ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote:

Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots

nuff sed

So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
really into photography, why not have both?

A P&S camera for convenience. You can carry it anywhere and not have to
worry about changing lenses or filters. It is great for candid shots,
it is FAR FAR less obvious that you are carrying a camera, and IT
DOESN"T MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE A PROFESSIONAL! I have been in several
situations (mainly computer trade shows), where you were allowed in and
allowed to take pictures if all you had was a P&S. But if you had an
SLR slung over your shoulder, you first had to go to the press booth to
apply for a press pass and/or photography permit to take the camera into
the show.

On the other hand, a DSLR is ideal for SERIOUS photography.

Si why not have BOTH in your arsenal?

nuff sed

Gary

Gary Edstrom wrote in
:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote:

Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots

nuff sed

So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
really into photography, why not have both?

Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to
use a DSLR each and every time.

"Rich" wrote in message
news
Gary Edstrom wrote in
:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote:

Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots

nuff sed

So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
really into photography, why not have both?

Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to
use a DSLR each and every time.


Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into photography",
just pretending to be!

If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the time,
then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that the more
savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete cameras when the
situation warrants it.

If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset of
40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer.

QED

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:47:58 +0100, Fred wrote:

Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way
to use a DSLR each and every time.

Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into
photography", just pretending to be!

If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the
time, then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that
the more savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete
cameras when the situation warrants it.

If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset
of 40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer.

And even if you're stuck in old technology, lots of 'serious'
photographers used small 35mm-cameras back then. Ofcourse, Leica has the
best known example of such a small system.





--
Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich wrote:
Gary Edstrom wrote in
:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote:

Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots

nuff sed

So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
really into photography, why not have both?

Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to
use a DSLR each and every time.

Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend
a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium
balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which
most avoid for good practical reasons :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

On 4/27/09 3:07 AM, in article
t, "Robert Spanjaard"
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:47:58 +0100, Fred wrote:

Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way
to use a DSLR each and every time.

Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into
photography", just pretending to be!

If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the
time, then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that
the more savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete
cameras when the situation warrants it.

If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset
of 40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer.

And even if you're stuck in old technology, lots of 'serious'
photographers used small 35mm-cameras back then. Ofcourse, Leica has the
best known example of such a small system.




Minox! Minox, I say!!!

Chris Malcolm wrote in
:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich wrote:
Gary Edstrom wrote in
:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote:

Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots

nuff sed

So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
really into photography, why not have both?

Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a
way to use a DSLR each and every time.

Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend
a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium
balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which
most avoid for good practical reasons :-)


Or, you can spend hours and hours designing and building a frigging timed
exposure mechanism to GO with that little digicam, or you can tether a
Pentax K20D to the ballons and use the timed shutter facility to do it
instead. Nikon's D300 has the same kind of thing, but it's heavier than
the Pentax.

In rec.photo.digital Rich wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote in
:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich wrote:
Gary Edstrom wrote in
:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote:

Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots

nuff sed

So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
really into photography, why not have both?

Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a
way to use a DSLR each and every time.

Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend
a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium
balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which
most avoid for good practical reasons :-)

Or, you can spend hours and hours designing and building a frigging timed
exposure mechanism to GO with that little digicam, or you can tether a
Pentax K20D to the ballons and use the timed shutter facility to do it
instead.

What on earth is the use of a timed shutter when you already have full
radio control of aim and zoom, radio live view to see the image, and a
radio controlled shutter to take the photograph? No, none of those
facilities are available from the camera manufacturer, but you don't
have to design and build the kit yourself, it can all be bought from
third party suppliers, and is routinely used by the aerial
photographers who use balloons, kites, and masts. DSLRs are often
eschewed in favour of high performance compacts because of the weight
and lack of motorised zoom.

--
Chris Malcolm

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich wrote:
Gary Edstrom wrote in
:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote:

Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots

nuff sed

So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
really into photography, why not have both?

Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to
use a DSLR each and every time.

Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend
a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium
balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which
most avoid for good practical reasons :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

That is a load of rubbish.

I know of a business who suspend both a Film Hassleblad and a DSLR from a
Helium balloon at the same time.

There is a local business who suspend a DSLR from a small Hot Air Balloon.
It is small enough that his own weight prevents it from drifting off.

Roy G

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Roy G wrote:

"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich wrote:
Gary Edstrom wrote in
:

On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote:

Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots

nuff sed

So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are
really into photography, why not have both?

Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to
use a DSLR each and every time.

Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend
a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium
balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which
most avoid for good practical reasons :-)

--
Chris Malcolm

That is a load of rubbish.

I know of a business who suspend both a Film Hassleblad and a DSLR from a
Helium balloon at the same time.

There is a local business who suspend a DSLR from a small Hot Air Balloon.
It is small enough that his own weight prevents it from drifting off.

Obviously you can loft any weight you like with a big enough balloon
or kite. Zeppelin had orchestras in their passenger balloons.

The point is that the costs of the balloon and kite and its tethering
and control rise very dramatically as the weight required to be lifted
increases, and the size of the kit required shifts quickly from being
easily carried in a backpack to needing a car to needing a special
trailer or large van. That's why many people using that technology
prefer to settle on the lightest camera whose quality will be
acceptable. There's a very big difference between the cost and
portability of what will loft a few pounds weight and several pounds.

--
Chris Malcolm