I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Immigration: The shocking truth about the immigrants who openedthe floodgates
Next: The real cost of being sued by Getty
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 26 Oct 2009 23:03 On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:15:04 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >I'll defend the S90 for what it is: a good compromise system for the >trade-offs that it chooses to make. However, that doesn't make it the >best at low-light: it is merely another example of: "Jack of All >Trades, Yet Master of None." Just as a DSLR is a "master of none". It's not even a "jack of all trades" It can't be used silently so as to take photos of wild animals without changing their behavior, your presence alerted to them by the sound of your camera, or the subject fleeing without you getting a second chance to take a shot. It can't be taken into most public performances these days due to the intrusive and obnoxious qualities of them. It can't be used for deep DOF hand-held available-light macro photography. It can't be used for high-speed subjects without morphing the subjects' shapes into something new. It can't be used with large apertures at long focal-lengths, because in order to match the same capability in a P&S camera you would also need to carry a 16" diameter lens weighing upward of 250 lbs. It can't be used for high-speed flash-sync without kludgy work-arounds that still limit the subject's motion to being no faster than the traversing of the shutters over the imaging plane, without also distorting the shapes of those subject. It can't be used where P&S cameras are now being used, such as in labs at MIT physics departments to capture images of helium plasma fusion experiments, capturing images at 1/40,000 second using available light alone. (Using CHDK) If you tried using flash to stop subjects that fast you would wash-out the very subject you were trying to capture. It can't be used for ... (the list is VERY long). Troll-Cry as you might, your DSLR is also a "master of none". The ONLY thing where a DSLR *might* be better is in lower light levels. That's all you've got as an advantage these days. With the wider apertures at long focal-lengths of superzoom P&S cameras then even that's a wash. Hardly a reason to consider the expense and lens-changing gymnastics that one must jump through (while missing all those shots) to justify the purchase of one.
From: tony cooper on 27 Oct 2009 00:22 On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 22:03:53 -0500, Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif(a)myaddress.net> wrote: >Just as a DSLR is a "master of none". It's not even a "jack of all trades" >It can't be used silently so as to take photos of wild animals without >changing their behavior, your presence alerted to them by the sound of your >camera, or the subject fleeing without you getting a second chance to take >a shot. > >It can't be taken into most public performances these days due to the >intrusive and obnoxious qualities of them. That, in itself, is one of the best reasons to own a dslr and not a p&s. I don't like paying for a ticket and have some idiot in front of me standing up to fire off a flash picture of dots in the distance. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: -hh on 27 Oct 2009 07:32 nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > > > > >convincing, let's see some proof samples that shows its capabilities > > > > >at suitably low EV values. For eample, my homepage image was > > > > >IIRC in the ballpark of EV -5. > > > > > I'm not going to waste time on a pointless exercise. > > > > it would put to rest whether your claim holds water or not. obviously > > > it doesn't. you are all talk and no substance. > > > And exactly what Navas complains about: "... by those who think specs > > are more important than actual photography." Thus, John Navas is also > > a hypocrite. > > very much so. he asks for proof to defend a claim that someone makes > (and then proceeds to say the provided proof is bogus), but when he is > asked, he bails. And when he's called on it ... the rude little troll magically appears, to try to distract us. > > Including write times to memory cards. IME, the newer P&Ss have > > gotten slower than older P&Ss. > > for the most part, memory buffers make that a non-issue. it's very rare > that anyone is going to be limited by the speed of a card except in > very crappy cameras or the rare occasion of shooting a *lot* of photos > at once. I was specifically referring to the Canon A590 IS ... putting in a fast card (I currently have a Class 6 SDHC in it) doesn't improve its surprisingly slow write time. While it is 2x more pixels, it is perceptually slower than a 2003-vintage A80, despite being 5 years newer technology...a disappointment. > > > > >The trade-off is manifest in its $400 retail price...that's 4x the > > > > >cost of a typical ("average") P&S. > > > > > Irrelevant -- dSLR is far more expensive. > > > > wrong. you can get a new dslr for $400, sometimes even less. > > > Since John expressed a hypothetical willingness to pay 4x the price of > > a typical P&S, the proportionally appropriate factor of 4x taken > > against the price of an S90, would give us a $1600 budget to work > > with. Plenty of options & choices. And even if we do a simple > > linearization to a +$300 premium, that would afford a $700 budget; > > there's still several choices. > > true, but you can get a decent slr for substantially less than 4x. it's > not going to have the bells and whistles or speed of a d3 or 1d mark iv > or even a d300s or 7d, but it will work quite well. But of course. This is merely illustrating John's hypocrisy in being notionally very willing to pay substantially more (which is the trade- off) for the larger sensor in the S90, despite repeated denials that sensor size has nothing to do with performance. The S90's price point is right at the cusp of where one who care to can choose to trade-off camera size for an 800% gain in sensor size. > > > > >And in the realm of *actual photography*, I await some real world > > > > >examples that illustrate the low light (negative EV values) > > > > >performance from your current Panasonic P&Ss. Afterall, talk is > > > > >cheap. > > > > > I'm not going to waste time on a pointless exercise. > > > > the fact that you call it a pointless exercise means that one can only > > > conclude that such an exercise would show you to be the fraud that you > > > really are, which is why you refuse to do it. you spend far more time > > > arguing with people online than it would take to just shoot a photo and > > > post it and prove what you say to be true. > > > Precisely. Their unwillingness to produce when challenged on an inane > > claim they've made is a very reliable indicator of Internet liars/ > > fakes/trolls. The net result is that they undermine & damage their > > own credibility. > > he's all talk. Agreed, although I'd rather be optimistic and hope that he'll eventually have some new *actual photography* eventually to show. Of course, based on this subthread, these won't be available until sometime after the Spring Solstice, of course. Apparently, John and the troll are both quite afraid of the dark :-) -hh
From: nospam on 27 Oct 2009 11:20 In article <46c02d36-8d3e-4cf9-9743-4f1d6b982117(a)v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > Agreed, although I'd rather be optimistic and hope that he'll > eventually have some new *actual photography* eventually to show. Of > course, based on this subthread, these won't be available until > sometime after the Spring Solstice, of course. Apparently, John and > the troll are both quite afraid of the dark :-) he's posted a few pictures, just nothing that backs up any of his claims.
From: John Navas on 27 Oct 2009 11:35
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:01:12 -0500, Outing Trolls <ot(a)trollouters.org> wrote in <oahce557nplg1bo3i76o357ppuakfl5vhs(a)4ax.com>: >On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:47:35 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >>wrong. you can get a new dslr for $400, sometimes even less. > >Until you want to put the necessary lens on it that *might* get images >equivalent to a P&S camera. Then you start to consider the cost being >anywhere from $1000 on up to $5000 or more. > >dSLR's sold with inferior kit lenses are a brilliant con game. That's a bit harsh, but it is true that affordable dSLR cameras don't measure up to the top compact digitals like the Panasonic FZ35, and disingenuous to claim a dSLR for $400 is a reasonable alternative. Even a budget Canon dSLR kit that still falls far short of the lens performance of the FZ35, for example, runs much more (at B&H): * Canon EOS Rebel XSi Digital Camera (body only) . . $532.95 * Canon EF-S 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6 IS Autofocus Lens . . $595.00 Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .$1,127.95 -- Best regards, John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams |