P&S V DSLR debate here
Charles
one issue.
Hey, that's not fair! This is a multi-issue debate!
Not for me. I own and have owned a wide array of digital cameras and have
found that the P&S cameras can rival the DSLRs in image quality in many
situations.
What I really don't like about the P&S cameras is the shutter lag. Causes
many missed opportunities here.
What do you folks think?
Please don't reply if you do not have actual experience with both types of
reasonably late model cameras. I would prefer a practical discussion from
users who use both.
SMS
> Please don't reply if you do not have actual experience with both types of
> reasonably late model cameras. I would prefer a practical discussion from
> users who use both.
Probably _every_ D-SLR user has both.
You're correct, in many situations you can get good results from a P&S;
good lighting, stationary subjects, and the subject not too far away and
not too close, and no need for very large prints.
The problem is that there are also many situations where a P&S _isn't_
suitable. Moving subjects, poor lighting, faraway or very close
subjects, and the need for large prints (where the higher noise and
lower dynamic range of a P&S cause problems) are situations where you
need a D-SLR for best results.
There's a good discussion of the pros and cons over at
"http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps/".
It's good that you're trying to educate yourself.
Alan Browne
> OK, I am asking for trouble here but seriously want to focus the debate on
> one issue.
>
> Hey, that's not fair! This is a multi-issue debate!
>
> Not for me. I own and have owned a wide array of digital cameras and have
> found that the P&S cameras can rival the DSLRs in image quality in many
> situations.
This whole comparison issue is tedious.
A P&S shot in its sweet spot will render very nice photos. (Sweet spot
= your so-called "many situations" - which could mean you're not
challenging your DSLR very hard).
The lower end P&S cameras have smaller, more limited sweet spots than
the higher end P&S cameras.
A DSLR has a much larger sweet spot to begin with, and of course with
appropriate lenses and other accessories (large flash guns) and
technique have a wide range of large sweet spots.
And that's before you get to the photographer and their ability to hit
the sweet spot of the camera in question.
As another poster astutely pointed out, you don't see P&S cameras at
sports events. Nat Geo is mostly shot on DSLR's ... and then MF. Press
photogs use DSLR's (a very few P&S's are seen, but rarely for 'Brand
name' news outlets).
So screw the practical discussion.
Other than saying where the overlap is (and mostly isn't) there is
nothing to discuss that has not been whipped into a rather smelly froth
in recent weeks.
Please, please stop putting out bait for the troll. It is time for it
to die of starvation.
--
-- 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.
Alan Browne
> Charles wrote:
>
>> Please don't reply if you do not have actual experience with both
>> types of reasonably late model cameras. I would prefer a practical
>> discussion from users who use both.
>
> Probably _every_ D-SLR user has both.
Nope. But often use the lab P&S cams for grab shots of whatever...
Mark Thomas
> There's a good discussion of the pros and cons over at
Well, I'm certainly impressed, even before I read the content. Anyone
calling themselves the "Digital Camera Academician" *deserves* respect.
And the sample tele lens shown is a good typical users choice...
After I started reading, I was even more impressed. I love bland
recommendations without supporting information and samples, and little
acknowledgment of different needs. The only things missing are the
Google ads and a blog...
(thinks)
Wonder who he is when brave enough to use his own name? Not sure who is
worse, the anti-dslr-troll or that guy.
(end thinks)
But thanks for the recommendation and high praise, SMS. (O:
Alan Browne
> SMS wrote:
>> There's a good discussion of the pros and cons over at "http:spam".
>
> Well, I'm certainly impressed, even before I read the content. Anyone
> calling themselves the "Digital Camera Academician" *deserves* respect.
> And the sample tele lens shown is a good typical users choice...
>
> After I started reading, I was even more impressed. I love bland
> recommendations without supporting information and samples, and little
> acknowledgment of different needs. The only things missing are the
> Google ads and a blog...
Oh crap, you made me look.
Title:
"Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot"
Photo below title:
Sekonik incident and spot light-meter.
Any clues here?
A few more photos down:
Canon 1200mm f/5.6, ~$120,000.00*
Yeah, that'll get P&S'ers to switch.
Case closed, chained and welded shut. Flooded with lead and dropped
into the Marianas Trench.
*Free roll of film if you order two! Then there will be 9 of these in
existence.
Mark Thomas
> Oh crap, you made me look.
I'm truly sorry. I should have just sent it straight back to SMS..
> Title:
> "Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot"
> Photo below title:
> Sekonik incident and spot light-meter.
>
> Any clues here?
(O:
>
> A few more photos down:
> Canon 1200mm f/5.6, ~$120,000.00*
>
> Yeah, that'll get P&S'ers to switch.
Clearly just jealous 'cause you don't have one.
> Case closed, chained and welded shut. Flooded with lead and dropped
> into the Marianas Trench.
Like you said, it's all quite tedious, but at least there's some group
activity..! ))O:
Douglas Johnson
>Please don't reply if you do not have actual experience with both types of
>reasonably late model cameras. I would prefer a practical discussion from
>users who use both.
Here's one that occurred earlier in this group.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/fceb393085394fd?hl=en
It's the results of a earlier posting of mine with two pictures of the same
scene from a DSLR and P&S asking the group which is which. It summarizes my
view on the subject and has some good follow ups.
I own both. I use both. I'm happy with both.
-- Doug
SMS
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> Oh crap, you made me look.
>
> I'm truly sorry. I should have just sent it straight back to SMS..
>
>
>> Title:
>> "Reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot"
>> Photo below title:
>> Sekonik incident and spot light-meter.
>>
>> Any clues here?
>
> (O:
>
>
>>
>> A few more photos down:
>> Canon 1200mm f/5.6, ~$120,000.00*
>>
>> Yeah, that'll get P&S'ers to switch.
>
> Clearly just jealous 'cause you don't have one.
It's a pain to carry around. I hardly ever use mine.
Alan Browne
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> A few more photos down:
>> Canon 1200mm f/5.6, ~$120,000.00*
>>
>> Yeah, that'll get P&S'ers to switch.
>
> Clearly just jealous 'cause you don't have one.
I couldn't afford the tripod. That broke the deal.
Mark Thomas
> Mark Thomas wrote:
>> Alan Browne wrote:
>
>>> A few more photos down:
>>> Canon 1200mm f/5.6, ~$120,000.00*
>>>
>>> Yeah, that'll get P&S'ers to switch.
>>
>> Clearly just jealous 'cause you don't have one.
>
> I couldn't afford the tripod. That broke the deal.
?
Mine came with a piece of string and a bolt.. Just wait for the next
round of specials and you might get lucky too.
Charles
"Douglas Johnson" <po...@classtech.com> wrote in message
news:g5khh451o4esiaq3c...@4ax.com...
> "Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Please don't reply if you do not have actual experience with both types of
>>reasonably late model cameras. I would prefer a practical discussion from
>>users who use both.
>
> Here's one that occurred earlier in this group.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/browse_thread/thread/fceb393085394fd?hl=en
Bad link.
What about shutter lag?
tn...@mucks.net
If you are only interested in shutter lag times then all you have to
do is look up the times. A P&S camera can be every bit as fast as a
DSLR. Just pick the right P&S camera to begin with.
Go to http://www.imaging-resource.com/
Their shutter lag test has a resolution of .001 second.
Hint : Look at the Sony P&S cameras for low shutter lag
Chris Malcolm
> OK, I am asking for trouble here but seriously want to focus the debate on
> one issue.
[snip]
> What I really don't like about the P&S cameras is the shutter lag. Causes
> many missed opportunities here.
> What do you folks think?
It's not shutter lag in a P&S, it's autofocus lag. They often have
less actual shutter lag than a DSLR because they have no mirror. So
get a P&S model which allows you to turn autofocus off. Then you'll
only miss the opportunities where you didn't have time to focus ahead
of the action, or to set up hyperfocal distance, etc..
--
Chris Malcolm
larry_torrins
>Charles wrote:
>
>> Please don't reply if you do not have actual experience with both types of
>> reasonably late model cameras. I would prefer a practical discussion from
>> users who use both.
>
>Probably _every_ D-SLR user has both.
>
>You're correct, in many situations you can get good results from a P&S;
>good lighting, stationary subjects, and the subject not too far away and
> not too close, and no need for very large prints.
