DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

In article , John Navas
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:09:50 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

A sample of two does not a truth make, and motorized zoom on the Canon
Pro1 is better than on your Nikons. Fly by wire can be much better than
manual control, as any qualified commercial or military pilot would tell
you.

what does a fly by wire plane have to do with a camera?

It's an analogy.

it's flawed.

The same arguments were made when fly by wire was
introduced, but there's no longer any such debate. Game over.

not relevant.

zoom control with a mechanical linkage is much faster than zoom by
wire.

Depends on the implementation. Zoom by wire can be faster, since it's
not limited to a 1:1 relationship, it can have multiple speeds
(Panasonic FZ8 zoom being a case in point)

according to dpreview, it takes 2.6 seconds to zoom from one end to the
other on the fz8. a zoom lens with a mechanical linkage can zoom from
one end to the other in just a fraction of a second -- too short to
actually measure it. although zooming one end to the other is a worst
case scenario, zooming a smaller amount is proportionally faster.

and use acceleration, just
like a computer mouse, something we now take for granted -- surely you
don't use an old 1:1 mouse! Zoom by wire can also be more accurate
since it can be coupled to focus control -- no lens is perfectly
parfocal.

not relevant.

using terms you often use, it is 'near instantaneous' to zoom
from near to far and back and any point in between. i've yet to see
*any* motorized zoom that is as fast or as easy to use.

You need to think outside the box.

that goes for you too.

There is no "bump in the learning curve" that when you "get past"
suddenly
converts an inferior system into an equally good one.

The "bump in the learning curve" is when a photographer learns how to
use a tool effectively. What matters is the photographer, not the tool.

the tool is slower. if that works for you, great. it doesn't for a
lot of people.

With all due respect, the difference is immaterial for anyone that's
learned how to use the tool.

with all due respect, it is not immaterial and i know how to use the
tool. i've used cameras with motorized zoom and the sluggishness is a
huge drawback in a significant number of situations.

Power zoom, however
accomplished, is simply more awkward, slower and miuch less precise than
manual zoom. Anyone who's used both knows this.

There's nothing inherently "inferior" about motorized zoom, which can
actually be more precise in terms of focus than manual zoom -- it's just
different, as any good photographer knows.

it's slower and that makes it not an option in many cases.

I've learned how to use my tool, and so it is an option for me.

and i've learned how to use both, and i prefer the substantially faster
mechanical zoom.

'been there
done that.'

That's not what you're saying.

as you often say, 'learn to read.'

In article , John Navas
wrote:

I shot motorsports for years with
great success with no auto-focus, and I still wouldn't use it -- too
often focuses on the wrong object, losing the shot.

you haven't learned how to use it correctly.

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:56:27 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

Depends on the implementation. Zoom by wire can be faster, since it's
not limited to a 1:1 relationship, it can have multiple speeds
(Panasonic FZ8 zoom being a case in point)

according to dpreview, it takes 2.6 seconds to zoom from one end to the
other on the fz8. a zoom lens with a mechanical linkage can zoom from
one end to the other in just a fraction of a second -- too short to
actually measure it.

Not necessarily true and not relevant in any event.

although zooming one end to the other is a worst
case scenario, zooming a smaller amount is proportionally faster.

Zoom is only an issue if it interferes with getting the image, and it
won't if you learn how to use the equipment effectively.

With all due respect, the difference is immaterial for anyone that's
learned how to use the tool.

with all due respect, it is not immaterial and i know how to use the
tool. i've used cameras with motorized zoom and the sluggishness is a
huge drawback in a significant number of situations.

Then you haven't learned how to use the tool effectively. It's a lot
more than just knowing what button to push.

I've learned how to use my tool, and so it is an option for me.

and i've learned how to use both, and i prefer the substantially faster
mechanical zoom.

It won't make you a better photographer, but since you think you need
it, then by all means use it. Just don't presume to tell me it won't
work for me simply because you don't know how to do it.

(I'm done unless you have something new to add. Otherwise you can have
the last word.)

