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: John Navas on 30 Oct 2009 10:26 On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 00:00:16 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in <4aead553$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >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. Certainly better than a "crappy P&S", but not a better compact digital -- while I'm getting excellent images with my optically stabilized 486 mm reach, you're at most getting useless specks, and not able to even get a comparable shot while I'm shooting 27 mm wide angle. >Plus, the DSLR will probably last longer than >the P&S. Pretty much any digital camera will be obsolete long before it wears out. Your claims are getting pretty far-fetched. -- 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
From: nospam on 30 Oct 2009 12:17 In article <ijsle5dqbfqmdgpl9mcpr8g0c9tso22roe(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >Or you could spend $50USD on a 50mm/F1.8II & a basic Canon DSLR. > > And wind up with something much less capable than and not really > comparable to a much less expensive compact digital. By that logic, > compact digital cameras "start" at under $10. straw man > Most people need and want > more, you don't speak for most people
From: nospam on 30 Oct 2009 12:17 In article <stsle591kl01lnqepn6j8vsgckdt8td7lv(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 23:44:57 +1100, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> > wrote in <4aead1bc(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: > > >John Navas wrote: > > >> 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. ;^) > > 1. 36 mm is just fine in the great majority of cases. depends on the situation. > 2. 20 mm lenses result is greatly distorted images. depends on the lens and any distortion can be fixed in post-processing. > 3. Most dSLR owners aren't equipped with 20 mm lenses. nonsense. virtually every slr sold today comes with an 18-something kit lens, often an 18-55. nikon even has a 16-85 vr lens which is also quite good and canon has something similar. > 4. It's a disingenuous to assume infinite lenses. then it's a good thing that nobody is assuming infinite lenses. as for disingenuous, one can look at your claims for that. > 5. Panoramas can easily be created by stitching images. speaking of disingenuous, let's see you do a panorama of a stage performance. and while you're at it, use photoshop to cleanly extract the actors from the background. > In other words, a non-issue. wrong again.
From: nospam on 30 Oct 2009 12:17 In article <2htle5djerneamiqq4opk3qnd2kj6sscmu(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > Certainly better than a "crappy P&S", but not a better compact digital > -- while I'm getting excellent images with my optically stabilized 486 > mm reach, you're at most getting useless specks, and not able to even > get a comparable shot while I'm shooting 27 mm wide angle. pure nonsense. a 400mm or longer lens can be attached should the situation warrant. for the vast majority of people, that's rare.
From: nospam on 30 Oct 2009 12:17
In article <h6tle59ae8icsn26iqsorl095u1hium6lg(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> 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. > > The Panasonic FZ28 has an _18:1_ zoom that is more than _good_. an 18:1 zoom lens *must* make compromises to obtain that range. there is no getting around that. however, since the laws of physics don't apply to you, i suppose the laws of optics do not either. > The painful fact for dSLR fans/users is that there _aren't_ any good > lenses that even get close to matching the Leica super-zoom lenses on > Panasonic compact digital cameras. They instead have to fantasize > lugging around and fumbling with an infinite lens kit. there's actually quite a few lenses that not only match, but exceed it in many ways. the *only* thing your lens has is a huge range. it's the standard convenience versus quality tradeoff. |