75mm to 27mm+
>> (cutting off the zoom where camera's own zoom picks up again)
>
>Fisheye... which is rarely useful and a hassle to de-fish in software,
>resulting in soft corners.
Again, you must have missed that thread where someone uploaded a full-resolution
crop from the corner of a 0.25x teleconverter example. You didn't see the
2-panel 180-degree panorama with the edge crop to show there was no
edge-softness? No CA? Too bad that you missed that.
>
>> 1.7x + 1.7x teleconverters (yes, when the right ones (hint, from different
>> companies) are stacked in the right order some can provide excellent results
>> with no aperture loss, see
>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg for a 2197mm
>> f/3.5 handheld example) = top zoom range of 486mm (low-end cutoff where camera's
>> own zoom stops) to 1405mm f/4.4 lens.
>
>FWIW, the exif says Canon PowerShot S3 IS. No way to tell if a converter
>was used.
>
Yes, let's all just claim that any photo online is fake. Yet you all clamor for
proof. When shown proof, you yell fake. The typical "put the blinders on to
retain your bliss borne of ignorance."
There's no winning against the self-induced ignorance of net-trolls.
>> And the larger diameter glass in all DSLR lenses make them only perform
>> optimally at one f-stop. You're right, there's no free lunch. I'll take the
>> convenience of having good images at all f-stops, diffraction limited across the
>> full range of the lens, rather than one expensive lens that is only diffraction
>> limited at one f-stop.
>
>I'm not sure what you are thinking but it's P&S which are limited to a
>very narrow range of apertures due to diffraction cutting in at rather
>small apertures around f/4. DSLRs don't get diffraction limited until
>f/11 (DX) or f/16 (FX) and can go a few stops faster than the fastest
>P&S. My 105 macro lens goes down to f/45 in the event that I want to
>lose to diffraction for more DOF. That's a lot of flexibility.
>
You apparently don't know what "diffraction limited" means. In astronomy (and
pro optics) circles, "diffraction limited" means that the optics can no longer
be figured any finer to resolve detail. Telescope mirrors must be figured to at
least 1/8th wavelength of light to be considered "diffraction limited". Its
imaging ability limited by the very nature of the diffraction of light itself.
The larger the mirror (lens) the more difficult it is to figure to such
precision. The trade-off being that the larger the diameter, the finer detail
that can be resolved, IF the optics are diffraction-limited, but this doesn't
come cheap. P&S camera lenses have to be figured to diffraction-limited
precision in order to resolve detail down to the smaller photo-sites on the
smaller sensors. DSLR glass doesn't have to be diffraction limited at all
apertures. Instead they fudge the curvatures of glass in order to be "good
enough" to resolve detail for the larger photo-sites on the larger sensors. The
end-consumer will never know this because the only thing they can test it with
is the larger photo-sites of their sensors. So why should they care if they can
sell you a less than perfect lens which cost them less to make and they can
still charge you your life-savings to obtain it. The only time that DSLR glass
becomes "diffraction limited", if ever, is at one particular f-stop. On P&S
lenses that "diffraction limited" precision is usually across the whole aperture
range of that lens due to the exacting precision with which it must be made.
Perhaps you can learn a thing or two by investigating the precision required for
100x oil-immersion microscope objectives. You'll begin to understand why P&S
lenses can be, and have to be, figured so accurately and still be made
affordable. The P&S camera, a good one, is a technological marvel of precision
and creativity. If only the same could be said of a DSLR camera that's using
last-century's technology and manufacturing tolerances.
>
>>>> 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
>>> This is complete nonsense!
>>
>> Only if you snip out the link
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
>
>We have no idea where that comes from.
>
Oh? You can't read the "Imatest" logo on that?
It's fun trying to pretend that something is "invalid" info so you can retain
your drummed-in biases, isn't it.
>
>OK, I think you got me. However, flash bursts are so fast that if you
>need to freeze a bullet in mid air or something, the flash itself will
>do that and the shutter speed only controls ambient background lighting.
>
>Another scenario is wanting some fill flash in bright sunlight *and*
>wanting shallow DOF for subject isolation in a portrait. This might
>require a neutral density filter or a more expensive DSLR where a P&S
>simply can't get shallow DOF without stepping back 500 feet and then the
>flash won't work. Kind of a specialized need but yeah there might be
>situations where it would be useful.
>
Since when does using fill-flash in bright sunlight always go hand-in-hand with
a shallow DOF? Just making up more unique-case situations in which to prove your
inexperienced biases? Why use an ND filter that will cause more image
degradation and more time wasted to fit the lens with that filter, when you can
just click an option on the camera to resolve all problems. Another missed shot
in doing so. Your reasoning seems odd.
>
>I hate flash but people who learn to use it properly get fantastic
>natural looking results with well lit backgrounds. If you don't want
>flash, just crank up the ISO & it's a wash.
>
I despise flash for macros.
1. It often illuminates the subject with such penetrating light that it destroys
its natural sunlit colors. Case: the exoskeleton of many arthropods where they
will have one color in sunlight and another when that intense but brief light
from flash penetrates to deeper levels. Sometimes that intense light from a
flash needed for the exposure will even make some exoskeletons fluoresce in
unnatural shades and hues. Useless for documentation and research purposes.
2. The background cannot often be evenly illuminated unless used in a studio
setting. I have yet to find any rare insect species that would like to come back
to my lab and continue to populate its species after doing its "I'm ready for my
close-up, Mr. Deville". I take only photos, and leave the rare and endangered
animals to do what they do without making things worse than they already are.
Any grasshopper on a twig with a forest behind it is testament to unnatural
black-background done with any DSLR + flash. With a DSLR you get a brightly lit
unnatural looking insect and a black background. As if that insect was foraging
during the night. Useless for research by anyone other than someone counting
leg-segment setae.
3. Unnatural catch-lights and highlights on any reflective surfaces. Destroying
the natural look to all eyes, and all textures. Accurate representation of
textures of surfaces in nature are just as important to the identification of a
species as its color and size.
4. You can't crank up the ISO on a DSLR high enough to get enough DOF with a
small enough aperture and a fast enough shutter speed to capture any insect or
animal in motion by available light alone. This is why any cheap P&S in
existence will outshine any DSLR ever made for hand-held macro-photography of
living subjects.
5. I could list more, but its obvious that you want to keep believing what you
want to believe, instead of listening to advice from someone with a life-time of
macro-photography for research and artistic purposes.
>
>>>> 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder
>>>
>>> And DSLRs have live view now. I don't use it on mine much but it's
>>> there. The little bit of crop doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as
>>> a little grainy washed out LCD view in the sun.
>>
>> Yeah, just how useful is that? Where you have to remove your eye from your
>> subject in the viewfinder to make use of its vast benefits?
>
>Huh?
In order to use the benefits of "live-view" on a DSLR, you have to remove your
eye from the OVF that you prize so much. On a camera with a good EVF you gain
the benefits of a live-view and the benefits of an OVF combined as one.
>
>
>> Oh, that's right,
>> you've never experienced the convenience of an EVF live-view. Where you get all
>> the data you need (and more, see CHDK) superimposed right on your subject in the
>> viewfinder in transparencies.
>
>I almost got a Sony with EVF when I bought my first DSLR. That would
>have been a big mistake. I'm looking at the Ricoh with removable EVF
>finder but it's awfully expensive for a pocket P&S. My current DSLR has
>live view but it's really not that useful in the real world, I tried it
>& found I missed a lot by not being able to see details, just a grainy
>TV image.
Buy better cameras that have higher resolution EVFs and LCDs.
I only put my money into technology that's worth supporting, so they won't
continue to produce the same next year. Erroneously thinking that what they did
was "good enough".
However, there is an interesting situation that occurs when you use an EVF with
just the right pixel density. I found that manual focusing on a less-than
high-resolution EVF to be more accurate than manually focusing on a
higher-resolution one or even an OVF. What's that you say? That's madness!
Contradictory to everything you can envision or know. Sounds that way, doesn't
it. Not true. When the right EVF resolution is matched to the right camera and
optics, that lower resolution EVF can act as a "reverse micro-prism". When you
watch fine details in that EVF the parts that are in perfect focus will begin to
scintillate, as the small contrasting details pass over the edges of those
larger EVF pixels. Like the reverse of using a micro-prism ring in a good SLR's
OVF focusing screen.
It takes a perceptive eye to learn to see this effect. Your whole EVF becomes
one gigantic micro-prism (working in reverse). You can instantly see every part
of your image that will be in perfect focus. This effect is lost when the EVF
resolution is too high, or too low. When purchasing a new camera I test to see
if I can detect this reverse-micro-prism effect in the EVF. I use this method
often for fast and easy manual focusing on any P&S camera that I own.
>> Of course it seems not so useful to you. You've still not migrated to a good
>> quality EVF. Where you get all the benefits of low-light amplified,
>> real-time-shutter-speed-effects, bright DOF preview qualities of a live-view
>> plus an OVF as exists in ALL EVF displays.
>
>EVFs have OVF? :-)
>
I meant that an EVF can act as your OVF. And as shown, with much more benefit
than any OVF will ever have. (Instant accurate manual focusing (see above),
ramped-up gain in low-light levels where you can focus and frame in situations
that no OVF in the world will operate, instant slow/fast shutter effects relayed
to your "OVF" view, bright DOF preview in all situations and all light-levels,
etc.)
>> ...Why snip out the part where it says that
>> shutter-lags on P&S cameras can be even shorter than on DSLRs?
>
>AF speed is the real issue, and that annoying startup time. Sure it's
>possible to work-around sometimes and there might be some odd cases
>where there's an advantage but in the real world, DSLRs are much faster
>& P&S are a drag. You're arguing in circles to make a negative a
>positive and I'm not buying it. This is a no-brainer anyone can see and
>doesn't justify all this circular reasoning.
>
If you have to depend on auto-focusing for everything, call me later when you
get some talent under your belt. The only time I use auto-focusing is when
getting into the ballpark rapidly, then everything is manual focus. Know your
subject(s), anticipate their behaviors, study life, become a pro.
>>
>> Great! If you own a studio, by all means, buy a DSLR! Indoors, where you can
>> keep all your lenses on a sturdy table so it won't collapse, where you can
>> control every bit of light that hits your subject ... yes, for the studio a DSLR
>> will be great! Last time I checked, staged photos in a studio are not real life.
>> Unless you live in one and never go outside your studio door.
>
>You got it backward, I'm saying theoretically P&S should do alright in a
>studio because you can use a tripod & balance the lighting to compensate
>for poor dynamic range but nobody uses them this way. In a controlled
>studio or full sun the images are OK but DSLR images are better than
>just OK.
Who said all P&S's have poor dynamic range? They have more than any film cameras
(see above, some have even more dynamic range than a DSLR's APS-C sized sensor),
and the dynamic range of those films have fared well for millions of
photographers for a century. Are you saying that your talents are so crippled
that you can't even do what millions have done before you with no complaints?
Do you know where the main complaint of lower dynamic range comes from? DSLR
users who have to rely on inaccurate exposure meters and try to fix their errors
later, hoping that extra dynamic range will save them from their crappy
photographer's skills. Caused by those DSLR metering systems that are thrown off
by any light that enters from the OVF side of the sensor. Those internal OVF
light-metering systems that are only optimized for certain focal-length lenses.
Those P&S-DSLR amateurs that don't know how to set exposure properly to override
what their camera suggests.
This is now partly alleviated by the use of live RGB histograms overlaid on the
EVF display (see CHDK's Histogram features:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage#Histogram_menu ), or by
under/over-exposure area warnings on any subject/scene areas. (See: CHDK's
"Zebra Mode" http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK_firmware_usage#Zebra_parameters )
All of which are impossible to implement on ANY optical viewfinder on any DSLR.
If you accurately expose your scene for the dynamic range of your chosen sensor
then you will probably never notice any lessened dynamic range of any smaller
sensor. It's amateurs that want that larger dynamic range to make up for their
lack of skill as a real photographer, forever setting the wrong exposures
because they want to trust what the camera maker told them it should be, and
desperately trying to fix their errors later in editing.
Need more dynamic range than that? Get a CHDK P&S camera. You can take
high-speed burst bracketing to cover the camera's full 30EV dynamic range in a
few photos taken within a 1 second shutter press.
(See: "Total New EV Range" column on this chart,
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures )
>
>
>>>> 24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did
>>>
>>> Yep, that's why I'm thinking of getting one.
>>
>> Good for you! The more that you research, the more that you use one, the more
>> you'll find your D & SLR gear collecting dust. Mine does. Just like my film
>> cameras started to collect dust first, then my DSLRs started doing the same (but
>> I sold them while they still had some market value).
>
>I have a high tolerance for hauling around heavy gear but this will fill
>the gap where I want something smaller. During the day, running errands
>& such it'll be nice to have a camera along.
I heat my home with wood. I can cart a 150 lb. log on my shoulders 100 times a
day and haul each one through 160 acres worth of dense brush-filled woods to my
yard. I'm the last one to complain about weight. But a DSLR? When I can get just
as good as, and in many situations (see macro photography) even better results
from a P&S? There's zero reason to add that unneeded weight to my trekking
supplies. There are many photos today that only exist because I had to travel
light enough to trek 150 miles on foot into some remote region of the planet,
staying away from access to supplies renewals for months at a time. It was the
only way to obtain those shots of those species, those scenes, by learning how
to put a P&S camera to excellent use. Granted, not everyone goes on such
extended expeditions to get once-in-a-lifetime shots as I do, but its still a
consideration for even the most "tourista" of vacationing of travelers. Sling
that DSLR+telephoto-zoom around your neck while you're on that roller-coaster,
or put that P&S in a zipped-up pocket. Lets see which of the two cameras survive
the most situations on even the lamest of family outings.
>>
>> And for 60 second exposures too,
>
>Sure but if I'm bringing a tripod I'll bring my DSLR.
Great. With a P&S I can carry a 14 oz. collapsible tripod that will fit in a
large pocket because the camera's small mass can be stabilized with that little
of extra support. With a DSLR + glass you need ... how many more pounds of mass
to stabilize that gear? You've clearly not thought this through very much at
all, have you.
>>
>> If you live in a studio, and never go to any public events, stage plays,
>> extended wilderness outings, museums, etc. where a DSLR would be disallowed or
>> not welcomed, then yes, get a DSLR. For the rest of us that live in the real
>> world, and like to respect others so as not to annoy them with the sounds of a
>> DSLR, then there's no other option but a good P&S camera.
>
>I haven't been backpacking for a while but I do long hikes and can put
>together a lightweight kit when I'm not up for a heavy bag.
>D700
>20mm f/2.8 AF
>45mm f/2.8 pancake MF
>75-150mm f/3.5 MF (225mm eq on the D200)
>two spare lenses, one in each coat pocket.
I'd giggle about your "hike" packing requirements but I've been told that I'm
too masculine for that behavior.
>I'm not a fanatic. OK well I am more than a little over the top with
>DSLR gear but I never called anyone an idiot for choosing a P&S. They
>are compact, inexpensive and convenient. Any other suggestions in the
>LX3 thread?
Nope. I encourage others to do some research, buy cameras, test them. More than
I have already. I've spent quite a bit of time and money investigating things.
It's time for others to step up to the plate. Maybe they can find some new
camera that I might consider in the near future. This is why I never suggest a
particular model to anyone nor tell them what I use anymore. (Plus, what I use
isn't available anymore except on the used market, if you are lucky to find
someone foolish enough to part with them. I wouldn't sell the P&S cameras I
owned even if you offered me a $30,000 DSLR and all the glass that that mfg.
made for it in trade. Newer is not always better.) I like the P&S cameras that I
already have. They are phenomenal for my needs. With the right mix of add-on
lenses they are better than any DSLR. Maybe you'll do enough of your own tests
on real purchases, not depending on some lame camera-review site's suggestion
nor resident-troll's suggestions. To as strongly suggest newer P&S models to
others once you get over your misinformed DSLR=Pro biases.
Be strong enough to make your own choices in life, regardless of what 10,000
misinformed resident-trolls are saying on some newsgroup, you might be surprised
with what you find.
Ray Fischer
> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>Troll wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> P&S guy <man of many names> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>>> No, it is not seamless.
>>>
>>> Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
>>
>>Yes but not 6mm-2100mm or whatever you are claiming.
>
>I guess you missed those thread with photos to prove that it can be done, and
>done well.
Then with an SLR you can go "seamless" from 6mm to 4000mm and longer
and with much better quality. You can use tilt-shift lenses, you can
go as fast as f1.0, you can use a wide variety of filters.
How many P&S cameras have an f1.0 lens? I'm sure than you know the answer.
>There's no winning against the self-induced ignorance of net-trolls.
But you CAN stop resisting the truth.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
paul-torgensen
>Alex R <alexa...@wherever.org> wrote:
>> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>Troll wrote:
>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>> P&S guy <man of many names> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>>>> No, it is not seamless.
>>>>
>>>> Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
>>>
>>>Yes but not 6mm-2100mm or whatever you are claiming.
>>
>>I guess you missed those thread with photos to prove that it can be done, and
>>done well.
>
>Then with an SLR you can go "seamless" from 6mm to 4000mm and longer
>and with much better quality. You can use tilt-shift lenses, you can
>go as fast as f1.0, you can use a wide variety of filters.
Yes, f/1.0 with fixed focal-length lenses. How many of those will you need to
get that 6mm to 4000mm focal-length range? Let's count them, shall we? You'd
need 3,994 individual lenses. No wait, you can't get most of those focal-lengths
at those f/1.0 apertures. In fact, only 2 are available at that aperture, both
of severely limited use with poor image quality at full aperture. That leaves
out 3,992 focal-lengths.
What's that aperture at 4000mm? f/40 isn't it? Got ISO high enough to make that
the least bit useable in full sunlight on the equator at noon with useful
shutter speeds, without that focal-plane shutter and slapping mirror imparting
image-shake into that set-up? (You're a total dolt, you do realize that, don't
you?)
