DSLR's are best (the manufacturers say so0

The is an old adage, If heaven was a place that money could buy, then the
rich would live and the poor would die" - loosely translated in its most
literal sense as 'the rich manipulate the poor'

So when we see the seemingly remorseless rise of DSLR's, what are to think?

That the manufacturers care passionately about photography?, that they have
a deep love of the craft, and want everyone to have the best tools available
at the most affordable price?

Or, that the manufacturers care only about profit - and, in DSLR's, they
have struck the mother lode?

I would say the latter. It's not just the price of the bodies, lucrative
though they are (a plastic box costing, say,£200 to make, selling for £900!)
it's in the lenses where the true riches lie!

Don't tell me that a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR costs a penny more than £100 to
make - ****, you can buy a decent washing machine for £200 these days!

Yet this £100 (and that's being generous) bit of metal and glass sells for
anything between £1000 and £1200 - not a bad bit of mark-up, eh?

It the same stony with all the lenses - and the flashguns. Make a flash in
China for £25.00 - sell it to the punters for £225!.

Why? - because the users of DSLR's are encouraged to think of themselves.not
as normal human beings taking a photo of their loved ones on holiday, but as
'Artists', craftsmen of the image, who for the price of admission can ****
about looking like Andy Warhol before he got overly thin.

That's why we see the daft buggers crouching over flowers, critically
examining buildings - or, worse, taking surreptitious photo's of normal
people who just want to go about their daily lives unmolested by these
long-lensed cretins!

The fact that they produce countless images that, apart from the odd one or
two, are of absolutely no ****ing interest to anyone except themselves,
never seems to occur to them! - and they spend their lives acquiring better
and more expensive lenses which they fondly imagine will give them a
Pulitzer winning shot!

That's why Pbase exists! - to give these people somewhere to put their work
in the hope that someone, somewhere, will be bored enough to look at it.

And that's why DS:R's are all the rage - it's because the camera companies
know a good thing when they see it - take the money from the mugs while the
opportunity is there

It's clear that they are deliberately suppressing the quality on non-dslr
equipment in order to herd as many people as possible into the profit
corral. They don't want to make a good camera that doesn't need extra
lenses, extra flashes, extra cables, extra...and so on.....

Cadbury's Finest wrote:

It's clear that they are deliberately suppressing the quality on non-dslr
equipment in order to herd as many people as possible into the profit
corral. They don't want to make a good camera that doesn't need extra
lenses, extra flashes, extra cables, extra...and so on.....

It's not quite that simple. Prior to reasonably priced D-SLRs being
available, enthusiasts would have both a high-end P&S digital camera,
and a film SLR for those times that the P&S was not appropriate (low
light, wide-angle shots, long telephoto shots, etc.

It _is_ probably the case that the reason P&S digital cameras have
declined in quality and features is that the manufacturers don't think
it's as profitable. But the reason the market for high-end P&S has
declined is because the prices on D-SLRs have come down so much, and the
D-SLR has so many overwhelming advantages over the P&S.

It's become popular for those that know nothing about photography to
deride D-SLRs due to their cost, trying to compare then to ZLRs, without
understanding the concepts of noise, shutter lag, auto-focus quality and
speed, and the optical limitations of wide zoom range lenses.

"SMS ???. ?" wrote in message
...
Cadbury's Finest wrote:

It's clear that they are deliberately suppressing the quality on non-dslr
equipment in order to herd as many people as possible into the profit
corral. They don't want to make a good camera that doesn't need extra
lenses, extra flashes, extra cables, extra...and so on.....

It's not quite that simple. Prior to reasonably priced D-SLRs being
available, enthusiasts would have both a high-end P&S digital camera, and
a film SLR for those times that the P&S was not appropriate (low light,
wide-angle shots, long telephoto shots, etc.

It _is_ probably the case that the reason P&S digital cameras have
declined in quality and features is that the manufacturers don't think
it's as profitable. But the reason the market for high-end P&S has
declined is because the prices on D-SLRs have come down so much, and the
D-SLR has so many overwhelming advantages over the P&S.

It's become popular for those that know nothing about photography to
deride D-SLRs due to their cost, trying to compare then to ZLRs, without
understanding the concepts of noise, shutter lag, auto-focus quality and
speed, and the optical limitations of wide zoom range lenses.


It seems pretty obvious to me that the manufacturers are putting very little
effort into their non-dslr products.

There is no technical reason why a fixed lens camera couldn't be the equal
of a dslr. Take the Olympus E10 & E20, they had a wonderful f/2.8 zoom lens
that would now cost several hundred pounds to buy for a dslr. The E10/20
was marred by noise, but if the will was there Olympus could have made huge
improvements - but they didn't.

In fact, when they did release a comparable camera (the 8080) they withdrew
it, presumably because it outshone their miserable 4/3 dslr's, and didn't
offer the prospect of any more revenue from lenses, etc.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:58:05 -0000, "Cadbury's Finest"
wrote:


It's clear that they are deliberately suppressing the quality on non-dslr
equipment in order to herd as many people as possible into the profit
corral. They don't want to make a good camera that doesn't need extra
lenses, extra flashes, extra cables, extra...and so on.....


A perfect example. I read a post on dpreview.com. Someone called up Canon tech
support to find out why they couldn't take pictures any faster than 3 to 4
seconds per photo with their P&S camera. Tech support told them. "We're sorry,
but that camera isn't capable of higher speeds than that. If you want better
performance you'll have to buy a D-SLR." That was the only advice offered.

Luckily someone else who had the same camera replied to their post and told them
to turn off their review-image delay from its default 2 seconds. Now their
camera takes images every 1/2 second or less.

Even tech support from companies are told to tell the people who buy the lesser
expensive cameras that the only cure is to buy their more expensive ones, so
they can rape them out of their money by selling them unneeded lenses too.

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:27:09 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote:

Cadbury's Finest wrote:

It's clear that they are deliberately suppressing the quality on non-dslr
equipment in order to herd as many people as possible into the profit
corral. They don't want to make a good camera that doesn't need extra
lenses, extra flashes, extra cables, extra...and so on.....

It's not quite that simple. Prior to reasonably priced D-SLRs being
available, enthusiasts would have both a high-end P&S digital camera,
and a film SLR for those times that the P&S was not appropriate (low
light, wide-angle shots, long telephoto shots, etc.

It _is_ probably the case that the reason P&S digital cameras have
declined in quality and features is that the manufacturers don't think
it's as profitable. But the reason the market for high-end P&S has
declined is because the prices on D-SLRs have come down so much, and the
D-SLR has so many overwhelming advantages over the P&S.

It's become popular for those that know nothing about photography to
deride D-SLRs due to their cost, trying to compare then to ZLRs, without
understanding the concepts of noise, shutter lag, auto-focus quality and
speed, and the optical limitations of wide zoom range lenses.

If only you had any experience with any real cameras or even photography, you
might have been believed. We all know better than that now.

Cadbury's Finest wrote:

There is no technical reason why a fixed lens camera couldn't be the equal
of a dslr. Take the Olympus E10 & E20, they had a wonderful f/2.8 zoom lens
that would now cost several hundred pounds to buy for a dslr. The E10/20
was marred by noise, but if the will was there Olympus could have made huge
improvements - but they didn't.

They could have redesigned it around a larger sensor to reduce the
noise. But the cost of lens mount isn't all that much, and you'd soon
have a camera that cost as much as a D-SLR, without the benefit of
interchangeable lenses.

In fact, when they did release a comparable camera (the 8080) they withdrew
it, presumably because it outshone their miserable 4/3 dslr's, and didn't
offer the prospect of any more revenue from lenses, etc.

Still fairly noisy. And it didn't do well because it was no bargain. As
one reviewer wrote: "Tough competition from D-SLRs; spend just a little
more, get a much better camera."

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 23:17:59 -0800, SMS ???• ?
wrote:

Cadbury's Finest wrote:

There is no technical reason why a fixed lens camera couldn't be the equal
of a dslr. Take the Olympus E10 & E20, they had a wonderful f/2.8 zoom lens
that would now cost several hundred pounds to buy for a dslr. The E10/20
was marred by noise, but if the will was there Olympus could have made huge
improvements - but they didn't.

