Try doing this with a P&S

RichA wrote:
Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a
fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=32315884

And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't
have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom,
with its superb Leica lens?
Bob Williams

"Bob Williams" wrote in message
...
RichA wrote:
Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a
fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=32315884

And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't have
been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom, with its
superb Leica lens?
Bob Williams

Not enough Depth of Field for a short lens the same field of view with a
FZ30 @64mm. The shot is not great, but not a P&S.

On 07/08/09 12:27, John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT),
wrote in
:

On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob wrote:
RichA wrote:
Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a
fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=32315884
And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't
have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom,
with its superb Leica lens?
I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and
inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.

Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their
cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a
super-zoom.http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg


While you are correct about capturing this shot with a P&S, try
capturing 5 of them in a row when there's high action with one.

A colleague has been shooting for UPI for 30 years. He shoots big
Canon's. At the ball park, at crash sites, air shows, race tracks,
political events.. you name it.

When we were discussing camera choices, he said you can capture
any moment with any camera. IF you have the time. With a P$S, you
can capture the shot, but getting it up to speed, to focus, and
adjust all the parameters takes time. So you need to know the
critical moment is coming well before it's here so you can make sure
the camera has done all the things it needs to do after you push the
release button halfway so you can snap off the shutter just advance
of the moment enough to capture it. A good photographer will be able
to do that. A great photographer will be able to capture that moment
and the 3 either side of it. For THAT, you need a faster more
responsive camera.

The key to spontaneity is adequate preparation. And the right tools.

No one's saying that a P&S is not a valid camera choice. My g/f
shoots a CoolPix and gets some impressive shots when we're shooting
together and speed is not an issue. But at airshows her P&S is
tucked away. It's just not the right tool for the job. To put that
in another venue, you don't need a Lotus or a Ferrari to go fast.
If fast is all you need, can run a race with any car. After all, a
'63 Avanti will do 180 MPH off the showroom floor. But, just TRY to
corner with it.

The JOB determines the correctness of the tool.


p

On 7/8/09 12:27 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote in
:

On Jul 8, 4:58*am, Bob Williams wrote:
RichA wrote:
Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a
fast-moving (relatively) target. *Nikon's top cameras are awesome.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=32315884

And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't
have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom,
with its superb Leica lens?

I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and
inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.

Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their
cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a
super-zoom. http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg

NavASS example: Underexposed, unbalanced and non-challenging snapshot of a
close boring subject does NOT compare with the well-composed action shot at
a great distance of man and animal at the exact moment that only Edison
could prove with his camera.

Try again with that toy, OK?!?

John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote in
:

On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams wrote:
RichA wrote:
Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a
fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=32315884
And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't
have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom,
with its superb Leica lens?
I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and
inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.

Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their
cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a
super-zoom. http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg


If you can't see the lack of detail in that shot, John... You need
glasses. Like all miniature sensor cameras, detail is lost and the
dynamic range has to be artificially compressed post shoot in a lame
attempt to compensate for the inadequacies of the camera.

Very clearly, you haven't discovered yet the difference between
colourful images and ones accurately defining both detail and colour.

--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their
cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a
super-zoom. http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg

If you can't see the lack of detail in that shot, John... You need
glasses. ...

If you can't see that's a relatively low-quality JPEG (that nonetheless
has very good detail), then you need to take the chip off your shoulder.
None of the pros working that same event with dSLR cameras managed
to get images as good as that one. "The proof is in the pudding."

which means they're inept.

On 07/08/09 13:44, John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 08 Jul 2009 17:46:31 GMT, "D. Peter Maus"
wrote in
:

On 07/08/09 12:27, John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT),
wrote in
:

On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob wrote:
RichA wrote:
Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a
fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=32315884
And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't
have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom,
with its superb Leica lens?
I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and
inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.
Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their
cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a
super-zoom.http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg
While you are correct about capturing this shot with a P&S, try
capturing 5 of them in a row when there's high action with one.

The Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (for example) can burst 5 frames at 3 fps, and
shoot 2 fps indefinitely.