Hint: this is the digital age. With good editing software that should include
Lanczos-8 resampling algorithms you no longer need any tilt-shift lenses. Those
were needed for analog imaging methods where they didn't have the tools we use
today. Try living in this century, would you? Go read another remedial book on
photography that was published over 3 decades ago. Your knowledge might get up
to speed eventually.
You don't have a clue about the limits of focal-lengths vs. apertures. Of course
you don't. Keep trying, net-troll, you keep making your ignorance more and more
blatant with every post that you make.
Paul Furman
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> Troll wrote:
>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>> P&S guy <man of many names> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>>> No, it is not seamless.
>>
>> resulting in soft corners.
>
> Again, you must have missed that thread where someone uploaded
'Someone'? I thought you weren't actually pretending to be all these
people, just avoiding filters. So are you going to actually pretend to
be 40 people now?
> a full-resolution
> crop from the corner of a 0.25x teleconverter example. You didn't see the
> 2-panel 180-degree panorama with the edge crop to show there was no
> edge-softness? No CA? Too bad that you missed that.
Yes, remember I pointed out it looked fake to me because the 'original'
crop had less barrel distortion. Obviously stitched.
>>> 1.7x + 1.7x teleconverters
>>> http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2124/2999210192_bc589b9887_o.jpg for a 2197mm's
>>
>> FWIW, the exif says Canon PowerShot S3 IS. No way to tell if a converter
>> was used.
>
> Yes, let's all just claim that any photo online is fake.
Let's see the same scene at 6mm, 28mm, 420mm & 2100mm with full pixel crops.
>>> And the larger diameter glass in all DSLR lenses make them only perform
>>> optimally at one f-stop. You're right, there's no free lunch. I'll take the
>>> convenience of having good images at all f-stops, diffraction limited across the
>>> full range of the lens, rather than one expensive lens that is only diffraction
>>> limited at one f-stop.
>>
>> I'm not sure what you are thinking but it's P&S which are limited to a
>> very narrow range of apertures due to diffraction cutting in at rather
>> small apertures around f/4. DSLRs don't get diffraction limited until
>> f/11 (DX) or f/16 (FX) and can go a few stops faster than the fastest
>> P&S. My 105 macro lens goes down to f/45 in the event that I want to
>> lose to diffraction for more DOF. That's a lot of flexibility.
>
> You apparently don't know what "diffraction limited" means. In astronomy (and
> pro optics) circles, "diffraction limited" means that the optics can no longer
> be figured any finer to resolve detail.
When diffraction is a problem at f/4 it doesn't matter.
> DSLR glass doesn't have to be diffraction limited at all apertures.
We must be talking about different things, I'm a photog, not an
astronomer. Diffraction isn't an issue with DSLRs till you stop way
down. Look at the calculator on this page:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/digital-camera-sensor-size.htm
which puts the diffraction limit at f/3.3 to f/4 for digital compacts
with 10MP & DSLRs at f/10 to f/15.
also: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials/diffraction-photography.htm
>>>>> 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
>>>> This is complete nonsense!
>>> Only if you snip out the link
>>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
>> We have no idea where that comes from.
>
> Oh? You can't read the "Imatest" logo on that?
Did you run this test? Bizarre way to present data completely out of
context.
>> OK, I think you got me. However, flash bursts are so fast that if you
>> need to freeze a bullet in mid air or something, the flash itself will
>> do that and the shutter speed only controls ambient background lighting.
>>
>> Another scenario is wanting some fill flash in bright sunlight *and*
>> wanting shallow DOF for subject isolation in a portrait. This might
>> require a neutral density filter or a more expensive DSLR where a P&S
>> simply can't get shallow DOF without stepping back 500 feet and then the
>> flash won't work. Kind of a specialized need but yeah there might be
>> situations where it would be useful.
>
> Since when does using fill-flash in bright sunlight always go hand-in-hand with
> a shallow DOF? Just making up more unique-case situations
I was trying to imagine a case where super high shutter speeds are needed.
>> I hate flash but people who learn to use it properly get fantastic
>> natural looking results with well lit backgrounds. If you don't want
>> flash, just crank up the ISO & it's a wash.
>
> I despise flash for macros.
Done right it can be excellent. I'm not really interested though.
> 4. You can't crank up the ISO on a DSLR high enough to get enough DOF with a
> small enough aperture and a fast enough shutter speed to capture any insect or
> animal in motion by available light alone.
Sure you can. P&S/DSLR is a wash in this regard, just that the DSLR has
more range & flexibility.
> This is why any cheap P&S in
> existence will outshine any DSLR ever made for hand-held macro-photography of
> living subjects.
If you have some basis for this claim, please explain.
>>>>> 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder
>>>> And DSLRs have live view now. I don't use it on mine much but it's
>>>> there. The little bit of crop doesn't bother me anywhere near as much as
>>>> a little grainy washed out LCD view in the sun.
>>> Yeah, just how useful is that? Where you have to remove your eye from your
>>> subject in the viewfinder to make use of its vast benefits?
>
>> Huh?
>
> In order to use the benefits of "live-view" on a DSLR, you have to remove your
> eye from the OVF that you prize so much. On a camera with a good EVF you gain
> the benefits of a live-view and the benefits of an OVF combined as one.
The main benefit of optical is you can see the scene clearly not like
watching TV.
>>> Oh, that's right,
>>> you've never experienced the convenience of an EVF live-view. Where you get all
>>> the data you need (and more, see CHDK) superimposed right on your subject in the
>>> viewfinder in transparencies.
>> I almost got a Sony with EVF when I bought my first DSLR. That would
>> have been a big mistake. I'm looking at the Ricoh with removable EVF
>> finder but it's awfully expensive for a pocket P&S. My current DSLR has
>> live view but it's really not that useful in the real world, I tried it
>> & found I missed a lot by not being able to see details, just a grainy
>> TV image.
>
> Buy better cameras that have higher resolution EVFs and LCDs.
I've got the highest res LCD live view available on my DSLR, it still
stinks. I miss things that would have been obvious with an optical view.
> If you have to depend on auto-focusing for everything
No, half my lenses are manual and the others I often go manual anyways.
>> You got it backward, I'm saying theoretically P&S should do alright in a
>> studio because you can use a tripod & balance the lighting to compensate
>> for poor dynamic range but nobody uses them this way. In a controlled
>> studio or full sun the images are OK but DSLR images are better than
>> just OK.
>
> Who said all P&S's have poor dynamic range?
It's a fact.
> Do you know where the main complaint of lower dynamic range comes from? DSLR
> users who have to rely on inaccurate exposure meters and try to fix their errors
> later, hoping that extra dynamic range will save them from their crappy
> photographer's skills. Caused by those DSLR metering systems that are thrown off
> by any light that enters from the OVF side of the sensor.
My DSLR has a flip switch to close the eyepiece when shooting live view
or on a tripod.
> If you accurately expose your scene for the dynamic range of your chosen sensor
> then you will probably never notice any lessened dynamic range of any smaller
> sensor.
Yep, in good lighting cell phones can make gorgeous shots. However, the
first thing anyone notices when they take up photography is the camera
has a lot less DR than the eye. Waiting for better lighting is the best
solution but high DR cameras help too. And of course keeping an eye on
the histogram.
> Need more dynamic range than that? Get a CHDK P&S camera. You can take
> high-speed burst bracketing to cover the camera's full 30EV dynamic range in a
> few photos taken within a 1 second shutter press.
Yeah, HDR is another solution.
>>>>> 24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did
>>>> Yep, that's why I'm thinking of getting one.
>>> Good for you! The more that you research, the more that you use one, the more
>>> you'll find your D & SLR gear collecting dust. Mine does. Just like my film
>>> cameras started to collect dust first, then my DSLRs started doing the same (but
>>> I sold them while they still had some market value).
>>
>> I have a high tolerance for hauling around heavy gear but this will fill
>> the gap where I want something smaller. During the day, running errands
>> & such it'll be nice to have a camera along.
>
> I heat my home with wood. I can cart a 150 lb. log on my shoulders 100 times a
> day and haul each one through 160 acres worth of dense brush-filled woods to my
> yard.
Uphill both ways!
:-)
>> I'm not a fanatic. OK well I am more than a little over the top with
>> DSLR gear but I never called anyone an idiot for choosing a P&S. They
>> are compact, inexpensive and convenient. Any other suggestions in the
>> LX3 thread?
>
> Nope.
tn...@mucks.net
>> 18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times
>
>Yes this is a problem for P&S in the real world.
>
Number 18 used to read:
Begin quote
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.
End quote
By your hacked snip job you seem to suggest that a DSLR doesn't have a
shutter lag. How can one believe anything you say when your hack job
suggests that your not being honest?
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
> I've just checked this for the 2X teleconverter for my Nikon 990, As
> far as I can tell, the exit pupil for fairly distant light has a
> diameter of around 17mm, but I am not sure of this measurement (not
> enough sun today!).
David,
Try using a piece of paper, moving it back and forth behind the
teleconverter to find the minimum. It may be close to but not
exactly up near the back of the lens. If the exit pupil
is 17 mm, and the camera lens aperture were 6 mm, you would be
collecting (6/17)^2 = 12% of the light.
Roger
David J Taylor
If it's sunny later, I'll see if I can find the time to test.
Would I be right in thinking, though, that if Nikon have designed an
over-sized teleconvertor, it may simply be that they designed one to
accomodate later lenses on their planned camera range? It may have been
larger, heavier, and cost more than was strictly required?
What happens if the entrance pupil to the lens it is converting is not
right at the front of the lens, but some way inside? Presumably, that
would mean that the teleconverter would have to be oversized to accomodate
the effective size of the lens entrance pupil at the teleconverter? I've
not had the need to measure where the entrance pupil of the Nikon 990
actually is.
I wonder if there's an Internet reference?
http://www.birdforum.net/archive/index.php/t-10830.html
http://www.nikon-euro.com/nikoneuro_en/hit/dc/dce990/en/HIT_dce990_en_6.htm
Cheers,
David
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Alex R <alexa...@wherever.org> wrote:
>>> Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>>>Troll wrote:
>>>>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>>>>> P&S guy <man of many names> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range
>>>>>> No, it is not seamless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Example P&S lens: 27mm-486mm, f/2.8-f/4.4
>>>>
>>>>Yes but not 6mm-2100mm or whatever you are claiming.
>>>
>>>I guess you missed those thread with photos to prove that it can be done, and
>>>done well.
>>
>>Then with an SLR you can go "seamless" from 6mm to 4000mm and longer
>>and with much better quality. You can use tilt-shift lenses, you can
>>go as fast as f1.0, you can use a wide variety of filters.
>
>Yes, f/1.0 with fixed focal-length lenses.
Which is not possible at all with a P&S.
> How many of those will you need to
>get that 6mm to 4000mm focal-length range? Let's count them, shall we? You'd
>need 3,994 individual lenses.
LOL! You a really are a _stupid_ little asshole.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Doug Jewell
> Only if you snip out the link that proves you 100% wrong. Here, I'll insert it
> again so you aren't poking your own eyes out to retain your bliss-of-ignorance.
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
How about actually posting a link to the flickr page,
instead of just the image - that way we can assess the
legitimacy of the above link.
I found that www.imaging-resource.com uses the same charts
for some cameras (doesn't have the S3 though). Comparing
their test for the Canon XTi/400D vs the S3 page you linked
to reveals...
Total DR (with in-camera JPG on 400D) is 9.98 stops vs 10.3
on the S3IS. Ok so total DR on the S3 is better than the
in-camera JPG DR on the 400D. That is true, but it is also
not relevant, because that includes noise. At the point
where there is still a whopping 1 stop of noise in the
shadows (which would be considered low image quality), the
400D is at 9.83 stops DR vs 9.05 of the S3IS. ie, the 400D
is delivering almost 1 stop better DR. If you are a little
pickier about image quality, with .25 stop of noise, the
400D has 8.27 stops of DR, vs 7 stops on the S3. For what
would be considered high image quality, with .1 stop of
noise, the 400D is delivering 7.04 stops DR vs only 4.82 for
the S3 - that's more than 2 stops better performance on the
400D.
But it gets better yet. Shoot in RAW and use ACR, and the
400D jumps to 11 total stops of DR, and 7.84 stops with .1
noise. At the level where there is only .1 stop of noise,
the 400D is delivering a whopping 3 stops more DR than the S3IS.
So, your claim that P&S delivers more DR is comprehensively
debunked, so probably best for you to fuck off back to troll
school now.
BTW, when you post a "sample" of how good P&S is, why won't
you post the link to the flickr page, so we can actually see
what the EXIF info is. I won't hold my breath, because the
shots you are linking to are A) probably not yours, and B)
probably taken with an SLR anyway.
Dale Arndt
>Which is not possible at all with a P&S.
Funny, I've never found a need for any lens with an f/1.0 aperture. I own and
have used f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, etc. and they are all just as useful (even more
so due to better image quality) than any f/1.0 lens. F/1.0 lenses are made more
as an experiment and challenge to see if it is possible do to well, just for
optical-designing bragging rights for a number reached, nothing more. Their
limited use and poor image quality compared to smaller aperture lenses makes
them more of an optic-designer's curiosity and challenge. For photography they
really serve no great purpose that can't be resolved with just a slightly slower
shutter speed or a slightly higher ISO or increasing ambient light levels a bit.
Is there any particular reason you would feel proud of owning an
fixed-focal-length f/1.0 lens other than how much you had to pay for it? The
need for its everyday usefulness and resulting poorer images at full aperture
escapes me.
If you make some silly claim that a 50mm f/1.0 lens is needed for a shallow DOF,
then increase the focal length of a f/1.4 or f/2.0 lens instead and you get the
same DOF. There's really no need for an f/1.0 lens in anyone's kit when you
really stop and think about it. A nonsensical lens-collector's item and nothing
more.
Doug Jewell
however there isn't a single camera that delivers the things
he claims. 27-486 (35mm equiv) is the range on the Fuji
S8100, but then he raves on about CHDK, which is available
for some of the older Canon cameras (he posts a link with
specs of the S3 so presumably that is the camera he is
referring to). Then he talks about small and lightweight,
which the S8100 & S3 aren't, so maybe now he is talking
about an IXUS or Powershot. He then talks about a good
quality EVF, which neither the fuji nor canon have, so maybe
he has an old Minolta, a Sony or a Kodak as well.
Of course all of these P&S cameras weigh more and are
bulkier, than the typical SLR kit.
edward-jorgen
wrote:
Then all your claims are debunked if you use CHDK on an S3 and use the RAW data
giving it a full extra EV stop in dynamic range, it will still win over your
beloved DSLR. Not all noise is noise when you now how to filter out real noise
from real data. It must feel pretty bad to finally see that all those
theoretical calculations that idiots spewed out on the newsgroups, claiming that
no small sensor could ever compete with a DSLR sensor, have now been totally
proved wrong with real-world test results.
Would you like to see the S3 ISO800 graphs that prove it still has more dynamic
range than the average APS-C sensor at ISO800? Yes, even at ISO800.
Your troll's request for images posted is laughable. You want images for proof
and then in the same breath you claim they would be stolen, forged, or edited.
You set yourself up to lose no matter what. Like any typical deceiving troll.
You self-deceptive trolls are so amazingly transparent. It's a wonder that
anyone would take the time to try to educate you. It's not worth it.
WilliamHurst
wrote:
>Ray Fischer wrote:
It's fun watching you run around like a chicken with its head cut off trying to
figure out which of the many P&S cameras would be best. They're all
excellent--in the hands of a photographer with real talent. A quality which you
apparently lack, or the existence of P&S cameras and those who claim to find
them more useful than a DSLR wouldn't bother you so.
Your protestations speak loud and clear, but only about your lack of any
photography skill whatsoever. I'm sure you hadn't intended that message being
conveyed in your posts, but that's all that you've managed to prove so far.
Toby
"Ray Fischer" <rfis...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:491734eb$0$33571$742e...@news.sonic.net...
> Ray Fischer
Ignore the abusive troll. There are three large P&Ss with that range from
Olympus, Fuji and Panasonic. The lenses themselves are not terrible. They
suffer from fringing and CA, which the Panasonic, at least, corrects
in-camera (I'm not sure about the Oly and the Fuji doesn't, making the
corners pretty horrible). Dpreview says that all of these cameras make nice
5x7 inch prints, but you can't go much larger decently. All three suffer
from horribly noisy sensors, losing considerable detail to noise reduction
already by ISO 400. Also they all tend to clip the highlights.
I have a friend with the Panasonic, and she says that she absolutely cannot
get rid of the noise artifacts after ISO 400. She thought she was getting a
good deal with the zoom range, but is not happy with the rest of the
package.
Toby
Toby
Not stupid, but definitely disturbed.
Toby
Toby
>
> IGNORE his postings no matter what he follows up with, and in time he
> might just disappear, doubtful, but worth a shot... unless of course you
> or others hellbent on replying enjoy being referred to as morons, or
> <gasp> resident-trolls. It is after all a GAME for him, one that none of
> you currently replying will ever win...
Wise words, indeed.
Toby
clarence patkin
>>On Thu, 06 Nov 2008 09:04:23 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>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....
>
FrankH
The ignorance and stupidity of that comment doesn't even rate a 0.001 on the
0-10 scale of the "Typical-Resident-Trolls'-Tactics Meter"
SMS
> I have a friend with the Panasonic, and she says that she absolutely cannot
> get rid of the noise artifacts after ISO 400. She thought she was getting a
> good deal with the zoom range, but is not happy with the rest of the
> package.
That's the danger of buying based solely on specifications. Panasonic
has a terrible reputation in terms of noise, even though on paper their
cameras look appealing.
Still, even with less noisy P&S cameras, going beyond 8" x 10" prints is
very dicey, but few people ever have the need for larger than 8" x 10"
See the table at "http://i33.tinypic.com/28m3669.jpg" for a good guide
to where you can go in terms of print sizes for P&S versus D-SLR.
