If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
What a ridiculous argument.
A camera is nothing more than a tool to get what you want and P&S 'V' DSLR is nothing more than what the user wants from a camera. It's a bit like comparing a Ferrari to a BMW, or comparing a BMW to a Ford, or comparing a Ford to a Daewoo. "Bill Tuthill" wrote in message ... Arguments over relative merits of DSLR vs P&S digicams occupy a plurality of current traffic volume on r.p.d. In many ways it reminds me of the film vs digital debate of the last many years. DSLR partisans seem like the defenders of film, because they don't have a lot of firm evidence that their workflow is superior, except at high ISO or some arcane usage. I know DSLRs are selling well, but do these flame wars indicate the beginning of the end? |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 20:40:26 -0000, "Eatmorepies"
wrote in : It's a ridiculous argument anyway. Cameras are nothing more than tools, and both "styles" (and everything in between) have their own place in the market. I love the flexibility I get with an SLR (digital or otherwise), but there are times I just find it too bulky and wish I had a good pocket camera. Me too. But I've been spoiled by the speed of the DSLR and the quality of the stuff from the it. I look at the output from the Canon G5 and it's good, but the focus lag is too much too bear. When I read of a compact that has the speed of a DSLR I may well get the wallet out. Try the latest bridge cameras from Panasonic, which have not only superb Leica lenses, but also near instantaneous shutter response. And when I can get a waist level finder (pivoting screen) on a (Canon because I have the lenses) DSLR, I will also get the wallet out. Panasonic DMC-FZ50 -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:58:59 -1000, Scott W wrote
in : But I often find myself with just a P&S wishing it was my DSLR instead. Two years ago I used a small waterproof camera to shoot a canoe race from our clubs double hull canoe, I got some very nice photos, IMO and it was great not to have to worry about a large expensive DSLR getting wet. Last year I took the DSLR on the same double hull and photographed the same race, and the photos came out better, IMO. It took a lot more work to use the DSLR in such a wet environment, but it was worth it. Saturday I will be on the double hull once again, and again I will be using the DSLR. With the point and shoot I get better photo then if I had no camera at all. But in almost all cases I will get a better photo if I am using my DSLR. For me it's just the opposite -- the huge handling advantage of my Panasonic DMC-FZ8 Leica super-zoom when I'm out and about lets me get high-quality pictures I wouldn't get with my comparatively clumsy SLR kit. (Not to mention having a lot less money at risk.) As a result the SLR kit stays on the shelf more and more these days. "Different strokes for different folks." -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote
in : Arguments over relative merits of DSLR vs P&S digicams occupy a plurality of current traffic volume on r.p.d. In many ways it reminds me of the film vs digital debate of the last many years. DSLR partisans seem like the defenders of film, because they don't have a lot of firm evidence that their workflow is superior, except at high ISO or some arcane usage. I think it's more a matter of childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR advocates who feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs and those who use them, like wearing a Rolex to be more cool, or worse a fake Rolex, like cheaping out with a Sigma or Tamron lens on a Canon or Nikon body. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
LOL.
With a Rolex, I understand where you are coming from, absolutely. Of course, a cheap digital watch will still accurately tell the time. P&S 'v' DSLR is not the same. "John Navas" wrote in message ... I think it's more a matter of childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR advocates who feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs and those who use them, like wearing a Rolex to be more cool, or worse a fake Rolex, like cheaping out with a Sigma or Tamron lens on a Canon or Nikon body. |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:16:31 GMT, "Ali" wrote in
: LOL. With a Rolex, I understand where you are coming from, absolutely. Of course, a cheap digital watch will still accurately tell the time. P&S 'v' DSLR is not the same. It actually is the same. Pretty much any decent camera is capable of taking great pictures. What really matters is the photographer, not the camera. Bragging about a tool is a sure mark of a not so great photographer. "John Navas" wrote in message .. . I think it's more a matter of childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR advocates who feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs and those who use them, like wearing a Rolex to be more cool, or worse a fake Rolex, like cheaping out with a Sigma or Tamron lens on a Canon or Nikon body. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:16:31 GMT, "Ali" wrote in : LOL. With a Rolex, I understand where you are coming from, absolutely. Of course, a cheap digital watch will still accurately tell the time. P&S 'v' DSLR is not the same. It actually is the same. Pretty much any decent camera is capable of taking great pictures. What really matters is the photographer, not the camera. Bragging about a tool is a sure mark of a not so great photographer. Ever see a truly talented craftsman, regardless of the craft, who *did* *not* have a set of the best tools he could afford? Not that there may not be several sets of El Cheapo screwdrivers, or whatever, but when it gets down to craftsmanship to make art, the really good tools come out. The same is true with the art and craft of photography. And if you sit around with a group of craftsmen, regardless of the craft, talk occasionally gets around to tools. Professionals won't tell you that "bragging about a tool is a sure mark of" anything; they'll tell you about why they chose this brand over that brand, and almost guaranteed that those will be two of the most expensive sets on the market, for whatever it is. And they will have *detailed* reasons for their choice. The same is true with professional photographers. -- Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:
