How far have P&S's come?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: SMS on 31 May 2010 01:16 On 30/05/10 8:15 AM, tony cooper wrote: > You don't have to know how to use a dslr properly anymore than you > have to know how to use a P&S properly. All you have to do with > either type of camera is to figure out how to turn it on and set it to > Automatic. Your photographs will be *better* if you learn to use the > other settings properly, but all modern dslrs can be used exactly as a > P&S is used. What a lot of people apparently didn't realize is that when they moved from a full frame film sensor in their P&S to a tiny digital sensor in their P&S, they ended up with a camera that does poorly in low light and that has agonizingly long AF speeds. What's made the DSLR so critical to even amateur photographers is how bad P&S digital cameras are in a few critical areas. > You remind me of a guy I know who incessantly brags about his 5 > year-old child and how smart the child is. He even brags that his > child already knows how to use a knife and fork. But can the 5 year old use chopsticks?
From: John Navas on 31 May 2010 01:29 On Sun, 30 May 2010 22:16:30 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in <4c034630$0$1615$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>: >What a lot of people apparently didn't realize is that when they moved >from a full frame film sensor in their P&S to a tiny digital sensor in >their P&S, they ended up with a camera that does poorly in low light and >that has agonizingly long AF speeds. What's made the DSLR so critical to >even amateur photographers is how bad P&S digital cameras are in a few >critical areas. Nonsense. Low light and autofocus performance are simply not issues to most people. -- Best regards, John "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin
From: David J Taylor on 31 May 2010 02:43 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4c034630$0$1615$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... [] > What a lot of people apparently didn't realize is that when they moved > from a full frame film sensor in their P&S to a tiny digital sensor in > their P&S, they ended up with a camera that does poorly in low light and > that has agonizingly long AF speeds. What's made the DSLR so critical to > even amateur photographers is how bad P&S digital cameras are in a few > critical areas. Very true, although the tiny sensor allows such great depth of field that poor AF accuracy may not matter. The slow AF can make for missed shots, though, particularly with the longest focal lengths. David
From: Ofnuts on 31 May 2010 04:19 On 31/05/2010 07:29, John Navas wrote: > On Sun, 30 May 2010 22:16:30 -0700, SMS<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> > wrote in<4c034630$0$1615$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>: > >> What a lot of people apparently didn't realize is that when they moved >>from a full frame film sensor in their P&S to a tiny digital sensor in >> their P&S, they ended up with a camera that does poorly in low light and >> that has agonizingly long AF speeds. What's made the DSLR so critical to >> even amateur photographers is how bad P&S digital cameras are in a few >> critical areas. > > Nonsense. Low light and autofocus performance are simply not issues to > most people. > Right. They just wonder why the picture looks bad. Because if about everyone can recognize a good shot from a bad one, fewer people can tell what the picture is lacking, and what should/could have been done to get it right. And anyone in the public at large who enters the second category starts worrying about things like low light performance and AF speed. -- Bertrand
From: SMS on 31 May 2010 08:26
On 30/05/10 11:43 PM, David J Taylor wrote: <snip> > Very true, although the tiny sensor allows such great depth of field > that poor AF accuracy may not matter. The slow AF can make for missed > shots, though, particularly with the longest focal lengths. That's one of the complaints you hear constantly about P&S digital cameras and moving subjects, and is probably one of the biggest reasons that D-SLR sales do so well. I think there was a grand total of _one_ P&S that had phase-detect AF that solved this problem, and it was of course discontinued (a Ricoh model not sold in the U.S. except gray market by Adorama in NYC). Too expensive to put phase-detect AF on a P&S when almost none of your customer base would understand why they should be paying more for it. The larger sensor P&S cameras line the new Sony NEX, and the Micro 4:3 should at least partially solve the low light problem (still won't be as good as a D-SLR but may be good enough) but they are not less expensive than a D-SLR, only smaller. And they'll likely still have much slower AF than a D-SLR. It's all about using the right tool for the job. Probably every D-SLR owner also has a P&S (or two, or three, or five) that they use when they can accept the limitations of the P&S. |