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:54:40 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote in :

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:25:09 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote in :

Manual zooming has been much improved by the development of auto
focusing......Now. one can turn ones full attention to zooming, since the
camera handles focusing without one's help....Before, I would sometimes
get
confused when I had to do both. In general, automatic functions (if they
work properly) free up your mind so you can concentrate on other, more
important things, like composition.

Your camera doesn't have auto-composition?!

Ha! - Believe me, they are working on it....Consider taking pictures on
Mars....There is a 20 minute time delay just to get the results back
here....Then another 20 minutes before they can instruct the rover to take
another shot. It won't be too long now before those rovers are winning
competitions at the photography shows.....:^)

Valid point in general, but Mars rovers aren't anywhere close to that
level of autonomy yet, which is why we're use them at a snail's pace.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:56:28 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

I shot motorsports for years with
great success with no auto-focus, and I still wouldn't use it -- too
often focuses on the wrong object, losing the shot.

you haven't learned how to use it correctly.

That happens no matter what you learn.
There is no perfect automatic system.
I often use manual exposure for the same reason,
even though it's more accurate than auto-focus.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

"nospam" wrote in message
...
In article , John Navas
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 12:09:50 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

A sample of two does not a truth make, and motorized zoom on the Canon
Pro1 is better than on your Nikons. Fly by wire can be much better
than
manual control, as any qualified commercial or military pilot would
tell
you.

what does a fly by wire plane have to do with a camera?

It's an analogy.

it's flawed.

The same arguments were made when fly by wire was
introduced, but there's no longer any such debate. Game over.

not relevant.

zoom control with a mechanical linkage is much faster than zoom by
wire.

Depends on the implementation. Zoom by wire can be faster, since it's
not limited to a 1:1 relationship, it can have multiple speeds
(Panasonic FZ8 zoom being a case in point)

according to dpreview, it takes 2.6 seconds to zoom from one end to the
other on the fz8. a zoom lens with a mechanical linkage can zoom from
one end to the other in just a fraction of a second -- too short to
actually measure it. although zooming one end to the other is a worst
case scenario, zooming a smaller amount is proportionally faster.

and use acceleration, just
like a computer mouse, something we now take for granted -- surely you
don't use an old 1:1 mouse! Zoom by wire can also be more accurate
since it can be coupled to focus control -- no lens is perfectly
parfocal.

not relevant.

using terms you often use, it is 'near instantaneous' to zoom
from near to far and back and any point in between. i've yet to see
*any* motorized zoom that is as fast or as easy to use.

You need to think outside the box.

that goes for you too.

There is no "bump in the learning curve" that when you "get past"
suddenly
converts an inferior system into an equally good one.

The "bump in the learning curve" is when a photographer learns how to
use a tool effectively. What matters is the photographer, not the
tool.

the tool is slower. if that works for you, great. it doesn't for a
lot of people.

With all due respect, the difference is immaterial for anyone that's
learned how to use the tool.

with all due respect, it is not immaterial and i know how to use the
tool. i've used cameras with motorized zoom and the sluggishness is a
huge drawback in a significant number of situations.

Power zoom, however
accomplished, is simply more awkward, slower and miuch less precise
than
manual zoom. Anyone who's used both knows this.

There's nothing inherently "inferior" about motorized zoom, which can
actually be more precise in terms of focus than manual zoom -- it's
just
different, as any good photographer knows.

it's slower and that makes it not an option in many cases.

I've learned how to use my tool, and so it is an option for me.

and i've learned how to use both, and i prefer the substantially faster
mechanical zoom.

'been there
done that.'

That's not what you're saying.

as you often say, 'learn to read.'

The problem is that the mechanism doesn't know where the final resting zoom
point is going to be. With auto focusing, the camera can calculate how far
it has to go to reach the "in focus" point, and can go there in one hell of
a hurry. But zooming is a compositional thing, and so the right place is
subjective, and is at the discretion of the photographer, so the auto
mechanism has to be slow enough so anyone can handle the speed. Because of
this, I doubt if it will ever be fast enough for most photographers........

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:54:40 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote in :

"John Navas" wrote in message
. ..
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:25:09 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote in :

Manual zooming has been much improved by the development of auto
focusing......Now. one can turn ones full attention to zooming, since
the
camera handles focusing without one's help....Before, I would sometimes
get
confused when I had to do both. In general, automatic functions (if they
work properly) free up your mind so you can concentrate on other, more
important things, like composition.

Your camera doesn't have auto-composition?!

Ha! - Believe me, they are working on it....Consider taking pictures on
Mars....There is a 20 minute time delay just to get the results back
here....Then another 20 minutes before they can instruct the rover to take
another shot. It won't be too long now before those rovers are winning
competitions at the photography shows.....:^)

Valid point in general, but Mars rovers aren't anywhere close to that
level of autonomy yet, which is why we're use them at a snail's pace.

Interesting problem, though.....You could start with giving it the ability
to sense the horizon, and level the camera so the horizon was level....Then,
If you were interested in ground objects, you could program it to keep the
horizon near the top 25% of the frame, so as to maximize the surface stuff
on the image plane......

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:10:26 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote in :

The problem is that the mechanism doesn't know where the final resting zoom
point is going to be. With auto focusing, the camera can calculate how far
it has to go to reach the "in focus" point, and can go there in one hell of
a hurry. But zooming is a compositional thing, and so the right place is
subjective, and is at the discretion of the photographer, so the auto
mechanism has to be slow enough so anyone can handle the speed. Because of
this, I doubt if it will ever be fast enough for most photographers........

With all due respect, it's quite possible to have a zoom system with
little or no overshoot, especially since zoom is less critical than
focus. The experienced user anticipates the desired point when using
the control. With distance (not just direction and/or speed) control,
the experienced user can even signal a final point almost instantly,
with speed of response limited only by motor power.

If you overshoot with your computer mouse and have to hunt, then either
it's configured badly, or you lack experience with it.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:18:47 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote in :

"John Navas" wrote in message
.. .

Valid point in general, but Mars rovers aren't anywhere close to that
level of autonomy yet, which is why we're [using] them at a snail's pace.

Interesting problem, though.....You could start with giving it the ability
to sense the horizon, and level the camera so the horizon was level....Then,
If you were interested in ground objects, you could program it to keep the
horizon near the top 25% of the frame, so as to maximize the surface stuff
on the image plane......

The artificial intelligence and imaging guys are way beyond that, and
still aren't even remotely close to autonomy. The basic problem is that
science is unpredictable. If it were predictable, then there'd be no
point in going.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 14:10:26 -0800, "William Graham"
wrote in :

The problem is that the mechanism doesn't know where the final resting
zoom
point is going to be. With auto focusing, the camera can calculate how far
it has to go to reach the "in focus" point, and can go there in one hell
of
a hurry. But zooming is a compositional thing, and so the right place is
subjective, and is at the discretion of the photographer, so the auto
mechanism has to be slow enough so anyone can handle the speed. Because of
this, I doubt if it will ever be fast enough for most
photographers........

With all due respect, it's quite possible to have a zoom system with
little or no overshoot, especially since zoom is less critical than
focus. The experienced user anticipates the desired point when using
the control. With distance (not just direction and/or speed) control,
the experienced user can even signal a final point almost instantly,
with speed of response limited only by motor power.

But you have to define the right point to the machine......You can tell the
camera that you want any given focal length in millimeters, but then you
would have to know what that figure is, and if you don't know that, but are
just zooming to get a given object to fill 2/3 of your frame, (for example)
then how are you going to translate that into machine language? IOW, even if
you know where you want it to be, you have to use "machine speak" in order
to tell the camera where that place is. Otherwise, the machine will have to
slew slow enough for you to be able to stop it at the right place......I
think that, like your mouse, you should be able to adjust the speed in
software somewhere to find a point where you are comfortable with it, and
this point will vary according to the photographers ability. But the camera
can never know in advance exactly how far you intend to go as it does with
auto focusing, because the final point can't be defined in machine language.