Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 2012.11.24 21:31 , Eric Stevens wrote:
On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:09:44 +0000, Anthony Polson

Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.

I think you are oversimplifying things.

Polson is simply trying to bait and corner you with his obsession to
belittle others to raise his "position".


--
"There were, unfortunately, no great principles on which parties
were divided – politics became a mere struggle for office."
-Sir John A. Macdonald

In article , Anthony Polson
says...
Shoot RAW, and you would not have to waste any time in the field
playing about with menu settings. It makes more sense to do what you
have to in post-processing because a PC/Mac and specialist software
usually produces results that are significantly better than those
achieved in-camera.

Some cameras have a pretty good JPEG output, so if you set up the camera
properly you save the post-processing effort. That won't of course work
with all shots (which is why you should always shoot RAW+JPEG, just to
be on the safe side), but with a good percentage.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 04:47:54 -0500, "Tim Conway"
wrote:


"Neil Ellwood" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 09:03:49 +0100, Alfred Molon wrote:

In article , Alan Browne
says...
f/16 x 1/125 - sunny f/11 x 1/125 - part cloudy f/8 x 1/125 -
cloudy

etc.. ...

As a kid that's all I needed....

Doesn't this rule depend on location and time? The sun in Sweden is
different from the sun in the tropics, and the sun at noon different
from the sun in the evening.

It also depends on the speed of the film.


That *is* based on the film speed. The "sunny 16" rule is f16 at 1/125 for
100 speed film....200 speed would be 1/250...400 speed would be 1/500 etc.

A small point. That rule has been around for far longer than the ISO
speed ratings. If my memory serves me correctly it originally applied
to the Weston rating of films.

See http://www.westonmeter.org.uk/speeds.htm for a comparison.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/25/2012 12:04 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , Gary Eickmeier
wrote:

We got away with a lot of sins on exposure in the film days because of the
latitude it had. They could correct for a few stops of exposure error. In
digital we have instant results, but it has to be pretty much right on or
there are problems.

it's the other way around. film has *less* latitude and is less
forgiving of errors. digital lets people be sloppy, because it's
relatively easy to fix things in post.

I find shooting in RAW gives me a two stop latitude. while you may be
right about some B&W, I don't recall color slide film being that forgiving.

--
Peter

On 11/24/2012 11:32 PM, Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Pat McGroyn wrote:

He should probably wait for the next version of the G1X. The current
one, while pretty good, was rush released. There is a lot of room for
improvement.

That is quite an understatement!

I'll admit that some G1X photos are impressive. An enlarged face in a
group can be quite sharp when everything goes right. "Good" photos are
better than those from my old G11.

The most serious problem I find is that the closest point the G1X will
focus at maximum zoom, is the optimum point to make a portrait. At some
critical point it may show a face in focus when partially depressing the
shutter release, but jumps focus to the background when completely
pressing the button.

Also frustrating is the slow response of the shutter. Many times I've
had people move out of the frame before it reacted.

I see Canon released a G15 in time for holiday shopping. I doubt it is
the next version of the G1X, because of its relatively low price.

Please forgive me for hijacking the thread!


This P&S beats the G11.
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/compact_cameras/d-lux_6/

Cost with an EVF is about $1,200.



--
Peter

On 11/25/2012 3:00 AM, Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , PeterN
says...
The so called rules are starting points. Strict adherence would classify
photography as a craft, not an art.

Yes, although part of photography is indeed a craft.


True! The artist has to know what to to, to obtain the wanted image.


--
Peter

On Sun, 25 Nov 2012 10:30:23 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:09:44 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...r=Tec hnology

Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
knowing how to use their camera.

Well, there are lots of things I am still learning about by D300.


Technical things? If so, you are probably wasting your time.

Someone with artistic ability can learn enough about the technical
aspects of photography to produce memorable images in a relatively
short time.

Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.

I think you are oversimplifying things.


When you do something for a living, and it is your primary source of
income, it makes sense to keep it as simple as practicable. I do not
have the time to overcomplicate things.

Nor do you apparently have time to study the details of your camera's
menu or even to try and understand what I have been saying.


I'm not seeking the
combination of menu settings that turn me into a master photographer.
I'm exploring the things that the often strange things that the
various menu settings enable me to do.


Shoot RAW, and you would not have to waste any time in the field
playing about with menu settings. It makes more sense to do what you
have to in post-processing because a PC/Mac and specialist software
usually produces results that are significantly better than those
achieved in-camera.

I shoot RAW virtually all of the time and have done since I bought an
early D70. I'm disconcerted that you can only think of fiddling with
the captured image in the context of my remarks. I was in fact
referring to all the various things that the camera lets me do with
the process of capturing. These include the various methods of
controlling the up to 51 point autofocussing; the enormous number of
things the 'Commander' mode control of a flash system enables you to
do in conjunction with the camera; exposure metering (with various
lenses); all the tricks you can play with bracketing and multiple
exposures, including HDR; time lapse photography; the opportunitiesr
opened up by live view ... there are many other things to explore.


The fundamental problem is that the person with a technical background
thinks that all they need to learn about "art" is how to apply some
arbitrary rules of composition. :-)

You have described a person without either visual imagination or
creativity.


Precisely correct.


It has nothing to with whether or not they have a
technical background.


