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?

 
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008

"SneakyP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9B83DACFA40A5invalid@69.16.185.247...
> John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 18:21:24 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> <Ey86l.1247$z%.60@edtnps82>:
>>
>>>"John Navas" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>news:(E-Mail Removed) ...
>>>> On Mon, 29 Dec 2008 15:12:51 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>>> <TN56l.1163$z%.65@edtnps82>:
>>>>
>>>>>"Rich" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>>>>>news:(E-Mail Removed)
>>>>>m...
>>>>>> Check out DXO tests. Compare the current "flagship" of P&S's,
>>>>>> Panasonic LX3 against ANY DSLR, even ancient 1st generation
>>>>>> models. They all beat it when it comes to image quality. Now, do
>>>>>> you really want to blow $500.00 on that silly, overpriced toy when
>>>>>> you can get any number of entry-level DSLRs for less money?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.dxomark.com/index.php/eng...tabase/Panason
>>>>>> ic
>>>>>
>>>>>The funny thing here, Rich, is that P&S sales will continue to go
>>>>>through the roof regardless of your opinion simply because P&S's fit
>>>>>in your pocket...
>>>>
>>>> And because they consistently produce good to very good images, with
>>>> the best consistently producing excellent images.

>>
>>>At an affordable price...

>>
>> True, and a decisive factor to some, but others would choose them even
>> at the same price because of their other advantages (size, weight,
>> handling, zoom range, lens speed, depth of field, etc).
>>
>> "If the only tool you have is a hammer,
>> you will see every problem as a nail."
>> -Abraham Maslow
>> True for both sides of the divide.
>>
>> There is no one best tool for all jobs.
>>
>> And "different stokes for different folks."
>>

>
> Affordable price should be stated as "more reasonable price".
> I do not know of anyone who thinks that DSLRs are priced at what they
> think they should be worth.
>
> $7,000 just sounds like someone smoked a few fatties.
> They're high in more than one way.
>
>
> --
> SneakyP



Ah, but now you are skewing things by quoting the high end of the price
curve. Where the rubber meets the road in the P&S vs. DSLR quandry is the
lower end of the curve: near the $400 (US) price point...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008

"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:(E-Mail Removed) m...
>>>
>>>>> 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


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008

"RichA" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9B83C0B465423nonenowherecom@216.196.97.131 ...
> John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>
>>>The funny thing here, Rich, is that P&S sales will continue to go
>>>through the roof regardless of your opinion simply because P&S's fit
>>>in your pocket...

>>
>> And because they consistently produce good to very good images, with
>> the best consistently producing excellent images.
>>

>
> Only to those more driven by convenience than quality.



Repeat after me, Rich: "There is nothing wrong with valueing convenience
over quality."

Besides, if the quality afforded by a P&S is acceptable for a specific task,
why pay more? Paying extra (both in dollars and time / effort) is like
super-sizing your meal simply because the trendy cafe got a good review, and
not because you're starving...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008

"nospam" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:291220081547077402%(E-Mail Removed)...
> In article <4i96l.9056$(E-Mail Removed)>, SMS
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> At a banquet I was at last night we were doing the traditional banging
>> on the glasses with spoons to get the newlyweds to kiss. It was rather
>> amusing to look at the photos from the P&S cameras since none of them
>> were fast enough to capture the scene.

>
> or maybe they were lousy photographers.


Too much champagne?


 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:32:18 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> That's why I always have a camera in my pocket / fanny pack...
>>

>
> That will give the UK readers in this group a shock.


LOL, that reminds me of a woman I know from the UK calling to her
husband across the aisle at Walgreen's, "Ray, have we got any rubbers at
home?"
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
brandon c. wrote:

> Just like the dslr fans in this newsgroup, some previous p&s camera buyers think
> if they buy a more expensive camera that they will get better photos. After the
> expense they find out that is not the case at all.


I find it takes P&S camera users at least two cameras before they
realize that they buying another P&S isn't going to solve the problems
they are having with their photography. That's when they break down and
buy a D-SLR. Often they have to find this out for themselves, they won't
believe people that have already gone through it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008
> At a banquet I was at last night we were doing the traditional banging on
> the glasses with spoons to get the newlyweds to kiss. It was rather
> amusing to look at the photos from the P&S cameras since none of them were
> fast enough to capture the scene.


Must have been quite sad attending such an unemotional wedding...

Most weddings I've attended, I could have caught the kiss with a 30 second
exposure at ISO 50 with more than a second shutter / AF lag...

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008

"SMS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:4i96l.9056$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>
>> But, compare the absolutes, and then try to tell yourself that DSLRs are
>> more popular than P&S cams...

>
> Of course they're not. It's just as in the days of film. More people
> bought Brownies, 110 & 126 Instamatics, Disc cameras, and P&S 35mm cameras
> than film SLRs, due to cost and size.
>
> But what's different this time is that the 35mm P&S cameras were closer in
> capability to the film SLRs than the digital P&S cameras are to the
> digital SLRs.
>

Huh?

The P&S cams I've used are WAY closer to DSLR's than the old 35mm
instamatics ever were to their bigger film cousins...

Just because you could put an expensive, fine grained film into a Kodak
instamatic doesn't mean you got high quality shots from the fixed aperture,
one shutter speed contraption. Getting good results from the old budget
film cams was FAR more dependant on who processed your film than it was on
the camera.

Having processed film from those cams, I can tell you it was no fun trying
to even out final prints when some of the negs (shot in low light) were so
light you could barely discern an image to those so dark you had to wonder
if the camera back was accidentally opened before the film was retracted.

Take Care,
Dudley



 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008

"SMS" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:AZq6l.9133$(E-Mail Removed)...
> tony cooper wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:32:18 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> That's why I always have a camera in my pocket / fanny pack...
>>>

>>
>> That will give the UK readers in this group a shock.

>
> LOL, that reminds me of a woman I know from the UK calling to her husband
> across the aisle at Walgreen's, "Ray, have we got any rubbers at home?"


The best one I've heard was when a young lady from Australia was staying
with my parents for a year, on a working visa.

We were all watching television late in the evening, when she yawned,
stretched, and calmly stated, "Well, I think i'll go to bed now. Do you
think you could knock me up in the morning?"

Take Care,
Dudley


 
Reply With Quote
 
Dudley Hanks
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-30-2008

"tony cooper" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Tue, 30 Dec 2008 14:32:18 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>That's why I always have a camera in my pocket / fanny pack...
>>

>
> That will give the UK readers in this group a shock.
>
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


What can I say, Tony, my wife was born in England. Her family emmigrated to
Canada in the 60s, but her dad still has a strong accent and still uses a
lot of the sayings he grew up with.

BTW, with all the snow and ice here in Edmonton, the sidewalks sure are
getting slippy...

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