Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras

"-hh" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Bill Again" wrote:

I guess that by "control" I don't actually mean how many knobs the camera
has.

There's a trade-off between the degree of control and the ease of
use. Having "too many" options results in a longer/steeper learning
curve as well as can be a source of frustration. However, that
doesn't necessarily mean that some manufacturers will stop the
'feature creep list', nor a USENET debate which assumes that more
always equals better.

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/boo...sbn=0060005696



Perhaps you would like it to make coffee as well?


You suggest putting a higher quality lower noise sensor into a high
quality
super zoom P&S. If it was this simple then why isn't it done.

Frankly it reduces to one thing. Show me a professional photographer
that is using a point and shoot.


IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were
completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the
key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have
utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications.



(* - as opposed to changing to the moving image)


-hh

You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown,
a renowned British photographer who worked for many years with the Observer
newspaper. A few lines from her article confirm that "digi " is a very
recent phenomena. I quote:

quote
I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a
dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I have
many lenses, I really only use either an 85mm or 50mm one now. In the same
way, I'm not all that particular about film or paper. My early work was
taken with a Rolleiflex - there is absolutely nothing like the Rollei for
texture and detail.

I work quickly using available light, have never had an assistant and
usually expose no more than two rolls of film - any more than that is
usually a sign that things aren't going well. Rather than use a light meter,
I have a setting I like - l/6o sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the picture
work around this. I normally gauge the light level by the way it falls on
the back of my hand.
unquote

Try putting that on a function menu!

That's all

Bill

"Bill Again" wrote:
"-hh" wrote:

IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were
completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the
key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have
utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications.

You remind me with that comment of an article I read
recently by Jane Bown... I quote:

quote
I'm not very particular about equipment: ...
I work quickly using available light, have never had an assistant and
usually expose no more than two rolls of film - any more than that is
usually a sign that things aren't going well. Rather than use a light meter,
I have a setting I like - l/6o sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the picture
work around this. I normally gauge the light level by the way it falls on
the back of my hand.
unquote

Try putting that on a function menu!


This is a very good point, as it is essentially saying that a good
photographer's abilities transcends the "mechanical" limitations of
their equipment to make them irrelevant.

In the end, composition and lighting are all that matter, and with the
technological improvements we've seen in exposure lattitude, nailing
the lighting is far less important today than years ago.

As such, it all effectively comes down to just the composition, and
there is no "compose perfectly" setting on any camera's function
dial.

And while it is obviously preferable to get both composition and
exposure perfect, the reality is that time with the subject is
invariably limited, so you having 108 different video-compression
options or 1024 zones is actually a work taskloading liability, not an
asset.


-hh

"-hh" wrote in message
oups.com...
"Bill Again" wrote:
"-hh" wrote:

IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were
completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the
key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have
utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications.

You remind me with that comment of an article I read
recently by Jane Bown... I quote:

quote
I'm not very particular about equipment: ...
I work quickly using available light, have never had an assistant and
usually expose no more than two rolls of film - any more than that is
usually a sign that things aren't going well. Rather than use a light
meter,
I have a setting I like - l/6o sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the
picture
work around this. I normally gauge the light level by the way it falls on
the back of my hand.
unquote

Try putting that on a function menu!


This is a very good point, as it is essentially saying that a good
photographer's abilities transcends the "mechanical" limitations of
their equipment to make them irrelevant.

In the end, composition and lighting are all that matter, and with the
technological improvements we've seen in exposure lattitude, nailing
the lighting is far less important today than years ago.

As such, it all effectively comes down to just the composition, and
there is no "compose perfectly" setting on any camera's function
dial.

And while it is obviously preferable to get both composition and
exposure perfect, the reality is that time with the subject is
invariably limited, so you having 108 different video-compression
options or 1024 zones is actually a work taskloading liability, not an
asset.


-hh


-hh, I couldn't agree more. Of course it might be the case that Jane's work
would nowadays be turned down as there is some likelihood that it is "not
sharp enough" for today's publications. That, of course, would be a matter
of taste. Also we should remember that reproduction in newspapers up until,
what, the 80s was invariably halftone anyway. Not exactly renowned for
excellence in definition.

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
On 2007-11-13, Bill Again wrote:

You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown,
[...]

quote
I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a
dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I have
[...]
unquote


How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a
camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus ever
saw one.

Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene
Smith on the matter.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:13:40 +0000, Chris Savage
wrote:

On 2007-11-13, Bill Again wrote:

You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown,
[...]

quote
I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a
dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I have
[...]
unquote


How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a
camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus ever
saw one.

Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene
Smith on the matter.


Just as reliable as all the other propagandistic "advice" that dSLR advocates
hand out. I was waiting to see if anyone would notice the blatant error of their
"proof". :-) Couch-potato photographers always slip up in their facts when all
they have for reference in life is what they read online, in lieu of any
real-life experience with anything related to the topic.

I still have my OM-1 and OM-2n, a nice 2n before they crippled the auto-exposure
to 3 minutes from the original 12+ minutes (due to complaints of fools that
didn't know how to deal with reciprocity). Not many of those ever reached the
market. I feel so fortunate to still have one. For astrophotography and
microphotography no better 35mm camera was ever made, before it or after.

After having those Olympus SLRs and understanding the priceless value of
compact, lightweight, ultra-bright viewfinder, and QUIET for nature photography
(as well as all other uses) it's why I moved to top-of-the-line P&S cameras when
I went from film to digital. I find it interesting that after having used some
of the best SLRs and lenses ever made I would still rather use my P&S cameras
today instead of any dSLR that have ever been on the market. If I was just
another empty-headed follower I would have bought into Nikon SLRs back then and
dealt with all that bulk, noise, and repairs they always needed. The only plus I
ever saw to owning a Nikon was that other Nikon photographers liked you more.
I've never been that desperate for anyone's approval nor company. I'm glad I
never put any faith in self-appointed "Pros" and what the next guy was doing or
I would have missed out on those Olympus SLRs and exceptional Zuiko lenses.

I really wanted to stay with Olympus after their film cameras. I was a fairly
staunch Olympus fan. But sadly they never made anything that could beat what I
could find in P&S cameras from other companies. Keep in mind though that no
other company's dSLRs could beat what I could find in the better P&S cameras
too. That's still holding true.

"Chris Savage" wrote in message
...
["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
On 2007-11-13, Bill Again wrote:

You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane
Bown,
[...]

quote
I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have
about a
dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I have
[...]
unquote


How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a
camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus
ever
saw one.

Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene
Smith on the matter.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg

What do you mean by "reliable source"? It's a comment by someone who was
very busy in the industry and who was and is admired. It is a quote that
reflects on the sort of photography that is more about art than technology.
It is not meant to prove anything.

That's all.

"franklin-d-worth" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:13:40 +0000, Chris Savage
wrote:

On 2007-11-13, Bill Again wrote:

You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane
Bown,
[...]

quote
I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have
about a
dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I
have
[...]
unquote


How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a
camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus
ever
saw one.

Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene
Smith on the matter.


Just as reliable as all the other propagandistic "advice" that dSLR
advocates
hand out. I was waiting to see if anyone would notice the blatant error of
their
"proof". :-) Couch-potato photographers always slip up in their facts when
all
they have for reference in life is what they read online, in lieu of any
real-life experience with anything related to the topic.


You are an ignorant and unmannered person. Blatant error of "their proof".
What arrogant nonsense. The quote was not proof of anything, it was a quote
from an article by Jane Bown. This photographer is now 82 years old and far
from being a "couch potato photographer" she has photographed more
personalities than you could shake a stick at. She doesn't need to prove
anything, certainly not to idiots like you.

That's all.



snipped the rest of the junk

Bill Again wrote:

I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a
dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago,

Hmm, the M-1, the precursor to the OM1, was introduced in 1972. So in
2012 the OM1 will have been 40 years old. Yet this alleged photographer
bought about 12 of them, second hand, more than five years before they
were on the market.

I wouldn't put too much faith in anything she says, since obviously it's
all made up in order to create a good story.

"SMS ???. ?" wrote in message
...
Bill Again wrote:

I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have
about a dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago,

Hmm, the M-1, the precursor to the OM1, was introduced in 1972. So in 2012
the OM1 will have been 40 years old. Yet this alleged photographer bought
about 12 of them, second hand, more than five years before they were on
the market.

I wouldn't put too much faith in anything she says, since obviously it's
all made up in order to create a good story.

Here's a quote about Jane Bown's career so far....

"The Observer published its first Jane Bown photograph in December 1949,
beginning a romance between Britain's oldest Sunday paper and the country's
most loved photographer that still flourishes.
Since that time, Jane has given us the most astonishing variety of
portraits: politicians, royalty, film stars, directors, writers, academics,
comics, artists, dancers, athletes, bishops, models, nuns and ordinary
people (fans, onion sellers, tramps, children) whose faces we suddenly learn
to see and even become haunted by, because she looks at them with the same
democratic respect, curiosity and love.

Jane's work is immediately recognisable, particularly her penetrating
portraits taken over the past 50 years.

By 1980 she was renowned enough for the National Portrait Gallery to hold a
one-person exhibition of her work and there have been no fewer than seven
published collections of her photographs.

Jane's approach to taking photographs is as refreshingly unpretentious as
she is herself - she works quickly and discreetly, using only available
light, usually in black and white and without any assistants. In 1985 she
was awarded an MBE [and in 1995 a CBE for work in photography]. When asked
by the Queen what she did, Jane's characteristically modest reply was, "I'm
a hack". "

You might be right. I shall ignore her.

Idiot.

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:39:22 +0100, "Bill Again" wrote:


"franklin-d-worth" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:13:40 +0000, Chris Savage
wrote:

On 2007-11-13, Bill Again wrote:

You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane
Bown,
[...]

quote
I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have
about a
dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I
have
[...]
unquote


How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a
camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus
ever
saw one.

Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene
Smith on the matter.


Just as reliable as all the other propagandistic "advice" that dSLR
advocates
hand out. I was waiting to see if anyone would notice the blatant error of
their
"proof". :-) Couch-potato photographers always slip up in their facts when
all
they have for reference in life is what they read online, in lieu of any
real-life experience with anything related to the topic.


You are an ignorant and unmannered person. Blatant error of "their proof".
What arrogant nonsense. The quote was not proof of anything, it was a quote
from an article by Jane Bown. This photographer is now 82 years old and far
from being a "couch potato photographer" she has photographed more
personalities than you could shake a stick at. She doesn't need to prove
anything, certainly not to idiots like you.


I never alluded to, nor directly said that, Jane Brown was the couch-potato
photographer without any real-life experience. (Read what I said again.) Any
real photographer would have immediately noticed the error (or misquoting?) of
her statement and would have never used it as a reference for anything. My
comments refer to you and -hh alone. And rightly so, since neither of you
noticed it. :-)

Your over-reactive defensiveness speaks tomes about you. (i.e. Methinks thou
dost protest too much.)

*poof*, there just went any credibility of anything you or -hh have ever said
online

That was fun.