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

In article , John Navas
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:46:55 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

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.

it's just as childish to do the reverse, putting down dslrs and in

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' ?

particular, third party lenses, some of which are quite good (not all,
of course).

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?

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.

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
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.

No they don't and they have horrendous EVF lag as well and seriously bad
noise problems at any ISO setting other than at the very low settings.

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.


That would be the only thing going for them and it is only marginally better
than the OV very occasionally.

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...
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.
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 recommended DSLR workflow seems like a huge chore, not a fun hobby,
with RAW mode and the continual treadmill of Adobe software upgrades.

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.


If you are not seeing a difference then your friends are certainly waisting
their money thats for sure because many photographers are getting stellar
results using their better equipment. Oh yes and the small Pentaxes are not
smaller than the small Olys like the 410/510.

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
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."

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

"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.

Mark
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.

"Mark B." wrote in message
...
"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?


Nah, they just indicate that P&S users are insecure. If users of P&S
users are so happy with the results, why the barbs constantly directed at
DSLR user? I own & use both, by the way and I'm of the opinion the end
result has more to do with the person behind the camera, and both types of
cameras have their own particular strengths & weaknesses. Might as well
start a Ford vs. Chevy thread, that's how pointless I think the debate is.
There's no one camera that's perfect for every situation.

Mark
Agree completely taking some great shots with P&S's but use both at
different times for different reasons.

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?

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.

and they have horrendous EVF lag as well

Likewise untrue -- Digital Photography Review characterizes the preview
lag of the FZ8 as "slight", and the measured shutter lag on the FZ50,
including preview lag, was 0.07 seconds.

and seriously bad
noise problems at any ISO setting other than at the very low settings.

Noise is actually good at ISO 200, and easily reduced with Neat Image.

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

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:37:51 +1100, "Pete D" wrote in
:

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...

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.

If you are not seeing a difference then your friends are certainly waisting
their money thats for sure because many photographers are getting stellar
results using their better equipment. ...

Not "better" -- different -- and many photographers are likewise getting
stellar results using compact cameras.

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

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:21:22 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

John Navas wrote:

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."

The FZ8 does look pretty good. I think the thing that would give me the
biggest problem would be not having a manual zoom. Typically I am
shooting a canoe coming at me, zooming out as they come and then zooming
in on the next canoe. When the boats are coming in fast I am shoot about
one frame a second. With manual zoom I can zoom to anywhere in the
range in a faction of a second, which is very nice. It is also nice to
be zooming with the left hand and shooting with the right. So for me it
is the DSLR again this year.

The 2-speed zoom on the FZ8, good as it is, isn't as good as mechanical
zoom in certain circumstances, but the difference isn't enough to offset
for me the big advantages of fast lens speed, super-wide zoom range, and
optical quality comparable to the most expensive 35 mm lenses.

If you really do need manual zoom, then consider the FZ50, with
fluid-damped mechanical zoom mechanism.

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