P & S cameras
mich...@fromcardiff.com
all these threads that revolve around the question of which type of camera
is "better". Personally I do not see that this is a question that has any
sense as the two types of camera are designed for different uses. Anyway,
has anyone any idea why the pro P&S posters tend to be so bizarre and quite
frankly not quite right in the head, as witnessed by their somewhat
hysterical postings. I am amazed at the emotion, derision, contempt and
even hatred they are able to put in their postings. Its creepy and
fascinating at the same time.
Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And no
comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
AnthonyEvans
I see. The facts about P&S cameras are so contrary to your own beliefs, drummed
into your mind by the less intelligent (a brainwashing, if you will), that you
misread these facts as "bizarre". Do try to read FACTS without all your
projected hysteria, would you? That's a good boy.
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
SMS
> Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And no
> comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
I've seen this sort of behavior when people desperately try to defend a
bad purchasing decision that they've made, against all facts and logic.
They don't want to believe that they've been "taken" so they launch into
these tirades of incorrect information that they really do know to be
false. They may be trying to draw others into making the same mistakes,
as a way of validating their decisions. You see this more in the
automotive newsgroups and forums, or the Apple newsgroups and forums;
there's apparently only one individual in rec.photo.digital with this
problem, which is a pretty good thing!
The constantly changing e-mail addresses are often used to create
sock-puppets, though in this case he doesn't deny that he's doing this,
so it's probably being done to get around everyone's kill-files. Above
all these people seek attention. It doesn't matter that they're made to
look foolish--simply getting a response is all they desire.
You're right of course that each type of camera has its uses. I have one
D-SLR, and we have four P&S cameras in the house. The core problem with
our troll seems to be a keen lack of understanding of the pros and cons
of each type of camera.
It's not clear if he really owns anything at all, but if his claims of
teleconverters is true, he is apparently trying to convert a P&S to the
functionality, at least in zoom range, of a D-SLR with these kludges.
When the cheapest D-SLR was $1500, this sort of kludge at least made a
bit of sense for the person with little money that needed extreme
wide-angle or long range telephoto, even though all the experts agree
that using these devices results in sub-standard shots, not to mention
the other issues such as shutter and auto-focus lag, and poor low light
capability.
Carlisle Browne
>I've seen this sort of behavior when people desperately try to defend a
>bad purchasing decision that they've made
Yes, like those that are desperately trying to defend their $10,000 DSLR +
overpriced lens purchases. Then someone comes along and proves them all wrong.
All that money and supposedly-superior thinking, all gone to waste.
nospam
Browne <cbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >I've seen this sort of behavior when people desperately try to defend a
> >bad purchasing decision that they've made
>
> Yes, like those that are desperately trying to defend their $10,000 DSLR +
> overpriced lens purchases.
the most expensive dslr (not counting medium format which is expensive
no matter what you get) is $8000 -- the canon eos-1ds. the most
popular dslrs are $500-$1000.
> Then someone comes along and proves them all wrong.
> All that money and supposedly-superior thinking, all gone to waste.
yep, that's what i just did.
DaveD
You left out the cost of all those lenses that would be needed to have the
equivalent focal-length reach of an inexpensive (<$500) super-zoom P&S camera,
not to mention that the aperture available at those longer focal-lengths that
can *never* be attained by the DLSR fan-troll.
Yep, you missed the "prove" point.
Try again.
Read this again, this might enlighten your ignorance:
mich...@fromcardiff.com
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:LU%Qk.4032$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
The weird thing is that posting that enourmous list of plus points for P&S
does'nt, in my opinion endear anyone towards P&S.
I'm wondering wether P&S cameras are going to become a lot less popular
after Xmas. I notice how SLRs are getting cheaper all the time and mobile
phones with built in cameras are getting better all the time. There is a
growing squeeze on the P&S market at the moment and I think sales of these
cameras may have peaked in the last year or so.
Charlie Gordon
>The weird thing is that posting that enourmous list of plus points for P&S
>does'nt, in my opinion endear anyone towards P&S.
It doesn't matter one bit what you think. Those that can think for themselves,
and realize that they can't disprove anything on this list of P&S superiority is
what really matters.
Alan Browne
There is nothing wrong with a P&S if it suits the purpose. However a
DSLR suits a much broader set of purposes and achieves much higher
quality images in the hands of the average user than a P&S will do in
the same hands. The system benefits of DSLR are obvious. It costs
more. So pick what meets your needs and show your stuff. (Something
the P&S troll neglects to do).
So people have to choose what fits _their_ needs based on the capability
and limitations of each system.
This is a general digital NG and should not be a playground for tussles
over what is better. It should be a place for discussion about the
merits of a camera or system to achieve a goal. Problem solving. When
things come out with 25 point lists to declare that P&S is
overwhelmingly better than DSLR's in all respects you have to accept it
as humour or trolling.
What is most disheartening is that after a few days of this stupidity,
people who should know better keep replying to the P&S-troll which was
changing its name every day and is now changing its name with almost
every post. I'd call it coo-coo but that would be an insult to all the
good coo-coo's of the world.
I just wish people would stop feeding 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.
nospam
<con...@ddress.com> wrote:
> >> Then someone comes along and proves them all wrong.
> >> All that money and supposedly-superior thinking, all gone to waste.
> >
> >yep, that's what i just did.
>
> You left out the cost of all those lenses that would be needed to have the
> equivalent focal-length reach of an inexpensive (<$500) super-zoom P&S camera,
> not to mention that the aperture available at those longer focal-lengths that
> can *never* be attained by the DLSR fan-troll.
kit lenses have comparable or wider range than many p&s (which often
don't go as wide without extra lenses).
> Yep, you missed the "prove" point.
>
> Try again.
>
> Read this again, this might enlighten your ignorance:
it's mostly bogus.
> 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.)
dslrs can go from 4.5mm to 5200mm before any converters are added into
the mix, and neither system is seamless.
> 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
> DSLR glass in existence.
but the smaller sensor is inherently noisier so it's moot.
> 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
> sensor cameras
absolutely false. all things being equal, a larger sensor will have a
larger dynamic range and lower noise than a smaller sensor. this is
basic physics.
> 4. P&S cameras are cost efficient.
they can be, it all depends on the task.
> 5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient.
yes, they are.
> 6. P&S cameras are silent.
some dslrs have a silent mode. it's also not generally an issue.
> 7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them,
big deal, it just duplicates functionality that's often included in a
dslr.
> 8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second.
very few people use 1/8000th, nevermind faster.
> 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
> shutter-speeds
> of 1/40,000th of a second.
some dslrs can sync at any shutter speed, notably the nikon d50 and d70.
> 10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
> limitations.
it's *extremely* rare that it's an issue.
> 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),
that's why they make super-zooms, and on a p&s, one would have to add
or remove accessory lenses.
> 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.
for the same image quality, depth of field is the same regardless of
sensor size.
> 13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
> audio
> recordings,
so do dslrs.
> 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
> image.
some dslrs do. it's not really a big deal since images are generally
cropped afterwards anyway. film cameras never had 100% coverage, nor
was it important since the film gate or slide mount cropped a little.
> 15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light
not as well as a dslr's phase detect autofocus system.
> 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
that's rarely an issue and not everyone shoots wildlife anyway.
> 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.
false.
> 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.
but they have longer focus acquisition times.
> 19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
> relay
> the camera's shutter-speed in real-time.
so what? an experienced photographer knows what the results will look
like.
> 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
bokeh depends on the lens, not the camera type.
> 21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
> just as much resolution as any DSLR camera.
totally false.
> 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.
and technology has advanced since then. why restrict oneself to iso
400 when iso 3200 is very, very good?
> 22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
> determine the quality of your photography.
nobody said it did. and just as an expensive camera doesn't result in
a better picture (although it does open up opportunities), a cheaper
camera isn't necessarily better either.
> 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.
that is true, but in many situations, the extra weight isn't an issue.
> 25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent.
so is a large dog.
TaylorSchmidt
<alan....@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote:
>There is nothing wrong with a P&S if it suits the purpose. However a
>DSLR suits a much broader set of purposes
You apparently have a very limited view of the needs of the professional
photographer. Let me enlighten you:
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
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
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
ray
It's a bit like the "film vs digital" wars. Quite obviously each has it's
place. I'm willing to grant that ultimately a DSLR may actually take
'better' pictures than a P&S. But, quite frankly, I don't want to pack
thirty pounds of camera gear when I'm out hiking, bicycling or showshoeing.
nospam
<tshc...@ispamblocker.org> wrote:
> >There is nothing wrong with a P&S if it suits the purpose. However a
> >DSLR suits a much broader set of purposes
>
> You apparently have a very limited view of the needs of the professional
> photographer.
look at all those p&s cameras at the sidelines of ball games and the
olympics. look at all those p&s cameras used for weddings. look at
all those p&s cameras used for portrait and fashion photography.
oh wait. they're all dslrs.
SMS
> It's a bit like the "film vs digital" wars. Quite obviously each has it's
> place. I'm willing to grant that ultimately a DSLR may actually take
> 'better' pictures than a P&S. But, quite frankly, I don't want to pack
> thirty pounds of camera gear when I'm out hiking, bicycling or showshoeing.
That's quite an exaggeration. The Canon XSi weighs 17 ounces. The Canon
EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens weighs 21 ounces (and there are a lot
lighter lenses as well). These aren't the lightest D-SLRs and lenses
either. You can easily keep it under 3 pounds, an order of magnitude
less than 30 pounds. The real issue that is that it's a lot bulkier.
The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters for telephoto
and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't saving much in terms
of weight and volume and you're adding a lot of hassle and getting very
inferior results.
I carry a P&S while bicycling or nordic skiing, but often I'll take the
D-SLR hiking. There's a lot of shots you can't get with a P&S. I was
down at Natural Bridges State Park in Santa Cruz to see the Monarch
butterflies, and a P&S would have been just a joke to try to get any
decent shots using multiple tele-converters. In fact I really wanted one
of those Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM lenses, but it's not in the budget.
P&S cameras are great for "snapshots."
SMS
> I'm wondering wether P&S cameras are going to become a lot less popular
> after Xmas. I notice how SLRs are getting cheaper all the time and mobile
> phones with built in cameras are getting better all the time. There is a
> growing squeeze on the P&S market at the moment and I think sales of these
> cameras may have peaked in the last year or so.
It's true that with the free-fall in D-SLR prices, D-SLR sales volumes
are growing at a much faster rate than P&S sales. P&S cameras have
almost reached market saturation, and sales are more for replacements
than first time buyers.
TheEducator
>In article <kl39h4plb3ch1oesb...@4ax.com>, DaveD
><con...@ddress.com> wrote:
>
>> >> Then someone comes along and proves them all wrong.
>> >> All that money and supposedly-superior thinking, all gone to waste.
>> >
>> >yep, that's what i just did.
>>
>> You left out the cost of all those lenses that would be needed to have the
>> equivalent focal-length reach of an inexpensive (<$500) super-zoom P&S camera,
>> not to mention that the aperture available at those longer focal-lengths that
>> can *never* be attained by the DLSR fan-troll.
>
>kit lenses have comparable or wider range than many p&s (which often
>don't go as wide without extra lenses).
>
>> Yep, you missed the "prove" point.
>>
>> Try again.
>>
>> Read this again, this might enlighten your ignorance:
>
>it's mostly bogus.
>
>> 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.)
>
>dslrs can go from 4.5mm to 5200mm before any converters are added into
>the mix, and neither system is seamless.
>
You left off the aperture available, do show your experience with real-world
needs. Thanks.
>> 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
>> DSLR glass in existence.
>
>but the smaller sensor is inherently noisier so it's moot.
>
>> 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
>> sensor cameras
>
>absolutely false. all things being equal, a larger sensor will have a
>larger dynamic range and lower noise than a smaller sensor. this is
>basic physics.
Yes, just stick you fingers in your ears and hum a tune to block out all those
nasty effects of reality. That'll help you in your career.
>
>> 4. P&S cameras are cost efficient.
>
>they can be, it all depends on the task.
>
>> 5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient.
>
>yes, they are.
>
>> 6. P&S cameras are silent.
>
>some dslrs have a silent mode. it's also not generally an issue.
Oh? You mean the "silent" mode where you can't see a thing through the
viewfinder while that annoying and slow mirror is locked out of the way? Yes,
that's a wonderful feature. :-) But you can't get around the "silence" of that
archaic focal-plane shutter. Are you deaf?
>
>> 7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them,
>
>big deal, it just duplicates functionality that's often included in a
>dslr.
>
LOL! Now I know for a fact that you are nothing but a low-life troll. If you
only knew....
>> 8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second.
>
>very few people use 1/8000th, nevermind faster.
Yes, those that don't know how to do photography that nobody else has ever done
before. That be someone like you. It must be boring duplicating what everyone
else has done before, isn't it. But then, that's how much creativity that you
have and profess by your comment.
>
>> 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
>> shutter-speeds
>> of 1/40,000th of a second.
>
>some dslrs can sync at any shutter speed, notably the nikon d50 and d70.
Sure they can. But as proven in the comments that you snipped, those "faster"
shutter speeds are really no faster than the x-sync speed of those focal-plane
shutters. You do know how focal-plane shutters work, don't you?
>
>> 10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
>> limitations.
>
>it's *extremely* rare that it's an issue.
Oh, of course, with your limited perception and not realizing that bird's wings
are not unnaturally curved that way, how could you know? These distorted views
that your focal-plane shutter have given you are all that you know about
reality. Your ignorance is forgiven.
>
>> 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),
>
>that's why they make super-zooms, and on a p&s, one would have to add
>or remove accessory lenses.
Oh? You mean like you have to do with EVERY focal-length change on a DSLR? My,
what a drawback. Claiming this is a drawback only proves that owning a DSLR is
the worst drawback of all.
>
>> 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.
>
>for the same image quality, depth of field is the same regardless of
>sensor size.
>
You must be joking. Have you NO clue about optics and reality? Don't bother to
answer. Your comment here is proof enough.
>> 13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo
>> audio
>> recordings,
>
>so do dslrs.
Really? You mean those newer ones that are attempting to duplicate all the
advanced features of P&S cameras that P&S camera owners have enjoyed having at
their fingertips for the last decade? It's about time you DSLR idiots were able
to enjoy the vast benefits of P&S camera owners.
Oh, but do clarify one thing. Just which DSLR is it that has CD quality stereo
audio recordings? I seem to have missed that in any mfg's. specs.
>
>> 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
>> image.
>
>some dslrs do. it's not really a big deal since images are generally
>cropped afterwards anyway. film cameras never had 100% coverage, nor
>was it important since the film gate or slide mount cropped a little.
>
Now I know that you don't know what you are talking about. Not ONE dslr has 100%
viewfinder representation in their OVF viewfinder. Please provide a link to such
a fact. :-)
>> 15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light
>
>not as well as a dslr's phase detect autofocus system.
Excuse me? Just how on earth is a phase detection AF system going to auto-focus
on something that it can't detect? My my my, you DSLR trolls will invent
anything, won't you.
:-)
>
>> 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
>
>that's rarely an issue and not everyone shoots wildlife anyway.
Oh, but I heard that the only reason to obtain a DSLR is its superiority to
shoot wildlife. Are you now claiming all those fools are in error? They're going
to verbally attack you now, you know this, don't you.
LOL
>
>> 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.
>
>false.
Apparently you've never taken ONE bit of photography that scientists require. Do
continue to express your ignorance.
>
>> 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.
>
>but they have longer focus acquisition times.
Ah, then you've failed to comprehend how anyone that depends on auto-focus from
ANY camera will lose more award-winning shots in their lifetime than a real pro
who would never depend on some idiot camera manufacturer programmer to decide
what to focus on for them.
You reveal so much about your sub-amateur status.
>
>> 19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
>> relay
>> the camera's shutter-speed in real-time.
>
>so what? an experienced photographer knows what the results will look
>like.
Great. Let me know what a fly's wing-beat will look like in that hand-held
in-flight shot will look like in your final photo.
What's that you say? You can't even focus on a fly in flight, hand-held, with a
DSLR? And that's because of the small apertures that you have to depend on for
enough DOF with image destroying flash? Okay. I understand. You've never used
the superior P&S cameras for this purpose. Don't feel bad.
>
>> 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
>
>bokeh depends on the lens, not the camera type.
>
No shit Sherlock. Isn't that exactly what was stated? Read fully before
replying.
>> 21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
>> just as much resolution as any DSLR camera.
>
>totally false.
Poor pitiful you. You'll never understand what REAL pros use daily, and how they
accomplish those award winning photos.
>
>> 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.
>
>and technology has advanced since then. why restrict oneself to iso
>400 when iso 3200 is very, very good?
I've never said that high ISOs were helpful. I only said they weren't needed in
the hands of a real pro using a P&S camera. Can't you follow?
>
>> 22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
>> determine the quality of your photography.
>
>nobody said it did. and just as an expensive camera doesn't result in
>a better picture (although it does open up opportunities), a cheaper
>camera isn't necessarily better either.
>
Ah, he's finally starting to realize what "talent" means, even if it is outside
the realm of his reality.
>> 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.
>
>that is true, but in many situations, the extra weight isn't an issue.
>
>> 25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent.
>
>so is a large dog.
It was a minor attribute of owning a camera, but an important one--to anyone
that travels. Which, apparently, you've never done in your pathetic
basement-living life.
mich...@fromcardiff.com
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message> I carry a P&S while
> D-SLR hiking. There's a lot of shots you can't get with a P&S. I was down
> at Natural Bridges State Park in Santa Cruz to see the Monarch
> butterflies, and a P&S would have been just a joke to try to get any
> decent shots using multiple tele-converters. In fact I really wanted one
> of those Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM lenses, but it's not in the budget.
>
> P&S cameras are great for "snapshots."
I also do a lot of outdoor activity. I'm used to lugging enourmous rucksacks
so carrying an SLR with a number of lens is not so bad for me. I rarely use
my G9. However, if I am on a seriously strenous trip I will take the D80
with say a 12-24mm or 80-400mm lens plus the G9 and a tripod. On these
occasions the G9 has turned out some amazing macro shots of flowers and
plants. Mainly though, I carry it in case I trash the SLR.
mich...@fromcardiff.com
Do you see the camera phone making a dent in the P&S market? I briefly
caught sight of an ad for an 8MP camera phone the other day! Hang on a
minute, I'll just get my list of 25 reasons why the camera phone is best :-)
Roy G
<mich...@fromCardiff.com> wrote in message
news:tOWdnR3_5Pz7H4nU...@bt.com...
I won't even attemp to get into the P & S versus DSLR discussion.
It isn't really a discussion at all because there is only 1 person posting
the same over long list of what he considers proofs of the superiority of P
& S Cameras for every possible function. He claims to be a professional
photographer but will never post any images, or specify which equipment he
uses.
I think that in order to get a reasonable explanation of why he is waging
this one man war, you would need to visit
rec. physchiatric.digital.
I just hope he never links up with the MI5 Troll.
Roy G
nospam
<giveme...@youmustbejoking.org> wrote:
> >> 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including
> >> shutter-speeds
> >> of 1/40,000th of a second.
> >
> >some dslrs can sync at any shutter speed, notably the nikon d50 and d70.
>
> Sure they can. But as proven in the comments that you snipped, those "faster"
> shutter speeds are really no faster than the x-sync speed of those focal-plane
> shutters. You do know how focal-plane shutters work, don't you?
they absolutely are faster than the x-sync speed.
> >> 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.
> >
> >for the same image quality, depth of field is the same regardless of
> >sensor size.
>
> You must be joking. Have you NO clue about optics and reality? Don't bother to
> answer. Your comment here is proof enough.
i'm not joking at all. smaller sensors are inherently noisier and
require a larger aperture for the same image quality. there's no free
lunch.
> Now I know that you don't know what you are talking about. Not ONE dslr has
> 100%
> viewfinder representation in their OVF viewfinder. Please provide a link to
> such
> a fact. :-)
nikon d3:
<http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/page2.asp>
> >> 15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light
> >
> >not as well as a dslr's phase detect autofocus system.
>
> Excuse me? Just how on earth is a phase detection AF system going to
> auto-focus
> on something that it can't detect? My my my, you DSLR trolls will invent
> anything, won't you.
it's more sensitive at lower light levels.
BÔwser
<mich...@fromCardiff.com> wrote in message
news:tOWdnR3_5Pz7H4nU...@bt.com...
Just use the camera that's best suited for the job. To imply that one type
is universally better than the other is, well, kinda stupid.
marvn cranston
This can only be attributed to those non-professionals that think that
exchanging their more-than-capable P&S camera for a DSLR will make them better
photographers. You know, people as ignorant and as untalented as you.
Doi read the following, it will reveal much about your total lack of talent and
photographic ignorance:
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
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
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
BÔwser
"nospam" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:071120081129181250%nos...@nospam.invalid...
I wonder how many sock puppets that guy has? I've got four so far.
SayWhat
"If even 5 billion people are saying and believing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
nospam
<b0w...@h0me.c0m> wrote:
> Just use the camera that's best suited for the job. To imply that one type
> is universally better than the other is, well, kinda stupid.
yep. both types have their merits.
HankTownsend
If that cell-phone captures an image that is important socially worldwide, then
that proves your DSLR's quality is of no significance.
CONTENT WILL TUMP QUALYITY -- EVERY TIME.
You poor pathetic amateur purchase/cost justifiers will never realize this.
Keep trying. This is most entertaining.
:-)
J. Clarke
> ray wrote:
>
>> It's a bit like the "film vs digital" wars. Quite obviously each
>> has
>> it's place. I'm willing to grant that ultimately a DSLR may
>> actually
>> take 'better' pictures than a P&S. But, quite frankly, I don't want
>> to pack thirty pounds of camera gear when I'm out hiking, bicycling
>> or showshoeing.
>
> That's quite an exaggeration. The Canon XSi weighs 17 ounces. The
> Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens weighs 21 ounces (and there
> are
> a lot lighter lenses as well). These aren't the lightest D-SLRs and
> lenses either. You can easily keep it under 3 pounds, an order of
> magnitude less than 30 pounds. The real issue that is that it's a
> lot
> bulkier.
>
> The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters for
> telephoto and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't saving
> much in terms of weight and volume and you're adding a lot of hassle
> and getting very inferior results.
Huh? Why would you carry "lens adapters for telephoto and wide angle,
and extension tubes (how does one use an extension tube with a P&S
anyway)"? If you need a long tele then why would you be taking a G10
anyway? An SX1IS or SX10 IS will give you nearly twice the
magnification of the 18-200 with no "lens adapters", and go a little
wider as well, and since it can focus on an object that is touching
the lens there is no need for "extension tubes" either.
As for "very inferior results", you might want to take a look at
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml, in which
various individuals were asked to distinguish between 11x17s shot with
a G10 and a 39 megapixel Hasselblad and in general could not do so.
> I carry a P&S while bicycling or nordic skiing, but often I'll take
> the D-SLR hiking. There's a lot of shots you can't get with a P&S. I
> was down at Natural Bridges State Park in Santa Cruz to see the
> Monarch butterflies, and a P&S would have been just a joke to try to
> get any decent shots using multiple tele-converters. In fact I
> really
> wanted one of those Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM lenses, but it's
> not
> in the budget.
What lens did you use?
> P&S cameras are great for "snapshots."
They're not a replacement for a DSLR, but so far you haven't hit on
any of the reasons. You've just made a bad choice for your needs and
are condemning the whole breed on the basis of the limitations of the
one that you picked.
--
--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
SMS
> Huh? Why would you carry "lens adapters for telephoto and wide angle,
> and extension tubes (how does one use an extension tube with a P&S
> anyway)"? If you need a long tele then why would you be taking a G10
> anyway? An SX1IS or SX10 IS will give you nearly twice the
> magnification of the 18-200 with no "lens adapters", and go a little
> wider as well, and since it can focus on an object that is touching
> the lens there is no need for "extension tubes" either.
The SX1 is nearly $800, the wide angle is limited to 28mm, and you can't
use filters or lens adapters to get around this, but the 560mm telephoto
is very nice indeed, as is the HD video. The key issues will be whether
or not the CMOS sensor will help with noise at high ISO (a problem that
plagues small sensor P&S cameras) and how fast the focusing will be. If
they can get the auto-focus down to just 1.5 times as slow as a D-SLR
they might have a winner.
You're better off with the Sigma 18 mm - 200 mm - f/3.5-6.3 DC OS and
the least expensive Canon D-SLR body for a "walking around" camera if
image quality is of primary importance.
The SX10 is is more reasonable but it's decontented.
SteveN
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.
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
Jürgen Exner
>Do you see the camera phone making a dent in the P&S market?
Actually I do. Now, this has nothing to do with the quality of the
photos or the feature set or camera but simply with convenience and that
people are lazy.
Phone are so ubiquitous that many people will use them instead of a
dedicated camera to shoot snapshot. And don't forget that with a phone
you can send that snap shot to your friends immediately. Quality is
irrelevant because those friends will view the photo on a phone, too,
and those phone displays have a resolution of what, 300x400 or something
like that.
Now, you might argue that is not photography and probably you are right.
But it is what a lot of people want and while in the past those people
had no choice but to buy a low-end P&S in the future they will just use
the phone camera simply because it is there already and even does a
better job in some tasks like send the picture to your friends.
jue
tn...@mucks.net
>I own a P&S and an SLR, each has its uses. Recently I could'nt help but see
>all these threads that revolve around the question of which type of camera
>is "better". Personally I do not see that this is a question that has any
>sense as the two types of camera are designed for different uses. Anyway,
>has anyone any idea why the pro P&S posters tend to be so bizarre and quite
>frankly not quite right in the head, as witnessed by their somewhat
>hysterical postings. I am amazed at the emotion, derision, contempt and
>even hatred they are able to put in their postings. Its creepy and
>fascinating at the same time.
>Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And no
>comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
The same can be said about SOME rabid anti-P&S, I'm a Pro DSLR user
so your opinion doesn't count fanatic.
HankThomas
You mean, "pro" as in requring all those amateur's required P&S features of your
DSLR? That I can believe.
You useless amateur you.
SMS
> Now, you might argue that is not photography and probably you are right.
> But it is what a lot of people want and while in the past those people
> had no choice but to buy a low-end P&S in the future they will just use
> the phone camera simply because it is there already and even does a
> better job in some tasks like send the picture to your friends.
Yeah, I see a lot of former P&S users switching to cameras in some of
the high-end smart phones. The results aren't quite as good as a decent
P&S but for what they're doing it's fine. They rarely print any
pictures, it's all for e-mailing and display on a monitor.
I was at a bat mitzvah a few months ago in Atlanta, and was talking to
the photographer who had _two_ Canon full frame bodies (one with a
big-white telephoto, and one with a wide angle). She said the
proliferation of P&S digital cameras had actually helped her business
because the customers were buying more photos than when guests used to
bring P&S film cameras to events. She said the problem was the poor
low-light capability of the typical P&S digital camera versus a P&S with
ASA 400 or ASA 800 film resulted in mostly unusable photos by the
guests, so that the people that hire her are no longer able to just buy
the minimum package, and rely on guests for less important photos (i.e.
a photo of each table, photos of people dancing, etc.). So there is an
upside (for someone) to digital P&S versus film P&S!
J. Clarke
> J. Clarke wrote:
>
>> Huh? Why would you carry "lens adapters for telephoto and wide
>> angle, and extension tubes (how does one use an extension tube with
>> a P&S anyway)"? If you need a long tele then why would you be
>> taking a G10 anyway? An SX1IS or SX10 IS will give you nearly
>> twice
>> the magnification of the 18-200 with no "lens adapters", and go a
>> little wider as well, and since it can focus on an object that is
>> touching the lens there is no need for "extension tubes" either.
>
> The SX1 is nearly $800,
B&H has the SX10 in stock at 350. And my three year old Panasonic has
nearly the same zoom range, as do several older models from Canon--you
don't have to get an SX1 to get that range.
> the wide angle is limited to 28mm,
And on a 1.6 crop sensor like the XSi the 18-200 gives the equivalent
of 28.8 mm on the wide end, so they're roughly even.
> and you
> can't use filters or lens adapters to get around this,
A lot of people seem to be having no trouble screwing 52mm filters etc
onto them.
> but the 560mm
> telephoto is very nice indeed, as is the HD video. The key issues
> will be whether or not the CMOS sensor will help with noise at high
> ISO (a problem that plagues small sensor P&S cameras) and how fast
> the focusing will be. If they can get the auto-focus down to just
> 1.5
> times as slow as a D-SLR they might have a winner.
High ISO performance is one of the areas in which DSLRs have an
advantage, but if you don't need high ISO performance then it's moot.