>
>The problem is that there are also many situations where a P&S _isn't_
>suitable. Moving subjects, poor lighting, faraway or very close
>subjects, and the need for large prints (where the higher noise and
>lower dynamic range of a P&S cause problems) are situations where you
>need a D-SLR for best results.
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."
Douglas Johnson
Hmm. Just worked for me. Could there be a wrap problem? Anyway, Google groups
with "DSLR" and "Smackdown".
>What about shutter lag?
It is a major problem with P&S in my opinion. I looked real hard this summer
for a pocketable P&S with fast full-press shutter and couldn't find one. If
someone can point at one, I'd appreciate it.
-- Doug
Albert Gordon
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
tn...@mucks.net
>>What about shutter lag?
>
>It is a major problem with P&S in my opinion. I looked real hard this summer
>for a pocketable P&S with fast full-press shutter and couldn't find one. If
>someone can point at one, I'd appreciate it.
>
>-- Doug
How fast do you want?
SMS
> It is a major problem with P&S in my opinion. I looked real hard this summer
> for a pocketable P&S with fast full-press shutter and couldn't find one. If
> someone can point at one, I'd appreciate it.
Fast is relative, you'll never have a P&S that's as fast as a D-SLR to
auto-focus because no P&S models use phase-detection for auto-focus
(there were some from Ricoh but they were discontinued), opting for the
much slower, and much less expensive, contrast detection.
Several of Sony's P&S models have faster AF than those from other
manufacturers, but not they still can't match the AF speed of a D-SLR.
H.S.
hmm .. I have also had experience that some Sony cybershots I tried seem
to have shorter focusing lag (compared to Canon Powershot Axyz's in my
case). Your comment made me remember that ... with some vindication of
my experience; I was thinking perhaps it is just me.
Related question, what makes phase detection expensive than contrast
detection?
And while I am at it, didn't Canon film SLR's used contrast detection
with that vertical grid IR pattern? If yes, are those also considered
slow then?
--
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.
Ben E Karst
Anyone that chooses a camera on AUTOMATIC focusing speed is just praising the
virtues of POINT AND SHOOT features that any snap-shooter needs. All that you
keep doing is proving to everyone that you're nothing but a lowly amateur going
on the inexperienced others that use overpriced P&S-DSLRs.
I take that back, you're not even a lowly amateur, you're just a
virtual-photographer resident-troll without any camera at all. The lack of
experience that you constantly convey in all your posts is proof enough of that.
Go download another manual and then tell everyone how good your "new" camera is.
I'm sure they'll believe you. I know better, you're that transparent. The free
manual that you download is as close as you'll ever get to any camera in your
lifetime.
tn...@mucks.net
>Several of Sony's P&S models have faster AF than those from other
>manufacturers, but not they still can't match the AF speed of a D-SLR.
Your statement seems to suggest that all DSLR's are faster.
The below statement is more accurate.
Many Sony P&S cameras have faster shutter times than quite a
few DSLR's.
nospam
<hAs.sa...@gTHEmail.com> wrote:
> Related question, what makes phase detection expensive than contrast
> detection?
a separate focus sensor & secondary mirror.
> And while I am at it, didn't Canon film SLR's used contrast detection
> with that vertical grid IR pattern? If yes, are those also considered
> slow then?
that sounds like a focus assist beam.
Eric Stevens
wrote:
I remeber using my Sony F707 to photograph flying pelicans at close
range from a river boat on the Murray River in South Australia. By the
time the Sony did all its things including swinging some kind of
filter out of the way, focussing, and taking a photograph, some 2
seconds of blind shooting had elapsed. All I could do was sight on the
pelican, push the button and keep tracking the pelican by sighting
over the lens. I was surprised at how many shots were successful.
Eric Stevens
H.S.
Ah, yes! Example: Casion EX-Z9 does not have focus assist light, so I
suppose it uses contrast detection. Canon A570 IS on the other hand does
have a focus assist light (IIRC) ... so does it uses focus assist light
in all occasions?
If I understand this right, cameras with focus assist beam use it only
in dark conditions. For other conditions, they are using just contrast
detection, are they not? So for the latter cases, film SLRs (and DSLR
which do not phase detection) are no better than today's digital P&S
cameras (?)
nospam
<hAs.sa...@gTHEmail.com> wrote:
> If I understand this right, cameras with focus assist beam use it only
> in dark conditions. For other conditions, they are using just contrast
> detection, are they not? So for the latter cases, film SLRs (and DSLR
> which do not phase detection) are no better than today's digital P&S
> cameras (?)
the focus assist light just helps the camera focus with whatever system
it normally uses.
Steve
Actually, it could be an interesting exercise to find a current DSLR
that has a slower shutter release time when using AF than any current
Sony P&S (not a bridge camera, but a true pocketable P&S) using AF.
Personally I don't think you'll find any. But I guess it's possible,
so good luck.
Now how about finding a P&S that has a faster time than a DSLR from
the time the picture is taken in AF from when you first turn it on.
You know, like you're walking around and see something interesting,
grab the camera, turn it on and shoot.
SMS
> Now how about finding a P&S that has a faster time than a DSLR from
> the time the picture is taken in AF from when you first turn it on.
> You know, like you're walking around and see something interesting,
> grab the camera, turn it on and shoot.
That's not going to happen, but there are very wide differences in
start-up times on P&S cameras with some taking more than 5 seconds, and
some taking under 2 seconds. D-SLRs are an order of magnitude or more
faster.
There's a chart over at
"http://www.impulseadventure.com/photo/shutter-lag.html" but it's old.
ASAAR
>> Oh crap, you made me look.
>
> I'm truly sorry. I should have just sent it straight back to SMS..
In another thread posted a day ago, I presented good reasons why
we should assume that the Digital Camera Academician is none other
than SMS. I'll quote that reply below, but first note that even
though there's no record of anyone posting here as the "Digital
Camera Academician", part of the reply you made just hours ago was
taken out of context (shortened to hide the sarcasm) and added to
the Digital Camera Academician's website, proclaiming at the top :
> The Accolades Pour in for This Web Site
>
> Thank you for your efforts. You helped me avoid making the mistake
> of buying a P&S to photograph my kids' soccer league games.
> Ben Karst
>
> "I'm certainly impressed"
> Mark Thomas
>
> Thanks for your recommendations. I wouldn't have thought about
> things like the wide angle capability of the P&S
> Albert Gordon
http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps/
Nice, huh? :) I wonder if you agree with my reply :
[ Subject: Re: P&S cameras exist for one reason ]
[ Date: Sun, 09 Nov 2008 13:03:17 -0500 ]
> On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 11:47:04 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>
>>> There's a good web site with the trade-offs of D-SLR versus P&S at
>> "http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps".
>>
>> Well, there's a web site. How good it is is debatable. Some of it is
>> pure opinion--he for example steers people away from P&S with high
>> pixel density and makes assertions about the size of print that can be
>> achieved that are at variance with blind tests conducted by another
>> photographer.
>>
>> He would be more credible if he supported his arguments with evidence
>> rather than just making assertions.
>
> The layout and content on this website strongly resembles that on
> SMS's other websites. The language, biases, camera recommendations
> as well as the proclamation of features that are "essential" and the
> need to stick with Canon or Nikon is pure SMS, lifted unchanged from
> his newsgroup replies. The bogus assertion :
>
>> All the experts agree that a D-SLR is the only choice when image
>> quality is your primary concern.
>
> has been challenged often by experts. One was made recently by
> Michael Reichmann, favorably comparing Canon G10's low ISO detail
> with that of medium format cameras. It's also quite odd that in the
> "About the Author" section :
>
>> The Digital Camera Academician is professional photographer who
>> has been shooting professionally since 1980. He has photographed
>> over 800 weddings and other life events, as well as doing studio photography.
>
> that this "pro" doesn't identify himself, giving himself a title
> intended to imply that he is another expert, self proclaimed just as
> SMS identifies himself as a battery expert (who often lacks or
> forgets basic battery knowledge). Also odd is that this wedding and
> studio pro wouldn't provide a link for anyone that might be
> interested in his seeing examples of his work or even hiring him.
> No, I'm afraid that this is most likely just another of SMS's
> "expert" sock puppet websites.
Mark Thomas
ASAAR wrote:
> In another thread posted a day ago, I presented good reasons why
> we should assume that the Digital Camera Academician is none other
> than SMS....
