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

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



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old November 16th 07, 12:46 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 22,122
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

In article , John Navas
wrote:

I think it's more a matter of childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR
advocates who feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs
and those who use them, like wearing a Rolex to be more cool, or worse a
fake Rolex, like cheaping out with a Sigma or Tamron lens on a Canon or
Nikon body.


it's just as childish to do the reverse, putting down dslrs and in
particular, third party lenses, some of which are quite good (not all,
of course).
  #22  
Old November 16th 07, 01:19 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mark B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

"Bill Tuthill" wrote in message
...
Arguments over relative merits of DSLR vs P&S digicams
occupy a plurality of current traffic volume on r.p.d.

In many ways it reminds me of the film vs digital debate
of the last many years.

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 know DSLRs are selling well, but do these flame wars
indicate the beginning of the end?


Nah, they just indicate that P&S users are insecure. If users of P&S users
are so happy with the results, why the barbs constantly directed at DSLR
user? I own & use both, by the way and I'm of the opinion the end result
has more to do with the person behind the camera, and both types of cameras
have their own particular strengths & weaknesses. Might as well start a
Ford vs. Chevy thread, that's how pointless I think the debate is. There's
no one camera that's perfect for every situation.

Mark


  #23  
Old November 16th 07, 01:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Peter Irwin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 344
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

Ever see a truly talented craftsman, regardless of the
craft, who *did* *not* have a set of the best tools he
could afford?


Edward Weston used a $5 R.R. lens for more than 20 years.
He was pretty much broke when he bought it, but he kept
using it when he was much less broke. He did own some
fancier lenses when he could afford them, but he never
seems to have insisted on the latest and the best.

Peter.
--


  #24  
Old November 16th 07, 01:22 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Mark B.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 334
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

"John Navas" wrote in message
...
On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote
in :
I think it's more a matter of childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR
advocates who feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs
and those who use them, like wearing a Rolex to be more cool, or worse a
fake Rolex, like cheaping out with a Sigma or Tamron lens on a Canon or
Nikon body.


To be honest, it sure seems like these threads are started far more often by
point & shoot users.

Mark


  #26  
Old November 16th 07, 01:37 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
John Navas[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,956
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:46:55 -0800, nospam wrote
in :

In article , John Navas
wrote:

I think it's more a matter of childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR
advocates who feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs
and those who use them, like wearing a Rolex to be more cool, or worse a
fake Rolex, like cheaping out with a Sigma or Tamron lens on a Canon or
Nikon body.


it's just as childish to do the reverse, putting down dslrs and in


That's certainly not what I'm doing -- what I've said repeatedly is
"different strokes for different folks".

particular, third party lenses, some of which are quite good (not all,
of course).


Those third-party lenses do not measure up to the best OEM lenses.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
  #28  
Old November 16th 07, 01:49 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Bill Tuthill
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 361
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

Kinon O'Cann wrote:
What flame wars? What's to discuss? For some uses and needs you use one
tool. Other times, you use another tool. What controversy?
What, exactly, do you see coming to an end? And why is the workflow an
issue? Sorry, but this is a very odd post.


It's just that the current-day DSLR is largely a relic of 35mm film.
The bodies and lenses are larger and heavier than they need to be
for the APS sensors inside (except Canon 5D, ??, and vapor Nikon D3).
Olympus created a whole new lens system, but it is not significantly
smaller than 35mm-based DSLRs, and Pentax makes a 35mm-compatible DSLR
that is smaller and lighter than any Olympus.

The recommended DSLR workflow seems like a huge chore, not a fun hobby,
with RAW mode and the continual treadmill of Adobe software upgrades.

So I'm wondering if the DSLR is a dead-end. In field use, I don't see
any significant advantage in pictures produced by friends with a DSLR,
versus friends with a pocket-size digicam.

  #29  
Old November 16th 07, 01:55 AM posted to rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.digital.zlr
Helmsman3
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 19
Default DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Arguments over relative merits of DSLR vs P&S digicams
occupy a plurality of current traffic volume on r.p.d.

In many ways it reminds me of the film vs digital debate
of the last many years.

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 know DSLRs are selling well, but do these flame wars
indicate the beginning of the end?


Pretty much.

Let us for a moment presume there is a sealed-lens/sensor design that doesn't
allow in any dust. Takes images in absolute silence. The lens range is a full
180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, all with either an aperture or
sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held
situations in any settings. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme
durability. Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments. Let
us also presume that the electronic viewfinder (LCD and EVF) is high resolution
enough that its display, feedback, and articulation abilities far exceed
anything that has been implemented so far, optically or otherwise. Lets also
presume that these P&S camera designers also had the foresight to include the
options of shooting in the IR and UV portions of the spectrum too. This of
course is dependent on an EVF system because no optical viewfinder in the world
can accomplish this. Oh what the heck, while we're at it throw in high quality
video and CD quality stereo sound recording too so you don't even need your
camcorder as an accessory anymore. Why not.

Poof! There goes any need for the cumbersome lens interchangeability, size,
weight, noise, dust, high-cost, focal-plane shutter limitations, inaccurate and
dim OVF, and all the other drawbacks to using any DSLR.

Surprisingly I've already found all of these conditions met in only 2 P&S
cameras (minus the UV capability and a slightly higher resolution EVF) with only
2 inexpensive, small, and light-weight adapter lenses. I've already had
thousands of photos published with this combo. Not one person yet can tell that
they were done with P&S gear. A whole kit of 1 camera + 2 lenses fitting into
one large pocket. If these two P&S camera's features were combined nobody would
think twice about buying a DSLR. I certainly never do.

So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell to the
DSLR. Why would anyone need lens interchangeability if all those ranges,
precision, and capability were built into one dust-free sealed lens? Nobody
thought that an 18x high-quality zoom lens was even conceivable just a short 5
years ago. It's just foolish to duplicate in many parts what can be accomplished
with just one. Speaking of all-in-1 options, CHDK is clear proof of that. You
can do all the same things, and even more than, what was one time only possible
by tethering your camera to a bulky and energy-hog computer. Now you don't even
need the expense, bulk, travel limitations, and power-requirements of a computer
if your camera can run CHDK.

Lens interchangeability and the high-ISO performance are the *only* two thing to
which the DSLR advocates are still tentatively holding onto. And at what cost?
Dust problems? Noise? Camera shake from the mirror and shutter? Slow mechanical
shutter limitations? Bulk? Weight? Do I need to list all the drawbacks?

Ultra-zoom lenses are already making one of those "benefits"(?) obsolete. They
are grasping at straws now trying to hold onto the high-ISO performance. When
it's already been clearly shown that if your long-zoom P&S lens has enough
aperture then even that is not the holy-grail to owning a DSLR.

Yes, the DSLR *IS* going bye-bye. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of
"when". And to my findings the sooner the better. They're a waste of time, cost,
weight, materials, research, and labor. Based on a design that is half a century
old with all the same limitations that were inherent in that format from way
back then. The only ones still clamoring to wanting a DSLR appear to be those
more bent on status, peer pressure, and acceptance by those around them than
actually wanting to increase their chances at getting a decent photo. You know,
the ones who are still emotionally insecure, the ones that have to run with the
mindless herd for fear of getting lost.

The DSLR will have about the same fondness in 15 years as we do when looking
back on the flash-cube Instamatic from the late 60's with all its inherent
faults, drawbacks, and limitations. The phrase "I can't believe we put up with
those DSLRs back then," will be commonly heard.

 




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
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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:14 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.