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

"Helmsman3" wrote in message
...
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.

From your posts it seems extremely unlikely you've ever even used a DSLR,
let alone owned one.

I must admit you had me going, though. I actually thought you were
serious -- up to the point where you said "a $100 lens can run rings around
any $20,000 lens on the market" and claimed to make tack-sharp 1-second
exposures hand held. I guess I'm a little slow this morning.

Neil

On 2007-11-15 20:34:46 -0700, Wolfgang Weisselberg
said:
What about lens qualities, like flatness of field, vignetting,
resolution, CA, and all the myriad things that can make an image
less than appealing? Especially in soupzooms like the one you
describe such things are prevalent --- even in really goood ones
(for the class).
think of the optics in the kit as a toolbox...one kind of craftsman has
a collection of well-used implements, many of which have value only to
him, while another takes extreme pride in an elegant satin-lined fitted
case containing top-of-the line items which look brand new, a third
exhibits an attitude which looks a lot like reverse snobbery: tools
filthy, dinged, tape & stickers plastered on the sides, etc....I'm not
arguing with Wolfgang here, BTW, but offering my own celebration of the
interchangeable lens mount...I really enjoy experimenting with
different lenses...the other type--the one who wants a do-everything
fixed-lens gadget, that looks like a futuristic weapon from a PS3
game--has a totally different approach, but why must it always be "us
against them"?

The DSLR will have about the same fondness in 15 years as we do when looking
back on the flash-cube Instamatic from the late 60's with all its inherent
faults, drawbacks, and limitations. The phrase "I can't believe we put up with
those DSLRs back then," will be commonly heard.

Sure, and you will be crowned "King of the World".
when the D3s and the lenses coming out contemporaneously are being cast
off, I'll be glad to tinker with them
--
"Our ignorance is not so vast as our failure to use what we know."

Bill Tuthill wrote:


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.


I do. I've compared my own 30D photos of two vacations with the ones
made by my co-travellers using a wide variety of P&S cameras, though none
were the most expensive super-zoom ones touted here as replacements
for DSLRs. But some were fairly large cameras.

There is simply no comparison in image quality; my own photos are
far better than theirs, both in sharpness and tonal rendition. I
exclusively use RAW and process in PS CS2.

On the flip side ... there were a couple of occasions where a
super-zoom lens on my camera (say a 50-600 mm 35 mm equivalent
(actual 31-375 mm) would have got a couple of pictures I missed
by having a 24-105 zoom on the camera most of the time; I was on
a horse and changing lenses while riding a horse that is climbing
mountains and clambering over logs is not exactly quick or easy!
But the in-lens IS worked great even with me on the horse. I would not
have some wildlife picture without IS; I would have had many more great
wildlife pictures with a really big white tele lens like a 600 mm f/4L IS
rather then the 70-300 IS I have.

Doug McDonald

John Navas wrote:


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.


ISO 200 would have been a disaster for me on my last two vacations
on my 30D it stayed at 1600 for very long periods,
and we are talking f/4 and sometimes f/1.4, sometimes f/1.4
for .4 second on a tripod, at 1600.

Doug McDonald

Doug McDonald wrote:

I do. I've compared my own 30D photos of two vacations with the ones
made by my co-travellers using a wide variety of P&S cameras, though none
were the most expensive super-zoom ones touted here as replacements
for DSLRs. But some were fairly large cameras.

The advantages of the D-SLR don't show up as much at low-ISO settings,
and in good light. Where I've found the biggest advantages are

a) low light situations, where the P&S models have unacceptable noise at
an ISO high enough to get the shot at all

b) where a good flash is needed (related to "a")

c) where a wide angle lens is essential, i.e., indoor group photos where
with a P&S we'd have to remove a wall in order to back up far enough

d) where a long zoom is essential, i.e. wildlife photos in Alaska

e) where shutter lag and fast auto-focus is not important

Now some of these could be solved with a super zoom, with a wide angle
lens, that had a hot shoe, but even with the super-zooms, you don't get
the super-wide-angle, or the extreme telephoto.

Try to find a P&S with a wide range zoom, image-stabilization, and a hot
shoe. They don't exist. Drop the hot shoe, and you find a few, but
nothing great. If the FZ18 weren't such a noise box above ISO 100, it
might be okay, but Panasonic just can't seem to build anything that
works well even at ISO 200, you get glowing reviews like "Very good
image quality when you keep the ISO low and the lighting up."

As long as you don't have to shoot in low light, and you don't need to
do wide angle or long telephoto, and never need to go above ISO 100, and
don't ever need a good flash (if it lacks a hot show as most do), you
can do fine with some P&S models, as long as you don't get carried away
with megapixels.

If Canon could have added IS to the G6 without changing anything else,
we'd have at least one excellent P&S available.

That said, or course I often use P&S cameras, but with full knowledge of
the limitations.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:23:54 +1100, "Pete D" wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:33:49 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

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

Those numbers are just worst case estimates. Times are much faster when
the camera is near correct focus, as it usually is, and continuous focus
is available if needed.

You'd know this if you actually used the camera.

Hey post away with "your" version of the truth, it appears to be making you
happy! ;-) Good for you.

My "version of the truth" is actual experience with the camera,
not what I think some website numbers might mean.

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

"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.

Can today's DSLRs be replaced with something else, like an EVF model? Nope.
Today's DSLR's use tech similar to a film SLR because the lenses, focusing
systems, etc originated there.


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

Same workflow as any other digital camera. Why does the type of camera
matter? Again, I don't understand why the workflows are different.


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.

When I see sportsshooters using P&S cams, I'll believe it. The DSLR will
evolve, for sure, but disappear? No time soon.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:58:28 +0000 (UTC), Douglas
wrote in
:

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:34:49 +1100, Pete D wrote:
[SNIP]

You would do well to get your brain into gear before spouting off your
DSLR specific rheoric. You only need high ISO when you have to increase
the shutter speed and can't otherwise take the picture.

The whole point of this exercise is to show that what is essencial for a
DSLR is not for a P&S. No mirror slap must account for at least 2 stops
and Panasonic's "mega IS" another 3. Straight away these things gain a 5
stop advantage over a DSLR when it comes to low light *WITHOUT* high ISO.

With all due respect, I think that's a pretty big exaggeration -- the
best comparable DSLR lenses like the very expensive Canon EF 28-300mm
f/3.5-5.6L IS USM have comparable stabilization, and mirror slap
(especially given the weight of that kit) is only an issue for critical
photos at relatively long shutter speeds.

What does matter is lens speed -- when that Canon is stopped down for
comparable sharpness, the Leica super-zoom lens in my Panasonic FZ8 will
have a 3+ stop advantage, so when the Canon is shooting at ISO 1600,
I can be shooting at ISO 200, which greatly levels the playing field.

Most noise from these sensors is easiely removed in post processing. ...

Up to a point. I get excellent results that way at ISO 200, and pretty
good results at ISO 400, but not at ISO 800 and up. But then I rarely
see any need to shoot at such high ISO, as I've explained above.

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

Peter Irwin wrote:

Ever see a truly talented craftsman, regardless of the
craft, who *did* *not* have a set of the best tools he
could afford?

Edward Weston used a $5 R.R. lens for more than 20 years.
He was pretty much broke when he bought it, but he kept
using it when he was much less broke. He did own some
fancier lenses when he could afford them, but he never
seems to have insisted on the latest and the best.

What is an R.R. lens? Certainly not Rolls Royce.
Rollei Reflex? Rapid Rectilinear? Yes, that must be it.

http://www.largeformatphotography.in...ead.php?t=6379

Pete D wrote:

Oh yes and the small Pentaxes are not smaller than the small Olys
like the 410/510.

I didn't know about the 410, having started ignoring Olympus 4/3
over a year ago, but the Pentax K110D weighs less than the 510.
You are right, the 410 weighs less than the K110D.