If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras
"Bill Again" wrote:
I guess that by "control" I don't actually mean how many knobs the camera has. There's a trade-off between the degree of control and the ease of use. Having "too many" options results in a longer/steeper learning curve as well as can be a source of frustration. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that some manufacturers will stop the 'feature creep list', nor a USENET debate which assumes that more always equals better. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...sbn=0060005696 Perhaps you would like it to make coffee as well? You suggest putting a higher quality lower noise sensor into a high quality super zoom P&S. If it was this simple then why isn't it done. Frankly it reduces to one thing. Show me a professional photographer that is using a point and shoot. IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications. (* - as opposed to changing to the moving image) -hh |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras
"franklin-d-worth" wrote in message news On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:46:10 +0100, "Bill Again" wrote: Frankly it reduces to one thing. Show me a professional photographer that is using a point and shoot. That's all. http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6468-7844 There you go. I guess you'll have to switch now since you say it reduces to just this one thing. Just show you one pro that uses a P&S camera. That's just one. I'm another. So are many others. How sad that you set your equipment criteria by what others are using. Only if they are using it because it is better suited for the job. Can't you think for yourself? Do you only take photos of subjects that others have already photographed too? If nobody else has photographed that subject in the same way then it must not be worth photographing according to the way you choose things. If I did that I'd find another career. So where did I say these things? You are making this up as you go along, right?. One person on dpreview who regularly provides work for house & home and architectural photojournalism magazines regularly slips in photos from his P&S cameras. The publishers and editors never notice any difference in his work. He doesn't want them to know that he's using his P&S cameras for most of his photography due to the stigma that people like you have attached to them. Then he wouldn't be a "professional" photographer, right? Like me? Wow. You mean that I am not alone in these views? You astound me. Just because they don't say they use them for their professional work doesn't mean that they don't use them for that. And this shows exactly what? That's all. Bill |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras
"-hh" wrote in message oups.com... "Bill Again" wrote: I guess that by "control" I don't actually mean how many knobs the camera has. There's a trade-off between the degree of control and the ease of use. Having "too many" options results in a longer/steeper learning curve as well as can be a source of frustration. However, that doesn't necessarily mean that some manufacturers will stop the 'feature creep list', nor a USENET debate which assumes that more always equals better. http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...sbn=0060005696 Perhaps you would like it to make coffee as well? You suggest putting a higher quality lower noise sensor into a high quality super zoom P&S. If it was this simple then why isn't it done. Frankly it reduces to one thing. Show me a professional photographer that is using a point and shoot. IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications. (* - as opposed to changing to the moving image) -hh You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown, a renowned British photographer who worked for many years with the Observer newspaper. A few lines from her article confirm that "digi " is a very recent phenomena. I quote: quote I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I have many lenses, I really only use either an 85mm or 50mm one now. In the same way, I'm not all that particular about film or paper. My early work was taken with a Rolleiflex - there is absolutely nothing like the Rollei for texture and detail. I work quickly using available light, have never had an assistant and usually expose no more than two rolls of film - any more than that is usually a sign that things aren't going well. Rather than use a light meter, I have a setting I like - l/6o sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the picture work around this. I normally gauge the light level by the way it falls on the back of my hand. unquote Try putting that on a function menu! That's all Bill |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras
"Bill Again" wrote:
"-hh" wrote: IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications. You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown... I quote: quote I'm not very particular about equipment: ... I work quickly using available light, have never had an assistant and usually expose no more than two rolls of film - any more than that is usually a sign that things aren't going well. Rather than use a light meter, I have a setting I like - l/6o sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the picture work around this. I normally gauge the light level by the way it falls on the back of my hand. unquote Try putting that on a function menu! This is a very good point, as it is essentially saying that a good photographer's abilities transcends the "mechanical" limitations of their equipment to make them irrelevant. In the end, composition and lighting are all that matter, and with the technological improvements we've seen in exposure lattitude, nailing the lighting is far less important today than years ago. As such, it all effectively comes down to just the composition, and there is no "compose perfectly" setting on any camera's function dial. And while it is obviously preferable to get both composition and exposure perfect, the reality is that time with the subject is invariably limited, so you having 108 different video-compression options or 1024 zones is actually a work taskloading liability, not an asset. -hh |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras
"-hh" wrote in message oups.com... "Bill Again" wrote: "-hh" wrote: IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications. You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown... I quote: quote I'm not very particular about equipment: ... I work quickly using available light, have never had an assistant and usually expose no more than two rolls of film - any more than that is usually a sign that things aren't going well. Rather than use a light meter, I have a setting I like - l/6o sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the picture work around this. I normally gauge the light level by the way it falls on the back of my hand. unquote Try putting that on a function menu! This is a very good point, as it is essentially saying that a good photographer's abilities transcends the "mechanical" limitations of their equipment to make them irrelevant. In the end, composition and lighting are all that matter, and with the technological improvements we've seen in exposure lattitude, nailing the lighting is far less important today than years ago. As such, it all effectively comes down to just the composition, and there is no "compose perfectly" setting on any camera's function dial. And while it is obviously preferable to get both composition and exposure perfect, the reality is that time with the subject is invariably limited, so you having 108 different video-compression options or 1024 zones is actually a work taskloading liability, not an asset. -hh -hh, I couldn't agree more. Of course it might be the case that Jane's work would nowadays be turned down as there is some likelihood that it is "not sharp enough" for today's publications. That, of course, would be a matter of taste. Also we should remember that reproduction in newspapers up until, what, the 80s was invariably halftone anyway. Not exactly renowned for excellence in definition. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
On 2007-11-13, Bill Again wrote: You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown, [...] quote I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I have [...] unquote How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus ever saw one. Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene Smith on the matter. -- Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather? - Billy Bragg |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:13:40 +0000, Chris Savage
wrote: On 2007-11-13, Bill Again wrote: You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown, [...] quote I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I have [...] unquote How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus ever saw one. Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene Smith on the matter. Just as reliable as all the other propagandistic "advice" that dSLR advocates hand out. I was waiting to see if anyone would notice the blatant error of their "proof". :-) Couch-potato photographers always slip up in their facts when all they have for reference in life is what they read online, in lieu of any real-life experience with anything related to the topic. I still have my OM-1 and OM-2n, a nice 2n before they crippled the auto-exposure to 3 minutes from the original 12+ minutes (due to complaints of fools that didn't know how to deal with reciprocity). Not many of those ever reached the market. I feel so fortunate to still have one. For astrophotography and microphotography no better 35mm camera was ever made, before it or after. After having those Olympus SLRs and understanding the priceless value of compact, lightweight, ultra-bright viewfinder, and QUIET for nature photography (as well as all other uses) it's why I moved to top-of-the-line P&S cameras when I went from film to digital. I find it interesting that after having used some of the best SLRs and lenses ever made I would still rather use my P&S cameras today instead of any dSLR that have ever been on the market. If I was just another empty-headed follower I would have bought into Nikon SLRs back then and dealt with all that bulk, noise, and repairs they always needed. The only plus I ever saw to owning a Nikon was that other Nikon photographers liked you more. I've never been that desperate for anyone's approval nor company. I'm glad I never put any faith in self-appointed "Pros" and what the next guy was doing or I would have missed out on those Olympus SLRs and exceptional Zuiko lenses. I really wanted to stay with Olympus after their film cameras. I was a fairly staunch Olympus fan. But sadly they never made anything that could beat what I could find in P&S cameras from other companies. Keep in mind though that no other company's dSLRs could beat what I could find in the better P&S cameras too. That's still holding true. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras
"franklin-d-worth" wrote in message ... On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:13:40 +0000, Chris Savage wrote: On 2007-11-13, Bill Again wrote: You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown, [...] quote I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I have [...] unquote How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus ever saw one. Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene Smith on the matter. Just as reliable as all the other propagandistic "advice" that dSLR advocates hand out. I was waiting to see if anyone would notice the blatant error of their "proof". :-) Couch-potato photographers always slip up in their facts when all they have for reference in life is what they read online, in lieu of any real-life experience with anything related to the topic. You are an ignorant and unmannered person. Blatant error of "their proof". What arrogant nonsense. The quote was not proof of anything, it was a quote from an article by Jane Bown. This photographer is now 82 years old and far from being a "couch potato photographer" she has photographed more personalities than you could shake a stick at. She doesn't need to prove anything, certainly not to idiots like you. That's all. snipped the rest of the junk |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras
Bill Again wrote:
I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, Hmm, the M-1, the precursor to the OM1, was introduced in 1972. So in 2012 the OM1 will have been 40 years old. Yet this alleged photographer bought about 12 of them, second hand, more than five years before they were on the market. I wouldn't put too much faith in anything she says, since obviously it's all made up in order to create a good story. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras
"SMS ???. ?" wrote in message ... Bill Again wrote: I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, Hmm, the M-1, the precursor to the OM1, was introduced in 1972. So in 2012 the OM1 will have been 40 years old. Yet this alleged photographer bought about 12 of them, second hand, more than five years before they were on the market. I wouldn't put too much faith in anything she says, since obviously it's all made up in order to create a good story. Here's a quote about Jane Bown's career so far.... "The Observer published its first Jane Bown photograph in December 1949, beginning a romance between Britain's oldest Sunday paper and the country's most loved photographer that still flourishes. Since that time, Jane has given us the most astonishing variety of portraits: politicians, royalty, film stars, directors, writers, academics, comics, artists, dancers, athletes, bishops, models, nuns and ordinary people (fans, onion sellers, tramps, children) whose faces we suddenly learn to see and even become haunted by, because she looks at them with the same democratic respect, curiosity and love. Jane's work is immediately recognisable, particularly her penetrating portraits taken over the past 50 years. By 1980 she was renowned enough for the National Portrait Gallery to hold a one-person exhibition of her work and there have been no fewer than seven published collections of her photographs. Jane's approach to taking photographs is as refreshingly unpretentious as she is herself - she works quickly and discreetly, using only available light, usually in black and white and without any assistants. In 1985 she was awarded an MBE [and in 1995 a CBE for work in photography]. When asked by the Queen what she did, Jane's characteristically modest reply was, "I'm a hack". " You might be right. I shall ignore her. Idiot. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 48 | November 18th 07 05:01 AM |
Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 14 | September 13th 07 11:10 PM |
Digital camera (P&S or DSLR) with built in HDR feature | [email protected] | Other Photographic Equipment | 14 | September 13th 07 11:10 PM |
built-in flash for D50? | nikonnewbie | Digital SLR Cameras | 4 | June 7th 06 01:57 PM |
which cameras are not built in china ? | Bhup | 35mm Photo Equipment | 69 | March 23rd 05 05:05 PM |