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 |
#111
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 02:09:33 -1000, Scott W wrote
in : John Navas wrote: That's you. A DSLR better suits the way you work, all well and good, but that doesn't make it a universal truth -- my FZ8 has huge advantages over DSLR in handling, size, weight, zoom range, and lens speed, that make it possible for me to get shots I wouldn't get with an SLR. It's not a matter of experience -- I've used SLRs for decades, and it's a relief not to have to lug all that gear around. I can understand the weight and size issues, which is why I do use a P&S from time to time and in fact in the market for a new one. The FZ8 lenses has to be fast to make up for it needing to stay at low iso. And the lens is not all that fast, at the wide end it is a f/2.8, which is not bad but not great. It's actually 3+ stops faster than the closest equivalent 35 mm lens stopped down for comparable sharpness. When I am in low light I use a 28mm f/2.8 lens and shoot at iso 800. But that's presumably a very limited fixed focal length, and without optical stabilization, which is worth 2-3 stops. With an FZ18 you could be shooting f/2.8 at ISO 100 or 200. The best that can be said for the speed of the lens is it somewhat offsets the height noise of the sensor. The combination of fast lens speed and optical stabilization greatly levels the playing field against the best 35 mm lenses, not to mention the super wide zoom range. I'm glad that works for you, but I don't think it's a good measure of photo quality. Do you also think movies with the biggest box office are automatically the best movies? What I think about movies is those that are film in I-Max are more fun to watch then the 35mm version, go see the same movie in both versions and tell me the camera does not matter Not a valid analogy, as I'm sure you know. And with still photograph the camera matters even more, this is no sound and no acting to aid the image, there is only image. In some cases it takes more work to use a DSLR, whether that work is worth the difference between a P&S and a DSLR is what each person decides, sometime I take the P&S sometime I take the DSLR. With all due respect, there is no fundamental difference in many (most?) cases between better compact camera images and comparable DSLR images. True, there are cases where a DSLR will do a better job, but then there are cases where a compact camera will do a better job. There is no one perfect tool. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#112
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:43:11 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in : "Helmsman3" wrote in message .. . So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell to the DSLR. [ . . . ] I'm afraid you have it all bass-ackwards. DSLRs have come down in price to the point that they are pushing high-end compact cameras (I despise the silly term "P&S") completely out of the market. I'm sorry to see the "prosumer" level compacts go, but going they are. ... Don't look now, but "prosumer" level compacts by Panasonic equipped with superb Leica lenses are going strong. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#113
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:09:18 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in : "Helmsman3" wrote in message .. . [HUGE SNIP] In a lot fewer words than those, you could have just answered the question. And spared us all the insults. Amen! -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#114
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On 16 Nov 2007 11:06:06 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote
in : SMS ???????????? ??? wrote: DSLR partisans seem like the defenders of film, because they don't have a lot of firm evidence that their workflow is superior, except at high ISO or some arcane usage. LOL, high ISO is "arcane usage?" Yes. Back when I was doing wet photography, the only time I bought and push-processed 800 speed film (NPZ or Portra) was when my kids were in a Nutcracker performance, once a year. That's pretty arcane. For dark conditions there is always flash or tripod. A generation ago ASA 64 was considered fast film, and they made good pictures anyhow. The problem of P&S shutter lag has been mostly solved in recent models. As he would know if he'd actually ever used one, but he'll probably just continue to pontificate from out-of-date info for some time to come. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#115
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:02:28 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote in : Bill Tuthill wrote: The problem of P&S shutter lag has been mostly solved in recent models. Nope. It's improved, but it's still present, and it effectively eliminates the ability for live-action shots. See what I mean? One wonder why he apparently can't see how foolish it makes him look. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#116
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:17:10 +0000, Chris Savage
wrote in : On 2007-11-15, Bill Tuthill wrote: DSLR partisans seem like the defenders of film, because they don't have a lot of firm evidence that their workflow is superior, except at high ISO or some arcane usage. I don't need to be partisan about anything because I have ample evidence that applying the same 'workflow' to files from my D200 and C8080 will show the SLR has a clear quality advantage at any ISO under any exposure conditions. Then your C8080 must be defective. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#117
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
John Navas wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:43:11 -0500, "Neil Harrington" wrote in : "Helmsman3" wrote in message . .. So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell to the DSLR. [ . . . ] I'm afraid you have it all bass-ackwards. DSLRs have come down in price to the point that they are pushing high-end compact cameras (I despise the silly term "P&S") completely out of the market. I'm sorry to see the "prosumer" level compacts go, but going they are. ... Don't look now, but "prosumer" level compacts by Panasonic equipped with superb Leica lenses are going strong. Yes, I have a FZ10 which has served me well for the past three years. Eventually, I will replace it but not until the capture ccd(s) are bigger. Meanwhile, I'll use the FZ for routine photography and my old Leica M2 for real serious work... JT |
#118
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Neil Harrington wrote:
So it is with digital. They'll keep making compacts (and I love 'em, I'll keep buying 'em along with DSLRs) but except for the occasional niche camera, which by definition will be of extremely limited appeal, compact cameras just aren't going to be taken as seriously as they used to be. What you'll see in the coming years will be the continued migration of manufacturers currently making high-end compacts, to making DSLRs. Good points, I've not made the jump yet (ignoring camera phones), a nice compact digital camera, that works like a proper camera would be nice, possibly thinking of Ricoh GR-D or probally more useful GX100, however an SLR would offer more, except the pocketableness. Price difference between the Pentax K10D and those two compacts is not much. If I buy one the K10D makes more sense. Pete -- http://www.petezilla.co.uk |
#119
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 11:35:19 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote: John Navas wrote: Likewise untrue -- Digital Photography Review characterizes the preview lag of the FZ8 as "slight", and the measured shutter lag on the FZ50, including preview lag, was 0.07 seconds. and seriously bad noise problems at any ISO setting other than at the very low settings. Noise is actually good at ISO 200, and easily reduced with Neat Image. ISO 200 would have been a disaster for me on my last two vacations on my 30D it stayed at 1600 for very long periods, and we are talking f/4 and sometimes f/1.4, sometimes f/1.4 for .4 second on a tripod, at 1600. Doug McDonald If you're shooting in that dim of lighting, then how much different is it shooting at f/2.0 at ISO 200 for 2 or 4 seconds? Really, you D-SLR activists really have some serious problems if you don't realize that any P&S camera can be used under the same circumstances. The added plus is that I can use that setting with a zoom lens length at 320mm. Beating anything that's available for your D-SLR no matter how much that you want to pay. Meaning that I can compose and frame shots at those exposure settings that are clearly outside the realm of ANY D-SLR. But let me guess, now you're going to tell me that only 1/4th second shutter speed was just the right amount to do the nighttime water-motion blur effect that you desperately wanted. (How much do you want to bet that this armchair photographer is now going to use that as his exact excuse, or one just like it.) Get a freakin' grip on reality, would you? D-SLR = Delusional-SLR |
#120
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:43:01 GMT, Daniel Silevitch wrote:
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:25:29 GMT, John Navas wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 12:26:21 GMT, Daniel Silevitch wrote in t: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 06:34:46 GMT, David J Taylor wrote: Bill Tuthill wrote: The recommended DSLR workflow seems like a huge chore, not a fun hobby, with RAW mode and the continual treadmill of Adobe software upgrades. You don't /have/ to use that workflow - I believe in getting things right in the camera and minima post processing. No RAW for me. With the right software, RAW adds precisely zero extra work. I use Apple's Aperture, and Adobe's Lightroom does the same thing. I can shoot in either RAW or JPEG, and either way the software reads them in, generates preview thumbnails, lets me twiddle with the white balance, etc. The only thing special I need to do for RAW is budget more disk space for the bigger files, and in an era of 1 TB drives, that's not a big deal. With JPEG there's no need to do *any* post-processing. Since I use Aperture to sort and categorize my pictures anyways, I don't have to do anything extra to get a picture based on RAW up on the screen. Put card in reader, select a project, hit 'import'. That's it. Exactly the same as JPG. The difference is that if I've blown a highlight or screwed up the white balance, I can do a better job of fixing my mistake if the underlying image is RAW. I don't have to do any explicit post-processing, but if I decide to, I can do it better with RAW. (nb: If desired, replace "Aperture" with "Lightroom". Same basic idea.) -dms Hint: This is where the word "photographer" comes into play. If you know what you are doing in the beginning you don't have to depend on RAW. Get a camera that adequately does a full dynamic range conversion from the sensor's RAW data and you won't have to worry about it. Unless you are a crappy photographer in the first place and need that safety net, or you just don't know how to choose cameras that do it right in the first place. These are the same photographers that have to depend on extra resolution too, because they don't know how to properly frame and compose a shot in the camera. Or those widely popular machine-gun snap-shooters that drool over the burst rates of their cameras. Same principle. They think that if they can get enough of the scene saved to pixels, somehow, later, they'll eventually find a way to get a worthwhile image out of it. Then they'll blame their editing software when they can't to it then either. Try being a photographer instead of a snap-shooter next time. (Isn't it funny how every argument that the dSLR owner uses on why their camera is better only reveals their lack of having any skill at being a real photographer? Damn, this is funny! LOL) |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Film lenses on dslr | quess who | Digital Photography | 4 | September 22nd 06 10:07 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
Film Scanner DPI vs DSLR Megapixels | arifi | Digital Photography | 11 | May 25th 06 09:21 PM |
Film lens on DSLR? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | January 3rd 05 03:45 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |