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 Fischer on 20 Oct 2009 00:10 The Asinine DSLR-Troll Brigade <tadtb(a)antispam.org> wrote: >On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:04:36 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >wrote: > >>DRS wrote: >>> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:4adbf5b1$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au >>> >>> [...] >>> >>>> I don't have the slightest problem with people who prefer a P&S to a >>>> DSLR. The bit that confuses me is why they feel the need to post about >>>> P&Ses to a *DSLR specific* newsgroup. >>> >>> Bob, Bob, Bob. The answer lies in your own signature. >> >>You could be right. Sometimes, people are just fuckwits. > >Proving that neither of you have one lick of intellect Writes the dishonest bigot. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: John Navas on 20 Oct 2009 12:10 On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 20:04:50 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in <hbe0kq$7es$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: >the troll wrote: >> ...I can take amazing photos with a Brownie >> Box camera too. That's not the issue here... > >Yes it is the issue. I can take good photos on my cell phone but better >quality with a better camera. Not necessarily. That depends on what you have with you, how well it fits the situation, and how well you use it. "It's a poor workman who blames his tools." >> Nobody's talking about a fixed focal-length lens camera. Except for the OP >> ...and his imaginary P&S to DSLR holy-conversion he claims to have >> caused... All >> he's managed to do is bring another sucker in-line for the expensive and >> extensive glass purchases required to make that DSLR the least bit useful. >> If a fixed focal-length lens is the only requirement then why buy an >> expensive interchangeable lens camera at all? ... > >For DOF effects, for speed, for low light performance, less distortion & >chromatic aberrations & purple fringing, more dynamic range, optical >viewfinder. Depends on your particular needs. My compact digital has the DOF control I need, overall speed superior to any dSLR, sufficient low light performance for my needs, better distortion and aberration control than most dSLR kit, sufficient dynamic range for my needs, and a superior electronic viewfinder. >> Add up the weight, size, and cost for ALL the DSLR glass AND adequately >> heavy tripod that is required to match or exceed the apertures and >> focal-lengths available in a lightweight and compact superzoom camera, one >> which has already proved to provide images even better than that DSLR. > >Yep, it'll cost a fortune & weigh a ton. However, one could figure ISO >performance against aperture in the P&S and the numbers would change >substantially. Compare a 420mm eq shot on a P&S at f/2.8 at ISO 400 with >the equivalent at f/4 on a full frame DSLR using the same shutter speed >and the noise level would match at about ISO 3200 so you lose one stop >of lens speed but gain a total of 2 stops in ISO performance for an >equivalent shot. The best of the compact digital super-zoom cameras actually have three (3) full stops of exposure advantage and a big lens range advantage over realistic dSLR kit, which means we can be shooting at ISO 400 with the right focal length while the typical dSLR user is pushed to ISO 3200 with the wrong focal length. >So you can actually take a picture of that owl swooping >through the dark forest which would be impossible on the P&S. I'm >figuring a big 300mm f/2.8 lens with 1.4x teleconverter on FX at f/4 or >without the converter on DX at f/2.8 and ISO 1600, same difference. For >wideangle I can go to 12mm rectilinear or 10.5 almost circular fisheye >and the P&S stops at 28mm equivalent. Again, there are things I can do >that the P&S simply cannot. There is a big price to pay of course. An infinite dSLR kit is totally impractical for the great majority of people, and thus disingenuous and meaningless. >> Then >> haul that equipment on a three week or longer hike into some of the most >> remote and unforgiving lands on earth. Hell, just go on a Grand Canyon >> trail-hike groomed for wussy tourists, I bet you couldn't even do that with >> the equivalent photo gear. You'd drop dead after the first 6 hours of >> walking. Or at least we can all hope so. > >I did a 10 mile day hike in August Utah heat with a 15 lb kit this year: >http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3844872974/in/set-72157621828932019/ >I did 100 miles with a super-8 movie camera 20 years ago in the same >area: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-NOmBO2TqI Bully for you. Seriously. I've been there, done that, and am no longer willing to suffer that way. -- 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 20 Oct 2009 12:28 In article <g8nrd55n30bmkar5dchv5t93ljv3k6fqbc(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > The best of the compact digital super-zoom cameras actually have three > (3) full stops of exposure advantage and a big lens range advantage over > realistic dSLR kit, you have that totally backwards. > which means we can be shooting at ISO 400 with the > right focal length while the typical dSLR user is pushed to ISO 3200 > with the wrong focal length. a modern dslr at iso 3200 will have comparable or even less noise than a typical compact at iso 400, and can go much higher. the sensor is much larger and therefore has a much better s/n ratio. it's basic physics. > An infinite dSLR kit is totally impractical for the great majority of > people, and thus disingenuous and meaningless. straw man. nobody carries 'an infinite dslr kit'. > I've been there, done that, and am no longer willing to suffer that way. your choice. others choose differently.
From: John Navas on 20 Oct 2009 13:34 On 18 Oct 2009 14:35:56 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote in <7k0necF37fbpiU20(a)mid.individual.net>: >On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:16:37 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: >> It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top >> gear. > >I don't have a DSLR and the only point I'm trying to make is that for the >photography I generally do, it would not help - because I'd probably wind >up leaving it home in favour of a more managealbe P&S. Different folks >have different needs and requirements - there is not one camera style >that is perfect for everyone - if there were, the others would not be >there. Amen. Crusading for either dSLR or compact digital is childish and silly. Henri Henri Cartier-Bresson and Constantine Manos famously used the Contax T, the film equivalent of a super compact P&S. What matters most is the workman, not the tool. -- 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: John Navas on 20 Oct 2009 13:35
On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 22:04:36 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in <4adc47c7(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >DRS wrote: >> "Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:4adbf5b1$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au >> >> [...] >> >>> I don't have the slightest problem with people who prefer a P&S to a >>> DSLR. The bit that confuses me is why they feel the need to post about >>> P&Ses to a *DSLR specific* newsgroup. >> >> Bob, Bob, Bob. The answer lies in your own signature. > >You could be right. Sometimes, people are just fuckwits. Thanks for the proof. -- 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 |