«

Bowser <> writes:

> That said, I like the 1 series cameras, but I wonder who will buy
> them? If they're aimed at P&S users looking to step up, why would they
> spend that much and NOT get an SLR? Maybe if the price was about 35%
> lower it would make sense, but at these levels?

Because they're afraid of DSLRs.

Because they don't want the size/weight of DSLRs.

Because they see value in the high frame rates and "best shot" mode.

Because they value the quiet operation.

I'm probably missing some, too; but there's quite a set of valid
reasons. If it weren't so new (i.e. if my information on it included a
lot more from people actually using it) it might well be what I
recommended instead to the last person I recommended buy a DSLR (he was
annoyed beyond bounds by the slow response of his P&S trying to get
pictures of his children, a not-uncommon interest of non-enthusiast
photographers).

On 9/28/2011 6:52 AM, Bowser wrote:
> On 9/27/2011 1:53 PM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Bowser<> writes:
>>
>>> That said, I like the 1 series cameras, but I wonder who will buy
>>> them? If they're aimed at P&S users looking to step up, why would they
>>> spend that much and NOT get an SLR? Maybe if the price was about 35%
>>> lower it would make sense, but at these levels?
>>
>> Because they're afraid of DSLRs.
>>
>> Because they don't want the size/weight of DSLRs.
>>
>> Because they see value in the high frame rates and "best shot" mode.
>>
>> Because they value the quiet operation.
>>
>> I'm probably missing some, too; but there's quite a set of valid
>> reasons. If it weren't so new (i.e. if my information on it included a
>> lot more from people actually using it) it might well be what I
>> recommended instead to the last person I recommended buy a DSLR (he was
>> annoyed beyond bounds by the slow response of his P&S trying to get
>> pictures of his children, a not-uncommon interest of non-enthusiast
>> photographers).
>
> I guess we'll see how it sells, but Nikon sure priced it high for a P&S
> step up cam.

The market will determine the street price.

--
Peter

David Dyer-Bennet <dd-> wrote:
>
>I'm probably missing some, too; but there's quite a set of valid
>reasons. If it weren't so new (i.e. if my information on it included a
>lot more from people actually using it) it might well be what I
>recommended instead to the last person I recommended buy a DSLR (he was
>annoyed beyond bounds by the slow response of his P&S trying to get
>pictures of his children, a not-uncommon interest of non-enthusiast
>photographers).


We run occasional tutorials for P&S buyers - usually with the help of
one of the main brands' importers, who chalk it up to their marketing
budget.

We teach users to prefocus with a half press of the shutter release,
wait for the subject to reach the prefocused distance and shoot. The
success rate is surprisingly high. It also makes people think about
what they are shooting, rather than just snap away at random, so the
images are often very good. Small focusing errors don't matter
because of the huge depth of field offered by the small sensor.

A problem with using a DSLR to shoot children is that the larger
sensor means much more limited depth of field. This places a much
greater demand on the AF system. Unfortunately, the continuous AF
modes of entry-level DSLRs can leave a lot to be desired. The result
is that sharply focused images can be an elusive goal for DSLR users.

Of course they can always buy a high-end pro DSLR which has the
performance needed. But a simply learnt technique means that you can
do it all with a much cheaper P&S.

In article <>, Bruce
<> wrote:

> We teach users to prefocus with a half press of the shutter release,
> wait for the subject to reach the prefocused distance and shoot. The
> success rate is surprisingly high. It also makes people think about
> what they are shooting, rather than just snap away at random, so the
> images are often very good. Small focusing errors don't matter
> because of the huge depth of field offered by the small sensor.

that helps with shutter lag on compacts.

> A problem with using a DSLR to shoot children is that the larger
> sensor means much more limited depth of field. This places a much
> greater demand on the AF system. Unfortunately, the continuous AF
> modes of entry-level DSLRs can leave a lot to be desired. The result
> is that sharply focused images can be an elusive goal for DSLR users.

teach them to use a smaller f/stop for deeper depth of field.

nospam <> wrote:

>In article <>, Bruce
><> wrote:
>
>> We teach users to prefocus with a half press of the shutter release,
>> wait for the subject to reach the prefocused distance and shoot. The
>> success rate is surprisingly high. It also makes people think about
>> what they are shooting, rather than just snap away at random, so the
>> images are often very good. Small focusing errors don't matter
>> because of the huge depth of field offered by the small sensor.
>
>that helps with shutter lag on compacts.


Absolutely. It's amazing just how fast a p+s can be if you use the
half press.


