|
|
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
Hello!
I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying to make my way through this site http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...al-SLR-Camera- Reviews.aspx but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup where I might be able to get some basic guidance. So here I am. WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects, such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes) been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens. What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs). At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price is a consideration Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I wouldn't reject that ability, either ;) So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? Many Thanks in Advance! Kris K. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
|
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
"Charles" wrote in news:h0uk4r$iem$1
@news.eternal-september.org: http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf Wow, That was fast! I'm thinking that mylenses won't do - they're early- 1970's vintage. So it's good to know that I can't jsut buy a camera body - that will save me some grief ;) I saved that document for future reference. I'm also opening the website in a new window ;) THanks! - Kris |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
"Kris Krieger" wrote in message ... "Charles" wrote in news:h0uk4r$iem$1 @news.eternal-september.org: http://porters.com/LENS%20COMPATIBILE.pdf Wow, That was fast! I'm thinking that mylenses won't do - they're early- 1970's vintage. So it's good to know that I can't jsut buy a camera body - that will save me some grief ;) I saved that document for future reference. I'm also opening the website in a new window ;) THanks! Kris, you are most welcome. It's always a good idea to build on what we already have and what we already know. As to modern digital SLRs, they are mostly all very good. I don't think you can go very far wrong. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying to make my way through this site http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...al-SLR-Camera- Reviews.aspx but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup where I might be able to get some basic guidance. So here I am. WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects, such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes) been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens. For lens compatibility look to Nikon DSLRs for your 55mm Nikkor and Sony DSLRs for your Minolta lenses. Some here that are more familiar with Sony's products and may be able to say whether some lenses are more compatible than others. For the Nikkor, if it's an AutoFocus lens, you'll probably want to avoid the cheapest bodies since they don't have the in-body motor that is needed to focus screw-driven AF lenses. This means that you'd want to avoid the new D5000 as well as the very small D40, D40x and D60. Some older DSLRs that are still available as manufacturer refurbs are the D50, D70, D80 and D200. Some stores may still have a few new D200s, otherwise your choice would be between a new D90 or D300. By the way, all of these cameras have sensors smaller than a 35mm film frame (usually called DX sensors), so the images you'd get with 55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like what you'd get with an 82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same for the Minolta lenses. The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and 1.6 for Canon's lenses. I don't know what the multiplier is for Sony DSLRs, but it's sure to be in this vicinity. Sony's A900 and Nikon's D3, D700 and D3x are exceptions, all having large sensors (called FX or Full Frame) that are the same size as your film SLRs, so there won't be any need for a focal length multiplier. Unfortunately, these tend to be much more expensive DSLR bodies. They're good for wide angle photography, such as landscapes, because a 20mm lens on an FX DSLR is very wide, what you'd expect from a 20mm lens on a film SLR. But it would be only slightly wide on a DX DSLR (30mm on Nikon, 32mm on Canon). On the other hand, a 300mm lens that might be desirable for some nature/wildlife photography would perform like a 450mm or 480mm lens on a DX DSLR, which is why most wildlife photographers prefer using DX DSLRs. What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs). That shouldn't be a problem with Nikon's DSLRs, even the cheapest. It's probably also true for Sony's DSLRs, but I'm not the person to ask about them. At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price is a consideration Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I wouldn't reject that ability, either ;) Reject it. DSLR videos can be ok if you use a tripod, but for following moving subjects you'd be much better off with videos taken with much cheaper P&S cameras. So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? Here, for replies that others will provide, and DPReview's forums might be a better place. See http://www.dpreview.com/forums/ and check out these forums: Beginners Questions Nikon D90 - D40 / D5000 Nikon D300 - D100 Nikon SLR Lens Talk Sony SLR Talk as well as any others that may pique your interest. You don't have to register unless you want to post questions or replies. DPR also has very good full reviews of many DSLRs, and while they may seem overwhelming to some readers at first (there may be more than 30 pages per camera), with time and osmosis they'll eventually become very readable. Until then, don't miss the Conclusions page that's near the end of each "full" review. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote:
Hello! I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying to make my way through this site http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...al-SLR-Camera- Reviews.aspx but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup where I might be able to get some basic guidance. So here I am. WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects, such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes) been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens. What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs). At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price is a consideration Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I wouldn't reject that ability, either ;) So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? Many Thanks in Advance! Kris K. Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer cameras). You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S models. Full manual control and much more. You'll wonder why you've waited so long. The convenience and adaptability of an all-in-one camera can't be beat. No more missed shots and you'll get your live-preview of exactly what you'll get on your final image at all times. (Not to mention high-quality video recording too.) Don't listen to the throngs dSLR-pushing trolls. They know not of what they speak. Here's a good example of how an inexpensive P&S super-zoom camera beats a new dSLR hands-down in resolution and chromatic aberration problems. http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml In order to get the same image quality and zoom-reach (of the P&S camera) from that dSLR it would cost over $6,500 in lenses and an extra 20 lbs. in weight for the dSLR. This would include the cumbersome and heavy tripod to be able to use the longer-focal length lenses with it. I did the math. Since you've been shooting with ASA100 film all this time you won't even have need for ISO's (ASAs) above 400. That's the one and only thing that dSLRs are better at, at the great cost of their crippling smaller apertures on all longer dSLR lenses. The larger apertures at longer zoom settings on P&S cameras easily makes up for a dSLR's piddly higher ISO benefit. For your macro-photography needs there is no better choice than a P&S camera. You will finally be able to do hand-held available light macro photography without having to use a tripod and flash to get enough depth-of-field due to a stopped-down SLR lens. You also won't have to worry about all your photos being ruined because you got dust on your dSLR's sensor while out shooting and fumbling around swapping cumbersome lenses. This is the 21st century, it's time to ditch the outmoded concepts of the 1900's. The same way we ditched the wet-plates, flash-powders, and horse-drawn covered-wagon darkrooms before. It might take you a while to adapt and learn to use these newer cameras effectively but in the end the convenience and adaptability of them far outweighs what you've been doing all along. If you want even more control and features than any dSLR ever made, or will ever be made, check out any of the Canon P&S models supported by the free CHDK software add-on for them. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Main_Page See this camera-features chart http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures for what new capabilities each model might have, beyond what was originally provided by the manufacturer. Some models support manual shutter speeds from 2048 seconds (and even longer in the extended "Factor" shutter-speed mode) to a record-breaking 1/40,000th second. With 100% accurate flash sync up to the highest speed. You're no longer limited and crippled by a focal-plane shutter's maximum 1/250th second X-Sync speed when trying to use flash to fill shadows in harsh sunlit conditions. They also have built-in motion detection for nature and lightning photography. Their shutter response times are fast enough to catch a lightning strike triggered from the pre-strike step-leader of a lightning event. One person even doing hand-held lightning photography during daylight this way. Using short shutter speeds and the built-in motion detection to trigger the shutter at the right time. That's never been done before in the history of photography. No need for a tripod and keeping the shutter open hoping for a random lightning event. Just hold the camera in the direction of the storm, composing your shot. The camera snaps off a frame only when there's an actual strike. Some of the more amazing uses of CHDK cameras have been lofting them in weather balloons into the upper atmosphere, running an internal intervalometer script to record the whole event. A dSLR's lenses and archaic mirror contraptions would freeze-up solid at those temperatures. Some images taken from so high that you can see the curvature of the earth. Kite-aerial photography is another popular use for CHDK cameras that run internal scripts. If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot type" P&S cameras. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote: What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs). I know of no digital camera that focuses everything in the center. I have a low-end point-and-shoot that my wife uses and a dslr that I use. In both cases there is one or more focusing brackets in view. In both cases, if you focus on an object using in the focusing bracket, depress the shutter button half-way, and move the camera, the camera will retain the focus as set. In other words, you can focus using the center focus bracket and then move the camera to have what is in focus in the edge of your image. My dslr can be set to full manual. As far as I know, all dslrs are the same. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
Matt Ion wrote:
Kris Krieger wrote: So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? [...] users over another... but at the end of the day, all of these cameras will give you great results and serve you well for years, and so it's important to have a camera that *YOU* enjoy using. If it feels awkward for *YOU* to handle, or the menus are confusing for *YOU* to navigate, or the controls are poorly-placed for *YOUR* hands, then you won't enjoy using it, and the camera is much more likely to simply sit on a shelf collecting dust, where all those arguments become moot. 100% ACK. This advise above it the most important factor. If the camera doesn't feel right for *YOU* then it is the wrong camera for you. jue |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Dear Ignoring Would you mind keeping to a single ID? It becomes tiresome to killfile you over and over again. [...] So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer cameras). Most old lenses will be fully functional on most newer cameras. Famous exceptions are e.g. non-AF-S lenses on entry-level Nikons or FD lenses on Canon EOS bodies. You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S models. [Rest of standard boiler plate drivel snipped] Yeah right, keep on dreaming. jue |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
tony cooper wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs). I know of no digital camera that focuses everything in the center. I have a low-end point-and-shoot that my wife uses and a dslr that I use. In both cases there is one or more focusing brackets in view. In both cases, if you focus on an object using in the focusing bracket, depress the shutter button half-way, and move the camera, the camera will retain the focus as set. In other words, you can focus using the center focus bracket and then move the camera to have what is in focus in the edge of your image. Furthermore most (all?) dSLRs allow you to select which focus area(s) should be taken into consideration by the camera. If you know that your subject will be in the upper right corner for the next 20 shots, then set the focus to the upper right corner. jue |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 16:41:17 -0700, Matt Ion wrote:
One other thing: ASAAR makes a good point in that cheaper DSLRs' sensors are smaller than a 35mm film frame, and thus will give a cropped view from what you're used to with your existing lenses. However, I should clarify one of his statements: "By the way, all of these cameras have sensors smaller than a 35mm film frame (usually called DX sensors), so the images you'd get with 55mm Nikkor will appear magnified, more like what you'd get with an 82.5mm focal length lens on a film camera. Same for the Minolta lenses. The multiplier for Nikkor lenses is 1.5, and 1.6 for Canon's lenses." The multipliers apply to the BODY, not the lens. A 55mm lens is *always* a 55mm lens - that number refers to the lens's focal length and has nothing to do with the size of the imaging device it projects onto, be it film or digital. What the "crop factor" gives you, is a relative comparison to the 35mm frame. Yes, but it may be easier for some to say that it's a multiplier for all lenses on that body. For instance, if a lens is zoomed to 120mm, you're already looking at the lens's markings, and won't really consider the body or sensor other than to determine if you should or shouldn't apply the multiplier, and that should have been known long before. Your point is good though in that when the owners of DX DSLRs buy DX lenses, they shouldn't assume that the DX lens's focal length has been "pre-multiplied". Even if they can or will never be used on FF bodies, the DX lenses are (as you said) always identified by the manufacturer with the true focal length, never with the application of a multiplier or crop factor, which would really add confusion. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 18:08:19 -0700, Jürgen Exner
wrote: Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Dear Ignoring Would you mind keeping to a single ID? It becomes tiresome to killfile you over and over again. [...] So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old lenses that won't even have full functionality on any of the newer cameras). Most old lenses will be fully functional on most newer cameras. Famous exceptions are e.g. non-AF-S lenses on entry-level Nikons or FD lenses on Canon EOS bodies. You can do all that you want with any of the super-zoom P&S models. [Rest of standard boiler plate drivel snipped] Yeah right, keep on dreaming. jue How convenient and typical of a pretend-photographer DSLR-Troll to snip out the very part that makes you out to be a deceptive liar, or ignorant. Most likely both. Here again is the proof of your ignorance and lies that you didn't want to have to admit to, nor want anyone else to pay attention to. If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot type" P&S cameras. It looks like the data-mining done there allows a few snapshots and test-shots to slip through here and there, but overall the images are exceptional. Far more creative and interesting than anything that I've ever seen from any DSLR user's collections. That's for damn sure. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On 2009-06-12 18:08:19 -0700, Jürgen Exner said:
Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Dear Ignoring Would you mind keeping to a single ID? It becomes tiresome to killfile you over and over again. J, Don't worry about using a KF for our P&S troll. It is easy enough to recognize him from his verbiage, the clues in his full headers and his twisted agenda. Just recognize him for what he is, ignore and move on. -- Regards, Savageduck |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls
said: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Hello! I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. --------- -----Diatribe snipped------ If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot type" P&S cameras. If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch. -- Regards, Savageduck |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:48:09 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls said: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Hello! I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. --------- -----Diatribe snipped------ If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot type" P&S cameras. If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch. Yet another POS deceptive liar DSLR-Troll. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On 2009-06-12 20:01:06 -0700, J.K. said:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:48:09 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls said: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Hello! I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. --------- -----Diatribe snipped------ If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot type" P&S cameras. If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch. Yet another POS deceptive liar DSLR-Troll. Oh well! Check on the metadata on any of thes right from the site you provided: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/nikon/Interesting -- Regards, Savageduck |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:46:52 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2009-06-12 20:01:06 -0700, J.K. said: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:48:09 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls said: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Hello! I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. --------- -----Diatribe snipped------ If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot type" P&S cameras. If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch. Yet another POS deceptive liar DSLR-Troll. Oh well! Check on the metadata on any of thes right from the site you provided: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/nikon/Interesting You STUPID ****ING MORON! Can't you even see that you changed the search URL to all Nikon tags? NO Nikons are supported by CHDK. NO DSLRS are supported by CHDK. Holy **** are you ever a useless idiot. After you were born how the hell did you even manage to find a tit to suckle on. Darwinism should have taken you out, right then and there. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On 2009-06-12 21:02:11 -0700, Savageduck is a ****ing idiot and just
proved it said: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 20:46:52 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2009-06-12 20:01:06 -0700, J.K. said: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:48:09 -0700, Savageduck wrote: On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls said: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Hello! I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. --------- -----Diatribe snipped------ If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot type" P&S cameras. If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch. Yet another POS deceptive liar DSLR-Troll. Oh well! Check on the metadata on any of thes right from the site you provided: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/nikon/Interesting You STUPID ****ING MORON! Can't you even see that you changed the search URL to all Nikon tags? NO Nikons are supported by CHDK. NO DSLRS are supported by CHDK. Holy **** are you ever a useless idiot. After you were born how the hell did you even manage to find a tit to suckle on. Darwinism should have taken you out, right then and there. Hey! It's your site. Methinks you doth protest too much. Sort of hoisted on your own petard. -- Regards, Savageduck |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:55:31 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote: Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls wrote: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Kris K. Go with any of the excellent super-zoom P&S cameras (and ditch your old Kris, please ignore this loon. He hangs out in this group purely to complain about DSLRS. If you're already used to an SLR, you really don't want to downgrade to a digicam. Dear Resident-Troll, Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll bull****. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer newsgroup-troll and a fool. 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for larger format cameras. 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop): http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens. 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg 4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks. 5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results. 6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence. 7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK ) 8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.) 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html 10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive repair costs, etc. 11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street; you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks. 12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.) 13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of human history one day. 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens. 15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.) 16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature. 17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality. 18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera. 19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders. 20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically related where DOF is concerned. 21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to ISO1600 and more. 22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to them their ****-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth. 23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience. 24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day. 25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace. There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just better, all around. No doubt about it. The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 15:59:43 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote: Savageduck wrote: On 2009-06-12 17:08:20 -0700, Ignoring the dSLR-Trolls said: On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger wrote: Hello! I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. --------- -----Diatribe snipped------ If still in doubt about what you can do with any of the 45+ models of CHDK equipped P&S cameras just browse a few pages of the 9,500+ "World's Best CHDK Photos" at this link: http://fiveprime.org/hivemind/Tags/chdk It'll change everything that you ever thought or knew about "power shot type" P&S cameras. If you actually take the trouble to check on the great majority of these admittedly fine images, the metadata reveals that most of them were captured with D300's & D700's nary a P&S in the bunch. Gee, so the P&S troll was talking through his arse again? What a surprise. Dear Resident-Troll, Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts: 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for larger format cameras. 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop): http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens. 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg 4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks. 5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results. 6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence. 7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK ) 8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.) 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html 10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive repair costs, etc. 11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street; you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks. 12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.) 13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of human history one day. 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens. 15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.) 16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature. 17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality. 18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera. 19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders. 20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically related where DOF is concerned. 21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to ISO1600 and more. 22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to them their ****-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth. 23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience. 24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day. 25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace. There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just better, all around. No doubt about it. The phenomenon of the pretend-photographer usenet trolls yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:00:21 -0500, DSLR-Troll Killer wrote:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." You can also repeat your massive itemized lists that are almost never read because of the nonsense and drivel they contain 5 billion times, and they remain nonsensical and full of drivel, immediately recognized as coming from your fevered imagination, no matter how many times they're posted under different names, sock puppet. The only thing you've ever killed is your own credibility, and that happened long, long ago. How does it feel to have wasted a good part of your life doing what you can only honestly share with similarly diseased minds? |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 03:38:03 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:00:21 -0500, DSLR-Troll Killer wrote: "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." You can also repeat your massive itemized lists that are almost never read because of the nonsense and drivel they contain 5 billion times, and they remain nonsensical and full of drivel, immediately recognized as coming from your fevered imagination, no matter how many times they're posted under different names, sock puppet. The only thing you've ever killed is your own credibility, and that happened long, long ago. How does it feel to have wasted a good part of your life doing what you can only honestly share with similarly diseased minds? Dear Resident-Troll, Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts: 1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and models of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for larger format cameras. 2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop): http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic aberration nor edge softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens. 3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example: http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg 4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller. Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See this side-by-side comparison for example http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over $6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks. 5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only 1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit + accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results. 6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances, and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots you won't so easily alert all those within a block around, by the obnoxious clattering noise that your DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence. 7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation, that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK ) 8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.) 9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g. http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync without the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html 10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g. http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive repair costs, etc. 11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street; you're not worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do; and not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR bricks. 12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly. When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image; turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.) 13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved. Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a valuable part of human history one day. 14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens. 15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark, without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash come from.) 16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100% silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of reality and nature. 17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality. 18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded. In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in any camera. 19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders. 20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR. Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio (which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower. No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two methods are identically related where DOF is concerned. 21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25 and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to ISO1600 and more. 22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera, better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day, after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with. They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to them their ****-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's difficult for them to face the truth. 23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear. They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience. 24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust, and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping that you'll lug it around again some day. 25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are inexpensive to replace. There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just better, all around. No doubt about it. The phenomenon of the pretend-photographer usenet trolls yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just one short phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing." |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 17:07:29 -0500, Kris Krieger
wrote: Hello! I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". I have to say you seem to know what you want and are headed in the right general direction. You have also gotten some good advice and I believe you can weed out what applies to you and what does not. I will make on suggestion. Many of the contributors here are tend to think in terms of their own personal wants and needs and fail to recognize that other people don't always share their needs. Many of us are professionals or advanced armatures. Often we may be more interested in how to photograph a subject that the actual results. Often the typical Consumer Reports or other general media evaluation or recommendations are overlooked or rejected, when they are very good sources for the average photographer. You seem to fit in the middle somewhere, so I suggest you review both sets of recommendations and then make up your own mind. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:18:46 -0700, John Navas wrote:
Often we may be more interested in how to photograph a subject that the actual results. Then, and with all due respect, you're not even an advanced amateur, much less a professional. How unfortunate that you've returned after slinking away in disgrace many months ago. As usual, with your penchant to seek things to blindly criticize, you didn't understand the thought behind the words and took a too literal interpretation, a weakness of yours. The "we" was intended to mean "many in this newsgroup". It wasn't self referential, as you've chosen to twist the meaning. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:59:59 -0400, ASAAR wrote:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:18:46 -0700, John Navas wrote: Often we may be more interested in how to photograph a subject that the actual results. Then, and with all due respect, you're not even an advanced amateur, much less a professional. How unfortunate that you've returned after slinking away in disgrace many months ago. As usual, with your penchant to seek things to blindly criticize, you didn't understand the thought behind the words and took a too literal interpretation, a weakness of yours. The "we" was intended to mean "many in this newsgroup". It wasn't self referential, as you've chosen to twist the meaning. ASSAR, don't you have another camera manual that you can download and read so you can pretend to have used that camera too? That'll still make zero cameras that you've ever actually owned and used. You virtual-life trolls are a hoot. Anyone who's ever taken even one photograph with an Instamatic can see right through your pretend-photographer act. Most children grow out of playing-pretend by the time they are 5 or 6. Are you 6 yet? And please refrain from using the word "we" when referring to your own inane beliefs and ideas founded on a ignorant lifetime of text-only experiences. The only "we" that you belong to are the other dozen or so pretend-photographer trolls that infest this newsgroup, spewing their nonsense too. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:46:22 -0500, Troll Spotter
wrote: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:59:59 -0400, ASAAR wrote: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 07:18:46 -0700, John Navas wrote: Often we may be more interested in how to photograph a subject that the actual results. Then, and with all due respect, you're not even an advanced amateur, much less a professional. How unfortunate that you've returned after slinking away in disgrace many months ago. As usual, with your penchant to seek things to blindly criticize, you didn't understand the thought behind the words and took a too literal interpretation, a weakness of yours. The "we" was intended to mean "many in this newsgroup". It wasn't self referential, as you've chosen to twist the meaning. ASSAR, don't you have another camera manual that you can download and read so you can pretend to have used that camera too? That'll still make zero cameras that you've ever actually owned and used. You virtual-life trolls are a hoot. Anyone who's ever taken even one photograph with an Instamatic can see right through your pretend-photographer act. Most children grow out of playing-pretend by the time they are 5 or 6. Are you 6 yet? And please refrain from using the word "we" when referring to your own inane beliefs and ideas founded on a ignorant lifetime of text-only experiences. The only "we" that you belong to are the other dozen or so pretend-photographer trolls that infest this newsgroup, spewing their nonsense too. "If I had read as many books as other men, I should have been as ignorant as they are." - Thomas Hobbes |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
Ï "Kris Krieger" Ýãñáøå óôï ìÞíõìá ... Hello! I've been using a nice Minolta with Fuji ASA 100 film and a modest telephoto lens. I've occasionalyl gotten some very decent nature photos, but have had trouble getting the hnag of exposure times - and it costs more and more to develop "experiments". So I started think that it might be time for me to join the 21st century, and go digital. But to be honest, I'm totally bewildered by the myriad of choices, and the huge expense of the cameras that look like what I might want! I was trying to make my way through this site http://www.the-digital-picture.com/R...al-SLR-Camera- Reviews.aspx but then thought, WHy don't I see whether tehre is a digital photo newsgroup where I might be able to get some basic guidance. So here I am. WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects, such as backlit grass, dragonflies, and the like, such as I've (sometimes) been able to get using the above non-digital combination, BUT it'd be nice to see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice to not have to pay so much for "experimental" film shots (esp since the shops develop *everythign*, even the complete junk, since that's how they make their money). I've been *hoping* to get a digital camera that would use my Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens. What I definitely do not want is an "automated" thing that takes away my control over the photo, focuses eveythign in the center (as opposed to where *I* want the focus to be), and other such interferences. So I've been leery of "power shot" types or other types that sound like they are merely for taking nice little snapshots (as opposed to decent-quality photographs). At the same time, I cannot pay hundreds upon hundreds of dollars...so price is a consideration Oh yeah, I also am not concerned about it being able to take video, tho' I wouldn't reject that ability, either ;) So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? Many Thanks in Advance! Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography. There are good, hi-end P&S for example, if you are looking for convenience and compact size. And, there are entry level dSLRs, from Nikon or Canon, you can start for example with the kit lens, usually a zoom, and then buy more, if you feel like to. It would be difficult to find a dSLR that will use both of your old lenses;my suggestion would be to retire them, and buy all-new. I personally like Canon more, but that's my opinion. You will find that with digital you have much more control in your workflow, you'll do everything on your computer, which you have anyway. You can then print your photos, with a photo printer, or have them printed in a lab, but in this case only your "keepers", and the crap ones will just be deleted. Advanced dSLR users use what is called RAW, or digital negative, which is the raw output from the camera sensor, with as few manipulation as possible (demosaicing and compressing-you will do these on your computer, instead on-camera). You will find that today's dSLRs are very sophisticated, and you can find one that you'll like. HTH, -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 01:03:52 -0500, Educating the Idiots
wrote: snip Gee, so the P&S troll was talking through his arse again? What a surprise. Dear Resident-Troll, Your reply is completely off-topic. Bow wow, woof woof. Roll over and play dead, idiot. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
In article , John Navas
wrote: That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a result of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs and those who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the fires as well. It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive. [sigh] sounds like you're fueling the fire too by referring to dslr owners as 'insecure'. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
In article , John Navas
wrote: On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:23:06 +1000, Bob Larter wrote in : Still waiting to see some of your P&S shots, kook. You've long since made your point, whatever it is. If you keep posting this over and over you'll be killfiled as a spammer. you've got the wrong person |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
In article , John Navas
wrote: Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography. True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take great pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot take great pictures without a great photographer. but a great photographer can take better pictures with a better camera since it offers more opportunities and more configurations for what he may want to create. There are good, hi-end P&S for example, if you are looking for convenience and compact size. Damned with faint praise. "P&S" is a favorite pejorative of insecure dSLR owners that badly mischaracterizes the better compact digital camera, no more appropriate for them than for a dSLR in automatic mode. bull****. p&s is common usage for non-dslrs by the public, by stores that sell cameras and even by some camera makers. deal with it already. you keep insisting it's an insult. what were you saying about 'insecure' ? The Panasonic DMC-FZ28, for example, has full manual control, RAW mode, and more total capability than any dSLR. more total capability? since when does the lens comes off so that any lens can be attached? what if someone wants to use a tilt/shift lens or a lensbaby? ... Advanced dSLR users use what is called RAW, or digital negative, which is the raw output from the camera sensor, with as few manipulation as possible (demosaicing and compressing-you will do these on your computer, instead on-camera). ... Some do; others do not. RAW is not essential to great photography. nobody said it was essential but it's needed for the utmost quality. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
"John Navas" wrote in message ... On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:06:02 -0400, nospam wrote in : In article , John Navas wrote: Hi, there's no "one size fits all" in photography. True. More to the point, the camera is just a tool. What matters is the *photographer*, not the camera. A great photographer can take great pictures with pretty much any camera. A great camera cannot take great pictures without a great photographer. but a great photographer can take better pictures with a better camera since it offers more opportunities and more configurations for what he may want to create. Many (most?) great photographers would disagree. The better camera just makes the job easier, and a number of great photographers (e.g., Henri Cartier-Bresson) have used modest cameras. The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it. ~Ansel Adams A photograph is usually looked at - seldom looked into. ~Ansel Adams There are no rules for good photographs, there are only good photographs. ~Ansel Adams Every time someone tells me how sharp my photos are, I assume that it isn't a very interesting photograph. If it were, they would have more to say. ~Author Unknown Buying a Nikon doesn't make you a photographer. It makes you a Nikon owner. ~Author Unknown Your Camera Doesn't Matter, by Ken Rockwell http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm paraphrase"I've never handled or even seen this camera but I'm sure it isn't very good" - Ken Rockwell /paraphrase I don't think I've ever seen Rockwell and Adams quoted in the same posting. That's quite amusing. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:41:13 -0700, John Navas
wrote: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:42:18 -0700, Matt Ion wrote in : Matt Ion wrote: Kris Krieger wrote: So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's users over another... Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad. That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a result of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs and those who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the fires as well. It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive. [sigh] You poor pitiful moron. Can't you realize that they're never going to understand it unless someone mirrors their own behavior but from the opposite point of view? We're dealing with the most immature of adults here, the DSLR Trolls. Adults who can't treat others like adults deserve to be treated like the useless perpetual children that they are. It's the ONLY way that life-forms as low as they will ever learn. They'll never change by showing them reason and logic. They can't comprehend more than what is now happening to them, due to their OWN ****ed-up behavior and useless values based on their total ignorance. When they stop behaving like the useless children that they are then I'll stop treating them as such. NO sooner. This whole thing started because I've had it up to here grabbing crotch with their idiotic values over hardware. They'll never understand that the camera matters little when it comes to photography of excellence. You know as well as I do that photography is all about the talents of the person behind the recording device. A pinhole shoe-box camera in the right hands will blow away anything that they'll ever accomplish with $50,000 worth of overpriced glass and high-tech electronics. They are now reaping what they have sown for the last decade or two. And it won't stop until they figure it out. I suspect that's going to take another year ore two of mirroring their idiotic behavior relentlessly. They're that ****ingly slow and amazingly stupid. They've already proved that many times over. I suspect that's why they adamantly choose DSLRs too. This does not bode well for being one of the DSLR clan. If they're that amazingly stupid then it only follows that all the reasons they choose to buy and promote the purchase of DSLRs is just as amazingly stupid and ignorant. "Show how ****ingly stupid you are! Blindly buy a DSLR just because another huge idiot told you to!" That's the ONLY message that they have EVER sent out into the world. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On 2009-06-14 07:41:13 -0700, John Navas said:
On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:42:18 -0700, Matt Ion wrote in : Matt Ion wrote: Kris Krieger wrote: So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's users over another... Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad. That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a result of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs and those who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the fires as well. It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive. [sigh] Agreed. Many DSLR users are also P&S or bridge users. Some P&S users will never have the need for a DSLR, and there are certainly many DSLR users who will appear holier than thou in their chase for bragging rights to ownership of whatever, to justify their purchase. Each camera type has its place in the World, however the manner in which some individuals make the argument for their prefered camera make/camera type/PP software etc. creates a provocative, hostile situation, which can only be damaging to the NG. Our resident P&S troll has done one thing though, anything he posts now is mostly discounted, even if there might be some valid points made within his diatribe of the moment. -- Regards, Savageduck |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On 2009-06-14 12:18:55 -0700, DSLR-Troll Killer said:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:41:13 -0700, John Navas wrote: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:42:18 -0700, Matt Ion wrote in : Matt Ion wrote: Kris Krieger wrote: So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's users over another... Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad. That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a result of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs and those who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the fires as well. It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive. [sigh] You poor pitiful moron. Can't you realize that they're never going to understand it unless someone mirrors their own behavior but from the opposite point of view? We're dealing with the most immature of adults here, Now that is funny coming from you. Talk about immature! -- Regards, Savageduck |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:46:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2009-06-14 12:18:55 -0700, DSLR-Troll Killer said: On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:41:13 -0700, John Navas wrote: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:42:18 -0700, Matt Ion wrote in : Matt Ion wrote: Kris Krieger wrote: So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's users over another... Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad. That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a result of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs and those who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the fires as well. It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive. [sigh] You poor pitiful moron. Can't you realize that they're never going to understand it unless someone mirrors their own behavior but from the opposite point of view? We're dealing with the most immature of adults here, Now that is funny coming from you. Talk about immature! Nyaa nyaa NYAAA nyaa nyaa... So are you but what am I? Get a ****ing clue you useless immature moron. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 12:46:57 -0700, Savageduck
wrote: On 2009-06-14 12:18:55 -0700, DSLR-Troll Killer said: On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 07:41:13 -0700, John Navas wrote: On Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:42:18 -0700, Matt Ion wrote in : Matt Ion wrote: Kris Krieger wrote: So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? At this level of technology, you see, people will argue minutiae in the specs and compare things at a quantum level, and eventually you'll probably see this thread degrade into simple bashing of one brand's users over another... Hmm, I guess I was wrong... it's degraded into the DSLR vs. P&S troll battles. Which, admittedly, I should have seen coming. My bad. That is, unfortunately, what r.p.d has degenerated into, mostly a result of insecure dSLR owners who feel the need to attack non-dSLRs and those who use them, although a notable P&S troll is fueling the fires as well. It's all very childish, pointless, and destructive. [sigh] You poor pitiful moron. Can't you realize that they're never going to understand it unless someone mirrors their own behavior but from the opposite point of view? We're dealing with the most immature of adults here, Now that is funny coming from you. Talk about immature! Nyaa nyaa NYAAA nyaa nyaa... So are you but what am I? Get a ****ing clue you useless immature moron. |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
Jürgen Exner wrote:
Matt Ion wrote: Kris Krieger wrote: So, given all of that, could some kind soul perhaps direct this totally- confused newbie to a good starting place to look? [...] users over another... but at the end of the day, all of these cameras will give you great results and serve you well for years, and so it's important to have a camera that *YOU* enjoy using. If it feels awkward for *YOU* to handle, or the menus are confusing for *YOU* to navigate, or the controls are poorly-placed for *YOUR* hands, then you won't enjoy using it, and the camera is much more likely to simply sit on a shelf collecting dust, where all those arguments become moot. 100% ACK. This advise above it the most important factor. If the camera doesn't feel right for *YOU* then it is the wrong camera for you. jue Applause ....... I may be a lurker but I recognize good advice and feel compelled to say something. In the days of film I was (with momentary exceptions) a devoted Nikon user. With the onset of digital, I thought it wise to change to Canon 'cause Canon seemed to be more advanced than Nikon. I sold my F4 and F5 Nikon's, and all the associate equipment and went totally Canon. I've experienced the need of some repairs for my Canon equipment but on the whole, I've found the Canon system to be a good system. But I wasn't comfortable using Canon and I can't specifically say why. Several years passed and my pictures didn't reflect any technical problems, so to speak of. Least wise I was happy with them and since I pay my bills, that's all that counts. Yet, I didn't quite feel comfortable with the use my equipment. I'm not a pro but I do know pros. Discussing my situation with them, I was advised to think about going back to Nikon simply because I may have some sort of psychological attachment to Nikon equipment, since I've used Nikon equipment for over 50 years (I'm 81 years old and my right hand shakes). Since I have the means to indulge myself, I rented a Nikon D300, a Nikon 16-85 lens, and a Nikon SB-600 flash. A week later, I felt great. I felt comfortable using the Nikon D300, in fact I was so sold on the camera I sold all my Canon equipment and bought the D300 and the D700 Nikon cameras along with a bunch of lenses. I'm as happy now as a frog would be if he discovered he had two peckers. My pictures my not be the greatest and they certainly do not justify the money spent for a total change in equipment, but as Rhett Buttler said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Frankly Madam, I don't give a damn." |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:27:48 GMT, nick c
wrote: My pictures my not be the greatest and they certainly do not justify the money spent for a total change in equipment, but as Rhett Buttler said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Frankly Madam, I don't give a damn." In the movie, it was "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." A Southerner would never call a woman, even a Scarlett one, a "madam". In the novel, the word "Frankly" is not in the statement. -- Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida |
A newbie request help selecting digital camera
tony cooper wrote:
On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 21:27:48 GMT, nick c wrote: My pictures my not be the greatest and they certainly do not justify the money spent for a total change in equipment, but as Rhett Buttler said to Scarlett O'Hara, "Frankly Madam, I don't give a damn." In the movie, it was "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn." I stand corrected. You are correct. RB, in the movie, did not use the word Madam. A Southerner would never call a woman, even a Scarlett one, a "madam". Southerner or not, according to Wikipedia, such women in the South were not even referred to as Scarlett. They were said to be "fast." In the novel, the word "Frankly" is not in the statement. I've never read the book, however, I consider that to be an informative statement which I'll remember that for the rest of my days; for as long as I'm on this side of the sod. :) Thanks. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:30 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
PhotoBanter.com