A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old October 16th 09, 05:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

"Neil Ellwood" wrote in message
...
[]
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'


Perhaps:
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/late...han.5734871.jp

David

  #12  
Old October 16th 09, 05:55 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 11:17:09 -0500, Neil Ellwood wrote:

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?


'carry around' or hike, bike, snowshoe? I'm talking about several miles
in each category - biking, 20 or more. I'm in decent shape and 'only' 64,
but I am sensitive to the extra poundage - realizing that I also pack
along extra water, basic survival gear, etc.
  #13  
Old October 16th 09, 06:12 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Helping the Clueless
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 8
Default I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

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.

The math is simple. Too bad that the trolls here can't even do simple math,
let alone know anything about using something more complex, like a camera.
The only cameras they've ever carried are the ones in their imaginations,
where it has no weight or size. If it did have any real size and weight it
could never fit in that little vacuous space that they erroneously call a
mind.

  #14  
Old October 16th 09, 07:01 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Doug McDonald[_4_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 128
Default I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

ray wrote:
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.


BUT ... if you want the same picture with you toy supersoom P&S,
YOU WILL ALSO NEED EXACTLY THE SAME TRIPOD! Oops ..does the
camera have a tridpod socket? If you handhold it ... is the lens fast enough
to capture enough light at a fast shutter speed? Remember, compared to
an SLR --- that means that if the P&S sensor is 1/4 the size of
the dSLR sensor it needs to be 1/4 the f-number of the dSLR lens!
If the dSLR lens is f/5.6, it needs to be f/1.6!


The fact is, I do carry my dSLR and all its lenses on hikes. And
I've compared my pictures to the one by P&S carriers ...even in
4x6 inch prints, mine are clearly and obviously better,
technically and artistically.

Doug McDonald
  #15  
Old October 16th 09, 07:29 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
Whoosh - right over the trolls' heads
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 13:01:01 -0500, Doug McDonald
wrote:

ray wrote:
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.


BUT ... if you want the same picture with you toy supersoom P&S,
YOU WILL ALSO NEED EXACTLY THE SAME TRIPOD! Oops ..does the
camera have a tridpod socket? If you handhold it ... is the lens fast enough
to capture enough light at a fast shutter speed? Remember, compared to
an SLR --- that means that if the P&S sensor is 1/4 the size of
the dSLR sensor it needs to be 1/4 the f-number of the dSLR lens!
If the dSLR lens is f/5.6, it needs to be f/1.6!


Wow, are you ever a major moron. Thanks for providing proof to everyone
that you don't even know how aperture sizes relate between sensor sizes.

The reason that you don't need a tripod with most P&S cameras is purely a
weight/mass issue. Put the 8 lbs. of lens on the DSLR and you cannot hold
it steady enough. It also requires a hefty enough tripod to stabilize that
much unbalanced mass without it vibrating for long periods of time. In
astronomy circles they call it "the tap test". At high magnifications (long
focal-lengths) you tap the telescope and count the number of seconds it
takes for all vibrations to dampen down. Even a 250 lb. telescope tripod,
if not properly balanced to the load it's trying to support, can take
upwards of 1 minute to have all vibrations leave it for a clear image. With
a 1.3 lb. P&S camera you need nothing more than a small folding pocket
tripod, if you ever find the real need for one.


The fact is, I do carry my dSLR and all its lenses on hikes. And
I've compared my pictures to the one by P&S carriers ...even in
4x6 inch prints, mine are clearly and obviously better,
technically and artistically.

Doug McDonald


Yes, I'm sure they are ... the camera, lenses, and prints that you carry in
your imagination on your imaginary hikes.

  #16  
Old October 16th 09, 08:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
David J Taylor[_11_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 451
Default I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

"Alfred Molon" wrote in message
. ..
In article , David J
Taylor says...
.. but more functional, with better isolation of the subject from the
background


Not so good, given that the lens is F3.5-5.6, and will likely be F4.5 or
higher at the portrait range.

And this F4.5 on an APS-C camera has the same DOF as F6.8 on a full
frame camera - a lot of stuff will be in focus.


In practice, Alfred, the lenses such as you mention do provide very good
isolation of the subject. I'm talking from the photographs I have taken.
f/4.5 on a DSLR provides much greater subject isolation than the same
f/number on a small sensor camera (under otherwise equivalent conditions).
In addition, with poorer lighting, I find that where I needed 1/4s
exposure with a small-sensor camera, on the DSLR I can use ISO 1600 or
3200 and be exposing with 1/30s, and hence significantly less subject
movement, and hence a sharper picture. And if you want still shallower
depth-of-field, just change to a wider-aperture lens.

Cheers,
David

  #17  
Old October 16th 09, 11:58 PM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

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.

--
John McWilliams
  #18  
Old October 17th 09, 03:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

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.

Cameras don't take pictures. Photographers take pictures.


Yes, we know, but like most aphorisms, it's too glossy, way too much
sharpening and saturation, not to stretch an analogy. :-)

--
john mcwilliams
  #19  
Old October 17th 09, 05:34 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
John McWilliams
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 6,945
Default I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

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.

Vaya con Dios!

--
John McWilliams
  #20  
Old October 17th 09, 05:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital
ray
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,278
Default I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!

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.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR! ray Digital SLR Cameras 72 October 23rd 09 04:39 PM
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR! George Kerby Digital Photography 2 October 16th 09 03:58 PM
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR! George Kerby Digital SLR Cameras 2 October 16th 09 03:58 PM
I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR! bugbear Digital Photography 0 October 14th 09 09:35 AM
Proud to serve you. businessjoint Digital SLR Cameras 0 March 3rd 07 06:13 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:10 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.