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: Helping the Clueless on 16 Oct 2009 01:55 On 15 Oct 2009 17:36:37 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: >On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:59:20 -0700, RichA wrote: > >> On Oct 14, 11:35�am, ray <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:40:27 -0700, RichA wrote: >>> > I simply pointed out that they could get a demo Nikon D40 with an kit >>> > lens for about $250 so it was time for them to chuck their sad-sack >>> > Sony P&S in the waste bin. �Of course, once they saw the output from >>> > the Nikon, they were thrilled. >>> >>> Probably be less thrilled when they do that first 8 mile hike or 25 >>> mile bike ride. >> >> Yes, 1.5lb's of DSLR and lens are a killer...to a five year old girl >> maybe. > >One lens would be quite limiting - unless you had a lens that weighed >more than that. Exactly so. If you want to have the focal-length range and adaptability of a 20x superzoom camera, you will have to haul about 23 lbs. in DSLR gear and glass (I already added it up). This is a very significant consideration for anyone who is more than the typical snapshooter wandering around their local city park--those who can only pretend to be a nature-photographer. Also, these online armchair photographers who only own the manuals of cameras they download, never the actual cameras and lenses, always forget the sturdy and cumbersome tripod REQUIRED when using long focal-lengths on any DSLR. Nor will you be able to fit the DSLR, its lenses, and REQUIRED tripod in your roomy windbreaker pocket on a 10-mile day-hike like you can with just one high-quality superzoom camera. Image quality is not part of this decision-making equation because many superzoom cameras already beat the image quality of any DSLR and its associated zoom-lens offerings. See these side-by-side examples for just one of many superzoom cameras that do just that. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml 1.3 lbs. of superzoom camera vs. 23 lbs. of equivalent DSLR gear. Anyone capable of surviving on a more remote trail is also smart enough to know which gear is worth carrying. This should also be a no-brainer for the online idiots, but as you can tell, they don't even qualify for a no-brainer decision-making level of intellect. This puts them squarely in, or below, the intellectual level of reptilian brain-stem life forms. They can reproduce (unfortunately), eat, and breathe, but that's the extent of it.
From: David J Taylor on 16 Oct 2009 03:19 "ray" <> wrote in message news:7jps96F370qnuU7(a)mid.individual.net... > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:21:43 +0000, David J Taylor wrote: [] >> Nikon D40 - 522g (1.2lb) >> 18-200mm lens - 560g (19.8 oz) > > A 400mm or so would be really nice - that's the equiv I have on my P&S. It's a 300mm "equivalent". >> Total: 2.4lbs > > That's a fair amount of tonnage. ... but more functional, with better isolation of the subject from the background, and particularly useful in low-light, when you can get reasonable images from ISO 1600 (and even higher ISOs with a more recent DSLR). Both P&S and DSLR are easily available - you choose what /you/ need for your own purposes and circumstances. There's no one "right" choice. David
From: ray on 16 Oct 2009 11:38 On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:55:59 -0500, Helping the Clueless wrote: > On 15 Oct 2009 17:36:37 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > >>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:59:20 -0700, RichA wrote: >> >>> On Oct 14, 11:35 am, ray <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:40:27 -0700, RichA wrote: >>>> > I simply pointed out that they could get a demo Nikon D40 with an >>>> > kit lens for about $250 so it was time for them to chuck their >>>> > sad-sack Sony P&S in the waste bin. Of course, once they saw the >>>> > output from the Nikon, they were thrilled. >>>> >>>> Probably be less thrilled when they do that first 8 mile hike or 25 >>>> mile bike ride. >>> >>> Yes, 1.5lb's of DSLR and lens are a killer...to a five year old girl >>> maybe. >> >>One lens would be quite limiting - unless you had a lens that weighed >>more than that. > > Exactly so. If you want to have the focal-length range and adaptability > of a 20x superzoom camera, you will have to haul about 23 lbs. in DSLR > gear and glass (I already added it up). This is a very significant > consideration for anyone who is more than the typical snapshooter > wandering around their local city park--those who can only pretend to be > a nature-photographer. Also, these online armchair photographers who > only own the manuals of cameras they download, never the actual cameras > and lenses, always forget the sturdy and cumbersome tripod REQUIRED when > using long focal-lengths on any DSLR. Nor will you be able to fit the > DSLR, its lenses, and REQUIRED tripod in your roomy windbreaker pocket > on a 10-mile day-hike like you can with just one high-quality superzoom > camera. > > Image quality is not part of this decision-making equation because many > superzoom cameras already beat the image quality of any DSLR and its > associated zoom-lens offerings. See these side-by-side examples for just > one of many superzoom cameras that do just that. > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/ outdoor_results.shtml > > 1.3 lbs. of superzoom camera vs. 23 lbs. of equivalent DSLR gear. Anyone > capable of surviving on a more remote trail is also smart enough to know > which gear is worth carrying. This should also be a no-brainer for the > online idiots, but as you can tell, they don't even qualify for a > no-brainer decision-making level of intellect. This puts them squarely > in, or below, the intellectual level of reptilian brain-stem life forms. > They can reproduce (unfortunately), eat, and breathe, but that's the > extent of it. Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the point, it's just a matter of degree.
From: Neil Ellwood on 16 Oct 2009 12:17 On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:15:34 +0000, ray wrote: > On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:21:43 +0000, David J Taylor wrote: > >> "ray" <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote in message >> news:7jp4t5F370qnuU4(a)mid.individual.net... >>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:59:20 -0700, RichA wrote: >>> >>>> On Oct 14, 11:35 am, ray <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:40:27 -0700, RichA wrote: >>>>> > I simply pointed out that they could get a demo Nikon D40 with an >>>>> > kit >>>>> > lens for about $250 so it was time for them to chuck their >>>>> > sad-sack Sony P&S in the waste bin. Of course, once they saw the >>>>> > output from the Nikon, they were thrilled. >>>>> >>>>> Probably be less thrilled when they do that first 8 mile hike or 25 >>>>> mile bike ride. >>>> >>>> Yes, 1.5lb's of DSLR and lens are a killer...to a five year old girl >>>> maybe. >>> >>> One lens would be quite limiting - unless you had a lens that weighed >>> more than that. >> >> Nikon D40 - 522g (1.2lb) >> 18-200mm lens - 560g (19.8 oz) > > A 400mm or so would be really nice - that's the equiv I have on my P&S. > > >> Total: 2.4lbs > > That's a fair amount of tonnage. > > > >> David I have a 150 - 400mm as well as a couple of other lenses that I carry round when I need to. If I can do this at 77 why can't younger people do it? -- Neil Reverse 'r and a' Delete 'l'
From: David J Taylor on 16 Oct 2009 12:29
"Neil Ellwood" <> wrote in message news:PaSdneYY6P8YAUXXnZ2dnUVZ8j9i4p2d(a)bt.com... [] > I have a 150 - 400mm as well as a couple of other lenses that I carry > round when I need to. If I can do this at 77 why can't younger people do > it? > > > > -- > Neil > Reverse 'r and a' Delete 'l' Perhaps: http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/Prehistoric-man--faster-than.5734871.jp David |