26 Reasons to Choose a P&S Over a DSLR

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:28:10 GMT, "Charles E Hardwidge"
wrote:

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:
"A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg "

:-)

Simply astonishing!!!!
If only we had superman skills & clever inexpensive gear like that.

grin

1) The focus is on the brids tail, not its head,
2) The eye isn't visible,
3) Noisy,
4) No shadow detail.

There's some green and purple crap on the grey feathers, and some green
crap in the extreme bottom right corner.

I was being kind. ;^)

I don't really like to criticise but your comment prompted me to take
another look. I don't have anything to compare it with but there's, also,
sensor artefacts (if that's what those lines are) covering the whole thing.
The camera obviously has its limits and the shot itself doesn't make the
best of those.

It would be nice if any of you knew even the least little bit about digital
imaging. Ever see JPG artifacts on images posted to the internet?

Wow ... trying to educate the clueless--this is like trying to herd a bunch
of frightened little bunnies across an open field. Fairly pointless.

On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:36:17 GMT, "Charles E Hardwidge"
wrote:

I have no idea if you're American but your service provider is, and the last
time I checked impersonation on the internet was a criminal offence in
America.

http://www.ic3.gov/

Impersonation would matter if you had anything important to ever say. Don't
flatter yourself.

On Tue, 14 Jul 2009 05:18:22 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...

Please post that a few more times. Please. I want the joy of
auto-canelling all these substantially identical postings because
they are over the limit.

I've been playing with NewsProxy on Windows XP. A few more posts from
that cretin would help calibrate the thing.

Email me if you need a hand in setting up your filter. If you know how,
it's trivial to filter him, regardless of his nym-shifting.

blignorance - n. the state of bliss reached and or retained by trying to
remain ignorant through self-imposed distractions, red-herring arguments,
sticking their fingers in their ears and humming a tune, poking their own
eyes out with a newsreader filter, etc.

"Educating the Clueless" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 13 Jul 2009 19:28:10 GMT, "Charles E Hardwidge"
wrote:

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
Paul Furman wrote:
"A HAND-HELD
2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera (downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg "

:-)

Simply astonishing!!!!
If only we had superman skills & clever inexpensive gear like that.

grin

1) The focus is on the brids tail, not its head,
2) The eye isn't visible,
3) Noisy,
4) No shadow detail.

There's some green and purple crap on the grey feathers, and some green
crap in the extreme bottom right corner.

I was being kind. ;^)

I don't really like to criticise but your comment prompted me to take
another look. I don't have anything to compare it with but there's, also,
sensor artefacts (if that's what those lines are) covering the whole
thing. The camera obviously has its limits and the shot itself doesn't
make the best of those.

It would be nice if any of you knew even the least little bit about
digital imaging. Ever see JPG artifacts on images posted to the internet?

Wow ... trying to educate the clueless--this is like trying to herd a
bunch of frightened little bunnies across an open field. Fairly pointless.

I get the same artefacts on my Canon A590 running CHDK. The DNG files go
through Lightroom and straight to Photoshop, and the lines are there along
with any chromatic aberration the lens throws in. Just a fact. The purple
and green splodges are caused by noise being compressed on the camera JPEGs
or totally clueless raw post-processing. Again, another fact.

I don't have much time for trolls so enjoy it while it lasts.

--
Charles E Hardwidge

"Bob Larter" wrote in message

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...

Please post that a few more times. Please. I want the joy of
auto-canelling all these substantially identical postings because
they are over the limit.

I've been playing with NewsProxy on Windows XP. A few more posts from
that cretin would help calibrate the thing.

Email me if you need a hand in setting up your filter. If you know
how, it's trivial to filter him, regardless of his nym-shifting.

Of course, it would also help if people would remove r.p.d from the
cross-posting list because that's where the idiot lives. I've taken to
filtering every thread that is cross-posted to there and my crap post count
has dropped about 90%.

DRS wrote:
"Bob Larter" wrote in message

Charles E Hardwidge wrote:
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message
...
Please post that a few more times. Please. I want the joy of
auto-canelling all these substantially identical postings because
they are over the limit.
I've been playing with NewsProxy on Windows XP. A few more posts from
that cretin would help calibrate the thing.
Email me if you need a hand in setting up your filter. If you know
how, it's trivial to filter him, regardless of his nym-shifting.

Of course, it would also help if people would remove r.p.d from the
cross-posting list because that's where the idiot lives. I've taken to
filtering every thread that is cross-posted to there and my crap post count
has dropped about 90%.

I was doing that with Thunderbird 3.x beta, but it unexpectedly went
haywire. Can't do that with the current released v. I do look forward
to a bug free TB 3.

["Followup-To:" header set to alt.photography.]
LOL wrote:
Ah, another stupid idiot misusing other people's domain names ...

So that's a lens with a 2197/3.5mm = 628mm apperture?
Amazing!

Yes, it would be amazing to someone as stupid as you that doesn't realize
that that's the 35mm equivalent.

So you have a 6.2mm lens and make that tiny hole to be the new
world wonder? Try shooting stars that way and see the truth:
your lens collects much less light than the real 35mm lens.

This is why you can't have that much
aperture at that focal length in a 35mm camera lens on a DSLR sized sensor.

Ah, but we can have 12.4 on a DSLR, which is just twice the size,
whereas the sensor is much larger. Then I go and crop and ---
whoops --- there I get an 2200mm lens. Easy as apple pie.
And at least as logical as your claims.

We can even get a 8860mm f/1.4, f/1.2 or even f/1.0 lens that way,
just use a fast 50mm lens instead! Try even coming close!

Oh, I want a shot of a proper resolution chart of your wannabe
lens.

Catching on yet? No, of course not. You'd rather wallow in your
blignorance. (bliss borne of ignorance)

Catching on yet? Cropping's a game a DSLR can play better
than you can, we have up to 24 MPix and you don't. And your
sensor is diffration limited, while your "2197"mm --- only an
idiot would insist on the 7mm at the end, the 0.3% aren't
even visible --- is severely crap limited.

Gawd you DSLR trolls are such hugely ****ing idiots. No wonder you choose
the cameras that you do. The shoe fits, perfectly.

Yes, all these full auto modes and only JPEG on P&S are much to
advanced for us, we want back to mommy where whe have to say
what we want and how we want it --- we just don't want Big Brother
Cameramaker to tell us what we want like you grownups do.
Even if BB does know betterer and bestest.
Maybe that really makes us idiots, since we dare to disagree with
authority and choose settings that easily allows one to shoot
their own feet. Well, we live with that and the occasional errors
we make where a proper P&S would prevent that from happening by
simply refusing to take any shot at all.

Of course we are also all snapshooters, especially those who
are in professional sports reporting, as we often don't use
P&S cameras with the practical in-build flash lighting the
scene evenly and softly from 50 yards away. Instead we waste
our money on big, heavy, ungainly lenses and cameras that
just don't get the artistic oilpainting effects right. Nor
do they really make us have everything in focus, a real faux
pas for serious photography, or so I hear.

-Wolfgang

"they're blind - right?


The DSLR has passed its usefulness today, and
all the cumbersome restraints that go along with
using that antiquated crap.

You embarrass yourself and render any further reading of your post was waste
of time.


Jerry 'n Vegas

"Ooops Too Late!"



The point being, we all have our own reasons and
how we like to shoot. I like to take time pictures for
the blur. I can do with the DSLR, what I used to do
in my darkroom and see it right away.

Did you get a DSLR with shutter-speed preview? If
not then you can only see that slow-shutter blur
effect after you have taken your shot as you review
it.

Which my P&S would not do, ergo, my statement.



I just feel I have more control, and fun.

Oh my dear boy. You are so out of touch with
what's capable on good P&S cameras.

Actually not. Having been photographing for over 60-years it still goes to
the heart of my statement.


Now if you want remote shooting of wildlife ... you
simply must get a CHDK supported P&S camera.

It will not do what I want it to do, thus my statement still stands.


Wow are you ever out of touch with what
good P&S cameras do these days.

Actually no, which is why I made the statement I made.


No, that should be "Jerry (out of touch) 'n Vegas"
because you wrongly paid attention to DSLR-Trolls
who know no better, instead of researching the facts
on your own.

Wrong again (you seem to be wrong quite a bit here).


Is it too late to take that thing
back and get a better P&S?

You're asking? You were indicating you had rather good knowledge. I've shown
you don't.


You've just crippled your photo opportunities
astronomically with that DSLR.

Actually I've increased them. But then, I told you that already.


Jerry 'n Vegas

LOL wrote:
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 14:09:27 -0700, Jürgen Exner
wrote:

Paul Furman wrote:

"A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image ..."

So that's a lens with a 2197/3.5mm = 628mm apperture?
Amazing!


Yes, it would be amazing to someone as stupid as you that doesn't realize
that that's the 35mm equivalent.

Considering that an f-stops is computed using the focal length of a lens
and not some odd measurement for the angle of view I'd rather believe
those 72mm which is reported as the focal length in the EXIF data.

This is why you can't have that much
aperture at that focal length in a 35mm camera lens on a DSLR sized sensor.

Well, yeah, of course you have every right to invent a new algebra,
mathematicians do it all the time.
It's just that the usefulness of your private version might be very
limited, in particular when talking to the remaining 7 milliard people
on this planet.

jue