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 |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:19:36 -0700, John McWilliams wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote in : John Navas wrote: They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers. Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now, imagine, if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been with superior equipment. What "superior equipment"? My camera certainly isn't perfect, but it's the best tool I know of for my particular needs. Of course it's the best tool *you* know. That was one point I had. Do you have something in mind you don't think I know about? Oh, I don't think so; I am reasonably familiar with your form of argument. Vaya con Dios! -- John McWilliams |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
John Navas wrote: They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers. Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now, imagine, if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been with superior equipment. Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser equipment and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the operator more than the camera. |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
ray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: John Navas wrote: They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers. Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now, imagine, if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been with superior equipment. Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser equipment and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the operator more than the camera. No, that's not interesting at all: Almost everyone else, including myself, has made this observation years ago, in writing, in these ng's. Both of them. Plus r.p.e-35mm., alt.photog etc. It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top gear. -- john mcwilliams |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:16:03 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote: Helping the Clueless wrote: On 16 Oct 2009 15:38:25 GMT, ray wrote: Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the point, it's just a matter of degree. Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass, REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000. Oh bull****. You can take amazing photos with any random Canon[0] DLSR & the most basic ($100) 50mm/F1.8 lens. That particular one weighs all of about 100gms. If you can't take a decent photo with that combination, you aren't a real photographer. [0] Ditto for other brands, I'm sure, but Canon is the one I'm familiar with. Holy ****, are you ever an idiot. I can take amazing photos with a Brownie Box camera too. That's not the issue here. But then, like your capability of holding photography information in your mind, you display the same capability of retaining the discussion in your mind. Are you really this ****ing dense? Nobody's talking about a fixed focal-length lens camera. Except for the OP troll and his imaginary P&S to DSLR holy-conversion he claims to have caused, like he's somehow curing lepers. What a ****in' joke he is. All he's managed to do is bring another sucker in-line for the expensive and extensive glass purchases required to make that DSLR the least bit useful. If a fixed focal-length lens is the only requirement then why buy an expensive interchangeable lens camera at all? Proving again what ****ing fools and idiots you all are. Add up the weight, size, and cost for ALL the DSLR glass AND adequately heavy tripod that is required to match or exceed the apertures and focal-lengths available in a lightweight and compact superzoom camera, one which has already proved to provide images even better than that DSLR. Then haul that equipment on a three week or longer hike into some of the most remote and unforgiving lands on earth. Hell, just go on a Grand Canyon trail-hike groomed for wussy tourists, I bet you couldn't even do that with the equivalent photo gear. You'd drop dead after the first 6 hours of walking. Or at least we can all hope so. A creative nature-photographer requires a wide range of lenses to get the job done, from macro to wide-angle to extreme telephoto, always at their disposal. They don't have time to hike back fifty miles to go get another lens out the studio storage-cabinet or their last transport vehicle whenever they want. Why even bother with that hassle when the superzoom camera can already provide images better than that DSLR and changeable lens. That's already been proved. That's just not idle wishing and speculation, that's a cold hard FACT. No matter how much online whining that you and all the other trolls in the world are going to do about it, it's never going to change reality. But that's right, I forgot, you're just a pathetic moron snapshooter (we've all seen your crapshots, remember?), one who happens to have a keyboard and net-access. That's all you are and will ever be. One who is desperately trying to find a way to justify why you threw away all that money on that camera of yours, only to find out it didn't improve your boring beginner's crapshots at all. Hurts, doesn't it. (You ****in' fool.) We're talking WAY over your head here. People who have real life experience with real-world photography. Let us not forget, you don't even know how to even keep up with the conversation much less realize what is the right camera for the right job. While you are pondering the depths of your ignorance and inexperience, also add up how many shots, or even days worth of shots, that you were forced to miss because you had to quickly risk changing lenses during that dust storm. All in order to capture a once-in-a-lifetime image of that immense wall of sand rolling through the sunset-lit archeological ruins you were photographing one-hundred miles from the nearest paved road. You don't have one ****ing clue anywhere in that basement-living vacuous pea-brain of yours. I fully comprehend that's what I'm dealing with in replying to you, but what I don't understand is why you are so compelled to keep proving this fact to the world with every post you have ever made, or will ever make in the future. |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:34:37 -0700, John McWilliams wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:19:36 -0700, John McWilliams wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote in : John Navas wrote: They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers. Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now, imagine, if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been with superior equipment. What "superior equipment"? My camera certainly isn't perfect, but it's the best tool I know of for my particular needs. Of course it's the best tool *you* know. That was one point I had. Do you have something in mind you don't think I know about? Oh, I don't think so; I am reasonably familiar with your form of argument. You must be quite threatened by cameras like mine to feel such a strong need to attack them. Not attacking them by any stretch, John. Get real! I do know your moves.... so, check mate! Or, should that be: "Check, mate!" since we've got good Oz participation?? -- lsmft |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:16:37 -0700, John McWilliams wrote in : ray wrote: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: John Navas wrote: They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers. Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now, imagine, if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been with superior equipment. Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser equipment and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the operator more than the camera. No, that's not interesting at all: Almost everyone else, including myself, has made this observation years ago, in writing, in these ng's. Both of them. Plus r.p.e-35mm., alt.photog etc. It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top gear. Actually it does, as many great photographers have said. Oh, do please cite a few! -- lsmft |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
Bob Larter wrote:
Helping the Clueless wrote: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:54:43 +1000, Bob Larter wrote: Helping the Clueless wrote: On 15 Oct 2009 17:36:37 GMT, ray wrote: On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:59:20 -0700, RichA wrote: On Oct 14, 11:35 am, ray wrote: On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:40:27 -0700, RichA wrote: I simply pointed out that they could get a demo Nikon D40 with an kit lens for about $250 so it was time for them to chuck their sad-sack Sony P&S in the waste bin. Of course, once they saw the output from the Nikon, they were thrilled. Probably be less thrilled when they do that first 8 mile hike or 25 mile bike ride. Yes, 1.5lb's of DSLR and lens are a killer...to a five year old girl maybe. One lens would be quite limiting - unless you had a lens that weighed more than that. Exactly so. If you want to have the focal-length range and adaptability of a 20x superzoom camera, you will have to haul about 23 lbs. in DSLR gear and glass (I already added it up). Oh please. Grow the **** up. You must have missed this part re-quoted below. Or more accurately, failed to comprehend the written word. This paragraph describes you so well too. 1.3 lbs. of superzoom camera vs. 23 lbs. of equivalent DSLR gear. Anyone capable of surviving on a more remote trail is also smart enough to know which gear is worth carrying. This should also be a no-brainer for the online idiots, but as you can tell, they don't even qualify for a no-brainer decision-making level of intellect. This puts them squarely in, or below, the intellectual level of reptilian brain-stem life forms. They can reproduce (unfortunately), eat, and breathe, but that's the extent of it. Like I said; grow the **** up. He isn't able to breed so cut the guy some slack :-( Much of that is true, I often hike with about 15 lbs of gear and it is inconvenient but worth it to me. I would like a pocket size P&S for around town when I don't want to carry a bag. |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
the troll wrote:
Bob Larter wrote: the troll wrote: ray wrote: Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the point, it's just a matter of degree. Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass, REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000. ...You can take amazing photos with any random Canon[0] DLSR & the most basic ($100) 50mm/F1.8 lens. That particular one weighs all of about 100gms. If you can't take a decent photo with that combination, you aren't a real photographer. [0] Ditto for other brands, I'm sure, but Canon is the one I'm familiar with. ...I can take amazing photos with a Brownie Box camera too. That's not the issue here... Yes it is the issue. I can take good photos on my cell phone but better quality with a better camera. Nobody's talking about a fixed focal-length lens camera. Except for the OP ...and his imaginary P&S to DSLR holy-conversion he claims to have caused... All he's managed to do is bring another sucker in-line for the expensive and extensive glass purchases required to make that DSLR the least bit useful. If a fixed focal-length lens is the only requirement then why buy an expensive interchangeable lens camera at all? ... For DOF effects, for speed, for low light performance, less distortion & chromatic aberrations & purple fringing, more dynamic range, optical viewfinder. Add up the weight, size, and