P&S's day has come and gone
Richard
used in near mint condition. I've seen Olympus and Pentax DSLRs going for
as low as $175.00 as "open box" (store demos). Why would I even consider
(barring the extreme need for portability) a P&S?
Dudley Hanks
"Richard" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:mbidnVvIye_6HBfV...@giganews.com...
I think your last statement about portability says it all. I would just
leave out the wordd extreme"."
Take care,
Dudley
ray
So, if you don't want a P&S DON'T GET ONE. That does not mean they have no
use for the rest of us. I, for one, don't want to be burdened by all that
baggage when I'm out - bicycling, hiking, snowshoeing, etc. I find my
Kodak P850 to be quite convenient with it's 12x zoom and RAW capability.
Mxsmanic
Simplicity, small size. You might enjoy the features of a DSLR, but many
people taking pictures find anything more than pushing a button to be
"complicated." And some DSLRs might seem small to you, but many people want
to be able to fit the camera into a shirt pocket.
So point-and-shoot cameras still have plenty of life ahead. It's certainly
not just a question of price.
John McWilliams
I am lucky enough to have my first compact camera, a Canon G3, 4 MP,
full manual, and RAW capabilities. While I shoot mostly a 5D, I treasure
the P+S, and won't be parting with it any time soon.
BTW, the OP tends to start contentious threads or aimless ones, usually
targeting Canon or P + Ses in general. Most DSLRs can be used as P + S
cameras, and I bet a lot are.
--
john mcwilliams
PeteD
"ray" <r...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:6evi9eF...@mid.individual.net...
Holy crap you have low standards man but I defend your right to carry what
makes you happy.
Paul Heslop
many many people are scared by this stuff. They just want to open a
box and take a pic, and they want the camera to do the real work. for
them P&S will always be there.
--
Paul (We won't die of devotion)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
Trevor Tasken
Not really.
You're just showing how dreadfully insecure you are about your purchase. After
finding out that P&S cameras can not only rival but beat those obnoxiously loud,
oversized brick, overpriced, dust ridden, ultra-slow flash-sync POS DSLRs you're
doing everything in your power to try to convince yourself you made the right
purchase.
I have in my possession 2 P&S cameras that can do what no DSLRs on earth can do.
One can quickly and accurately focus, take ISO3200 still-frames, and video in
total darkness by IR light alone. The other can shoot WITH FLASH SYNC up to and
including 1/64,000 shutter speeds as well as having built-in motion-detection so
fast it can capture lightning strikes without any other accessories. Shutter-lag
you say? You are a waste-of-flesh-fool. Not even DSLRs have a 45ms response fast
enough to capture lightning strikes triggered by the step-leader before the
actual strike. Go look up CHDK if you haven't heard of it. It puts all DSLRs to
shame. DLSRs are not even in the same league as P&S cameras anymore. DSLRs with
their short-lived mechanical mirror and SLOW curtain shutter are a throwback to
last century.
Keep trying to justify your purchase. It's fun watching you DSLR fools do it
incessantly with every post you make. The rest of us are happy with our P&S
purchases. That's why you don't see us insecurely trying to convince idiots like
you to buy them. We don't want your kind finding out about their benefits.
And so we laugh!
sna...@mailinator.com
Have you ever visited an active volcano during an eruption?
I this April just past (Rabaul in new Guinea). My weapon of choice was my trusty old Canon S2 IS.
A DSLR does not last long there.
tn...@mucks.net
<paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>Richard wrote:
>>
>> The other day I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma 70-300mm zoom for $200.00
>> used in near mint condition. I've seen Olympus and Pentax DSLRs going for
>> as low as $175.00 as "open box" (store demos). Why would I even consider
>> (barring the extreme need for portability) a P&S?
>
>many many people are scared by this stuff. They just want to open a
>box and take a pic, and they want the camera to do the real work. for
>them P&S will always be there.
Yes some people prefer their computer over an abacus.
Mxsmanic
> I have in my possession 2 P&S cameras that can do what no DSLRs on earth can do.
> One can quickly and accurately focus, take ISO3200 still-frames, and video in
> total darkness by IR light alone.
P&S cameras often include gadgets that are unrelated to serious photography,
such as video or audio capture or the features you mention, in order to
broaden the appeal of the cameras, which are marketed to people who don't
consider photography as anything more than a very peripheral and incidental
part of other activities.
DSLRs are much more likely to concentrate on photography alone, without
gimmicks, since they are marketed to serious photographers, those who like to
take pictures as a hobby or take photographs for a living. They don't want
video or IR capability, they just want normal photographs of higher quality.
Mxsmanic
> I told that to my frugal sister one day, and she had a very good
> question. She asked me why I bother spending so much money on
> photography gear when I can obviously shoot great photos with my
> inexpensive Sony P&S camera. I gave her the same response you would
> probably guess. My dSLR doesn't make me a better photographer, it simply
> provides me with a tool that expands the options I can use for shooting
> photographs, such as my zoom lens to shoot shy birds and animals from a
> distance, and my wide angle lens that allows me to frame scenes of wide
> buildings without having to stand far from them.
And how often do you make use of these extra features in a DSLR that you would
not have in a P&S?
Charles
<tta...@uaweb.org> wrote:
> I have in my possession 2 P&S cameras that can do what no DSLRs on
> earth can do. One can quickly and accurately focus, take ISO3200
> still-frames, and video in total darkness by IR light alone. The
> other can shoot WITH FLASH SYNC up to and including 1/64,000 shutter
> speeds as well as having built-in motion-detection so fast it can
> capture lightning strikes without any other accessories. Shutter-lag
> you say? You are a waste-of-flesh-fool. Not even DSLRs have a 45ms
> response fast enough to capture lightning strikes triggered by the
> step-leader before the actual strike. Go look up CHDK if you haven't
> heard of it. It puts all DSLRs to shame. DLSRs are not even in the
> same league as P&S cameras anymore. DSLRs with their short-lived
> mechanical mirror and SLOW curtain shutter are a throwback to last
> century.
