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

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:26:01 -0700, Serge Desplanques
wrote in
2007111616260116807%desplanques@volumeen:

On 2007-11-16 14:45:24 -0700, John Navas said:

Since the lens is designed by Leica and built to Leica standards, I'd
personally say it's a Leica (without quotes).

I have a distant friend of long standing who was bitching about the
difference between modern "Leica" lenses versus the twehty- to
forty-year-old ones he still uses on his RFs (I think he has about six
bodies from the screw mounts up through an R8 digital) ...

With all due respect, I think that's just good old days syndrome --
current Leica lenses consistently score excellent in tests.

Current EVF have gotten very good, and can now do things that can't be
done with an optical viewfinder, including 100% image, visible image in
very low light, and magnification while focusing, not to mention image
replay.

How's the view in strong sunlight?

Just fine -- it's in an eyepiece -- but even the display on the back of
the camera is clearly viewable.

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

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:52:05 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in
:

"John Navas" wrote in message
news

Since the lens is designed by Leica and built to Leica standards, I'd
personally say it's a Leica (without quotes).

Well, "designed by Leica" is one thing and "built to Leica standards" is
another. You think E. Leitz has real Leitz employees scrupulously inspecting
every "Leica" lens made somewhere in eastern or southeastern Asia?

They are actually made in Japan, and Leica does indeed have people
inspecting the manufacturing process. It's no different for any other
brand being made in an overseas factory. My IBM ThinkPad was still an
IBM ThinkPad even though it was built in an overseas contract facility.

Current EVF have gotten very good, and can now do things that can't be
done with an optical viewfinder, including 100% image, visible image in
very low light, and magnification while focusing, not to mention image
replay.

You bet. Now if they could only do half those things with anything
approaching the clarity of a real reflex viewfinder system, what a wonderful
world this would be.

Seems pretty clear to me. That's as compared to optical viewfinders on
my Canon SLRs.

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

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:31:54 +0000, Tony Polson wrote in
:

"Neil Harrington" wrote:

Well, "designed by Leica" is one thing and "built to Leica standards" is
another. You think E. Leitz has real Leitz employees scrupulously inspecting
every "Leica" lens made somewhere in eastern or southeastern Asia?

These issues were discussed on a Leica forum about a year ago and
answers were obtained from Leica in Solms.

Apparently the lenses were not designed by Leica, but by Panasonic.
Leica suggested some improvements to the designs and helped put in
place a quality control system that would ensure a consistent product,
but that is all.

Any proof of that? Industry people I respect tell me the lenses are in
fact designed by Leica, and that Leica monitors the quality control.

Moreover tests of these lenses confirm that they do measure up to Leica
standards; e.g., "everything you'd expect from Leica glass"
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4597/lens-test-panasonic-leica-d-summilux-25mm-f14-af.html

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

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 06:48:14 GMT, John Navas
wrote in
:

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:31:54 +0000, Tony Polson wrote in
:

"Neil Harrington" wrote:

Well, "designed by Leica" is one thing and "built to Leica standards" is
another. You think E. Leitz has real Leitz employees scrupulously inspecting
every "Leica" lens made somewhere in eastern or southeastern Asia?

These issues were discussed on a Leica forum about a year ago and
answers were obtained from Leica in Solms.

Apparently the lenses were not designed by Leica, but by Panasonic.
Leica suggested some improvements to the designs and helped put in
place a quality control system that would ensure a consistent product,
but that is all.

Any proof of that? Industry people I respect tell me the lenses are in
fact designed by Leica, and that Leica monitors the quality control.

Moreover tests of these lenses confirm that they do measure up to Leica
standards; e.g., "everything you'd expect from Leica glass"
http://www.popphoto.com/cameralenses/4597/lens-test-panasonic-leica-d-summilux-25mm-f14-af.html

p.s. My own checking suggests confusion between Leica-branded lenses
and Lumix-branded lenses, which are different, with the latter not being
as good as the former.

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

Helmsman3 wrote:

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.


I see you made no mention of the small sensor size of P&S cameras.
Otherwise I would agree with everything you said. I would rather have a
Nikon P&S with the swiveling LCD viewfinder than a DSLR any day but
first it has to match a DSLR image quality and due to the smaller sensor
it doesn't.

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:44:42 +0900, "Wilba"
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:

Current EVF have gotten very good, and can now do things that can't be
done with an optical viewfinder, including 100% image, visible image in
very low light, and magnification while focusing, not to mention image
replay.

You left out the best one of all - histogram preview. :-)

True -- thanks!

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

Troglodyte wrote:

I see you made no mention of the small sensor size of P&S cameras.
Otherwise I would agree with everything you said. I would rather have a
Nikon P&S with the swiveling LCD viewfinder than a DSLR any day but
first it has to match a DSLR image quality and due to the smaller sensor
it doesn't.

I love those swiveling LCDs like on the old Canon G series. Too bad
Canon dropped them on the G7 and G9, as well as worsening the lens and
not making it wide angle.

On my G2 I used some of those conversion lenses, with the adapter tube,
but the reality is that those adapter lenses are not good quality (they
vary from poor, to barely acceptable), plus it's a real pain to deal
with screwing on the adapter tube, removing and storing the ring that
has to come off the camera to install the tube, then screwing the
conversion lens onto the tube. Before I had a D-SLR, when I needed the
longer or wider zooms I simply used by film SLR (EOS-5 QD), as it's so
much more convenient to swap lenses on a bayonet mount. You can swap an
SLR lens in a few seconds, while the conversion lenses take a lot longer
to install and remove.

But you're right about the sensor size and the image quality, and
unfortunately you can count the number of large sensor point and shoots
on one hand, with several fingers left over.

Neil Harrington wrote:
"GeraldG." wrote in message
...
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:43:11 -0500, "Neil Harrington"

wrote:

"Helmsman3" wrote in message
...

BTW, how many different names are you posting under?

Haven't hit on one you really like yet?

LOL, at least he keeps making everyone's kill-files longer and longer.
Hasn't been this much crap since "George Preddy" was around.

Here's my most current list:

























lid


















lid















lbo

































lid


















lid















lbo

Bill Again wrote:
"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. 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.

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.

So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell
to the
DSLR. Why would anyone need lens interchangeability if all those ranges,
precision, and capability were built into one dust-free sealed lens?
Nobody
thought that an 18x high-quality zoom lens was even conceivable just a
short 5
years ago. It's just foolish to duplicate in many parts what can be
accomplished
with just one. Speaking of all-in-1 options, CHDK is clear proof of that.
You
can do all the same things, and even more than, what was one time only
possible
by tethering your camera to a bulky and energy-hog computer. Now you don't
even
need the expense, bulk, travel limitations, and power-requirements of a
computer
if your camera can run CHDK.

Lens interchangeability and the high-ISO performance are the *only* two
thing to
which the DSLR advocates are still tentatively holding onto. And at what
cost?
Dust problems? Noise? Camera shake from the mirror and shutter? Slow
mechanical
shutter limitations? Bulk? Weight? Do I need to list all the drawbacks?

Ultra-zoom lenses are already making one of those "benefits"(?) obsolete.
They
are grasping at straws now trying to hold onto the high-ISO performance.
When
it's already been clearly shown that if your long-zoom P&S lens has enough
aperture then even that is not the holy-grail to owning a DSLR.

Yes, the DSLR *IS* going bye-bye. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter
of
"when". And to my findings the sooner the better. They're a waste of time,
cost,
weight, materials, research, and labor. Based on a design that is half a
century
old with all the same limitations that were inherent in that format from
way
back then. The only ones still clamoring to wanting a DSLR appear to be
those
more bent on status, peer pressure, and acceptance by those around them
than
actually wanting to increase their chances at getting a decent photo. You
know,
the ones who are still emotionally insecure, the ones that have to run
with the
mindless herd for fear of getting lost.

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.


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.

:-)


Well, I have driven Nissans, and Mercedes, and would much prefer the
Nissan. As for a Rolex, I wouldn't want one. Too much show, for no
more 'go'. And I don't have worry about someone stealing my Timex.
Different strokes for different folks.

"Charles" wrote in message
. ..

"Pete D" wrote in message
...


I really loved the "thousands of photos published",
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight,

That is a huge stretch. Maybe he will tell us how they were "published."
(Perhaps right after he identifies the magical P&S cameras?) He rates a
plonk.

Interesting to see that John Navas has also returned from where ever he has
been hiding and is trying to outpost the entire world, I think he must not
be stopping eat and drink, must be doing double doses of speed as well I am
thinking!!