So Ken is now down to this - $150 beats $5000 (sic)?

I'm sorta sorry I started this, but hey, some folks have had a bit of
fun.. (O:

I hesitate to extend it, but what the hell...

ASAAR wrote:
How could he claim that the model of P&S camera you use is important
while simultaneously claiming that there are no differences between a
$150 camera and a 5D?

Since KR never claimed that, you've evidently joined him in the
liar's club. See how easy it is to make charges like that? He
did show, however, that for some photographers, depending on what
kind of results they're after, the results produced by either the
P&S and the DSLR might not be different or in any way obvious.

Asaar, I do agree with a lot of what you say (especially about SMS
grin), and yes, I know what Kenny was 'trying' to say.. (I think...
although I am now teetering on the verge of thinking his whole website
is a huge troll, after seeing that bloody ridiculous lefty F100 effort
and the 'cleverly' doctored image.) And seriously, those
super-saturated images make me feel nauseous (and I quite like a *bit*
of extra saturation..).

But here's the critical point for me about that article, and it's why I
brought the topic up in the first place. You and Jeremy in particular
have made the point over and over that:

for some photographers, depending on what kind of results they're after,
the results produced by either the P&S and the DSLR might not be
different or in any way obvious

Ok, now with those two initial provisos, it's reasonable to say that..
but I'm not sure how *useful*. I would ask you, how *many*
photographers - who are considering spending between $150 and $5000 on
a camera - would not benefit from using a DSLR in a significant number
of 'typical' shooting situations?

But, anyway, let's look at what you said, and try to reconcile it with
the article:

FIRSTly, where exactly does Ken specify the '... some photographers
....' bit?
I'll tell you - it's about 3/4 of the way down, and he just waffles
around the topic, referring to analogies about professional musos and
saying "If you're not among the immortals.." He *never* refers to any
type of photograph-y/-er, eg is it a typical parent, or perhaps a
person who likes to shoot landscapes, skateboarders, street
photography.... If I'm wrong, correct me here with quotes, ok?

To me, that is the *first* thing I try to find out when someone asks me
"what camera should I buy" and/or "how much will I need to spend"? Ie,
what is your experience level, how much time and effort do you wish to
put into learning, and what will you be shooting? But not our Ken - to
him it's a given that most photographers print at 6x4, maybe 7x5 max
(which isn't far from the mark), that they have no ambitions to develop
their skills and that they only shoot things in daylight that don't
move (I disagree strongly with those two).

SECONDly, where exactly does Ken specify the '... kind of results
they're after ...' bit?
I'll tell you - he doesn't. Not anywhere that I can see. If I'm wrong,
correct me here with quotes, ok? (O; The nearest he gets to it is that
classic paragraph - "I use fancy cameras because they work under more
conditions, see things from different angles, or make my work faster or
easier for me. The results for 99% of my applications are the same."

Do you agree, ASAAR - would you use a p&s happily for 99% of *your*
stuff? Dunno about you, but I *don't* take my little 4Mp p&s when I'm
seriously after good results, or my subject will be moving, or I'm
shooting in low light - *even* if all I want is 6x4s...

In other words, my opinion is that for a lot of potential subject
matter, there will be a *bucketload* of difference between the results
from even a base-level DSLR and a p&s - yes, even at 6x4.

And Ken's article does *not* say that. Or at best, it says it very
poorly and requiring a lot of assumptions and prior knowledge from the
reader.

But that's just me.. (O:

wrote:
SECONDly, where exactly does Ken specify the '... kind of results
they're after ...' bit?
I'll tell you - he doesn't. Not anywhere that I can see. If I'm wrong,
correct me here with quotes, ok? (O; The nearest he gets to it is that
classic paragraph - "I use fancy cameras because they work under more
conditions, see things from different angles, or make my work faster or
easier for me. The results for 99% of my applications are the same."

Do you agree, ASAAR - would you use a p&s happily for 99% of *your*
stuff? Dunno about you, but I *don't* take my little 4Mp p&s when I'm
seriously after good results, or my subject will be moving, or I'm
shooting in low light - *even* if all I want is 6x4s...

I would appear our friend ASAAR does not yet own a DSLR and so likely
uses a point and shoot for close to 100% of his stuff.

I think it comes down to a difference in priorities, some want to
become better photographerd and some want to take better photographs.
Neither goal is bad and hopefully we all strive at least for a bit of
both but I see some people wheree being a good photographer is more
important to them then getting good photographs. For these people
the purpose of a camera is to let you work on your composition and
lighting, and the hard core of them sees no reason why a point and
shoot can't do this just at this as well as a DSLR.

But for most of us we want to photograph those things and events around
us that we find interesting and feel are worth capturing. A person who
is only interested in working on taking better photographs can always
take them when there is enough light and always take them where they
are the right distance to use a lens that is limited in length, they
can do this because they have no set things that they wish to
photograph. But for most people we have to photograph in the
conditions that we find ourselves in, this may well mean that we
don't have as much light as we would wish, we may not be able to use
a tripod when we wish and we might not be able to get a close to the
subject as we wish.

I watch the way most people photograph, almost all people will try and
photograph those things that they find interesting or beautiful and
worth capturing. They are photographing to capture those things are
the see around them, place, people, events. For these people a better
camera will mean they get better photos.

To the people who say the camera does not matter I would ask that you
go out with me and try to take the same photos that I take. And then
what do you say, that I should not try and take the photos that I take,
that I should only take photos were a point and shoot will work, I
would ask why should I limit myself in such a way? Ken seems to be one
of these people who would have us limit ourselves, but I have to note
he does not want to limit himself.

Scott

On 4 Dec 2006 02:20:07 -0800, wrote:

for some photographers, depending on what kind of results they're after,
the results produced by either the P&S and the DSLR might not be
different or in any way obvious

Ok, now with those two initial provisos, it's reasonable to say that..
but I'm not sure how *useful*. I would ask you, how *many*
photographers - who are considering spending between $150 and $5000 on
a camera - would not benefit from using a DSLR in a significant number
of 'typical' shooting situations?

I don't know of anyone that wants a new camera that would choose a
price range of $150 to $5000. The two extremely different cameras
were chosen to help KR's point stand out by not having a comparison
between two fairly similar cameras. I'd agree that virtually all
*real* photographers would benefit from using a DSLR in a
significant number of 'typical' shooting situations. Ken's point,
though, was that most photographers aren't the *real* (ie, talented)
photographers that would know how to use a seriously complex piece
of gear effectively, and might even be able to take decent (if not
great) shots a greater percent of the time than if they had a DSLR
such as a 5D. Look at the questions being asked by digital newbie
LuvLatins about his new D200. He has some past experience with SLRs
and you can see by his questions that learning to use a
sophisticated DSLR entails getting over the hump of a rather steep
learning curve. Unlike most of the people that own cameras, he is
highly motivated to learn. From conversations I've had with P&S
users, it's pretty clear that many, possibly most of them never
bothered learning the ins and outs of their own much simpler
cameras. It's surprising how many of them aren't aware that their
cameras have a thing called White Balance, nor do they know what
it's used for. They take snapshots, like what they see, and aren't
interested in learning photography theory. If they had to do that,
they'd probably pack the camera in a box, store it on a shelf and if
they shot anything, might do it from then on with a camcorder.

Ken's point concerns *these* photographers. If they're confronted
by a high pressure salesman, they might easily be persuaded that a
DSLR is much better. And it would be, but not for them.


But, anyway, let's look at what you said, and try to reconcile it with
the article:

FIRSTly, where exactly does Ken specify the '... some photographers
...' bit?
I'll tell you - it's about 3/4 of the way down, and he just waffles
around the topic, referring to analogies about professional musos and
saying "If you're not among the immortals.." He *never* refers to any
type of photograph-y/-er, eg is it a typical parent, or perhaps a
person who likes to shoot landscapes, skateboarders, street
photography.... If I'm wrong, correct me here with quotes, ok?

From the 150-vs-5000 dollar camera article. For the first example
he doesn't say "some photographers" specifically, but identifies
them by how they use their cameras:

I reduced both images to the same size to fit on your screen.

Look for yourself.

They look equally as sharp to me. That's my point: at normal sizes,
resolution doesn't matter. The $150 A530 is 5MP and the $5,000 5D
is 12.7 MP.

Pros occasionally work at normal sizes, but more often they don't,
and make much greater use of large prints. The more typical
snapshooter can look for opportunities to shoot landscapes or street
shots, but will still limit the print size to 4" x 6". It should be
undeniable that most P&S owners as well as a much smaller number of
DSLR owners make no great demands of their camera's images. They
might enjoy looking at pictures on their computer's monitor, or turn
a photo into "wallpaper" for the computer, or make 4"x6" prints, but
rarely anything beyond this. These are the ones that won't benefit
much, if anything, from having a more capable camera.

Here Ken identifies "some more" of the photographers that aren't
taking advantage of the better camera's potential.

The $150 camera, with just two fast pushbutton settings, looks much, much
better to me than a $5,000 camera left the way it came out of the box. Sadly
most people who buy these don't even know where to find these adjustments,
which is why I share my users guides with you. I owe you one for the 5D; for
now, my Canon 30D User's Guide covers all these adjustments already.

If "most people" don't even know how to adjust their camera's
settings, they sure aren't going to be able to take advantage of the
DSLR's greater potential. So the DSLR is much better for low light
photography because high ISO shots are much more usable than high
ISO shots taken by P&S cameras. But if "most people" don't know how
to set their camera's ISO, they probably don't even know what ISO
means or how different ISO settings can help produce better images.
For them, when shooting in dim light, whether using a P&S or a DSLR,
they might well shoot only at a default ISO 100. And then the DSLR
has no opportunity to produce the better shot. In other words, if a
photographer can't be bothered to learn and use the camera's
features, spending more money on a feature laden camera won't
produce better prints.


To me, that is the *first* thing I try to find out when someone asks me
"what camera should I buy" and/or "how much will I need to spend"? Ie,
what is your experience level, how much time and effort do you wish to
put into learning, and what will you be shooting? But not our Ken - to
him it's a given that most photographers print at 6x4, maybe 7x5 max
(which isn't far from the mark), that they have no ambitions to develop
their skills and that they only shoot things in daylight that don't
move (I disagree strongly with those two).

I think that you're misinterpreting Ken's point. I don't think
that he's saying that just because most people won't expend the
effort to learn how to effectively use a DSLR, that everyone should
be advised to get a $150 P&S.


SECONDly, where exactly does Ken specify the '... kind of results
they're after ...' bit?
I'll tell you - he doesn't. Not anywhere that I can see. If I'm wrong,
correct me here with quotes, ok? (O; The nearest he gets to it is that
classic paragraph - "I use fancy cameras because they work under more
conditions, see things from different angles, or make my work faster or
easier for me. The results for 99% of my applications are the same."

No, I don't recall him specifying the kind of results they're
after. But Ken doesn't have to. If you know that someone never
prints larger than 4" x 6", you don't have to think very hard to
know the kind of results that they're after. If they use Walmart to
make all of their prints at 4" x 6", you know the results that
they're after. If they instead ask questions about a wide carriage
Pixma printer or ask about Epson's pigmented ink, you might have a
candidate for a DSLR.


Do you agree, ASAAR - would you use a p&s happily for 99% of *your*
stuff? Dunno about you, but I *don't* take my little 4Mp p&s when I'm
seriously after good results, or my subject will be moving, or I'm
shooting in low light - *even* if all I want is 6x4s...