What P&S cameras are these with those specs that you have? I have not
been able to find such a miraculous P&S.
--
Charles
savvo
While yet others find mental arithmetic quicker and just as accurate.
--
savvo orig. invib. man
savvo
I don't know about Shawn, but every day I use the focus ring on
whichever lens I'm using.
Whatever did happen to Navas and his focus-by-wire obsession?
Paul Heslop
>
> In article <488AFCCC...@blueyonder.co.uk>,
> Paul Heslop <paul....@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Richard wrote:
> > >
> > > The other day I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma 70-300mm zoom for $200.00
> > > used in near mint condition. I've seen Olympus and Pentax DSLRs going for
> > > as low as $175.00 as "open box" (store demos). Why would I even consider
> > > (barring the extreme need for portability) a P&S?
> >
> > many many people are scared by this stuff. They just want to open a
> > box and take a pic, and they want the camera to do the real work. for
> > them P&S will always be there.
>
> camera he wants. He uses a pocket size Nikon with fully automated
> controls. He has no interest in learning all the controls that come on a
> dSLR (and on some P&S models). He told me that if the camera can't fit
> in his pocket, he has no use for it. To each his own.
>
> I am in the middle. I have a Canon XSi with three lenses, which I use
> frequently. When I go bike riding or take a fast walk, I do not want to
> lug my heavy dSLR camera gear, so I take a tiny P&S camera that has
> great optics and allows me to shoot some pretty amazing photos. The one
> thing I personally would never do is buy a camera without a full manual
> mode. You just can't get the flexibility without being able to set the
> shutter speed, aperture, and ISO. People who just want snapshots
> couldn't care less about manual mode, and there is nothing wrong with
> shooting snapshots if that's what you're into. Not everyone views
> photography with the same passion as those of us who invest a lot of
> money in camera gear.
>
> One of the most important lessons I learned about photography was from
> a talented photography instructor at an art school where I took some
> fine arts photography courses several years ago. The key ingredient to
> shooting great photos is the person behind the camera, not the camera
> itself. Sure, with a dSLR and some good lenses, it offers a lot more
> flexibility for creativity then a P&S, but even with a basic P&S camera,
> a good photographer can still shoot visually appealing photographs. A
> good photographer can pick up any camera of any type at random and shoot
> great photos with the only requirement for the camera being that the
> lens is good quality and clean. These days, 99% of all cameras fit that
> category.
>
> I told that to my frugal sister one day, and she had a very good
> question. She asked me why I bother spending so much money on
> photography gear when I can obviously shoot great photos with my
> inexpensive Sony P&S camera. I gave her the same response you would
> probably guess. My dSLR doesn't make me a better photographer, it simply
> provides me with a tool that expands the options I can use for shooting
> photographs, such as my zoom lens to shoot shy birds and animals from a
> distance, and my wide angle lens that allows me to frame scenes of wide
> buildings without having to stand far from them.
yes, it is a case of how you wish to do things. I think many people
would balk at the idea of changing lenses etc. They may admire some of
the cooler shots taken with an SLR but wouldn't dream of putting
themselves through the rigmarole involved. I think like me they would
go for zoom cameras, in the hope of capturing something unusual
without the drama.
Paul Heslop
:O) oo oo, me.
Paul Heslop
long as I get to use my fingers and toes too... or does that count as
an abacus? :O)
ASAAR
> Go look up CHDK if you haven't heard of it.
> . . .
> Keep trying to justify your purchase. It's fun watching you DSLR fools do it
> incessantly with every post you make. The rest of us are happy with our P&S
> purchases. That's why you don't see us insecurely trying to convince idiots like
> you to buy them. We don't want your kind finding out about their benefits.
>
> And so we laugh!
We? Yes indeed, Biddy. You and all of your CHDK / Photoline 32 /
anti-DSLR Sock Puppet Troll kin.
> I have in my possession 2 P&S cameras that can do what no DSLRs on earth can do.
I'll bet that nobody but you keeps Preparation H with your cameras
and you must have been thrilled when Canon rounded the corners of
their SD/Ixus line of P&S cameras. I'd normally ask for a link to a
jpeg of that kind stunt, but we know that you won't let anyone see
any of your award winning photos.
> And so we laugh!
Don't strain yourself. :)
ASAAR
>> While yet others find mental arithmetic quicker and just as accurate.
> . . .
> long as I get to use my fingers and toes too... or does that count as
> an abacus? :O)
No. That's your digital calculator. :)
ray
Since my 'standards' are so 'low' perhaps you'd like to explain to me
exactly where the P series falls dreadfully short.
John Sheehy
news:mbidnVvIye_6HBfV...@giganews.com:
Now think about this; with a bridge camera with a high zoom ratio, you can
take pictures with the same FOV and resolution, without drawing much
attention to yourself, while the "telescope" you can buy, will.
Different tools for different jobs.
For birds, I'll take the DSLR with long lens. For the streets, I'll use my
FZ50.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
savvo
> I have in my possession 2 P&S cameras that can do what no DSLRs on earth can do.
> One can quickly and accurately focus, take ISO3200 still-frames, and video in
> total darkness by IR light alone. The other can shoot WITH FLASH SYNC up to and
> including 1/64,000 shutter speeds as well as having built-in motion-detection so
> fast it can capture lightning strikes without any other accessories.
Oh good. School's over for the year and the nymshifter's come out to
play again.
James Silverton
The subject of this post might be borne out by the (in)activity on
r.p.d.point+shoot. I recently asked about picture taking speeds in r.p.d
because of this. I'm surprised that people don't seem interested in
discussing cameras that fit in a pocket and take pictures without fuss.
If non-reflex cameras are uninteresting, I wonder why so many are sold?
I *know* I'm not an artist but I'd like to do a bit more than my mobile
phone is capable of doing :-)
--
James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland
Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not
Blinky the Shark
> savvo wrote on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:39:34 +0100:
>
>> On 2008-07-26, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Shawn Hirn writes:
>
>
>>> And how often do you make use of these extra features in a DSLR that
>>> you would not have in a P&S?
>
>> I don't know about Shawn, but every day I use the focus ring on
>> whichever lens I'm using.
>
>> Whatever did happen to Navas and his focus-by-wire obsession?
>
> The subject of this post might be borne out by the (in)activity on
> r.p.d.point+shoot. I recently asked about picture taking speeds in r.p.d
> because of this. I'm surprised that people don't seem interested in
> discussing cameras that fit in a pocket and take pictures without fuss. If
> non-reflex cameras are uninteresting, I wonder why so many are sold? I
> *know* I'm not an artist but I'd like to do a bit more than my mobile
> phone is capable of doing :-)
I'm not condemning p'n's -- I have a compact and a bridge, and I use them
occasionally, despite having a DSLR. At one point before getting the DSLR
I subscribed rpdp+s to be greeted by a thunderous array of silence. I
figure that's probably because the idea of "point and shoot" is closely
aligned with the idea of "and anything beyond that, including discussion,
doesn't interest me and just makes things more complicated". It's kind of
like the traffic-volume difference I would expect between a newsgroup
devoted to literature and one devoted to pencils.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
Paul Heslop
he heh
tony cooper
<not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote:
> savvo wrote on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:39:34 +0100:
>
>> On 2008-07-26, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Shawn Hirn writes:
>
>>>
>>> And how often do you make use of these extra features in a
>>> DSLR that you would not have in a P&S?
>
>> I don't know about Shawn, but every day I use the focus ring
>> on whichever lens I'm using.
>
>> Whatever did happen to Navas and his focus-by-wire obsession?
>
>The subject of this post might be borne out by the (in)activity on
>r.p.d.point+shoot. I recently asked about picture taking speeds in r.p.d
>because of this. I'm surprised that people don't seem interested in
>discussing cameras that fit in a pocket and take pictures without fuss.
>If non-reflex cameras are uninteresting, I wonder why so many are sold?
>I *know* I'm not an artist but I'd like to do a bit more than my mobile
>phone is capable of doing :-)
This newsgroup is not like the one where you and I normally see each
other's posts. This one's more of an armed camp of brand and model
fanatics and a staging ground for personal vendettas.
There are some helpful people here, but they tend to stick to brand
and model comments. In other words, if you want information on
(Brand)'s model X, they'll give you good information on that choice.
They've made their choices and are no longer interested in reviewing
the basis of choice.
What you can get out of this group is verification of choice. If you
decide you want a Canon Powershot Model X or a Nikon Coolpix Model X,
(substitute any brand name/model), they'll tell you if that model
lives up to its hype.
Personally, I'd start a quest like yours with a visit to a store that
carries various brands and models and pick a few that meet your budget
and fit your hand. "Feel", ergonomics, and size should be major
considerations in the choice. The very small and very slim cameras
seem to offer the "fits in your pocket" advantage, but are often
difficult to operate easily.
Then go to http://www.dpreview.com/ and read the reviews and compare
the data that is presented there. All the points you have mentioned
are usually covered.
Then, come here or to alt.photography ask for comments about the
narrowed list of choices from people who have used those cameras.
I own a dslr and a point & shoot. I'm not a brand fanatic, so I won't
recommend brand. If I was buying another P&S, one requirement would
be both an LCD screen and an optical viewfinder. Cameras with just an
LCD screen are difficult to use in bright sunlight.
The type of batteries used can be important. It depends. If you
don't take a lot of shots, and don't take the camera on day trips,
proprietary batteries are fine, although having a second battery
charged up is often necessary. If you use the camera in your travels,
and don't have the ability to recharge on a proprietary charger, then
a camera that uses AA batteries is a good choice because you can
replace the batteries with fresh ones on the go. Proprietary chargers
with 12V (charging in the car) ability is a solution, but it takes
time.
Be careful with zoom claims. The optical zoom number is the only one
you should care about. Some cameras advertise their total zoom which
includes the digital zoom, and digital zoom is useless.
Just about any P&S offered today will have a megapixel size sufficient
for the photographer who wants to capture mostly family pix. Don't
get carried away with the more-is-better hype unless you intend to
routinely make large prints. If you are going to print 4 x 6's (as
most of us do with most family pix) or email the results to distant
family, just about any P&S on the shelf will work fine.
Pop for a larger SD card (or whatever type the camera uses) than the
off-the-shelf camera comes with, and one or more extra cards. Don't
allow yourself to run out of room using a 512mb card when a 1gb card
is just a few bucks more.
Just a few extra points for you to consider, James.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Paul Furman
You don't deserve to know the results of his decades of research testing
10's of thousands of cameras. Now scurry away & feel ashamed :-)
Paul Furman
> I'm surprised that people don't seem interested in
> discussing cameras that fit in a pocket and take pictures without fuss.
That market segment mostly isn't interested in discussing gear, they
just buy a camera & use it. Most models are just fine for that purpose.
--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com
all google groups messages filtered due to spam
Blinky the Shark
Yeah, okay -- my analogy sucks. :) Still, I think there's some truth to
my point with respect to many (certainly not all; look at the p'n's
discussion in here) point-and-shoot users.
James Silverton
> I own a dslr and a point & shoot. I'm not a brand fanatic, so
> I won't recommend brand. If I was buying another P&S, one
> requirement would be both an LCD screen and an optical
> viewfinder. Cameras with just an LCD screen are difficult to
> use in bright sunlight.
> Just a few extra points for you to consider, James.
Thanks very much for a lot of very useful advice!. One of the things
that I had hoped is that some source might have tabulated the various
"time lags" among different cameras but I haven't found too much. I do
have a very pocketable Nikon Coolpix 3.2 Meg camera that has served me
reasonably well for 5 years but its repetition speed is not terrific and
its small LCD washes out very easily in normal sunlight so the optical
viewfinder is useful. My eyesight makes me want to use the LCD and I
keep hoping to find someone who will point me to a camera that is a
stand out.
As far as batteries are concerned, I tend to buy a large pack of AA
alkalines and forget about the rechargeables tho' I do own a charger.
Ron Hunter
> Richard wrote:
>> The other day I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma 70-300mm zoom for $200.00
>> used in near mint condition. I've seen Olympus and Pentax DSLRs going for
>> as low as $175.00 as "open box" (store demos). Why would I even consider
>> (barring the extreme need for portability) a P&S?
>
> box and take a pic, and they want the camera to do the real work. for
> them P&S will always be there.
>
and a camera the size, and weight, of a brick. Hardly an extreme need
for portability, just an old body, and the lack of interest in doing the
kind of photos that really require a DSLR, and a suitcase full of
lenses, tripods, filters, and pano-heads, etc.
Pete D
Ray, Just for you. I currently have six film cameras and four digitals, I
use whatever will give me the quality that is acceptable for any particular
shooting session, there are times when the little P&S is perfectly
acceptable there are times when only the 10MP D-SLR will do and there are
times when only film will do. In any given situation there is always a
compromise but having seen the results from the P850s the results simply are
simply not very good compared to even my 6MP D-SLR or even my 5MP Sony V1
and the handling is such that compared to either of my D-SLRs I would miss
many shots they are that slow to take the shot.
Cheers
Pete.
James Silverton
I used to carry that sort of thing around: SLR, 4 lenses, tripods etc.
until I needed a heart operation and went to a P&S zoom film camera and
later a digital.
Michael Black
> The other day I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma 70-300mm zoom for $200.00
> used in near mint condition. I've seen Olympus and Pentax DSLRs going for
> as low as $175.00 as "open box" (store demos). Why would I even consider
> (barring the extreme need for portability) a P&S?
>
>
>
You can answer your own question by explaining why cameras that took 110
film sold so much, or why Polaroid did such a good business in instant
pictures.
People who want to invest money and time in photography are dwarfed by
people who just want to take pictures. They don't want the expense,
they don't want the fuss, but they do want the camera at hand when
they want to take pictures. Chances are good that they are indeed
taking "snapshots", composition isn't as important as capturing the
moment.
There is no difference between slr versus viewfinder cameras, and digital
slr versus digital viewfinder cameras. They serve different markets, they
serve different purposes.
In the old days, people would take their 110 cameras or small 35mm
viewfinder cameras, and keep them handy. So if they saw some sight
like the Mitchell Brother's theatre painted with a mural of sea life
in San Francisco in 1980, they could capture the scene with the
camera that they had in their pocket. Yet they could walk around
San Francisco looking like a local because they didn't have a big
camera bag to lug around.
Nowadays, the same segment of the population have their viewfinder
camera (well, usually they do have an LCD display, but it's the
same relative level) to carry around in their pocket, or even have
the cellphone with the digital camera. They can grab pictures
when they happen, because the cost of carrying that camera around
is close to zero.
Those people benefit tremendously from digital cameras, maybe more
than the people who use an SLR. Because now they can see their
results right after taking the photo, and if it comes out
wrong, they can take another. The feedback of instantly seeing
what was snagged by the "film" helps them to take better pictures,
because they don't have to wait days for the film to develop, and
then wonder what they did the moment they took the photo. The lack
of film means they can take a lot more photos, shotgunning in effect
to get some good photos.
Most of the population has had a camera of some sort, most of the
population takes photos every so often, yet most of the population
doesn't read photo magazines or care about what's new in photography.
They'll get that camera, and maybe read a book once, and then
go out and use the camera, maybe quite a bit initially and then later
not so often. They get the performance they need, so they don't
need anything else.
Michael
Rich
> "Richard" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote innews:mbidnVvIye_6HBfV...@giganews.com:
>
> > The other day I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma 70-300mm zoom for
> > $200.00 used in near mint condition. I've seen Olympus and Pentax
> > DSLRs going for as low as $175.00 as "open box" (store demos). Why
> > would I even consider (barring the extreme need for portability) a
> > P&S?
>
> Now think about this; with a bridge camera with a high zoom ratio, you can
> take pictures with the same FOV and resolution, without drawing much
> attention to yourself, while the "telescope" you can buy, will.
>
> Different tools for different jobs.
>
> For birds, I'll take the DSLR with long lens. For the streets, I'll use my
> FZ50.
Would that it was as good as the model that preceded it. There is
only one real use for P&S's, an that is to facilitate laziness.
Rich
> Shawn Hirn wrote:
My dSLR doesn't make me a better photographer, it simply
> > provides me with a tool that expands the options I can use for shooting
> > photographs, such as my zoom lens to shoot shy birds and animals from a
> > distance, and my wide angle lens that allows me to frame scenes of wide
> > buildings without having to stand far from them.
>
> yes, it is a case of how you wish to do things. I think many people
> would balk at the idea of changing lenses etc.
Yes, which is why they make the "bridge laziness" lenses, like
18-200mm's.
ray
That's fine, but if you'll read my notes, you'll see that nowhere did I
advocate the use of a P&S EXCLUSIVELY. I still find it too bothersome to
tote a dslr and three lenses along when I'm out bicycling, etc. I find
the P850 to be quite an acceptable substitute UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
Rich
wrote:
> Ron wrote on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 18:23:04 -0500:
>
> > Paul Heslop wrote:
> >> Richard wrote:
> >>> The other day I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma 70-300mm zoom for
> >>> $200.00 used in near mint condition. I've seen
> >>> Olympus and Pentax DSLRs going for as low as $175.00 as
> >>> "open box" (store demos). Why would I even
> >>> consider (barring the extreme need for portability) a P&S?
>
> >> many many people are scared by this stuff. They just want to open a
> >> box and take a pic, and they want the camera to do the
> >> real work. for them P&S will always be there.
>
> Those who for whatever reason don't WANT to lug around 25 lbs. of kit,
> and a camera the size, and weight, of a brick. Hardly an extreme need
> for portability, just an old body, and the lack of interest in doing the
> kind of photos that really require a DSLR, and a suitcase full of
> lenses, tripods, filters, and pano-heads, etc.
