A Step Backward ?

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Guest, Aug 18, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    What's happened to cameras ?
    Camera design's been taken over by computer geeks.
    It's like they've forgotten the refinements in 75 years
    of camera development.

    I'm still grinding my way
    through the manual for my new Nikon L4.

    There are menus, and sub-menus.
    There are special settings for "scenes",
    "sunsets" and even "fireworks".

    I don't know how many variants there are for the built-in flash.

    I can see the shot of a lifetime
    slipping by while one hunts for "menu G, selection #2".

    With my old ( film ) camera, I could control;
    f-stop, speed, and focus. ( and why can't focus be manual ? )
    Pretty much all the variables in a picture.
    Is there a modern digital camera with these three controls ?

    ....and while holding the camera with outstretched arms,
    ( no viewfinder ) I wondered if any camera maker
    would bring out a digital with the old Rollieflex form factor ?

    What next ?


    <rj>
    Guest, Aug 18, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Guest

    Scott W Guest

    <RJ> wrote:
    > What's happened to cameras ?
    > Camera design's been taken over by computer geeks.
    > It's like they've forgotten the refinements in 75 years
    > of camera development.
    >
    > I'm still grinding my way
    > through the manual for my new Nikon L4.
    >
    > There are menus, and sub-menus.
    > There are special settings for "scenes",
    > "sunsets" and even "fireworks".
    >
    > I don't know how many variants there are for the built-in flash.
    >
    > I can see the shot of a lifetime
    > slipping by while one hunts for "menu G, selection #2".
    >
    > With my old ( film ) camera, I could control;
    > f-stop, speed, and focus. ( and why can't focus be manual ? )
    > Pretty much all the variables in a picture.
    > Is there a modern digital camera with these three controls ?
    >
    > ...and while holding the camera with outstretched arms,
    > ( no viewfinder ) I wondered if any camera maker
    > would bring out a digital with the old Rollieflex form factor ?
    >
    > What next ?
    >

    Sounds to me that you bought the wrong camera, why did you not buy a
    DSLR?

    Scott
    Scott W, Aug 18, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    Guest

    <RJ> wrote:
    > What's happened to cameras ?
    > Camera design's been taken over by computer geeks.
    > It's like they've forgotten the refinements in 75 years
    > of camera development.
    >
    > I'm still grinding my way
    > through the manual for my new Nikon L4.
    >
    > There are menus, and sub-menus.
    > There are special settings for "scenes",
    > "sunsets" and even "fireworks".
    >
    > I don't know how many variants there are for the built-in flash.
    >
    > I can see the shot of a lifetime
    > slipping by while one hunts for "menu G, selection #2".
    >
    > With my old ( film ) camera, I could control;
    > f-stop, speed, and focus. ( and why can't focus be manual ? )
    > Pretty much all the variables in a picture.
    > Is there a modern digital camera with these three controls ?


    You bought the wrong camera. There are plenty of modern digital cameras
    - even small point-and-shoots - with full manual control (including
    manual focus). All the program modes are for people who are either too
    dumb or too uninterested in photography to learn how to take pictures.

    -Gniewko
    , Aug 18, 2006
    #3
  4. Guest

    Helen Guest

    "<RJ>" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > What's happened to cameras ?


    Google would have told you in 3 seconds.
    Helen, Aug 18, 2006
    #4
  5. Guest

    Mark² Guest

    <RJ> wrote:
    > What's happened to cameras ?
    > Camera design's been taken over by computer geeks.
    > It's like they've forgotten the refinements in 75 years
    > of camera development.
    >
    > I'm still grinding my way
    > through the manual for my new Nikon L4.
    >
    > There are menus, and sub-menus.
    > There are special settings for "scenes",
    > "sunsets" and even "fireworks".
    >
    > I don't know how many variants there are for the built-in flash.
    >
    > I can see the shot of a lifetime
    > slipping by while one hunts for "menu G, selection #2".
    >
    > With my old ( film ) camera, I could control;
    > f-stop, speed, and focus. ( and why can't focus be manual ? )
    > Pretty much all the variables in a picture.
    > Is there a modern digital camera with these three controls ?
    >
    > ...and while holding the camera with outstretched arms,
    > ( no viewfinder ) I wondered if any camera maker
    > would bring out a digital with the old Rollieflex form factor ?
    >
    > What next ?


    Answer: DSLR
    All the control you're missing.
    Problem solved.
    :)

    --
    Images (Plus Snaps & Grabs) by Mark² at:
    www.pbase.com/markuson
    Mark², Aug 19, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <>, "<RJ>"
    <> writes
    >What's happened to cameras ?
    >Camera design's been taken over by computer geeks.
    >It's like they've forgotten the refinements in 75 years
    >of camera development.
    >
    >I'm still grinding my way
    >through the manual for my new Nikon L4.
    >
    >There are menus, and sub-menus.
    >There are special settings for "scenes",
    >"sunsets" and even "fireworks".


    Don't use them.

    >I don't know how many variants there are for the built-in flash.


    You don't have to use them.

    >I can see the shot of a lifetime
    >slipping by while one hunts for "menu G, selection #2".


    Why?

    >With my old ( film ) camera, I could control;
    >f-stop, speed, and focus.


    I can do that with my digital camera.

    >( and why can't focus be manual ? )


    It is, on mine.

    >Pretty much all the variables in a picture.
    >Is there a modern digital camera with these three controls ?


    Yes, quite a few; not all DSLR.

    >...and while holding the camera with outstretched arms,
    >( no viewfinder )


    I have an optical viewfinder.

    >I wondered if any camera maker
    >would bring out a digital with the old Rollieflex form factor ?


    Do you mean a waste level finder? I have used a TLR, not bad held
    against me.

    But I must ask, did you not investigate the market and then purchase a
    camera with the facilities you require; or did you just 'purchase' the
    wrong one so you could complain here.
    --
    Ian G8ILZ
    Prometheus, Aug 19, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    Ken Weitzel Guest

    <RJ> wrote:
    > What's happened to cameras ?
    > Camera design's been taken over by computer geeks.
    > It's like they've forgotten the refinements in 75 years
    > of camera development.
    >
    > I'm still grinding my way
    > through the manual for my new Nikon L4.
    >
    > There are menus, and sub-menus.
    > There are special settings for "scenes",
    > "sunsets" and even "fireworks".
    >
    > I don't know how many variants there are for the built-in flash.
    >
    > I can see the shot of a lifetime
    > slipping by while one hunts for "menu G, selection #2".
    >
    > With my old ( film ) camera, I could control;
    > f-stop, speed, and focus. ( and why can't focus be manual ? )
    > Pretty much all the variables in a picture.
    > Is there a modern digital camera with these three controls ?
    >
    > ...and while holding the camera with outstretched arms,
    > ( no viewfinder ) I wondered if any camera maker
    > would bring out a digital with the old Rollieflex form factor ?
    >
    > What next ?


    Hi...

    Olympus has a pretty nice workaround, that they call
    "MyMode" (s)

    Take care.

    Ken
    Ken Weitzel, Aug 19, 2006
    #7
  8. "<RJ>" <> wrote:
    >
    > With my old ( film ) camera, I could control;
    > f-stop, speed, and focus. ( and why can't focus be manual ? )
    > Pretty much all the variables in a picture.
    > Is there a modern digital camera with these three controls ?


    All modern dSLRs provide all three controls. It's just the P&S cameras that
    don't.

    With a DSLR, you'll like AF better than manual focus, though. (With a fast
    lens, I find manual focus just as nice on my dSLRs as it is on my film SLRs
    and TLRs, although a lot of people complain about it.)

    > ...and while holding the camera with outstretched arms,
    > ( no viewfinder ) I wondered if any camera maker
    > would bring out a digital with the old Rollieflex form factor ?


    The Sony F707 and F717 worked like a Rolleiflex if you wanted. But, strange
    as it may seem, my Rolleiflex TLR still works just like a Rolleiflex TLR.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 19, 2006
    #8
  9. Guest

    Guest

    David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "<RJ>" <> wrote:
    > >
    > > With my old ( film ) camera, I could control;
    > > f-stop, speed, and focus. ( and why can't focus be manual ? )
    > > Pretty much all the variables in a picture.
    > > Is there a modern digital camera with these three controls ?

    >
    > All modern dSLRs provide all three controls. It's just the P&S cameras that
    > don't.


    There are plenty of P&S cameras that give you complete control. Not all
    of them, but many do.

    -Gniewko
    , Aug 19, 2006
    #9
  10. <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> "<RJ>" <> wrote:
    >> >
    >> > With my old ( film ) camera, I could control;
    >> > f-stop, speed, and focus. ( and why can't focus be manual ? )
    >> > Pretty much all the variables in a picture.
    >> > Is there a modern digital camera with these three controls ?

    >>
    >> All modern dSLRs provide all three controls. It's just the P&S cameras
    >> that
    >> don't.

    >
    > There are plenty of P&S cameras that give you complete control. Not all
    > of them, but many do.


    Focus is pretty hard with "real P&S" P&S cameras. If you include the
    ZLRs/superzooms in that class, some of those have focus rings. But manual
    focus is pretty iffy, except maybe for macro work on static objects that
    aren't damaged by bright (hot) lights.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 19, 2006
    #10
  11. <RJ> wrote:
    > What's happened to cameras ?
    > Camera design's been taken over by computer geeks.
    > It's like they've forgotten the refinements in 75 years
    > of camera development.
    >
    > I'm still grinding my way
    > through the manual for my new Nikon L4.
    >
    > There are menus, and sub-menus.
    > There are special settings for "scenes",
    > "sunsets" and even "fireworks".
    >
    > I don't know how many variants there are for the built-in flash.
    >
    > I can see the shot of a lifetime
    > slipping by while one hunts for "menu G, selection #2".
    >
    > With my old ( film ) camera, I could control;
    > f-stop, speed, and focus. ( and why can't focus be manual ? )
    > Pretty much all the variables in a picture.
    > Is there a modern digital camera with these three controls ?
    >
    > ...and while holding the camera with outstretched arms,
    > ( no viewfinder ) I wondered if any camera maker
    > would bring out a digital with the old Rollieflex form factor ?
    >
    > What next ?
    >
    >
    > <rj>


    There were plenty of film cameras like that and there are good digital
    cameras that allow full manual if you like. Maybe you should have done a
    little more homework before you bought your camera.

    --
    Joseph Meehan

    Dia duit
    Joseph Meehan, Aug 19, 2006
    #11
  12. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    []
    > Focus is pretty hard with "real P&S" P&S cameras. If you include the
    > ZLRs/superzooms in that class, some of those have focus rings. But
    > manual focus is pretty iffy, except maybe for macro work on static
    > objects that aren't damaged by bright (hot) lights.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    Focus is pretty easy with "real P&S" P&S cameras. The depth of field is
    much greater, so that focus tolerances are much greater. With many of the
    more modern cameras the auto-focus works well, and works quickly. Yes, a
    DSLR may have even quicker auto-focus, but you may not want the weight,
    bulk, cost and acoustic noise which accompanies a DSLR.

    Today you have the choice, and get something which meets your needs,
    including many non-DSLR cameras with full manual control. It does sound
    as if <rj> might have benefited from a little more research before making
    his purchase.

    David
    Edinburgh
    David J Taylor, Aug 19, 2006
    #12
  13. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote:
    > David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > []
    >> Focus is pretty hard with "real P&S" P&S cameras. If you include the
    >> ZLRs/superzooms in that class, some of those have focus rings. But
    >> manual focus is pretty iffy, except maybe for macro work on static
    >> objects that aren't damaged by bright (hot) lights.
    >>
    >> David J. Littleboy
    >> Tokyo, Japan

    >
    > Focus is pretty easy with "real P&S" P&S cameras. The depth of field is
    > much greater, so that focus tolerances are much greater.


    Hey guy, wake up! You're asleep. This thread is about _MANUAL_ focusing.

    And manual focusing is a complete bear with P&S cameras. Seriously not ready
    for prime time.

    Of course P&S AF has two problems that aren't going away any time soon: it
    uses the sensor so it has to be slow, and it uses too large an AF area
    combined with contrast-detection AF, so it latches onto contrast in the
    background unless one is very careful. But without an EVF, there's no way to
    be careful (unless one is really grossly nearsighted, the LCD is too far
    away to see focus.) DSLR AF sytems have fast dedicated sensors that are a
    smaller percentage of the image area.

    By the way, you are wrong about the DOF being greater. The maximum DOF at
    the smallest acceptable (wrt. diffraction considerations) aperture is
    _exactly the same_ whatever the size of the sensor (for the same pixel
    count). And although the numerical f stop will be smaller with the larger
    format camera, the photons collected per pixel will be the same per unit
    time at the smallest acceptable f stop resulting in the same noise levels
    (different ISO settings requried, though). (It's interesting how many things
    scale if you look at the physics and geometry closely. P&S cameras are truly
    close analogs of their larger brethren.)

    So a competent photographer who needs DOF with a DSLR will get just as much
    DOF as a P&S user. But she has the option of using a high ISO with similar
    noise and shutter speed to the P&S at low ISO or a low ISO and a longer
    shutter speed for a higher quality image.

    > With many of the more modern cameras the auto-focus works well, and works
    > quickly. Yes, a DSLR may have even quicker auto-focus, but you may not
    > want the weight, bulk, cost and acoustic noise which accompanies a DSLR.


    Manual focus, which was the OP's question, is a bear on P&S cameras. Which
    he found out the hard way. Thus this thread.

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 19, 2006
    #13
  14. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"
    > <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> wrote:
    >> David J. Littleboy wrote:
    >> []
    >>> Focus is pretty hard with "real P&S" P&S cameras. If you include the
    >>> ZLRs/superzooms in that class, some of those have focus rings. But
    >>> manual focus is pretty iffy, except maybe for macro work on static
    >>> objects that aren't damaged by bright (hot) lights.
    >>>
    >>> David J. Littleboy
    >>> Tokyo, Japan

    >>
    >> Focus is pretty easy with "real P&S" P&S cameras. The depth of
    >> field is much greater, so that focus tolerances are much greater.

    >
    > Hey guy, wake up! You're asleep. This thread is about _MANUAL_
    > focusing.


    No, the thread is about unexpected lack of features in some non-DSLR
    cameras.

    > And manual focusing is a complete bear with P&S cameras. Seriously
    > not ready for prime time.


    As I said, there is less need.

    > Of course P&S AF has two problems that aren't going away any time
    > soon: it uses the sensor so it has to be slow, and it uses too large
    > an AF area combined with contrast-detection AF, so it latches onto
    > contrast in the background unless one is very careful. But without an
    > EVF, there's no way to be careful (unless one is really grossly
    > nearsighted, the LCD is too far away to see focus.) DSLR AF sytems
    > have fast dedicated sensors that are a smaller percentage of the
    > image area.


    Some non-DSLR cameras have extra sensors for focussing and do not rely on
    the image sensor for this function. Most of the non-DSLR cameras I have
    used have a foreground-priority mode of auto-focus, but with any
    auto-focus system (DSLR included) it's wise to check it's working as you
    intended.

    > By the way, you are wrong about the DOF being greater. The maximum
    > DOF at the smallest acceptable (wrt. diffraction considerations)
    > aperture is _exactly the same_ whatever the size of the sensor (for
    > the same pixel count). And although the numerical f stop will be
    > smaller with the larger format camera, the photons collected per
    > pixel will be the same per unit time at the smallest acceptable f
    > stop resulting in the same noise levels (different ISO settings
    > requried, though). (It's interesting how many things scale if you
    > look at the physics and geometry closely. P&S cameras are truly close
    > analogs of their larger brethren.)


    My observation is that the DOF is substantially greater on small-sensor
    cameras, under normal usage conditions. Small-sensor cameras operate at
    or near the diffraction limit much more often than large-sensor cameras,
    and of course operate with fewer photons per pixel. You argument may be
    correct form a physics viewpoint, but it does not reflect the reality of
    day-to-day camera operation.

    > So a competent photographer who needs DOF with a DSLR will get just
    > as much DOF as a P&S user. But she has the option of using a high ISO
    > with similar noise and shutter speed to the P&S at low ISO or a low
    > ISO and a longer shutter speed for a higher quality image.
    >
    >> With many of the more modern cameras the auto-focus works well, and
    >> works quickly. Yes, a DSLR may have even quicker auto-focus, but
    >> you may not want the weight, bulk, cost and acoustic noise which
    >> accompanies a DSLR.

    >
    > Manual focus, which was the OP's question, is a bear on P&S cameras.
    > Which he found out the hard way. Thus this thread.
    >
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    I though the OP was complaining about the lack of manual focus on the
    particular model he bought, not the difficulty of MF.

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 19, 2006
    #14
  15. "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote:
    >
    > Some non-DSLR cameras have extra sensors for focussing


    All of one. Great. Doesn't do a lot of people a lot of good.

    >> By the way, you are wrong about the DOF being greater. The maximum
    >> DOF at the smallest acceptable (wrt. diffraction considerations)
    >> aperture is _exactly the same_ whatever the size of the sensor (for
    >> the same pixel count). And although the numerical f stop will be
    >> smaller with the larger format camera, the photons collected per
    >> pixel will be the same per unit time at the smallest acceptable f
    >> stop resulting in the same noise levels (different ISO settings
    >> requried, though). (It's interesting how many things scale if you
    >> look at the physics and geometry closely. P&S cameras are truly close
    >> analogs of their larger brethren.)

    >
    > My observation is that the DOF is substantially greater on small-sensor
    > cameras, under normal usage conditions.


    Then you don't know how to use a DSLR.

    > Small-sensor cameras operate at or near the diffraction limit much more
    > often than large-sensor cameras, and of course operate with fewer photons
    > per pixel. You argument may be correct form a physics viewpoint, but it
    > does not reflect the reality of day-to-day camera operation.


    Sure it does; DSLR users know enough to set an appropriate f stop to get DOF
    _if we need/want it_. Sheesh, guy; film users get great DOF with their
    medium format and larger cameras, no problem whatsoever (although some of us
    cheat with the help of Professor Scheimplflug). Check out Ansel Adams' work
    some time.

    P&S cameras are diffraction limited beyond f/5.6, and APS-C is diffraction
    limited beyond f/11. Since ISO 100 on a bright day gives f/16 at 1/100,
    there's no problem whatsoever in getting just as much DOF. And, of course,
    ISO 400 on most APS-C cameras is as good or better as ISO 100 on current P&S
    cameras.

    What does happen in real life is that P&S users get busy distracting
    backgrounds in all their images because current P&S cameras (like the Fuji
    F30) have lenses that are very slow at the long end. The Canon G-series
    cameras (and some current superzoom/ZLR cameras) are quite fast at the long
    end and can take a decent portrait. But the OP bought a "real" P&S. Oops.

    >> So a competent photographer who needs DOF with a DSLR will get just
    >> as much DOF as a P&S user. But she has the option of using a high ISO
    >> with similar noise and shutter speed to the P&S at low ISO or a low
    >> ISO and a longer shutter speed for a higher quality image.
    >>
    >>> With many of the more modern cameras the auto-focus works well, and
    >>> works quickly. Yes, a DSLR may have even quicker auto-focus, but
    >>> you may not want the weight, bulk, cost and acoustic noise which
    >>> accompanies a DSLR.

    >>
    >> Manual focus, which was the OP's question, is a bear on P&S cameras.
    >> Which he found out the hard way. Thus this thread.

    >
    > I though the OP was complaining about the lack of manual focus on the
    > particular model he bought, not the difficulty of MF.


    My point is, of course, that decent manual focus in a P&S cameras isn't a
    combination you are going to get. (The manual focus systems on P&S cameras
    are all quite horrible compared to dSLRs.) They're not intended to do that
    sort of thing. Not much of a surprise, since they're intended to be P&S
    cameras, not tools for advanced photographers...

    David J. Littleboy
    Tokyo, Japan
    David J. Littleboy, Aug 19, 2006
    #15
  16. Guest

    Prometheus Guest

    In article <iNzFg.5594$>, David J
    Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk> writes
    >No, the thread is about unexpected lack of features in some non-DSLR
    >cameras.


    Surely it's about automatic only cameras lacking manual control,
    thinking more about this spurious complaint I find it odd; my old (and
    now duff) fully automatic film camera was just that. I purchased it for
    just that reason, and being much reduced in price. It served for when I
    did not want to carry the SLR in my bag. I begin to suspect we're
    feeding a troll.
    --
    Ian G8ILZ
    Prometheus, Aug 19, 2006
    #16
  17. David J. Littleboy wrote:
    > "David J Taylor"

    []
    >> My observation is that the DOF is substantially greater on
    >> small-sensor cameras, under normal usage conditions.

    >
    > Then you don't know how to use a DSLR.


    I have used non-D SLRs for over 20 years with a wide range of lenses, so I
    think I have a little idea.

    []
    > What does happen in real life is that P&S users get busy distracting
    > backgrounds in all their images because current P&S cameras (like the
    > Fuji F30) have lenses that are very slow at the long end. The Canon
    > G-series cameras (and some current superzoom/ZLR cameras) are quite
    > fast at the long end and can take a decent portrait. But the OP
    > bought a "real" P&S. Oops.


    Which really bring us back to the point of doing research before purchase,
    to avoid possible disappointment. I agree that because of the greater DOF
    of a small-sensor camera under typical usage conditions, the distracting
    backgrounds can be a problem, but this appears to conflict with your
    statement that the DOF was not different.

    []
    > My point is, of course, that decent manual focus in a P&S cameras
    > isn't a combination you are going to get. (The manual focus systems
    > on P&S cameras are all quite horrible compared to dSLRs.) They're not
    > intended to do that sort of thing. Not much of a surprise, since
    > they're intended to be P&S cameras, not tools for advanced
    > photographers...
    > David J. Littleboy
    > Tokyo, Japan


    I might also take issue that an "advanced" photographer /must/ use a DSLR
    to get good images, which is what you seem to be saying. Of course the
    DSLR allows greater control, and some brands of DSLR offer a substantial
    range of system accessories such as lens and flashguns. But in a lot of
    photographs which I regard as "excellent", there are many other factors
    besides technical quality which make them stand out. Many DSLR owners
    carry small-sensor cameras as well, and by learning how to make the best
    of the equipment at their disposal, enjoy the best of both worlds.

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 19, 2006
    #17
  18. Prometheus wrote:
    > In article <iNzFg.5594$>, David J
    > Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    > writes
    >> No, the thread is about unexpected lack of features in some non-DSLR
    >> cameras.

    >
    > Surely it's about automatic only cameras lacking manual control,
    > thinking more about this spurious complaint I find it odd; my old (and
    > now duff) fully automatic film camera was just that. I purchased it
    > for just that reason, and being much reduced in price. It served for
    > when I did not want to carry the SLR in my bag. I begin to suspect
    > we're feeding a troll.


    You might be right, Ian. At the very least, it suggests that someone
    didn't actually try out the camera in the shop before purchase.....

    David
    David J Taylor, Aug 19, 2006
    #18
  19. Guest

    Pete D Guest

    "David J Taylor" <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    wrote in message news:TOAFg.5603$...
    > Prometheus wrote:
    >> In article <iNzFg.5594$>, David J
    >> Taylor <-this-bit.nor-this-part.uk>
    >> writes
    >>> No, the thread is about unexpected lack of features in some non-DSLR
    >>> cameras.

    >>
    >> Surely it's about automatic only cameras lacking manual control,
    >> thinking more about this spurious complaint I find it odd; my old (and
    >> now duff) fully automatic film camera was just that. I purchased it
    >> for just that reason, and being much reduced in price. It served for
    >> when I did not want to carry the SLR in my bag. I begin to suspect
    >> we're feeding a troll.

    >
    > You might be right, Ian. At the very least, it suggests that someone
    > didn't actually try out the camera in the shop before purchase.....
    >
    > David


    Probably asked here, "Is this the best camera for my needs?".
    Pete D, Aug 19, 2006
    #19
  20. Guest

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sat, 19 Aug 2006 17:01:14 +0900, David J. Littleboy wrote:

    > By the way, you are wrong about the DOF being greater. The maximum DOF at
    > the smallest acceptable (wrt. diffraction considerations) aperture is
    > _exactly the same_ whatever the size of the sensor (for the same pixel
    > count). And although the numerical f stop will be smaller with the larger
    > format camera, the photons collected per pixel will be the same per unit
    > time at the smallest acceptable f stop resulting in the same noise levels
    > (different ISO settings requried, though). (It's interesting how many things
    > scale if you look at the physics and geometry closely. P&S cameras are truly
    > close analogs of their larger brethren.)


    Wow. Give you an opportunity to say "Mine is bigger, better,
    longer and more potent than yours" and you'll go for it every time.
    Meanwhile, although those very small apertures can give DSLRs a
    larger, more usable DOF, there are many situations where it would
    create problems, such as requiring a much slower shutter speed to
    get the right exposure when using f/22 or f/32. Not ideal when
    trying to cover a playing field with athletes near and far in rapid
    motion. So far you've resisted the urge to make really foolish
    claims, such as strenuously stating "If compared on a pixel per
    pixel basis, DSLRs are actually smaller and lighter than P&S
    cameras". Keep trying, although resistance may be futile.


    > Manual focus, which was the OP's question, is a bear on P&S cameras.
    > Which he found out the hard way. Thus this thread.


    Uh, no. He didn't find out that MF is difficult with his Nikon
    L4. What he said was "and why can't focus be manual", implying that
    the L4 *can't* focus manually. And your general statement is way
    too glib. I agree that MF is a bear on *some* P&S cameras. Mine is
    one of them. But I've tried other P&S cameras where manual focusing
    is far easier, quicker and much more precise. You might still
    prefer your DSLR's manual focusing, but while your attention was
    focused elsewhere, P&S cameras have learned some new tricks that are
    apparently beyond the comprehension of some of our older dogs. :)
    ASAAR, Aug 19, 2006
    #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. Taquin Noel

    can somebody guide me through this step by step?

    Taquin Noel, Dec 25, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    589
  2. Glenallan

    Step By Step Instructions

    Glenallan, Dec 27, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    15
    Views:
    1,597
  3. Richard
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    767
    Brian The Demolition Man Little
    Aug 19, 2004
  4. ritpg

    A Step Backward???

    ritpg, Dec 6, 2007, in forum: DVD Video
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    516
    StickThatInYourPipeAndSmokeIt
    Dec 7, 2007
  5. Mike

    New Download Manager - a backward step?

    Mike, Feb 20, 2011, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    1,398
    Dave Warren
    Feb 21, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page