The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:54:15 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Stephen Bishop
says...

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.

The point simply is that you are more likely to have a small and
lightweight camera with you than a huge and heavy one.

My camera phone is always with me, but not my DSLR. Better a mediocre
photo than none at all.

Not always, but that depends on what your goals are. Sometimes a
camera phone picture is "good enough." But we're not talking about
snapshots.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 16:01:05 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Stephen Bishop
says...

No more than people should laugh at the bulk and weight of medium
format film cameras. But the fact is that those cameras produced
better results than 35mm film cameras,

They produced higher resolution images, not necessarily better results.

In the right hands, they produced better results. For some subjects,
like fast action, they were less suited. It all gets back to using
the proper tool for the job.

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:22:44 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Stephen
Bishop says...

No more than people should laugh at the bulk and weight of medium
format film cameras. But the fact is that those cameras produced
better results than 35mm film cameras,

They produced higher resolution images, not necessarily better
results.

If they truly produced "better results" under all (or even most)
circumstances then there would be no pro market to speak of for 35mm.

And if they didn't produce better results, there would be no market
for them at all because they cost significantly more money than 35mm.

If you've ever worked with both formats, you'd see the dramatic
difference in image quality between the two. But it goes without
saying that the photographer is the one who is ultimately responsible
for the image.

35mm is/was always good for sports or wildlife where you need to work
fast and/or have the reach of a very long telephoto lens. But for
landscape or studio work, there is no comparison. MF is/was far
superior; just as dslr images are superior to those from a p&s.
(Speaking technical quality only, not content.)

Those who feel they got good 11x14 prints from a 35mm negative are
usually amazed when they see the same size prints from a 6x7 netative.




--

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:37:47 -0600, Jeremy Calter
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:47:39 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 02:39:01 -0600, Ruben A****er
wrote:

On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 21:46:46 -0500, "RichA" wrote:


"AlbertC." wrote in message
m...
On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:55:03 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

SMS writes:

... 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 the most common problems of amateur photography is inadequate
exposure, so high ISO is a selling point.

Exactly, that's why so many amateurs buy DSLRs. They NEED that high ISO to
make
up for their lack of skill as real photographers.

Yes, much better to use the retard's "scene modes" P&S's are stuffed with.


Those are for when you hand your camera to your DSLR-owning friend and they
can't cope with using standard manual adjustments on most P&S cameras. If it
weren't for auto-everything on their DSLRs they wouldn't buy them. They've
forgotten how to use manual camera features and to manually focus. Notice how
much they praise their auto-focus every chance they get. And yet, they claim
they don't need that if they have an OVF. How self-contradicting they are.

To this day I've never used any scene-modes on any of my P&S cameras, one of my
more favorite ones doesn't even have any scene-modes. For the same reason that I
don't like to use auto-focus on any camera (P&S or D/SLR) and I don't like to
trust a camera's exposure meter all that much. It'll give me a good starting
point but that's all. Especially on a D/SLR when the exposure reading is thrown
off by any light entering the viewfinder's eyepiece or when changing to
wide-angle or telephoto lenses. Then you can't trust a D/SLR's meter one bit. No
technician in a lab will ever know how to use a camera properly so he'll never
know what my camera should do for me. Most of his programmed auto-settings are
great for his bench-tests but falls flat in real world situations.

You don't win an off-road race with an automatic transmission. Performance must
come from the hands and mind of the photographer, not some silly robotic feature
that fails to deal with reality 9 times out of 10.

That's precisely why most p&s cameras fall short. They simply aren't
designed for proper manual operation.

Only in the hands of an inept clod.

Wrong. P&S cameras are designed for automatic operation with manual
override as an afterthought. Manual focus is much more difficult with
the p&s. Most dslrs are designed from the ground up with full
flexibility in mind, from fully manual to fully automatic operation.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:39:22 -0600, MarkusB
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:41:23 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 18:47:55 -0600, AlbertC.
wrote:

On Sat, 06 Dec 2008 19:55:03 +0100, Mxsmanic wrote:

SMS writes:

... 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 the most common problems of amateur photography is inadequate
exposure, so high ISO is a selling point.

Exactly, that's why so many amateurs buy DSLRs. They NEED that high ISO to make
up for their lack of skill as real photographers. Then when they find out that
even that can't help them, they go in search of even more expensive cameras,
more expensive lenses, desperately hoping that someday their camera will come
included with a "talent button" with 16 user-selectable levels.



That may be true in some cases, but it isn't the fault of dslr
cameras. It also in no way leads to the conclusion that p&s cameras
are better.

If you're old enough to remember when film was all that was available,
the same thing was true then. Many amateurs falsely believed that
they would be better photographers if they owned "pro" gear. That's
not a bad thing, because it is the rich amateurs who generally pay for
the camera companies' R&D costs by purchasing all that gear as soon as
it hits the shelves.

But there is a simple reason they want to own "pro" gear. It's pro
gear, whether or not they can make good use of it. Then as now, you
will often see amateurs with a better collection of equipment than
many working professionals.

BTW, being an amateur has nothing whatsoever to do with one's ability
as a photographer. All the word means is that an amateur doesn't
earn his/her living from photography. There are *many* amateur
photographers who have more talent than some "real pros."



Dear Resident-Troll,

Many (new & improved) points outlined below completely disprove

In other words, you don't have a response to the truth, so here comes
the long-disproved list again.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:40:25 -0600, Preston Maxling
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 05:58:40 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

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.



Dear Resident-Troll,

Many (new & improved) points outlined belo

Yet the fact STILL remains that overwhelmingly the best digital
wildlife photographs are made by photographers using a dslr. Those
disadvantages rarely pose a problem in the real world.

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 10:50:43 -0600, Ethan Araether
wrote:

On Sun, 07 Dec 2008 09:50:26 -0600, "mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH
wrote:

Pete D wrote:


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.



me too ... my main photos, that I value most, are made on such trips

I take my 30D SLR and 24-105 f/4L IS, 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, and 100 f/2.8 macro lenses.
I leave the kit 18-55mm (no IS) lens at home, making panoramas if desired. I'm considering
buying a 5D MKII. I would carry that if I get it.

I carried all this 200 miles this summer.

Unfortunately I didn't get any great shots. But heh, Ansel Adams,
who lived where I was hiking, only got about 10 of them there in his
whole life! I did get lots of nice shots. Really nice.

Doug McDonald




30D = ($600) 24.7 oz. = 1.6 lb.

24-105 f/4L IS = ($950) 23.6 oz. = 1.5 lb.

70-300 f/4-5.6 IS = ($1,320) 22.2 oz. = 1.4 lb.

100 f/2.8 macro = ($600) 21.2 oz. = 1.32 lb.

required tripod = ($450) 128 oz. = 8 lb.

filters & accessories = ($200) 2 lbs.

total cost/weight = ($4,120) 16 lb.

You carried 16 lbs. of photo gear and still had room for shelter, food,
clothing, and survival supplies. Constrained backpack of survival supplies alone
for a trek of that distance is 50-65 lbs. and you fit your required survival
supplies for 200 miles into 34-49 lbs.?

SUUuuurre you did.


So what's your point? You resent people who have the money to spend
on good gear and the willingness to carry it?

On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 13:25:51 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME wrote:
Pete D wrote:


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.



me too ... my main photos, that I value most, are made on such trips

I take my 30D SLR and 24-105 f/4L IS, 70-300 f/4-5.6 IS, and 100
f/2.8 macro lenses.
I leave the kit 18-55mm (no IS) lens at home, making panoramas if
desired. I'm considering
buying a 5D MKII. I would carry that if I get it.

I carried all this 200 miles this summer.

Unfortunately I didn't get any great shots. But heh, Ansel Adams,
who lived where I was hiking, only got about 10 of them there in his
whole life! I did get lots of nice shots. Really nice.

FWIW, you ever see a picture of Ansel Adams going on a shoot? There's
generally either a beat-up Travellall or a heavily laden mule in the
background.


EXACTLY. Then, as now, if it's worth doing at all then it's worth
doing right.

Take the p&s for an easy way to document your hike, but take the
better gear if your goal is to go out and come back with the best
possible photographs.




--

In article , J. Clarke says...
Alfred Molon wrote:
In article , Stephen
Bishop says...

No more than people should laugh at the bulk and weight of medium
format film cameras. But the fact is that those cameras produced
better results than 35mm film cameras,

They produced higher resolution images, not necessarily better
results.

If they truly produced "better results" under all (or even most)
circumstances then there would be no pro market to speak of for 35mm.

Well, I would imagine that for some pros size and weight matter and that
is why they would choose a 35mm camera over a medium format camera.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

In article , Stephen Bishop
says...
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008 15:54:15 +0100, Alfred Molon
wrote:

In article , Stephen Bishop
says...

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.

The point simply is that you are more likely to have a small and
lightweight camera with you than a huge and heavy one.

My camera phone is always with me, but not my DSLR. Better a mediocre
photo than none at all.

Not always, but that depends on what your goals are. Sometimes a
camera phone picture is "good enough." But we're not talking about
snapshots.

I think the shots of the London bombings were taken with a camera phone.
That was the only camera available in that circumstance.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site