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 |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
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) |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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? |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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) |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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) |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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. :-) |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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 |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
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*. |
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 |