George
> Owen D Rankin <owenr...@removedforspam.gov> wrote:
>>On 09 Nov 2008 18:41:05 GMT, rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>>Anti-DSLRtrolls <bobg...@privateisp.org> wrote:
>>>> JT's Keeper <justa...@mad.scientist.com>
>>>
>>>Of course it is, asshole. Everybody knows it and nobody takes you
>>>seriously. You're a joke.
>>
>>Then you should read this.
>
> It's why you're a joke, asshole.
>
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net
------------
Actually, I found it quite interesting.
For some months I have been considering selling all my DSLR stuff - mainly
because it's all so impractical. I've got a high spec body, grip, two
flashguns (which, alone, cost over £500) remote release, off-camera flash
cord, flash bracket, external flash power supply - you name it, plus an
assortment of lenses (one or two of them very good) with largest being a
170-500 and the smallest a 50mm f1.7
Then there are Lithium batteries for the camera, AA's for the flash,
cleaning cloths, blower......it just goes on, and on.
Put together, it all looks *very* impressive - but it's all a bit useless
since I now rarely take the stuff out of the house due to the sheer weight
and size of the paraphernalia.
On three or four occasions this summer I've assembled the kit I felt that I
*needed*, bagged it all up - and then lost heart at the prospect of carrying
it about on a family trip, so I just left it all at home.
So, I've got a *lot* of money tied up in stuff that, frankly, has become
more of a burden than a pleasure to own.
I know that many people would disagree - but, for me, I think I'll be going
out next summer with a good quality P&S - and, since a lot of the image
quality relies on PP, I don't expect to get shots that are *much* worse than
those I get with the DSLR *when* I can bring myself to carry it.
I also strongly suspect that (like me) 99.99% of DSLR users produce shots
that are no better than those they could obtain from a P&S costing a
fraction of the money they've laid out for *impressive* DSLR equipment. It
seems to have become all about 'image' - and is obviously highly profitable,
or the manufacturers wouldn't be pushing DSLR's so much.
As an aside - *what* P&S should I be considering, which will give decent
quality images and still be portable (doesn't have to go in a pocket - just
not require a Nepalese porter to carry it all ;)?
SMS
<snip>
> I know that many people would disagree - but, for me, I think I'll be going
> out next summer with a good quality P&S - and, since a lot of the image
> quality relies on PP, I don't expect to get shots that are *much* worse than
> those I get with the DSLR *when* I can bring myself to carry it.
A lot depends on where you're going. On several of the past vacations
I've been on, you wouldn't get shots that are much worse, because you
wouldn't get the shot at all. This is especially the case if you're
shooting (with a camera) wildlife in places like National Parks. You
need a long zoom lens of decent quality.
You _might_ get by with a Canon SX1 IS with it's 28mm-560mm (equivalent)
lens and CMOS sensor (no reports on quality yet). Still it has a very
small sensor so noise and dynamic range, always an issue with small
sensor P&S cameras, will be an issue, and of course you'll still have
the shutter lag, though for landscape shots this isn't a problem.
> I also strongly suspect that (like me) 99.99% of DSLR users produce shots
> that are no better than those they could obtain from a P&S costing a
> fraction of the money they've laid out for *impressive* DSLR equipment.
It's often not about the shot being better or worse, it's about being
able to get the shot at all. You don't want to be adding funky
tele-converter lenses and wide-angle converter lenses to the P&S in
order to get sufficient zoom range, because the results will
_definitely_ be much worse.
> As an aside - *what* P&S should I be considering, which will give decent
> quality images and still be portable (doesn't have to go in a pocket - just
> not require a Nepalese porter to carry it all ;)?
For a D-SLR replacment I'd wait and see how the Canon SX1 IS looks when
it's reviewed. The Olympus SP570 was unimpressive. If you don't care
about a long telephoto, then get the Canon G10.
Whatever you do, don't buy the P&S and then try to expand its
functionality with a kludge involving various extension tubes, converter
lenses, etc.
Personally I think the real problem is that you feel compelled to take
your entire D-SLR system with you, rather than just the pieces you
really need. I had that frame of mind once, with a big LowePro backpack
to haul around all the lenses, flashes, cleaning equipment, etc. Then I
realized that this was not working, and got a small Tamrac case that had
the option to attach extra lens cases as needed. If I know I'll need a
long telephoto I bring that along, ditto for extreme wide angle.
David J Taylor
[]
> Put together, it all looks *very* impressive - but it's all a bit
> useless since I now rarely take the stuff out of the house due to the
> sheer weight and size of the paraphernalia.
I got like that with my film SLR outfit. So I've made weight and size an
important consideration with my DSLR, and I have a Nikon D60 body, and
just two lenses - a 16-85mm and a 70-300mm. On-camera flash, no tripod,
VR lenses.
If that's too much, and I want something for the pocket, I take just my
Panasonic TZ3 (28-280mm IS lens) with which I've been very pleased.
Before that, I had the Panasonic FZ5, but 36mm (eq) wide-angle wasn't
enough for me. 28-280mm isn't bad, though.
David
H.S.
Well said. I have had similar experience (though I ma no pro by any
measure at all) with film camera gear. The lesson I learned was that for
touristy stuff and other typical family occasions, the best option for
me was the Olympus Epic Stylus. I have used positive and negative film
with that little gem of a camera with great results but without any
burden or worry attached with carrying the SLR equipment. The expensive
equipment is too demanding in terms of care, time and effort and it just
destroys the fun of the outing -- and that is the bottom line, I am not
going on on a job (photo assignment), I am going out to relax and have fun.
Same deal with DSLRs. Small P&S have proved to be sufficient in usual
tourist and family gathering occasions. Canon G5 has proved to be a far
greater camera than I had originally expected. And it can shoot raw and
takes excellent pictures.
It appears that only professional photogs are in a position to *have* to
invest in a DSLR since they care about the improvement in image quality
at the expense of huge investment in burden and care. But hey, this is
their job.
Bottom line: each type of camera has its applications. Fanatics here
just need to grow up ... if they are already physically grown people,
then their brain needs to catch up.
--
Please remove all caps,if any, from my email address to get the correct
one. Apologies for the inconvenience but this is to reduce spam.
Ken Brockwood
>George wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>> I know that many people would disagree - but, for me, I think I'll be going
>> out next summer with a good quality P&S - and, since a lot of the image
>> quality relies on PP, I don't expect to get shots that are *much* worse than
>> those I get with the DSLR *when* I can bring myself to carry it.
>
>A lot depends on where you're going. On several of the past vacations
>I've been on, you wouldn't get shots that are much worse, because you
>wouldn't get the shot at all. This is especially the case if you're
>shooting (with a camera) wildlife in places like National Parks. You
>need a long zoom lens of decent quality.
Spoken like a true DSLR-Troll that never used a camera and is now revealing that
even if he did he's only revealing his lack of skill and talent with ANY camera.
When all they have is a virtual-camera to play with in their minds they often
make errors like this.
>
>You _might_ get by with a Canon SX1 IS with it's 28mm-560mm (equivalent)
>lens and CMOS sensor (no reports on quality yet). Still it has a very
>small sensor so noise and dynamic range, always an issue with small
>sensor P&S cameras, will be an issue, and of course you'll still have
>the shutter lag, though for landscape shots this isn't a problem.
Spoken like a true DSLR-Troll that doesn't realize that shutter-lag on P&S
cameras in the last 3 years can actually be less than that on a DSLR.
>
>> I also strongly suspect that (like me) 99.99% of DSLR users produce shots
>> that are no better than those they could obtain from a P&S costing a
>> fraction of the money they've laid out for *impressive* DSLR equipment.
>
>It's often not about the shot being better or worse, it's about being
>able to get the shot at all. You don't want to be adding funky
>tele-converter lenses and wide-angle converter lenses to the P&S in
>order to get sufficient zoom range, because the results will
>_definitely_ be much worse.
Spoken like a true DSLR-Troll that totally discounts the photographic proof that
this is completely untrue.
>
>> As an aside - *what* P&S should I be considering, which will give decent
>> quality images and still be portable (doesn't have to go in a pocket - just
>> not require a Nepalese porter to carry it all ;)?
>
>For a D-SLR replacment I'd wait and see how the Canon SX1 IS looks when
>it's reviewed. The Olympus SP570 was unimpressive. If you don't care
>about a long telephoto, then get the Canon G10.
>
>Whatever you do, don't buy the P&S and then try to expand its
>functionality with a kludge involving various extension tubes, converter
>lenses, etc.
Spoken like a true DSLR-Troll that's never used a decent P&S camera in his life.
>
>Personally I think the real problem is that you feel compelled to take
>your entire D-SLR system with you, rather than just the pieces you
>really need. I had that frame of mind once, with a big LowePro backpack
>to haul around all the lenses, flashes, cleaning equipment, etc. Then I
>realized that this was not working, and got a small Tamrac case that had
>the option to attach extra lens cases as needed. If I know I'll need a
>long telephoto I bring that along, ditto for extreme wide angle.
Spoken like a true DSLR-Troll that's never been outside his mommy's basement and
ever had to carry any real camera anywhere.
SMS
> I got like that with my film SLR outfit. So I've made weight and size
> an important consideration with my DSLR, and I have a Nikon D60 body,
> and just two lenses - a 16-85mm and a 70-300mm. On-camera flash, no
> tripod, VR lenses.
With D-SLRs, some people get so excited about finally being able to
shoot in situations where they couldn't ever get decent results with
their P&S that they feel that if they don't take along every lens they
own, a flash, etc., that they'll miss something. It's like OMG, look
what I've been missing for so long. After a while they calm down and are
content to venture out with one or two lenses.
My sister-in-law finally got a D-SLR and became the de-facto
photographer for her daughters' volleyball leagues (after I went to a
game and showed her the results she could get with an SLR). Trying to
use a P&S at these volleyball games was an exercise in futility. The
games are all indoors so the lighting isn't great, it's a fast moving
sport so you can't tolerate shutter or auto-focus lag, and the
spectators can't get too close so you need good a good telephoto. She
got an image-stabilized telephoto lens on a 50D, and the results are
just outstanding. There's a misconception among some people that a D-SLR
is only for "pros." Not sure where they got this idea, since in the days
of film amateur SLRs were sold in huge volumes, like the old Canon A1,
and later the Canon Rebel, and the Nikon N line.
I ran into similar problems photographing softball games, where if you
wanted to get the shot of the batter hitting the ball, you simply could
not tolerate any shutter lag, and you needed to be out beyond the
outfield with the camera on a tripod and a long zoom lens.
> If that's too much, and I want something for the pocket, I take just my
> Panasonic TZ3 (28-280mm IS lens) with which I've been very pleased.
> Before that, I had the Panasonic FZ5, but 36mm (eq) wide-angle wasn't
> enough for me. 28-280mm isn't bad, though.
Yeah, I find it's really nice to have a P&S with a wide-angle lens. 36
mm can be intolerable. But I also find when taking group shots with the
lens at 28mm, if there are other people with P&S cameras they're always
trying to get everyone to move closer together, while I don't want them
closer together.
Toby
> On one of the other groups, an ongoing discussion went on over research
> and the Internet. It was pointed out that Wiki's are of a somewhat
> questionable nature (factually) as it relates to research and/or
> verification. But what the heck, I was sort of hoping that maybe CDHK
> had something to offer... but given the "abusiveness" of the
> messenger... well... let us just say he *might* have caught more flies
> with honey, than all the vinegar he's determined to spill with his
> outrageous stories, name calling, and less than factual claims (about
> P&S cameras and/or posters abilities). It also doesn't help his
> "credibility" with the use of his large collection of sock-puppets, nor
> his lack of willingness to post a link (I know I just stay awake nights
> thinking of ways to steal someone-else photography, instead of you-know
> ...using my own photos), or state which 7 year old P&S he uses that
> gives him his stellar photographic results.
>
> Anyway, more food for thought, as always YMMV.
>
The heads-up on CHDK is the only thing of interest or value that he has ever
posted (for me, anyway). He does make some valid points about the general
handiness of P&S cameras as well, hidden in there in various places, but his
exaggerations and downplaying of P&S disadvantages destroy the value of the
message IMO.
Toby
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Which is not possible at all with a P&S.
>
>Funny, I've never found a need for any lens with an f/1.0 aperture.
So what?
> I own and
>have used f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, etc. and they are all just as useful (even more
>so due to better image quality) than any f/1.0 lens.
And how many P&S cameras have an f1.4 lens?
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
SMS
I remember Fuji coming out with their "Natura S" film P&S a couple of
years ago which was surprising given that there's not much of a market
for film P&S cameras. It had a 24mm f/1.9 lens, and was highly praised
for its low light performance and low shutter lag. I think Fuji designed
it mainly to complement its 1600 ASA Natura film. It quickly sold out
and was discontinued and now is a cult camera, along the lines of the
old Olympus XA. They also had a slower version with a 28-56mm f/2.8-5.4
zoom lens.
I don't think I've ever seen a digital P&S with even a f/1.8 lens, but
maybe they exist.
RichA
overall optical quality. Since no camera lens you'll find in, or slap on
(teleconverter) a P&S is really near the optical figure it will need to
support 1200mm, you will lose quality there, especially combining them.
16-24 elements, up to 40 lens surfaces?? You'd be better off gutting the
thing, then gluing a real telescope to just the camera body and sensor.
Choose a telescope that'll allow the tiny sensor to fill its field with the
Moon. Plus, with some real aperture so you could take an image in a
reasonable period of time, thereby (perhaps) avoiding some of the inevitable
atmospheric unsteadiness that is the bane of good Moon or planetary images.
"GriffonAnthony" <agri...@addressgoeshere.com> wrote in message
news:84eeh45n3gislejct...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 19:21:06 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <david-...@blueyonder.neither-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>Paul Furman wrote:
>>[]
>>>> I've just checked this for the 2X teleconverter for my Nikon 990, As
>>>> far as I can tell, the exit pupil for fairly distant light has a
>>>> diameter of around 17mm, but I am not sure of this measurement (not
>>>> enough sun today!). The camera has a stated focal length range of
>>>> 8-24mm, f/2.5-f/4, so the entrance pupil must be around 6mm at the
>>>> tele end, and the camera did have a reputation that you could put it
>>>> behind a microscope or telescope eyepiece and capture a good image. So
>>>> it would seem that, for this combination at least, the
>>>> teleconvertor does have an adequate exit pupil.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, this is only achieving a 35mm equivalent of 230mm at
>>>> f/4.0, with an actual 72mm focal length. The teleconverter takes
>>>> 62mm filters, FWIW.
>>>
>>> David, Does the exposure remain unchanged with & without the
>>> converter?
>>
>>Good question, Paul, but it's been so long since I used the camera and
>>converter that I can no longer be sure. The leaflet which comes with the
>>converter (Nikon TC-E2) says that the maximum aperture at full zoom
>>remains unchanged at f/4, but that the converter may vignette towards the
>>shorter end of the zoom range.
>>
>> http://www.helixcamera.com/digital/nikon/cpaccess/tce2.html
>>
>>I would need to dig the camera out, unpack it, find some batteries, etc.
>>etc. to make the measurements now.
>>
>>Cheers,
>>David
>
> Oh look, another troll whose only photography experience is that which he
> can
> obtain from downloading manuals off of the net. What are the odds of
> seeing THAT
> again!
>
> LOL
>
nospam
<scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> I don't think I've ever seen a digital P&S with even a f/1.8 lens, but
> maybe they exist.
olympus had several.
David J Taylor
[]
> Yeah, I find it's really nice to have a P&S with a wide-angle lens. 36
> mm can be intolerable. But I also find when taking group shots with
> the lens at 28mm, if there are other people with P&S cameras they're
> always trying to get everyone to move closer together, while I don't
> want them closer together.
Or can simply stand closer, in front of all those "36mm" photographers,
and get your picture first! Or include more of the context and make a
better picture.
Cheers,
David
Joel Compton
How many need one?
None.
Just as they don't need an f/1.0 lens.
Just as my SLR gear never needed an f/1.0 lens.
I get by just fine with the f/2.0 zoom lens on a P&S camera that is better and
has more features than any DSLR I've ever used.
If you can't do the same it can only mean one thing.
You don't know what you are doing with any camera in your hands.
HowardSandler
>Why all the sock puppets? The one thing you missed in all your B.S. was
>overall optical quality. Since no camera lens you'll find in, or slap on
>(teleconverter) a P&S is really near the optical figure it will need to
>support 1200mm, you will lose quality there, especially combining them.
>16-24 elements, up to 40 lens surfaces?? You'd be better off gutting the
>thing, then gluing a real telescope to just the camera body and sensor.
>Choose a telescope that'll allow the tiny sensor to fill its field with the
>Moon. Plus, with some real aperture so you could take an image in a
>reasonable period of time, thereby (perhaps) avoiding some of the inevitable
>atmospheric unsteadiness that is the bane of good Moon or planetary images.
You seriously need to do some actual research. Pixel for pixel there is no
difference in resolution between the two camera styles. When you buy good add-on
lenses for P&S cameras it is NO different than buying top-quality DSLR glass. IF
YOU KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
Really, do yourself and everyone a favor. Go educate yourself. At least buy a
camera and learn how to use it.
If you don't want to educate yourself in the real world with real cameras and
real photography skill, then perhaps you need to read this again. Some of it
might sink in eventually.
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."
SMS
The problem is all the people with the 36mm lenses yelling at the group
to move closer together until they're jammed up against each other and
faces are blocked. Unless there's someone else there with a wide-angle
P&S or D-SLR, I'll be the lone voice saying, "no, you're fine," and
afterward they'll ask, "what camera is that?"
How many people do you know that go into a store to buy a P&S camera
that have the slightest notion of what features to look for in terms of
the lens?
Hal Holbrook
>
>How many people do you know that go into a store to buy a P&S camera
>that have the slightest notion of what features to look for in terms of
>the lens?
Any photographer that knows what they are doing will know.
I buy my P&S cameras based on these things in the following order:
1. Image quality (dependent on #2).
2. Lens quality and zoom range.
3. Camera features & functions.
4. Adaptability.
5. Durability.
6. Size & weight.
7. Cost
Many P&S cameras rate very high on all 7 points. Many of them surprass most
DSLRs on all 7 points.
But how could you know this? You've never used any type of camera. Which is
clearly obvious by every one of your posts.
David J Taylor
[]
> The problem is all the people with the 36mm lenses yelling at the
> group to move closer together until they're jammed up against each
> other and faces are blocked. Unless there's someone else there with a
> wide-angle P&S or D-SLR, I'll be the lone voice saying, "no, you're
> fine," and afterward they'll ask, "what camera is that?"
The very few groups I photograph first arrange themselves, and expect the
photographers to then sort themselves out!
> How many people do you know that go into a store to buy a P&S camera
> that have the slightest notion of what features to look for in terms
> of the lens?
In terms of the general public, I've only known one person recently who
bought a camera, and it was quite interesting to see just how he decided.
Usability was perhaps the most important factor (and he decided he wanted
an optical viewfinder after seeing them), and zoom range not so important,
even though they were going on a part-safari style holiday. He would not
describe himself as an "amateur photographer", though. "Good for groups
and parties" is a description he would understand.
David
SMS
> In terms of the general public, I've only known one person recently who
> bought a camera, and it was quite interesting to see just how he
> decided. Usability was perhaps the most important factor (and he decided
> he wanted an optical viewfinder after seeing them), and zoom range not
> so important, even though they were going on a part-safari style
> holiday. He would not describe himself as an "amateur photographer",
> though. "Good for groups and parties" is a description he would
> understand.
Obviously he didn't worry about safari photos. Nothing wrong with that
these days, as someone on the safari is sure to have an SLR with a long
zoom, and will be able to share photos.
I was at Costco once, and some old guy looking at digital cameras asked
if I had any suggestions, and I told him that personally, I'd only buy a
digital camera with an optical viewfinder, and pointed to the only one
that had one. Until then he hadn't even realized that nearly every model
on display had no viewfinder, and it was kind of a shock to him. That
made the decision for him (even though it wasn't a camera I would have
chosen).
Ray Fischer
> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Dale Arndt <dale...@withheld.com> wrote:
>>> rfis...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>Which is not possible at all with a P&S.
>>>
>>>Funny, I've never found a need for any lens with an f/1.0 aperture.
>>
>>So what?
>>
>>> I own and
>>>have used f/1.2, f/1.4, f/1.8, etc. and they are all just as useful (even more
>>>so due to better image quality) than any f/1.0 lens.
>>
>>And how many P&S cameras have an f1.4 lens?
>
>How many need one?
I find regular need for fast lenses on my SLR.
>Just as they don't need an f/1.0 lens.
>
>Just as my SLR gear never needed an f/1.0 lens.
"Need"? Maybe not. But I've had situations where it'd have been nice.
>I get by just fine with the f/2.0 zoom lens on a P&S camera that is better and
>has more features than any DSLR I've ever used.
Not that you've had an SLR for many years.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
Toby
>
> You self-deceptive trolls are so amazingly transparent. It's a wonder that
> anyone would take the time to try to educate you. It's not worth it.
Then why do you continue? Out of your compassion and kindness?
Toby
RichA
"Joel Compton" <jcom...@withheld.org> wrote in message
news:74tih4lchurt7mj19...@4ax.com...
DwayneSayer
>Are you counting 21 "scene modes" as "features?"
>
I personally wouldn't know. As I've never used any of them on any of my P&S
cameras. Nor have I ever used that missing spot on my dial called "Auto", though
I've heard that others claim that setting exists, I've never seen it.
Heh ... surprisingly, to this date, I've never even once tested the efficacy of
the "Auto" selection on any of my P&S cameras. I just can't bring myself to
lower myself to that. I should see what that "Auto" setting does some day. But
then I'd probably have to kill myself for using a perfectly good P&S camera in
the DSLR-P&S mode.
old....@cmaaccess.com
<howard...@hsinc.com> wrote:
>Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
Just to let folks here know, AIOE is trying to block his spam
from there site. So they are responding to deal with this issue.
--
I hope you like my photos at www.myspace.com/osalt
If you would like to buy one, e-mail me, prints up
to 30x20 inches.
SMS
> On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:14:20 -0600, HowardSandler
> <howard...@hsinc.com> wrote:
>
>> Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
>
> Just to let folks here know, AIOE is trying to block his spam
> from there site. So they are responding to deal with this issue.
And if they block him, he'll simply use another provider.
We've seen this problem in other groups I've been active in, and it
really is not something most ISPs care about. We had someone in
alt.cellular.attws who continually posted a Usenet charter from a
different Usenet newsgroup in order to annoy everyone. He was simple to
kill-file since at least he only had two e-mail addresses that he used.
Several people complained to his ISP (or they said that they did) which
of course did nothing. ISPs don't have time to moderate petty Usenet
arguments.
Our current troll is harder to kill file, but using newsproxy, and
filtering on one unique header that he either doesn't realize doesn't
change, or that he doesn't know how to change, it's possible to filter
him too.
Try to have compassion. Think of the root cause of his behavior and
rather than getting angry, think about how you would feel if someone you
knew had the same issues.
samual-smith
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:14:20 -0600, HowardSandler
><howard...@hsinc.com> wrote:
>
>>Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
>
> Just to let folks here know, AIOE is trying to block his spam
>from there site. So they are responding to deal with this issue.
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your post is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
bob parker
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your post 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
old....@cmaaccess.com
wrote:
>And if they block him, he'll simply use another provider.
While true, his posts from the others seem to be down, and
that he relies on AIOE for the majority of his posts.
ArronBStrohm
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 05:31:04 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>And if they block him, he'll simply use another provider.
>
> While true, his posts from the others seem to be down, and
>that he relies on AIOE for the majority of his posts.
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your post 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
old....@cmaaccess.com
<ast...@mailunwanted.com> wrote:
Well looks like he has been cut off completely AIOE, and is
now using cpinternet.com. Well folks you know where to send the
complaints to get him kick from there:
Be sure to send full headers as well as a copy of the spam,
and when you see more then one spam from the same site the message ID.
Mark Thomas
> On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:43:18 -0600, ArronBStrohm
> <ast...@mailunwanted.com> wrote:
>
>> cpinternet.com
>
> Well looks like he has been cut off completely AIOE, and is
> now using cpinternet.com. Well folks you know where to send the
> complaints to get him kick from there:
>
> ab...@cpinternet.com
>
> Be sure to send full headers as well as a copy of the spam,
> and when you see more then one spam from the same site the message ID.
If you really were successful, well done old salt.
Once they get kicked from one, it is much easier to continue the
snowball. I'll help once I see a few more repeats. Troll, please
assist by posting your cut and paste reply here...
(O:
dale-denver
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:43:18 -0600, ArronBStrohm
><ast...@mailunwanted.com> wrote:
>
>>cpinternet.com
>
> Well looks like he has been cut off completely AIOE, and is
>now using cpinternet.com. Well folks you know where to send the
>complaints to get him kick from there:
>
>ab...@cpinternet.com
>
> Be sure to send full headers as well as a copy of the spam,
>and when you see more then one spam from the same site the message ID.
gary landers
BarryGoldwater
>On Fri, 14 Nov 2008 17:43:18 -0600, ArronBStrohm
><ast...@mailunwanted.com> wrote:
>
>>cpinternet.com
>
> Well looks like he has been cut off completely AIOE, and is
>now using cpinternet.com. Well folks you know where to send the
>complaints to get him kick from there:
>
>ab...@cpinternet.com
>
> Be sure to send full headers as well as a copy of the spam,
>and when you see more then one spam from the same site the message ID.
OH NO! I've been blocked from AIOE!!! EEEK!!!
LOL
Keep wasting your time.
LOL
ArnoldAimsley
Do you think that the ascii string of:
bait / trap / set / trip / dead-mouse / discard
Has any meaning or significance for these virtual-life net-kop morons?
LOL
old....@cmaaccess.com
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>If you really were successful, well done old salt.
All tip of the hat's should go to Aioe, you can do so
personally in news.admin.net-abuse.usenet I only brought it to his
attention.
old....@cmaaccess.com
<justa...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>WOW! Cut off from AIOE is he? Care to explain WHY *I* continue to see
>posts from him using AIOE...
I don't. All posts from him are coming from cpinternet.com
> didn't think so! Here you go Mr. Net-Cop a
>few more abuse addresses to email. I know that you are terminally
>clueless about this, but *if* you are determined to report the Name
>Changing Troll could you please do so QUIETLY.
The only clueless one is you. \
Cluemeter [E\...................F] Though so.
I was dealing with spam before you know what the Net was.
>
>abuse@cpinternet
>abuse@globalops
>abuse@usenetserver
>abuse@aioe
>
>Need more clues? Look at the header path like this (hint read it
>backwards from not-for-mail to my server, your path info will be
>different):
Oh clueless one, paths can be edited, so to be trusted.
