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

In article 2007113017315050073%sh@ggydogstoriescouk, Will Ritson
wrote:

Apologies--I haven't been around here for very long, Still, i think you
cab see why a bold statement that your trained eye is better than
meters would provoke a strong dissent. One thing I carried over from
film to digital is that I still tend to "fudge" (I shoot almost all
aperture-prioity auto) by dialing in +EV compensation for low light and
-EV for full sun. That's quite different from saying I'm a better judge
of exposure than any meter.

I didn't say that my eye was better than a meter. Today's metering
systems in cameras are incredible. My point is that through many years
of experience, making mistakes and learning from them, experiencing a
wide variety of situations, I have no need for histograms.

On 2007-12-01 13:19:54 -0700, "Mr. Strat" said:

In article 2007113017315050073%sh@ggydogstoriescouk, Will Ritson
wrote:

Apologies--I haven't been around here for very long, Still, i think you
cab see why a bold statement that your trained eye is better than
meters would provoke a strong dissent. One thing I carried over from
film to digital is that I still tend to "fudge" (I shoot almost all
aperture-prioity auto) by dialing in +EV compensation for low light and
-EV for full sun. That's quite different from saying I'm a better judge
of exposure than any meter.

I didn't say that my eye was better than a meter. Today's metering
systems in cameras are incredible. My point is that through many years
of experience, making mistakes and learning from them, experiencing a
wide variety of situations, I have no need for histograms.

I guess it was the series of posts by you which included this...
I've just learned through experience to be able to look at a
scene/situation and know what it will look like after I press the
button.

As for exposure, again, this is something that just takes a lot of time
and experience. An understanding of the Zone System helps.
....that created my confusion. In several messages, you made vague
references to a process of "pre-visualization"--I don't know whether
you were trying to be cryptic, but a simple statement to the effect
that you were using shutter-priority AE (and over-riding the camera's
suggestion at times) would have certainly clarified matters.
--
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

In article 2007120114121716807%sh@ggydogstoriescouk, Will Ritson
wrote:

...that created my confusion. In several messages, you made vague
references to a process of "pre-visualization"--I don't know whether
you were trying to be cryptic, but a simple statement to the effect
that you were using shutter-priority AE (and over-riding the camera's
suggestion at times) would have certainly clarified matters.

Pre-visualization - being able to look at a scene/situation and know
what it will look like in a finished print.

On 11/30/07 7:37 PM, in article ,
"George Furby" wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 19:10:00 -0600, George Kerby
wrote:




On 11/30/07 3:46 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

Panasonic DMC-FZ8
From Amazon.com review pages:

Customer Review


26 of 29 people found the following review helpful:
Good value, that's about it, July 23, 2007
By D. Fox
I bought this camera from Amazon, but returned it two weeks later.
Everything about this camera is good value except the lens, which is
excellent.
There is a lot of noise even at the lowest ISO (100). I had a beautiful
picture of my backyard in which noise was really visible in a shadow, thus
making the picture appear grainy in that area...and this was in good light.
If you're going to be limiting the printing to 4x6 or 5x7 and you don't look
at the pictures full-size on your monitor, then this is the camera for you.
I would recommend it 100% for people like that. I am not prepared to 'shoot
in raw' and post-process either. I don't have time for that. Maybe some
people do. Raw also takes up quite a bit of space (11.3 Megs each), and the
shot-to-shot time is around 5 seconds(maybe 4).
The lens cap is nice and it comes with conversion adapter and lens hood. All
work great, although the conversion adapter is plastic and will get chewed
up by inserting and removing over time (again, a 'value' camera). If it
weren't for the noise, I would have kept this camera. I like inspecting
pictures on my screen, so I got frustrated when details like grass or
foliage would be muddied up due to noise (or noise reduction, depending on
how you have it set).
The flash is nice, although it loses power quick. You can't take more than 4
or 5 flash shots within a minute or else the power of the flash
deteriorates. You have to give it time for the battery to cool down. In
Panasonic's manual for this camera they indicate their flash performance is
based on waiting 30 seconds between shots. Again, another value decision.
The preset white balances are fairly inaccurate, at least under the lights
in my house. I had to use the custom white balances to get decent
white-levels in my photos. This is ok, except I always had to have a white
piece of paper with me and set it manually. The white-balance fine-tuning is
pretty nice.
As far as photo quality, there was very little purple fringing. In fact,
almost none. I only saw some at the full telephoto zoom end at the corners
of the picture. Kudos to Panasonic for this.
Corner blurriness and distortion was not an issue either. This is an awesome
lens. It's just too bad the electronics inside the camera don't match the
quality of the lens. I would not take this camera above ISO 200. I would not
use it for indoor pictures (unless using the flash). The optical
stabilization works great though, so you can keep to ISO 100 more often than
with other cams.
I decided that there isn't an ultra-zoom on the market right now that lives
up to my expectations. The S5 IS is not very good due to lens distortion and
purple(red)-fringing. Alas I might have to do what the market dictates I
must do and buy a D-SLR.

