I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

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.

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:59:20 -0700, RichA wrote:

On Oct 14, 11:35Â*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. Â*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.

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). This is a very significant consideration
for anyone who is more than the typical snapshooter wandering around their
local city park--those who can only pretend to be a nature-photographer.
Also, these online armchair photographers who only own the manuals of
cameras they download, never the actual cameras and lenses, always forget
the sturdy and cumbersome tripod REQUIRED when using long focal-lengths on
any DSLR. Nor will you be able to fit the DSLR, its lenses, and REQUIRED
tripod in your roomy windbreaker pocket on a 10-mile day-hike like you can
with just one high-quality superzoom camera.

Image quality is not part of this decision-making equation because many
superzoom cameras already beat the image quality of any DSLR and its
associated zoom-lens offerings. See these side-by-side examples for just
one of many superzoom cameras that do just that.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

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.

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.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:55:59 -0500, 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, 11:35Â*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. Â*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). This is a very significant
consideration for anyone who is more than the typical snapshooter
wandering around their local city park--those who can only pretend to be
a nature-photographer. Also, these online armchair photographers who
only own the manuals of cameras they download, never the actual cameras
and lenses, always forget the sturdy and cumbersome tripod REQUIRED when
using long focal-lengths on any DSLR. Nor will you be able to fit the
DSLR, its lenses, and REQUIRED tripod in your roomy windbreaker pocket
on a 10-mile day-hike like you can with just one high-quality superzoom
camera.

Image quality is not part of this decision-making equation because many
superzoom cameras already beat the image quality of any DSLR and its
associated zoom-lens offerings. See these side-by-side examples for just
one of many superzoom cameras that do just that.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...rShot_SX10_IS/
outdoor_results.shtml

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.

Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the
point, it's just a matter of degree.

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.

The math is simple. Too bad that the trolls here can't even do simple math,
let alone know anything about using something more complex, like a camera.
The only cameras they've ever carried are the ones in their imaginations,
where it has no weight or size. If it did have any real size and weight it
could never fit in that little vacuous space that they erroneously call a
mind.

ray wrote:
Also, these online armchair photographers who
only own the manuals of cameras they download, never the actual cameras
and lenses, always forget the sturdy and cumbersome tripod REQUIRED when
using long focal-lengths on any DSLR.

BUT ... if you want the same picture with you toy supersoom P&S,
YOU WILL ALSO NEED EXACTLY THE SAME TRIPOD! Oops ..does the
camera have a tridpod socket? If you handhold it ... is the lens fast enough
to capture enough light at a fast shutter speed? Remember, compared to
an SLR --- that means that if the P&S sensor is 1/4 the size of
the dSLR sensor it needs to be 1/4 the f-number of the dSLR lens!
If the dSLR lens is f/5.6, it needs to be f/1.6!


The fact is, I do carry my dSLR and all its lenses on hikes. And
I've compared my pictures to the one by P&S carriers ...even in
4x6 inch prints, mine are clearly and obviously better,
technically and artistically.

Doug McDonald

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:01:01 -0500, Doug McDonald
wrote:

ray wrote:
Also, these online armchair photographers who
only own the manuals of cameras they download, never the actual cameras
and lenses, always forget the sturdy and cumbersome tripod REQUIRED when
using long focal-lengths on any DSLR.

BUT ... if you want the same picture with you toy supersoom P&S,
YOU WILL ALSO NEED EXACTLY THE SAME TRIPOD! Oops ..does the
camera have a tridpod socket? If you handhold it ... is the lens fast enough
to capture enough light at a fast shutter speed? Remember, compared to
an SLR --- that means that if the P&S sensor is 1/4 the size of
the dSLR sensor it needs to be 1/4 the f-number of the dSLR lens!
If the dSLR lens is f/5.6, it needs to be f/1.6!


Wow, are you ever a major moron. Thanks for providing proof to everyone
that you don't even know how aperture sizes relate between sensor sizes.

The reason that you don't need a tripod with most P&S cameras is purely a
weight/mass issue. Put the 8 lbs. of lens on the DSLR and you cannot hold
it steady enough. It also requires a hefty enough tripod to stabilize that
much unbalanced mass without it vibrating for long periods of time. In
astronomy circles they call it "the tap test". At high magnifications (long
focal-lengths) you tap the telescope and count the number of seconds it
takes for all vibrations to dampen down. Even a 250 lb. telescope tripod,
if not properly balanced to the load it's trying to support, can take
upwards of 1 minute to have all vibrations leave it for a clear image. With
a 1.3 lb. P&S camera you need nothing more than a small folding pocket
tripod, if you ever find the real need for one.


The fact is, I do carry my dSLR and all its lenses on hikes. And
I've compared my pictures to the one by P&S carriers ...even in
4x6 inch prints, mine are clearly and obviously better,
technically and artistically.

Doug McDonald

Yes, I'm sure they are ... the camera, lenses, and prints that you carry in
your imagination on your imaginary hikes.

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.

--
John McWilliams

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.

Cameras don't take pictures. Photographers take pictures.

Yes, we know, but like most aphorisms, it's too glossy, way too much
sharpening and saturation, not to stretch an analogy. :-)

--
john mcwilliams