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

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

On Oct 14, 11:35Â*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. Â*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.

"ray" wrote in message
...
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.

Nikon D40 - 522g (1.2lb)
18-200mm lens - 560g (19.8 oz)

Total: 2.4lbs

David

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
...
In article , David J
Taylor says...
Nikon D40 - 522g (1.2lb)
18-200mm lens - 560g (19.8 oz)

Total: 2.4lbs

That's heavy, especially if you have to carry it the whole day with you.
--

Alfred Molon

It's a trade-off, Alfred. I have no problem carrying that weight (or a
little more) the whole day, and some people carry much, much more. I want
the quality and capabilities that my outfit can provide. I have
occasionally taken just my Panasonic TZ3 (257g, 9.1oz) and then regretted
it - at one special occasion I was the only photographer present and the
low light levels precluded great results. Ah, well!

David

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:21:43 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

"ray" wrote in message
...
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.

Nikon D40 - 522g (1.2lb)
18-200mm lens - 560g (19.8 oz)

A 400mm or so would be really nice - that's the equiv I have on my P&S.


Total: 2.4lbs

That's a fair amount of tonnage.



David

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). This is a very significant consideration
for anyone who is more than the typical snapshooter wandering around their
local city park--those who can only pretend to be a nature-photographer.
Also, these online armchair photographers who only own the manuals of
cameras they download, never the actual cameras and lenses, always forget
the sturdy and cumbersome tripod REQUIRED when using long focal-lengths on
any DSLR. Nor will you be able to fit the DSLR, its lenses, and REQUIRED
tripod in your roomy windbreaker pocket on a 10-mile day-hike like you can
with just one high-quality superzoom camera.

Image quality is not part of this decision-making equation because many
superzoom cameras already beat the image quality of any DSLR and its
associated zoom-lens offerings. See these side-by-side examples for just
one of many superzoom cameras that do just that.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

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.

"ray" wrote in message ...
On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:21:43 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:
[]
Nikon D40 - 522g (1.2lb)
18-200mm lens - 560g (19.8 oz)

A 400mm or so would be really nice - that's the equiv I have on my P&S.

It's a 300mm "equivalent".

Total: 2.4lbs

That's a fair amount of tonnage.

... but more functional, with better isolation of the subject from the
background, and particularly useful in low-light, when you can get
reasonable images from ISO 1600 (and even higher ISOs with a more recent
DSLR). Both P&S and DSLR are easily available - you choose what /you/
need for your own purposes and circumstances. There's no one "right"
choice.

David

"Bob Larter" wrote in message
...
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.


It hurts when the truth starts dawning doesn't it?

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.

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:55:59 -0500, 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, 11:35Â*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. Â*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). This is a very significant
consideration for anyone who is more than the typical snapshooter
wandering around their local city park--those who can only pretend to be
a nature-photographer. Also, these online armchair photographers who
only own the manuals of cameras they download, never the actual cameras
and lenses, always forget the sturdy and cumbersome tripod REQUIRED when
using long focal-lengths on any DSLR. Nor will you be able to fit the
DSLR, its lenses, and REQUIRED tripod in your roomy windbreaker pocket
on a 10-mile day-hike like you can with just one high-quality superzoom
camera.

Image quality is not part of this decision-making equation because many
superzoom cameras already beat the image quality of any DSLR and its
associated zoom-lens offerings. See these side-by-side examples for just
one of many superzoom cameras that do just that.
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...rShot_SX10_IS/
outdoor_results.shtml

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.

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

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:15:34 +0000, ray wrote:

On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:21:43 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

"ray" wrote in message
...
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.

Nikon D40 - 522g (1.2lb)
18-200mm lens - 560g (19.8 oz)

A 400mm or so would be really nice - that's the equiv I have on my P&S.


Total: 2.4lbs

That's a fair amount of tonnage.



David

I have a 150 - 400mm as well as a couple of other lenses that I carry
round when I need to. If I can do this at 77 why can't younger people do
it?



--
Neil
Reverse 'r and a' Delete 'l'