DSLR vs. P&S Smackdown -- the Answer

Douglas Johnson wrote:
It may be kind of anti-climactic by now, but I've updated the website at
http://www.classtech.com/DSLR_PS_Smackdown


I have a better smackdown for you: the shoot-in.

Current mandate is open and the subject is open as well.

You can shoot film, digital, SLR or P&S. And as a special offer, you
can submit up to 3 photos.

See yesterday's Shoot-in [SI] post to this effect along with submission
guidelines.


--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.

On Wed, 06 Aug 2008 14:26:45 -0700, SMS
wrote:

There were people with $7000 Canon 500mm lenses, and my wife said, "you need
one of those!"

What will you take for your wife?



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
...
It may be kind of anti-climactic by now, but I've updated the
website at
http://www.classtech.com/DSLR_PS_Smackdown

to show the original out-of-the-camera JPEG's. A summary of the
EXIF data is
under the mid resolution original pictures and the full EXIF data is
embedded in
the originals.

Navigation help:
You can click on a thumbnail to get a medium resolution view. Then
you can get
a full resolution view by clicking in the lower center of the
picture or the
download icon in the lower right of the screen

As most folks figured out, A is the DSLR picture, and B is from the
P&S. I
thought the one who figured it out from a tiny bit of dust was
particularly
insightful.

It is clear to me that a current model P&S can produce excellent
pictures when
it is operating in it's sweet spot. These pictures are right in the
P&S sweet
spot. There is more than adequate light, so high ISO noise not a
problem. The
subject is static, so shutter and focus lag are not an issue.

As several people have pointed out, the P&S does have more chromatic
aberration
and noise even in this "easy" picture. But until you get to pretty
large
prints, that's pixel peeping. Don't get me wrong, this comparison
invited, even
required pixel peeping.

As you move away from the sweet spot, the DSLR starts to come into
it's own. The
lack of shutter lag and high speed focus is a real asset when you
are dealing
with fast moving subjects, such as 2 year olds. More difficult
lighting,
macro,or long telephoto turns the P&S into a paper weight. The
DSLR with it's
interchangeable lens, manual controls, and post processing of raw
files will
allow a photographer to keep making pictures.


Unfortunately you've not had enough experience with enough P&S models.
Because you are wrong on nearly all counts on DSLR strengths vs. P&S
strengths.

One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5 Can you even buy that much light grasp at
that reach in a DSLR lens? I found a nice combo of add-on lenses that
affords ZERO chromatic aberrations at that focal-length. One cancels
out any minor defects of the other. Long-distance wildlife photography
even after dusk is a breeze. Capturing birds landing on a pond after
sunset are never a problem. One of them can shoot at ISO 3200. Granted
it is grainy at that speed but it can be done. ISO800 is just fine.
Shutter-lag in P&S cameras is also a thing of the past. So is EVF lag.
They are just as fast if not faster in some regards than DSLRs. You
are also wrong about macrophotography. A P&S camera's generally more
extensive DOF excels for macrophotography, far beyond anything any
DSLR can do. Macrophotography can be done without the need of any
flash to get the DOF required at those magnifications. Hand-held
macrophotography of insects _in_flight_ at true 1:1 ratios is easy,
without a flash. Putting a reverse wide-angle 24mm SLR lens on my P&S
camera affords near microphotography magnifications with no CA, no
distortion. P&S cameras can also focus faster in lower light levels
than any DSLR due to the ability to ramp up the gain on the CCD in dim
lighting. One of my P&S cameras can focus in total darkness with only
an IR illuminator, impossible with any DSLR. Not even wildlife is
alerted to your presence in the dark when taking their images. Totally
silent, invisible, and pure stealth mode. Fast focusing in daylight is
a non-issue if you are an experience photographer and have educated
yourself on the use of hyperfocal distances and manual focus. There's
not one bird-in-flight shot that I wanted to capture that I ever
failed to miss.

The only thing that you are announcing is that you really don't know
how to use any camera very well.

Please stop spreading misinformation, wive's-tales, myths, 10-year-old
drawbacks, and ignorance. Get some experience under your belt with any
of the newer top-shelf P&S cameras before you start making generalized
declarations about all P&S cameras. It appears that you know very
little, and have proved it.

"VernMichaels" wrote:



One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5

What models are they?

Shutter-lag in P&S cameras is also a thing of the past. So is EVF lag.
They are just as fast if not faster in some regards than DSLRs.

I looked real hard for a P&S as fast as a DSLR. What models are you talking
about?

Thanks,
Doug

On 2008-08-06, Douglas Johnson wrote:
"VernMichaels" wrote:



One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5

What models are they?


You just failed the VernMichaels test.

Shutter-lag in P&S cameras is also a thing of the past. So is EVF lag.
They are just as fast if not faster in some regards than DSLRs.

