Point and shoots beats DSLR's.

Point and shoots beat DSLR's in number sold.
Point and shoots beat DSLR's in number of pictures made.
Point and shoots beat DSLR's in availability to people, at any time there
are more point and shoots on the road than DSLR's.
Point and shoots are often faster grabbed and ready than DSLR's.

Point and shoots make often good enough pictures.

But a DSLR make more often good enough pictures.

Both camera types have their uses and advantages. For most people
the point and shoot is choosen because it beats a DSLR on price,
weight and handyness.

DSLR's are often choosen by people who don't mind the higher price,
the weight and volume of the camera, to gain on control and quality.
It's has a steeper learning curve, but then it offers advantages.

Point and shoot are incredable.
DSLR's are incredable.

Both in their own way.

I myself am amazed what a point and shoot does offer in such a
small package for a fraction of the costs of a DSLR. But I which
the quality of the pictures was in all circumstances that of a DSLR,
but allas, there are still a lot of circumstances that I am using the
DSLR.

Ben

Fords and Chevvies beat Rolls Royces in numbers sold
Fords and Chevvies beat in numers of miles travelled
Fords and Chevvies have more available service centers
Fords and Chevvies are available to more people. At any
time there are more Fords and Chevvies than Rolls Royces
on the roads.
Etc.

"ben brugman" wrote in message
bel.net...
Point and shoots beat DSLR's in number sold.
Point and shoots beat DSLR's in number of pictures made.
Point and shoots beat DSLR's in availability to people, at any time
there
are more point and shoots on the road than DSLR's.
Point and shoots are often faster grabbed and ready than DSLR's.

Point and shoots make often good enough pictures.

But a DSLR make more often good enough pictures.

Both camera types have their uses and advantages. For most people
the point and shoot is choosen because it beats a DSLR on price,
weight and handyness.

DSLR's are often choosen by people who don't mind the higher price,
the weight and volume of the camera, to gain on control and quality.
It's has a steeper learning curve, but then it offers advantages.

Point and shoot are incredable.
DSLR's are incredable.

Both in their own way.

I myself am amazed what a point and shoot does offer in such a
small package for a fraction of the costs of a DSLR. But I which
the quality of the pictures was in all circumstances that of a DSLR,
but allas, there are still a lot of circumstances that I am using
the
DSLR.

Ben

ben brugman wrote:


I myself am amazed what a point and shoot does offer in such a
small package for a fraction of the costs of a DSLR. But I which
the quality of the pictures was in all circumstances that of a DSLR,
but allas, there are still a lot of circumstances that I am using the
DSLR.

Ben

Try a Canon G5, if you can.. While I'm sure there are other P/S out
there that match it, this one I've played with and can vouch for.



P.

"Frank Arthur" schreef in bericht
...
Fords and Chevvies beat Rolls Royces in numbers sold
Fords and Chevvies beat in numers of miles travelled
Fords and Chevvies have more available service centers
Fords and Chevvies are available to more people. At any
time there are more Fords and Chevvies than Rolls Royces
on the roads.
Etc.

And what is your point ?
Does this in any way say anything about photo digital (slr) systems?

Ben


"ben brugman" wrote in message
bel.net...
Point and shoots beat DSLR's in number sold.
Point and shoots beat DSLR's in number of pictures made.
Point and shoots beat DSLR's in availability to people, at any time there
are more point and shoots on the road than DSLR's.
Point and shoots are often faster grabbed and ready than DSLR's.

Point and shoots make often good enough pictures.

But a DSLR make more often good enough pictures.

Both camera types have their uses and advantages. For most people
the point and shoot is choosen because it beats a DSLR on price,
weight and handyness.

DSLR's are often choosen by people who don't mind the higher price,
the weight and volume of the camera, to gain on control and quality.
It's has a steeper learning curve, but then it offers advantages.

Point and shoot are incredable.
DSLR's are incredable.

Both in their own way.

I myself am amazed what a point and shoot does offer in such a
small package for a fraction of the costs of a DSLR. But I which
the quality of the pictures was in all circumstances that of a DSLR,
but allas, there are still a lot of circumstances that I am using the
DSLR.

Ben

ben brugman wrote:

"Frank Arthur" schreef in bericht
...
Fords and Chevvies beat Rolls Royces in numbers sold
Fords and Chevvies beat in numers of miles travelled
Fords and Chevvies have more available service centers
Fords and Chevvies are available to more people. At any
time there are more Fords and Chevvies than Rolls Royces
on the roads.
Etc.

And what is your point ?
Does this in any way say anything about photo digital (slr) systems?

Ben


The point, were I to make a guess, would be that you can likely look at
numbers for disposable cameras sold and get similar results.. Results
which will have nothing to do with why people buy DSLRs

"Pboud" schreef in bericht
news:RDI_i.19110$8S5.1925@edtnps82...
ben brugman wrote:


I myself am amazed what a point and shoot does offer in such a
small package for a fraction of the costs of a DSLR. But I which
the quality of the pictures was in all circumstances that of a DSLR,
but allas, there are still a lot of circumstances that I am using the
DSLR.

Ben

Try a Canon G5, if you can.. While I'm sure there are other P/S out there
that match it, this one I've played with and can vouch for.



Well by now the G5 is a bit outdated to buy. And as with all point and
shoot's it only has a smal sensor. (1/5 in size (1/25 in area) of a full
frame DSLR.)
But yes the G series of Canon are incredable. There are loads of Point and
shoots
which can match it on some points, but none which can match the G series on
all
points. But that works the other way around as wel.

I have a Panasonic TZ3 and if I do not look at quality and do not look at
DOF,
it can match a DSLR on most points and beat the DSLR on many points as well.
But quality and (limited) DOF are not unimportant.

ben




P.

ben brugman wrote:

"Pboud" schreef in bericht
news:RDI_i.19110$8S5.1925@edtnps82...
ben brugman wrote:


I myself am amazed what a point and shoot does offer in such a
small package for a fraction of the costs of a DSLR. But I which
the quality of the pictures was in all circumstances that of a DSLR,
but allas, there are still a lot of circumstances that I am using the
DSLR.

Ben

Try a Canon G5, if you can.. While I'm sure there are other P/S out
there that match it, this one I've played with and can vouch for.



Well by now the G5 is a bit outdated to buy. And as with all point and
shoot's it only has a smal sensor. (1/5 in size (1/25 in area) of a full
frame DSLR.)
But yes the G series of Canon are incredable. There are loads of Point
and shoots
which can match it on some points, but none which can match the G series
on all
points. But that works the other way around as wel.

I have a Panasonic TZ3 and if I do not look at quality and do not look
at DOF,
it can match a DSLR on most points and beat the DSLR on many points as
well.
But quality and (limited) DOF are not unimportant.

ben

Absolutely.. That said, I've got an 11/14 print off my old G2 that's as
good as anything else on my wall. I got a DSLR because the P/S could no
longer give me what I wanted; essentially, I grew out of it you could say.

the need to move to a DSLR is as subjective as anything else in
photography.. it depends completely on the individual and that
individual's needs. To compare P/S vs DSLR is usually an exercise in
frustration since they're designed for different purposes and usually
aimed at different markets.

It's like comparing standard DSLRs vs Full-Frame DSLRs.. It's pointless
since the users that went full frame did so for reasons that simply
don't apply to everyone.

P.

Absolutely.. That said, I've got an 11/14 print off my old G2 that's as
good as anything else on my wall. I got a DSLR because the P/S could no
longer give me what I wanted; essentially, I grew out of it you could say.

the need to move to a DSLR is as subjective as anything else in
photography.. it depends completely on the individual and that
individual's needs. To compare P/S vs DSLR is usually an exercise in
frustration since they're designed for different purposes and usually
aimed at different markets.

P.

Different people will make different choices.

But a lot of choices can be made objective. The reason to buy a camera
should be to get the photo's in the end. (Allthough lot's of 'boys' buy a
large SLR, because they want to show off).
But sticking with the reason of getting pictures, there are quite some
objective criteria to choose between a point and shoot (and which one)
or a DSLR (half or full frame). Money, weight and volume can be judged
fairly objective, even quality can be judged fairly objective.

What I tried to say with the thread was, that we should be more respectfull
to the other people who buy a different kind of camera. And allthough there
are differences, we should respect other peoples choices, being it point and
shoot or (D)SLR. For some people quality is premium, for other people
handyness is premium, for most people mony does matter. Some people
even know that they have to avoid plastics. (That last one is impossible in
my opinion).


It's like comparing standard DSLRs vs Full-Frame DSLRs.. It's pointless
since the users that went full frame did so for reasons that simply don't
apply to everyone.


So there can be different objectives in buying a camera, so differrent
people
end up with different camera's. Each camera having it's own specific
advantages
over other camera's. And camera's can and should be compared on their
virtues, to aid in making a choice, not to decide that one is better than
the other.
If camera's are not compared how can you make a choice.

ben

What I tried to say with the thread was, that we should be more respectfull
to the other people who buy a different kind of camera. And allthough there
are differences, we should respect other peoples choices, being it point and
shoot or (D)SLR. For some people quality is premium, for other people
handyness is premium, for most people mony does matter. Some people
even know that they have to avoid plastics. (That last one is impossible in
my opinion).

Huh?

"ben brugman" wrote in message
abel.net...


What I tried to say with the thread was, that we should be more
respectfull
to the other people who buy a different kind of camera. And allthough
there
are differences, we should respect other peoples choices, being it point
and
shoot or (D)SLR. [ . . . ]

I agree with you. I have four DSLRs now, but still use compact digital
cameras much of the time. Can't beat 'em for handiness and in fact they'll
do some things my DSLRs will not.

I don't like the term "point and shoot" though unfortunately it's become the
usual way of referring to compact cameras. The term "point and shoot" was
originally coined to describe simple, auto-everything 35mm cameras that
generally had no user controls beyond a few flash choices and a self-timer.
With such cameras that was really all you could do -- point 'em and shoot.

Even the simplest digital cameras today have far more controls than that, so
I think "point and shoot" is just not appropriate for such cameras. It is
simply ridiculous for example to call my Nikon Coolpix 8400 and 8800 cameras
"point and shoot" -- when they have far, far more user controls and
capabilities than any 35mm SLR I ever owned.

Neil