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

When I print images from my DSLRs, I often add noise to them so they look
more like traditional photogrpahs than waxed prints.


Of course you do, I don't doubt it for one second.


Douglas

Bill Tuthill wrote:
Kinon O'Cann wrote:
What flame wars? What's to discuss? For some uses and needs you use one
tool. Other times, you use another tool. What controversy?
What, exactly, do you see coming to an end? And why is the workflow an
issue? Sorry, but this is a very odd post.

It's just that the current-day DSLR is largely a relic of 35mm film.

Nonsense. P&S cameras have been around for longer than have SLR
cameras. Both have been on the market for many decades. Neither
is going away because each has a use.

The bodies and lenses are larger and heavier than they need to be
for the APS sensors inside (except Canon 5D, ??, and vapor Nikon D3).

And the lenses are far, far more limited in P&S cameras and of
lower quality than SLR lenses.

[...]
So I'm wondering if the DSLR is a dead-end.

It isn't.

In field use, I don't see
any significant advantage in pictures produced by friends with a DSLR,
versus friends with a pocket-size digicam.

Then YOU should not buy an SLR.

--
Ray Fischer

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:34:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote:

Helmsman3 wrote:

The lens range is a full 180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long
zoom,

What if I want a wide angle that does not distort like a fish
eye?


Then zoom in to reduce the effect. I get perfectly acceptable wide-angle images
from 18-36 mm with my lenses.

What about lens qualities, like flatness of field, vignetting,
resolution, CA, and all the myriad things that can make an image
less than appealing? Especially in soupzooms like the one you
describe such things are prevalent --- even in really goood ones
(for the class).

Already been tested. I compared the wide-angle adapter with one of my P&S
cameras compared to the top of the line Nikkor fish-eye and wide-angle lenses.
Yes, there's slightly more barrel distortion on the wide-angle views. I don't
mind this in the least since any photo that's for publication will have some
slight post-processing done to it anyway. Are you going to tell me that every
image you ever photographed didn't at least need a bit of leveling? If I have to
click a button in editing to level an image I see no problem with clicking one
more to remove any minor geometric distortions. And, quite frankly, I find
perfectly parallel sides of buildings obscene. It's not how they look in real
life and they shouldn't look that way in print either. Some idiot long ago with
a view-camera thought it would be a good idea to remove all perspective
distortion. It doesn't mean he wasn't an idiot, and it doesn't mean that
everyone who followed in his idiotic footsteps were any less idiots.

CA? Ah, I'm glad you mention this. With the lens combo I found, there's actually
zero chromatic aberration. Something that I have not found in any other
wide-angle lenses anywhere. It's nice of you to try to find fault, but this is
another reason I see no need to buy any high-priced specialty lenses. Not when a
$100 lens can run rings around any $20,000 lens on the market.

Vignetting? That's only apparent at 180-degree circular fisheye. A nice black
circle vignette, just like it's supposed to be.



all with either an aperture or sensor ISO high enough to capture even
the most difficult of hand-held situations in any settings.

f/1.0 and ISO 6400 or equivalent?
At the same noise of any good DSLR at ISO 400?

I leave both my P&S cameras set on an ISO of 200 by default. There's so little
noise I see no reason to bother using lower ISOs unless I need to use reduced
shutter speeds for motion effects. 400 is also acceptable but then I will use
some NR software on them. 800 in an emergency, 3200 sometimes for special
effects, still quite usable with NR software.


Hey, come on, full moonlight is only LV-5, so that's f/1.0 at
1/2s --- not handholdable.

Hmmm... I guess one of 2 things. 1) either you've never used any of the better
P&S cameras, or 2) that your hand-held photography skills are really sad. I've
already tested this because I have always prided myself on my ability to shoot
without any tripod most of the time. I wanted to see how far my latest P&S's IS
could amplify my own abilities. 432mm focal length lens, hand-held for a full 1
second exposure. A tack sharp image the result.

Given that ability I have no problems taking hand-held images by the light of
the moon at shorter focal lengths.



The body is of a titanium shell for extreme durability.

Weight?

Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments.

Inbuild battery heaters?
Battery capacity (CIPA)?

Well, now I realize by the last few questions that I'm just replying to another
inexperienced arm-chair net-photographer troll that's beating off to whatever
reply he can get. One that's never used any decent P&S cameras. More likely
you've never used any cameras.

I see no reason to waste my time answering any of your other questions when the
last few were such an obvious attempt at stupidity. Anyone that had the least
bit of experience with photography would already know the answers to your last
few questions and wouldn't have even asked them because they were of no
importance, or just plain stupid.