Fine. Olympus E-420 and an 18-200mm zoom which will still (at a
fraction of the weight of a pro DSLR with extra lenses) kick the ASS
of any P&S and it weighs less than Fuji's new "flagship"
(how the might hath fallen, let us sing a song for the dearly departed
S-series DSLRs) P&S monstrosity, the S100fs. Oh, and if the 200mm
(400mm equivalent to 35mm film) won't get you close enough, get off
your backside and walk a bit closer.
Pete D
UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES I DON'T FIND THE RESULTS ACCEPTABLE. THEY ARE IN THE
SAME CLASS AS THE FZ30/50, NICE CONCEPT BUT THE RESULTS ARE HORRENDOUUS,
THEY SUCK BIG TIME, SO I TAKE A D-SLR AND HANG THE WEIGHT.
Mxsmanic
> There is only one real use for P&S's, an that is to facilitate laziness.
For people who are not interested in photography, this type of laziness is
acceptable and normal. They are the primary market for P&S cameras.
Dudley Hanks
"ray" <r...@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:6evi9eF...@mid.individual.net...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:42:28 -0400, Richard wrote:
>
>> The other day I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma 70-300mm zoom for
>> $200.00 used in near mint condition. I've seen Olympus and Pentax DSLRs
>> going for as low as $175.00 as "open box" (store demos). Why would I
>> even consider (barring the extreme need for portability) a P&S?
>
> So, if you don't want a P&S DON'T GET ONE. That does not mean they have no
> use for the rest of us. I, for one, don't want to be burdened by all that
> baggage when I'm out - bicycling, hiking, snowshoeing, etc. I find my
> Kodak P850 to be quite convenient with it's 12x zoom and RAW capability.
Normally, I would ignore a thread like this. But, it is interesting to note
that used DSLR prices have come down so far. I think I need to take a trip
down to my local camera store, or maybe a couple, and check out the prices.
I've been contemplating picking up a cheap DSLR for a while. Maybe it's
time to see what Nikon has to offer, or to widen my experience with Canon.
Choices, choices, choices...
Dudley
PeteD
<sna...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:k95m84dp8rnp4oajs...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Jul 2008 21:42:28 -0400, "Richard" <rande...@gmail.com>
>
>> The other day I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma 70-300mm zoom for
>> $200.00
>> used in near mint condition. I've seen Olympus and Pentax DSLRs going
>> for
>> as low as $175.00 as "open box" (store demos). Why would I even consider
>> (barring the extreme need for portability) a P&S?
>>
>
>
> I this April just past (Rabaul in new Guinea). My weapon of choice was my
> trusty old Canon S2 IS.
>
> A DSLR does not last long there.
And why the freaking hell would a S2 IS last longer than one of my D-SLRs
that is complely sealed? If I was to visit someting like that I would most
certainly take my best camera with one lens and get more and better shots
than any P&S.
Ron Hunter
to shout.
Ron Hunter
Sometimes our aging bodies force us into compromises. No matter WHAT
the quality of the camera, the one you have with you always makes better
pictures than the one you DON'T have with you.
PeteD
"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8usn84tn3cbe2ltms...@4ax.com...
Sadly though the results from the FZ50 are probably the worst, sorry best
possible example of a great concept poorly executed, the results from the
FZ50 even at low ISO are just attrocious.
Rich
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsma...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Pretty much. You can get the same effect with a DSLR by shooting
through a rain-soaked glass window in the same focus plane as the
subject.
Paul Heslop
:O) that'd be for me then!
Paul Heslop
Personally I'm torn but my last camera, a zoom, was enough to tell me
that my nerves etc are now so shot that trying to hold a big camera
would probably be too much. Having said that if I took the time to
learn to use one properly I'd probably be able to overcome the shaking
with speed.
Paul Heslop
exactly, the sheer work of it all when you're not 100% is too much.
Paul Heslop
> > I used to carry that sort of thing around: SLR, 4 lenses, tripods etc.
> > until I needed a heart operation and went to a P&S zoom film camera and
> > later a digital.
>
> Sometimes our aging bodies force us into compromises. No matter WHAT
> the quality of the camera, the one you have with you always makes better
> pictures than the one you DON'T have with you.
ooh, that's dead philosophical... thank you master.
:O)
Trevor Tasken
>In article <bpvl84lssoh95a8o8...@4ax.com>, Trevor Tasken
><tta...@uaweb.org> wrote:
>
>> I have in my possession 2 P&S cameras that can do what no DSLRs on
>> earth can do. One can quickly and accurately focus, take ISO3200
>> still-frames, and video in total darkness by IR light alone. The
>> other can shoot WITH FLASH SYNC up to and including 1/64,000 shutter
>> speeds as well as having built-in motion-detection so fast it can
>> capture lightning strikes without any other accessories. Shutter-lag
>> you say? You are a waste-of-flesh-fool. Not even DSLRs have a 45ms
>> response fast enough to capture lightning strikes triggered by the
>> step-leader before the actual strike. Go look up CHDK if you haven't
>> heard of it. It puts all DSLRs to shame. DLSRs are not even in the
>> same league as P&S cameras anymore. DSLRs with their short-lived
>> mechanical mirror and SLOW curtain shutter are a throwback to last
>> century.
>
>What P&S cameras are these with those specs that you have? I have not
>been able to find such a miraculous P&S.
Well, I'm sorry that you are an inept moron then. Sony makes 3 of the P&S
cameras that can do the former (with f/2.0 lenses no less). Canon makes 32 of
the P&S cameras that can do the latter.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_Lightning_photography
Ignore the resident-troll peanut gallery that try to dismiss facts as some
troll's gambit. It's the only sorely lame trick that they have in life for
attention. They only deserve pity.
Yoshi
"PeteD" <n...@likely.com> wrote in message
news:488c25f4$0$8976$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
>
> And why the freaking hell would a S2 IS last longer than one of my D-SLRs
> that is complely sealed? If I was to visit someting like that I would most
> certainly take my best camera with one lens and get more and better shots
> than any P&S.
No doubt your DSLRs will last forever... you are too busy being an ASSHOLE
on usenet to ever make photographs.
John Sheehy
news:488c267f$0$8948$5a62...@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au:
The only real problem in this regard is that the FZ50 is slow at shooting
RAW. The RAW data of the FZ50 isn't worse than any other P&S' RAW data
that I've seen. In fact, it collects more photons per unit of area with
the same exposure, possibly, than any other brand's sensors; about 110%
more than the Fuji 6MP P&S sensor, and about 25% more than the Canon G9.
The nMOS sensors may very well currently have the highest quantum
efficiency.
All P&S sensors have lots of shot noise, compared to DSLRs, because they
are *SMALL*. When you see a P&S image that is high ISO and doesn't have
obvious visible noise at decent viewing sizes, it is *ALWAYS* because of
post-capture noise reduction. *ALWAYS*. The sensor in the Fuji F30 and
F31 has one of the highest shot noises in the industry. Necessity being
the mother of invention, Fuji had to come up with over-the-top firmware
NR to save their butts, so now they have the most obvious-noise-free
images. They also have the most texture-free images, as a consequence.
Also, people are ignorant, in general, and compare cameras at 100% pixel
view, so in this distorted view, cameras with bigger pixels almost always
look better, even if the entire image doesn't.
--
<>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
John P Sheehy <J...@no.komm>
><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
ray
Ah, but how do you REALLY feel about them? You have obvisously never tried
one. I have several photos I'd be happy to put up against your best.
Charles
<tta...@uaweb.org> wrote:
Oh. I get it. You are a kook.
Bye, Bye loser....
PLONK
--
Charles
Chris Malcolm
>> That's fine, but if you'll read my notes, you'll see that nowhere did I
>> advocate the use of a P&S EXCLUSIVELY. I still find it too bothersome to
>> tote a dslr and three lenses along when I'm out bicycling, etc. I find
>> the P850 to be quite an acceptable substitute UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
> UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES I DON'T FIND THE RESULTS ACCEPTABLE. THEY ARE IN THE
> SAME CLASS AS THE FZ30/50, NICE CONCEPT BUT THE RESULTS ARE HORRENDOUUS,
> THEY SUCK BIG TIME, SO I TAKE A D-SLR AND HANG THE WEIGHT.
That sounds much more like the voice of dogmatic religious zealotry
than the voice of experience.
--
Chris Malcolm c...@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
Chris Malcolm
> savvo wrote on Sat, 26 Jul 2008 14:39:34 +0100:
>> On 2008-07-26, Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Shawn Hirn writes:
>>>
>>> And how often do you make use of these extra features in a
>>> DSLR that you would not have in a P&S?
>> I don't know about Shawn, but every day I use the focus ring
>> on whichever lens I'm using.
>> Whatever did happen to Navas and his focus-by-wire obsession?
> The subject of this post might be borne out by the (in)activity on
> r.p.d.point+shoot. I recently asked about picture taking speeds in r.p.d
> because of this. I'm surprised that people don't seem interested in
> discussing cameras that fit in a pocket and take pictures without fuss.
> If non-reflex cameras are uninteresting, I wonder why so many are sold?
They're sold to people whose interest is in photographs, not cameras.
Trevor Tasken
Now that's quite amusing. He did exactly what he needed to do to make his
resident-troll-status self-evident, as precisely described in the very comment
he quoted. They're never too bright, are they. That's why they're so easy to
spot on this newsgroup. They use this place like some RPG. Trying to live an
alternate, albeit imaginary, life of someone with a real camera while
beating-off in their mommy's basement. They think if they can pretend to be a
photographer with words and in their minds alone they are somehow a real
photographer.
Psychotics are they. This newsgroup is crawlin' wid 'em.
John McWilliams
Nah, we have less than a half dozen that approach the psychotic state.
Whose to say who's resident and who's transient? Nym shifts are so
frequent by several that I don't bother to find out who they are.
Are you a multiple name kinda guy?
--
john mcwilliams
timeOday
> In article <mbidnVvIye_6HBfV...@giganews.com>,
> "Richard" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> The other day I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma 70-300mm zoom for $200.00
>> used in near mint condition. I've seen Olympus and Pentax DSLRs going for
>> as low as $175.00 as "open box" (store demos). Why would I even consider
>> (barring the extreme need for portability) a P&S?
>
> camera or you don't. When I go out bike riding or just decide to take a
> fast walk, the last thing I want is my Canon 35mm dSLR and lenses with
> me weighing me down so I take my Sony WSC-200, which serves me well. I
> have taken many excellent photos with it.
I have really enjoyed my Canon S100, a pocket camera with full(?) manual
controls. Do I wish the lens quality and low noise matched an SLR?
Yes. But when I'm someplace scenic, I'm either with my kids (often
carrying one of them), or else backpacking. SLRs are just too bulky
most of the time.
OTOH, the D100/Sigma 70-300 zoom for $200 sounds like a smokin' deal,
which I would find tempting, if only for the rare occasions when I'm not
venturing too far from the car.
John McWilliams
> Are you like all the rest of vast majority of resident-troll asswipes in here
> that would rather troll for a senseless argument than talk about cameras and
> photography? Don't bother to answer that, you already did. As do ALL the rest.
Poorly dodged, pal.
Who in the name of Mon. Dauguerre are you?
What other nyms do you post as?
--
lsmft
Ron Hunter
Maybe, maybe not. It isn't the camera, but the person behind the camera
that makes a good, or bad picture.
Ron Hunter
> Ron Hunter wrote:
>
>>> I used to carry that sort of thing around: SLR, 4 lenses, tripods etc.
>>> until I needed a heart operation and went to a P&S zoom film camera and
>>> later a digital.
>> Sometimes our aging bodies force us into compromises. No matter WHAT
>> the quality of the camera, the one you have with you always makes better
>> pictures than the one you DON'T have with you.
>
> ooh, that's dead philosophical... thank you master.
>
> :O)
Dudley Hanks
"Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:0L-dnWQY7PAsIBHV...@giganews.com...
Now, where the hell did that stone end up...
Pete D
So you didn't read any of my previous posts?
Pete D
"John Sheehy" <J...@no.komm> wrote in message
news:Xns9AE863375...@199.45.49.11...