They could have redesigned it around a larger sensor to reduce the
noise. But the cost of lens mount isn't all that much, and you'd soon
have a camera that cost as much as a D-SLR, without the benefit of
interchangeable lenses.


I fail to understand this interchangeable lens obsession (except by those who
have never used a camera very much, or at all). I've had to deal with that
horrendous drawback all my life. The only reason the interchangeable lens design
was even invented was because zoom lenses couldn't be made well back then.
Everyone was stuck with fixed focal-length lenses. Having to laboriously swap
them out at a moment's notice, the delay in doing so often destroying any chance
of getting that once in a lifetime shot. Now you can get a super-zoom P&S to
cover most all the focal-length range that most anyone would ever need with even
more aperture and sharpness than what was once available in SLR lenses. No dSLR
lenses yet made can cover the same zoom range and wide aperture of P&S zoom
lenses. If you need more or less range than that you can add on an inexpensive
high-quality adapter lens without losing any of your available aperture (unlike
dSLR behind-the-lens teleconverters that drop the aperture by 2-stops or more).

If you think interchangeable lenses are such a wonderful design maybe you should
go back to fixed-aperture optics too, where you have to swap out the lens
diaphragm for each shot to get the right exposure. Or to move a slide with
different circles cut out of it, trying to align them to the center axis of the
lens each time. Then you'll be perfectly happy. You just LOVE the benefits of
"interchangeable" don't you? With that setup you could even cut your own special
shaped apertures in case one wasn't on the market or didn't come with your
camera "kit".

What idiots. How can they be anything less when they've clearly shown they've
never used any of the cameras that they talk about.

"Cadbury's Finest" wrote in message
...
The is an old adage, If heaven was a place that money could buy, then the
rich would live and the poor would die" - loosely translated in its most
literal sense as 'the rich manipulate the poor'

So when we see the seemingly remorseless rise of DSLR's, what are to
think?

That the manufacturers care passionately about photography?, that they
have a deep love of the craft, and want everyone to have the best tools
available at the most affordable price?

Or, that the manufacturers care only about profit - and, in DSLR's, they
have struck the mother lode?

I would say the latter. It's not just the price of the bodies, lucrative
though they are (a plastic box costing, say,£200 to make, selling for
£900!) it's in the lenses where the true riches lie!

Don't tell me that a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR costs a penny more than £100 to
make - ****, you can buy a decent washing machine for £200 these days!

Yet this £100 (and that's being generous) bit of metal and glass sells
for anything between £1000 and £1200 - not a bad bit of mark-up, eh?

It the same stony with all the lenses - and the flashguns. Make a flash
in China for £25.00 - sell it to the punters for £225!.

Why? - because the users of DSLR's are encouraged to think of
themselves.not as normal human beings taking a photo of their loved ones
on holiday, but as 'Artists', craftsmen of the image, who for the price
of admission can **** about looking like Andy Warhol before he got overly
thin.

That's why we see the daft buggers crouching over flowers, critically
examining buildings - or, worse, taking surreptitious photo's of normal
people who just want to go about their daily lives unmolested by these
long-lensed cretins!

The fact that they produce countless images that, apart from the odd one
or two, are of absolutely no ****ing interest to anyone except themselves,
never seems to occur to them! - and they spend their lives acquiring
better and more expensive lenses which they fondly imagine will give them
a Pulitzer winning shot!

That's why Pbase exists! - to give these people somewhere to put their
work in the hope that someone, somewhere, will be bored enough to look at
it.

And that's why DS:R's are all the rage - it's because the camera companies
know a good thing when they see it - take the money from the mugs while
the opportunity is there

It's clear that they are deliberately suppressing the quality on non-dslr
equipment in order to herd as many people as possible into the profit
corral. They don't want to make a good camera that doesn't need extra
lenses, extra flashes, extra cables, extra...and so on.....
While your out trolling, I bite...
Damn cars. metal and bits of plastic yet so expensive!

Look, I have three P&S cameras and a DSLR. each have their uses, but good
quality glass on a DSLR produce mighty fine results. The zoom on many of
these mega zoom compacts are not so pretty at the long end. Who needs noise
haze color fringy shots. Even the lens on the Canon G9 shoes its weakness at
the long end.

The P&S cameras I have, have 1/1.8" sensors at lower resolutions 5 and 8 MP.
With limited range zooms of 4x, they can produce nice images at low ISOs. So
I use them when I don't want to lug the SLR around. It seems the
manufacturers want to take the larger 1/1.8 sensors out of P&S and feed us
tiny sensor cameras with too much noise reduction even at low ISOs. My
reaction is to hold on to my current cameras and not buy another P&S until
image quality is put back into consideration.
John

JohnR66 wrote:

Look, I have three P&S cameras and a DSLR. each have their uses, but good
quality glass on a DSLR produce mighty fine results. The zoom on many of
these mega zoom compacts are not so pretty at the long end. Who needs noise
haze color fringy shots. Even the lens on the Canon G9 shoes its weakness at
the long end.

That's one major point that many newbies don't understand. They look at
an wide-range zoom lens, and think "why would I buy two or three lenses
to cover this range when I can buy a single lens that does it all, or
worse they look at a wide-range point and shoot and think the same
thing. They don't understand the concepts of chromatic aberration or
distortion.

That said, at least with the proper software you can partially correct
both the chromatic aberration and distortion, though many novices don't
even bother to use one of the free post-processing programs that can do
this.

"JohnR66" wrote in message
...
"Cadbury's Finest" wrote in
message ...
The is an old adage, If heaven was a place that money could buy, then the
rich would live and the poor would die" - loosely translated in its most
literal sense as 'the rich manipulate the poor'

So when we see the seemingly remorseless rise of DSLR's, what are to
think?

That the manufacturers care passionately about photography?, that they
have a deep love of the craft, and want everyone to have the best tools
available at the most affordable price?

Or, that the manufacturers care only about profit - and, in DSLR's, they
have struck the mother lode?

I would say the latter. It's not just the price of the bodies, lucrative
though they are (a plastic box costing, say,£200 to make, selling for
£900!) it's in the lenses where the true riches lie!

Don't tell me that a Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR costs a penny more than £100
to make - ****, you can buy a decent washing machine for £200 these days!

Yet this £100 (and that's being generous) bit of metal and glass sells
for anything between £1000 and £1200 - not a bad bit of mark-up, eh?

It the same stony with all the lenses - and the flashguns. Make a flash
in China for £25.00 - sell it to the punters for £225!.

Why? - because the users of DSLR's are encouraged to think of
themselves.not as normal human beings taking a photo of their loved ones
on holiday, but as 'Artists', craftsmen of the image, who for the price
of admission can **** about looking like Andy Warhol before he got overly
thin.

That's why we see the daft buggers crouching over flowers, critically
examining buildings - or, worse, taking surreptitious photo's of normal
people who just want to go about their daily lives unmolested by these
long-lensed cretins!

The fact that they produce countless images that, apart from the odd one
or two, are of absolutely no ****ing interest to anyone except
themselves, never seems to occur to them! - and they spend their lives
acquiring better and more expensive lenses which they fondly imagine will
give them a Pulitzer winning shot!

That's why Pbase exists! - to give these people somewhere to put their
work in the hope that someone, somewhere, will be bored enough to look at
it.

And that's why DS:R's are all the rage - it's because the camera
companies know a good thing when they see it - take the money from the
mugs while the opportunity is there

It's clear that they are deliberately suppressing the quality on non-dslr
equipment in order to herd as many people as possible into the profit
corral. They don't want to make a good camera that doesn't need extra
lenses, extra flashes, extra cables, extra...and so on.....
While your out trolling, I bite...
Damn cars. metal and bits of plastic yet so expensive!



You shouldn't have used that comparison

£6,000 (or a bit less) will buy you a basic brand new small car, full of
technology and all the safety features that current legislation requires.
That's, what? - less than the cost of six D300 bodies (no lenses, of course,
you need to dig deeper in your pocket for those!)

Put those six camera bodies on the ground, next to your shiny new car - and
tell me *which* purchase represents the better value......

I kid you not, dslr's offer the sort of profit margins that drug cartels can
only dream about