Try trolling someone else into being your entertainment. I'm smarter than you.
It's obvious by your questions. You can learn much more about a person by the
questions they ask than anything that they will ever state. Your questions speak
tomes about your inexperience and stupidity.

What a shame that you revealed yourself to just be another arm-chair
net-photographer troll. I scanned over your other questions and one or two of
them actually looked interesting, and all easily refutable. They might have been
interesting to reply to if I didn't realize in time that I was just wasting my
time in entertaining another idiot with a keyboard.


The rest of your words deleted, no sense even wasting more bandwidth on them.

Douglas wrote:

No mirror slap must account for at least 2 stops...

HAHAHAH, that's a good one. Funniest thing I've read all week.

John Navas wrote:
Scott W wrote

This argument just does not hold water. I shoot for a number of years
with a point and shoot, when I started using a DSLR my photos got
better. I still shoot with a P&S from time to time, and I still am
getting better photos when I use a DSLR.

That's you. A DSLR better suits the way you work, all well and good,
but that doesn't make it a universal truth -- my FZ8 has huge advantages
over DSLR in handling, size, weight, zoom range, and lens speed, that
make it possible for me to get shots I wouldn't get with an SLR.

That's patent nonsense.

An SLR can go from 5mm to 600mm, as fast as f1.2, macro to 1:1 or
even greater magnification, with many times the zoom speed and
focusing speed of your P&S.

Your FZ8 cannot do all of that. Its advantage is only in size and
portability.

--
Ray Fischer

Floyd L. Davidson wrote:

last longer, don't break as easily, require less
maintenance, are nicer to handle, or any other number of
reasons that makes them LESS OF A LIABILITY. If you're
working wood and use a set of chisels all the time, and
you buy a cheap chisel that needs to be sharpened every
day and breaks under light usage, that tool adversely
affects your productivity and therefore is a liability.

Exactly. It doesn't produce the same results that a
better tool does.

Sure it does... it just requires less maintenance to stay in peak
condition...

So you shell out for quality chisels that won't go dull
when carving white pine and snap if you look at them
wrong.

Ultimately, the quality of the product is still in the
skill, talent, dedication, abilities, and care of the
craftsman, regardless of the tools he uses.

Sure, but skilled craftsmen virtually *always* go for
the best tools available. (Unless the very point is to
produce something with "old" technology, which has its
own attractions too.)

Yes: because the "good" tools cause you fewer interruptions, not because
they necessarily "work" better.

In my work, I use a cordless drill all the time. I bought a Milwaukee
drill for $350 because I needed it to always work, and work well, which
it does. In four years of heavy use, I've needed to replace one battery
because it wouldn't take a charge anymore, and I've never needed to
replace the brushes.

I also have the rare need for a hammer drill to make 3/16" holes in
concrete for Tapcon screws. I can use the Hilti TE-15, but it's huge to
the point of being ridiculous for such small holes. So I dropped a
whole $20 on a bargain-brand cordless hammer drill. For the very rare
times I need it, it works just fine. I can't drill more than a
half-dozen holes without needing to switch batteries, and it will wimp
out on anything bigger than a 3/8" hole in wood, but I don't generally
need any more than that one any one job, and I have the Milwaukee for
all the important stuff.

And guess what? No one drill makes "better" holes than the others.
They all perform the job they need to, when they need to. The $320
difference is in the convenience and reliability of not having to change
batteries constantly and be left without when both need to recharge, of
knowing the tool isn't going to drop dead on me if I push it a little
too hard.

There is no reason that photographers would be any
different either. The set of screwdrivers, the set of
chisels or the camera... might all be whatever is handy
for a typical unskilled person, because to them it
simply doesn't make any difference which one is used.

For a truly talented craftsman, it makes a load of
difference.

Sure it does - because the better tool POTENTIALLY gives you more
options. But what defines "better"? My Milwaukee is nearly useless for
drilling in concrete, because it doesn't have the hammer function.

My DSLR is a great tool for most jobs, for the way I like to shoot...
but not for EVERY job. There are times it would be useful to have the
EVF to be able to hold the camera in places I can put my head. There
are times it would be useful to be able to just tuck my camera in my pocket.

Bill Tuthill wrote:
[]
It's just that the current-day DSLR is largely a relic of 35mm film.
The bodies and lenses are larger and heavier than they need to be
for the APS sensors inside (except Canon 5D, ??, and vapor Nikon D3).
Olympus created a whole new lens system, but it is not significantly
smaller than 35mm-based DSLRs, and Pentax makes a 35mm-compatible DSLR
that is smaller and lighter than any Olympus.

The 4/3 system was a disappointment for me - I was hoping for more compact
kit.

The recommended DSLR workflow seems like a huge chore, not a fun
hobby, with RAW mode and the continual treadmill of Adobe software
upgrades.

You don't /have/ to use that workflow - I believe in getting things right
in the camera and minima post processing. No RAW for me.

So I'm wondering if the DSLR is a dead-end. In field use, I don't see
any significant advantage in pictures produced by friends with a DSLR,
versus friends with a pocket-size digicam.

Depend how closely you look, and under what circumstances you take
pictures. With indoor photographs - lecturers at conferences for
example - I needed flash with the compact camera, but with a DSLR I can
simply set ISO 1600 and avoid the flash. With the fast mechanical zoom on
the DSLR I have got pictures I would otherwise have missed. For
travelling light, I will take just the compact.

Look closely at the images - if you need to crop or have a large print -
and you can see the difference in quality. It's up to you whether the
difference matters enough in a particular situation.

Cheers,
David

"Helmsman3" wrote in message
...
On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill wrote:

Arguments over relative merits of DSLR vs P&S digicams
occupy a plurality of current traffic volume on r.p.d.

In many ways it reminds me of the film vs digital debate
of the last many years.

DSLR partisans seem like the defenders of film, because
they don't have a lot of firm evidence that their workflow
is superior, except at high ISO or some arcane usage.

I know DSLRs are selling well, but do these flame wars
indicate the beginning of the end?

Pretty much.

Let us for a moment presume there is a sealed-lens/sensor design that
doesn't
allow in any dust. Takes images in absolute silence. The lens range is a
full
180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, all with either an aperture
or
sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held
situations in any settings. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme
durability. Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero
environments. Let
us also presume that the electronic viewfinder (LCD and EVF) is high
resolution
enough that its display, feedback, and articulation abilities far exceed
anything that has been implemented so far, optically or otherwise. Lets
also
presume that these P&S camera designers also had the foresight to include
the
options of shooting in the IR and UV portions of the spectrum too. This of
course is dependent on an EVF system because no optical viewfinder in the
world
can accomplish this. Oh what the heck, while we're at it throw in high
quality
video and CD quality stereo sound recording too so you don't even need
your
camcorder as an accessory anymore. Why not.

Poof! There goes any need for the cumbersome lens interchangeability,
size,
weight, noise, dust, high-cost, focal-plane shutter limitations,
inaccurate and
dim OVF, and all the other drawbacks to using any DSLR.

Surprisingly I've already found all of these conditions met in only 2 P&S
cameras (minus the UV capability and a slightly higher resolution EVF)
with only
2 inexpensive, small, and light-weight adapter lenses. I've already had
thousands of photos published with this combo. Not one person yet can tell
that
they were done with P&S gear. A whole kit of 1 camera + 2 lenses fitting
into
one large pocket. If these two P&S camera's features were combined nobody
would
think twice about buying a DSLR. I certainly never do.

So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell
to the
DSLR. Why would anyone need lens interchangeability if all those ranges,
precision, and capability were built into one dust-free sealed lens?
Nobody
thought that an 18x high-quality zoom lens was even conceivable just a
short 5
years ago. It's just foolish to duplicate in many parts what can be
accomplished
with just one. Speaking of all-in-1 options, CHDK is clear proof of that.
You
can do all the same things, and even more than, what was one time only
possible
by tethering your camera to a bulky and energy-hog computer. Now you don't
even
need the expense, bulk, travel limitations, and power-requirements of a
computer
if your camera can run CHDK.

Lens interchangeability and the high-ISO performance are the *only* two
thing to
which the DSLR advocates are still tentatively holding onto. And at what
cost?
Dust problems? Noise? Camera shake from the mirror and shutter? Slow
mechanical
shutter limitations? Bulk? Weight? Do I need to list all the drawbacks?

Ultra-zoom lenses are already making one of those "benefits"(?) obsolete.
They
are grasping at straws now trying to hold onto the high-ISO performance.
When
it's already been clearly shown that if your long-zoom P&S lens has enough
aperture then even that is not the holy-grail to owning a DSLR.

Yes, the DSLR *IS* going bye-bye. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter
of
"when". And to my findings the sooner the better. They're a waste of time,
cost,
weight, materials, research, and labor. Based on a design that is half a
century
old with all the same limitations that were inherent in that format from
way
back then. The only ones still clamoring to wanting a DSLR appear to be
those
more bent on status, peer pressure, and acceptance by those around them
than
actually wanting to increase their chances at getting a decent photo. You
know,
the ones who are still emotionally insecure, the ones that have to run
with the
mindless herd for fear of getting lost.

The DSLR will have about the same fondness in 15 years as we do when
looking
back on the flash-cube Instamatic from the late 60's with all its inherent
faults, drawbacks, and limitations. The phrase "I can't believe we put up
with
those DSLRs back then," will be commonly heard.


You might be right. But just as the cheap watch from Woolworths tells me in
general the same time as any other watch, for some daft reason I prefer my
Rolex. And while my neighbours Nissan takes him adequately from A to B, I
prefer, silly as it may sound, driving there in the Mercedes. Daft I know,
but personal preferences play heavily in these choices. I am sure, however,
that you enjoy your P&S. Keep up the good work, the industry needs you.

:-)

Helmsman3 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:46:03 -0800, nospam wrote:

In article , Helmsman3
wrote:

Let us for a moment presume there is a sealed-lens/sensor design that doesn't
allow in any dust. Takes images in absolute silence. The lens range is a full
180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, all with either an aperture or
sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held
situations in any settings. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme
durability. Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments.
Let
us also presume that the electronic viewfinder (LCD and EVF) is high
resolution
enough that its display, feedback, and articulation abilities far exceed
anything that has been implemented so far, optically or otherwise. Lets also
presume that these P&S camera designers also had the foresight to include the
options of shooting in the IR and UV portions of the spectrum too. This of
course is dependent on an EVF system because no optical viewfinder in the
world
can accomplish this. Oh what the heck, while we're at it throw in high quality
video and CD quality stereo sound recording too so you don't even need your
camcorder as an accessory anymore. Why not.
Surprisingly I've already found all of these conditions met in only 2 P&S
cameras (minus the UV capability and a slightly higher resolution EVF) with
only
2 inexpensive, small, and light-weight adapter lenses.
and which two p&s cameras might those be?

One would think that a resident-troll like yourself with the experience of any
well-versed arm-chair photographer of your caliber would be able to figure it
out from the precise clues already supplied for you. Just figure out which
features belong to which two cameras.
In other words - he hasn't worked it out yet either!

The 2 half-clues are CHDK - which is a basic toolkit for
some Canon cameras with Digic chipsets - and "18x", which at
this stage is available on the Oly SP550/560, Pana FZ18, and
the Fuji S8000. Considering the potential cameras, it makes
the trolls claims even more laughable.



Get to work!

You really need to start earning your resident-troll and arm-chair photographer
pay without someone always handing it to you for free all the time.

:-)

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:42:35 +1000, Doug Jewell
wrote:

Helmsman3 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:46:03 -0800, nospam wrote:

In article , Helmsman3
wrote:

Let us for a moment presume there is a sealed-lens/sensor design that doesn't
allow in any dust. Takes images in absolute silence. The lens range is a full
180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, all with either an aperture or
sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held
situations in any settings. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme
durability. Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments.
Let
us also presume that the electronic viewfinder (LCD and EVF) is high
resolution
enough that its display, feedback, and articulation abilities far exceed
anything that has been implemented so far, optically or otherwise. Lets also
presume that these P&S camera designers also had the foresight to include the
options of shooting in the IR and UV portions of the spectrum too. This of
course is dependent on an EVF system because no optical viewfinder in the
world
can accomplish this. Oh what the heck, while we're at it throw in high quality
video and CD quality stereo sound recording too so you don't even need your
camcorder as an accessory anymore. Why not.
Surprisingly I've already found all of these conditions met in only 2 P&S
cameras (minus the UV capability and a slightly higher resolution EVF) with
only
2 inexpensive, small, and light-weight adapter lenses.
and which two p&s cameras might those be?

One would think that a resident-troll like yourself with the experience of any
well-versed arm-chair photographer of your caliber would be able to figure it
out from the precise clues already supplied for you. Just figure out which
features belong to which two cameras.
In other words - he hasn't worked it out yet either!

The 2 half-clues are CHDK - which is a basic toolkit for
some Canon cameras with Digic chipsets -

Yes, CHDK was mentioned later on, but not in reference to the 2 above mentioned
cameras. Pay attention, resident-troll. How do you ever expect to be a better
troll if you can't even manipulate obvious data better than this?

and "18x", which at
this stage is available on the Oly SP550/560, Pana FZ18, and
the Fuji S8000.

Again, pay attention. An 18x zoom lens was mentioned in P&S camera's
capabilities but not in reference to the two cameras in question. Anyone reading
this thread can now see you making an obvious fool of yourself.

Considering the potential cameras, it makes
the trolls claims even more laughable.


Considering your pathetic resident-troll skills you're not even laughable, not
even mildly amusing. There's absolutely nothing interesting about you nor your
reply. A resident troll that's not even mildly interesting? Usenet's usual packs
of resident-trolls in every group are just not what they used to be anymore.



Get to work!

You really need to start earning your resident-troll and arm-chair photographer
pay without someone always handing it to you for free all the time.

:-)