Regular digital or digitial SLR?

Musty wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
lid wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:


There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but
if you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting,
you might as well get a good quality point and shoot.


I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag,
flash, and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a
near-neophyte, set everything to auto, and after just a few minutes
instruction said "go shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure
they were better than would have obtained with a good quality point
and shoot.

Andrew.

Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between,
say a Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and
size? Only the person paying for it can really decide. Not
everyone wants to carry around several pounds of camera, lenses, and
other accessories. I have one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST
fit in a trouser pocket without making me uncomfortable. If it
won't, then I won't carry it around, which renders even the most
sophisticated camera in the world useless for my purposes.


So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own
DSLR then?

Let me ask you, Musty: can you imagine any good, legitimate purpose
served by his being in this NG? Please?


--
Frank ess

In article ,
wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:

There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
might as well get a good quality point and shoot.

I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Nobody is saying that a good DSLR won't do the job. The question
is whether a far cheaper camera will do all the original poster needs.

I believe it would. Modern P&S cameras have just about solved the
shutter lag problem. The AF and metering are good enough for almost
all situations. The only area where the DSLR is indubitably superior
is flash photography, end even there you can find a few P&S bodies
that will accept an external flash for those problem cases.

I'm speaking from experience; I use either, as the situation demands.

In article ,
wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:

There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
might as well get a good quality point and shoot.

I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Nobody is saying that a good DSLR won't do the job. The question
is whether a far cheaper camera will do all the original poster needs.

I believe it would. Modern P&S cameras have just about solved the
shutter lag problem. The AF and metering are good enough for almost
all situations. The only area where the DSLR is indubitably superior
is flash photography, end even there you can find a few P&S bodies
that will accept an external flash for those problem cases.

I'm speaking from experience; I use either, as the situation demands.

"Frank ess" wrote in message
...
Musty wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...
lid wrote:
In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:


There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but
if you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting,
you might as well get a good quality point and shoot.


I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag,
flash, and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a
near-neophyte, set everything to auto, and after just a few minutes
instruction said "go shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure
they were better than would have obtained with a good quality point
and shoot.

Andrew.

Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between,
say a Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and
size? Only the person paying for it can really decide. Not
everyone wants to carry around several pounds of camera, lenses, and
other accessories. I have one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST
fit in a trouser pocket without making me uncomfortable. If it
won't, then I won't carry it around, which renders even the most
sophisticated camera in the world useless for my purposes.


So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own
DSLR then?

Let me ask you, Musty: can you imagine any good, legitimate purpose
served by his being in this NG? Please?

I will let you know once I can think of something, it may take some time ;-)

Its strange to me that someone with such a firm camera criteria (must fit in
pocket!!) would even be posting in such a NG - I would think
rec.photo.digital would be more appropriate. I can speak from experience, I
have owned 2 P&S digicams and currently own a 20D (over a short period of
time my needs evolved realizing that the shot and flexibility was more
important than compactness). The last P&S was the Oly C-5050Z which was an
excellent camera (f/1.8 lens), but by no means would fit into my pocket.
Cameras that fit into a pocket are usually good for one thing - for doing
very candid happy snaps at parties or being out with friends at a bar.
Beyond that, they have no use UNLESS the user does not care about color,
clarity, dynamic range, noise, sharpness, tonality etc. Having said that I
plan to get a Canon SD300 just for the purpose of candid happy snaps for
situations where carrying my gear is inappropriate.



--
Frank ess

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:42:03 +0000, Musty wrote:


Its strange to me that someone with such a firm camera criteria (must fit in
pocket!!) would even be posting in such a NG - I would think
rec.photo.digital would be more appropriate. I can speak from experience, I

Ummm ... read your newsgroups line.

This is crossposted to rec.photo.digital and rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.

-- Patrick Mansfielkd

Musty wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...

wrote:

In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:



There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
might as well get a good quality point and shoot.


I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Andrew.

Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between, say a
Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and size? Only
the person paying for it can really decide. Not everyone wants to carry
around several pounds of camera, lenses, and other accessories. I have
one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST fit in a trouser pocket without
making me uncomfortable. If it won't, then I won't carry it around,
which renders even the most sophisticated camera in the world useless
for my purposes.



So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own DSLR
then?


No, I don't, but then I am NOT in the DSLR group. Someone cross-posted,
I replied.


--
Ron Hunter

Musty wrote:
"Ron Hunter" wrote in message
...

wrote:

In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter wrote:



There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
might as well get a good quality point and shoot.


I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Andrew.

Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between, say a
Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and size? Only
the person paying for it can really decide. Not everyone wants to carry
around several pounds of camera, lenses, and other accessories. I have
one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST fit in a trouser pocket without
making me uncomfortable. If it won't, then I won't carry it around,
which renders even the most sophisticated camera in the world useless
for my purposes.



So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own DSLR
then?


No, I don't, but then I am NOT in the DSLR group. Someone cross-posted,
I replied.


--
Ron Hunter

It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.


I could not tell the difference between a 4x6 print from a HP 3.2mp and a Sony
6.1.
higher res is used for cropping.
just reduce the size of the pic using Irfanview, press HALF.

P&S have a higher shutter lag delay than DSLR.

Developwebsites commented courteously ...

I could not tell the difference between a 4x6 print from
a
HP 3.2mp and a Sony 6.1.

[snip]

You need 150 PPI min, maybe 200 or so for a decent print.
For 4 x 6 that'd be 600-800 x 900-1200, or 1 mega pixel.
Please remember also that there's much more to sharpness
and detail than mega pixels, which can frequently be the
manufacturer's marketing hype since "everybody" thinks the
greater the MP, the better the pictures.

The camera's lens, sensors, and electronics pay a big
part, not to mention the amount of JPEG compression (if
using JPEG) have a lot to do with it.

I bought my wife a $150 Kodak 3MP and my daughter a $200
Kodak 4MP. Both are great p&s cameras but the quality
stinks even at the full resolution for all of the reasons
above.

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers

Developwebsites commented courteously ...

I could not tell the difference between a 4x6 print from
a
HP 3.2mp and a Sony 6.1.

[snip]

You need 150 PPI min, maybe 200 or so for a decent print.
For 4 x 6 that'd be 600-800 x 900-1200, or 1 mega pixel.
Please remember also that there's much more to sharpness
and detail than mega pixels, which can frequently be the
manufacturer's marketing hype since "everybody" thinks the
greater the MP, the better the pictures.

The camera's lens, sensors, and electronics pay a big
part, not to mention the amount of JPEG compression (if
using JPEG) have a lot to do with it.

I bought my wife a $150 Kodak 3MP and my daughter a $200
Kodak 4MP. Both are great p&s cameras but the quality
stinks even at the full resolution for all of the reasons
above.

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers