I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

ray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

John Navas wrote:

They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact
digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers.
Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now, imagine,
if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been with
superior equipment.

Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser equipment
and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the operator more than
the camera.

No, that's not interesting at all: Almost everyone else, including
myself, has made this observation years ago, in writing, in these ng's.
Both of them. Plus r.p.e-35mm., alt.photog etc.

It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top gear.

--
john mcwilliams

On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:16:03 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

Helping the Clueless wrote:
On 16 Oct 2009 15:38:25 GMT, ray wrote:

Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the
point, it's just a matter of degree.

Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I
also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the
budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image
quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To
get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already
exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass,
REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000.

Oh bull****. You can take amazing photos with any random Canon[0] DLSR &
the most basic ($100) 50mm/F1.8 lens. That particular one weighs all of
about 100gms. If you can't take a decent photo with that combination,
you aren't a real photographer.

[0] Ditto for other brands, I'm sure, but Canon is the one I'm familiar
with.

Holy ****, are you ever an idiot. I can take amazing photos with a Brownie
Box camera too. That's not the issue here. But then, like your capability
of holding photography information in your mind, you display the same
capability of retaining the discussion in your mind.

Are you really this ****ing dense?

Nobody's talking about a fixed focal-length lens camera. Except for the OP
troll and his imaginary P&S to DSLR holy-conversion he claims to have
caused, like he's somehow curing lepers. What a ****in' joke he is. All
he's managed to do is bring another sucker in-line for the expensive and
extensive glass purchases required to make that DSLR the least bit useful.
If a fixed focal-length lens is the only requirement then why buy an
expensive interchangeable lens camera at all? Proving again what ****ing
fools and idiots you all are.

Add up the weight, size, and cost for ALL the DSLR glass AND adequately
heavy tripod that is required to match or exceed the apertures and
focal-lengths available in a lightweight and compact superzoom camera, one
which has already proved to provide images even better than that DSLR. Then
haul that equipment on a three week or longer hike into some of the most
remote and unforgiving lands on earth. Hell, just go on a Grand Canyon
trail-hike groomed for wussy tourists, I bet you couldn't even do that with
the equivalent photo gear. You'd drop dead after the first 6 hours of
walking. Or at least we can all hope so.

A creative nature-photographer requires a wide range of lenses to get the
job done, from macro to wide-angle to extreme telephoto, always at their
disposal. They don't have time to hike back fifty miles to go get another
lens out the studio storage-cabinet or their last transport vehicle
whenever they want. Why even bother with that hassle when the superzoom
camera can already provide images better than that DSLR and changeable
lens. That's already been proved. That's just not idle wishing and
speculation, that's a cold hard FACT. No matter how much online whining
that you and all the other trolls in the world are going to do about it,
it's never going to change reality.

But that's right, I forgot, you're just a pathetic moron snapshooter (we've
all seen your crapshots, remember?), one who happens to have a keyboard and
net-access. That's all you are and will ever be. One who is desperately
trying to find a way to justify why you threw away all that money on that
camera of yours, only to find out it didn't improve your boring beginner's
crapshots at all. Hurts, doesn't it. (You ****in' fool.) We're talking WAY
over your head here. People who have real life experience with real-world
photography. Let us not forget, you don't even know how to even keep up
with the conversation much less realize what is the right camera for the
right job.

While you are pondering the depths of your ignorance and inexperience, also
add up how many shots, or even days worth of shots, that you were forced to
miss because you had to quickly risk changing lenses during that dust
storm. All in order to capture a once-in-a-lifetime image of that immense
wall of sand rolling through the sunset-lit archeological ruins you were
photographing one-hundred miles from the nearest paved road.

You don't have one ****ing clue anywhere in that basement-living vacuous
pea-brain of yours. I fully comprehend that's what I'm dealing with in
replying to you, but what I don't understand is why you are so compelled to
keep proving this fact to the world with every post you have ever made, or
will ever make in the future.

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 21:34:37 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:19:36 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:

They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact
digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers.
Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now, imagine,
if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been with
superior equipment.
What "superior equipment"? My camera certainly isn't perfect, but it's
the best tool I know of for my particular needs.
Of course it's the best tool *you* know. That was one point I had.
Do you have something in mind you don't think I know about?
Oh, I don't think so; I am reasonably familiar with your form of argument.

You must be quite threatened by cameras like mine to feel such a strong
need to attack them.

Not attacking them by any stretch, John. Get real! I do know your
moves.... so, check mate!

Or, should that be: "Check, mate!" since we've got good Oz participation??