cost for ALL the DSLR glass AND adequately heavy tripod that is required to match or exceed the apertures and focal-lengths available in a lightweight and compact superzoom camera, one which has already proved to provide images even better than that DSLR. Yep, it'll cost a fortune & weigh a ton. However, one could figure ISO performance against aperture in the P&S and the numbers would change substantially. Compare a 420mm eq shot on a P&S at f/2.8 at ISO 400 with the equivalent at f/4 on a full frame DSLR using the same shutter speed and the noise level would match at about ISO 3200 so you lose one stop of lens speed but gain a total of 2 stops in ISO performance for an equivalent shot. So you can actually take a picture of that owl swooping through the dark forest which would be impossible on the P&S. I'm figuring a big 300mm f/2.8 lens with 1.4x teleconverter on FX at f/4 or without the converter on DX at f/2.8 and ISO 1600, same difference. For wideangle I can go to 12mm rectilinear or 10.5 almost circular fisheye and the P&S stops at 28mm equivalent. Again, there are things I can do that the P&S simply cannot. There is a big price to pay of course. Then haul that equipment on a three week or longer hike into some of the most remote and unforgiving lands on earth. Hell, just go on a Grand Canyon trail-hike groomed for wussy tourists, I bet you couldn't even do that with the equivalent photo gear. You'd drop dead after the first 6 hours of walking. Or at least we can all hope so. I did a 10 mile day hike in August Utah heat with a 15 lb kit this year: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...7621828932019/ I did 100 miles with a super-8 movie camera 20 years ago in the same area: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-NOmBO2TqI A creative nature-photographer requires a wide range of lenses to get the job done, from macro to wide-angle to extreme telephoto, always at their disposal. There is plenty that can be done with just creativity and a prime lens and more with a reversing ring or extension tubes and 3 or 4 compact lenses. I can bring a compact tele like the 75-150 f/3.5 & get spectacular razor sharp or creamy bokeh results, that just lacks AF & VR but is real close to the performance of the 70-200/2.8 and fits in my pants pocket. They don't have time to hike back fifty miles to go get another lens out the studio storage-cabinet or their last transport vehicle whenever they want. Why even bother with that hassle when the superzoom camera can already provide images better than that DSLR In low contrast full sun, compared to a cheap kit zoom only. and changeable lens. That's already been proved. That's just not idle wishing and speculation, that's a cold hard FACT. No, it's a gross exaggeration. (we've all seen your crapshots, remember?) What about yours? add up how many shots, or even days worth of shots, that you were forced to miss because you had to quickly risk changing lenses during that dust storm. All in order to capture a once-in-a-lifetime image of that immense wall of sand rolling through the sunset-lit archeological ruins you were photographing one-hundred miles from the nearest paved road. That's why I carry a backup DX body with the long lens mounted & ready to go g. How many shots have you missed while waiting for the camera to turn on & lens extend? Wide angle only possible by stitching, not enough light, etc. There are always trade-offs with different systems. ... profanity and personal insults snipped -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:11:50 -0700, John McWilliams wrote in : John Navas wrote: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:16:37 -0700, John McWilliams wrote in : ray wrote: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: John Navas wrote: They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers. Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now, imagine, if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been with superior equipment. Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser equipment and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the operator more than the camera. No, that's not interesting at all: Almost everyone else, including myself, has made this observation years ago, in writing, in these ng's. Both of them. Plus r.p.e-35mm., alt.photog etc. It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top gear. Actually it does, as many great photographers have said. Oh, do please cite a few! Google my prior posts. Jamais, jamais, jamais. -- lsmft |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:16:37 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:
ray wrote: On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote: John Navas wrote: They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers. Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now, imagine, if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been with superior equipment. Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser equipment and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the operator more than the camera. No, that's not interesting at all: Almost everyone else, including myself, has made this observation years ago, in writing, in these ng's. Both of them. Plus r.p.e-35mm., alt.photog etc. It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top gear. I don't have a DSLR and the only point I'm trying to make is that for the photography I generally do, it would not help - because I'd probably wind up leaving it home in favour of a more managealbe P&S. Different folks have different needs and requirements - there is not one camera style that is perfect for everyone - if there were, the others would not be there. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR! | bugbear | Digital Photography | 0 | October 14th 09 09:35 AM |