No, I don't use a P&S for 99% of my stuff. I use it for 100%. g
I do have a bunch of Nikon lenses, which is why I'm likely to get a
DSLR next year. The D80 might be the one, if it isn't doesn't seem
too large with the lenses I'd be using with it. For most of my
shots, a 4mp sensor would be enough. The reason I'd want a DSLR is
not to get greater resolution, but to be able to take shots in dim
light, be able to autofocus and track rapidly moving objects, be
able to easily focus manually, have a more capable flash system, and
be able to use my macro Nikkor.


In other words, my opinion is that for a lot of potential subject
matter, there will be a *bucketload* of difference between the results
from even a base-level DSLR and a p&s - yes, even at 6x4.

And Ken's article does *not* say that. Or at best, it says it very
poorly and requiring a lot of assumptions and prior knowledge from the
reader.

He didn't say that because he doesn't believe that the hardware is
the most important factor. All things being equal, better hardware
can help produce a better image, but one of those things is the
photographer, and all photographers aren't equal. He says that the
*bucketload* of difference goes more to the speed, ease and
convenience of getting better shots, not that it would guarantee
producing higher quality images. This was said not in the
$150/$5000 article, but in the Why Your Camera Does Not Matter
article:

Walker Evans once said "People always ask me what camera I use. It's
not the camera, it's - - - " and he tapped his temple with his index finger.

Your equipment DOES NOT affect the quality of your image. The less time
and effort you spend worrying about your equipment the more time and
effort you can spend creating great images. The right equipment just makes
it easier, faster or more convenient for you to get the results you need.

Ernst Haas commented on this in a workshop in 1985:

Two laddies from Nova Scotia had made a huge effort to be there and
were great Leica fans, worked in a camera store, saved to have them and
held Ernst on high for being a Leica user (although he used Nikons on his
Marlboro shoots, when the chips were down).

About four days into the workshop, he finally maxxed out on the Leica
adoration these kids displayed, and in the midst of a discussion, when one
of them asked one more question aimed at establishing the superiority of
Wetzlar, Ernst said, "Leica, schmeica. The camera doesn't make a bit of
difference. All of them can record what you are seeing. But, you have to SEE."

Nobody talked about Leica, Nikon, Canon or any other brand of camera
equipment for the rest of the workshop.

He also said, "Best wide-angle lens? 'Two steps backward' and 'look for the
ah-ha'."

You can see some of the world's best photography here by a fellow who says
the same thing here. Here's another load of data which also confirms why
owning more lenses just makes worse photos. I made these B/W photos here
with a 50 year old $3 box camera more primitive than today's disposables.
This site here has absolutely brilliant work done on an Olympus 8080 point
and shoot.

Andreas Feininger (French, b. 1905 - d. 1999), said "Photographers —
idiots, of which there are so many — say, “Oh, if only I had a Nikon or a
Leica, I could make great photographs.� That’s the dumbest thing I ever
heard in my life. It’s nothing but a matter of seeing, thinking, and interest.
That’s what makes a good photograph. And then rejecting anything that
would be bad for the picture. The wrong light, the wrong background,
time and so on. Just don’t do it, not matter how beautiful the subject is."

Buying newer cameras will ensure you get the same results you always
have. Education is the way to better images, not more cameras.

I suppose it takes reading more than one of Ken's articles to
fully understand what he's trying to convey. The $150/$5000 article
dealt more with the folly of buying capability that wouldn't be
used. He goes beyond this in the other article, adding that even if
the expensive photo gear *does* produce sharper, more detailed
images, that's not what produces great photos. He argues that a
great photographer will make great photos with a P&S, even with a
disposable camera or Kodak Brownie. Using a much better camera, the
great photos can be made sharper and larger, but not greater. An
untalented photographer using a P&S will mostly take mediocre or bad
photos. Given a much better camera, the photos will be sharper, but
still mediocre or bad. For this point of view, it matters not
whether the output is small or large prints. If the photographer
has no vision, size doesn't matter.


But that's just me.. (O:

The disagreement I have with those arguing that Ken is wrong is
that they mention some of the advantages that DSLRs have and then
assume (without stating it) that these advantages will be able to be
used to great effect for most shots. DSLRs can take better pictures
in low light conditions, but few shots are taken in those
conditions. Another way to look at it is that late at night it's
too dark even for a DSLR. If a P&S is used to take pictures only as
long as there's enough light to take good, relatively noise free
shots, it will have to quit while a DSLR can continue shooting. But
eventually the DSLR will run out of light and also have to quit
shooting. Seen this way, the DSLR's advantage is that it extends
the day, but by how much? Ten minutes? Twenty minutes? For a pro,
a working photographer, those extra minutes of shooting time can
justify the cost of a better DSLR. For me and most camera owners
using cheaper P&S's, we just pack it in a little earlier.

Annika1980 wrote:

ASAAR wrote:
On 1 Dec 2006 13:59:24 -0800, Annika1980 wrote:

Unfortunately, I don't follow most of the models in
the price ranges they are looking for ($300-$800) so I usually have to
research it myself. But according to Rockwell, I should save myself
the trouble and tell them, "It doesn't matter, just pick one."

Another false claim. He hasn't said the the P&S used doesn't
matter.

He goes further than that in his article, "Why Your Camera Does not
Matter."

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/notcamera.htm

His point is that "It's not the camera, it's the photographer."
Then why does anyone buy expensive cameras?
Who don't pros shoot with Instamatics or cellphone cams?


You are being obtuse of course. Ask your questions with honesty.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

Annika1980 wrote:

In a different review Rockwell said the 5D was so good it was silly,
giving it the proper nod over the Nikon offerings. You've been talking
up the Nikkors on the 5D. Got any examples to show us that are
"grab-your-ass-in-total-awe" sharp? Otherwise, some people might think
you're talking out of your ass like Rockwell.


He got your goat with little effor. He trolled you and you bit like a
mindless fish.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0

ASAAR wrote:
How could he claim that the model of P&S camera you use is important
while simultaneously claiming that there are no differences between a
$150 camera and a 5D?

Since KR never claimed that, you've evidently joined him in the
liar's club. See how easy it is to make charges like that? He
did show, however, that for some photographers, depending on what
kind of results they're after, the results produced by either the
P&S and the DSLR might not be different or in any way obvious.
Pixel peepers might detect differences, but then they wouldn't be
the undemanding photographers that Ken was writing about.

That's kinda my point. Rockwell starts out comparing cameras and he
ends up comparing photographers. He doesn't know what the hell he's
doing. It would be like me comparing my Canon ro a Leica and then
concluding, "Well, most Leica folks don't take many pics with their
cameras so it doesn't really matter."
======================

Then for the same reason, you shouldn't be surprised if many
readers don't care what you have to say about cameras. You and Ken
have much in common, but as photo seers he has you beat by a mile.

I don't care. Of course, I'm not out making a buck by spreading out
bull**** either.
I'm not sure what a "photo seer" is, but I know I make better pics than
Rockwell and I'm a much better writer as well.
======================

He is good at what he does, however, I'll give him that.

You too. Wow, you both really do have a lot in common. Maybe you
should set up an AnnikaSpeaks website, complete with clickable link
revenue generators. It'd be worth it to see your version of Ken's
"Which is Better: a $150 Camera or a $5,000 Camera?" article, but
comparing a $150 Coolpix with a $5,000 Nikon DSLR/Lens combo. If
you hold true to form, instead of finding that the $150 camera is
just as good in many cases, you'll show that the Coolpix doesn't
just beat - it batters Nikon's DSLR. Can't wait.

At one time I considered having such a site. I'm sure it would have
been very popular, as well. However, I decided that I'd rather be
broke than scam people with bogus information.
========================

P.S. You still haven't had a thing to say about Rockwell waxing
ecstatic about Canon's 5D. Didn't you and a few others in the
Canon cabal say that Ken hates the 5D?

Nope, that wasn't me. I merely pointed out the inconsistencies in his
reviews. He celebrates the 5D on one page and then says "Your Camera
Doesn't Matter" on another.

I remember the first time I say someone reference Rockwell's web page
years ago. I thought, "Who's he?" So I looked at the page and his
pics for about two minutes and said, "Oh, just another wannabe."

