If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#41
|
|||
|
|||
The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 19:02:35 +0000, Robert Sneddon
wrote: In message , SMS writes b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will perform. Bad shot versus no shot at all. The pixel-peeping purists who infest this august forum can't understand it, perhaps but nearly all the pictures taken on any given day are not shot by would-be Ansell Adams types, but are for the memories of the location and the time. A noisy P&S picture is better than no picture at all, and few people are willing to lug a heavy complex DSLR around with them when they are going out somewhere not expressly to take pictures. And that is perhaps the best reason to have a p&s, to have a camera in your pocket with you at all times. But that doesn't in any way suggest that a p&s should replace your dslr, rather it should merely be a supplement. |
#42
|
|||
|
|||
The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:44:07 +1100, "Pete D" wrote:
"Robert Sneddon" wrote in message ... In message , Pete D writes "Robert Sneddon" wrote in message ... Bad shot versus no shot at all. Dear Robert, Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact, lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in your pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras. As you say, D-SLRs tend not to fit into pockets. Unless I was going out to shoot pictures specifically I don't think I'd carry one. Most P&S cameras will fit into jacket pockets, quite a few into a shirt pocket even. I have an older Fuji Z602, a bridge design that's not a pocket camera, and it lives at home most of the time, not getting used much (I can't recall off the top of my head when I last fired it up). My pocket camera is a Canon A640 and it travels with me to work where I use it a lot doing equipment surveys (the swivelling LCD is particularly useful in cramped conditions). I shoot stuff indoors, often with bad or non-existent light illuminated only by a hand-torch or a lightstick. High ISO settings and resulting high levels of image noise don't worry me or my employers as the pics are for reference to record equipment serial numbers and such. These pics are not for display in a gallery. My next camera will be another P&S, something with image stabilisation which will help with longer hand-held exposures in bad lighting. Right now if I'm trying to take night shots I tend to use a pocket tripod or my regular full-sized Manfrotto but it's usually more trouble than it's worth lugging that beast around on the off-chance I need it. -- To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon Even when I backpack I take the best camera I can, the weight penalty for a basic setup is not that much and I rarely find an excuse not to take it. True enough my bigger D-SLRs are heavier but then I leave the grips and big lenses at home at take just what I need. That's the best approach. Take the best gear you're willing to carry with you. There's a reason why Ansel Adams made many of his masterpieces with a view camera, hauled into the mountains with the help of a mule. He could have taken the easy way out and just carried a 35mm camera around his neck. But the results would have showed it. Would Ansel be using a p&s today? Perhaps he would, but only for the purpose of checking exposure and compositon before making the actual exposure with his high-end dslr. :-) |
#43
|
|||
|
|||
The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:10:26 -0600, ZackaryZ
wrote: On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 08:44:07 +1100, "Pete D" wrote: "Robert Sneddon" wrote in message ... In message , Pete D writes "Robert Sneddon" wrote in message ... Bad shot versus no shot at all. Dear Robert, Just so you don't have to look there is a number of nice compact, lightweight D-SLR cameras available that will shoot in a fully automatic mode just like any compact, lightweight P&S. Sure they will not fit in your pocket but then neither will many P&S cameras. As you say, D-SLRs tend not to fit into pockets. Unless I was going out to shoot pictures specifically I don't think I'd carry one. Most P&S cameras will fit into jacket pockets, quite a few into a shirt pocket even. I have an older Fuji Z602, a bridge design that's not a pocket camera, and it lives at home most of the time, not getting used much (I can't recall off the top of my head when I last fired it up). My pocket camera is a Canon A640 and it travels with me to work where I use it a lot doing equipment surveys (the swivelling LCD is particularly useful in cramped conditions). I shoot stuff indoors, often with bad or non-existent light illuminated only by a hand-torch or a lightstick. High ISO settings and resulting high levels of image noise don't worry me or my employers as the pics are for reference to record equipment serial numbers and such. These pics are not for display in a gallery. My next camera will be another P&S, something with image stabilisation which will help with longer hand-held exposures in bad lighting. Right now if I'm trying to take night shots I tend to use a pocket tripod or my regular full-sized Manfrotto but it's usually more trouble than it's worth lugging that beast around on the off-chance I need it. -- To reply, my gmail address is nojay1 Robert Sneddon Even when I backpack I take the best camera I can, the weight penalty for a basic setup is not that much and I rarely find an excuse not to take it. True enough my bigger D-SLRs are heavier but then I leave the grips and big lenses at home at take just what I need. Translation: Backpack = sturdy DSLR camera bag. Hike = 1 block walk in the local dog-park. Weight/Cost comparison: Canon SX10 = 28mm-560mm lens, 1.3 lbs. $340 DSLR = 18-200mm lens + 200-400mm lens + heavy-duty tripod to use the longer 7.2 lb. lens, total = 18 lbs. $6,500 + dust on sensor + missed shots from changing lenses and having to use tripod most of the time + wildlife frightened away from clattering mirror + misshaped bird and insect wings from focal-plane shutter distortions + no room for food and important supplies to hike for more than a few short hours distance. Yet the fact is that overwhelmingly the best digital wildlife photographs are made by photographers using a dslr. Those disadvantages you list rarely pose a problem in the real world. |
#44
|
|||
|
|||
The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:19:35 -0500, "Charles"
wrote: "Robert Sneddon" wrote in message ... In message , SMS writes b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will perform. Bad shot versus no shot at all. The pixel-peeping purists who infest this august forum can't understand it, perhaps but nearly all the pictures taken on any given day are not shot by would-be Ansell Adams types, but are for the memories of the location and the time. A noisy P&S picture is better than no picture at all, and few people are willing to lug a heavy complex DSLR around with them when they are going out somewhere not expressly to take pictures. Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers. BINGO. That's the most said with the fewest words around here in a long time. I'm just thankful that the camera enthusiasts keep the camera companies in business so we photographers can choose from the best possible equipment to meet our needs. |
#45
|
|||
|
|||
The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:48:45 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" wrote:
"Charles" wrote in message ... Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers. Q: What's the difference between a photographer and a painter? A: Two painters can carry on a long discussion without mentioning brushes. One of my favorite anonomous quotes goes something like this: "That was a great meal. What kind of pots and pans did you use?" |
#46
|
|||
|
|||
The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:12:50 -0600, Ronald G.
wrote: On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:19:35 -0500, "Charles" wrote: "Robert Sneddon" wrote in message ... In message , SMS writes b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will perform. Bad shot versus no shot at all. The pixel-peeping purists who infest this august forum can't understand it, perhaps but nearly all the pictures taken on any given day are not shot by would-be Ansell Adams types, but are for the memories of the location and the time. A noisy P&S picture is better than no picture at all, and few people are willing to lug a heavy complex DSLR around with them when they are going out somewhere not expressly to take pictures. Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers. DSLR purchasers are not necessarily photographers. The vast majority of them are desperate talentless amateurs thinking they can become a pro by just buying a more expensive camera. And what about the vast majority of p&s purchasers? Perhaps they are smart enough to realize they don't have talent and they don't waste their money on equipment that they know they won't be able to use to the fullest. |
#47
|
|||
|
|||
The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 21:52:23 -0500, "RichA"
wrote: "Ronald G." wrote in message .. . On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:19:35 -0500, "Charles" wrote: "Robert Sneddon" wrote in message ... In message , SMS writes b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will perform. Bad shot versus no shot at all. The pixel-peeping purists who infest this august forum can't understand it, perhaps but nearly all the pictures taken on any given day are not shot by would-be Ansell Adams types, but are for the memories of the location and the time. A noisy P&S picture is better than no picture at all, and few people are willing to lug a heavy complex DSLR around with them when they are going out somewhere not expressly to take pictures. Camera enthusiasts are not necessarily photographers. DSLR purchasers are not necessarily photographers. The vast majority of them are desperate talentless amateurs thinking they can become a pro by just buying a more expensive camera. No, most of them are former P&S owners sick of noise turning up on 5x7 prints.. Silly. Everybody knows that a real pro considers noise to be a means of artistic expression. Only rank amateurs rely on clean tack-sharp images to hide their lack of talent. But their pictures give them away because everything in them is twisted unto a u-turn from the distortion from their noisy focal plan shutters. |
#48
|
|||
|
|||
The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:14:33 -0600, MilesLandau
wrote: On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 21:10:17 GMT, "Andrew Koenig" wrote: "SMS" wrote in message .. . I don't know why a) dpreview would do such a ridiculous comparison rather than simply stating, "if you need high ISO, buy a D-SLR" and b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will perform. Because sometimes a mediocre photograph is more useful than none at all. Content will trump quality every time. Very true. However, it's also true that poor quality will distract from the content. |
#49
|
|||
|
|||
The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 22:38:58 -0600, Mitchell Graysin
wrote: On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 21:54:54 -0500, "RichA" wrote: "Andrew Koenig" wrote in message ... "SMS" wrote in message ... I don't know why a) dpreview would do such a ridiculous comparison rather than simply stating, "if you need high ISO, buy a D-SLR" and b) why the P&S makers even feel compelled to include the ability to shoot at high ISO when they know how poorly their products will perform. Because sometimes a mediocre photograph is more useful than none at all. 99% of the planet are not out to get grab shots with camera phones in just bombed subway trains. Or record schoolyard fights with equally mediocre "video" modes. Some actually care about the technical quality of a carefully done shot. If those "carefully done shots" don't convey anything interesting to anyone then all the "technical quality" in the universe is not going to help you. Look at it this way ... you have more computer under your fingertips than all the computing power put together for the Apollo 11 mission to get men's footprints on the surface of the moon. In fact, a C-64 (64k RAM) computer had more computing power than used for Apollo 11. And what do you do with all that technical quality at your fingertips? You convey meaningless nonsense that is of no use to anyone. You could broadcast your sentences across the globe or to nearby planets on every transmission frequency known to man at 1,000,000 megawatts each in high-fidelity 3D audio. And still your words would be of no use nor importance to anyone. The quality and power of your vehicle will never relate to the contents nor determine the content's worth. Content will trump quality every time. While you're trying to digest that FACT, also try to enjoy all those "carefully done" "technical quality" missed shots of yours. (I strongly suspect that you'll come up empty on both counts.) All that is moot. The quality of the content has nothing whatsoever with the camera you choose to use. Quality can only enhance good content. Lack of quality always detracts from the content. The fact is that if dslr cameras resulted in so many missed shots, then the vast majority of professional photographers wouldn't rely on them to put food on their table. |
#50
|
|||
|
|||
The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 06:12:05 +0100, Mxsmanic
wrote: RichA writes: 99% of the planet are not out to get grab shots with camera phones in just bombed subway trains. But 99% of amateur photographers are out to grab shots, and don't care about quality. Amen! |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Life? Reality? | dale | In The Darkroom | 0 | April 6th 08 09:49 AM |
Sickening amount of dust in 5D image | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 22 | June 7th 07 02:31 AM |
The SICKENING HORROR of sensor dust | RichA | Digital SLR Cameras | 12 | December 21st 06 02:06 PM |
reality check? | Kinon O'Cann | Digital Photography | 6 | January 18th 06 08:05 AM |
D50 Reality? | Strath | Digital Photography | 0 | March 18th 05 09:01 AM |