A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old November 16th 07, 12:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Helmsman3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:32:29 +0100, "Bill Again" wrote:



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.

:-)


You have that quite backwards, don't you. The industry needs people like you
paying $12,000 on DSLR bodies that only cost $200 to make, and paying $2000 or
more per lens when it only costs them $50 each to make. Much more than they need
someone like me who only puts his money where it really matters. As they say, a
fool and his money are soon parted. I do the research first to know when I'm
getting ripped off by some company. I also test things myself instead of
depending on some self-appointed internet pros who have never been nearer to any
camera than a photograph of one online. Every camera company CEO must raise a
glass and a hearty round of laughter in your honor from the deck of their next
new yacht that you stupidly paid for without even realizing it.

By the way, you're using a really poor if not just totally illogical analogy.
The images from my P&S cameras are every bit as good as any of those from any
DSLR. If they were not I wouldn't have sold my DSLRs and lenses. I also obtain
those images just as fast and with even more precision than you can on your
DSLR. So in effect I'm getting better performance out of my Nissan than you are
out of your Mercedes. Your analogy would only be correct if my images and camera
performance were less than yours. Reality is quite the reverse to what you are
trying to portray, I assure you. You have things so backwards. But then that's
to be expected considering where most DSLR supporters have their heads all the
time.

  #72  
Old November 16th 07, 01:05 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
acl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,389
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Nov 16, 3:49 am, Bill Tuthill wrote:



The recommended DSLR workflow seems like a huge chore, not a fun hobby,
with RAW mode and the continual treadmill of Adobe software upgrades.



What would stop me from shooting jpegs with saturation up, contrast
set to high, auto or some custom curve and high sharpening? I can even
choose out of 3 different "film" looks on my camera (nikon calls them
colour modes). And who is forcing you to use anything by adobe? there
are many other editors you can use.
  #73  
Old November 16th 07, 01:26 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Daniel Silevitch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 380
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:34:46 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:
Bill Tuthill wrote:

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.


With the right software, RAW adds precisely zero extra work. I use
Apple's Aperture, and Adobe's Lightroom does the same thing. I can shoot
in either RAW or JPEG, and either way the software reads them in,
generates preview thumbnails, lets me twiddle with the white balance,
etc. The only thing special I need to do for RAW is budget more disk
space for the bigger files, and in an era of 1 TB drives, that's not a
big deal.

-dms

  #74  
Old November 16th 07, 02:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Wolfgang Weisselberg
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,285
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

Helmsman3 wrote:

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.


You run out of answers much faster than I though.


Try trolling someone else into being your entertainment.


Thanks for the hint, you really are a master of that art.


I'm smarter than you.


Smarting.
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf

-Wolfgang
  #75  
Old November 16th 07, 03:09 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Neil Harrington[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?


"Helmsman3" wrote in message
...
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.


In a lot fewer words than those, you could have just answered the question.


  #76  
Old November 16th 07, 03:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Chris Savage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On 2007-11-15, Bill Tuthill wrote:
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 don't need to be partisan about anything because I have ample evidence
that applying the same 'workflow' to files from my D200 and C8080 will
show the SLR has a clear quality advantage at any ISO under any exposure
conditions.

It's nothing to do with the workflow, everything to do with lens and
sensor quality. But this has all been pointed out by so many people that
if you still haven't got it, further demonstration is pointless.

So how does it feel to be just another contributor to the plurality of
squabbling. Personally, I feel quite grubby. How about you?

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
  #77  
Old November 16th 07, 03:31 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Chris Savage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On 2007-11-16, David J Taylor wrote:
Bill Tuthill wrote:

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.


I believe in getting things right in the camera that the camera is good
at getting right. For the rest I prefer to make my own creative choices
while processing the RAW files. I see it as the advantage of having
learned to do that kind of stuff with film in darkrooms.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
  #78  
Old November 16th 07, 03:33 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Chris Savage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On 2007-11-15, Douglas wrote:

Actually Bill... It's all a game. I post a picture and the trolls lift
their heads from slumber and generate traffic to low volume news groups.
This way it makes it easy to seperate the chaff from the hay, so to speak.


Yes. It's all about you.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
  #79  
Old November 16th 07, 03:39 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Chris Savage
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 178
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On 2007-11-15, John Navas wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:16:31 GMT, "Ali" wrote in
:

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.


Ahh. Proof by assertion. Always a winning argument.

Pretty much any decent camera is capable of taking great pictures.


You're right there.

What really matters is the photographer, not the camera.


Undoubtedly.

Bragging about a tool is a sure mark of a not so great photographer.


Does that mean we never again have to read your tedious list of "Leica
superzoom blah-blah , Panasonic blah-blah" with associated superlatives?

Please?

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg
  #80  
Old November 16th 07, 03:43 PM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.equipment.35mm,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr,rec.photo.misc
Neil Harrington[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 699
Default 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.


Pie in the sky. You will never see such a lens.


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.


Why not indeed. Why not "while we're at it" put flapping wings on the thing
as well, so it can just fly out the window and take pictures on its own,
without intruding on your daydreams?


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.


guffaw!

Please stop. You're getting coffee on my monitor screen.


So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell
to the
DSLR. [ . . . ]


I'm afraid you have it all bass-ackwards. DSLRs have come down in price to
the point that they are pushing high-end compact cameras (I despise the
silly term "P&S") completely out of the market.

I'm sorry to see the "prosumer" level compacts go, but going they are. I
still love my Nikon Coolpix 8400 and 8800, and they will in fact do some
things that my DSLRs will not. But much as I love 'em, they cannot compare
with my Nikon D80 or even my entry-level D40 as far as overall capability is
concerned. It's unlikely we will ever again see Nikon make a camera like the
8800. DSLRs are where it's at, as the saying goes, and will only continue to
gain ascendancy over the remaining compacts.

It's analogous to the SLR vs. RF situation in the 1950s. In those days most
people bought rangefinder cameras because they couldn't afford SLRs, of
which there were relatively few anyway. But within a decade or so the SLR
was killing the RF in the marketplace as far as buyers serious about
photography were concerned. Sure, they still kept making RFs, and some nice
ones too, and when auto-everything came along the little cameras got a new
lease on life -- but they had by then given up even trying to compete with
SLRs as far as serious stuff went. And they never again became competitive
at the higher level.

So it is with digital. They'll keep making compacts (and I love 'em, I'll
keep buying 'em along with DSLRs) but except for the occasional niche
camera, which by definition will be of extremely limited appeal, compact
cameras just aren't going to be taken as seriously as they used to be. What
you'll see in the coming years will be the continued migration of
manufacturers currently making high-end compacts, to making DSLRs.

Neil


 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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 03:45 PM
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR Ged Digital Photography 13 August 9th 04 10:44 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:01 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.