> You're better off with the Sigma 18 mm - 200 mm - f/3.5-6.3 DC OS
> and
> the least expensive Canon D-SLR body for a "walking around" camera
> if
> image quality is of primary importance.
Can that Sigma and cheap body produce 11x17s indistinguishable from
those shot with a $40,000 Hasselblad?
> The SX10 is is more reasonable but it's decontented.
If you mean the "SX10 IS", what features have been removed? They are
different cameras, with different sensors.
TodBaxter
So now this moron is going to discount all P&S cameras according the quality
from cell-phones? Oh, what self-deceiving beliefs one must reach to retain their
ignorance. Read the FACTS below, SMS:
(One wonders how often that SMS will have to post his same antiquated beliefs to
realize that no matter that what he posts, the same reply is going to be
reposted to offset his innate ignorance. If he was smart he'd change his online
screen-name. Expecting him to be that intelligent is foolish thinking. At least
I admit foolishness where others are too insecure to do the same. :-) )
SMS
> SMS wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> Huh? Why would you carry "lens adapters for telephoto and wide
>>> angle, and extension tubes (how does one use an extension tube with
>>> a P&S anyway)"? If you need a long tele then why would you be
>>> taking a G10 anyway? An SX1IS or SX10 IS will give you nearly
>>> twice
>>> the magnification of the 18-200 with no "lens adapters", and go a
>>> little wider as well, and since it can focus on an object that is
>>> touching the lens there is no need for "extension tubes" either.
>> The SX1 is nearly $800,
>
> B&H has the SX10 in stock at 350. And my three year old Panasonic has
> nearly the same zoom range, as do several older models from Canon--you
> don't have to get an SX1 to get that range.
>
>> the wide angle is limited to 28mm,
>
> And on a 1.6 crop sensor like the XSi the 18-200 gives the equivalent
> of 28.8 mm on the wide end, so they're roughly even.
Yes, but you can go well beyond 28mm with a wide-angle lens if the need
arises in the future. It's all about not buying into the planned
obsolescence of the entire system.
> High ISO performance is one of the areas in which DSLRs have an
> advantage, but if you don't need high ISO performance then it's moot.
Yes, if you always shoot outdoors in bright light, or indoors with a
powerful flash attachment, you don't need high ISO.
SMS
> What is most disheartening is that after a few days of this stupidity,
> people who should know better keep replying to the P&S-troll which was
> changing its name every day and is now changing its name with almost
> every post. I'd call it coo-coo but that would be an insult to all the
> good coo-coo's of the world.
Hey, it keeps him off the streets. As to responding, I don't respond to
him because I have him filtered. If everyone would filter him and stop
responding then he'd lose interest and go away.
CharlesCamden
Interesting. I post in reply to every one of your posts (you are such a fool).
So that means that it also keeps you off the streets. Apparently you haven't
lost interst, or you'd stop making your ignorant DSLR posts.
Read this, it might stop you from making such ignorant posts.
Eric Stevens
>I own a P&S and an SLR, each has its uses. Recently I could'nt help but see
>all these threads that revolve around the question of which type of camera
>is "better". Personally I do not see that this is a question that has any
>sense as the two types of camera are designed for different uses. Anyway,
>has anyone any idea why the pro P&S posters tend to be so bizarre and quite
>frankly not quite right in the head, as witnessed by their somewhat
>hysterical postings. I am amazed at the emotion, derision, contempt and
>even hatred they are able to put in their postings. Its creepy and
>fascinating at the same time.
>Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And no
>comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
>
Most of it is from only the one person.
Eric Stevens
ray
> ray wrote:
>
>> It's a bit like the "film vs digital" wars. Quite obviously each has
>> it's place. I'm willing to grant that ultimately a DSLR may actually
>> take 'better' pictures than a P&S. But, quite frankly, I don't want to
>> pack thirty pounds of camera gear when I'm out hiking, bicycling or
>> showshoeing.
>
> That's quite an exaggeration. The Canon XSi weighs 17 ounces. The Canon
> EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens weighs 21 ounces (and there are a lot
> lighter lenses as well). These aren't the lightest D-SLRs and lenses
> either. You can easily keep it under 3 pounds, an order of magnitude
> less than 30 pounds. The real issue that is that it's a lot bulkier.
And the rest of the lenses I would need to equal the 12x zoom on my Kodak
P850?
>
> The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters for telephoto
> and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't saving much in terms
> of weight and volume and you're adding a lot of hassle and getting very
> inferior results.
What's a canon g10? I don't do canon. I use a Kodak P850.
>
> I carry a P&S while bicycling or nordic skiing, but often I'll take the
> D-SLR hiking. There's a lot of shots you can't get with a P&S. I was
> down at Natural Bridges State Park in Santa Cruz to see the Monarch
> butterflies, and a P&S would have been just a joke to try to get any
> decent shots using multiple tele-converters. In fact I really wanted one
> of those Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM lenses, but it's not in the
> budget.
>
J. Clarke
System? A point-and-shoot is not a "system".
>> High ISO performance is one of the areas in which DSLRs have an
>> advantage, but if you don't need high ISO performance then it's
>> moot.
>
> Yes, if you always shoot outdoors in bright light, or indoors with a
> powerful flash attachment, you don't need high ISO.
And that is how some people work.
JakeAdams
It very much is, when you include wide-angle and telephoto adapters. Just as you
would include all the many DSLR lenses required to make any DSLR body the least
bit functional.
>
>>> High ISO performance is one of the areas in which DSLRs have an
>>> advantage, but if you don't need high ISO performance then it's
>>> moot.
>>
>> Yes, if you always shoot outdoors in bright light, or indoors with a
>> powerful flash attachment, you don't need high ISO.
>
>And that is how some people work.
>
>--
Then why aren't you educating yourself to the many inexpensive slave-triggers
available for P&S cameras? Afraid that it might make your outrageously
overpriced DSLR investment obsolete? (I already know it is.)
You are so amazingly transparent and insecure in your choices in life.
LOL
J. Clarke
> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:38:13 -0800, SMS wrote:
>
>> ray wrote:
>>
>>> It's a bit like the "film vs digital" wars. Quite obviously each
>>> has
>>> it's place. I'm willing to grant that ultimately a DSLR may
>>> actually
>>> take 'better' pictures than a P&S. But, quite frankly, I don't
>>> want
>>> to pack thirty pounds of camera gear when I'm out hiking,
>>> bicycling
>>> or showshoeing.
>>
>> That's quite an exaggeration. The Canon XSi weighs 17 ounces. The
>> Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens weighs 21 ounces (and there
>> are a lot lighter lenses as well). These aren't the lightest D-SLRs
>> and lenses either. You can easily keep it under 3 pounds, an order
>> of magnitude less than 30 pounds. The real issue that is that it's
>> a
>> lot bulkier.
>
> And the rest of the lenses I would need to equal the 12x zoom on my
> Kodak P850?
Use the 18-270 Tamron intead of the 18-200 Canon and you've got that
zoom range beat.
>> The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters for
>> telephoto and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't
>> saving
>> much in terms of weight and volume and you're adding a lot of
>> hassle
>> and getting very inferior results.
>
> What's a canon g10? I don't do canon. I use a Kodak P850.
The fuzz machine? If you're satisfied with what that does then you're
easy to please.
>> I carry a P&S while bicycling or nordic skiing, but often I'll take
>> the D-SLR hiking. There's a lot of shots you can't get with a P&S.
>> I
>> was down at Natural Bridges State Park in Santa Cruz to see the
>> Monarch butterflies, and a P&S would have been just a joke to try
>> to
>> get any decent shots using multiple tele-converters. In fact I
>> really wanted one of those Canon EF 800mm f/5.6L IS USM lenses, but
>> it's not in the budget.
>>
>> P&S cameras are great for "snapshots."
--
hank smithers
>The fuzz machine? If you're satisfied with what that does then you're
>easy to please.
Better to get an award-winning photo, than none at all from a less-capable DSLR.
You ignorantly fucked-up stupid dslr troll.
SMS
> System? A point-and-shoot is not a "system".
Well you hit on the root of the problem. You're right of course, but
what some people do is to try to turn it into a system with various
adapters and converters. The results are mediocre to be sure, but for
those that don't understand anything about camera optics they thing,
"gee I'll add a telephoto or wide angle adapter to my P&S and it's just
like swapping a lens on a D-SLR, and look how much money I saved." They
don't understand that there's much more to a D-SLR than being just being
able to go very wide or very telephoto, and they don't understand
anything about optics.
IdiotAmplifier
tsk tsk....
Allen
> mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>
>> Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And
>> no comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
>
> bad purchasing decision that they've made, against all facts and logic.
Or sometimes by people who believe that that these is only one kind of
battery that should ever be used in a camera.
Allen
ray
> ray wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:38:13 -0800, SMS wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>
>>>> It's a bit like the "film vs digital" wars. Quite obviously each has
>>>> it's place. I'm willing to grant that ultimately a DSLR may actually
>>>> take 'better' pictures than a P&S. But, quite frankly, I don't want
>>>> to pack thirty pounds of camera gear when I'm out hiking, bicycling
>>>> or showshoeing.
>>>
>>> That's quite an exaggeration. The Canon XSi weighs 17 ounces. The
>>> Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens weighs 21 ounces (and there are
>>> a lot lighter lenses as well). These aren't the lightest D-SLRs and
>>> lenses either. You can easily keep it under 3 pounds, an order of
>>> magnitude less than 30 pounds. The real issue that is that it's a
>>> lot bulkier.
>>
>> And the rest of the lenses I would need to equal the 12x zoom on my
>> Kodak P850?
>
> Use the 18-270 Tamron intead of the 18-200 Canon and you've got that
> zoom range beat.
I don't have an 18-200 canon - I have an anything canon. I have a Kodak
P850 and it has a max (35mm equiv) of about 420.
>
>>> The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters for
>>> telephoto and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't saving
>>> much in terms of weight and volume and you're adding a lot of hassle
>>> and getting very inferior results.
>>
>> What's a canon g10? I don't do canon. I use a Kodak P850.
>
> The fuzz machine? If you're satisfied with what that does then you're
> easy to please.
Easy to please when it does what I need, yes. This is about sufficiency.
Ray Fischer
>On Fri, 7 Nov 2008 18:01:25 -0000, <mich...@fromCardiff.com> wrote:
>
>>I own a P&S and an SLR, each has its uses. Recently I could'nt help but see
>>all these threads that revolve around the question of which type of camera
>>is "better". Personally I do not see that this is a question that has any
>>sense as the two types of camera are designed for different uses. Anyway,
>>has anyone any idea why the pro P&S posters tend to be so bizarre and quite
>>frankly not quite right in the head, as witnessed by their somewhat
>>hysterical postings. I am amazed at the emotion, derision, contempt and
>>even hatred they are able to put in their postings. Its creepy and
>>fascinating at the same time.
>>comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
>>
>
You don't have any facts, idiot. You're just a know-nothing asshole
pushing a religion that nobody's buying.
--
Ray Fischer
rfis...@sonic.net
David J Taylor
.. and you may find that six months after the particular P&S has been
introduced, that the adapters and converters you wanted to buy are no
longer available. It takes much longer to screw-on and unscrew these
add-ons than changing the typical bayonet lens - you may have to dig into
the menus and tell the camera what you've done as well. Been there, done
that with both types of camera.
Cheers,
David
LD
news:rdKdnaKAL_gzDInU...@bt.com...
> I'm wondering wether P&S cameras are going to become a lot less popular
> after Xmas. I notice how SLRs are getting cheaper all the time and mobile
> phones with built in cameras are getting better all the time. There is a
> growing squeeze on the P&S market at the moment and I think sales of these
> cameras may have peaked in the last year or so.
Did that happen with film cameras? No. Not even when some SLRs were
significantly less expensive than some rangefinders.
Then there is the Sigma DP1 retailing at $800, the Leica M8 at $5000, the
Ricoh GX200 at $600 - without a LCD!, all Digital and none a DSLR. The
equation is not a simple either or, and is further complicated by the issue
of sensor dust in the DSLR.
>
Malcolm Oxford
Tsk tsk, you should learn how to buy your equipment. The P&S cameras that I use,
use adapters with bayonet mounts on all accessories. Faster than changing a
bayonet lens on a dSLR because I don't even have to even worry about which of 3
positions to line up the bayonet tabs. Rapidly swapping them out after sunset
(and focusing in that dim of light due to the EVF ramping up the gain
automatically) is never a problem.
Really, take your amazingly ignorant views elsewhere. You're just making a total
idiot and ass of yourself in public.
Elmo von Thud
>I own a P&S and an SLR, each has its uses.
[sneep]
What are these B&S cameras? It's all very mysterious.
Elmo
dj_nme
> <mich...@fromCardiff.com> wrote in message
> news:rdKdnaKAL_gzDInU...@bt.com...
>
>> I'm wondering wether P&S cameras are going to become a lot less
>> popular after Xmas. I notice how SLRs are getting cheaper all the
>> time and mobile phones with built in cameras are getting better all
>> the time. There is a growing squeeze on the P&S market at the moment
>> and I think sales of these cameras may have peaked in the last year or
>> so.
>
> Did that happen with film cameras? No. Not even when some SLRs were
> significantly less expensive than some rangefinders.
By "rangefinders" do you mean the consumer level (such as the Canon
Canonet) or the high-end (Leica M6 or Contax III)?
An SLR camera being cheaper than a Leica or Contax RF has been true
since the first 35mm Exakta came out.
Also, at the time the top consumer camera was Kodak Brownie and it's a P&S.
> Then there is the Sigma DP1 retailing at $800, the Leica M8 at $5000,
> the Ricoh GX200 at $600 - without a LCD!
No LCD?
Then what's that display device built into the back of the DP1, M8 and
GX200, if it isn't an LCD panel?
Please do tell.
> All Digital and none a DSLR.
> The equation is not a simple either or, and is further complicated by
> the issue of sensor dust in the DSLR.
Some P&S models seem to also be plagued by dust: apparently the GX100
and GX200 have become renowned for sucking dust in and finding it's way
onto the sensor.
Having a non-interchangeable lens is not a panacea against sensor dust,
it just means that it can't be cleaned off without practically totally
dismantling the camera.
I own a GX100, but have yet experience the problem.
LD
news:49156e4c$0$22630$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> LD wrote:
>> <mich...@fromCardiff.com> wrote in message
>> news:rdKdnaKAL_gzDInU...@bt.com...
>>
>>> I'm wondering wether P&S cameras are going to become a lot less popular
>>> after Xmas. I notice how SLRs are getting cheaper all the time and
>>> mobile phones with built in cameras are getting better all the time.
>>> There is a growing squeeze on the P&S market at the moment and I think
>>> sales of these cameras may have peaked in the last year or so.
>>
>> Did that happen with film cameras? No. Not even when some SLRs were
>> significantly less expensive than some rangefinders.
>
> By "rangefinders" do you mean the consumer level (such as the Canon
> Canonet) or the high-end (Leica M6 or Contax III)?
> An SLR camera being cheaper than a Leica or Contax RF has been true since
> the first 35mm Exakta came out.
> Also, at the time the top consumer camera was Kodak Brownie and it's a
> P&S.
I'd wager that $x.95 disposable cameras have outsold Any film camera ever
made. I'd wager that P&S digitals will out sell any DSLR ever made. Not
everyone wants or needs one. The main advantage - through the lens
focusing - died with the LCD.
>
>> Then there is the Sigma DP1 retailing at $800, the Leica M8 at $5000, the
>> Ricoh GX200 at $600 - without a LCD!
>
> No LCD?
> Then what's that display device built into the back of the DP1, M8 and
> GX200, if it isn't an LCD panel? I didn't mean the DP1 or M8 and was
> thinking of the VF1 finder for the GX200 - obviously not a necessity.
> Please do tell.
>
>> All Digital and none a DSLR. The equation is not a simple either or, and
>> is further complicated by the issue of sensor dust in the DSLR.
>
> Some P&S models seem to also be plagued by dust: apparently the GX100 and
> GX200 have become renowned for sucking dust in and finding it's way onto
> the sensor.
> Having a non-interchangeable lens is not a panacea against sensor dust, it
> just means that it can't be cleaned off without practically totally
> dismantling the camera.
>
> I own a GX100, but have yet experience the problem.
I own a half dozen P&S digitals and have not seen it. What I really want -
and cannot get in a DSLR - is something I can put in a shirt pocket. But I'm
waiting until after Christmas. :)
J. Clarke
A lot of them seem to have a 52mm thread.
J. Clarke
Which is less than the zoom range of the 18-270 Tamron.
>>>> The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters for
>>>> telephoto and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't
>>>> saving much in terms of weight and volume and you're adding a lot
>>>> of hassle and getting very inferior results.
>>>
>>> What's a canon g10? I don't do canon. I use a Kodak P850.
>>
>> The fuzz machine? If you're satisfied with what that does then
>> you're easy to please.
>
> Easy to please when it does what I need, yes. This is about
> sufficiency.
I see. Well if that's "sufficient" and you have visions of making
your living as a photographer don't quit your day job.
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> .. and you may find that six months after the particular P&S has
>> been
>> introduced, that the adapters and converters you wanted to buy are
>> no
>> longer available. It takes much longer to screw-on and unscrew
>> these
>> add-ons than changing the typical bayonet lens - you may have to dig
>> into the menus and tell the camera what you've done as well. Been
>> there, done that with both types of camera.
>
> A lot of them seem to have a 52mm thread.
.. but would you want to buy 3rd-party adapters? From the reports I've
seen, the quality is very poor. Fortunately I can do without them, as my
previous compact outfit included 24-85mm and 36-432mm (35 mm eq.) cameras.
About the same range as my DSLR now covers.
Cheers,
David
J. Clarke
Depends on the third party. My Panasonic will take Canon auxiliary
lenses and some Canon models will take the Panasonic converters.
albert grast
Again he can only parrot what he might have read somewhere at some time about
some thing he's never used nor owned.
And again he's 100% wrong. :-)
Watch him bitch and moan and complain about something that he's never used and
something faster and easier than changing DSLR glass, yet he'll never lodge a
complaint about having to screw on filters on a DSLR lens. LOL
What a hypocritical double-standard ignoramus.
You are such a vast fount of valuable knowledge and expert opinions when you
expose just how little you know about real cameras and real photography. LOL
Anyone taking advice from you is a major fool.
Gary Lursen
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
David J Taylor
> David J Taylor wrote:
[]
>> I've seen, the quality is very poor. Fortunately I can do without
>> them, as my previous compact outfit included 24-85mm and 36-432mm
>> (35
>> mm eq.) cameras. About the same range as my DSLR now covers.
>
> Depends on the third party. My Panasonic will take Canon auxiliary
> lenses and some Canon models will take the Panasonic converters.
Well, I see those as "prime manufacturers", not third-parties. Although
one would expect the camera manufacturer to know more about the lens than
anyone else (unless the lens itself has been bought from an outside
supplier). Even the Nikon converters I used to use had problems, like not
being usable over the full zoom range due to vignetting.....
Cheers,
David
Adler Robinson
Holy fuck, yet another amazingly moronic comment from the virtual-photographer
trolls.
Do tell why you'd want to use the camera-lens' full zoom range when a converter
lens is only intended to be used for extra focal-lengths for part of that zoom
range. Are you this phenomenally stupid and ignorant about camera functions,
lenses, and how to use both for photography? (You already answered that.)
