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: ray on 16 Oct 2009 12:55 On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:17:09 -0500, Neil Ellwood wrote: > 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? 'carry around' or hike, bike, snowshoe? I'm talking about several miles in each category - biking, 20 or more. I'm in decent shape and 'only' 64, but I am sensitive to the extra poundage - realizing that I also pack along extra water, basic survival gear, etc.
From: Helping the Clueless on 16 Oct 2009 13:12 On 16 Oct 2009 15:38:25 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > >Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the >point, it's just a matter of degree. Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass, REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000. The math is simple. Too bad that the trolls here can't even do simple math, let alone know anything about using something more complex, like a camera. The only cameras they've ever carried are the ones in their imaginations, where it has no weight or size. If it did have any real size and weight it could never fit in that little vacuous space that they erroneously call a mind.
From: Doug McDonald on 16 Oct 2009 14:01 ray wrote: > Also, these online armchair photographers who >> only own the manuals of cameras they download, never the actual cameras >> and lenses, always forget the sturdy and cumbersome tripod REQUIRED when >> using long focal-lengths on any DSLR. BUT ... if you want the same picture with you toy supersoom P&S, YOU WILL ALSO NEED EXACTLY THE SAME TRIPOD! Oops ..does the camera have a tridpod socket? If you handhold it ... is the lens fast enough to capture enough light at a fast shutter speed? Remember, compared to an SLR --- that means that if the P&S sensor is 1/4 the size of the dSLR sensor it needs to be 1/4 the f-number of the dSLR lens! If the dSLR lens is f/5.6, it needs to be f/1.6! The fact is, I do carry my dSLR and all its lenses on hikes. And I've compared my pictures to the one by P&S carriers ...even in 4x6 inch prints, mine are clearly and obviously better, technically and artistically. Doug McDonald
From: Alfred Molon on 16 Oct 2009 15:18 In article <o8VBm.3761$KR3.2802(a)text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J Taylor says... > .. but more functional, with better isolation of the subject from the > background Not so good, given that the lens is F3.5-5.6, and will likely be F4.5 or higher at the portrait range. And this F4.5 on an APS-C camera has the same DOF as F6.8 on a full frame camera - a lot of stuff will be in focus. -- Alfred Molon ------------------------------ Olympus 4040-8080, E-series DRLRs forum at http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/ http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: David J Taylor on 16 Oct 2009 15:41
"Alfred Molon" <> wrote in message news:MPG.2542e511b1a9a6b98c15e(a)news.supernews.com... > In article <o8VBm.3761$KR3.2802(a)text.news.virginmedia.com>, David J > Taylor says... >> .. but more functional, with better isolation of the subject from the >> background > > Not so good, given that the lens is F3.5-5.6, and will likely be F4.5 or > higher at the portrait range. > > And this F4.5 on an APS-C camera has the same DOF as F6.8 on a full > frame camera - a lot of stuff will be in focus. In practice, Alfred, the lenses such as you mention do provide very good isolation of the subject. I'm talking from the photographs I have taken. f/4.5 on a DSLR provides much greater subject isolation than the same f/number on a small sensor camera (under otherwise equivalent conditions). In addition, with poorer lighting, I find that where I needed 1/4s exposure with a small-sensor camera, on the DSLR I can use ISO 1600 or 3200 and be exposing with 1/30s, and hence significantly less subject movement, and hence a sharper picture. And if you want still shallower depth-of-field, just change to a wider-aperture lens. Cheers, David |