--
lsmft

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:16:37 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

ray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

John Navas wrote:

They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact
digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers.
Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now, imagine,
if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been with
superior equipment.
Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser equipment
and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the operator more than
the camera.
No, that's not interesting at all: Almost everyone else, including
myself, has made this observation years ago, in writing, in these ng's.
Both of them. Plus r.p.e-35mm., alt.photog etc.

It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top gear.

Actually it does, as many great photographers have said.

Oh, do please cite a few!

--
lsmft

Bob Larter wrote:
Helping the Clueless wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 19:54:43 +1000, Bob Larter
wrote:

Helping the Clueless wrote:
On 15 Oct 2009 17:36:37 GMT, ray wrote:

On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:59:20 -0700, RichA wrote:

On Oct 14, 11:35 am, ray wrote:
On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:40:27 -0700, RichA wrote:
I simply pointed out that they could get a demo Nikon D40 with
an kit
lens for about $250 so it was time for them to chuck their sad-sack
Sony P&S in the waste bin. Of course, once they saw the output
from
the Nikon, they were thrilled.
Probably be less thrilled when they do that first 8 mile hike or 25
mile bike ride.
Yes, 1.5lb's of DSLR and lens are a killer...to a five year old girl
maybe.
One lens would be quite limiting - unless you had a lens that
weighed more than that.
Exactly so. If you want to have the focal-length range and
adaptability of
a 20x superzoom camera, you will have to haul about 23 lbs. in DSLR
gear
and glass (I already added it up).
Oh please. Grow the **** up.

You must have missed this part re-quoted below. Or more accurately,
failed
to comprehend the written word. This paragraph describes you so well too.

1.3 lbs. of superzoom camera vs. 23 lbs. of equivalent DSLR gear. Anyone
capable of surviving on a more remote trail is also smart enough to know
which gear is worth carrying. This should also be a no-brainer for the
online idiots, but as you can tell, they don't even qualify for a
no-brainer decision-making level of intellect. This puts them
squarely in,
or below, the intellectual level of reptilian brain-stem life forms.
They
can reproduce (unfortunately), eat, and breathe, but that's the
extent of
it.

Like I said; grow the **** up.

He isn't able to breed so cut the guy some slack :-(

Much of that is true, I often hike with about 15 lbs of gear and it is
inconvenient but worth it to me. I would like a pocket size P&S for
around town when I don't want to carry a bag.

the troll wrote:
Bob Larter wrote:
the troll wrote:
ray wrote:

Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the
point, it's just a matter of degree.

Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I
also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the
budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image
quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To
get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already
exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass,
REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000.

...You can take amazing photos with any random Canon[0] DLSR &
the most basic ($100) 50mm/F1.8 lens. That particular one weighs all of
about 100gms. If you can't take a decent photo with that combination,
you aren't a real photographer.

[0] Ditto for other brands, I'm sure, but Canon is the one I'm familiar
with.

...I can take amazing photos with a Brownie
Box camera too. That's not the issue here...

Yes it is the issue. I can take good photos on my cell phone but better
quality with a better camera.


Nobody's talking about a fixed focal-length lens camera. Except for the OP
...and his imaginary P&S to DSLR holy-conversion he claims to have
caused... All
he's managed to do is bring another sucker in-line for the expensive and
extensive glass purchases required to make that DSLR the least bit useful.
If a fixed focal-length lens is the only requirement then why buy an
expensive interchangeable lens camera at all? ...

For DOF effects, for speed, for low light performance, less distortion &
chromatic aberrations & purple fringing, more dynamic range, optical
viewfinder.


Add up the weight, size, and cost for ALL the DSLR glass AND adequately
heavy tripod that is required to match or exceed the apertures and
focal-lengths available in a lightweight and compact superzoom camera, one
which has already proved to provide images even better than that DSLR.

Yep, it'll cost a fortune & weigh a ton. However, one could figure ISO
performance against aperture in the P&S and the numbers would change
substantially. Compare a 420mm eq shot on a P&S at f/2.8 at ISO 400 with
the equivalent at f/4 on a full frame DSLR using the same shutter speed
and the noise level would match at about ISO 3200 so you lose one stop
of lens speed but gain a total of 2 stops in ISO performance for an
equivalent shot. So you can actually take a picture of that owl swooping
through the dark forest which would be impossible on the P&S. I'm
figuring a big 300mm f/2.8 lens with 1.4x teleconverter on FX at f/4 or
without the converter on DX at f/2.8 and ISO 1600, same difference. For
wideangle I can go to 12mm rectilinear or 10.5 almost circular fisheye
and the P&S stops at 28mm equivalent. Again, there are things I can do
that the P&S simply cannot. There is a big price to pay of course.


Then
haul that equipment on a three week or longer hike into some of the most
remote and unforgiving lands on earth. Hell, just go on a Grand Canyon
trail-hike groomed for wussy tourists, I bet you couldn't even do that with
the equivalent photo gear. You'd drop dead after the first 6 hours of
walking. Or at least we can all hope so.

I did a 10 mile day hike in August Utah heat with a 15 lb kit this year:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehil...7621828932019/
I did 100 miles with a super-8 movie camera 20 years ago in the same
area: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-NOmBO2TqI


A creative nature-photographer requires a wide range of lenses to get the
job done, from macro to wide-angle to extreme telephoto, always at their
disposal.

There is plenty that can be done with just creativity and a prime lens
and more with a reversing ring or extension tubes and 3 or 4 compact
lenses. I can bring a compact tele like the 75-150 f/3.5 & get
spectacular razor sharp or creamy bokeh results, that just lacks AF & VR
but is real close to the performance of the 70-200/2.8 and fits in my
pants pocket.


They don't have time to hike back fifty miles to go get another
lens out the studio storage-cabinet or their last transport vehicle
whenever they want. Why even bother with that hassle when the superzoom
camera can already provide images better than that DSLR

In low contrast full sun, compared to a cheap kit zoom only.


and changeable
lens. That's already been proved. That's just not idle wishing and
speculation, that's a cold hard FACT.

No, it's a gross exaggeration.


(we've all seen your crapshots, remember?)

What about yours?


add up how many shots, or even days worth of shots, that you were forced to
miss because you had to quickly risk changing lenses during that dust
storm. All in order to capture a once-in-a-lifetime image of that immense
wall of sand rolling through the sunset-lit archeological ruins you were
photographing one-hundred miles from the nearest paved road.

That's why I carry a backup DX body with the long lens mounted & ready
to go g. How many shots have you missed while waiting for the camera
to turn on & lens extend? Wide angle only possible by stitching, not
enough light, etc. There are always trade-offs with different systems.


... profanity and personal insults snipped


--
Paul Furman
www.edgehill.net
www.baynatives.com

all google groups messages filtered due to spam

John Navas wrote:
On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 16:11:50 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:16:37 -0700, John McWilliams
wrote in :

ray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

John Navas wrote:

They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact
digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers.
Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now, imagine,
if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been with
superior equipment.
Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser equipment
and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the operator more than
the camera.
No, that's not interesting at all: Almost everyone else, including
myself, has made this observation years ago, in writing, in these ng's.
Both of them. Plus r.p.e-35mm., alt.photog etc.

It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top gear.
Actually it does, as many great photographers have said.

Oh, do please cite a few!

Google my prior posts.

Jamais, jamais, jamais.

--
lsmft

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:16:37 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

ray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

John Navas wrote:

They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact
digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers.
Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now,
imagine, if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been
with superior equipment.

Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser equipment
and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the operator more
than the camera.

No, that's not interesting at all: Almost everyone else, including
myself, has made this observation years ago, in writing, in these ng's.
Both of them. Plus r.p.e-35mm., alt.photog etc.

It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top
gear.

I don't have a DSLR and the only point I'm trying to make is that for the
photography I generally do, it would not help - because I'd probably wind
up leaving it home in favour of a more managealbe P&S. Different folks
have different needs and requirements - there is not one camera style
that is perfect for everyone - if there were, the others would not be
there.

ray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 22:16:37 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

ray wrote:
On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 15:58:16 -0700, John McWilliams wrote:

John Navas wrote:

They must either have crap cameras or be clueless. My own compact
digital photos are often _better_ than those shot by dSLR luggers.
Agreed; we've seen good results from your compact camera. Now,
imagine, if you can- or if you will- how much better they'd have been
with superior equipment.
Interestingly enough, I've seen good photos come from lesser equipment
and poor photos come from the best equipment. It's the operator more
than the camera.
No, that's not interesting at all: Almost everyone else, including
myself, has made this observation years ago, in writing, in these ng's.
Both of them. Plus r.p.e-35mm., alt.photog etc.

It doesn't in anyway negate what I and others have stated about top
gear.

I don't have a DSLR and the only point I'm trying to make is that for the
photography I generally do, it would not help - because I'd probably wind
up leaving it home in favour of a more managealbe P&S. Different folks
have different needs and requirements - there is not one camera style
that is perfect for everyone - if there were, the others would not be
there.

Yes, ray, I understand. This latter point has also been made here ad
nauseum.

--
john mcwilliams

"Bob Larter" wrote in message


[...]

I don't have the slightest problem with people who prefer a P&S to a
DSLR. The bit that confuses me is why they feel the need to post about
P&Ses to a *DSLR specific* newsgroup.

Bob, Bob, Bob. The answer lies in your own signature.