>I'll be damned if I'm going to go find all the others for you,
No need, since all one needs to look at is the X field for
abuse, since that is added by the server, and can't be changed by the
poster.
> but WTF
>as long as YOU seem to want to contact abuse departments why not send
>one to (his Usenet provider) GIGANEWS.COM?
When it comes from there news server I would.
> Can't wait until this kind of
>public activity on YOUR part, results in the P&S Name Changer reporting
>YOU to ab...@easynews.com for your activities... food for thought as
>they say, do with this as you will.
For what fool. Teaching othes how to deal with a spammer, or
where to go to say thanks to the person who filtered him out AIOE.
old....@cmaaccess.com
<justa...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>In article <a7jth41s9mmnf1ohe...@4ax.com>,
> old....@cmaaccess.com wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 15 Nov 2008 12:57:55 GMT, JT's Keeper
>> <justa...@mad.scientist.com> wrote:
>>
>> >WOW! Cut off from AIOE is he? Care to explain WHY *I* continue to see
>> >posts from him using AIOE...
>>
>> I don't. All posts from him are coming from cpinternet.com
>>
>
>OK, here is one that supports YOUR position... To which I'll include a
>few that prove YOU wrong! Read the NNTP-Posting-Date carefully...
>
>Path:
>nwrddc01.gnilink.net!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.ne
>t!bigfeed.bellsouth.net!bigfeed2.bellsouth.net!news.bellsouth.net!border2
>.nntp.dca.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!lo
>cal02.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.posted.cpinternet!news.posted.cpinternet
>.POSTED!not-for-mail
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:55:44 -0600
>From: FredManchester <fredman...@manchester.net>
>Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems
>Subject: Re: OT still... You got me, JT.
>Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2008 23:55:45 -0600
>Message-ID: <n1psh49rfbqpjtq99...@4ax.com>
>References: <NQeTk.6491$x%.2395@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com>
><gfjv6b$scp$1...@reader.motzarella.org>
><6k1rh418jbded8oes...@4ax.com>
><gfkq27$g5n$1...@reader.motzarella.org>
><bnurh4de01j6cpejl...@4ax.com>
><0k0sh4d2bssjkl1an...@4ax.com>
><lt8sh49ud6ibmhgmp...@4ax.com>
><EWpTk.1425$mi4...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
><m0hsh4h48jhvmdo1p...@4ax.com>
><OBsTk.615$4g5...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
><gflmsl$6cn$2...@reader.motzarella.org>
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088
>X-No-Archive: yes
>MIME-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>Lines: 352
>X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.61.220.128
>X-Trace:
>sv3-B1pA+t8y6kXAfE7soWZuweaiAYGF5gfQnBqVWIKZIlR6/zSVUptaAJm0KpBg1/0HAKPL6
>n7J9D7BX+7!01uFMugcuPHmNdzGqEfhRO2M1aSA4DzApI4Qz3MbUAs4xGcV+CJZJofqLfUYWZ
>MYVkI0jb4VW5O1!Q1kI/D6K
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@cpinternet.com
>X-DMCA-Complaints-To: ab...@cpinternet.com
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
>X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
>complaint properly
>X-Postfilter: 1.3.39
>Bytes: 23355
>X-Original-Bytes: 23290
>Xref: news.verizon.net rec.photo.digital:1314402
>rec.photo.digital.slr-systems:181055
>X-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:55:50 EST (nwrddc01.gnilink.net)
>
>***
>
>Path:
>nwrddc01.gnilink.net!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.ne
>t!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.straub-nv.de!news.k-dsl.de!aioe
>.org!not-for-mail
>From: ArnoldAimsley <a...@aa.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
>Subject: Re: Response to ... What?
>Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:55:11 -0600
>Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
>Lines: 35
>Message-ID: <fqvsh45hiem7u19lo...@4ax.com>
>References: <CKGRk.85154$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>
><84eeh45n3gislejct...@4ax.com>
><tq6dndvZeZdKt4TU...@giganews.com>
><4htih41nin3rigo33...@4ax.com>
><1kiqh4pj7s7dkt0ne...@4ax.com>
><64fTk.5600$W06....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>
><kq1sh417c4ij8709k...@4ax.com>
><v63sh4lvrandcb98m...@4ax.com>
><gimsh49vti9u8l1i9...@4ax.com>
><ajqsh41b74sqcoujd...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: vIBjYo6S31q39NV+jOXNdA.user.aioe.org
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 07:55:25 +0000 (UTC)
>X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.7.4
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088
>Xref: news.verizon.net rec.photo.digital:1314421
>X-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 02:55:25 EST (nwrddc01.gnilink.net)
Was NOT spam.
>
>***
>
>Path:
>nwrddc01.gnilink.net!cyclone2.gnilink.net!cyclone1.gnilink.net!gnilink.ne
>t!news.glorb.com!feeder.erje.net!news.k-dsl.de!aioe.org!not-for-mail
>From: BarryGoldwater <trolls...@trollspotter.com>
>Newsgroups: rec.photo.digital
>Subject: Re: Response to ... What?
>Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 00:21:35 -0600
>Organization: Aioe.org NNTP Server
>Lines: 24
>Message-ID: <ajqsh41b74sqcoujd...@4ax.com>
>References: <aEFRk.3361$8_3....@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com>
><CKGRk.85154$E41....@text.news.virginmedia.com>
><84eeh45n3gislejct...@4ax.com>
><tq6dndvZeZdKt4TU...@giganews.com>
><4htih41nin3rigo33...@4ax.com>
><1kiqh4pj7s7dkt0ne...@4ax.com>
><64fTk.5600$W06....@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com>
><kq1sh417c4ij8709k...@4ax.com>
><v63sh4lvrandcb98m...@4ax.com>
><gimsh49vti9u8l1i9...@4ax.com>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: DlwXmPyHPOwJM7C684xFcg.user.aioe.org
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
>X-Complaints-To: ab...@aioe.org
>NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 06:21:35 +0000 (UTC)
>X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.7.4
>X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 4.1/32.1088
>Xref: news.verizon.net rec.photo.digital:1314407
>X-Received-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2008 01:21:35 EST (nwrddc01.gnilink.net)
Was not spam
>What was that again!?! Eat enough crow yet? What's next, going to make
>the claim that these headers are not from the P&S Name Changing Troll?
>
>> I was dealing with spam before you know what the Net was.
>>
>
>Are you sure!?!
>
>> >
>> >abuse@cpinternet
>> >abuse@globalops
>> >abuse@usenetserver
>> >abuse@aioe
>> >
>> >Need more clues? Look at the header path like this (hint read it
>> >backwards from not-for-mail to my server, your path info will be
>> >different):
>>
>> Oh clueless one, paths can be edited, so to be trusted.
>>
>
>Hint, most every line in the header can be edited...
Yes, but not the X-Fields since they are put in by the
servers.
> You snipped the
>path info in your reply, the paths I included had not been edited... But
>don't let FACT get in the way of YOUR fantasy...
No fantasy, he is no long spamming from AIOE. By cut off I
meant cut off from spamming from it. Not posting. Sorry I did not
make my self clear.
>
>>
>> >I'll be damned if I'm going to go find all the others for you,
>>
>> No need, since all one needs to look at is the X field for
>> abuse, since that is added by the server, and can't be changed by the
>> poster.
>>
>
>Go back and look at the headers "Mr. I Know What I'm Talking About."
>More crow, or are you sufficiently full yet? Before I forget, the 4
>abuse addresses listed above are from message headers that the P&S Name
>Changing Troll has made recently to the newsgroup... Again, I repeat ALL
>lines in the header can be changed... even that one.
>
>> > but WTF
>> >as long as YOU seem to want to contact abuse departments why not send
>> >one to (his Usenet provider) GIGANEWS.COM?
>>
>> When it comes from there news server I would.
>>
>
>X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
>NNTP-Posting-Host: 64.61.220.128
It's the X-Abuse field you got to use to complain. Many news
servers use giganews, but put there own name on it, and pay giganews.
So giganews is NOT responsible, it's the 3rd party news server. If
you don't believe me complain to giganews and they will correct your
clueless ass.
>
>Spare me the "but this entry can be changed BS." And I prove YOU wrong
>again...
>
>> > Can't wait until this kind of
>> >public activity on YOUR part, results in the P&S Name Changer reporting
>> >YOU to ab...@easynews.com for your activities... food for thought as
>> >they say, do with this as you will.
>>
>> For what fool. Teaching othes how to deal with a spammer, or
>> where to go to say thanks to the person who filtered him out AIOE.
>>
>
>*IF* you ever manage this feat, let us ALL know... until then, I just
>proved you wrong twice. Deal with it.
You have prove nothing.
old....@cmaaccess.com
anyone found out what I was doing there ....
old....@cmaaccess.com
>In the meantime, I'll just go play in those newsgroups where I'd lose my home if
>anyone found out what I was doing there ....
Proof a forger can NOT change the X-Abuse Fields in the
header.