As I have said many times before John, as long as a shooter with a P&S is
happy to only print at 6X4 then many P&S are okay. Recently at least the
only person that was actually posting there photos here from spmething like
a FZ50 was John Navas and they were all quite bad, care to post some good
shots? I see Dudley posted some shots he was pretty proud of but even at the
size he posted there are blurry and lack detail.
Pete D
"Yoshi" <dream...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d9Gdnf1K_Oh45RHV...@giganews.com...
So all the posts I have made here lately are not photographs?
Pete D
And if your camera takes a second to take a shot and mine takes90
milliseconds I expect you will be disappointed.
James Silverton
> "Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:GMCdnae5I-O1KhHV...@giganews.com...
>> PeteD wrote:
>>>
>>> <sna...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>>
>> Maybe, maybe not. It isn't the camera, but the person behind
>> the camera that makes a good, or bad picture.
>And if your camera takes a second to take a shot and mine takes90 ms I
>expect you will be disappointed.
There are some of us who can appreciate artistic photography without
being able to produce it ourselves, except perhaps after the event with
a photoeditor. We plebs want to take sharp, clear pictures quickly, on
the spur of the moment without carrying a studio around with us. What's
wrong with that?
Paul Heslop
over there -------->
ASAAR
> Poorly dodged, pal.
> Who in the name of Mon. Dauguerre are you?
>
> What other nyms do you post as?
Too many to list, really, but I'll post the tail end of the old
> **** CHDK / Photoline 32 / anti-DSLR Sock Puppet Troll List ****
> . . .
> Trevor D., Troll Detector, TryinToHelp, wallace_thornton,
> walterdavison, Walter Hancock, Wayne J.L., Wayne Wrangler,
> WhileOutShopping..., WillyWonka, X-Man, Yeti, youmustbejoking,
> YourPsychologist, Zaner Damon, and Zack McKrackin.
Ron Hunter
matter that much to me.
Ron Hunter
longer to take a picture? I am old, but not so old the difference
between 1/10 of a second, and 1 second to take a picture is going to
seriously concern me.
John McWilliams
Ah, thanks, no big surprise. A teeny-bopper or demented senior citizen:
You Decide! Details at eleven.
--
john mcwilliams
Mxsmanic
> Pretty much. You can get the same effect with a DSLR by shooting
> through a rain-soaked glass window in the same focus plane as the
> subject.
If quality is your only criterion, you'll be shooting large-format film.
Pete D
You're kidding right? How many shots do you take when the subject has moved?
Pete D
"James Silverton" <not.jim....@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:g6iqhs$g38$1...@registered.motzarella.org...
> Pete wrote on Mon, 28 Jul 2008 06:37:01 +1000:
>
>
>> "Ron Hunter" <rphu...@charter.net> wrote in message
>> news:GMCdnae5I-O1KhHV...@giganews.com...
>>> PeteD wrote:
>>>>
>>>> <sna...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> Maybe, maybe not. It isn't the camera, but the person behind
>>> the camera that makes a good, or bad picture.
>
>>And if your camera takes a second to take a shot and mine takes90 ms I
>>expect you will be disappointed.
>
> There are some of us who can appreciate artistic photography without being
> able to produce it ourselves, except perhaps after the event with a
> photoeditor. We plebs want to take sharp, clear pictures quickly, on the
> spur of the moment without carrying a studio around with us. What's wrong
> with that?
>
has no delay taking shots, with even a "good" you will miss the shot or can
only take still life shots.
Ron Hunter
taking pictures of people. There are many things that can be done to
minimize the problems caused by subject motion. It is very rarely a
problem for me. Obviously, if I needed to so sports photography,
another type of camera might work much better.
Ron Hunter
the DSLR to 'auto'? Or are you just not counting the time you spend on
setting aperture and focusing?
Chris H
<rphu...@charter.net> writes
>Pete D wrote:
>Not many. Most of my pictures are of places, and things.
> I abhor taking pictures of people.
Why?
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
PeteD
>>>>
>>>> Ray, Just for you. I currently have six film cameras and four
>>>> digitals, I use whatever will give me the quality that is acceptable
>>>> for any particular shooting session, there are times when the little
>>>> P&S is perfectly acceptable there are times when only the 10MP D-SLR
>>>> will do and there are times when only film will do. In any given
>>>> situation there is always a compromise but having seen the results
>>>> from the P850s the results simply are simply not very good compared to
>>>> even my 6MP D-SLR or even my 5MP Sony V1 and the handling is such that
>>>> compared to either of my D-SLRs I would miss many shots they are that
>>>> slow to take the shot.
>>>>
>>>> Cheers
>>>>
>>>> Pete.
>>>
>>> That's fine, but if you'll read my notes, you'll see that nowhere did I
>>> advocate the use of a P&S EXCLUSIVELY. I still find it too bothersome
>>> to tote a dslr and three lenses along when I'm out bicycling, etc. I
>>> find the P850 to be quite an acceptable substitute UNDER THOSE
>>> CIRCUMSTANCES.
>>
>> UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES I DON'T FIND THE RESULTS ACCEPTABLE. THEY ARE IN
>> THE SAME CLASS AS THE FZ30/50, NICE CONCEPT BUT THE RESULTS ARE
>> HORRENDOUUS, THEY SUCK BIG TIME, SO I TAKE A D-SLR AND HANG THE WEIGHT.
>
> Ah, but how do you REALLY feel about them? You have obvisously never tried
> one. I have several photos I'd be happy to put up against your best.
Yes, seriously disappointing.
Post away big fella.
PeteD
"Chris Malcolm" <c...@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:6f3f7iF...@mid.individual.net...
> Pete D <n...@email.com> wrote:
>> "ray" <r...@zianet.com> wrote in message
>> news:6f28bhF...@mid.individual.net...
>
>>> advocate the use of a P&S EXCLUSIVELY. I still find it too bothersome to
>>> tote a dslr and three lenses along when I'm out bicycling, etc. I find
>>> the P850 to be quite an acceptable substitute UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES.
