Sony tells DSLR shooters they're idiots

On 25-Nov-12 19:49, Anthony Polson wrote:
Pat McGroyn wrote:
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.




The Nikon P7000's problems were mostly resolved in a firmware update
which was released before the successor P7100 was announced. Had the
firmware update been made available earlier, the P7000 would have had
a much better reputation.

Agreed. But the firmware did not fix everything. The P7100 was an
improvement and now the P7700 has gotten things to a high point. It even
looks less like the G12/15

Because its reputation was damaged, the Nikon P7000 can often be
obtained cheaply. At a discounted price, the P7000 offers spectacular
value because its performance can be dramatically improved at zero
cost, just by updating the firmware.

I sold mine and never went back. To me it was a poor job by Nikon. Sony
got it right first time with the RX100: better than the P7x series and
the J and V Nikons as well using the same sensor.

"Anthony Polson" wrote in message
...

A pro wedding shooter is just as likely to
find that one or more of the wedding guests have 'better' DSLRs than
he/she does.

On one hand, many working photographers don't generate enough income
from photography to buy the latest equipment, instead having to make
do with items that are anything up to 3 years old. On the other hand,
amateurs with disposable incomes higher than a working photographer
could dream of can easily buy the latest DSLR and lenses.

Often true unfortunately.


What saves the pro shooter is that very few amateurs have the faintest
idea how to shoot good images,

And some do! What saves many wedding photographers is that the clients don't
find out that an amateur could have done a better job sometimes, until after
the wedding. It's not a business that relies on repeat customers, although
word of mouth can certainly reduce the possible customer base. The horror
stories of some pro's not even delivering photo's that have been paid for
does make it easier for the reliable ones, but also makes "uncle Harry", who
will not only give you prints but files for free, a viable alternative for
many.

Trevor.

"Gary Eickmeier" wrote in message
...
"Mort" wrote in message
...

When I started, Kodachrome was ASA 10, and we used a small circular
cardboard exposure guide, e.g. sunny and no clouds = 1/60th at f 6.3.
That was not too successful, and I was pleased when the Weston meter
first was available, especially with the dome attachment for incident
readings = good for faces.

Today, I meet many people with fancy DSLR cameras who never heard of an f
stop or a shutter speed. They use them as Ph.D. cameras, = Push here

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.

NOT with Kodachrome you didn't!


In digital we have instant results, but it has to be pretty much right on
or there are problems.

Less so than Kodachrome if you shoot RAW with any modern DSLR, and no more
so even if you insist on shooting Jpeg.

Trevor.

"Anthony Polson" wrote in message
news
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.

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. :-)

And many deluded by their own artistic ability believe any old crap is
"artistic" simply because they say it is.
We all make our own decisions on what constitutes a good photo, but for me
it has to be artisticly AND technically pleasing.
Blurry polaroids don't do it for me just because they are displayed in the
art gallery, although clearly some people are more easily pleased.

Trevor.

"PeterN" wrote in message
...
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.

Actually you can, that's how the cave men started. Learning from the
knowledge of those who have gone before allows you to improve your art &
craft much faster than starting from scratch and only learning by experience
however.

Trevor.

Alfred Molon wrote:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...-owners-youre-
idiots_n_2174844.html?utm_hp_ref=technology&ir=Tec hnology

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

In the UK, this year appears to be the year of the mirrorless
camera.

All of Samsung, Sony, Nikon are advertising HARD on TV.

Canon aren't, despite the EOS-M launch.

BugBear

In article , bugbear
says...
All of Samsung, Sony, Nikon are advertising HARD on TV.

Samsung and Sony are clear: they don't have too much DSLR business.
Nikon have specced their mirroless far away from their DLSRs.

Canon aren't, despite the EOS-M launch.

Probably because Canon's EOS-M is specced too close to their DLSRs, so
Canon are afraid of cannibalising their DSLR business.
--

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 11/25/2012 5:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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 ...


The images it produces have suburb tonality. My friend has the G11 and
the D0Lux6. He says he claims that the Leica is vastly superior to his
G11. BTW The price with viewfinder is about $1,200. It does indeed cost
a lot more.


--
Peter

On 2012-11-26 16:36:39 -0800, PeterN said:

On 11/25/2012 5:28 PM, Savageduck wrote:
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 ...


The images it produces have suburb tonality. My friend has the G11 and
the D0Lux6. He says he claims that the Leica is vastly superior to his
G11. BTW The price with viewfinder is about $1,200. It does indeed cost
a lot more.

My point exactly. There should be a minimum of $800 improvement over
the G11 or G12, but somehow I have a feeling his praise of the D-Lux 6
could be a tad hyperbolic.
--
Regards,

Savageduck

"PeterN" wrote in message
...

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.

Okay, okay, I was talking about color negative. It was rare that I would
shoot slide film.

Gaary Eickmeier