You don't put on a 0.25x adapter on a 38-190mm zoom lens and then expect to use
it for more than 9.5mm to 38mm range. Meaning you don't zoom in to more than
the152mm focal-length on the camera's own lens. Plus you actually want
vignetting at the widest-angle 180-degree fish-eye view. You buy it specifically
for that effect.
You don't put on a 1.7x adapter and expect to use it for anything less than a
190mm to 323mm range. Meaning you don't zoom out to wide-angle any more than the
112mm focal-length setting on the camera's lens with the converter attached. You
never need to zoom out to where vignetting would occur. The camera's own lens
picks up at those focal-lengths long before you need to use it where the
teleconverter would show vignetting.
You are the most amazingly stupid and ignorant morons that I've ever had the
displeasure to read from. Your ignorant and inexperienced advice NEVER applies
to ANY photography application in real world situations. Always proving, without
a doubt, that none of you ever really use any REAL cameras and lenses.
I'd give you tips about which manufacturer's converter lenses work best with
which cameras (a converter lens from the same company is rarely the best match
for their own cameras, surprising but true), but I'd hate to educate you and
then have you parrot the information wrongly again, as you do with everything
else that you read on the net.
Your only expertise in life appears to be spewing misinformation as often as you
can. You can't help it. You can't comprehend even the most basic principles of
optics and photography so there's no way that you can remember to retell it
right the next time. Every last one of your comments are self-evident of that
simple fact.
Don Stauffer
> I own a P&S and an SLR, each has its uses. Recently I could'nt help but see
> all these threads that revolve around the question of which type of camera
> is "better". Personally I do not see that this is a question that has any
> sense as the two types of camera are designed for different uses. Anyway,
> has anyone any idea why the pro P&S posters tend to be so bizarre and quite
> frankly not quite right in the head, as witnessed by their somewhat
> hysterical postings. I am amazed at the emotion, derision, contempt and
> even hatred they are able to put in their postings. Its creepy and
> fascinating at the same time.
> Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And no
> comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
>
>
better, rangefinders or SLRs? Some things never change. I do think the
rangefinders were a bit easier to focus in low light.
Does anyone make a digital rangefinder?
SMS
> Well, I see those as "prime manufacturers", not third-parties. Although
> one would expect the camera manufacturer to know more about the lens
> than anyone else (unless the lens itself has been bought from an outside
> supplier). Even the Nikon converters I used to use had problems, like
> not being usable over the full zoom range due to vignetting.....
One thing I found, when I was in to trying converters, is that buying
the same brand converter as the P&S camera was not always the best plan.
I.e. on the Canon G series, the Canon lens adapter tube was greater
diameter than the after-market Lensmate tube, and it blocked the
internal flash. It also used larger diameter, and more expensive
filters. I bought a very high quality converter lens, much more
expensive than the Canon converter. It worked okay, but as you know
those converter lenses are big compromises. There were even some extreme
wide-angle converters available, but these were horrible, versus juse
mediocre.
Ollie Grant
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.
J. Clarke
You mean besides Leica? There was the Epson RD-1, which was a Leica M
clone with a Leica M price, but it's out of production. OTOH, the M8
just had a minor upgrade.
David J Taylor
[]
> One thing I found, when I was in to trying converters, is that buying
> the same brand converter as the P&S camera was not always the best
> plan. I.e. on the Canon G series, the Canon lens adapter tube was
> greater diameter than the after-market Lensmate tube, and it blocked
> the internal flash. It also used larger diameter, and more expensive
> filters. I bought a very high quality converter lens, much more
> expensive than the Canon converter. It worked okay, but as you know
> those converter lenses are big compromises. There were even some
> extreme wide-angle converters available, but these were horrible,
> versus juse mediocre.
The Nikon wide-angle converter for the Nikon I had was not bad, but how
much easier having a camera which goes down to 24mm directly (whether P&S
or DSLR). It was the results from other wide-angle converters which, like
you, I found appalling.
David
Sheila
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:LU%Qk.4032$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> mich...@fromCardiff.com wrote:
>>
>>> Any opinions anyone? I mean rational opinions, not insults etc. And no
>>> comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
>> bad purchasing decision that they've made, against all facts and logic.
>> these tirades of incorrect information that they really do know to be
>> false. They may be trying to draw others into making the same mistakes, as
>> a way of validating their decisions. You see this more in the automotive
>> newsgroups and forums, or the Apple newsgroups and forums; there's
>> apparently only one individual in rec.photo.digital with this problem,
>> which is a pretty good thing!
>>
>> The constantly changing e-mail addresses are often used to create
>> sock-puppets, though in this case he doesn't deny that he's doing this, so
>> it's probably being done to get around everyone's kill-files. Above all
>> these people seek attention. It doesn't matter that they're made to look
>> foolish--simply getting a response is all they desire.
>>
>> You're right of course that each type of camera has its uses. I have one
>> D-SLR, and we have four P&S cameras in the house. The core problem with
>> our troll seems to be a keen lack of understanding of the pros and cons of
>> each type of camera.
>>
>> It's not clear if he really owns anything at all, but if his claims of
>> teleconverters is true, he is apparently trying to convert a P&S to the
>> functionality, at least in zoom range, of a D-SLR with these kludges. When
>> the cheapest D-SLR was $1500, this sort of kludge at least made a bit of
>> sense for the person with little money that needed extreme wide-angle or
>> long range telephoto, even though all the experts agree that using these
>> devices results in sub-standard shots, not to mention the other issues
>> such as shutter and auto-focus lag, and poor low light capability.
>
> The weird thing is that posting that enourmous list of plus points for P&S
> does'nt, in my opinion endear anyone towards P&S.
>
> I'm wondering wether P&S cameras are going to become a lot less popular
> after Xmas. I notice how SLRs are getting cheaper all the time and mobile
> phones with built in cameras are getting better all the time. There is a
> growing squeeze on the P&S market at the moment and I think sales of these
> cameras may have peaked in the last year or so.
>
>
Even though the SLRs are getting smaller all the time they are still
too big to carry around all the time. It seems that a lot of times when
I'm out for the day, shopping etc, I see something I would like to take
a photo of but my camera is at home. I might add, that in hot weather I
don't leave my camera in the car because I've heard that the heat may
destroy the sensor, so if I take my SLR, I have to carry it everywhere I
go on these trips.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
Sheila
> <mich...@fromCardiff.com> wrote:
>> Do you see the camera phone making a dent in the P&S market?
>
> Actually I do. Now, this has nothing to do with the quality of the
> photos or the feature set or camera but simply with convenience and that
> people are lazy.
>
> Phone are so ubiquitous that many people will use them instead of a
> dedicated camera to shoot snapshot. And don't forget that with a phone
> you can send that snap shot to your friends immediately. Quality is
> irrelevant because those friends will view the photo on a phone, too,
> and those phone displays have a resolution of what, 300x400 or something
> like that.
>
> Now, you might argue that is not photography and probably you are right.
> But it is what a lot of people want and while in the past those people
> had no choice but to buy a low-end P&S in the future they will just use
> the phone camera simply because it is there already and even does a
> better job in some tasks like send the picture to your friends.
>
> jue
If that is all they use for a camera, they will have no decent photo
memories to look at when they grow older.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
Alan Browne
> I might add, that in hot weather I
> don't leave my camera in the car because I've heard that the heat may
> destroy the sensor,
Keep it in a padded camera bag and it won't heat up enough to matter.
For that matter, as long as direct sunlight (through the car glass)
doesn't reach it, don't worry.
If you're in a very hot place (Death Valley in July) then just leave the
windows cracked open half an inch.
The spec for my DSLR is 60C (140F) for storage. Check your manual.
Does your car ever get that hot? (Thermometer in a shaded part of the
car will tell).
--
-- 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.
Sheila
> Sheila wrote:
>
>> I might add, that in hot weather I don't leave my camera in the car
>> because I've heard that the heat may destroy the sensor,
>
> Keep it in a padded camera bag and it won't heat up enough to matter.
>
> For that matter, as long as direct sunlight (through the car glass)
> doesn't reach it, don't worry.
>
> If you're in a very hot place (Death Valley in July) then just leave the
> windows cracked open half an inch.
>
> The spec for my DSLR is 60C (140F) for storage. Check your manual. Does
> your car ever get that hot? (Thermometer in a shaded part of the car
> will tell).
>
>
Alan,
Thanks for the info, maybe I shouldn't worry about it so much, I
thought about putting my camera in a Styrofoam cooler, of course without
the ice.
Also, I didn't know that this info was in the manuals, I'll check mine.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
mich...@fromcardiff.com
"Sheila" <swda...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> If that is all they use for a camera, they will have no decent photo
> memories to look at when they grow older.
>
> --
> Sheila
> http://swdalton.com
I have often thought the same. Now and again I find the odd black and white
negative in a box or behind a cupboard and scan it only to find that there
might be one frame that I had never printed because for some reason it had
not looked right at the time. Its a weird feeling to print a neg after its
been ignored 25 years. Also, many old photos that I had ripped up years
ago are being reprinted from the negs.
But then, this loss of photo memories is symptomatic of the age we live in.
There are no more post cards or letters to stash away, hardly any stamps on
our passports, less and less paper bank statements to put away, no newspaper
cuttings of interest to put away, soon there will be no books. There will be
a future time when people will only have a proveable memory that will go
back about 6 months, I imagine the state, religion , some dictator or some
other scary entity will step in to provide us with convenient memories. In
some ways I'm glad that I won't be around.
Sheila
Last week, we were traveling through the Smoky Mountains and at an
overlook, we got out our cameras and took some photos. There was a
woman with a cell phone taking a picture and she said 'she hoped she got
a good photo for her wallpaper', then snapped the photo, looked at it
and commented that she got a great photo. I can just imagine it on her
computer screen.
--
Sheila
http://swdalton.com
David J Taylor
[]
> Even though the SLRs are getting smaller all the time they are still
> too big to carry around all the time. It seems that a lot of times
> when I'm out for the day, shopping etc, I see something I would like
> to take a photo of but my camera is at home. I might add, that in
> hot weather I don't leave my camera in the car because I've heard
> that the heat may destroy the sensor, so if I take my SLR, I have to
> carry it everywhere I go on these trips.
Sufficient heat may destroy /anything/ mechanical or electronic - I don't
think that the sensor is particularly vulnerable. Perhaps other materials
may deform out of accurate shape first?
David
Alan Browne
> Last week, we were traveling through the Smoky Mountains and at an
> overlook, we got out our cameras and took some photos. There was a
> woman with a cell phone taking a picture and she said 'she hoped she got
> a good photo for her wallpaper', then snapped the photo, looked at it
> and commented that she got a great photo. I can just imagine it on her
> computer screen.
A typical computer screen is only 1 - 2.5 Mpix or so, so she might have
a reasonable result if the conditions were in the sweet spot of the
camera and if she didn't move when the release went off.
My son's iPhone is difficult to hold still while taking a photo 'cause
it has a touchscreen button to release the shutter...
Ron Hunter
I am sure that has much to do with how people use (or misuse) their
cameras, and the environment in which they use them. Spend 3 months on
Guam, and you will likely come back with coral dust in your camera (I
did), P&S or SLR. It is very fine, very abrasive, and a very good
insulator, which is why the coupled light meter on my Minox B never
worked again....
ray
> ray wrote:
>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:07:12 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:
>>
>>> ray wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 07 Nov 2008 11:38:13 -0800, SMS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> ray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a bit like the "film vs digital" wars. Quite obviously each
>>>>>> has it's place. I'm willing to grant that ultimately a DSLR may
>>>>>> actually take 'better' pictures than a P&S. But, quite frankly, I
>>>>>> don't want to pack thirty pounds of camera gear when I'm out
>>>>>> hiking, bicycling or showshoeing.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's quite an exaggeration. The Canon XSi weighs 17 ounces. The
>>>>> Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Lens weighs 21 ounces (and there
>>>>> are a lot lighter lenses as well). These aren't the lightest D-SLRs
>>>>> and lenses either. You can easily keep it under 3 pounds, an order
>>>>> of magnitude less than 30 pounds. The real issue that is that it's a
>>>>> lot bulkier.
>>>>
>>>> And the rest of the lenses I would need to equal the 12x zoom on my
>>>> Kodak P850?
>>>
>>> Use the 18-270 Tamron intead of the 18-200 Canon and you've got that
>>> zoom range beat.
>>
>> I don't have an 18-200 canon - I have an anything canon. I have a Kodak
>> P850 and it has a max (35mm equiv) of about 420.
>
> Which is less than the zoom range of the 18-270 Tamron.
Geez last time I checked, 270 was still less than 420.
>
>>>>> The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters for
>>>>> telephoto and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't saving
>>>>> much in terms of weight and volume and you're adding a lot of hassle
>>>>> and getting very inferior results.
>>>>
>>>> What's a canon g10? I don't do canon. I use a Kodak P850.
>>>
>>> The fuzz machine? If you're satisfied with what that does then you're
>>> easy to please.
>>
>> Easy to please when it does what I need, yes. This is about
>> sufficiency.
>
> I see. Well if that's "sufficient" and you have visions of making your
> living as a photographer don't quit your day job.
I'm retired. I "make my living" as I damned well please. If I expected to
"make a living as a photgrapher" I would probably have different
equipment. I don't.
>
> --
dj_nme
> dj_nme wrote:
>> LD wrote:
<snip>
>>> All Digital and none a DSLR. The equation is not a simple either or,
>>> and is further complicated by the issue of sensor dust in the DSLR.
>>
>> Some P&S models seem to also be plagued by dust: apparently the GX100
>> and GX200 have become renowned for sucking dust in and finding it's
>> way onto the sensor.
>> Having a non-interchangeable lens is not a panacea against sensor
>> dust, it just means that it can't be cleaned off without practically
>> totally dismantling the camera.
>>
>> I own a GX100, but have yet experience the problem.
>
> I am sure that has much to do with how people use (or misuse) their
> cameras, and the environment in which they use them. Spend 3 months on
> Guam, and you will likely come back with coral dust in your camera (I
> did), P&S or SLR. It is very fine, very abrasive, and a very good
> insulator, which is why the coupled light meter on my Minox B never
> worked again....
Maybe the action to cock the shutter tends to pump air through the
mechanism?
I hope you didn't get "tram- track" scratches along your negs as well.
That would help explain how the dust got inside and also prove my
contention that having a non-interchangeable lens doesn't guarantee that
dust won't effect the camera sensor or mechanism.
J. Clarke
The last time I looked it was 432 (equivalent), which is a bit more
than the "420 (equivalent)" on your Kodak and it goes farther on the
wide end as well.
>>>>>> The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters for
>>>>>> telephoto and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't
>>>>>> saving much in terms of weight and volume and you're adding a
>>>>>> lot of hassle and getting very inferior results.
>>>>>
>>>>> What's a canon g10? I don't do canon. I use a Kodak P850.
>>>>
>>>> The fuzz machine? If you're satisfied with what that does then
>>>> you're easy to please.
>>>
>>> Easy to please when it does what I need, yes. This is about
>>> sufficiency.
>>
>> I see. Well if that's "sufficient" and you have visions of making
>> your living as a photographer don't quit your day job.
>
> I'm retired. I "make my living" as I damned well please. If I
> expected to "make a living as a photgrapher" I would probably have
> different equipment. I don't.
So what do you hope to accomplish by participating in this discussion?
Marvin
> I own a P&S and an SLR, each has its uses. Recently I could'nt help but see
> all these threads that revolve around the question of which type of camera
> is "better". Personally I do not see that this is a question that has any
> sense as the two types of camera are designed for different uses. Anyway,
> has anyone any idea why the pro P&S posters tend to be so bizarre and quite
> frankly not quite right in the head, as witnessed by their somewhat
> hysterical postings. I am amazed at the emotion, derision, contempt and
> even hatred they are able to put in their postings. Its creepy and
> fascinating at the same time.
> comments on the merits of P/S vs SLR!
>
>
putting others down. (That certainly includes politicians
who campaign for office by telling lies about their
oponnents.) The skill of the photographer is still the most
important variable. I recall that Ansel Adams took some
glorious photos with a box camera.
ray
Well, you didn't tell me that and I didn't feel like bothering to look up
your cameras specs to figure it out. So this is included with the base
camera - right?
>
>>>>>>> The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters for
>>>>>>> telephoto and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't
>>>>>>> saving much in terms of weight and volume and you're adding a lot
>>>>>>> of hassle and getting very inferior results.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What's a canon g10? I don't do canon. I use a Kodak P850.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fuzz machine? If you're satisfied with what that does then
>>>>> you're easy to please.
>>>>
>>>> Easy to please when it does what I need, yes. This is about
>>>> sufficiency.
>>>
>>> I see. Well if that's "sufficient" and you have visions of making
>>> your living as a photographer don't quit your day job.
>>
>> I'm retired. I "make my living" as I damned well please. If I expected
>> to "make a living as a photgrapher" I would probably have different
>> equipment. I don't.
>
> So what do you hope to accomplish by participating in this discussion?
Well, I was HOPING to get some rabid folks such as yourself to admit that
there is a place in this world for a decent P&S - I guess that' not going
to happen. You like your dslr - ergo everyone else on the planet should
only use similar equipment.
>
> --
SMS
> Well, I was HOPING to get some rabid folks such as yourself to admit that
> there is a place in this world for a decent P&S - I guess that' not going
> to happen. You like your dslr - ergo everyone else on the planet should
> only use similar equipment.
"Decent" is so lame. There are several decent P&S models, and a few
that are more than decent.
It seems to be the camera manufacturers, not the folks here, that have
decided that there is no longer a place in the world for high-end P&S
models. The G10 is a good start, but it's still been decontented versus
earlier G series models. The manufacturers seem to be convinced that
very few people are willing to pay a lot for a feature-rich camera that
still suffers from the inherent limitations of the P&S design, and they
are correct.
One of the key problems is that as resolution has increased, the sensor
sizes have not, so noise and dynamic range get worse and worse on the
P&S models, with no way around the physics. With D-SLRs and their much
larger sensors, you see the same problem, but to a much less noticeable
extent since the pixels are still relatively large.
J. Clarke
It only works with APS-C cameras so you if you actually knew what you
were talking about would have been able to figure that out on your own
without having to know anything about the camera's specs.
And yes, if that's the lens you buy when you buy the base camera then
that's the lens that's included with the base camera.
>>>>>>>> The Canon G10 weighs 14 ounces. Start adding lens adapters
>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> telephoto and wide angle, and extension tubes, and you aren't
>>>>>>>> saving much in terms of weight and volume and you're adding a
>>>>>>>> lot of hassle and getting very inferior results.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What's a canon g10? I don't do canon. I use a Kodak P850.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fuzz machine? If you're satisfied with what that does then
>>>>>> you're easy to please.
>>>>>
>>>>> Easy to please when it does what I need, yes. This is about
>>>>> sufficiency.
>>>>
>>>> I see. Well if that's "sufficient" and you have visions of
>>>> making
>>>> your living as a photographer don't quit your day job.
>>>
>>> I'm retired. I "make my living" as I damned well please. If I
>>> expected to "make a living as a photgrapher" I would probably have
>>> different equipment. I don't.