>
>> UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES I DON'T FIND THE RESULTS ACCEPTABLE. THEY ARE IN
>> THE
>> SAME CLASS AS THE FZ30/50, NICE CONCEPT BUT THE RESULTS ARE HORRENDOUUS,
>> THEY SUCK BIG TIME, SO I TAKE A D-SLR AND HANG THE WEIGHT.
>
> than the voice of experience.
>
Does it, well post some to show how good they are please.
PeteD
>
> Keep trying to justify your purchase. It's fun watching you DSLR fools do
> it
> incessantly with every post you make. The rest of us are happy with our
> P&S
> purchases. That's why you don't see us insecurely trying to convince
> idiots like
> you to buy them. We don't want your kind finding out about their benefits.
>
> And so we laugh!
>
Happy to laugh with you matey but how about posting some of these great
shots of yours.
PeteD
"Trevor Tasken" <tta...@uaweb.org> wrote in message
news:il3p84tplh38thn43...@4ax.com...>>In article <8qto84t2t1o53b6n5...@4ax.com>, Trevor Tasken
>><tta...@uaweb.org> wrote:
>>
>>> Ignore the resident-troll peanut gallery that try to dismiss facts as
>>> some
>>> troll's gambit. It's the only sorely lame trick that they have in life
>>> for
>>> attention. They only deserve pity.
>>
>>Oh. I get it. You are a kook.
>>
>>Bye, Bye loser....
>>
>>PLONK
>
> Now that's quite amusing. He did exactly what he needed to do to make his
> resident-troll-status self-evident, as precisely described in the very
> comment
> he quoted. They're never too bright, are they. That's why they're so easy
> to
> spot on this newsgroup. They use this place like some RPG. Trying to live
> an
> alternate, albeit imaginary, life of someone with a real camera while
> beating-off in their mommy's basement. They think if they can pretend to
> be a
> photographer with words and in their minds alone they are somehow a real
> photographer.
>
> Psychotics are they. This newsgroup is crawlin' wid 'em.
>
Well not quite, those cameras will not do as he says unless they are
modified I am thinking, anyway where are the results for us to see from
these wondorous cameras? Walk the walk.
bugbear
> The other day I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma 70-300mm zoom for $200.00
> used in near mint condition. I've seen Olympus and Pentax DSLRs going for
> as low as $175.00 as "open box" (store demos). Why would I even consider
> (barring the extreme need for portability) a P&S?
>
>
Quite right; quality and full control are
essential.
For this reason ALL good photographers
uses 8x10 view cameras with full front
and rear movements.
Anyone not using such a camera
is a pathetic amatuer.
BugBear
Charles
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> Not many. Most of my pictures are of places, and things. I abhor
> taking pictures of people. There are many things that can be done to
> minimize the problems caused by subject motion. It is very rarely a
> problem for me. Obviously, if I needed to so sports photography,
> another type of camera might work much better.
A P&S is fine for places and things, outdoors, that you prefer but for
people and events, low light they do a poor job. It would be nice to
have non DSLR cameras with larger sensors that can be used for my kind
of photography, love to have something like that for travel or street
shooting but as of now the camera manufacturers don't make such.
--
Charles
Ron Hunter
> In message <LZGdnZoXSIu85BDV...@giganews.com>, Ron Hunter
> <rphu...@charter.net> writes
>> Pete D wrote:
>> Not many. Most of my pictures are of places, and things.
> I do a lot of that.
>
>> I abhor taking pictures of people.
> Why?
>
>
move around so much that getting the right person, in the right light,
and the right angle, is very difficult. I particularly hate taking
pictures of people I see all the time. My wife is always badgering me
to take pictures at family gatherings, then always complains about who I
didn't get a picture of, or who I took too make pictures of. Takes all
the fun out of it.
Ron Hunter
camera line.
ASAAR
>>> I abhor taking pictures of people.
>> Why?
>>
> They are hard to photograph. I just hate 'posed' pictures, and people
> move around so much that getting the right person, in the right light,
> and the right angle, is very difficult.
The little cameras you use don't tend to do too well when the
light isn't right. The larger ones also do much better with people
and pets that move quickly and often. You've been caught on your
own 22. :)
> I particularly hate taking pictures of people I see all the time.
It sounds as if you're just taking pictures of people, not of them
in an good setting or of them doing something interesting. A good
picture is a good picture, whether it's of family, friends or
strangers.
> My wife is always badgering me to take pictures at family
> gatherings, then always complains about who I didn't get a
> picture of, or who I took too make pictures of. Takes all
> the fun out of it.
Then either don't show her the pictures you take, or cull them and
only show the best ones. Also having a camera, if she took pictures
of the ones you missed, no problem. If she missed them too, or took
no pictures, her fault, her problem. Or send her to the Stepford
School for proper training. :)
Charles
<rphu...@charter.net> wrote:
> I am sure that cost factors play a large part in that 'hole' in the
> camera line.
Some think that the manufactures leave that hole in their camera line
because with a DSLR they make larger profits. The camera body is part
of a system with a lot of accessories/add ons. I think that could be a
factor.
--
Charles
Irwell
Somebody on DPReview mentioned the Sigma DP-1 as being such a camera,
seems a lot of money for what you get.
--
---
7/28/2008 8:08:57 AM
Irwell
Didn't Cartier Bresson use a Leica for most of his
award winning shots?
--
---
7/28/2008 8:11:50 AM
tony cooper
wrote:
Most men-of-the-family are seldom in the family snapshots. They take
them. When my wife takes them, so I can be in them, my head sometimes
goes missing.
I usually take family group shots using a tripod and the self-timer.
Not only are we all in the picture, but the resulting laughter at the
scrambling to get in the picture makes for better pictures.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Blinky the Shark
Get her her own camera.
--
Blinky
Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org
Need a new news feed? http://blinkynet.net/comp/newfeed.html
Blinky the Shark
While I might take all the fun out of it for you[1], the One Truly
Affordable Nikon-Branded Accessory is that $17 remote release. :)
[1] But it would also reduce the risk of the coffee table laying open your
shin meat or you breaking a hip tripping over the dog.