A few photos to share cos Ray wanted to see some.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PeteD, Jul 28, 2008.

  1. PeteD

    PeteD Guest

    1. Advertising

  2. PeteD

    tony cooper Guest

    On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:42:41 -0500, DDAndover <>
    wrote:

    >I won't comment on your other posts, this batch already proved I wasted my time.
    >


    And you, everyone else's.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Jul 28, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PeteD

    ray Guest

    On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:46:14 +1000, PeteD wrote:

    > Well here you go mate. Your turn.
    >
    > http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pcHnM8CqOhWlxi9UBAxLHmlwPhtp-

    XmJnKyBe5PKkTFdnDo9OEYsBLm4UVL5789vxh0vmw_U7kwY/Liz2.jpg
    >
    > http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/

    y1pneQ7CNTcpoj2kg6Emrwk6TUn8ocp6W9YJeBu056MkyjHTBO_NqbS9i90rpl_SC8PFNP2KBj4x-
    I/Snake.jpg
    >
    > http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pY1Kq-

    a0mwB3VnUzExggEYMMXVOYckfMNc9k6fVBu0HcKa0zuPoDBuof9oyxNQO2OdlXuXu0I0E4/
    Coloured-beach-1.jpg
    >
    > http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pe3L5uYfp1mu1OlBBvT283p-

    gy1tE_eTrIn8TgCfJ0fosZeufBjjKz1p2mA53cTfXtqNq1_1tBUo/Greens-Pool-Pano.jpg

    Where to begin:

    1) it's ray, not Ray - if I wanted it to be Ray, I'd sign it that way.
    2) I didn't 'want to see some' at all. I never claimed that dslr's could
    not take decent pictures. Quite the contrary, it was you who has claimed
    that a decent shot cannot be taken with a P&S.
    3) nice photos, although I'm not much into reptiles myself.

    http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.html
    http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.html

    It is worth noting that if I had been relying on a dslr neither of these
    photos would have been taken since I was several miles from the nearest
    road on a hike. But the trust P850 was right there, ready to go. I'm sure
    you're going to tell me the owl photo is too noisy to be used, but the
    fact is, it prints up quite nicely at 8x10.
     
    ray, Jul 28, 2008
    #3
  4. PeteD

    Pete D Guest

    "ray" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 18:46:14 +1000, PeteD wrote:
    >
    >> Well here you go mate. Your turn.
    >>
    >> http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pcHnM8CqOhWlxi9UBAxLHmlwPhtp-

    > XmJnKyBe5PKkTFdnDo9OEYsBLm4UVL5789vxh0vmw_U7kwY/Liz2.jpg
    >>
    >> http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/

    > y1pneQ7CNTcpoj2kg6Emrwk6TUn8ocp6W9YJeBu056MkyjHTBO_NqbS9i90rpl_SC8PFNP2KBj4x-
    > I/Snake.jpg
    >>
    >> http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pY1Kq-

    > a0mwB3VnUzExggEYMMXVOYckfMNc9k6fVBu0HcKa0zuPoDBuof9oyxNQO2OdlXuXu0I0E4/
    > Coloured-beach-1.jpg
    >>
    >> http://1mpkzq.blu.livefilestore.com/y1pe3L5uYfp1mu1OlBBvT283p-

    > gy1tE_eTrIn8TgCfJ0fosZeufBjjKz1p2mA53cTfXtqNq1_1tBUo/Greens-Pool-Pano.jpg
    >
    > Where to begin:
    >
    > 1) it's ray, not Ray - if I wanted it to be Ray, I'd sign it that way.
    > 2) I didn't 'want to see some' at all. I never claimed that dslr's could
    > not take decent pictures. Quite the contrary, it was you who has claimed
    > that a decent shot cannot be taken with a P&S.
    > 3) nice photos, although I'm not much into reptiles myself.
    >
    > http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.html
    > http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.html
    >
    > It is worth noting that if I had been relying on a dslr neither of these
    > photos would have been taken since I was several miles from the nearest
    > road on a hike. But the trust P850 was right there, ready to go. I'm sure
    > you're going to tell me the owl photo is too noisy to be used, but the
    > fact is, it prints up quite nicely at 8x10.


    Only some of these are with D-SLRs, some are with P&S's.

    Important thing here ray is lets post photos.
     
    Pete D, Jul 29, 2008
    #4
  5. PeteD

    Pete D Guest


    >
    > Same problem as the last. Only now you managed to get a skewed horizon. If
    > you
    > don't even know how to properly stitch panos then don't display them until
    > you
    > do.
    >
    >
    > Please, go back to photography class before wasting everyone's time on the
    > net
    > again. You're skills are about as good as the other prolific and useless
    > posters
    > on this newsgroup. I guess that's why you thought they were worth posting.
    > They're out of touch with reality too.
    >
    >
    > You shouldn't bother adding a pretentious sig to your photos unless
    > they're
    > worth stealing. Trust me, nobody will steal your photography. With or
    > without
    > the self-important watermark on them. I feel I wasted bandwidth just
    > viewing
    > them.
    >
    > I won't comment on your other posts, this batch already proved I wasted my
    > time.


    Excellent set of comments mate, I now await some examples from you as I am
    sure wou will do or risk looking like a bit of a dweeb.

    Cheers.

    Pete.
     
    Pete D, Jul 29, 2008
    #5
  6. PeteD

    Pete D Guest

    "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:p...
    > On Mon, 28 Jul 2008 09:42:41 -0500, DDAndover <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>I won't comment on your other posts, this batch already proved I wasted my
    >>time.
    >>

    >
    > And you, everyone else's.
    >
    >
    > --
    > Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida


    Come on Tony, you turn mate, show us some of yours, post them as big as you
    like and as many as you like I have plenty of bandwidth to kill.

    Cheers.

    Pete
     
    Pete D, Jul 29, 2008
    #6
  7. PeteD

    Pete D Guest


    >
    > 1) it's ray, not Ray - if I wanted it to be Ray, I'd sign it that way.
    > 2) I didn't 'want to see some' at all. I never claimed that dslr's could
    > not take decent pictures. Quite the contrary, it was you who has claimed
    > that a decent shot cannot be taken with a P&S.
    > 3) nice photos, although I'm not much into reptiles myself.
    >
    > http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.html
    > http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.html
    >
    > It is worth noting that if I had been relying on a dslr neither of these
    > photos would have been taken since I was several miles from the nearest
    > road on a hike. But the trust P850 was right there, ready to go. I'm sure
    > you're going to tell me the owl photo is too noisy to be used, but the
    > fact is, it prints up quite nicely at 8x10.


    Sadly I cannot comment on your photos cos they don't appear to exist, might
    have to check the link.
    Not Found
    The requested URL /region/moose.html was not found on this server.



    Not Found
    The requested URL /region/owl.html was not found on this server.
     
    Pete D, Jul 29, 2008
    #7
  8. PeteD

    Mark Thomas Guest

    ray wrote:
    > http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.html
    > http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.html
    >
    > It is worth noting that if I had been relying on a dslr neither of these
    > photos would have been taken


    Pages not found. Just me, or have you got the names wrong or forgotten
    to set permissions for the html files? Can see other parts of your
    site... (Suggest you try from a computer other than your own.)

    Anyway, a quick guess reveals that you probably refer to these images:

    http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.jpg
    http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.jpg

    They are nice enough shots, but I'm sorry, ray, they aren't really in
    the same league as those from a dslr. Specifically:
    - the noise in darker areas is very noticeable, despite obvious signs of
    NR, eg the left side of the owl image
    - detail has been smoothed out along with the noise, especially in the
    foliage - this is a common problem with small sensors (and some larger
    ones). The effect is very obvious all over the moose image, where there
    are innumerable little blurry patches where the NR has smoothed foliage
    detail thinking it was noise. Also, I don't know what type of feathers
    that owl has, but it looks rather like NR has attacked its chest.. I
    apologise if it has very fuzzy soft feathers in that area and truly
    looks like that!

    Can you turn the NR off?

    On the brighter side, the lens looks pretty good if those were taken at
    maximum tele, altho the bokeh looks interesting at top left of the owl
    image..

    You could (and did!) say that this is just pixel-peeping, and at
    'reasonable' sizes the images don't look too bad. But when you have
    these problems to deal with, the ability to print larger images from
    this type of image is much, much less than that from a dslr.

    And this from a person who doesn't normally use a dslr - my 'normal' cam
    is a 'bridge' camera too - it (Fuji S9000) also suffers from these
    problems to some extent but it is a step up from the P850 from what I
    have seen. And a dslr is another, larger step up from either. I don't
    have a suitable similar image (ie a tele shot including foliage, at
    full-size) from my Fuji on my site right at this moment, but here's one
    from a similar camera, the Olympus C8080:
    http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/brisbane_morn.jpg
    You will see some very slight NR defects in some small areas of foliage,
    but nothing like the P850 is showing above. Also note the general
    sharpness and much lower noise levels - yet this is straight from the
    camera as a JPG. If I had shot this raw it could have been better..

    Don't get me wrong - I *do* strongly believe there is a genuine need
    (and market) for p&s and bridge cameras, and folk who think that their
    way is the only way, need to get out more!

    > I was several miles from the nearest road on a hike. But the trusty
    > P850 was right there, ready to go.


    I totally agree. I take the Fuji with me just about everywhere,
    including long hikes, and have 28-300 range and pretty decent image
    quality. If it was a DSLR I would have spent a *lot* more money, got
    somewhat better images, and either a sore back or a more limited f-l
    range. It's all a balancing act.

    > I'm sure
    > you're going to tell me the owl photo is too noisy to be used, but the
    > fact is, it prints up quite nicely at 8x10.


    It's not too noisy to be used... but a DSLR could have got you closer,
    far better image quality, and about zero noise. So you would be
    printing that at twice the size (or more) and it would look better.

    Does that make the dslr twice as good? Yes and No. There are MANY
    other criteria for making a camera choice. (O:

    If you are happy with the images for what you use them for, everything
    is fine. But I would question the P850 as an example of state of the
    art in its segment...
     
    Mark Thomas, Jul 29, 2008
    #8
  9. PeteD

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 17:27:19 +1000, Pete D wrote:


    >> 1) it's ray, not Ray - if I wanted it to be Ray, I'd sign it that way.
    >> 2) I didn't 'want to see some' at all. I never claimed that dslr's
    >> could not take decent pictures. Quite the contrary, it was you who has
    >> claimed that a decent shot cannot be taken with a P&S. 3) nice photos,
    >> although I'm not much into reptiles myself.
    >>
    >> http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.html
    >> http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.html
    >>
    >> It is worth noting that if I had been relying on a dslr neither of
    >> these photos would have been taken since I was several miles from the
    >> nearest road on a hike. But the trust P850 was right there, ready to
    >> go. I'm sure you're going to tell me the owl photo is too noisy to be
    >> used, but the fact is, it prints up quite nicely at 8x10.

    >
    > Sadly I cannot comment on your photos cos they don't appear to exist,
    > might have to check the link.
    > Not Found
    > The requested URL /region/moose.html was not found on this server.
    >
    >
    >
    > Not Found
    > The requested URL /region/owl.html was not found on this server.


    Sorry about the typo - chalk that up to a senior moment - those should
    be .jpg instead of .html. Sorry about that.

    http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.jpg
    http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.jpg
     
    ray, Jul 29, 2008
    #9
  10. PeteD

    ray Guest

    On Tue, 29 Jul 2008 18:47:08 +1000, Mark Thomas wrote:

    > ray wrote:
    >> http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.html
    >> http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.html
    >>
    >> It is worth noting that if I had been relying on a dslr neither of
    >> these photos would have been taken

    >
    > Pages not found. Just me, or have you got the names wrong or forgotten
    > to set permissions for the html files? Can see other parts of your
    > site... (Suggest you try from a computer other than your own.)
    >
    > Anyway, a quick guess reveals that you probably refer to these images:
    >
    > http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.jpg
    > http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.jpg
    >
    > They are nice enough shots, but I'm sorry, ray, they aren't really in
    > the same league as those from a dslr. Specifically: - the noise in
    > darker areas is very noticeable, despite obvious signs of NR, eg the
    > left side of the owl image - detail has been smoothed out along with the
    > noise, especially in the foliage - this is a common problem with small
    > sensors (and some larger ones). The effect is very obvious all over the
    > moose image, where there are innumerable little blurry patches where the
    > NR has smoothed foliage detail thinking it was noise. Also, I don't
    > know what type of feathers that owl has, but it looks rather like NR has
    > attacked its chest.. I apologise if it has very fuzzy soft feathers in
    > that area and truly looks like that!


    The issue was never "are they in the same league as a dslr" - the issue
    was that pete claimed that no P&S could produce shots which were usable
    for anything.

    >
    > Can you turn the NR off?
    >
    > On the brighter side, the lens looks pretty good if those were taken at
    > maximum tele, altho the bokeh looks interesting at top left of the owl
    > image..
    >


    Yes - pretty close to maximum magnification of both of those.

    > You could (and did!) say that this is just pixel-peeping, and at
    > 'reasonable' sizes the images don't look too bad. But when you have
    > these problems to deal with, the ability to print larger images from
    > this type of image is much, much less than that from a dslr.


    Granted. I'm not proposing the P850 as a replacement for a dslr. One point
    is that with a dslr and the corresponding equipment necessary to get
    similar shots - I would not have gotten the pictures at all. I'm not in
    the habit of hiking with 20 pounds of camera equipment. With the P850 I
    can do 36-420mm in a compact, lightweight unit.

    >
    > And this from a person who doesn't normally use a dslr - my 'normal' cam
    > is a 'bridge' camera too - it (Fuji S9000) also suffers from these
    > problems to some extent but it is a step up from the P850 from what I
    > have seen. And a dslr is another, larger step up from either. I don't
    > have a suitable similar image (ie a tele shot including foliage, at
    > full-size) from my Fuji on my site right at this moment, but here's one
    > from a similar camera, the Olympus C8080:
    > http://www.marktphoto.com/examples/brisbane_morn.jpg You will see some
    > very slight NR defects in some small areas of foliage, but nothing like
    > the P850 is showing above. Also note the general sharpness and much
    > lower noise levels - yet this is straight from the camera as a JPG. If
    > I had shot this raw it could have been better..
    >
    > Don't get me wrong - I *do* strongly believe there is a genuine need
    > (and market) for p&s and bridge cameras, and folk who think that their
    > way is the only way, need to get out more!
    >
    >> I was several miles from the nearest road on a hike. But the trusty
    > > P850 was right there, ready to go.

    >
    > I totally agree. I take the Fuji with me just about everywhere,
    > including long hikes, and have 28-300 range and pretty decent image
    > quality. If it was a DSLR I would have spent a *lot* more money, got
    > somewhat better images, and either a sore back or a more limited f-l
    > range. It's all a balancing act.
    >
    > > I'm sure
    >> you're going to tell me the owl photo is too noisy to be used, but the
    >> fact is, it prints up quite nicely at 8x10.

    >
    > It's not too noisy to be used... but a DSLR could have got you closer,
    > far better image quality, and about zero noise. So you would be
    > printing that at twice the size (or more) and it would look better.
    >
    > Does that make the dslr twice as good? Yes and No. There are MANY
    > other criteria for making a camera choice. (O:
    >
    > If you are happy with the images for what you use them for, everything
    > is fine. But I would question the P850 as an example of state of the
    > art in its segment...


    Again, that was not my claim. I'm merely pointing out that a 'decent' P&S
    can produce images which are useful for something - pete has claimed they
    are totally unusable for anything.
     
    ray, Jul 29, 2008
    #10
  11. PeteD

    ASAAR Guest

    On 28 Jul 2008 16:11:40 GMT, ray wrote:

    > Where to begin:
    >
    > 1) it's ray, not Ray - if I wanted it to be Ray, I'd sign it that way.


    Compared to Ray J, you have it easy.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_J._Johnson
     
    ASAAR, Jul 29, 2008
    #11
  12. PeteD

    -hh Guest

    ray <> wrote:
    > Mark Thomas wrote:
    > >
    > >http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.jpg
    > >http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.jpg

    >
    > > They are nice enough shots, but I'm sorry, ray,
    > > they aren't really in the same league as those
    > > from a dslr.  Specifically ...

    >
    > The issue was never "are they in the same league
    > as a dslr" - the issue was that pete claimed that
    > no P&S could produce shots which were usable
    > for anything.



    My apologies for arriving late at YA pissing contest, but in reading
    both relevant threads (and again a second time), the real problem here
    was in poor communication. Specifically of what was being assumed and
    unfortuantely not said.

    Specifically, ray (not Ray) apparently intended all along to point out
    that having a P&S for its convenience of small size is better than the
    "no camera" alternative ... but simply and unfortunately failed to
    highlight that point obviously enough.

    ray clarifies that here, saying:

    > ... I'm not proposing the P850 as a replacement
    > for a dslr. One point is that with a dslr and the
    > corresponding equipment necessary to get similar
    > shots - I would not have gotten the pictures at all.
    > I'm not in the habit of hiking with 20 pounds of
    > camera equipment. With the P850 I can do 36-420mm
    > in a compact, lightweight unit.


    IMO, there is a bit of hyperbola here in that the dSLR rig won't
    actually weigh 20lbs, unless you're carrying along a lot of stuff, and/
    or a tripod too.

    > >> I was several miles from the nearest road on a hike.
    > >> But the trusty P850 was right there, ready to go.

    >
    > > I totally agree.  I take the Fuji with me just
    > > about everywhere, including long hikes...If it was
    > > a DSLR I would have spent a *lot* more money, got
    > > somewhat better images, and either a sore back or
    > > a more limited f-l range.  It's all a balancing act.


    Life is full of trade-offs.

    Personally, just last month, I did ~25 miles worth of hiking over a
    three days off in the Smokies (TN). Yeah, I had a P&S along too...it
    was mounted on the front of my pack, since its purpose was for for
    'grab' shots. But my actual photo objective were some long exposures
    on some backcountry waterfalls, so I had along my dSLR system too,
    along with a tripod.

    FWIW, plus 2.5-3L worth of water, raingear, lunch, GPS, first aid kit
    and other emergency items in the pack too.

    From what I've experienced in hiking with cameras, I would say that
    assuming reasonable health, what's responsible for not being able to
    transport ~5lbs of camera gear over 5 miles with relative ease is to
    try to do it with the "wrong" carrying gear setup.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Jul 30, 2008
    #12
  13. PeteD

    PeteD Guest

    "-hh" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    ray <> wrote:
    > Mark Thomas wrote:
    > >
    > >http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.jpg
    > >http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.jpg

    >
    > > They are nice enough shots, but I'm sorry, ray,
    > > they aren't really in the same league as those
    > > from a dslr. Specifically ...

    >
    > The issue was never "are they in the same league
    > as a dslr" - the issue was that pete claimed that
    > no P&S could produce shots which were usable
    > for anything.



    My apologies for arriving late at YA pissing contest, but in reading
    both relevant threads (and again a second time), the real problem here
    was in poor communication. Specifically of what was being assumed and
    unfortuantely not said.

    Specifically, ray (not Ray) apparently intended all along to point out
    that having a P&S for its convenience of small size is better than the
    "no camera" alternative ... but simply and unfortunately failed to
    highlight that point obviously enough.

    ray clarifies that here, saying:

    > ... I'm not proposing the P850 as a replacement
    > for a dslr. One point is that with a dslr and the
    > corresponding equipment necessary to get similar
    > shots - I would not have gotten the pictures at all.
    > I'm not in the habit of hiking with 20 pounds of
    > camera equipment. With the P850 I can do 36-420mm
    > in a compact, lightweight unit.


    IMO, there is a bit of hyperbola here in that the dSLR rig won't
    actually weigh 20lbs, unless you're carrying along a lot of stuff, and/
    or a tripod too.

    > >> I was several miles from the nearest road on a hike.
    > >> But the trusty P850 was right there, ready to go.

    >
    > > I totally agree. I take the Fuji with me just
    > > about everywhere, including long hikes...If it was
    > > a DSLR I would have spent a *lot* more money, got
    > > somewhat better images, and either a sore back or
    > > a more limited f-l range. It's all a balancing act.


    Life is full of trade-offs.

    Personally, just last month, I did ~25 miles worth of hiking over a
    three days off in the Smokies (TN). Yeah, I had a P&S along too...it
    was mounted on the front of my pack, since its purpose was for for
    'grab' shots. But my actual photo objective were some long exposures
    on some backcountry waterfalls, so I had along my dSLR system too,
    along with a tripod.

    FWIW, plus 2.5-3L worth of water, raingear, lunch, GPS, first aid kit
    and other emergency items in the pack too.

    From what I've experienced in hiking with cameras, I would say that
    assuming reasonable health, what's responsible for not being able to
    transport ~5lbs of camera gear over 5 miles with relative ease is to
    try to do it with the "wrong" carrying gear setup.


    -hh

    The original thread was "P&S's day has come and gone", still waiting for
    some even half worthwhile shots to be posted to back this up.
     
    PeteD, Jul 30, 2008
    #13
  14. PeteD

    ray Guest

    On Wed, 30 Jul 2008 11:05:28 -0700, -hh wrote:

    > ray <> wrote:
    >> Mark Thomas wrote:
    >> >
    >> >http://www.rcarter.net/region/owl.jpg
    >> >http://www.rcarter.net/region/moose.jpg

    >>
    >> > They are nice enough shots, but I'm sorry, ray, they aren't really in
    >> > the same league as those from a dslr.  Specifically ...

    >>
    >> The issue was never "are they in the same league as a dslr" - the issue
    >> was that pete claimed that no P&S could produce shots which were usable
    >> for anything.

    >
    >
    > My apologies for arriving late at YA pissing contest, but in reading
    > both relevant threads (and again a second time), the real problem here
    > was in poor communication. Specifically of what was being assumed and
    > unfortuantely not said.
    >
    > Specifically, ray (not Ray) apparently intended all along to point out
    > that having a P&S for its convenience of small size is better than the
    > "no camera" alternative ... but simply and unfortunately failed to
    > highlight that point obviously enough.


    Geez - I didn't think I stuttered at all!

    >
    > ray clarifies that here, saying:
    >
    >> ... I'm not proposing the P850 as a replacement for a dslr. One point
    >> is that with a dslr and the corresponding equipment necessary to get
    >> similar shots - I would not have gotten the pictures at all. I'm not in
    >> the habit of hiking with 20 pounds of camera equipment. With the P850 I
    >> can do 36-420mm in a compact, lightweight unit.

    >
    > IMO, there is a bit of hyperbola here in that the dSLR rig won't
    > actually weigh 20lbs, unless you're carrying along a lot of stuff, and/
    > or a tripod too.
    >
    >> >> I was several miles from the nearest road on a hike. But the trusty
    >> >> P850 was right there, ready to go.

    >>
    >> > I totally agree.  I take the Fuji with me just about everywhere,
    >> > including long hikes...If it was a DSLR I would have spent a *lot*
    >> > more money, got somewhat better images, and either a sore back or a
    >> > more limited f-l range.  It's all a balancing act.

    >
    > Life is full of trade-offs.
    >
    > Personally, just last month, I did ~25 miles worth of hiking over a
    > three days off in the Smokies (TN). Yeah, I had a P&S along too...it
    > was mounted on the front of my pack, since its purpose was for for
    > 'grab' shots. But my actual photo objective were some long exposures
    > on some backcountry waterfalls, so I had along my dSLR system too, along
    > with a tripod.


    So, why in hell did you even bother with the P&S if it's totally
    worthless? It would seem you just agreed with my point!

    >
    > FWIW, plus 2.5-3L worth of water, raingear, lunch, GPS, first aid kit
    > and other emergency items in the pack too.
    >
    > From what I've experienced in hiking with cameras, I would say that
    > assuming reasonable health, what's responsible for not being able to
    > transport ~5lbs of camera gear over 5 miles with relative ease is to try
    > to do it with the "wrong" carrying gear setup.


    Well, thanks, but currently I'm not ready to be packing a dslr and two or
    three lenses when I can get what I need with a high zoom P&S. Part of what
    we have here is simply a question of adequacy. I've never claimed that one
    will get the same quality from a $200 P&S as from $1500 of dslr equipment.
    One that for many needs it is adequate. Pete says - no. No P&S is adequate
    for anything - ever.


    >
    >
    > -hh
     
    ray, Jul 31, 2008
    #14
  15. PeteD

    -hh Guest

    On Jul 30, 5:57 pm, "PeteD" <> wrote:
    >
    > The original thread was  "P&S's day has come and gone", still waiting
    > for some even half worthwhile shots to be posted to back this up.


    Apparently, you missed the basic point of the OP in that thread, which
    was that dSLRs are significantly more cost (price) competitive today,
    to which he was asking if the feud is over, albeit "...barring the
    need for portability..." (sic).

    You're free to set your standards wherever you want for yourself
    personally, which can also include choosing to do without any photo-
    taking capability in some circumstances. However, your opinion simply
    does not trump the opinions of everyone else in the world, so we are
    free to choose the "something half worthwhile is better than nothing"
    philosophy if and when we choose to do so.

    FWIW, if you want something 'half worthwhile' (YMMV), here's a
    "salvage" that I did last year when my main camera catastrophically
    failed 48 hours earlier (electronics & salt water don't mix):

    <http://www.photo-hh.com/Photos-I/Pages/Kona_Mantas.html>

    FYI, many of the P&S's stills came out poorly, but the reason why was
    strobe backscatter, which has nothing to do with sensor size or 'glass
    quality'. And the resulting salvage was that unlike the main setup,
    the P&S had a feature (which becomes very obvious on the webpage)
    which facilitated these images and salvage approach. You might claim
    that I cheated, but the reality is that I adapted to adversity with a
    "Plan C".


    -hh
     
    -hh, Jul 31, 2008
    #15
  16. PeteD

    Scott W Guest

    On Jul 30, 2:45 pm, -hh <> wrote:
    > On Jul 30, 5:57 pm, "PeteD" <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >
    > > The original thread was  "P&S's day has come and gone", still waiting
    > > for some even half worthwhile shots to be posted to back this up.

    >
    > Apparently, you missed the basic point of the OP in that thread, which
    > was that dSLRs are significantly more cost (price) competitive today,
    > to which he was asking if the feud is over, albeit "...barring the
    > need for portability..." (sic).
    >
    > You're free to set your standards wherever you want for yourself
    > personally, which can also include choosing to do without any photo-
    > taking capability in some circumstances.  However, your opinion simply
    > does not trump the opinions of everyone else in the world, so we are
    > free to choose the "something half worthwhile is better than nothing"
    > philosophy if and when we choose to do so.
    >
    > FWIW, if you want something 'half worthwhile' (YMMV), here's a
    > "salvage" that I did last year when my main camera catastrophically
    > failed 48 hours earlier (electronics & salt water don't mix):
    >
    > <http://www.photo-hh.com/Photos-I/Pages/Kona_Mantas.html>
    >


    It is funny that you should post this, yesterday I was out on the
    ocean, on a two man canoe, very likely going right out of where you
    saw the mantas.

    We heard a rather loud splash and turned towords the noise, a few
    seconds later we saw a good sized manta do a back flip out of the
    water. It is rare to see any ray jump out of the water and this was
    the first time I have seen a manta jump. I was really wishing I had my
    little water proof P&S with me. Most likely I would have missed the
    shot, but at least I would have had a chance at getting it. I
    normally take the camera with me during whale season, I might start
    taking it all the time.

    There is no good way to take a DSLR out on the canoe, it is far too
    wet and a water proof case is far too large.


    Scott
     
    Scott W, Jul 31, 2008
    #16
  17. PeteD

    -hh Guest

    ray <> wrote:
    > -hh wrote:
    > >
    > > Life is full of trade-offs.

    >
    > > Personally, just last month, I did ~25 miles worth of hiking over a
    > > three days off in the Smokies (TN). Yeah, I had a P&S along too...it
    > > was mounted on the front of my pack, since its purpose was for for
    > > 'grab' shots. But my actual photo objective were some long exposures
    > > on some backcountry waterfalls, so I had along my dSLR system too, along
    > > with a tripod.

    >
    > So, why in hell did you even bother with the P&S if it's totally
    > worthless?


    Because its not _totally_ worthless.
    See: "Life is full of trade-offs".
    Comprehend same.


    > It would seem you just agreed with my point!


    Not really. I personally view the P&S as a 'good enough' within
    certain contextual constraints. Here, it was how I chose to pack my
    dSLR that made it inconvenient to get to quickly that permitted my P&S
    to be 'good enough'.

    I have another packing arrangement that's better for quicker dSLR
    camera access, but its not as good when also carrying along a tripod,
    due to load balancing. In those cases, I don't bother carrying the
    P&S for the purpose of grab shots.


    > > From what I've experienced in hiking with cameras, I would say that
    > > assuming reasonable health, what's responsible for not being able to
    > > transport ~5lbs of camera gear over 5 miles with relative ease is to try
    > > to do it with the "wrong" carrying gear setup.

    >
    > Well, thanks, but currently I'm not ready to be packing a dslr and two or
    > three lenses when I can get what I need with a high zoom P&S. Part of what
    > we have here is simply a question of adequacy.


    Not quite. It is Adequacy ... when within the applied contextual
    constraint.

    It is the presence of these contextual constraints that permits it to
    be 'adequate', which also means that when the constraint is removed, a
    different conclusion can apply.

    Logically, this isn't rocket science.



    > I've never claimed that one will get the same quality from a $200 P&S as from
    >$1500 of dslr equipment.


    Good thing, because that statement is Absolutely and Utterly ...
    Irrelevant.

    Because the OP in the other thread was observing that dSLRs are no
    longer necessarily $1500. He even explicitly pointed out that he had
    **purchased** a mint Nikon D100 with Sigma 70-300mm zoom for $200,
    plus he had seen open box Olympus and Pentax DSLRs going for as low as
    $175. As such, these price points absolutely blow your "expensive
    dSLR" innuendo of an argument right out of the water and straight into
    bloody orbit.

    I'm willing to defend your point about 'size', but only to within
    reasonable limits. I understand and can accommodate a certain degree
    of YMMV preferences for how much one is willing to carry ... and the
    resulting compromises such as image quality (which is what leads to
    "Adequate") ... but I also have observed that we Americans are often
    quick to make excuses about things being "too heavy to carry", ...
    {blah, blah, blah - whine, whine, whine} ... whereas its really more
    likely that the entire excuse was contrived - - the real reason is
    because we're fat, soft, and simply pathetically lazy.

    FWIW, it didn't escaped my notice that you've never mentioned just how
    many "miles" you were off the highway for the two photos that you
    posted.

    Of course, it also didn't escape my notice last month in the Smokies
    when on our first day warmup, we passed a couple of lumbering red-
    faced obese diabetic smokers in their 20s who had wallowed a whopping
    1/2 mile up a 1.3 mile **paved** trail who were panting whining about
    how "hard" it was. But don't worry - they'll go home and email their
    friends about how they were "miles and miles" into the wilderness,
    even though they were almost literally still within sight of their car
    in the parking lot. The trail was Laurel Falls ... feel free to
    Google it.


    > One that for many needs it is adequate. Pete says - no. No
    > P&S is adequate for anything - ever.


    So you're both wrong. And apparently I was mistaken in believing that
    you were actually trying to take a reasonable & moderate middle ground
    position. My apologies for the error.


    -hh
     
    -hh, Jul 31, 2008
    #17
  18. WilliamTanner wrote:
    []
    > To the DSLR fan-boys: Keep trying to justify your DSLR purchases. I
    > have no need to waste my time as you do incessantly. I have all I
    > need in P&S cameras. None of your ignorant ranting and raving about
    > what ignorant "pros" use, and what you wasted your money on, will
    > ever change reality. I've played the DSLR game and have no desire to
    > ever return to it. That's why I know so much more than you ever will.


    If your needs are completely satisfied by your purchase, why put so much
    effort into justifying it? I will let others judge who is "ranting and
    raving", and wasting their time.

    I have both types of camera, and use them as the situation demands.

    David
     
    David J Taylor, Jul 31, 2008
    #18
  19. PeteD

    -hh Guest

    Freshly minted sockpuppet WilliamTanner <> wrote:
    >
    > I have no need to waste my time as you do incessantly.


    Unfortunately, your actions reveal your claims to be a lie.


    > I've played the DSLR game and have no desire to ever return to it.


    And yet, here you are, predictably, back again.


    > That's why I know so much more than you ever will.


    Really? What color socks am I wearing right now? :)

    Your bravado reveals that you actually _don't_ know more.
    And it reveals your personal insecurity.
    And your confirmation bias.
    And your immaturity.
    And ignorance.


    The bottom line is that not every photo composition is a proverbial
    "nail", so it is beneficial to have a screwdriver in the toolbox, not
    just one hammer.

    Cameras are merely tools. Use the right one for the job.
    How hard of a concept is that?


    -hh
     
    -hh, Jul 31, 2008
    #19
  20. PeteD

    ray Guest

    On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 06:56:15 +0000, David J Taylor wrote:

    > WilliamTanner wrote:
    > []
    >> To the DSLR fan-boys: Keep trying to justify your DSLR purchases. I
    >> have no need to waste my time as you do incessantly. I have all I need
    >> in P&S cameras. None of your ignorant ranting and raving about what
    >> ignorant "pros" use, and what you wasted your money on, will ever
    >> change reality. I've played the DSLR game and have no desire to ever
    >> return to it. That's why I know so much more than you ever will.

    >
    > If your needs are completely satisfied by your purchase, why put so much
    > effort into justifying it? I will let others judge who is "ranting and
    > raving", and wasting their time.
    >
    > I have both types of camera, and use them as the situation demands.
    >
    > David


    That sounds like a deal to me. I'm merely trying to make the point that
    pete's claim that P&S's are not usable for anything under any
    circumstances is a bunch of B.S.
     
    ray, Jul 31, 2008
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Wayne
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    803
  2. Peter A. Stavrakoglou

    Opinions wanted on some photos

    Peter A. Stavrakoglou, Jan 5, 2004, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    364
    dragon1964
    Jan 6, 2004
  3. Luke Duke
    Replies:
    63
    Views:
    1,960
    POD {Ò¿Ó}
    Jan 11, 2008
  4. Blig Merk
    Replies:
    66
    Views:
    1,952
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
    Apr 27, 2008
  5. Cody
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,601
    John Wunderlich
    Jun 28, 2009
Loading...

Share This Page