>> A problem with using a DSLR to shoot children is that the larger
>> sensor means much more limited depth of field. This places a much
>> greater demand on the AF system. Unfortunately, the continuous AF
>> modes of entry-level DSLRs can leave a lot to be desired. The result
>> is that sharply focused images can be an elusive goal for DSLR users.
>
>teach them to use a smaller f/stop for deeper depth of field.


At the same time as teaching them to use a fast shutter speed to
freeze motion? If they then crank up the ISO, they will complain
about noisy images.

In article <>, Bruce
<> wrote:

> >> A problem with using a DSLR to shoot children is that the larger
> >> sensor means much more limited depth of field. This places a much
> >> greater demand on the AF system. Unfortunately, the continuous AF
> >> modes of entry-level DSLRs can leave a lot to be desired. The result
> >> is that sharply focused images can be an elusive goal for DSLR users.
> >
> >teach them to use a smaller f/stop for deeper depth of field.
>
> At the same time as teaching them to use a fast shutter speed to
> freeze motion? If they then crank up the ISO, they will complain
> about noisy images.

it'll match the p&s compact. there is no difference in depth of field
for the same image quality.

nospam <> wrote:

>In article <>, Bruce
><> wrote:
>
>> >> A problem with using a DSLR to shoot children is that the larger
>> >> sensor means much more limited depth of field. This places a much
>> >> greater demand on the AF system. Unfortunately, the continuous AF
>> >> modes of entry-level DSLRs can leave a lot to be desired. The result
>> >> is that sharply focused images can be an elusive goal for DSLR users.
>> >
>> >teach them to use a smaller f/stop for deeper depth of field.
>>
>> At the same time as teaching them to use a fast shutter speed to
>> freeze motion? If they then crank up the ISO, they will complain
>> about noisy images.
>
>it'll match the p&s compact. there is no difference in depth of field
>for the same image quality.


True, but we aren't talking about the same people. One owns a p+s and
not a DSLR, and the other bought a DSLR for reasons of better image
quality and wouldn't be seen dead using a p+s.

On 9/28/2011 1:13 PM, Bruce wrote:
> nospam<> wrote:
>
>> In article< >, Bruce
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>>>> A problem with using a DSLR to shoot children is that the larger
>>>>> sensor means much more limited depth of field. This places a much
>>>>> greater demand on the AF system. Unfortunately, the continuous AF
>>>>> modes of entry-level DSLRs can leave a lot to be desired. The result
>>>>> is that sharply focused images can be an elusive goal for DSLR users.
>>>>
>>>> teach them to use a smaller f/stop for deeper depth of field.
>>>
>>> At the same time as teaching them to use a fast shutter speed to
>>> freeze motion? If they then crank up the ISO, they will complain
>>> about noisy images.
>>
>> it'll match the p&s compact. there is no difference in depth of field
>> for the same image quality.
>
>
> True, but we aren't talking about the same people. One owns a p+s and
> not a DSLR, and the other bought a DSLR for reasons of better image
> quality and wouldn't be seen dead using a p+s.
>
>
>
What a snobby thing to say. Many excellent amateur and Professional
photographers who use DSLRs, will also use a P&S when they prefer not to
carry a heavier camera.

--
Peter

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news...
> We teach users to prefocus with a half press of the shutter release,
> wait for the subject to reach the prefocused distance and shoot. The
> success rate is surprisingly high. It also makes people think about
> what they are shooting, rather than just snap away at random, so the
> images are often very good. Small focusing errors don't matter
> because of the huge depth of field offered by the small sensor.
>
> A problem with using a DSLR to shoot children is that the larger
> sensor means much more limited depth of field. This places a much
> greater demand on the AF system. Unfortunately, the continuous AF
> modes of entry-level DSLRs can leave a lot to be desired. The result
> is that sharply focused images can be an elusive goal for DSLR users.

Why do you think the same "half press prefocus" does not work for DSLR
users? And why they can't use smaller apertures if they want more latitude
to focusing error?
The ability of most DSLR's to produce far better pictures at far higher ISO
means you can easily use smaller apertures if you want the same depth of
field as those POS cameras.
Not having the ability to throw backgrounds out of focus is often what makes
those toy camera portraits less than satisfying though.

Trevor.

"Bruce" <> wrote in message
news:...
>>teach them to use a smaller f/stop for deeper depth of field.
>
>
> At the same time as teaching them to use a fast shutter speed to
> freeze motion? If they then crank up the ISO, they will complain
> about noisy images.

Not when they compare a good DSLR pic to the POS pics. The ISO could be at
least 4 stops higher for similar noise levels in most cases, often far more
than that!

Trevor.