Experience shows that artistic ability and a technical background tend
to be mutually exclusive. Note 'tend to be'. My point was that you
can fairly easily teach someone with artistic ability enough about the
technology for them to be able to make good art with a camera.

It is far more difficult for someone with a technical background to
make good art. It is often completely impracticable to teach them.

They either have it or they don't, and online forums such as this tend
to be populated with the latter, as the SI entries would attest.

Once again, note 'tend to be'.

In my youth I had many friends who were artists, a number of whom have
gone on to considerable fame. One thing I did learn from them was that
"good art" tended to be art that they liked. Beyond that, they had
little agreement.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 11/25/2012 5:30 AM, Anthony Polson wrote:
Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 22:09:44 +0000, Anthony Polson
wrote:

Eric Stevens wrote:

On Sat, 24 Nov 2012 11:13:09 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...r=Tec hnology

Probably there is some truth behind it, i.e. lots of DSLR shooters not
knowing how to use their camera.

Well, there are lots of things I am still learning about by D300.


Technical things? If so, you are probably wasting your time.

Someone with artistic ability can learn enough about the technical
aspects of photography to produce memorable images in a relatively
short time.

Someone with a technical background can learn as much as they want
about the technical aspects of photography but still not have a clue
about how to produce an image that catches the eye, makes an
impression, amuses, pleases or shocks someone.

I think you are oversimplifying things.


When you do something for a living, and it is your primary source of
income, it makes sense to keep it as simple as practicable. I do not
have the time to overcomplicate things.


While on paid leave, or between jobs?
Hmmnn



I'm not seeking the
combination of menu settings that turn me into a master photographer.
I'm exploring the things that the often strange things that the
various menu settings enable me to do.


Shoot RAW, and you would not have to waste any time in the field
playing about with menu settings. It makes more sense to do what you
have to in post-processing because a PC/Mac and specialist software
usually produces results that are significantly better than those
achieved in-camera.


The fundamental problem is that the person with a technical background
thinks that all they need to learn about "art" is how to apply some
arbitrary rules of composition. :-)

You have described a person without either visual imagination or
creativity.


Precisely correct.


It has nothing to with whether or not they have a
technical background.


Experience shows that artistic ability and a technical background tend
to be mutually exclusive. Note 'tend to be'. My point was that you
can fairly easily teach someone with artistic ability enough about the
technology for them to be able to make good art with a camera.

It is far more difficult for someone with a technical background to
make good art. It is often completely impracticable to teach them.

They either have it or they don't, and online forums such as this tend
to be populated with the latter, as the SI entries would attest.

Once again, note 'tend to be'.





--
Peter

On 2012-11-25 11:33:26 -0800, PeterN said:

On 11/24/2012 11:32 PM, Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Pat McGroyn wrote:

He should probably wait for the next version of the G1X. The current
one, while pretty good, was rush released. There is a lot of room for
improvement.

That is quite an understatement!

I'll admit that some G1X photos are impressive. An enlarged face in a
group can be quite sharp when everything goes right. "Good" photos are
better than those from my old G11.

The most serious problem I find is that the closest point the G1X will
focus at maximum zoom, is the optimum point to make a portrait. At some
critical point it may show a face in focus when partially depressing the
shutter release, but jumps focus to the background when completely
pressing the button.

Also frustrating is the slow response of the shutter. Many times I've
had people move out of the frame before it reacted.

I see Canon released a G15 in time for holiday shopping. I doubt it is
the next version of the G1X, because of its relatively low price.

Please forgive me for hijacking the thread!


This P&S beats the G11.
http://us.leica-camera.com/photography/compact_cameras/d-lux_6/

Cost with an EVF is about $1,200.

Now if only the Leica was priced at $400, given that we are talking
about the same size (1/1.7 cm 10.1 effective MP CCD v. CMOS) sensor in
both cameras. Very different lenses, for sure, but for my purposes of
having a second string compact available, the now 3 year old G11 works
just fine within my budget.
I doubt that there is $800 improvement of IQ with the, very appealing D-Lux 6.
Now if it was to be used as one's only camera ...

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 24-Nov-12 23:32, Fred McKenzie wrote:
In article ,
Pat McGroyn wrote:

He should probably wait for the next version of the G1X. The current
one, while pretty good, was rush released. There is a lot of room for
improvement.

That is quite an understatement!

I'll admit that some G1X photos are impressive. An enlarged face in a
group can be quite sharp when everything goes right. "Good" photos are
better than those from my old G11.

The most serious problem I find is that the closest point the G1X will
focus at maximum zoom, is the optimum point to make a portrait. At some
critical point it may show a face in focus when partially depressing the
shutter release, but jumps focus to the background when completely
pressing the button.

Also frustrating is the slow response of the shutter. Many times I've
had people move out of the frame before it reacted.

You are exactly right on all points. I can't understand how these issues
have not been fixed yet with a firmware update. The AF is a particular
issue as is the terrible macro functionality. A good deal of these
problems were also found in the P7000 from Nikon which has a much
smaller sensor. They were resolved mostly in newer models. I am hoping
the "G2X" will take care of things. If Sony can put in advanced
functionality in an even smaller footprint, why can't Canon?

I see Canon released a G15 in time for holiday shopping. I doubt it is
the next version of the G1X, because of its relatively low price.

And the small sensor. The G15 is the successor to the G12. Great camera,
but it does not have the large sensor like the G1X.