Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
t...
The benefits of that much more cost are not proportional.

Hands up those who consider that something unusual, for *any* product type?

For small
prints not needing adjustments, the P&S is a much better value but for
large prints and challenging conditions the DSLR is clearly a better
performer.

So for demanding photographers an SLR is more useful than a P&S, who would
have thought!
(oh wait, millions of SLR users actually!)

Those whose needs are fully met by any P&S camera are indeed lucky IMO.
I'll bet they just spend the savings on some other hobby instead though. :-)

Still I can't help but notice most peoples needs are satisfied by their
camera phones these days. Quality photographs have never been a high
priority for most people.

MrT.

Mr.T wrote:
"Paul Furman" wrote in message
t...
The benefits of that much more cost are not proportional.

Hands up those who consider that something unusual, for *any* product type?

For small
prints not needing adjustments, the P&S is a much better value but for
large prints and challenging conditions the DSLR is clearly a better
performer.

So for demanding photographers an SLR is more useful than a P&S, who would
have thought!
(oh wait, millions of SLR users actually!)

Those whose needs are fully met by any P&S camera are indeed lucky IMO.
I'll bet they just spend the savings on some other hobby instead though. :-)

Still I can't help but notice most peoples needs are satisfied by their
camera phones these days. Quality photographs have never been a high
priority for most people.

Bring back 110 and 126 cartridges, and discs.

On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 21:09:37 -0700, the SMS shill wrote:

LOL! Even Ken Rockwell says, "Sucks to be you, Point and ****ters !!!"

I put Ken Rockwell right up there with ASAAR in terms of providing
accurate information, but even Rockwell gets it right occasionally.

Ha! I'm happy to note that the many corrections of your gross
misstatements and lies evidently smarts enough for you to care so
much. If Rockwell was wrong 1/10th as often as you, you wouldn't be
aware of his website or who he is.

"Mr.T" MrT@home wrote in message
...

"Paul Furman" wrote in message
t...
The benefits of that much more cost are not proportional.

Hands up those who consider that something unusual, for *any* product
type?

For small
prints not needing adjustments, the P&S is a much better value but for
large prints and challenging conditions the DSLR is clearly a better
performer.

So for demanding photographers an SLR is more useful than a P&S, who would
have thought!
(oh wait, millions of SLR users actually!)

Those whose needs are fully met by any P&S camera are indeed lucky IMO.
I'll bet they just spend the savings on some other hobby instead though.
:-)

Still I can't help but notice most peoples needs are satisfied by their
camera phones these days. Quality photographs have never been a high
priority for most people.

MrT.


What is it that interests people in a photograph?
One word - content.

The rest only allows you to enlarge, clarify or publish. You only have to
look at news photos arriving at the newspaper via video or fax. If the
content is there, that overrides any image defects that may be present.

Those perfectionists who demand and often spend weeks creating a technically
perfect image don't actually make a living out of their work.

One of the lines of my business is clocks... Photo clocks cute little baby
birds, railway engines and amusing pictures. I sell 'em by the hundred,
occasionally by the thousand.

Once the images meet a certain level for quality, they have to meet a
"content" measurement because that's what sells. The content. If you can't
capture an opportunist photo or one that produces an Ohhh, Arrrr from a
viewer, you join the *elite* few who spend their life in envy of people who
make a living doing what they want to do but their perfectionist nature
prevents them from doing.

Doug

David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote:
On Oct 4, 6:50 pm, "David Ruether" wrote:
I should have this up in an hour or so, but I will put up comparison
photos atwww.doughicksphotography.com/comparison.htm.
of a D1x with an 18-70mm at 18mm and f4 and a Sony 707 at
10mm and f4.5 (about the same angle of view).
Oh boy, dueling Mavicas!

Shooting the F707 stopped down more than two stops vs. the Nikon at 1/3 stop
from wide open tells you that the photographer was trying to make the Nikon
look bad. Shooting the Sony at f/5.6 and the Nikon at f/11 would be a more
interesting test.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan


It may be more interesting but it wouldn't be as objective.
It is not Sony's fault that the Nikon lens isn't as fast as the Sony.
If you have to start biasing the shooting conditions to favor one camera
or the other you have ruined the objectivity of the experiment.
Each camera should be tested under as close to the same conditions as
possible under bright lighting where each camera can "show its stuff".
Bob Williams

"Bob Williams" wrote:
David J. Littleboy wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote:
On Oct 4, 6:50 pm, "David Ruether" wrote:
I should have this up in an hour or so, but I will put up comparison
photos atwww.doughicksphotography.com/comparison.htm.
of a D1x with an 18-70mm at 18mm and f4 and a Sony 707 at
10mm and f4.5 (about the same angle of view).
Oh boy, dueling Mavicas!

Shooting the F707 stopped down more than two stops vs. the Nikon at 1/3
stop from wide open tells you that the photographer was trying to make
the Nikon look bad. Shooting the Sony at f/5.6 and the Nikon at f/11
would be a more interesting test.

It may be more interesting but it wouldn't be as objective.

Sure it would be. It would show both at their best. And those are the f
stops that a competent photographer would use for that shot with those
cameras.

It is not Sony's fault that the Nikon lens isn't as fast as the Sony.

No. It's the idiot user's fault for using a cheap consumer zoom on the
Nikon.

Each camera should be tested under as close to the same conditions as
possible under bright lighting where each camera can "show its stuff".

Which is what I suggested. It's not what the bloke who took the shots did.

Back when I was using an F707 and the Canon D30 came out, we thought that
spending US$3,000 on a 3MP camera was pretty dumb. But it turns out that
8x10 prints from the D30 look way better than 8x10 prints from the F707.

The F707 was a fun camera. But it's nowhere close to any of the 6MP dSLRs.

David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan

"D-Mac" wrote in message
...
What is it that interests people in a photograph?
One word - content.

The rest only allows you to enlarge, clarify or publish. You only have to
look at news photos arriving at the newspaper via video or fax. If the
content is there, that overrides any image defects that may be present.

Those perfectionists who demand and often spend weeks creating a
technically
perfect image don't actually make a living out of their work.

In fact there has always been a market for quality Technical/Commercial
photography.
Not to mention high quality Art prints.


One of the lines of my business is clocks... Photo clocks cute little baby
birds, railway engines and amusing pictures. I sell 'em by the hundred,
occasionally by the thousand.

Once the images meet a certain level for quality, they have to meet a
"content" measurement because that's what sells. The content. If you can't
capture an opportunist photo or one that produces an Ohhh, Arrrr from a
viewer, you join the *elite* few who spend their life in envy of people
who
make a living doing what they want to do but their perfectionist nature
prevents them from doing.


And fortunately the world has both types of people, or all we'd have to look
at are your photo's :-)

MrT.

"Bob Williams" wrote in message
...
Each camera should be tested under as close to the same conditions as
possible under bright lighting where each camera can "show its stuff".

Still pointless. Some people actually shoot under non-ideal conditions.
Those that only shoot under perfect conditions can save a lot of money on
equipment. Good luck to them, but so what!

MrT.

Bob Williams wrote:
Each camera should be tested under as close to the same
conditions as possible under bright lighting where each
camera can "show its stuff".

But that does *not* mean setting the two cameras to the
same settings! The scene is what should stay the same.
Each camera should be configured to produce its best
results of that same scene.

Another point is that the Nikon lens used was not a top
line lens to match the pro model body, and it was used
absolutely at the extreme of its zoom range. The Sony
only has one lense, but it was not used at the extreme
of its range (though granted it appears to have been
close enough that the image suffered greatly by even
being close).

A better test of the two camera's would have been to set
the Sony to about 19.1mm (equivalent to 75mm on a 35mm
camera), which would probably be about where it would
perform best. The Nikon could mount a 50mm f/1.8 AFD
lense or the 28-70mm AFD zoom set to 50mm if you insist
on a zoom. (After all one of the *primary* advantages
that an SLR camera has is being able to choose the best
glass for a given job!)

Otherwise, the comparison is *not* letting the camera
"show its stuff".

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

"Annika1980" wrote in message
ups.com...
My buddy, Ken Rockwell, did a recent comparison of high-ISO
performance between DSLRs that can be found he
http://kenrockwell.com/tech/iso-comp...7-10/index.htm

Note what he says about the Point & Shoots near the end of the
article:

"I was too lazy to include a compact camera, which as I showed last
year, is abysmal compared to any DSLR. A typical compact camera, like
the Canon SD700 I use all the time, is ten times worse than any DSLR.
My SD700 at its lowest ISO 80 looks about the same as any of these
DSLRs at ISO 800! "

LOL! Even Ken Rockwell says, "Sucks to be you, Point and ****ters !!!"


I think I stumbled on a Pic of D-Mac using his famous P&S camera
http://legko.be/images/stories/photo....be%20(18).jpg

--
We are all atheists about most of the gods that societies have ever believed
in. Some of us just go one god further.
Richard Dawkins (1941 - ), "The Root of All Evil", UK Channel 4, 2006