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: Bob Larter on 30 Oct 2009 08:41 nospam wrote: > In article <pc3ee5drvsi7vgentq1fo0g32m0e3jj6no(a)4ax.com>, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> 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, > > they not only measure up but they exceed it in just about every way > other than size and weight. > >> and disingenuous to claim a dSLR for $400 is a reasonable alternative. > > not at all. > >> 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 > > *that* is very disingenuous. not everyone wants or needs an 18-200mm > lens. > > right now, b&h has a nikon d40 with lens for $469 and a canon rebel xs > with a lens for $499. the older pentax k110d and nikon d50 sold for > *under* 400. Or you could spend $50USD on a 50mm/F1.8II & a basic Canon DSLR. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 30 Oct 2009 08:44 tony cooper wrote: > 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. Too true. Any time I'm photographing a gig, I'm an invited guest. If some P&S shooter refuses to move out of the way, I can just ask security to move them for me. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 30 Oct 2009 08:44 John Navas wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 00:22:31 -0400, tony cooper > <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in > <66tce5dg6kcofpc5758kelvg93nv4ucddb(a)4ax.com>: > >> 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. > > That's a pretty funny (and lame) excuse for dSLR. ;) > > Panasonic FZ20 takes silent available light images with its superb > 36-432 mm f/2.8 zoom. <grin> Too bad if you need a 20mm shot to include the entire stage. ;^) -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 30 Oct 2009 08:48 John Navas wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:56:37 -0700, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in > <fr4ee5p9196a1mduq553nj92auolvl8pnk(a)4ax.com>: > >> On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:15:04 -0700 (PDT), -hh > >>> 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. >> I've said nothing of the sort. What I have said is that even a budget >> dSLR kit that still falls far short of the Panasonic FZ28 is on the >> order of $1,128 (as I detailed in my earlier post to this thread), far >> more expensive than the FZ28, and to get close to comparable quality, >> it's more like $3,000 (Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus >> lens, as I've detailed in several prior posts to this forum). >> Apology accepted. > > Even the big and expensive Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus > lens isn't all that close: Are you serious? The 28-300mm EF is a 10:1 zoom! Try using a _good_ lens. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 30 Oct 2009 09:00
John Navas wrote: > On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:18:10 -0700 (PDT), -hh > <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in > <84cd2ddf-350b-41ad-ab51-0ce50c93b453(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>: > >> John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>> Are you so threatened by better and more capable compact digital >>> cameras that you're only willing to focus on the poorer ones? >> What I find unpalatable is dishonesty, and your dishonesty here is in >> suggesting that all dSLRs are "too expensive" while offering $400 P&S >> alternatives ... which costs just as much as a basic dSLR today. > > Nope. As I detailed recently here, the price point for even a basic, > much less capable dSLR alternative is well over $1,000, with even the > $3,000 level still not measuring up. Oh bullshit. I can spend a couple of hundred dollars on a used, previous generation DSLR, & $50 on a good prime lens, & take better photos than you can with a crappy P&S. Plus, the DSLR will probably last longer than the P&S. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |