«

To me, a point and shoot camera has always been of the small pocketable
type that have barely any manual controls and maybe a few set scenes.

SLR would be a camera type (apart from being single lens reflex) that has
full manual controls aswell as auto.

I am curious as to what the middle cameras would be? You know like for
example the Fuji S5500 that has a full range of manual controls but is not
an SLR. Would that still be classed as a point and shoot camera?

There is no real reason I need to know this, its just merely out of
curiousity because in my experience the media tend to talk about either
point and shoot or slr cameras.

"Beck" <> wrote in message
news:444011c4$0$33901$...
> To me, a point and shoot camera has always been of the small pocketable
> type that have barely any manual controls and maybe a few set scenes.
>
> SLR would be a camera type (apart from being single lens reflex) that has
> full manual controls aswell as auto.
>
> I am curious as to what the middle cameras would be? You know like for
> example the Fuji S5500 that has a full range of manual controls but is not
> an SLR. Would that still be classed as a point and shoot camera?
>
> There is no real reason I need to know this, its just merely out of
> curiousity because in my experience the media tend to talk about either
> point and shoot or slr cameras.
>

I must say that I consider the 'Point & Shoot' variety to be much more
versatile. The one I have has a tilting screen and can be used like an SLR
and a TLR, very useful when close to the ground or taking candid group
pictures, I use a black cloth in bright light (the one I used to use with my
5x4) They are also very quiet little machines.

But see;
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6468-7844
very interesting.

Jem

-------------------------------------
Birmingham Independent Photographers
http://bip.wikispaces.com/

"Beck" <> wrote in message
news:444011c4$0$33901$...

> To me, a point and shoot camera has always been of the small pocketable
> type that have barely any manual controls and maybe a few set scenes.
>
> SLR would be a camera type (apart from being single lens reflex) that has
> full manual controls aswell as auto.
>
> I am curious as to what the middle cameras would be? You know like for
> example the Fuji S5500 that has a full range of manual controls but is not
> an SLR. Would that still be classed as a point and shoot camera?
>
> There is no real reason I need to know this, its just merely out of
> curiousity because in my experience the media tend to talk about either
> point and shoot or slr cameras.

From what I gather, it seems that the main factor which separates p&s to
dslr is the type of viewfinder.

A dslr will give you a "real" preview image projected onto a ground glass
viewfinder, wheras a p&s will show the preview on a low-resolution "evf" or
electronic viewfinder, which can never really compare with the "real"
preview that a dslr gives. Another problem with the evf is that the image
often lags behind what is actually happening.

"Beck" <> wrote in message news:444011c4$0$33901$...
> To me, a point and shoot camera has always been of the small pocketable
> type that have barely any manual controls and maybe a few set scenes.
>
> SLR would be a camera type (apart from being single lens reflex) that has
> full manual controls aswell as auto.
>
> I am curious as to what the middle cameras would be? You know like for
> example the Fuji S5500 that has a full range of manual controls but is not
> an SLR. Would that still be classed as a point and shoot camera?
>
> There is no real reason I need to know this, its just merely out of
> curiousity because in my experience the media tend to talk about either
> point and shoot or slr cameras.

The gap between the two gets smaller every year. E.g. Sony's R1
released last November has a huge SLR-type CMOS sensor, but is
a fixed lens P&S (although no movie mode, a feature found on virtually
all P&S cameras today).

The distinction between SLR's and P&S's is evolving more into a
difference of image quality rather than a difference of lens type or
features. Manufacturers are concentrating on stuffing more and more
MP onto smaller and smaller sensors in P&S cameras, a trend that's
both unfortunate and entirely unnecessary. So if you can live with
relatively mediocre image quality, cameras such as the Canon S2 IS
(soon to be S3 IS), Fuji's S5500Z etc have some pretty incredible
feature sets.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:19:02 +0100, "Beck" <>
wrote:

>To me, a point and shoot camera has always been of the small pocketable
>type that have barely any manual controls and maybe a few set scenes.
>
>SLR would be a camera type (apart from being single lens reflex) that has
>full manual controls aswell as auto.

Wrong many non-SLR have full manual controls also. Consider these.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...pson-rd1.shtml

http://luminous-landscape.com/review...x2-part1.shtml

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/re...eras/lx1.shtml

You have a rather simple view of the world of cameras.


--

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

"Mark M" <> wrote in message
news:QPU%f.2210$ nk.net...
> "Beck" <> wrote in message
> news:444011c4$0$33901$...
>> To me, a point and shoot camera has always been of the small pocketable
>> type that have barely any manual controls and maybe a few set scenes.
>>
>> SLR would be a camera type (apart from being single lens reflex) that has
>> full manual controls aswell as auto.
>>
>> I am curious as to what the middle cameras would be? You know like for
>> example the Fuji S5500 that has a full range of manual controls but is
>> not
>> an SLR. Would that still be classed as a point and shoot camera?
>>
>> There is no real reason I need to know this, its just merely out of
>> curiousity because in my experience the media tend to talk about either
>> point and shoot or slr cameras.
>
> The gap between the two gets smaller every year. E.g. Sony's R1
> released last November has a huge SLR-type CMOS sensor, but is
> a fixed lens P&S (although no movie mode, a feature found on virtually
> all P&S cameras today).
>
> The distinction between SLR's and P&S's is evolving more into a
> difference of image quality rather than a difference of lens type or
> features. Manufacturers are concentrating on stuffing more and more
> MP onto smaller and smaller sensors in P&S cameras, a trend that's
> both unfortunate and entirely unnecessary. So if you can live with
> relatively mediocre image quality, cameras such as the Canon S2 IS
> (soon to be S3 IS), Fuji's S5500Z etc have some pretty incredible
> feature sets.

I do have the Fuji S5500 and I quite like it although my skills in
photography leave alot to be desired. That is my own fault and not the
fault of the camera probably
I have had it a year and still don't know how to use it properly, I only
just found the manual focus :-/
I am sure SLRs would be of exceptional picture quality and at the end of the
day people get what they pay for.

On Fri, 14 Apr 2006 22:47:20 +0100, "Adrian Boliston"
<> wrote:

>"Beck" <> wrote in message
>news:444011c4$0$33901$...
>
>> To me, a point and shoot camera has always been of the small pocketable
>> type that have barely any manual controls and maybe a few set scenes.
>>
>> SLR would be a camera type (apart from being single lens reflex) that has
>> full manual controls aswell as auto.
>>
>> I am curious as to what the middle cameras would be? You know like for
>> example the Fuji S5500 that has a full range of manual controls but is not
>> an SLR. Would that still be classed as a point and shoot camera?
>>
>> There is no real reason I need to know this, its just merely out of
>> curiousity because in my experience the media tend to talk about either
>> point and shoot or slr cameras.
>
>From what I gather, it seems that the main factor which separates p&s to
>dslr is the type of viewfinder.
>
>A dslr will give you a "real" preview image projected onto a ground glass
>viewfinder, wheras a p&s will show the preview on a low-resolution "evf" or
>electronic viewfinder, which can never really compare with the "real"
>preview that a dslr gives. Another problem with the evf is that the image
>often lags behind what is actually happening.
>

And where do you put digital rangefinders, such as the Epson RD-1 and
the coming Leica Digital-M?


--

"I have been a witness, and these pictures are
my testimony. The events I have recorded should
not be forgotten and must not be repeated."

-James Nachtwey-
http://www.jamesnachtwey.com/

"Adrian Boliston" <> wrote in message
news:...
> "Beck" <> wrote in message
> news:444011c4$0$33901$...
>
>> To me, a point and shoot camera has always been of the small pocketable
>> type that have barely any manual controls and maybe a few set scenes.
>>
>> SLR would be a camera type (apart from being single lens reflex) that has
>> full manual controls aswell as auto.
>>
>> I am curious as to what the middle cameras would be? You know like for
>> example the Fuji S5500 that has a full range of manual controls but is
>> not an SLR. Would that still be classed as a point and shoot camera?
>>
>> There is no real reason I need to know this, its just merely out of
>> curiousity because in my experience the media tend to talk about either
>> point and shoot or slr cameras.
>
> From what I gather, it seems that the main factor which separates p&s to
> dslr is the type of viewfinder.
>
> A dslr will give you a "real" preview image projected onto a ground glass
> viewfinder, wheras a p&s will show the preview on a low-resolution "evf"
> or electronic viewfinder, which can never really compare with the "real"
> preview that a dslr gives. Another problem with the evf is that the image
> often lags behind what is actually happening.

Ah well this I did not know. Having never looked at an SLR camera I have no
real idea of what features they do have. My camera EVF is not that great.
It does alledgedly have 100% frame coverage, but its the grainyness of it
that makes it look cheap. However it does work well in low light, so thats
something to be thankful of.

"Jem Raid" <> wrote in message
news:Qv6dnexuA-...

> I must say that I consider the 'Point & Shoot' variety to be much more
> versatile. The one I have has a tilting screen and can be used like an SLR
> and a TLR, very useful when close to the ground or taking candid group
> pictures, I use a black cloth in bright light (the one I used to use with
> my 5x4) They are also very quiet little machines.
>
> But see;
> http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6468-7844
> very interesting.

That is a fascinating site, thankyou for showing it to me. It also goes to
show that a photographers skills can outweigh a cameras features. Its all
very well having the most expensive up to date SLR, but if someone (like me)
who has no idea on how to set the camera for certain conditions, then an SLR
can be pretty useless.

Beck wrote:

>I am curious as to what the middle cameras would be? You know like for
>example the Fuji S5500 that has a full range of manual controls but is not
>an SLR. Would that still be classed as a point and shoot camera?

Some people call the midrange P&S models ZLR cameras. They work similar
to an SLR with many of the same features, but with a fixed zoom lense. A
canon S2 IS would be one of these.