> ...part of the reply you made just hours ago was
> taken out of context (shortened to hide the sarcasm) and added to
> the Digital Camera Academician's website, proclaiming at the top :
>
>> The Accolades Pour in for This Web Site
>>
>> Thank you for your efforts. You helped me avoid making the mistake
>> of buying a P&S to photograph my kids' soccer league games.
>> Ben Karst
>>
>> "I'm certainly impressed"
>> Mark Thomas
>>
>> Thanks for your recommendations. I wouldn't have thought about
>> things like the wide angle capability of the P&S
>> Albert Gordon
>
> http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps/
Thanks for that ASAAR.
So, to SMS - a straight simple question: Is that your website?
Think *very* carefully before answering.
nospam
<cau...@22.com> wrote:
> In another thread posted a day ago, I presented good reasons why
> we should assume that the Digital Camera Academician is none other
> than SMS.
it is, and it's a name he used at dpreview.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hiiyieiyhxif
ASAAR
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:07:00 -0800, SMS <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote:
> . . .
>
>>Several of Sony's P&S models have faster AF than those from other
>>manufacturers, but not they still can't match the AF speed of a D-SLR.
>
> Anyone that chooses a camera on AUTOMATIC focusing speed is just praising the
> virtues of POINT AND SHOOT features that any snap-shooter needs. All that you
> keep doing is proving to everyone that you're nothing but a lowly amateur going
> on the inexperienced others that use overpriced P&S-DSLRs.
>
> I take that back, you're not even a lowly amateur, you're just a
> virtual-photographer resident-troll without any camera at all. The lack of
> experience that you constantly convey in all your posts is proof enough of that.
Given this opinion of yours, it's odd that you'd be quoted on
SMS's <cough> <cough> I mean the Digital Camera Academician's
website, where the quotes near the top of the page include :
> The Accolades Pour in for This Web Site
>
> Thank you for your efforts. You helped me avoid making the mistake of
> buying a P&S to photograph my kids' soccer league games.
> Ben Karst
>
> "I'm certainly impressed"
> Mark Thomas
http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps/
Check it soon, as there's a good chance he'll remove the
"attributions" as quickly as he added them.
Dave Martindale
>Related question, what makes phase detection expensive than contrast
>detection?
It requires intercepting some light from the lens before it reaches the
focal plane, typically via a mirror that is semi-silvered or has small
"windows" in the reflective coating. Samples of light are taken from
two locations, one left of centre and one right of centre. Each is then
focused (by small auxiliary optics) onto a pair of autofocus sensors.
So, you need a mirror or other way to sample the light ahead of focus,
two sensors (and the electronics to read them), and two sets of little
lenses.
The point of all this is that when the image is in focus, both autofocus
sensors "see" the same part of the scene in focus in the same place on
the sensor. When the image goes out of focus, it shifts left on one
autofocus sensor and right on the other one (because each is sampling
only a small portion of the light through the lens). By comparing the
image from the autofocus sensors, the camera can estimate *which
direction* and *by how much* the lens is out of focus, so it can drive
the focus motor quickly to about the right position (probably making new
readings and updating its estimate while en route).
Contrast detection requires only the main sensor, which has to be there
anyway, so it's cheap. But the camera can't tell whether any given
image is in focus or not on its own - it has to capture several images
while the focus motor moves the lens and find the point where contrast
is maximum with lower contrast on both sides of that position to know.
>And while I am at it, didn't Canon film SLR's used contrast detection
>with that vertical grid IR pattern? If yes, are those also considered
>slow then?
The phase-detection system still requires contrast in the target,
because it compares two images and with no contrast the amount of shift
can't be estimated. The grid pattern ensures that there is some
contrast to focus on (even if the subject is a blank wall), and would be
useful for both phase detection and contrast detection. But the film
cameras almost certainly used phase detection because they were already
using that in brighter light.
Dave
RichA
"Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:gfafbm$ahd$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> OK, I am asking for trouble here but seriously want to focus the debate on
> one issue.
>
>
> Not for me. I own and have owned a wide array of digital cameras and have
> found that the P&S cameras can rival the DSLRs in image quality in many
> situations.
Yes, when using a flash or out of doors when it's sunny, provided the P&S
has a half-decent sensor size and most don't. The parameters for good P&S
shots are so narrow, it isn't worth having them.
Mark Thomas
Thanks, nospam and asaar. SMS (Steven M. Scharf), you appear to be busted.
Frankly, for anyone - even in jest - to do that sort of thing is simply
disgusting, and indicates what a slimy lowlife piece of shit SMS, aka
Steven M. Scharf, aka scharf...@gmail.com really is.
"His website makes me gag, but not as much as Steven M. Scharf himself
does."
Going to put *that* on your site, Steven?
Or why not just come back and *explain* your quotes, and tell us it was
all just a little joke..?
Here's that link again, just so folks will find out how you behave, Mr
Scharf:
http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps/
That's Steven M. Scharf, miserable lowlife. I hope Amazon and Adorama
pick up on this also. Are you listening Amazon, Adorama? Is this the
sort of person you want promoting your wares?
I hope he leaves those attributions, because I will constantly remind
him of this behaviour whenever he wants to be taken seriously.
For those not familiar with the lowlife Mr Scharf, he pops up
periodically with his sad websites of misinformation and false claims.
He initially plugs them here, without telling anyone they are his links
as he did here.
It used to be this one (here's a free plug, lowlife):
http://digitalslrinfo.com/
But Steven M. Scharf seems to have had a bit of trouble keeping that one
up to date - the recommendations were poor enough when it was created,
but now it contains gems like "A 30D is rumored for February 2006..."
Wow, really? You're right on the leading edge, there, Scharf.
And here's another free plug, just so B&H, Adorama and Amazon know who
they are dealing with in Steven Scharf:
That one contains a similar mix of fact and uninformed opinion. It also
shows how much time Mr Scharf has on his hands now that he doesn't seem
to be photographing anymore... Anyone seen any images of his?
Anyway, thanks, SMS, for revealing your true colours so superbly.
PS, for anyone silly enough to wish to find out more about SMS and just
how much time he has on his hands, I suggest starting here:
http://bicyclecoffeesystems.com/
... umm.... yup... any questions?
At least now I know what he is truly expert at.
ASAAR
>> In another thread posted a day ago, I presented good reasons why
>> we should assume that the Digital Camera Academician is none other
>> than SMS.
>
> it is, and it's a name he used at dpreview.
>
> http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/postersprofile.asp?poster=hiiyieiyhxif
Wow, you're right. Checking many months back, I didn't see any of
his posts in the ng. I didn't realize that he was here years ago.
One of the ng's regulars (former?) nailed it, with :
> Forum Sigma SLR Talk
> Subject He's at it again - anyone care to comment?
> Posted by Peter A. Stavrakoglou [CLICK FOR PROFILE]
> Date/Time 18:57:57, 07 February 2005 (GMT)
>
> Most of us are familiar with the website full of information on the SD10
> that a fellow who goes by the name of Steven Scharf maintains. Besides his
> inaccurate website, he has now crossed into the realm of the delusioned.
> Here is a response he wrote in the rec.photo.digital newsgroup (Subject:
> Is George Preddy still around??) to another delusioned individual who
> goes by the name Des Perado:
Good old George, wonder where he is today? If only SMS would join
him. :)
ASAAR
> Thanks for that ASAAR.
You're welcome. I just realized that the third quote that he
fabricated, that also supported his absurdly anti-P&S, pro-DSLR view
was from Albert Gordon, one of the notorious Anti-DSLR sock puppet
trolls. Just when you think SMS can't stoop any lower . . .
ASAAR
> I hope he leaves those attributions, because I will constantly remind
> him of this behaviour whenever he wants to be taken seriously.
Not only has he left them, he's just added these :
> I refer to your web site often, and send other people the link
> Steve Scharf
>
> "Your website helped me avoid an expensive mistake"
> George Preddy
>
> "No one knows more about digital cameras than you!"
> ASAAR
>
> "Clear, Concise, and to the Point"
> Rita Berkowitz
Bizarre. And lest anyone forget, about a year or two ago (maybe
three?) SMS touted a website of his that was devoted to posting
vigilante photos of drivers that (IIRC) annoyed him by failing to
come to a complete stop at stop signs and making other similar,
minor traffic violations. With apologies to Frank Loesser, SMS will
never be mistaken for "The Most Happy Fella", but he now appears to
be going off the deep end, and this theater musical's song from Act
I ("Maybe He's Kind of Crazy") kinda fits, at least the title.
HunterStevens
That's easy. Any of the Sony P&S cameras that focus and frame (and record
high-resolution stills and video) in total dark using IR light alone. Your DSLR
will be hunting for focus for hours. The Sony will focus in less than half a
second.
But what you're really saying is ... "Anyone that depends on fast hit-and-miss
auto-focus is a talentless hack and they need their camera to do everything for
them." That is what you are really saying. You do realize that, don't you.
I walk around in the woods with my camera's "Custom" mode set to act on its
hyperfocal setting, I can pick up, frame, and shoot faster than any DSLR will
ever be in your hands. No matter how automatic you want your camera to be. All
my photos will be in perfect focus. Not the random-chance you'll have with an
auto-focus system of either design.
You should see the shot I just got yesterday of an in-flight pheasant only 10 ft
from me. I know quite a few that are going to enjoy having that photo grace the
walls of their hunting lodges and businesses. Anyone that's ever had a pheasant
"explode" near them knows how fast you have to be to capture that shot before
they are too far away for it to matter. That has to be one of the most
challenging wildlife situations for any seasoned photographer. All done easily
with a P&S camera IN THE HANDS OF SOMEONE WITH TALENT.
Which, by your stated camera requirements, you so obviously lack.
EdwardT
Every camera on there has the wrong response times listed. All in error
and all blatantly exposing an ignorant bias against any P&S camera made.
Another one of your bogus pages no doubt.
Steve
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 03:38:52 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>On Mon, 10 Nov 2008 21:36:13 -0500, tn...@mucks.net wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>Several of Sony's P&S models have faster AF than those from other
>>>>manufacturers, but not they still can't match the AF speed of a D-SLR.
>>>
>>>Your statement seems to suggest that all DSLR's are faster.
>>>The below statement is more accurate.
>>>
>>>Many Sony P&S cameras have faster shutter times than quite a
>>>few DSLR's.
>>
>>Actually, it could be an interesting exercise to find a current DSLR
>>that has a slower shutter release time when using AF than any current
>>Sony P&S (not a bridge camera, but a true pocketable P&S) using AF.
>>Personally I don't think you'll find any. But I guess it's possible,
>>so good luck.
>>
>>Now how about finding a P&S that has a faster time than a DSLR from
>>the time the picture is taken in AF from when you first turn it on.
>>You know, like you're walking around and see something interesting,
>>grab the camera, turn it on and shoot.
>
>That's easy. Any of the Sony P&S cameras that focus and frame (and record
>high-resolution stills and video) in total dark using IR light alone. Your DSLR
>will be hunting for focus for hours. The Sony will focus in less than half a
>second.
I usually don't take pictures in total dark. So let limit the
discussion to where there's enough light to see by. The fact that you
have to resort to total dark photography to attempt to prove a lame
argument shows just how desperate you are.
>But what you're really saying is ... "Anyone that depends on fast hit-and-miss
>auto-focus is a talentless hack and they need their camera to do everything for
>them." That is what you are really saying. You do realize that, don't you.
I see. So what you're saying is that just because your P&S auto-focus
isn't worth a damn and you don't mind getting either a blurry shot or
not shot at all, you think all DSLR users have to live with that P&S
limitation. That is what you are really saying. You do realize that,
don't you?
>challenging wildlife situations for any seasoned photographer. All done easily
>with a P&S camera IN THE HANDS OF SOMEONE WITH TALENT.
>
>Which, by your stated camera requirements, you so obviously lack.
With all of the BS you've posted, one might think that at least once
you would post something that showed you have talent. Which, by the
omission of anything of that sort, you so obviously lack.
Steve
On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 01:50:22 -0500, "RichA" <vot...@johnmccain.com>
wrote:
True pocketable P&S built-in flashes are almost worthless compared to
the built-in DSLR flashes. In order for me to get any kind of proper
exposure past a few feet with my P&S I have to use a slave flash. That
actually works well, but now it's not a pocketable P&S anymore.
Steve
HunterStevens
>one might think that at least once
>you would post something that showed you have talent. Which, by the
>omission of anything of that sort, you so obviously lack.
One might think that you having missed an important comment that proves that I
know what I'm doing, that it would show everyone that you are nothing but
another virtual-photographer newsgroup troll.
Which is exactly what just happened.
You're so slow.
No wonder that you wish you had a camera with auto-focus on it someday.
Now, if you could only get a computer with auto-comprehension on it ....
Gavin O'Donnel
Why is it that, with a simple and totally inexpensive plastic fresnel-lens
(folds flat, kept in shirt pocket) that I affix to my P&S camera when needed, I
get perfectly illuminated flash shots in the pitch dark up to 90 ft. away when
using the camera's flash alone? Oh that's right, because unlike the DSLR trolls
in this newsgroup, I know what I'm doing.
I guess they've not figured out yet that every time they post more of their
virtual-photographer DSLR-troll's misinformation and deceptions that they're
going to have to read the following again and again. They've never been too
bright. It's why they post what they do.
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."
Don Stauffer
> OK, I am asking for trouble here but seriously want to focus the debate on
> one issue.
>
> Hey, that's not fair! This is a multi-issue debate!
>
> Not for me. I own and have owned a wide array of digital cameras and have
> found that the P&S cameras can rival the DSLRs in image quality in many
> situations.
>
> many missed opportunities here.
>
> What do you folks think?
>
> reasonably late model cameras. I would prefer a practical discussion from
> users who use both.
>
>
I think it would be possible to avoid the shutter lag in P & S with a
technology of rectangular dollars.
However, my objection to P & S is focusing. I do a lot of macro work,
and there precise focusing is required. Neither the optical
viewfinders, nor the low resolution LCD screens provide good enough
focusing, compared to the TTL viewing at full aperture.
I do not trust autofocus anyway, so like to manual focus. In fact, the
long lens I bought for my D40X is a used lens that will NOT autofocus
because it uses a different motor drive system. I don't really miss the
autofocus.
I occasionally still use a P & S for its convenience/small size, but use
it for less important sessions. There IS something to be said for
convenience. And, I am considering buying a newer one- more resolution
with an even smaller size and lower price.
Ernie Franklin
If you do a lot of macro work then you would appreciate the extended DOF even
more in a P&S than any which can be obtained with any DSLR.
Greater DOF at full aperture and higher shutter speeds, making hand-held
available-light macro photography a breeze under all situations.
Perhaps you just need a little tip to make this possible for you.
If you are having focusing problems use a technique that I use. I discovered
this EVF effect long ago and found a way to use it to my advantage. Teaching
this to myself (and now others). When I reported this effect to Sony they even
implemented this as an extended manual-focusing-assist on some of their cameras.
By further defining these "scintillating edges" (as described below) with a
contrasting color, to make them even easier to see for the typical snap-shooter
and layman.
Learn to use this manual focusing technique by studying your EVF display while
carefully focusing. Watch very closely. Make sure that your EVF's lens is
sharply focused on the EVF pixels, using your EVF diopter adjustment if it has
one (I don't buy a P&S camera without this feature).
Any small contrasting textures and edges of anything that is in perfect focus
will change the luminance levels of adjoining EVF display pixels rapidly as
those details and edges pass over the display pixel boundaries. Giving them a
type of scintillating effect. You use your whole EVF display like one large
micro-prism, but in reverse. The parts out of focus will not rapidly change
pixel illuminations, those parts that are in perfect focus will.
I find that manually focusing with an EVF to be even faster and more accurate
than any OVF I've ever used. Instead of just having one small area of an OVF's
focusing screen's micro-prism tell you what is or is not in focus, you now have
the use of your whole field-of-view for the very same thing. Giving instant
feedback to what is in perfect focus across the whole image.
Teach your old-dog's mind and eyes new tricks. You'll be surprised what you can
do when you are more observant and hone your talents.
Steve
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 13:02:26 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>one might think that at least once
>>you would post something that showed you have talent. Which, by the
>>omission of anything of that sort, you so obviously lack.
>
>One might think that you having missed an important comment that proves that I
>know what I'm doing, that it would show everyone that you are nothing but
>another virtual-photographer newsgroup troll.
You haven't shown or said anything that proves you know what you're
doing. That's why you're just a talentless internet hack,
regurgitating the same post over and over again even hoping that
someone without a clue might actually believe you know something that
the rest of the professional and advanced amateur photography world
doesn't.
Steve
Steve
Let's see one of those perfectly illuminated flash shots in pitch dark
90 ft away using a shirt pocket sized P&S camera flash alone. Don't
worry about someone stealing your copyrighted work. I don't care if
it's just a shot of a brick wall.
Show us a high quality, perfectly illuminated, low noise shot of even
just a brick wall taken from 90 ft away in pitch dark using just a
pocket sized P&S flash and a fresnel lens at say, a 35mm equivalent
focal length of 50mm.
If you can't do that, then you've proven you're just a dumb hack that
has no idea what you're talking about.
Gavin O'Donnel
>
>Show us a high quality, perfectly illuminated, low noise shot of even
>just a brick wall taken from 90 ft away in pitch dark using just a
>pocket sized P&S flash and a fresnel lens at say, a 35mm equivalent
>focal length of 50mm.
Whenever did I say that I would limit myself to a 50mm lens? Are you this naive
about photography, light, and optics?
When focusing the light at great distances the fresnel-lens then of course has
to reduce the angular field of illumination. I'll use this method when I have to
capture a close-up shot of an animal. Exactly when a long zoom lens would
normally be used. The on-board P&S flash perfectly filling that zoomed-in FOV at
90 ft. Absolutely no different than using a focusing hood on an auxiliary flash
to reach the same distances.
You really are a cerebrally challenged virtual-photography dolt, aren't you. I
was going to give you the benefit of the doubt but now you've removed every last
possible consideration for that.
SMS
> I think it would be possible to avoid the shutter lag in P & S with a
> technology of rectangular dollars.
It's been done already by Ricoh. The problem they ran into is trying to
collect the dollars (or yen) they spent on the solution from the
purchaser, so they dropped phase-detection auto-focus on the Caplio line.
The real question is whether any manufacturer can afford to increase
their manufacturing cost by adding phase-detection auto-focus to a P&S.
The typical P&S buyer may not be as naive as our favorite troll, but
neither are they necessarily willing to pay a $50-100 premium over the
competition for fast auto-focus. Most of those that understand the
technology have already moved on to a D-SLR, so the TAM (total available
market) for such a camera is very small (as Ricoh found out).
> However, my objection to P & S is focusing. I do a lot of macro work,
> and there precise focusing is required. Neither the optical
> viewfinders, nor the low resolution LCD screens provide good enough
> focusing, compared to the TTL viewing at full aperture.
Yes, P&S cameras are not suitable for macro work where you need precise
focusing, though for casual macro shots some of them work fine.
Arnie Bosch
>On 11 Nov 2008 01:30:04 GMT, Chris Malcolm <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>wrote:
>
>>Charles <charles...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> OK, I am asking for trouble here but seriously want to focus the debate on
>>> one issue.
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>> What I really don't like about the P&S cameras is the shutter lag. Causes
>>> many missed opportunities here.
>>
>>> What do you folks think?
>>
>>It's not shutter lag in a P&S, it's autofocus lag. They often have
>>less actual shutter lag than a DSLR because they have no mirror. So
>>get a P&S model which allows you to turn autofocus off. Then you'll
>>only miss the opportunities where you didn't have time to focus ahead
>>of the action, or to set up hyperfocal distance, etc..
>
>I remeber using my Sony F707 to photograph flying pelicans at close
>range from a river boat on the Murray River in South Australia. By the
>time the Sony did all its things including swinging some kind of
>filter out of the way, focussing, and taking a photograph, some 2
>seconds of blind shooting had elapsed. All I could do was sight on the
>pelican, push the button and keep tracking the pelican by sighting
>over the lens. I was surprised at how many shots were successful.
>
>
>
>Eric Stevens
This is why accessory "Sports Finders" were invented for SLRs long ago. Just
like the DSLR today that suffers from delayed intermittent views through the
OVF, they did the same, making tracking difficult for some people.
Unfortunately, today's less experienced and "please do everything for me
automatically because I don't know what the hell I'm doing" DSLR owners don't
know of sports-finders nor understand how it can improve their anciently slow
slapping-mirror contraptions. Make one for yourself and affix it via the
hot-shoe. They're so easy to make that I've never checked to see if you can even
buy them anymore. Plus, when you make it yourself you can match it to your exact
focal-lengths.
Those cameras without a hotshoe can have them attach by the tripod mount or lens
barrel. They're very simple to make after you've seen one. You'll have every
advantage and more that any SLR used to have when outfitted with one. I used to
use one on my older P&S cameras occasionally. Today's faster P&S cameras make a
sports-finder unnecessary. Even if using burst mode you still get an instant
preview between each 3fps shot. If someone can't follow action at that
frame-rate they shouldn't even be allowed to buy a camera.
If you make one, score and then embed coloring in the scores of the transparent
framing material. Marked into rectangular FOV's of several well known
focal-lengths of your zoom lens so you'll know which region of the sports-finder
should be used for accurate framing.
btw: if you had read your camera manual beforehand you wouldn't have had those 2
second delays. RTFM, idiot. Your 2 second delays are due to idiot-error. Some of
my favorite award-winning photos of birds in flight were taken with an F717. The
F717 had a bit of lag compared to today's P&Ss, but nowhere near what you are
claiming. And it was easy to compensate for it once you learned what it was.
I swear, some of you people should be locked up just for mental-retardation if
nothing else. You might kill yourselves or endanger the lives of others if you
have to chew-gum and walk at the same time.
Frank Pittel
: "Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote in message
:
I have a dslr and a p&s and while I normally use the dslr there are times I like
the ability to put a camera in my pocket and go.
--
-------------------
Keep working millions on welfare depend on you
Steve
>On Tue, 11 Nov 2008 15:28:46 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Show us a high quality, perfectly illuminated, low noise shot of even
>>just a brick wall taken from 90 ft away in pitch dark using just a
>>pocket sized P&S flash and a fresnel lens at say, a 35mm equivalent
>>focal length of 50mm.
>
>Whenever did I say that I would limit myself to a 50mm lens? Are you this naive
>about photography, light, and optics?
>
>When focusing the light at great distances the fresnel-lens then of course has
>to reduce the angular field of illumination. I'll use this method when I have to
>capture a close-up shot of an animal. Exactly when a long zoom lens would
>normally be used. The on-board P&S flash perfectly filling that zoomed-in FOV at
>90 ft. Absolutely no different than using a focusing hood on an auxiliary flash
>to reach the same distances.
Great, so you're finally admitting that a P&S flash can only
illuminate a tiny FOV at 90' with the addition of another piece of
equipment. Of course, that's totally useless when trying to get a
group shot in low light from like 25' away. That's something a DSLR
flash can do easily while a P&S flash wouldn't have a prayer to do.
By using your lame example in trying to prove the superiority of a
P&S, you're finally you're admitting that you're just a troll with no
real-world photographic experience.
You've definitely proven two things about yourself: 1) you know
absolutely nothing about any type of photography that would be
important to 99% of the picture taking public. and 2) you're know a
lot about how to be an internet troll. Typical useless hack devoid of
practical experience living your life in front of a keyboard.
SMS
> Yes, when using a flash or out of doors when it's sunny, provided the P&S
> has a half-decent sensor size and most don't. The parameters for good P&S
> shots are so narrow, it isn't worth having them.
Well I wouldn't go that far. A lot of cameras are used outdoors in good
light, and there are some decent P&S models as long as you don't go
overboard on megapixels, and as long as you stay away from the
super-zooms that have such compromise lenses.
You're right that no P&S camera can rival the DSLR in image quality in
many situations, but not everyone cares primarily about image quality.
The megapixel wars have destroyed the point and shoot's quality in many
instances. A 6 megapixel P&S could take some good low noise shots, even
in less than perfect lighting situations. As the megapixel count went
up, the pixel size went down, the noise went up, and the low-light
capability went to hell. Now you're pretty much stuck with moving to a
D-SLR for most situations, there's just no way around the physics.
Gavin O'Donnel
>Great, so you're finally admitting that a P&S flash can only
>illuminate a tiny FOV at 90' with the addition of another piece of
>equipment. Of course, that's totally useless when trying to get a
>group shot in low light from like 25' away. That's something a DSLR
>flash can do easily while a P&S flash wouldn't have a prayer to do.
What? You can't shoot a properly exposed image using a DSLR's built-in flash up
to 90 ft. away? Wow, how sad that is. We won't go back to how I can also shoot
images (AND videos) and instantly focus in the total dark too, even at that
distance, with or without flash to expose the scene. That seemed to have upset
you so.
You have to stand 25 ft. away from the groups you shoot? What's the matter? They
don't want you any closer than that? I wonder why that is. The groups that I
shoot with flash don't want me to stand any further away than 17ft. unless I
insist on it. With my excellent wide-angle adapter that imparts no CA, no edge
softness, it's no problem to get a group shot with an 18mm (35mm eq.) FOV.
Wow, a WHOLE 8 ft difference in flash illumination levels!! Yes, I'm going to
invest $2500 worth of hardware and glass to get that extra 8ft. of built-in
flash distance! Sign me up! I can't wait! WHOO HOO!
On the other hand, I can just increase the ISO to 200 (it's very clean on my P&S
cameras), and stand amongst one of those groups that doesn't want to be near you
and shoot your image just fine from the same distance that they want to stay
away from you.
What are you? Some kind of moron that nobody wants to get nearer to than 25 ft.
away? Don't answer that. You already have.
:-)
LOL!!
I think what's even sadder is that someone would even buy a DSLR based on a
built-in flash. A *real* pro wouldn't even consider that. They'd think they were
buying a cheap do-everything P&S camera if it had a built-in flash. Ain't you
heard? LOL
The next time you are in full sunlight and need to shoot your group at 1/500 or
higher shutter speed, see how useful that built-in flash is going to be for
fill-flash to get rid of those harsh shadows on all the faces of your group.
Mind if I laugh when I say that'll never be a problem for me on any of my P&S
cameras. But for you and your beloved imaginary DSLR? It's completely
impossible.
LOL
And so ... the moronic troll by the name of Steve keeps trying to prove just how
much of a moronic troll that he is.
For the rest of you who might have some common sense (i.e. not Steve) -- Just
for the record, I despise the use of flash unless there's absolutely no other
way to obtain a shot. (E.g. macro-photography of nocturnal insects where you'd
like to record their colors and patterns. Better to get the somewhat unrealistic
colors from using flash than no colors at all.) Flash is a last ditch effort for
any competent photographer. It does nothing but ruin the natural look of the
available light sources, betray the true look of your subject(s), and imparts a
harsh artificiality over everything in the photo that can't be removed in
editing. Those who rely on flash for most of their photography are nothing but
Instamatic snap-shooters. It should be used in only the most dire of
emergencies. The ONLY exception are studio photographers that are creating
artificial situations and images from the get-go. Then I can understand why
they'd want to depend on it. Mostly it's because studio photographers can't cope
with the wide variability of life and reality and make it into something
cohesive and interesting to look at. They have to artificially stage everything
and remove every last variable before they can feel safe in tripping that
shutter. How totally unchallenging.
DaleColeman
Mark Thomas
Steve
>Wow, a WHOLE 8 ft difference in flash illumination levels!! Yes, I'm going to
>invest $2500 worth of hardware and glass to get that extra 8ft. of built-in
>flash distance! Sign me up! I can't wait! WHOO HOO!
Wow, you finally admit that the built in flash in a DSLR is better
than one on a P&S. Of course, it's a lot more than 8' better, but
I'll take that. And you don't have to invest $2500 worth of hardware
and glass. The price is about the same for something like a D40 or
Rebel XSi vs. any P&S that has anywhere close to only 8' less flash
range.
>On the other hand, I can just increase the ISO to 200 (it's very clean on my P&S
>cameras), and stand amongst one of those groups that doesn't want to be near you
Wow, a whole ISO 200. You're really showing just how inferior a P&S
is now. Thanks again.
>For the rest of you who might have some common sense (i.e. not Steve) -- Just
>for the record, I despise the use of flash unless there's absolutely no other
>way to obtain a shot. (E.g. macro-photography of nocturnal insects where you'd
>like to record their colors and patterns. Better to get the somewhat unrealistic
>colors from using flash than no colors at all.) Flash is a last ditch effort for
>any competent photographer. It does nothing but ruin the natural look of the
>available light sources, betray the true look of your subject(s), and imparts a
>harsh artificiality over everything in the photo that can't be removed in
Thanks again for proving that you have absolutely no real world
photographic experience. Even in sunlight, fill-in flash is a useful
tool for any competent photographer. Which obviously you're not. Of
course, if you had a decent camera you might be able to hide at least
some of your incompetence.
Gavin O'Donnel
>Thanks again for proving that you have absolutely no real world
>photographic experience. Even in sunlight, fill-in flash is a useful
>tool for any competent photographer. Which obviously you're not. Of
>course, if you had a decent camera you might be able to hide at least
>some of your incompetence.
D'oH!
The idiot mouse took the bait!
bait / trap / set / trip / dead-mouse / discard ...
Hey moron, you can't use fill-flash on your DSLR at speeds any faster than its
X-Sync shutter speed. If you try to use its built-in flash at faster than X-Sync
setting, first of all your camera won't (or shouldn't) allow it, but even if it
did then you'll only get part of the frame exposed to the flash. And if you use
an expensive, heavy, and cumbersome accessory flash that strobes, specifically
designed for focal-plane shutters to illuminate the full frame during that
last-century's focal-plane shutter's SLOW snail-paced travel, its flash output
is reduced in exact proportions for every EV shutter-step faster than its X-Sync
speed. If your X-Sync speed is 1/250, then if you use 1/500s with a focal-plane
flash-unit your flash output is halved. Use it with 1/1000s and its flash output
is quartered. Etc. Oh sure, the flash is still putting out the same amount of
light, but the faster the shutter speed the less is getting through to the
sensor due to the narrowed slit of the slow-moving focal-plane shutter's passage
over the sensor.
Are you smart enough to know the inverse-square law to realize how close you're
going to have to stand to your subjects at any shutter speed faster than your
DSLR's archaic X-Sync speed? I hope you take a shower before you do.
What was it that you were saying about idiots' posts proving that they've never
used any real cameras in real life?
Thanks for proving ... that it be you.
LOL!
Now be a good resident-troll, and go crawl back under your rock for a few days.
I'm done entertaining the world with you -- for now.
Steve
D'oH!
Hey moron, that's for proving you have no real world experience and
don't even know how to use a DSLR properly. No wonder you're stuck
with a P&S. A DSLR is flexable enough to be able to shoot with fill
in flash at it's X-Sync speed. You mean your precious P&S can't do
that? And using a flash that strobes is only a problem with the
pathetically weak P&S flashes.
Thanks for proving once again you have no practical real world
experience and don't even know how to use fill-in flash.
Too funny!
John McWilliams
>
> Too funny!
Not faintly amusing. Could you stop replying to the pest?
==
.s
Gavin O'Donnel
>A DSLR is flexable enough to be able to shoot with fill
>in flash at it's X-Sync speed. You mean your precious P&S can't do
>that?
All of the ones I use don't have a crippling X-Sync speed limitation and can use
fill-flash at any shutter speed. That's the point I was making about your
limited and crippled DSLR not being able to use its built-in flash in
full-sunlight. The properties of a strobing focal-plane flash (high-speed-sync
flash) as a fill-flash is just as useless due to the inverse-square law and the
properties of a focal-plane shutter.
(Can a mouse's brain comprehend this? No. :-) )
> And using a flash that strobes is only a problem with the
>pathetically weak P&S flashes.
I don't believe it. Just when I thought he couldn't make an even bigger fool of
himself, he goes and does it again.
I should let someone else who wants to play with this flopping-around
mouse-with-its-head-in-a-trap explain to the mouse why it is now begging to be
put out of its misery, with a simple explanation of how a pulsing/strobing
focal-plane flash is not even needed for a P&S camera. Some of the most
inexperienced camera owners out there can easily put this mouse's head under
their boot and step down on it now.
<INTELLIGENT-BOOT>
<PRESSURE>
<TROLL-STEVE'S-MOUSE-HEAD>
<CRUNCH>
LOL
What have we learned today kiddies? ....
