How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: SMS on 7 Jul 2010 18:50 Savageduck wrote: > On 2010-07-07 13:33:19 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> said: > >> >> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >> news:2010070600313643042-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>> On 2010-07-05 23:48:54 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> said: >>> >>>> In article <i0uijd$nn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor >>>> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>>> >>>>> There's only one person who objects to "P&S" - the rest of us are >>>>> quite >>>>> happy! I own both and have no problem with the term. >>>> >>>> who cares what it's called. people know what is meant by p&s and slr >>>> and that's all that matters. language evolves. the whole pejorative >>>> nonsense is his way of arguing, particularly when his position is weak. >>> >>> Just what is objectional and pejorative about the term "Pocketable & >>> Small"? >> >> Apart from its redundancy? ;-) > > Just me being silly. I always think of "Point & Shoot" in a totally > different context. I though there was a possibility you might also have > that in mind, but normally a little more deliberate than "point!" > >> >> Well, few people would consider a Coolpix 8700 or 8800 pocketable & >> small. >> Yet many use the silly term "P&S" to characterize those cameras. > > Yup, I had a 5700, which was not cheap. a year later I bought a D70 for > less, and never used the 5700 again. >> >> "Point-and-shoot" was perfectly appropriate for those compact 35mm >> cameras >> to which the term was originally applied. Because they were >> auto-everything >> and had no user controls to speak of, pointing and shooting was almost >> literally all you could do with them. > > Agreed. My wife had a great little Pentax PC35AF, and that was all she > ever wanted. >> >> Using "P&S" to describe a camera with full user controls should be made a >> felony punishable by either (a) flogging or (b) forced listening to an >> entire speech by Joe Biden, the latter reserved for the more egregrious >> offenses of course. > > Agreed. > A camera such as a G11 has the elements of full user control, and can be > quickly relegated to the role of more simplistic, ...er mindless > operation. So perhaps a term such as "Full Function Compact" might be > better for those. However there remain those digital compacts, which > probably make up the bulk of sales, and bring nothing to the table in > terms of image quality. All you might be able to say of them is, "what a > cute little camera!" > > ...but there is a big caveat with the "Superzooms" > > I think one of the big problems with many of the "Superzooms" is, they > are still mostly a compromise. They are a solution for the traveler > wanting a single camera with a wide zoom range, and a bit more heft than > a "pocketable" compact. ...but as good as they are, to claim that they > have the flexibility, or image quality potential of a DSLR is just being > argumentative. > They are still limited with small sensors, over packed to silly pixel > density. Maxing those out at around 10MP as with the G11 makes more sense. Kudos to Canon for doing that. Reducing the pixel density between the G10 and G11 was a brave thing to do. > They are mostly marketed to photographers making the transition from the > lesser compacts. They might be lacking a feature such as RAW capture, > and emphasize shooting "scene-program/modes." The problem is the target market usually lacks the experience to understand just what they're giving up with a super zoom compared to a D-SLR. They see the wide zoom range and the high pixel count and get excited, but they often don't realize that it doesn't fix the problems they've encountered with their compact point and shoot, and they don't understand just how big of a compromise that wide range lens actually is. Then they end up buying hopelessly junky lens adapters to try and address some of the limitations of the super-zoom. > The experienced/talented > photographer, who buys one, and uses the user controls rather than the > "scene-program/modes" is the exception rather than the rule. That seems to be the case because the experienced photographer is not going to give up all the advantages of a D-SLR for only a slightly smaller package. They will likely have a compact P&S for the times when their D-SLR is too much trouble to take along. The failure of Olympus's 4:3 product line might have been avoided if Olympus had marketed it as an alternative to the limitations of super zoom P&S models, rather than trying to compete directly against the Canon and Nikon D-SLR lines; but probably not.
From: tony cooper on 7 Jul 2010 19:07 On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:33:19 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >Using "P&S" to describe a camera with full user controls should be made a >felony punishable by either (a) flogging or (b) forced listening to an >entire speech by Joe Biden, the latter reserved for the more egregrious >offenses of course. > Listening to an entire speech given by Joe Biden would be the equivalent of being sentenced to one of those country club prisons where the wealthy and politically connected spend their days getting massages and tennis lessons compared to having to read John Navas's perpetual whining posts. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Neil Harrington on 7 Jul 2010 19:42 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:070720101314065072%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <r-ydnZx0GIMuQKnRnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, Neil > Harrington <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >> >>I have the FZ35 which seems almost identical to the FZ28. I like the >> >>camera >> >>a lot, within its limitations, but it's just nonsensical to compare its >> >>zooming qualities with the ease, speed and accuracy of a manual zoom >> >>lens >> >>a DSLR. >> > >> > To you. Not to me, and to others like me who have learned how to use >> > the power zoom effectively and comfortably. For us, zooming isn't an >> > issue -- it's only an issue to those who haven't learned how to use it >> > effectively and comfortably. >> >> I suppose you could "learn how to use" pushbuttons to sign your name -- >> rather than just using a pen manually -- but I doubt anyone would be able >> to >> do that "effectively and comfortably" compared with doing it manually. >> >> For one thing, a manual zoom gives you an infinite range of focal >> lengths; >> you can quickly get *precisely* the framing you want -- > > that's a bit of a stretch since you're talking a few pixels difference. Maybe, but I have read users' complaints about it. It may be that they were especially persnickety about the exact framing. > >> whereas pushbutton >> motorized zooms go by steps, you have to be satisfied with "close >> enough," >> and not very quickly. > > he said a friend of his kept overshooting the zoom and had to help him > set the camera to *slow* zoom speed to not do that. I'll agree that two-speed zoom is a worthwhile feature. Still nowhere near as precise and easy to use as a manual zoom ring. > >> But apart from that, pushbuttons are just an awkward way of doing >> something >> that can be done much, much more efficiently with a simple manual >> control. >> It's somewhat like the difference between trying to regulate your speed >> on >> the highway with the + and - cruise control buttons instead of the far >> simpler accelerator pedal. > > exactly. now watch him point out the advantages of fly by wire. > >> Motorized zooms are a necessary evil on compact cameras where there just >> isn't any room for a manual control and the associated parts. But that's >> what you have: a necessary evil, not a desired thing. Make all the >> excuses >> you like and it still doesn't change that. > > agreed. > >> > p.s. The FZ35 is not "almost identical" to the FZ28 -- it has >> > significant differences as well as significant similarities -- you >> > cannot make valid judgments of one from the other. >> >> Well, my FZ35 has some improvements over your FZ28 -- nothing that >> changes >> the basic shortcomings of that type of camera, though. > > they're close enough to be able to assess its capabilities, and his > insistence that you don't own the exact model is just an excuse. Just so. I don't recall the exact differences between the FZ28 and FZ35, but they were nothing that has any real bearing on this anyway, of that I am sure.
From: Peter on 7 Jul 2010 19:48 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010070715231316807-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > > Now, on to punishment, the Biden speech can easily be replaced with having > to sit through taped reruns of the entire World Cup competition, with > Vuvuzelas at full volume. ;-) I would rather do that than be forced to read the tripe from the sock puppets. -- Peter
From: John Navas on 7 Jul 2010 19:51
On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:50:31 -0700, in <4c3504be$0$22153$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >Savageduck wrote: >> They are mostly marketed to photographers making the transition from the >> lesser compacts. They might be lacking a feature such as RAW capture, >> and emphasize shooting "scene-program/modes." > >The problem is the target market usually lacks the experience to >understand just what they're giving up with a super zoom compared to a >D-SLR. They see the wide zoom range and the high pixel count and get >excited, but they often don't realize that it doesn't fix the problems >they've encountered with their compact point and shoot, and they don't >understand just how big of a compromise that wide range lens actually >is. Then they end up buying hopelessly junky lens adapters to try and >address some of the limitations of the super-zoom. There is no such compromise, and most buyers are actually delighted. >> The experienced/talented >> photographer, who buys one, and uses the user controls rather than the >> "scene-program/modes" is the exception rather than the rule. > >That seems to be the case because the experienced photographer is not >going to give up all the advantages of a D-SLR for only a slightly >smaller package. They will likely have a compact P&S for the times when >their D-SLR is too much trouble to take along. Simply not true. >The failure of Olympus's 4:3 product line might have been avoided if >Olympus had marketed it as an alternative to the limitations of super >zoom P&S models, rather than trying to compete directly against the >Canon and Nikon D-SLR lines; but probably not. There is no "failure". 0 for 3. -- John "It is better to sit in silence and appear ignorant, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." -Mark Twain "A little learning is a dangerous thing." -Alexander Pope "Being ignorant is not so much a shame, as being unwilling to learn." -Benjamin Franklin |