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 |
#61
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
When I print images from my DSLRs, I often add noise to them so they look more like traditional photogrpahs than waxed prints. Of course you do, I don't doubt it for one second. Douglas |
#62
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Bill Tuthill wrote:
Kinon O'Cann wrote: What flame wars? What's to discuss? For some uses and needs you use one tool. Other times, you use another tool. What controversy? What, exactly, do you see coming to an end? And why is the workflow an issue? Sorry, but this is a very odd post. It's just that the current-day DSLR is largely a relic of 35mm film. Nonsense. P&S cameras have been around for longer than have SLR cameras. Both have been on the market for many decades. Neither is going away because each has a use. The bodies and lenses are larger and heavier than they need to be for the APS sensors inside (except Canon 5D, ??, and vapor Nikon D3). And the lenses are far, far more limited in P&S cameras and of lower quality than SLR lenses. [...] So I'm wondering if the DSLR is a dead-end. It isn't. In field use, I don't see any significant advantage in pictures produced by friends with a DSLR, versus friends with a pocket-size digicam. Then YOU should not buy an SLR. -- Ray Fischer |
#63
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:34:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote: Helmsman3 wrote: The lens range is a full 180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, What if I want a wide angle that does not distort like a fish eye? Then zoom in to reduce the effect. I get perfectly acceptable wide-angle images from 18-36 mm with my lenses. What about lens qualities, like flatness of field, vignetting, resolution, CA, and all the myriad things that can make an image less than appealing? Especially in soupzooms like the one you describe such things are prevalent --- even in really goood ones (for the class). Already been tested. I compared the wide-angle adapter with one of my P&S cameras compared to the top of the line Nikkor fish-eye and wide-angle lenses. Yes, there's slightly more barrel distortion on the wide-angle views. I don't mind this in the least since any photo that's for publication will have some slight post-processing done to it anyway. Are you going to tell me that every image you ever photographed didn't at least need a bit of leveling? If I have to click a button in editing to level an image I see no problem with clicking one more to remove any minor geometric distortions. And, quite frankly, I find perfectly parallel sides of buildings obscene. It's not how they look in real life and they shouldn't look that way in print either. Some idiot long ago with a view-camera thought it would be a good idea to remove all perspective distortion. It doesn't mean he wasn't an idiot, and it doesn't mean that everyone who followed in his idiotic footsteps were any less idiots. CA? Ah, I'm glad you mention this. With the lens combo I found, there's actually zero chromatic aberration. Something that I have not found in any other wide-angle lenses anywhere. It's nice of you to try to find fault, but this is another reason I see no need to buy any high-priced specialty lenses. Not when a $100 lens can run rings around any $20,000 lens on the market. Vignetting? That's only apparent at 180-degree circular fisheye. A nice black circle vignette, just like it's supposed to be. all with either an aperture or sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held situations in any settings. f/1.0 and ISO 6400 or equivalent? At the same noise of any good DSLR at ISO 400? I leave both my P&S cameras set on an ISO of 200 by default. There's so little noise I see no reason to bother using lower ISOs unless I need to use reduced shutter speeds for motion effects. 400 is also acceptable but then I will use some NR software on them. 800 in an emergency, 3200 sometimes for special effects, still quite usable with NR software. Hey, come on, full moonlight is only LV-5, so that's f/1.0 at 1/2s --- not handholdable. Hmmm... I guess one of 2 things. 1) either you've never used any of the better P&S cameras, or 2) that your hand-held photography skills are really sad. I've already tested this because I have always prided myself on my ability to shoot without any tripod most of the time. I wanted to see how far my latest P&S's IS could amplify my own abilities. 432mm focal length lens, hand-held for a full 1 second exposure. A tack sharp image the result. Given that ability I have no problems taking hand-held images by the light of the moon at shorter focal lengths. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme durability. Weight? Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments. Inbuild battery heaters? Battery capacity (CIPA)? Well, now I realize by the last few questions that I'm just replying to another inexperienced arm-chair net-photographer troll that's beating off to whatever reply he can get. One that's never used any decent P&S cameras. More likely you've never used any cameras. I see no reason to waste my time answering any of your other questions when the last few were such an obvious attempt at stupidity. Anyone that had the least bit of experience with photography would already know the answers to your last few questions and wouldn't have even asked them because they were of no importance, or just plain stupid. Try trolling someone else into being your entertainment. I'm smarter than you. It's obvious by your questions. You can learn much more about a person by the questions they ask than anything that they will ever state. Your questions speak tomes about your inexperience and stupidity. What a shame that you revealed yourself to just be another arm-chair net-photographer troll. I scanned over your other questions and one or two of them actually looked interesting, and all easily refutable. They might have been interesting to reply to if I didn't realize in time that I was just wasting my time in entertaining another idiot with a keyboard. The rest of your words deleted, no sense even wasting more bandwidth on them. |
#64
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Douglas wrote:
No mirror slap must account for at least 2 stops... HAHAHAH, that's a good one. Funniest thing I've read all week. |
#65
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
John Navas wrote:
Scott W wrote 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. That's patent nonsense. An SLR can go from 5mm to 600mm, as fast as f1.2, macro to 1:1 or even greater magnification, with many times the zoom speed and focusing speed of your P&S. Your FZ8 cannot do all of that. Its advantage is only in size and portability. -- Ray Fischer |
#66
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
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. Exactly. It doesn't produce the same results that a better tool does. Sure it does... it just requires less maintenance to stay in peak condition... 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. Sure, but skilled craftsmen virtually *always* go for the best tools available. (Unless the very point is to produce something with "old" technology, which has its own attractions too.) Yes: because the "good" tools cause you fewer interruptions, not because they necessarily "work" better. In my work, I use a cordless drill all the time. I bought a Milwaukee drill for $350 because I needed it to always work, and work well, which it does. In four years of heavy use, I've needed to replace one battery because it wouldn't take a charge anymore, and I've never needed to replace the brushes. I also have the rare need for a hammer drill to make 3/16" holes in concrete for Tapcon screws. I can use the Hilti TE-15, but it's huge to the point of being ridiculous for such small holes. So I dropped a whole $20 on a bargain-brand cordless hammer drill. For the very rare times I need it, it works just fine. I can't drill more than a half-dozen holes without needing to switch batteries, and it will wimp out on anything bigger than a 3/8" hole in wood, but I don't generally need any more than that one any one job, and I have the Milwaukee for all the important stuff. And guess what? No one drill makes "better" holes than the others. They all perform the job they need to, when they need to. The $320 difference is in the convenience and reliability of not having to change batteries constantly and be left without when both need to recharge, of knowing the tool isn't going to drop dead on me if I push it a little too hard. There is no reason that photographers would be any different either. The set of screwdrivers, the set of chisels or the camera... might all be whatever is handy for a typical unskilled person, because to them it simply doesn't make any difference which one is used. For a truly talented craftsman, it makes a load of difference. Sure it does - because the better tool POTENTIALLY gives you more options. But what defines "better"? My Milwaukee is nearly useless for drilling in concrete, because it doesn't have the hammer function. My DSLR is a great tool for most jobs, for the way I like to shoot... but not for EVERY job. There are times it would be useful to have the EVF to be able to hold the camera in places I can put my head. There are times it would be useful to be able to just tuck my camera in my pocket. |
#67
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Bill Tuthill wrote:
[] It's just that the current-day DSLR is largely a relic of 35mm film. The bodies and lenses are larger and heavier than they need to be for the APS sensors inside (except Canon 5D, ??, and vapor Nikon D3). Olympus created a whole new lens system, but it is not significantly smaller than 35mm-based DSLRs, and Pentax makes a 35mm-compatible DSLR that is smaller and lighter than any Olympus. The 4/3 system was a disappointment for me - I was hoping for more compact kit. The recommended DSLR workflow seems like a huge chore, not a fun hobby, with RAW mode and the continual treadmill of Adobe software upgrades. You don't /have/ to use that workflow - I believe in getting things right in the camera and minima post processing. No RAW for me. So I'm wondering if the DSLR is a dead-end. In field use, I don't see any significant advantage in pictures produced by friends with a DSLR, versus friends with a pocket-size digicam. Depend how closely you look, and under what circumstances you take pictures. With indoor photographs - lecturers at conferences for example - I needed flash with the compact camera, but with a DSLR I can simply set ISO 1600 and avoid the flash. With the fast mechanical zoom on the DSLR I have got pictures I would otherwise have missed. For travelling light, I will take just the compact. Look closely at the images - if you need to crop or have a large print - and you can see the difference in quality. It's up to you whether the difference matters enough in a particular situation. Cheers, David |
#68
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Helmsman3" wrote in message ... 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. You might be right. But just as the cheap watch from Woolworths tells me in general the same time as any other watch, for some daft reason I prefer my Rolex. And while my neighbours Nissan takes him adequately from A to B, I prefer, silly as it may sound, driving there in the Mercedes. Daft I know, but personal preferences play heavily in these choices. I am sure, however, that you enjoy your P&S. Keep up the good work, the industry needs you. :-) |
#69
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Helmsman3 wrote:
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. In other words - he hasn't worked it out yet either! The 2 half-clues are CHDK - which is a basic toolkit for some Canon cameras with Digic chipsets - and "18x", which at this stage is available on the Oly SP550/560, Pana FZ18, and the Fuji S8000. Considering the potential cameras, it makes the trolls claims even more laughable. 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. :-) |
#70
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:42:35 +1000, Doug Jewell
wrote: Helmsman3 wrote: 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. In other words - he hasn't worked it out yet either! The 2 half-clues are CHDK - which is a basic toolkit for some Canon cameras with Digic chipsets - Yes, CHDK was mentioned later on, but not in reference to the 2 above mentioned cameras. Pay attention, resident-troll. How do you ever expect to be a better troll if you can't even manipulate obvious data better than this? and "18x", which at this stage is available on the Oly SP550/560, Pana FZ18, and the Fuji S8000. Again, pay attention. An 18x zoom lens was mentioned in P&S camera's capabilities but not in reference to the two cameras in question. Anyone reading this thread can now see you making an obvious fool of yourself. Considering the potential cameras, it makes the trolls claims even more laughable. Considering your pathetic resident-troll skills you're not even laughable, not even mildly amusing. There's absolutely nothing interesting about you nor your reply. A resident troll that's not even mildly interesting? Usenet's usual packs of resident-trolls in every group are just not what they used to be anymore. 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. :-) |
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 |