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 01:01:17 -0500, ASAAR wrote:

On Sun, 03 Dec 2006 21:52:58 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

Thanks for not addressing my point about the A530 by wandering off
on your own tangent. I guess you weren't able to refute it but felt
like you had to say something. Did you pick up this talent by
studying the Q&A portions of Bush's press conferences?

Believe it or not, it's not all about you.

Care to explain that non sequitur? If you do, don't emulate Brett
and address some other issue. The only thing that I can think of
that might have addled you enough to produce that reply is that to
you, the mention of "Bush" is like waving a red flag to a bull (if
there's any truth to that old saying). But I was writing to Brett,
not you, so I'm puzzled by your reply. It's not all about you.

I replied to your post. Who you were replying to doesn't matter,
unless you think you get to control who posts on Usenet.

The reason I added the Bush reference at the end was because Brett
tried waving that red flag towards me, and I wanted to let him know
that it didn't work, since our opinions of the cowardly dummy are
nearly identical. He really is that and more, ya know, and if you
don't agree then the terrorists win. g

I routinely try ignore political jibes, so that wasn't what I was
referring to at all.
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

ASAAR wrote:
He didn't say that because he doesn't believe that the hardware is
the most important factor. All things being equal, better hardware
can help produce a better image, but one of those things is the
photographer, and all photographers aren't equal.

That type of simplistic reasoning does nothing to address the issue of
differences between cameras. Rockwell is just playing "State the
Obvious." So I'm still trying to figure out why he went to all the
trouble of taking comparison photos for his "test."

I also noticed he has car reviews on his site. Why bother with that
since all drivers are different?

On Mon, 04 Dec 2006 08:05:42 -0700, Bill Funk wrote:

Believe it or not, it's not all about you.

Care to explain that non sequitur? If you do, don't emulate Brett
and address some other issue. The only thing that I can think of
that might have addled you enough to produce that reply is that to
you, the mention of "Bush" is like waving a red flag to a bull (if
there's any truth to that old saying). But I was writing to Brett,
not you, so I'm puzzled by your reply. It's not all about you.

I replied to your post. Who you were replying to doesn't matter,
unless you think you get to control who posts on Usenet.

You have a real talent for misreading that in this case appears
to be tinged with at least a little bit of paranoia. I said that I
was puzzled by your reply, meaning that if it had a point, it wasn't
at all obvious to me what your point was, and I wanted to understand
what you meant by your reply. It did not mean that I was puzzled by
why you felt the need to make any kind of reply if I was conversing
with BretAnnika and not with you. There was no intent to "control"
you or prevent you from replying. If you don't care to explain,
that's ok. I don't control who posts on Usenet and I don't control
what they choose to talk about. That's your call.

At the same time however on another part of his site. He says how great
the 5D image quality is. I believe he uses the word "spectacular".


Kinon O'Cann wrote:
"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message
...
Peter A. Stavrakoglou wrote:

How about the hardware reviews in which he admits to never using the
hardware but still offers up the review?


So that is what the subject of the article is? Like I have said here,
people
are picking on this particular article because of a dislike for Ken
Rockwell
and NOT because there is anything wrong with the article. To serve this
end,
many of the readers here are obtusely chosing to misidentify the intended
audience of the article and the premise of the article.

No, my point is that he lacks credibility. And this article, the one that
compares a P&S to a 5D, one which he admittely does NOT know how to use is
hysterically stupid. I'll tell you what, I'm shooting a youth football game
next week at night on a dimly lit field. How about I make a comparison
between a P&S and my DSLR? I wonder which one will fare better?

And just who is the intended audience? How many true beginners are reading
his site? Any? How would they know about it?

Sorry, that site is, well, moronically stupid.


I suggest readers here work on their comprehension skills ... or perhaps
they
can compensate by buying a more expensive computer.

--
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: D281 77A5 63EE 82C5 5E68 00E4 7868 0ADC 4EFB 39F0