>>
>> So what do you hope to accomplish by participating in this
>> discussion?
>
> Well, I was HOPING to get some rabid folks such as yourself to admit
> that there is a place in this world for a decent P&S - I guess that'
> not going to happen. You like your dslr - ergo everyone else on the
> planet should only use similar equipment.
I like my FZ7 too. But it doesn't do everything I need a camera to
do, not by a long shot.
J. Clarke
> ray wrote:
>
>> Well, I was HOPING to get some rabid folks such as yourself to
>> admit
>> that there is a place in this world for a decent P&S - I guess
>> that'
>> not going to happen. You like your dslr - ergo everyone else on the
>> planet should only use similar equipment.
>
> "Decent" is so lame. There are several decent P&S models, and a few
> that are more than decent.
>
> It seems to be the camera manufacturers, not the folks here, that
> have
> decided that there is no longer a place in the world for high-end
> P&S
> models. The G10 is a good start, but it's still been decontented
> versus earlier G series models.
You keep using this word. I think it does not mean what you think it
means.
In what way has the G10 been "decontented" when compared to the G9?
The only area I can see in which it has less capability is at the long
end of the zoom range, and they went significantly wider, so it seems
to me to be a fair tradeoff.
> The manufacturers seem to be
> convinced that very few people are willing to pay a lot for a
> feature-rich camera that still suffers from the inherent limitations
> of the P&S design, and they are correct.
>
> One of the key problems is that as resolution has increased, the
> sensor sizes have not, so noise and dynamic range get worse and
> worse
> on the P&S models, with no way around the physics. With D-SLRs and
> their much larger sensors, you see the same problem, but to a much
> less noticeable extent since the pixels are still relatively large.
Have they reached the physical limits in sensor design?
SMS
> You keep using this word. I think it does not mean what you think it
> means.
So what do you think it means?
I think it means the removal of features that were present on early
generations of essentially the same product. That's how it's used in
terms of vehicles.
> In what way has the G10 been "decontented" when compared to the G9?
Not compared to the G9, compared to the earlier G series cameras. The
biggie is the loss of the articulating LCD. At least they brought back
RAW, which disappeared on one generation.
Canon isn't alone among corporations that balance the cost of providing
a specific feature against the expected loss of sales that will result
by removing the feature. Factored into this is the number of sales that
will not be lost to competitors, but to other products they make. If
someone decides to buy a Canon SX1 IS (to get the articulating LCD) or
decides to move up to a Canon D-SLR instead, then it's not a real loss.
In the SD series, Canon dropped the SD800 IS which was their only model
with both an optical viewfinder and 28mm at the wide end. The
replacement model doesn't have the viewfinder. Optical viewfinders are
costly, and if they only lose a few sales because of the decontenting
then it's well worth it to them.
In the A series, Canon dropped the A570 IS which had 30fps video,
replacing it with the A590 IS which has 20 fps video. They couldn't do
video as fast on the higher resolution model (8 MP versus 7.1). So
they've both worsened the image quality of still pictures in terms of
noise and dynamic range _AND_ worsened the video quality, but they are
forced to compete int the megapixel race.
In D-SLRs, they are going the other way, adding features, some of them
very useful.
Chris Malcolm
> Even though the SLRs are getting smaller all the time they are still
> too big to carry around all the time. It seems that a lot of times when
> I'm out for the day, shopping etc, I see something I would like to take
> a photo of but my camera is at home.
That's why I carry my DSLR around all the time. It's certainly too big
to be pocketable, but its case slings easily over a shoulder, and I
could probably drop it in my wife's shoulder bag without her noticing
the difference in size and weight :-)
> I might add, that in hot weather I
> don't leave my camera in the car because I've heard that the heat may
> destroy the sensor, so if I take my SLR, I have to carry it everywhere I
> go on these trips.
You might find it helpful to look up the actual damaging temperature
ranges instead of relying on vague terms like "heat".
--
Chris Malcolm
Sheila
Paul Furman
> In article <ee59h4ta08sdi3smi...@4ax.com>, TheEducator
> <giveme...@youmustbejoking.org> wrote:
>
>> Now I know that you don't know what you are talking about. Not ONE dslr has
>> 100%
>> viewfinder representation in their OVF viewfinder. Please provide a link to
>> such
>> a fact. :-)
>
> nikon d3:
> <http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3/page2.asp>
D300 also.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond300/page2.asp
Alan Browne
Sony a900 (100%)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Sony/sony_dslra900.asp
Canon 1Ds III (100%)
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos1dsmkiii.asp
Canon 5D Mk II (98%).
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos5dmkii.asp
surely others...
Paul Furman
> nospam wrote:
>> Troll wrote:
>
>>> 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
>>> sensor cameras
>>
>> larger dynamic range and lower noise than a smaller sensor. this is
>> basic physics.
>
> just stick you fingers in your ears and hum a tune to block out all those
I noticed you haven't seriously tried to defend this one.
>>> 12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
>>
>> for the same image quality, depth of field is the same regardless of
>> sensor size.
>
> You must be joking.
Nope, look into it. Counterintuitive but a simple concept.
>>> 13. P&S cameras include video
>
> Oh, but do clarify one thing. Just which DSLR is it that has CD quality stereo
> audio recordings?
Maybe the new HD video ones do, not sure.
>>> 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder
>
> Not ONE dslr has 100% viewfinder
The D300 does.
>>> 15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light
>>
>> not as well as a dslr's phase detect autofocus system.
>
> Excuse me? Just how on earth is a phase detection AF system going to auto-focus
> on something that it can't detect?
With a fast lens.
Where this would be an advantage for P&S, might be a tripod shot at
night when it's so dark you can't see well. The P&S could zoom into the
live view & brighten it to allow manual focusing. Live view DSLRs can do
the same of course. You seem to be suggesting that AF performs better in
the dark on P&S though and I don't believe that is true.
>>> 19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately
>>> relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time.
>>
>> so what? an experienced photographer knows what the results will look like.
>
> Great. Let me know what a fly's wing-beat will look like in that hand-held
> in-flight shot will look like in your final photo.
Show us how that looks.
> What's that you say? You can't even focus on a fly in flight, hand-held, with a
> DSLR? And that's because of the small apertures that you have to depend on for
> enough DOF with image destroying flash?
DSLRs can increase ISO to come around to the same performance as a P&S.
The only difference is the DSLR has more flexibility & the P&S is stuck
with tiny apertures.
>>> 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.
>> and technology has advanced since then. why restrict oneself to iso
>> 400 when iso 3200 is very, very good?
>
> I've never said that high ISOs were helpful. I only said they weren't needed in
> the hands of a real pro using a P&S camera. Can't you follow?
Yes it's possible to take good photos on a crappy camera.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
RichA
this tiny-sensored, sheet tin clad rubbish they charge $500 for.
The other day I saw a near-mint used DSLR body going for $200 in an outlet
store. I've seen Nikon D40 bodies going NEW for $299.00. Anyone passing up
such bargains for a P&S is insane.
"SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:kHDRk.6516$yr3....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
SMS
> The LAST high-end P&S was Sony's R1, before that, the Olympus C-8080, not
> this tiny-sensored, sheet tin clad rubbish they charge $500 for.
>
> The other day I saw a near-mint used DSLR body going for $200 in an outlet
> store. I've seen Nikon D40 bodies going NEW for $299.00. Anyone passing up
> such bargains for a P&S is insane.
Never believe that prices can't go lower. Early adopters always pay a
premium. Canon and Nikon are fighting to gain market share with their
low-cost models in order to get more users lens-committed to their
systems. I think you'll see a bunch of D-SLR camera bodies in the sub
$300 price range before the end of 2009.
The question P&S owners have to consider is how long they're going to
put up with all the drawbacks of P&S cameras before they decide that
it's just not worth missing so many important memories.
David J Taylor
> The LAST high-end P&S was Sony's R1, before that, the Olympus C-8080,
> not this tiny-sensored, sheet tin clad rubbish they charge $500 for.
>
> The other day I saw a near-mint used DSLR body going for $200 in an
> outlet store. I've seen Nikon D40 bodies going NEW for $299.00. Anyone
> passing up such bargains for a P&S is insane.
Please don't top-post - it's inconsiderate.
People may choose a P&S because they want a more compact camera, and that
is more important to them than the absolute image quality, not because
they are insane.
David
Fred
>
> The question P&S owners have to consider is how long they're going to put
> up with all the drawbacks of P&S cameras before they decide that it's just
> not worth missing so many important memories.
>
>
missing so many important memories, because they had to put up with all the
drawbacks of the bulk and weight of their DSLR gear and leave it at home.
This disappointment could simply have been avoided if only they'd had a
trusty P&S camera in their pocket!
allan-zimmer
>The LAST high-end P&S was Sony's R1, before that, the Olympus C-8080, not
>this tiny-sensored, sheet tin clad rubbish they charge $500 for.
>
>The other day I saw a near-mint used DSLR body going for $200 in an outlet
>store. I've seen Nikon D40 bodies going NEW for $299.00. Anyone passing up
>such bargains for a P&S is insane.
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."
DaveM
Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
whisky-dave
"Fred" <fred...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:49196c46$1...@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> "SMS" <scharf...@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:Rm9Sk.4293$hc1....@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>
>> The question P&S owners have to consider is how long they're going to put
>> up with all the drawbacks of P&S cameras before they decide that it's
>> just not worth missing so many important memories.
>>
>>
> The question DSLR owners have to consider is that it's just not worth
> missing so many important memories,
They won't miss any of the memories as memories are stored in the brain
not on flash cards ;-)
John McWilliams
How 'bout you stop baiting the 'bator??
--
lsmft