So much for NavAss's "superior equipment....

Sounds like just the kind of post that camera companies hire people to type
for
them. They just post to review sites to increase their dslr sales, given a
small
commission to do so during their breaks and lunch hours, coming off sounding
like they are some average person out there. They even post derogatory
"customer
reviews" for competing products even before the cameras are being sold. Are
you
this dense to not know this? How do you think all those pre-production
customer
reviews show up at dpreview a month before they are in stores? Wow are you an
idiot.

So much for George Kerby's "superior proof". All he has for experience in
photography and cameras is what he reads and regurgitates online. I bet he's
got
a closet full of viagra too. He read it online, it must be true that he needs
it.

Holy ****'n idiots Batman.

If a moron like you cannot appreciate the 26 of 29 found this to be an
accurate report on one of the most open forums there is in the marketplace,
then I just cannot help it that your hydrocephalic condition prevents you
from being able to comprehend much more than a lump of lignite.

Have a nice day!

On 12/1/07 6:37 AM, in article 2007120105371275249%sh@ggydogstoriescouk,
"Will Ritson" wrote:

On 2007-11-30 18:04:45 -0700, George Kerby said:




On 11/30/07 2:30 PM, in article ,
"John Navas" wrote:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:55:54 -1000, Scott W wrote
in :

acl wrote:

On Nov 30, 7:15 pm, Scott W wrote:

I found this line from Navas' post brilliant:
Claiming
that something much more limited is actually better is (as Spock would
say) illogical.

Navas, you are a godsend! You make my short breaks from work much more
enjoyable. Thank you!

Someday John is going to study a bit of photography and look back at
what he has been posting and be shocked.

"Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambitions. Small people
always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can
become great." -Mark Twain
Oh Great! We're back to the Random Insult Quote Generator Mode. Good Grief!

Charles M. Schulz. Do I win a prize?
Pretty Damn Good! No, but you get to see "Charlie Brown's Christmas" for the
umpteenth time this year.

Mr. Strat wrote:
Wilba wrote:

Let me see if I've understood you correctly. In most cases, you set the
shutter speed, then determine camera settings based on your experience.
What does "determine camera settings" mean? Are you setting an
exposure compensation to deviate from the aperture indicated by the
camera's or some other meter, or are you deciding on an aperture
without any input from any meter? IOW, who or what does the
metering?

I generally set the shutter speed first, then determine if I agree with
the meter for the f/stop. I film days, I used a Gossen Luna Pro (which
I still have). These days, I use the camera's meter.

OK, thanks. Now I know that you are not claiming a supernatural ability,
you're just choosing an exposure compensation (like we all do all the time).

That sounds like a claim of supernatural ability. To be credible you
have to be much more specific about what you're doing.

There's no substitute for time and experience.

So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a viable
substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on the image
or live). That's very valuable information, available "instantly", to help
you determine camera settings with accuracy.

I also believe that if you don't already have the time and experience, at
least these exposure displays will help you to learn the judgement skills
more easily and rapidly than waiting for prints or slides to come back from
the lab.

On 2007-12-01 15:35:30 -0700, "Mr. Strat" said:

In article 2007120114121716807%sh@ggydogstoriescouk, Will Ritson
wrote:

...that created my confusion. In several messages, you made vague
references to a process of "pre-visualization"--I don't know whether
you were trying to be cryptic, but a simple statement to the effect
that you were using shutter-priority AE (and over-riding the camera's
suggestion at times) would have certainly clarified matters.

Pre-visualization - being able to look at a scene/situation and know
what it will look like in a finished print.

That is "visualization." Whatever you were doing before that...ah, never mind.
--
M: Yes I have. If you're arguing, I must have paid.
A: Not necessarily. I could be arguing in my spare time.

In article , Wilba
wrote:

So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a viable
substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on the image
or live). That's very valuable information, available "instantly", to help
you determine camera settings with accuracy.

Back to my original point - I don't need to look at a graph to see if
I've properly captured a scene. I know I did before I pressed the
button.

In article , Scott W
wrote:

Well yes, but then you don't use a P&S camera with a sensor smaller then
a postage stamp, that has maybe 5 stops of dynamic range, if you are
lucky.

The P&S boys really need their histograms, given how little range their
cameras have.

My girlfriend has an S2 IS which I've played with a little. It's pretty
impressive. And my drummer has the S3 IS which is also pretty nice. I
don't care for EVFs, but both models produce some excellent
photographs.

"Mr. Strat" wrote:
In article , Wilba
wrote:

So now we get back to the point. I agree but I also think there IS a viable
substitute - histogram, highlight, and shadow displays (either on the image
or live). That's very valuable information, available "instantly", to help
you determine camera settings with accuracy.

Back to my original point - I don't need to look at a graph to see if
I've properly captured a scene. I know I did before I pressed the
button.

Translation:

It took him 40 years to learn what he now knows, and it
does work; he won't live long enough to ever understand
an histogram, so why would he think it important?

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)