How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro

Savageduck wrote:
On 2010-07-07 13:33:19 -0700, "Neil Harrington" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010070600313643042-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2010-07-05 23:48:54 -0700, nospam said:

In article , David J Taylor
wrote:

There's only one person who objects to "P&S" - the rest of us are
quite
happy! I own both and have no problem with the term.

who cares what it's called. people know what is meant by p&s and slr
and that's all that matters. language evolves. the whole pejorative
nonsense is his way of arguing, particularly when his position is weak.

Just what is objectional and pejorative about the term "Pocketable &
Small"?

Apart from its redundancy? ;-)

Just me being silly. I always think of "Point & Shoot" in a totally
different context. I though there was a possibility you might also have
that in mind, but normally a little more deliberate than "point!"


Well, few people would consider a Coolpix 8700 or 8800 pocketable &
small.
Yet many use the silly term "P&S" to characterize those cameras.

Yup, I had a 5700, which was not cheap. a year later I bought a D70 for
less, and never used the 5700 again.

"Point-and-shoot" was perfectly appropriate for those compact 35mm
cameras
to which the term was originally applied. Because they were
auto-everything
and had no user controls to speak of, pointing and shooting was almost
literally all you could do with them.

Agreed. My wife had a great little Pentax PC35AF, and that was all she
ever wanted.

Using "P&S" to describe a camera with full user controls should be made a
felony punishable by either (a) flogging or (b) forced listening to an
entire speech by Joe Biden, the latter reserved for the more egregrious
offenses of course.

Agreed.
A camera such as a G11 has the elements of full user control, and can be
quickly relegated to the role of more simplistic, ...er mindless
operation. So perhaps a term such as "Full Function Compact" might be
better for those. However there remain those digital compacts, which
probably make up the bulk of sales, and bring nothing to the table in
terms of image quality. All you might be able to say of them is, "what a
cute little camera!"

...but there is a big caveat with the "Superzooms"

I think one of the big problems with many of the "Superzooms" is, they
are still mostly a compromise. They are a solution for the traveler
wanting a single camera with a wide zoom range, and a bit more heft than
a "pocketable" compact. ...but as good as they are, to claim that they
have the flexibility, or image quality potential of a DSLR is just being
argumentative.
They are still limited with small sensors, over packed to silly pixel
density. Maxing those out at around 10MP as with the G11 makes more sense.

Kudos to Canon for doing that. Reducing the pixel density between the
G10 and G11 was a brave thing to do.

They are mostly marketed to photographers making the transition from the
lesser compacts. They might be lacking a feature such as RAW capture,
and emphasize shooting "scene-program/modes."

The problem is the target market usually lacks the experience to
understand just what they're giving up with a super zoom compared to a
D-SLR. They see the wide zoom range and the high pixel count and get
excited, but they often don't realize that it doesn't fix the problems
they've encountered with their compact point and shoot, and they don't
understand just how big of a compromise that wide range lens actually
is. Then they end up buying hopelessly junky lens adapters to try and
address some of the limitations of the super-zoom.

The experienced/talented
photographer, who buys one, and uses the user controls rather than the
"scene-program/modes" is the exception rather than the rule.

That seems to be the case because the experienced photographer is not
going to give up all the advantages of a D-SLR for only a slightly
smaller package. They will likely have a compact P&S for the times when
their D-SLR is too much trouble to take along.

The failure of Olympus's 4:3 product line might have been avoided if
Olympus had marketed it as an alternative to the limitations of super
zoom P&S models, rather than trying to compete directly against the
Canon and Nikon D-SLR lines; but probably not.

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:33:19 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

Using "P&S" to describe a camera with full user controls should be made a
felony punishable by either (a) flogging or (b) forced listening to an
entire speech by Joe Biden, the latter reserved for the more egregrious
offenses of course.


Listening to an entire speech given by Joe Biden would be the
equivalent of being sentenced to one of those country club prisons
where the wealthy and politically connected spend their days getting
massages and tennis lessons compared to having to read John Navas's
perpetual whining posts.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

I have the FZ35 which seems almost identical to the FZ28. I like the
camera
a lot, within its limitations, but it's just nonsensical to compare its
zooming qualities with the ease, speed and accuracy of a manual zoom
lens
a DSLR.

To you. Not to me, and to others like me who have learned how to use
the power zoom effectively and comfortably. For us, zooming isn't an
issue -- it's only an issue to those who haven't learned how to use it
effectively and comfortably.

I suppose you could "learn how to use" pushbuttons to sign your name --
rather than just using a pen manually -- but I doubt anyone would be able
to
do that "effectively and comfortably" compared with doing it manually.

For one thing, a manual zoom gives you an infinite range of focal
lengths;
you can quickly get *precisely* the framing you want --

that's a bit of a stretch since you're talking a few pixels difference.

Maybe, but I have read users' complaints about it. It may be that they were
especially persnickety about the exact framing.


whereas pushbutton
motorized zooms go by steps, you have to be satisfied with "close
enough,"
and not very quickly.

he said a friend of his kept overshooting the zoom and had to help him
set the camera to *slow* zoom speed to not do that.

I'll agree that two-speed zoom is a worthwhile feature. Still nowhere near
as precise and easy to use as a manual zoom ring.


But apart from that, pushbuttons are just an awkward way of doing
something
that can be done much, much more efficiently with a simple manual
control.
It's somewhat like the difference between trying to regulate your speed
on
the highway with the + and - cruise control buttons instead of the far
simpler accelerator pedal.

exactly. now watch him point out the advantages of fly by wire.

Motorized zooms are a necessary evil on compact cameras where there just
isn't any room for a manual control and the associated parts. But that's
what you have: a necessary evil, not a desired thing. Make all the
excuses
you like and it still doesn't change that.

agreed.

p.s. The FZ35 is not "almost identical" to the FZ28 -- it has
significant differences as well as significant similarities -- you
cannot make valid judgments of one from the other.

Well, my FZ35 has some improvements over your FZ28 -- nothing that
changes
the basic shortcomings of that type of camera, though.

they're close enough to be able to assess its capabilities, and his
insistence that you don't own the exact model is just an excuse.

Just so. I don't recall the exact differences between the FZ28 and FZ35, but
they were nothing that has any real bearing on this anyway, of that I am
sure.

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2010070715231316807-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...


Now, on to punishment, the Biden speech can easily be replaced with having
to sit through taped reruns of the entire World Cup competition, with
Vuvuzelas at full volume. ;-)


I would rather do that than be forced to read the tripe from the sock
puppets.

--
Peter

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:03:56 -0400, in
, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"John Navas" wrote in message
. ..

To you. Not to me, and to others like me who have learned how to use
the power zoom effectively and comfortably. For us, zooming isn't an
issue -- it's only an issue to those who haven't learned how to use it
effectively and comfortably.

I suppose you could "learn how to use" pushbuttons to sign your name --
rather than just using a pen manually -- but I doubt anyone would be able
to
do that "effectively and comfortably" compared with doing it manually.

Silly and meaningless analogy, as I'm sure you know (although I do use
pushbutton digital signature for electronic documents instead of jumping
through unnecessary hoops to sign them manually).

Your "pushbutton digital signature" is not at all the same thing, is it? Try
signing with some device that uses different pushbuttons to move the pen up,
down or sideways. That would be analogous to pushbutton zooming.


For one thing, a manual zoom gives you an infinite range of focal lengths;
you can quickly get *precisely* the framing you want -- whereas pushbutton
motorized zooms go by steps, you have to be satisfied with "close enough,"
and not very quickly.

As the citation I posted earlier shows, framing isn't an issue, and zoom
is quick enough for those of us that know how to use it effectively, as
I've said a number of time before.

Yes, you have. Regardless of your "know[ing] how to use it effectively," it
is still slower, less precise and more difficult than a manual zoom.

You're trying to project your own
limitations onto everyone else.

But apart from that, pushbuttons are just an awkward way of doing
something
that can be done much, much more efficiently with a simple manual control.

It's a multi-speed rotary control, not push buttons --
you must not have actual experience with it.

Then you're not talking about your FZ28, are you? If you're talking about a
camera that has some sort of zoom control that imitates a manual zoom lens,
then you're right, I have no experience with that.


It's somewhat like the difference between trying to regulate your speed on
the highway with the + and - cruise control buttons instead of the far
simpler accelerator pedal.

Cruise control works fine for me, speeding up or slowing down.

Really? When accelerating to pass another car, or slowing because the car in
front of you has suddenly slowed, cruise control "works fine" for you? I
think we must have quite different ideas about what "works fine" means.

Either yours isn't as good, or you must not know how to use it
effectively either.

You seem to be talking about different cameras. If you're talking about your
FZ28, of course my FZ35 is "as good" since it's essentially the same.


Motorized zooms are a necessary evil on compact cameras where there just
isn't any room for a manual control and the associated parts. But that's
what you have: a necessary evil, not a desired thing. Make all the excuses
you like and it still doesn't change that.

Motorized smart zooms are actually a benefit in that they free lens
design to use varifocal instead of more restrictive parfocal design, and

Now there you have a point. In that respect yes, varifocal lenses have made
small cameras possible. That has been true since long before digital
cameras.

to make the lens smaller and lighter, and arguing against it is much
like arguing against autofocus.

p.s. The FZ35 is not "almost identical" to the FZ28 -- it has
significant differences as well as significant similarities -- you
cannot make valid judgments of one from the other.

Well, my FZ35 has some improvements over your FZ28 -- nothing that changes
the basic shortcomings of that type of camera, though.

Guess again.

Show me where I'm wrong in saying so, then. I don't think you can show that.

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , John Navas
wrote:

I suppose you could "learn how to use" pushbuttons to sign your name --
rather than just using a pen manually -- but I doubt anyone would be
able to
do that "effectively and comfortably" compared with doing it manually.

Silly and meaningless analogy, as I'm sure you know (although I do use
pushbutton digital signature for electronic documents instead of jumping
through unnecessary hoops to sign them manually).

you missed his point.

For one thing, a manual zoom gives you an infinite range of focal
lengths;
you can quickly get *precisely* the framing you want -- whereas
pushbutton
motorized zooms go by steps, you have to be satisfied with "close
enough,"
and not very quickly.

As the citation I posted earlier shows, framing isn't an issue, and zoom
is quick enough for those of us that know how to use it effectively, as
I've said a number of time before. You're trying to project your own
limitations onto everyone else.

except for your friend who had problems with it.

But apart from that, pushbuttons are just an awkward way of doing
something
that can be done much, much more efficiently with a simple manual
control.

It's a multi-speed rotary control, not push buttons --
you must not have actual experience with it.

it's not directly coupled.

It's somewhat like the difference between trying to regulate your speed
on
the highway with the + and - cruise control buttons instead of the far
simpler accelerator pedal.

Cruise control works fine for me, speeding up or slowing down.
Either yours isn't as good, or you must not know how to use it
effectively either.

you don't use cruise control in stop and go city traffic. why do you
insist on lying?

Motorized zooms are a necessary evil on compact cameras where there just
isn't any room for a manual control and the associated parts. But that's
what you have: a necessary evil, not a desired thing. Make all the
excuses
you like and it still doesn't change that.

Motorized smart zooms are actually a benefit in that they free lens
design to use varifocal instead of more restrictive parfocal design, and
to make the lens smaller and lighter, and arguing against it is much
like arguing against autofocus.

nonsense. the lens is smaller and lighter because the image circle is
smaller. there were slr zooms that were motorized and they were bigger,
slower and clunkier. the market rejected them (pentax and i think canon
had them).

Minolta did also. They had no real benefit, were less easy to use, proved
unreliable, often malfunctioned and were extremely unpopular. Minolta
dropped them after about a year, as I recall.

But he is correct in saying that varifocal lenses made smaller lenses
possible on compact cameras than would have been the case if they were true
zooms.

In article , Neil
Harrington wrote:

For one thing, a manual zoom gives you an infinite range of focal lengths;
you can quickly get *precisely* the framing you want -- whereas pushbutton
motorized zooms go by steps, you have to be satisfied with "close enough,"
and not very quickly.

As the citation I posted earlier shows, framing isn't an issue, and zoom
is quick enough for those of us that know how to use it effectively, as
I've said a number of time before.

Yes, you have. Regardless of your "know[ing] how to use it effectively," it
is still slower, less precise and more difficult than a manual zoom.

he is making excuses for a workaround of a shortcoming.

when others do the same, he criticizes them.

It's somewhat like the difference between trying to regulate your speed on
the highway with the + and - cruise control buttons instead of the far
simpler accelerator pedal.

Cruise control works fine for me, speeding up or slowing down.

Really? When accelerating to pass another car, or slowing because the car in
front of you has suddenly slowed, cruise control "works fine" for you? I
think we must have quite different ideas about what "works fine" means.

that too. i was thinking of stop and go driving, especially in a car
with manual transmission.

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:42:02 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


Maybe, but I have read users' complaints about it. It may be that they were
especially persnickety about the exact framing.

What a funny comment. Coming from those with 95%-97% framing accuracy in
their DSLRs even without a zoom lens.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 19:59:29 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:


"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 16:03:56 -0400, in
, "Neil Harrington"
wrote:

"John Navas" wrote in message
...

To you. Not to me, and to others like me who have learned how to use
the power zoom effectively and comfortably. For us, zooming isn't an
issue -- it's only an issue to those who haven't learned how to use it
effectively and comfortably.

I suppose you could "learn how to use" pushbuttons to sign your name --
rather than just using a pen manually -- but I doubt anyone would be able
to
do that "effectively and comfortably" compared with doing it manually.

Silly and meaningless analogy, as I'm sure you know (although I do use
pushbutton digital signature for electronic documents instead of jumping
through unnecessary hoops to sign them manually).

Your "pushbutton digital signature" is not at all the same thing, is it? Try
signing with some device that uses different pushbuttons to move the pen up,
down or sideways. That would be analogous to pushbutton zooming.


For one thing, a manual zoom gives you an infinite range of focal lengths;
you can quickly get *precisely* the framing you want -- whereas pushbutton
motorized zooms go by steps, you have to be satisfied with "close enough,"
and not very quickly.

As the citation I posted earlier shows, framing isn't an issue, and zoom
is quick enough for those of us that know how to use it effectively, as
I've said a number of time before.

Yes, you have. Regardless of your "know[ing] how to use it effectively," it
is still slower, less precise and more difficult than a manual zoom.

You're trying to project your own
limitations onto everyone else.

But apart from that, pushbuttons are just an awkward way of doing
something
that can be done much, much more efficiently with a simple manual control.

It's a multi-speed rotary control, not push buttons --
you must not have actual experience with it.

Then you're not talking about your FZ28, are you? If you're talking about a
camera that has some sort of zoom control that imitates a manual zoom lens,
then you're right, I have no experience with that.


It's somewhat like the difference between trying to regulate your speed on
the highway with the + and - cruise control buttons instead of the far
simpler accelerator pedal.

Cruise control works fine for me, speeding up or slowing down.

Really? When accelerating to pass another car, or slowing because the car in
front of you has suddenly slowed, cruise control "works fine" for you? I
think we must have quite different ideas about what "works fine" means.

Either yours isn't as good, or you must not know how to use it
effectively either.

You seem to be talking about different cameras. If you're talking about your
FZ28, of course my FZ35 is "as good" since it's essentially the same.


Motorized zooms are a necessary evil on compact cameras where there just
isn't any room for a manual control and the associated parts. But that's
what you have: a necessary evil, not a desired thing. Make all the excuses
you like and it still doesn't change that.

Motorized smart zooms are actually a benefit in that they free lens
design to use varifocal instead of more restrictive parfocal design, and

Now there you have a point. In that respect yes, varifocal lenses have made
small cameras possible. That has been true since long before digital
cameras.

to make the lens smaller and lighter, and arguing against it is much
like arguing against autofocus.

p.s. The FZ35 is not "almost identical" to the FZ28 -- it has
significant differences as well as significant similarities -- you
cannot make valid judgments of one from the other.

Well, my FZ35 has some improvements over your FZ28 -- nothing that changes
the basic shortcomings of that type of camera, though.

Guess again.

Show me where I'm wrong in saying so, then. I don't think you can show that.


Take for example a programmable zoom lens, as exist in all CHDK compatible
cameras. Should you ever have the need to EXACTLY and PRECISELY duplicate
both zoom and focus settings for extended timelapse projects, macro or
otherwise, or stop-motion animation sequences, there's absolutely no way
you can duplicate them with any manually focused and manually zoomed lens.
Some people are not so constricted in their thinking and photographic
creativity and require a programmable zoom lens. It also works just as well
on all other less demanding projects too.

On Wed, 07 Jul 2010 15:50:31 -0700, SMS wrote:


That seems to be the case because the experienced photographer is not
going to give up all the advantages of a D-SLR for only a slightly
smaller package. They will likely have a compact P&S for the times when
their D-SLR is too much trouble to take along.

How would you know? When you've NEVER used ANY camera in your lifetime?