1. Steve doesn't know how P&S cameras work.
2. Steve doesn't know how DSLRs work.
3. Steve doesn't know how flash & X-sync works.
4. Steve doesn't know how focal-plane shutter's work.
5. Steve doesn't understand basic photography in daylight.
6. Steve DOES know how to be a know-nothing virtual-photographer resident-troll.
Okay world. I'll let you have this one as an encore freebie. I said I wasn't
going to use him to entertain you anymore, but this one is just so over-the-top
for a virtual-photographer troll I couldn't pass it up. I can't believe that one
of them is even more stupid than an SMS-resident-troll, but I found it!
LOL
Steve
>On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 11:55:57 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>A DSLR is flexable enough to be able to shoot with fill
>>in flash at it's X-Sync speed. You mean your precious P&S can't do
>>that?
>
>All of the ones I use don't have a crippling X-Sync speed limitation and can use
>fill-flash at any shutter speed. That's the point I was making about your
>limited and crippled DSLR not being able to use its built-in flash in
>full-sunlight. The properties of a strobing focal-plane flash (high-speed-sync
>flash) as a fill-flash is just as useless due to the inverse-square law and the
>properties of a focal-plane shutter.
[...]
>What have we learned today kiddies? ....
We've learned yet again that you have no idea how to properly use fill
flash. I'll even give you an example, something you're totally
unwilling to do. This picture:
http://www.airshowbuzz.com/files/photo/gallery/photos/orig_14538_ff5f5.JPG
uses fill flash in bright sunlight with a DSLR. Something you say is
impossible, yet proves you have no idea what is possible or not. The
bright sun is directly behind the plane and yet the DSLR captures the
engine detail perfectly exposed using fill flash. Without the fill
flash, the engine detail would be totally dark since it's in a dark
shadow behind bright sun. This picture could not have been taken by a
P&S for 2 reasons:
1) The flash of a P&S is too weak to illuminate the dark shadow that
the engine is in and bring it up to the bright sun exposure of the
rest of the plane and sky.
2) The focal length is only 14mm (21mm in 35mm equivalent) which no
P&S goes down to without a quality robbing add-on lens.
So yet once again, it's an absolutely proven fact that you have no
Steve
Yeah, you're right. He's so pathetic and so easily proven wrong it's
not even fun anymore.
Steve
ShawnAndersen
Really. As long as you keep going off-topic with your usual troll comments
someone will come along and suggest that you discuss photography related things.
Like the things listed below, for example:
(I swear, a smarter person might think that you're actually in cahoots with that
P&S guy.)
SMS
> 2) The focal length is only 14mm (21mm in 35mm equivalent) which no
> P&S goes down to without a quality robbing add-on lens.
That was one of the biggest D-SLR advantages for me. I tried an add-on
wide angle converter, the best one on the market, and while it worked,
the results were mediocre at best. I still have it, but now I enjoy
using my old G2 as it was intended to be used, and use the D-SLR when I
need wide-angle, fast auto-focus, or high-resolution. I really like the
G2, especially the tilt/swivel LCD (something that Canon dropped on the
G series, but that's still on the SX1.
When we were at Yellowstone earlier this year, there were a bunch of
people with 600mm lenses doing wildlife photography. My wife said "you
need one of those," but I don't think she realized how much they cost.
It was dusk, and the bears were out, but they were quite far away. With
those lighting conditions the shots from the P&S cameras were abysmal. I
got some good shots with my 300mm telephoto, holding it very steady
(non-IS lens), but I would have liked to have at least 400mm. I guess
using a tele-converter wouldn't be too good of an idea, since it would
turn the 100-300 4.5-5.6 into a 200-600 9.0-11.2.
Gavin O'Donnel
At 1/250th of a second (in the EXIF), ISO100, and at f/8.0 it reveals that you
needed to use a neutral density filter. How long did it take to find the right
one and screw it on? What's the matter? Can't use that flash without accessories
in sunlight?. So now you reveal that you needed an ND filter to expose properly
for that full sunlight and still allow you to use your flash for fill-flash.
Then you have to use an ultra-wide angle lens (and yes, I get crisp to the edge,
zero CA shots with ultra-wide-angle adapters on my P&S cameras), in order to be
close enough to that prop to make the OH-SO-POWERFUL DSLR flash reach that close
at that limiting X-Sync shutter speed and get through that required ND filter.
What was the distance to that prop and engine? About 2 ft. away from you? If
that. To top it off, now you have really ugly highlights from that flash on that
prop that was hitting your elbow as you were taking that photo.
Thanks for posting this, it proves EXACTLY what was stated. :-)
You fuckin' moron. Keep squirming in that trap that you set for yourself.
LOL
franklin_james
>I tried an add-on
>wide angle converter, the best one on the market, and while it worked,
>the results were mediocre at best.
There's your problem. You tried "AN add-on". Meaning you never tried more than
that one. Surprisingly some of the more inexpensive ones from competing
companies work better on competitor's cameras.
You need more experience and research before you can make such generalized
claims.
Steve
On Wed, 12 Nov 2008 18:34:33 -0600, Gavin O'Donnel
<godo...@replyhere.com> wrote:
Once again you prove your ignorance and show you know nothing about
real world photography. No ND filter. I didn't have to screw on
anything. Just point and shoot. The DSLR camera and flash did the
rest and the results are better than anything YOU have ever gotten
with a P&S. Go ahead, prove me wrong. I'll bet you can't.
Until you show any evidence that you have any idea you know what
you're talking about, I'm through playing around with you. It's just
too easy to show you're wrong about everything you post, like you were
above. No wonder you don't want to show anything you're ever taken.
That would be the final nail in your coffin.
Gavin O'Donnel
>Once again you prove your ignorance and show you know nothing about
>real world photography. No ND filter. I didn't have to screw on
>anything. Just point and shoot. The DSLR camera and flash did the
>rest and the results are better than anything YOU have ever gotten
>with a P&S. Go ahead, prove me wrong. I'll bet you can't.
Already did. Ever hear of the "Sunny-16 Rule"? Look it up. Your photo's EXIF
info reveals you to be nothing but a deceptive liar and a useless usenet troll.
Case closed.
dead mouse in the trash, hauled out to the curb, the truck's come and gone
Paul Furman
Steve (Vern) why are you arguing with yourself? That's more than a
little bit odd! Fill flash in daylight is no problem, it's only with a
fast lens wide open that it can be limiting for some models.
Mark Thomas
is worth noting that Gavin O'Donnel is one of the hundreds of names used
by the anti-dslr-troll, also known as "Vern" (somehow that name just has
the right ring to it..).
Here, he made the beginner's error of quoting the Sunny 16 'rule' as
some sort of universal photographic constant, so let's make this thread
useful by correcting his misinformation.
So what is the Sunny 16 'rule'? Well, firstly it isn't a rule, just a
guide. It goes like this:
"On a bright, sunny day, the correct exposure for any subject is roughly
f/16 when using a shutter speed nearest the reciprocal of the ISO speed."
So how and when can it be used, and why isn't it a rule...?
It *can* be a useful guide for exposure checking or using a camera
without a meter. But as any competent, experienced photographer knows
(and that's where Gavin/Vern trips and falls by the wayside), there are
lots of 'gotcha's, and it *may not apply where you live!!* - see below.
Here are just some of the factors affecting it:
1. Latitude. For people at latitudes higher than 40°(N or S) it can be
a stop or more out, and at those higher latitudes the seasonal sun angle
is exaggerated (see 2.).
2. Season. The angle of the sun varies from summer to winter, as most
folks who go outside know (there goes Vern again).
3. Time of day. The angle of the sun... well, you get the picture.
4. Atmospheric conditions, like humidity, dust, cloud cover,
high-altitude ice crystals. This may sound obvious, but water vapour,
dust and high, thin clouds or ice-particle layers can be almost
invisible, yet still affect the light levels significantly.
5. Altitude. The amount of atmospheric scattering is obviously reduced
as you go higher...
..and there are are more factors.. I'm sure Gavin/Vern can elaborate
after he does some research, but it's a bit late now. He blew it.
As for me, I live at a location around 30°S yet I find, like many others
(feel free to google it), that sunny 11 works far better for me. (And
all my cameras seem to agree..)
So it *can* be a tool for getting exposure correct. But slavishly
assuming it applies to every shot, any time, anywhere is foolish and a
sure sign of an inexperienced beginner..
An understanding of photography will tell you how to use it effectively.
(Vern/Gavin should go and buy one of those.) As for using exif data
to determine if someone used an ND, only Vern would come up with that,
especially given Steve's exposure was *less than one stop* away from
sunny 16 anyway. (And it also relies on the camera accurately
metering/reporting, not that a recent Nikon is likely to be out by much,
but we *are* talking less than a stop..)
Some people live their lives indoors changing names and posting garbage.
Some take images and have practical knowledge.
Keep working on it, Vern, but at some point you are actually going to
have get outside and start shooting. Why not do it right now, or as
soon as possible - go and take a picture (of the sky so we can match it
to Steve's) at various times on a sunny day, and report back on what you
find. All at ISO 100, 1/100 and F16? (O: I'm happy to post my
results, if anyone else is interested.
John McWilliams
>
> Steve (Vern) why are you arguing with yourself? That's more than a
> little bit odd! Fill flash in daylight is no problem, it's only with a
> fast lens wide open that it can be limiting for some models.
Paul-
Why are you engaging any of the pestilence?
Ps. Did you catch the moon just after sunset? Twas the biggest over the
hills of the East Bay I've ever seen.
--
john mcwilliams
SamThompson
<markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote:
>
>As for me, I live at a location around 30°S yet I find, like many others
>(feel free to google it), that sunny 11 works far better for me. (And
>all my cameras seem to agree..)
Nice diatribe. Look at the shadows in that photo. Nothing that you said holds
one drop of truth about that photo and the settings used.
Keep trying TROLLS.
Steve
>On Thu, 13 Nov 2008 02:07:11 GMT, Steve <st...@example.com> wrote:
>
>>Once again you prove your ignorance and show you know nothing about
>>real world photography. No ND filter. I didn't have to screw on
>>anything. Just point and shoot. The DSLR camera and flash did the
>>rest and the results are better than anything YOU have ever gotten
>>with a P&S. Go ahead, prove me wrong. I'll bet you can't.
>
>Already did. Ever hear of the "Sunny-16 Rule"? Look it up. Your photo's EXIF
>info reveals you to be nothing but a deceptive liar and a useless usenet troll.
As I suspected. Nothing from you that shows you're anything more than
an internet troll who knows nothing about real world photography. Case
closed
Steve
Just because your crappy P&S can't take a photo like that doesn't mean
a decent DSLR can't. The fact that you think it's faked and too good
to be true doesn't surprise me one bit. In fact, it proves you're
wrong about everything you've posted so far. Isn't that an amazing
feat for one silly picture and your response to it? Talk about the
bait being set and the troll trapped in it!
If you would be willing to put your money where your mouth is, I can
absolutely prove the authenticity of that photo and that the exif data
with respect to anything related to exposure was not changed from what
the camera put there. Of course, it would also prove that you're an
idiot, so I doubt you'll take the challenge.
But it's going to cost you. First, you're going to have to put up
enough money to make it worth my while. Let's say, $1000. And of
course I'll do the same. If the exposure exif data is correct, I get
your $1000. If I altered it, you get my $1000.
Second, you're going to have to buy two copies of Nikon Image
Authentication software, one for you and another for a neutral 3rd
party so you can judge for yourself and have verification of the
results by the 3rd party. Of course I can verify it, but why would
you trust me?
You see, I have the original .NEF file from the camera and Image
Authentication was turned on when I shot it. I don't suspect you know
what that means but if you google "Nikon Image Authentication" and see
what it's used for, you'll be in for a sad surprise. And I'm sure you
know how to google since that's where you get all of your photography
related info from, most of it from suspect sources too.
And for that $1000, I'll even recreate a similar shot for you without
any ND filter just so you can be sure that I'm not lying when I say
there was no filter other than a UV filter (which just happens to be a
Hoya Super Pro1 UV(0) 77mm) used on that shot. If you want
verification of that, you'll have to travel here and observe it
yourself.
So, are you gonna put your money where your pestilence ridden mouth
is? Or are you gonna decline my offer and yet again prove that you're
a foolish troll that knows nothing about real-world photography?
savvo
>
> Ps. Did you catch the moon just after sunset? Twas the biggest over the
> hills of the East Bay I've ever seen.
You foolish amateur. Were you to use the 2km f/1 lens available on the
typical compact came(*&^($R CARRIER LOST
KD-Grande
still thrashing around and managed to squeak the following before expiring:
>You see, I have the original .NEF file from the camera and Image
>Authentication was turned on when I shot it.
I like that new feature where it detects what filters you have on your lens and
what color socks you wore.
Steve
As usual, you missed the salient point that proves you're full of BS
when you snipped the following from the post you replied to:
>I'll even recreate a similar shot for you without
>any ND filter just so you can be sure that I'm not lying when I say
>there was no filter other than a UV filter (which just happens to be a
>Hoya Super Pro1 UV(0) 77mm) used on that shot.
So, are you willing to put up?
John McWilliams
Ooooops! By catch in this case I meant, "Got a glimpse of", not
captured. Had I wished to capture, I would have hauled out my Big Red
system for mega video, sorted through the 4800 frames for the best still
capture. Well, maybe not.
--
john mcwilliams
Paul Furman
Yeah, I should chill... I did see the moon rise this morning... headed
to Muir woods today...
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Alan Browne
> you can't use fill-flash on your DSLR at speeds any faster
> than its X-Sync shutter speed. If you try to use its built-in flash
> at faster than X-Sync
HSS. (High Speed Sync). Came out in the early 90's.
Minolta, Nikon, Canon, ... etc. all support it. Spread the flash
over time by pulsing it off and on at high freq (instead of releasing
all of the energy at once) and you can fill flash up to 1/12,000
(Minolta Maxxum 9). The drawback is less overall received power since
the shutter 'slit' is in travel while the flash is burning (and the
flash starts before the shutter begins opening as well..._ but it is
indeed available (I've been using it since 1994).
This feature was also available on the 'zlr' Minolta A2 up to 1/16,000.
It's tough being stupid, but I guess that's your assigned role in life.
Gavin O'Donnel
Apparently you only read the parts that you want to read, rendering you even
more stupid and ignorant. This loss of light available from the (HSS) flash is
exactly what I had described as being the problem on why these flash units are
all but useless as fill-flash with anything over X-Sync shutter speeds and at
distances any further than a foot or two from the camera. (As quite adequately
proved by resident-troll and now dead-mouse Steve.)
Catch up. Read the whole post. Quit wasting valuable people's time by having to
correct your own stupidity.
Alan Browne
If you were a photographer instead of a troll, you would know that fill
flash requires 4 to 8 times less power. A good fit for HSS in most
situations. But then I know that 'cause I've done it.
--
-- 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.
darnel_schmidt
wrote:
>Fixed your post for you. ;-) Why did I fix it you ask... One word...
>nope two, YOU LIED. But what-the-heck, do TROLL on with your never
>ending list of posting handles, and lack of reading comprehension. The
>world does indeed see you for what you are, and all you will ever be!
>
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:
John McWilliams
> In article <gfafbm$ahd$1...@registered.motzarella.org>,
> "Charles" <charles...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> OK, I am asking for trouble here but seriously want to focus the debate on
>> one issue.
>>
>> Hey, that's not fair! This is a multi-issue debate!
>>
>> Not for me. I own and have owned a wide array of digital cameras and have
>> found that the P&S cameras can rival the DSLRs in image quality in many
>> situations.
>>
>> What I really don't like about the P&S cameras is the shutter lag. Causes
>> many missed opportunities here.
>>
>> What do you folks think?
>
> I have a Canon dSLR and a Sony P&S. I love both cameras. The Sony has a
> shutter lag, but that's the price I am willing to pay in order to have a
> camera that easily fits in my hip pocket and allows me to shoot
> excellent quality images. A good photographer will shoot great photos
> regardless of the type of camera he or she uses. All that really matters
> is that the lens quality is good and the camera offers manual controls
> and is used by someone who knows how to operate it.
No, a good photographer will not always get great shots with gear
unsuited to the task. Yes, he will get the best that can be got from
whatever equipment, but not necessarily good, much less great.
--
john mcwilliams