25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo corrections)

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:46:12 -0600, Carl_Devonston
wrote:

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 07:26:30 -0500, "B?wser" wrote:

Wow. Thanks to this post, I expect to see all those big white and black
lenses at the football games, PJ events, etc start to disappear and soon!
Now that they know that a simple P&S will do a better job at capturing pro
football than their silly SLRs, why would they keep them?

As they improve and as more people realize how much more efficient they are for
all purposes, then yes you will see D/SLRs disappear. Just as you saw all
view-cameras disappear nearly a century ago at all major events.

Get it?

You may see the current crop of DSLRs disappear years from now. But
you definitely won't see them replaced with P&S. Not if any serious
sports photographer wants to keep their job. But you'll see
convergance, which you're already seeing. DSLRs that have live-view,
HD video recording, etc. Things that were first introduced in P&S and
can be applied to a DSLR. Hell, you may even see electronic shutters
although those compromise image quality so maybe not. But if they can
figure out how to do them without compromising image quality, then why
not?

Steve

"Carl_Devonston" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 07:26:30 -0500, "B?wser" wrote:

Wow. Thanks to this post, I expect to see all those big white and black
lenses at the football games, PJ events, etc start to disappear and soon!
Now that they know that a simple P&S will do a better job at capturing
pro
football than their silly SLRs, why would they keep them?

As they improve and as more people realize how much more efficient they
are for
all purposes, then yes you will see D/SLRs disappear. Just as you saw all
view-cameras disappear nearly a century ago at all major events.

Get it?

Yeah, sure. Call me when you see a Panasonic FZ28 show up on the sidelines
of a night football game. I shoot HS sports in weak lighting, and I need to
shoot at ISO 6400. Yeah. I get it.


If not, then perhaps you should stand in the bleachers at the next
sporting
event holding a view-camera on a heavy wooden tripod, with your
flash-powder
tray in the other hand, both lofted high above your head. Then maybe
you'll
begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a couple
years,
before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely disappear
from
common usage.

Get it yet?

And utterly pointless comparison. I'm not holding my breath.

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:46:12 -0600, Carl_Devonston
wrote:

Then maybe you'll
begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a couple
years,
before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely disappear
from
common usage.

You can have my gun, but you'll have to pry my dslr from my cold,
dead, hands.

DSLRs will disappear eventually, all tech changes. But to claim that they
can replace them now? Kinda silly...

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 09:33:35 -0500, B?wser wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:46:12 -0600, Carl_Devonston
wrote:

Then maybe you'll
begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a couple
years,
before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely disappear
from
common usage.

You can have my gun, but you'll have to pry my dslr from my cold,
dead, hands.

DSLRs will disappear eventually, all tech changes. But to claim that they
can replace them now? Kinda silly...

Yeah, kinda like those idiots 3 years ago that said digital cameras would
replace film cameras as being more popular. What idiots! What nonsense! What
fools! Digital replacing film? That's impossible. That will take at least 2 more
decades before we even get to the point of thinking like that!

"Carl_Devonston" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 07:26:30 -0500, "B?wser" wrote:

Wow. Thanks to this post, I expect to see all those big white and black
lenses at the football games, PJ events, etc start to disappear and soon!
Now that they know that a simple P&S will do a better job at capturing
pro
football than their silly SLRs, why would they keep them?

As they improve and as more people realize how much more efficient they
are for
all purposes, then yes you will see D/SLRs disappear. Just as you saw all
view-cameras disappear nearly a century ago at all major events.

Get it?

If not, then perhaps you should stand in the bleachers at the next
sporting
event holding a view-camera on a heavy wooden tripod, with your
flash-powder
tray in the other hand, both lofted high above your head. Then maybe
you'll
begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a couple
years,
before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely disappear
from
common usage.

Get it yet?


Actually, if you were using such a rig (view camera/tripod/flash-powder),
you could get a photo of truly amazing quality. It would completely depend
on your personal talent and skill, including an intimate knowledge of the
sport in question, so that you could predict where the action is likely to
be. You just wouldn't be able to shoot 30 frames per second, hoping that one
of them might be a winner.

I frequently shot football games from the sidelines with a KoniOmega 6x7 and
a potato-masher strobe. The trick is very simple: pre-focus on the near
hash-mark, and wait for the action to cross that point.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:08:22 GMT, Steve wrote:

Hell, you may even see electronic shutters
although those compromise image quality so maybe not. But if they can
figure out how to do them without compromising image quality, then why
not?

Where on earth did you get this nonsense?

They already have them in P&S cameras that don't compromise anything in image
quality. High-speed full-frame captures up to 1/40,000 of a second without any
scanned bands of the sensor being read off the chip, as used to exist in all
DSLR electronics. See this photo for DSLR sensor readout technology at work
with high-speed objects.

http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...ut_anomaly.jpg

It's not bad enough that focal-plane shutters have their own image-distorting
problems, but many of their sensors have this problem too.

The curved bars are the propeller being slowly scanned electronically in
horizontal banks across the sensor. That doesn't happen in any P&S cameras (that
I know of).

You people invent the silliest things to perpetuate on the net. No doubt due to
your experiences with the lame electronic architecture and hardware of your
DSLRs. You need to get out more and get away from that ancient camera design.

I wonder what other technology you're going to steal from P&S cameras to try to
make your DSLRs fully functional one day.

On Wed, 5 Nov 2008 09:33:35 -0500, B?wser wrote:


"tony cooper" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 06:46:12 -0600, Carl_Devonston
wrote:

Then maybe you'll
begin to understand why it's only a matter of time, maybe only a couple
years,
before your beloved, though ancient, D/SLR designs completely disappear
from
common usage.

You can have my gun, but you'll have to pry my dslr from my cold,
dead, hands.

DSLRs will disappear eventually, all tech changes. But to claim that they
can replace them now? Kinda silly...

What did photographers used to say, just a few years back about
film cameras versus digital?

It seems that about half of the argument against P&S cameras is
justified, and half of the argument is just a defensive posture of
the inevitable.

Steve wrote:

You may see the current crop of DSLRs disappear years from now. But
you definitely won't see them replaced with P&S. Not if any serious
sports photographer wants to keep their job. But you'll see
convergance, which you're already seeing. DSLRs that have live-view,
HD video recording, etc. Things that were first introduced in P&S and
can be applied to a DSLR. Hell, you may even see electronic shutters
although those compromise image quality so maybe not.

You may see options for it, just like you can shoose live view and
contrast detection focusing or the optical viewfinder and phase
detection focusing.

But if they can
figure out how to do them without compromising image quality, then why
not?

That's the big issue. D-SLR owners are less willing to compromise on
image quality, which is inherent in electronic shutters.

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 11:48:11 -0600, KenKenseth
wrote:

On Wed, 05 Nov 2008 14:08:22 GMT, Steve wrote:

Hell, you may even see electronic shutters
although those compromise image quality so maybe not. But if they can
figure out how to do them without compromising image quality, then why
not?

Where on earth did you get this nonsense?

Just because you don't know something doesn't make it false. The fact
is that if you take two sensors, one that has an electronic shutter
and one that does not, the one that does not will give you better
performance. It's because of the additional space taken up on the
substrate for the electronics needed for the electronic shutter. That
allows less room for light collecting pixels. If/when they put
sensors with electronic shutters that don't rob it of light
sensitivity you'll see them in more widespread use on high-end
cameras.

Steve

KenKenseth wrote:

You people

Hi Vern.. Ken... Harvey... Real Pro... etc.