I looked real hard for a P&S as fast as a DSLR. What models are you talking
about?


If you haven't the insight and skill that VernMichaels has and have not
yet discovered the mythical cameras that he claims to own then you do
not deserve an answer to your question.

In other words, he's a troll who keeps posting these falsehoods just to
get questions to which he can post replies that make him look like
everyone's superior.

Short answer. He's making this up because school's finished for the
summer and he's bored.

--
savvo orig. invib. man

Douglas Johnson wrote:
SMS wrote:

Someone
actually handed me a _film_ SLR, I had no idea any of those were still
around. Can you even buy film anymore?

Sure. Every time I pick up my beloved Olympus OM-2, I get reminded how small
and light it is. But no image stabilization, no auto focus, and 100 ISO with
color. OK, I know you can get to 400 ISO, but that gets pretty grainy.

Oh, yes. Photoshop is much easier, cheaper, and more powerful than a darkroom.
And you don't end up smelling like chemicals.

There
were people with $7000 Canon 500mm lenses, and my wife said, "you need
one of those!"

Say "yes". She's a prize.

LOL, but she has no idea how much they cost. She was just very excited
at seeing the bear cub and mother.

I do with [wish] that Canon had a lens similar to the Nikon 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6
G ED-IF AF-S VR DX.

That lens was what made me ebay my Canon 20D and buy the D300. I take pictures
while on vacation. I don't go on vacation to take pictures. A one lens
solution is important for me.

I'd still want a wide angle lens. I'd be content with the 10-22 EF-s and
the Canon 28-300 IS, but the latter costs $2300. I wish Canon would do a
version of that lens that is the quality of the Nikon 18-200 VR in terms
of optics, and sacrifices handling (as the Nikon lens does), and sell it
for $600. I know that these wide range lenses are a compromise but I
still want one.

Tamron just announced an 18-270mm F/3.5-6.3 lens with stabilization.
Tamron seems to have a better reputation than Sigma, so maybe this lens
will be comparable in quality to the Nikon 18-200 VR.

savvo wrote:

On 2008-08-06, Douglas Johnson wrote:
"VernMichaels" wrote:



One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5

What models are they?

If you haven't the insight and skill that VernMichaels has and have not
yet discovered the mythical cameras that he claims to own then you do
not deserve an answer to your question.

He's already decided I'm incompetent and has told us so. But it's (notice the
correct use of "it's") a simple question. If he give us some model numbers,
we'll all learn something. If he doesn't answer it, or dodges it, we'll all
learn something else.

-- Doug

"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
...
savvo wrote:

On 2008-08-06, Douglas Johnson wrote:
"VernMichaels" wrote:



One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5

What models are they?

If you haven't the insight and skill that VernMichaels has and have
not
yet discovered the mythical cameras that he claims to own then you
do
not deserve an answer to your question.

He's already decided I'm incompetent and has told us so. But it's
(notice the
correct use of "it's") a simple question. If he give us some model
numbers,
we'll all learn something. If he doesn't answer it, or dodges it,
we'll all
learn something else.

-- Doug

You already have all the information in my first post to deduce what
cameras they are, minus that the 1359mm is attained with two 1.7x
extenders stacked. One of them is still presently available, the other
can only be obtained on the used-market, it originally sold for $400.
Worth every penny. Combined I found that they nicely cancelled out
each other's meager CA problems, and their larger diameters afforded
the full aperture at full-zoom. Now you have 100% of the information
that you need. You can work from focal-lengths and apertures to deduce
what cameras have them, or from the other features I mentioned.
Whichever way you approach it you can find out exactly what cameras
and lenses they are.

I fail to see why I'd want to willingly and freely help others be
better photographers and find better equipment for themselves at a
lower price. Did you all secretly take up a collection of $10,000 to
pay me for my purchasing department skills? From the posts I read here
not one of you deserve anything from anyone and most certainly not for
free. I did more than I should just by giving you direct clues. The
rest you can figure out on your own.

Learn to fish. I did and I caught the exact cameras and lenses that I
need for quite some time. May you be so fortunate in all the months of
research that's ahead of you.

It's now your choice on what you want to learn from this post or not.
I can already predict that your learning experience will be no greater
than the rest of the trollish denizens here. I jump to no one's tune
but my own, and certainly not some Usenet trolls whose only lame skill
in life is trying to hit a target at their imaginary dunk-tank. Taunts
get them nowhere but more of the same self-induced ignorance that they
have had all their lives. It's quite entertaining to watch them post
the same misinformation and ignorance in every one of their replies.

Douglas Johnson wrote:
"VernMichaels" wrote:



One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5

What models are they?

Shutter-lag in P&S cameras is also a thing of the past. So is EVF
lag. They are just as fast if not faster in some regards than DSLRs.

I looked real hard for a P&S as fast as a DSLR. What models are you
talking about?

Thanks,
Doug

He has given an answer, while missing the model names and numbers out.
This does nothing for his credibility, does it?

David

VernMichaels wrote:
"Douglas Johnson" wrote in message
...
It may be kind of anti-climactic by now, but I've updated the
website at
http://www.classtech.com/DSLR_PS_Smackdown

to show the original out-of-the-camera JPEG's. A summary of the
EXIF data is
under the mid resolution original pictures and the full EXIF data is
embedded in
the originals.

Navigation help:
You can click on a thumbnail to get a medium resolution view. Then
you can get
a full resolution view by clicking in the lower center of the
picture or the
download icon in the lower right of the screen

As most folks figured out, A is the DSLR picture, and B is from the
P&S. I
thought the one who figured it out from a tiny bit of dust was
particularly
insightful.

It is clear to me that a current model P&S can produce excellent
pictures when
it is operating in it's sweet spot. These pictures are right in the
P&S sweet
spot. There is more than adequate light, so high ISO noise not a
problem. The
subject is static, so shutter and focus lag are not an issue.

As several people have pointed out, the P&S does have more chromatic
aberration
and noise even in this "easy" picture. But until you get to pretty
large
prints, that's pixel peeping. Don't get me wrong, this comparison
invited, even
required pixel peeping.

As you move away from the sweet spot, the DSLR starts to come into
it's own. The
lack of shutter lag and high speed focus is a real asset when you
are dealing
with fast moving subjects, such as 2 year olds. More difficult
lighting,
macro,or long telephoto turns the P&S into a paper weight. The
DSLR with it's
interchangeable lens, manual controls, and post processing of raw
files will
allow a photographer to keep making pictures.


Unfortunately you've not had enough experience with enough P&S models.
Because you are wrong on nearly all counts on DSLR strengths vs. P&S
strengths.

Isn't it terrible when someone does that? Like you, you are wrong about
everything. You jerk off with the wrong hand, pick your nose with the
wrong finger, you stuck you dick into the wrong woman, and the last time
one of your kids gave you a father's day card, they gave to the wrong man.


One of my P&S cameras can attain 550mm (35mm eq.) lens at F/2.4.
Another gets 1249mm at F/3.5 Can you even buy that much light grasp at
that reach in a DSLR lens?

Another Lumix enthusiast.

I found a nice combo of add-on lenses that
affords ZERO chromatic aberrations at that focal-length.

Is ZERO more or less than zero?

One cancels
out any minor defects of the other. Long-distance wildlife photography
even after dusk is a breeze. Capturing birds landing on a pond after
sunset are never a problem. One of them can shoot at ISO 3200. Granted
it is grainy at that speed but it can be done. ISO800 is just fine.
Shutter-lag in P&S cameras is also a thing of the past. So is EVF lag.
They are just as fast if not faster in some regards than DSLRs.

You still here? Hell, you are persistent.

You
are also wrong about macrophotography.

His wife took some naughty photos of him, that proves it.

A P&S camera's generally more
extensive DOF excels for macrophotography, far beyond anything any
DSLR can do. Macrophotography can be done without the need of any
flash to get the DOF required at those magnifications. Hand-held
macrophotography of insects _in_flight_ at true 1:1 ratios is easy,
without a flash. Putting a reverse wide-angle 24mm SLR lens on my P&S
camera affords near microphotography magnifications with no CA, no
distortion. P&S cameras can also focus faster in lower light levels
than any DSLR due to the ability to ramp up the gain on the CCD in dim
lighting. One of my P&S cameras can focus in total darkness with only
an IR illuminator, impossible with any DSLR. Not even wildlife is
alerted to your presence in the dark when taking their images. Totally
silent, invisible, and pure stealth mode. Fast focusing in daylight is
a non-issue if you are an experience photographer and have educated
yourself on the use of hyperfocal distances and manual focus. There's
not one bird-in-flight shot that I wanted to capture that I ever
failed to miss.

The only thing that you are announcing is that you really don't know
how to use any camera very well.

You wife said something similar, only she wasn't talking about your camera.


Please stop spreading misinformation, wive's-tales, myths, 10-year-old
drawbacks, and ignorance.

Why? Someone has to help, you can't handle the load alone.

Get some experience under your belt with any
of the newer top-shelf P&S cameras before you start making generalized
declarations about all P&S cameras. It appears that you know very
little, and have proved it.

Hey, you proved something too. You proved beyond doubt that when you
were circumcised the Doctor threw away the wrong bit.

The OP didn't present as the ultimate expert on P&S cameras, he just
provide an example of the cameras he had available. Your response does
nothing other than trigger responses like mine. You are a pathetic
asshole. If you don't believe me, ask your wife.

Cal