Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Want to see how bad P&S's really are?

Reply
Thread Tools

Want to see how bad P&S's really are?

 
 
Gaston Ryan Coake
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
On Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:12:59 -0600, HEMI - Powered wrote:

> Stephen Bishop added these comments in the current discussion du
> jour ...
>
>>>You mean with digitals or film? I grew up with 35mm SLR and
>>>rangefinder cameras and felt quite at home with ground glass or
>>>superimposed focusing aids. In fact, there are many times I wish
>>>that modern SLRs could do this as effortlessly. Yes, I know I
>>>can put the camera/lens in manual focus mode but there really is
>>>NO focusing aid at all like a split image or microprism save
>>>allowing the very same AF system to signal when I have a MANUAL
>>>"lock". So, since we are talking about AF "lag", while this is
>>>rarely a problem to me as I don't shoot action subjects, the
>>>amount of fidgety time is sometimes annoying. In my early Nikon
>>>Photomic FTN days, it was natural, quick, and very accurate.

>>
>> I agree, I wish modern cameras would have a microprism or split
>> image spot in the viewfinder to make manual focus easier!
>>

> While we're creating our wish list, Stephen, it'd also be nice if
> there were such a thing as an old-fashioned "ground glass" view
> finder as in the halcyon SLR days. For my old Nikon, I most often
> used the finder screen with an etched grid created for the 35mm PC
> (Perspective Correction) lens that could shift 15mm off-center. I
> liked the grid because it helped me compose.


Compose what? Poetry? A Symphony?

Certainly not a photograph.

You have yet to prove that you can take a reasonabe photograph.

> That particular lens
> was a full manual exposure as well as focus (of course) so to
> effectively use it, I needed to learn how to focus at full
> aperture, stop down, compose, and take the shot. With a little
> practice, I could do this quickly enough that it wasn't a bother.
>
> BTW, I always wished that Nikon's signature split image finder
> screens had the split thingy at a 45 deg angle so that it was
> easier to find a part of the subject that could most easily use the
> feature.


Seriously, Jer, what good would that really do you?

I know kids that take better pix with disposable cameras.

Your high-horse must be getting /very/ exhausted.

G


--
Scarecrow: I haven't got a brain... only straw.
Dorothy: How can you talk if you haven't got a brain?
Scarecrow: I don't know... But some people without brains do an awful lot
of talking... don't they?
Dorothy: Yes, I guess you're right.

-- Wizard Of Oz


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
nospam
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> >actually, he is correct. focusing is faster and more accurate in higher
> >end slrs.

>
> Difference in speed is insignificant.


actually it isn't.

> >in fact, the canon 1d has a dedicated processor just for
> >focusing so that it can maintain its high frame rate.

>
> That's a different issue entirely.


not at all. the 1d focuses faster.

> >nikon uses a
> >more capable motor and non-afs lenses focus almost as fast than af-s
> >lenses (and in some cases, faster). the additional focus points (and
> >scene recognition as in the d3) also help focus tracking.

>
> Lenses with their own focus motors focus at the same speed on different
> bodies.


wrong.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
dj_nme
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009
John Navas wrote:
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 12:03:21 +1100, dj_nme <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> in <495d67e4$0$22129$(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>> So, I stand corrected.
>> The term "ZLR camera" for a fixed lens SLR camera is even deader than I
>> suspected.
>> ZLR = Zoom Lens Reflex
>> No camera manufacturer has used the term since and to claim that a
>> camera with an EVF (_Electronic_ ViewFinder) is a ZLR is just an
>> outright lie.

>
> No, it's just a *difference of opinion*.


So, how does a tiny LCD (or perhaps OLED in a newer digicam) that's
inside an EVF magically become a reflex viewfinder just because you wish
it to?
That isn't possible, no how hard you wish or whatever lucky charms you
invoke.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009

"HalLarson" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Fri, 02 Jan 2009 08:13:53 -0600, RichA <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>"Dudley Hanks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>news:0Iq6l.144$Db2.139@edtnps83:
>>
>>>
>>> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9B83C16E92E23nonenowherecom@216.196.97.131 ...
>>>> tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:20:03 -0800, John Navas
>>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:15:42 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in <it86l.1239$z%.642
>>>> @edtnps82>:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>>news:061il4l9j76oa7tni8ri5da1mspvoq0bad@4ax .com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That has more to do with the market being saturated with
>>>>>>>> inexpensive P&S cameras and the fact that the P&S was the first
>>>>>>>> inexpensive way for the average snapshot-taker to shoot digital
>>>>>>>> and make their own prints at home. That market was bound to
>>>>>>>> level off.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Many of the early buyers of P&S cameras have become more
>>>>>>>> interested in, and proficient in, photography because of P&S
>>>>>>>> cameras. They're now upgrading to dslrs.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Saying "upgrading" is not intended to denigrate the P&S. The
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Saying "P&S" is denigrating to better compact cameras, intended or
>>>>>>not.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's nonsense, John. "P&S" is the accepted and recognizable term
>>>>> to describe a particular style of camera. It carries no baggage.
>>>>> "Compact" is not an accepted and recognizable term.
>>>>>
>>>>> I understand that you are particularly sensitive to perceived slurs
>>>>> about P&S cameras, but trying to extend your perception to the world
>>>>> in general is silly.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> P&S is perfectly apt. It implies a lazy attitude toward the hobby of
>>>> photography and that is what P&S'ers are. They are no different than
>>>> snap shooters of long ago with their Kodak X-15s and 25s. "Look,
>>>> honey, only 4 out of 24 shots are sharp or properly framed, but we
>>>> don't care, because we are lazy SLOBS!"
>>>>
>>>
>>> Rich, you would dramatically lower your stress level if you wouldn't
>>> project your mindset onto others...
>>>
>>> Because I want a cheap, ultra portable pocket cam to document
>>> obstacles while I am out walking with my guide dog doesn't mean I'm a
>>> lazy slob; it means I want a camera I can afford to lose if I
>>> accidentally drop it down a sewer...
>>>
>>> We don't all shoot by your rationale.
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley

>>
>>You know what? Dropping it down the sewer isn't such a bad...just
>>kidding! Seriously, I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma zoom lens in a
>>pawn shop in perfect working order for $200.00. That is a much better
>>deal than paying $300 or more for a P&S, I think. I converted the D100
>>to IR, but I could have easily accepted it as a main DSLR. I've seen
>>numerous used but excellent condition DSLRs for $200-$300. There is no
>>shortage of good deals out there, IF someone wants to take really good
>>pictures and isn't bothered by a little bulk.
>>
>>

>
> That's because people are trying to dump their bulky DSLRs. Many are
> waking up
> to what's really going on. They're finding out why a DSLR isn't needed nor
> wanted today after they've done their own tests and comparisons. If
> they're a
> bad choice at $2000 they're still a bad choice at $200.
>

I take it economics / business management isn't your forte...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-02-2009

"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9B875DE8AC175nonenowherecom@216.196.97.131 ...
> "Dudley Hanks" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:0Iq6l.144$Db2.139@edtnps83:
>
>>
>> "RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9B83C16E92E23nonenowherecom@216.196.97.131 ...
>>> tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 10:20:03 -0800, John Navas
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:15:42 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>>><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in <it86l.1239$z%.642
>>> @edtnps82>:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>>news:061il4l9j76oa7tni8ri5da1mspvoq0bad@4ax. com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> That has more to do with the market being saturated with
>>>>>>> inexpensive P&S cameras and the fact that the P&S was the first
>>>>>>> inexpensive way for the average snapshot-taker to shoot digital
>>>>>>> and make their own prints at home. That market was bound to
>>>>>>> level off.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Many of the early buyers of P&S cameras have become more
>>>>>>> interested in, and proficient in, photography because of P&S
>>>>>>> cameras. They're now upgrading to dslrs.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Saying "upgrading" is not intended to denigrate the P&S. The
>>>>>
>>>>>Saying "P&S" is denigrating to better compact cameras, intended or
>>>>>not.
>>>>
>>>> That's nonsense, John. "P&S" is the accepted and recognizable term
>>>> to describe a particular style of camera. It carries no baggage.
>>>> "Compact" is not an accepted and recognizable term.
>>>>
>>>> I understand that you are particularly sensitive to perceived slurs
>>>> about P&S cameras, but trying to extend your perception to the world
>>>> in general is silly.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> P&S is perfectly apt. It implies a lazy attitude toward the hobby of
>>> photography and that is what P&S'ers are. They are no different than
>>> snap shooters of long ago with their Kodak X-15s and 25s. "Look,
>>> honey, only 4 out of 24 shots are sharp or properly framed, but we
>>> don't care, because we are lazy SLOBS!"
>>>

>>
>> Rich, you would dramatically lower your stress level if you wouldn't
>> project your mindset onto others...
>>
>> Because I want a cheap, ultra portable pocket cam to document
>> obstacles while I am out walking with my guide dog doesn't mean I'm a
>> lazy slob; it means I want a camera I can afford to lose if I
>> accidentally drop it down a sewer...
>>
>> We don't all shoot by your rationale.
>>
>> Take Care,
>> Dudley

>
> You know what? Dropping it down the sewer isn't such a bad...just
> kidding! Seriously, I picked up a Nikon D100 and a Sigma zoom lens in a
> pawn shop in perfect working order for $200.00. That is a much better
> deal than paying $300 or more for a P&S, I think.


Good deal, but it won't fit in my pocket...

Although, on the other hand, it probably wouldn't fall between the sewer
grates either...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Re: How include a large array? Edward A. Falk C Programming 1 04-04-2013 08:07 PM
Bad media, bad files or bad Nero? John Computer Information 23 01-08-2008 09:17 PM
ActiveX apologetic Larry Seltzer... "Sun paid for malicious ActiveX code, and Firefox is bad, bad bad baad. please use ActiveX, it's secure and nice!" (ok, the last part is irony on my part) fernando.cassia@gmail.com Java 0 04-16-2005 10:05 PM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 12 02-23-2005 03:28 AM
24 Season 3 Bad Bad Bad (Spoiler) nospam@nospam.com DVD Video 0 02-19-2005 01:10 AM



Advertisments