DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:39:18 +1100, "Pete D" wrote in
:

Sounds like clumsy user to me, self confessed as well.

Sounds like clumsy ranting to me, self evident as well.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:02:50 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:

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.

This argument just does not hold water. I shoot for a number of years
with a point and shoot, when I started using a DSLR my photos got
better. I still shoot with a P&S from time to time, and I still am
getting better photos when I use a DSLR.

That's you. A DSLR better suits the way you work, all well and good,
but that doesn't make it a universal truth -- my FZ8 has huge advantages
over DSLR in handling, size, weight, zoom range, and lens speed, that
make it possible for me to get shots I wouldn't get with an SLR. It's
not a matter of experience -- I've used SLRs for decades, and it's a
relief not to have to lug all that gear around.

As more evidence that the camera does in fact matter take a look at this
photo contest site. People vote without knowing who took the photos or
what camera was used, and yet the vast majority of winners are from
people who used a DSLR.
http://www.dpchallenge.com/

When I switched from a P&S to a DSLR my scores went up.

I'm glad that works for you, but I don't think it's a good measure of
photo quality. Do you also think movies with the biggest box office are
automatically the best movies?

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:02:50 -1000, Scott W wrote:

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.


This argument just does not hold water. I shoot for a number of years
with a point and shoot, when I started using a DSLR my photos got
better. I still shoot with a P&S from time to time, and I still am
getting better photos when I use a DSLR.

As more evidence that the camera does in fact matter take a look at this
photo contest site. People vote without knowing who took the photos or
what camera was used, and yet the vast majority of winners are from
people who used a DSLR.
http://www.dpchallenge.com/

When I switched from a P&S to a DSLR my scores went up.

When my wife and I go out photographing together whoever has the better
camera at the time gets the better photos.

Scott

Well, there's just no arguing with that. If you think a better camera will turn
you into a better photographer, I bet you think that a better wife would turn
you into a better husband too. Or a better frying pan will turn you into a
better chef. Guess what? A better frying pan won't make you a better chef but it
*may* make it easier to accomplish the exact same thing. Are you able to follow
any of this yet?

Yeah .... you keep trying to justify why you wasted all that money. I'm sure
it'll sink in one day what a fool you've made of, and are making of, yourself.

Why do those who post photos from dSLRs get more votes? That answer is so
obvious I'm surprised you can't see it. Well, no, I'm not surprised, you're
pretty blind. People who have years of experience in photography migrated to
dSLRs when they went digital. I happened to be one of the exceptions when I
found out P&S cameras were every bit as good with more convenience. It's not the
camera, fool, it's the experience behind whatever camera they choose. May you
come to grips with that one day.

You remind me of that little duck that couldn't think he could swim unless he
held a "sky hook" to keep him from sinking, or that flying elephant that
couldn't fly unless he held his magic feather. What a shame if your "sky hook"
breaks one day and all you have are your lowly P&S cameras to depend on. You've
already convinced yourself that you can't take pictures with them, your camera
will be all too happy to prove it to you.

Self-fulfilling prophesies invented by fools, anyone?

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:32:46 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

That's certainly not what I'm doing -- what I've said repeatedly is
"different strokes for different folks".

if you meant what you said, why do you chastise those who choose to
'cheaping out with a sigma or tamron lens' ?

I'm actually just expressing my own opinion of the quality of those
lenses, an opinion based on lots of actual experience.

Those third-party lenses do not measure up to the best OEM lenses.

which ones? or are you claiming *all* third party lenses are low
quality, without ever having used most of them?

I've used quite a few of them, and I've yet to see one that measures up
to (say) Canon L glass.

also, many third party lenses fill a void that the oem lenses do not
cover, such as the recently announced sigma 4.5mm circular fisheye.

Suit yourself. I'll pass.

Except when paid to do so, most serious working pros won't use
third-party lenses.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:43:15 +1100, "Pete D" wrote in
:

"Mark B." wrote in message
news
"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote
in :

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.

To be honest, it sure seems like these threads are started far more often
by point & shoot users.

Actually they are just started by people that are there for an arguement.
Seems like they are getting plenty of that because very little of what they
have been saying can actually be defended so they grind into name calling
and that gets their rocks off for them.

Nicely put, Mr Pot.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:46:03 -0800, nospam wrote:

In article , Helmsman3
wrote:

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.

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.

and which two p&s cameras might those be?

One would think that a resident-troll like yourself with the experience of any
well-versed arm-chair photographer of your caliber would be able to figure it
out from the precise clues already supplied for you. Just figure out which
features belong to which two cameras.

Get to work!

You really need to start earning your resident-troll and arm-chair photographer
pay without someone always handing it to you for free all the time.

:-)

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.

LOL, high ISO is "arcane usage?"

It's not even about D-SLR versus P&S, it's really about large sensor
versus small sensor, and virtually no shutter lag versus long shutter lag.

If you asked most people why they bought a D-SLR the answer would not be
related to being able to change lenses, it would be about shutter lag
and image quality in low light.

I'm sure that nearly every D-SLR user is also a digital P&S user. The
P&S is less burdensome to carry around, but the image quality often
leaves a lot to be desired.

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
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?

HAVING them isn't the same as BRAGGING about them, which I believe is
John's point.

Craftsmen don't buy the "best" tools because they produce a better
product - they buy them because they last longer, don't break as easily,
require less maintenance, are nicer to handle, or any other number of
reasons that makes them LESS OF A LIABILITY. If you're working wood and
use a set of chisels all the time, and you buy a cheap chisel that needs
to be sharpened every day and breaks under light usage, that tool
adversely affects your productivity and therefore is a liability. So
you shell out for quality chisels that won't go dull when carving white
pine and snap if you look at them wrong.

Ultimately, the quality of the product is still in the skill, talent,
dedication, abilities, and care of the craftsman, regardless of the
tools he uses.

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.

Bringing it up in "shop talk" isn't the same as bragging, either.

In article , John Navas
wrote:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:34:49 +1100, "Pete D" wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .

Try the latest bridge cameras from Panasonic, which have not only superb
Leica lenses, but also near instantaneous shutter response.

No they don't

I'm guessing you've never actually used one -- to quote Digital
Photography Review on the Panasonic DMC-FZ8, "the actual delay between
pressing the button and the shot being taken is almost instantaneous".
The spec is 0.005 second shutter release time lag (the time between
pressing the button on the camera and the photo being taken). The spec
is 0.009 second for the FZ50.

only if you omit the time it takes to focus. pre-focusing certainly
helps with cameras that have lag, but it isn't always an option.

add in focus times and the actual shutter lag is much worse, with a
best case time of 0.3 seconds for high speed mode and wide angle and
worst case times as long as 1 second at the telephoto end, according to
dpreview.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonicfz8/page5.asp

In article , John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:32:46 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

That's certainly not what I'm doing -- what I've said repeatedly is
"different strokes for different folks".

if you meant what you said, why do you chastise those who choose to
'cheaping out with a sigma or tamron lens' ?

I'm actually just expressing my own opinion of the quality of those
lenses, an opinion based on lots of actual experience.

no, you are stating it as fact. to quote,

Those third-party lenses do not measure up to the best OEM lenses.

that's quite different than saying you tried a few and weren't
impressed with the ones you tried.

which ones? or are you claiming *all* third party lenses are low
quality, without ever having used most of them?

I've used quite a few of them, and I've yet to see one that measures up
to (say) Canon L glass.

so you haven't actually used the ones that do measure up.

also, many third party lenses fill a void that the oem lenses do not
cover, such as the recently announced sigma 4.5mm circular fisheye.

Suit yourself. I'll pass.

and use which oem lens to accomplish the same effect?

note that this isn't a question whether the effect is desirable or not.
however, for those who want the effect, their *only* choice right now
is a third party lens.

Except when paid to do so, most serious working pros won't use
third-party lenses.

that's quite a generalization, which you stated previously, are always
false.

the reality is, many pros use third party lenses because the lenses do
what they need. a true pro is not 'brand loyal' and buys the best tool
for the task after evaluating all of the options, regardless of what it
says on the barrel. many times it is oem lenses, but not *always*.