A colleague has been shooting for UPI for 30 years. He shoots big
Canon's. At the ball park, at crash sites, air shows, race tracks,
political events.. you name it.

When we were discussing camera choices, he said you can capture
any moment with any camera. IF you have the time. With a P$S, you
can capture the shot, but getting it up to speed, to focus, and
adjust all the parameters takes time. So you need to know the
critical moment is coming well before it's here so you can make sure
the camera has done all the things it needs to do after you push the
release button halfway so you can snap off the shutter just advance
of the moment enough to capture it. A good photographer will be able
to do that. A great photographer will be able to capture that moment
and the 3 either side of it. For THAT, you need a faster more
responsive camera.

For THAT, HE needs his Canons, presumably because of the way he works.
I, OTOH, need my compact digital super-zooms because of the way I work.
For me they have big handling and responsiveness advantages over a dSLR.
"Different strokes for different folks."

No one's saying that a P&S is not a valid camera choice. My g/f
shoots a CoolPix and gets some impressive shots when we're shooting
together and speed is not an issue. But at airshows her P&S is
tucked away. It's just not the right tool for the job.

For her. But a different compact camera might be right for her, just as
it is for me, even in the case of the relatively ancient Panasonic
DMC-FZ20 I used to shoot the Blue Angels last fall:
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/7656/p1000157tight.jpg
http://img171.imageshack.us/img171/1985/p1000294.jpg
http://img11.imageshack.us/img11/1996/p1000167tight.jpg

To put that
in another venue, you don't need a Lotus or a Ferrari to go fast.
If fast is all you need, can run a race with any car. After all, a
'63 Avanti will do 180 MPH off the showroom floor. But, just TRY to
corner with it.

The JOB determines the correctness of the tool.

"If the only tool you have is a hammer,
you will see every problem as a nail."
-Abraham Maslow



You may wish to notice when someone is agreeing with you.

Unless conflict is the only tool you have.

On 2009-07-08 12:26:32 -0700, John Navas said:

On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 05:15:15 +1000, D-Mac wrote in
:

John Navas wrote:

Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their
cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a
super-zoom. http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg

If you can't see the lack of detail in that shot, John... You need
glasses. ...

If you can't see that's a relatively low-quality JPEG (that nonetheless
has very good detail), then you need to take the chip off your shoulder.
None of the pros working that same event with dSLR cameras managed
to get images as good as that one. "The proof is in the pudding."

Actually "The proof of the pudding is in the tasting."
....and in the case of your example you have a finely presented
"pudding" which is lacking the flavor of one produced by a chef with a
good oven.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

John Navas wrote:
On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 09:54:07 -0700 (PDT), Rich
wrote in
:

On Jul 8, 4:58 am, Bob Williams wrote:
RichA wrote:
Look at the tonality, the smoothness, the perfection of focus, on a
fast-moving (relatively) target. Nikon's top cameras are awesome.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=32315884
And WHAT, pray tell is so special about that picture that it couldn't
have been taken with just as easily with a Panasonic FZ30 superzoom,
with its superb Leica lens?
I've watched people try to shoot things like that with dog-slow and
inaccurate superzoom P&S's, it's tragic.

Then they must have been totally clueless about photography and their
cameras, because it's quite easy to capture shots like that with a
super-zoom. http://img525.imageshack.us/img525/2563/p1020078.jpg


You're not serious are you John?

The amount of post processing that no doubt went on to arrive at a
highly coloured image with minimal detail like this one just confirms
that images from miniature sensor cameras only look OK because of the
low resolution of a monitor.

--
D-Mac... Back from the near-dead!
With my survival comes a new ability ...multi-tasking.
I can laugh, cough, sneeze, fart and pee all at the same time!

In article , John Navas
wrote:

If you can't see that's a relatively low-quality JPEG (that nonetheless
has very good detail), then you need to take the chip off your shoulder.
None of the pros working that same event with dSLR cameras managed
to get images as good as that one. "The proof is in the pudding."

which means they're inept.

That may be.
Or it may be that they didn't have the best tool for the job.

or that it's inconclusive and can't be pinned down to one thing.