Arguments over relative merits of DSLR vs P&S digicams occupy a plurality of current traffic volume on r.p.d. In many ways it reminds me of the film vs digital debate of the last many years. DSLR partisans seem like the defenders of film, because they don't have a lot of firm evidence that their workflow is superior, except at high ISO or some arcane usage. I know DSLRs are selling well, but do these flame wars indicate the beginning of the end? Pretty much. Let us for a moment presume there is a sealed-lens/sensor design that doesn't allow in any dust. Takes images in absolute silence. The lens range is a full 180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, all with either an aperture or sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held situations in any settings. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme durability. Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments. Let us also presume that the electronic viewfinder (LCD and EVF) is high resolution enough that its display, feedback, and articulation abilities far exceed anything that has been implemented so far, optically or otherwise. Lets also presume that these P&S camera designers also had the foresight to include the options of shooting in the IR and UV portions of the spectrum too. This of course is dependent on an EVF system because no optical viewfinder in the world can accomplish this. Oh what the heck, while we're at it throw in high quality video and CD quality stereo sound recording too so you don't even need your camcorder as an accessory anymore. Why not. Poof! There goes any need for the cumbersome lens interchangeability, size, weight, noise, dust, high-cost, focal-plane shutter limitations, inaccurate and dim OVF, and all the other drawbacks to using any DSLR. Surprisingly I've already found all of these conditions met in only 2 P&S cameras (minus the UV capability and a slightly higher resolution EVF) with only 2 inexpensive, small, and light-weight adapter lenses. I've already had thousands of photos published with this combo. Not one person yet can tell that they were done with P&S gear. A whole kit of 1 camera + 2 lenses fitting into one large pocket. If these two P&S camera's features were combined nobody would think twice about buying a DSLR. I certainly never do. So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell to the DSLR. Why would anyone need lens interchangeability if all those ranges, precision, and capability were built into one dust-free sealed lens? Nobody thought that an 18x high-quality zoom lens was even conceivable just a short 5 years ago. It's just foolish to duplicate in many parts what can be accomplished with just one. Speaking of all-in-1 options, CHDK is clear proof of that. You can do all the same things, and even more than, what was one time only possible by tethering your camera to a bulky and energy-hog computer. Now you don't even need the expense, bulk, travel limitations, and power-requirements of a computer if your camera can run CHDK. Lens interchangeability and the high-ISO performance are the *only* two thing to which the DSLR advocates are still tentatively holding onto. And at what cost? Dust problems? Noise? Camera shake from the mirror and shutter? Slow mechanical shutter limitations? Bulk? Weight? Do I need to list all the drawbacks? Ultra-zoom lenses are already making one of those "benefits"(?) obsolete. They are grasping at straws now trying to hold onto the high-ISO performance. When it's already been clearly shown that if your long-zoom P&S lens has enough aperture then even that is not the holy-grail to owning a DSLR. Yes, the DSLR *IS* going bye-bye. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". And to my findings the sooner the better. They're a waste of time, cost, weight, materials, research, and labor. Based on a design that is half a century old with all the same limitations that were inherent in that format from way back then. The only ones still clamoring to wanting a DSLR appear to be those more bent on status, peer pressure, and acceptance by those around them than actually wanting to increase their chances at getting a decent photo. You know, the ones who are still emotionally insecure, the ones that have to run with the mindless herd for fear of getting lost. The DSLR will have about the same fondness in 15 years as we do when looking back on the flash-cube Instamatic from the late 60's with all its inherent faults, drawbacks, and limitations. The phrase "I can't believe we put up with those DSLRs back then," will be commonly heard. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 12:05:04 -1000, Scott W wrote:
Douglas wrote: On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote: Arguments over relative merits of DSLR vs P&S digicams occupy a plurality of current traffic volume on r.p.d. In many ways it reminds me of the film vs digital debate of the last many years. DSLR partisans seem like the defenders of film, because they don't have a lot of firm evidence that their workflow is superior, except at high ISO or some arcane usage. I know DSLRs are selling well, but do these flame wars indicate the beginning of the end? Actually Bill... It's all a game. I post a picture and the trolls lift their heads from slumber and generate traffic to low volume news groups. This way it makes it easy to seperate the chaff from the hay, so to speak. I think you need to look up what a troll is, Anyone that goes off-topic and manipulates others just for the attention that they can get from it. Look in the mirror, idiot. Outing these RESIDENT TROLLS is a full-time job. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:13:09 -0900, (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
Ever see a truly talented craftsman, regardless of the craft, who *did* *not* have a set of the best tools he could afford? Yeah, Michelangelo blamed his mistakes on not having carbide-tipped power tools. :-) Try another analogy, this one doesn't work. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Film lenses on dslr | quess who | Digital Photography | 4 | September 22nd 06 10:07 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels | arifi | Digital Photography | 11 | May 25th 06 09:21 PM |
Film lens on DSLR? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | January 3rd 05 02:45 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |