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 |
#71
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |