Re: P&S cameras exist for one reason

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SMS, Nov 9, 2008.

  1. SMS

    SMS Guest

    RichA wrote:
    > Because users of them are congenitally lazy people. Same can be said for
    > nearly every "labour saving" device ever invented. If these weren't lazy,
    > they'd put up with the extra EFFORT needed to shoot with a DSLR and marvel
    > at the vast quality increase instead of crying about "wanting to put it in
    > their pocket."


    Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
    utmost importance compared to convenience.

    There's a good web site with the trade-offs of D-SLR versus P&S at
    "http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps".
     
    SMS, Nov 9, 2008
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. SMS

    SMS Guest

    Alfred Molon wrote:
    > In article <ntDRk.3351$>, SMS says...
    >
    >> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
    >> utmost importance compared to convenience.

    >
    > Or because for most purposes the image quality of P&S cameras is good
    > enough.


    Yeah, that too. Though it is rather bad that those same people were
    taking far better photos in the olden days with a film P&S. No shutter
    lag, very good low light performance, no constant worrying about batteries.
     
    SMS, Nov 9, 2008
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. SMS

    J. Clarke Guest

    SMS wrote:
    > RichA wrote:
    >> Because users of them are congenitally lazy people. Same can be
    >> said for nearly every "labour saving" device ever invented. If
    >> these weren't lazy, they'd put up with the extra EFFORT needed to
    >> shoot with a DSLR and marvel at the vast quality increase instead
    >> of
    >> crying about "wanting to put it in their pocket."

    >
    > Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
    > utmost importance compared to convenience.
    >
    > There's a good web site with the trade-offs of D-SLR versus P&S at
    > "http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps".


    Well, there's a web site. How good it is is debatable. Some of it is
    pure opinion--he for example steers people away from P&S with high
    pixel density and makes assertions about the size of print that can be
    achieved that are at variance with blind tests conducted by another
    photographer.

    He would be more credible if he supported his arguments with evidence
    rather than just making assertions.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 9, 2008
    #3
  4. SMS

    J. Clarke Guest

    SMS wrote:
    > Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article <ntDRk.3351$>, SMS says...
    >>
    >>> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
    >>> utmost importance compared to convenience.

    >>
    >> Or because for most purposes the image quality of P&S cameras is
    >> good
    >> enough.

    >
    > Yeah, that too. Though it is rather bad that those same people were
    > taking far better photos in the olden days with a film P&S. No
    > shutter
    > lag, very good low light performance, no constant worrying about
    > batteries.


    Do you have some examples that prove this or are you just repeating
    something that you read on a Web site?

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 9, 2008
    #4
  5. SMS

    ArlanAdams Guest

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 08:21:09 -0800, SMS <> wrote:

    >Alfred Molon wrote:
    >> In article <ntDRk.3351$>, SMS says...
    >>
    >>> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
    >>> utmost importance compared to convenience.

    >>
    >> Or because for most purposes the image quality of P&S cameras is good
    >> enough.

    >
    >Yeah, that too. Though it is rather bad that those same people were
    >taking far better photos in the olden days with a film P&S. No shutter
    >lag, very good low light performance, no constant worrying about batteries.


    Many points outlined below completely disprove your usual resident-troll
    bullshit. You can either read it and educate yourself, or don't read it and
    continue to prove to everyone that you are nothing but a virtual-photographer
    newsgroup-troll and a fool.


    1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
    existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
    wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
    of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
    gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
    range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
    larger format cameras.

    2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
    DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
    high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
    aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
    their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
    180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
    DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
    to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
    edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
    seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
    up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.

    3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
    sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
    APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
    http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

    4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
    used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
    Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
    easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
    allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
    only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
    glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
    done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
    to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
    investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
    flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
    outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
    purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.

    5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
    small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
    pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
    pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
    pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
    backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
    stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
    lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
    inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.

    6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
    will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
    and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
    alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
    is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
    wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
    photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.

    7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
    allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
    response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
    capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
    evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
    need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
    areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
    back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
    photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
    or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
    that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
    laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
    CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
    list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

    8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
    http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
    motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
    artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
    their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
    distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
    DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)

    9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
    of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
    http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_&_Flash-Sync without
    the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
    must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
    frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
    light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
    used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
    flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
    is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
    capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
    lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
    1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
    second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
    don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
    be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
    compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
    http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

    10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
    limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
    (focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
    http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
    do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
    from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
    mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
    repair costs, etc.

    11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
    environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
    vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
    worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
    shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
    not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
    gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
    longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
    carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
    much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
    bricks.

    12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
    required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
    destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
    planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
    be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.

    13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
    recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
    still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
    the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
    P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
    chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
    the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
    the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
    there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
    Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
    P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
    valuable part of human history one day.

    14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
    image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
    trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
    overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
    other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
    you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
    do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
    external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
    shot when it happens.

    15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
    settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
    that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
    drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
    using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
    capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
    well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
    without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
    with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
    myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
    stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
    come from.)

    16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
    silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
    nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
    mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
    nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
    reality and nature.

    17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
    degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
    inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
    EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
    electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
    subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
    biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

    18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
    popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
    slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
    In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
    their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
    auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
    faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
    if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
    any camera.

    19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
    the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
    what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
    1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
    of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
    your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
    truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
    use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
    studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
    cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
    amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
    Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
    time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
    lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
    instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
    realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
    wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

    20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
    background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
    own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
    front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
    Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
    has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
    (which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
    by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
    No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
    methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.

    21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
    just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
    and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
    go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
    larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
    when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
    those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
    images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
    at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
    need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
    some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
    ISO1600 and more.

    22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
    determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
    $100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
    have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
    a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
    photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
    either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
    camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
    themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
    year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
    better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
    company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
    make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
    begin with. The irony is that by them thinking that they only need to throw
    money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
    problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
    self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
    them their piss-poor photography skills.

    23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
    photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
    They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
    them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
    face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
    sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
    can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
    on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.

    24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
    the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
    ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
    photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
    and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
    that you'll lug it around again some day.

    25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
    advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
    like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
    DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
    needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
    should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
    inexpensive to replace.

    There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
    enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
    better, all around. No doubt about it.

    The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
    one short phrase:

    "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
    foolish thing."
     
    ArlanAdams, Nov 9, 2008
    #5
  6. SMS

    Bill Grisham Guest

    On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 11:47:04 -0500, "J. Clarke" <> wrote:

    >SMS wrote:
    >> RichA wrote:
    >>> Because users of them are congenitally lazy people. Same can be
    >>> said for nearly every "labour saving" device ever invented. If
    >>> these weren't lazy, they'd put up with the extra EFFORT needed to
    >>> shoot with a DSLR and marvel at the vast quality increase instead
    >>> of
    >>> crying about "wanting to put it in their pocket."

    >>
    >> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
    >> utmost importance compared to convenience.
    >>
    >> There's a good web site with the trade-offs of D-SLR versus P&S at
    >> "http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps".

    >
    >Well, there's a web site. How good it is is debatable. Some of it is
    >pure opinion--he for example steers people away from P&S with high
    >pixel density and makes assertions about the size of print that can be
    >achieved that are at variance with blind tests conducted by another
    >photographer.
    >
    >He would be more credible if he supported his arguments with evidence
    >rather than just making assertions.
    >
    >--


    He lost all credibility when I read this: "He has photographed over 800 weddings
    and other life events, as well as doing studio photography."

    Taking photography and camera advice from a remedial wedding photographer is
    like taking advice about driving from Mr. McGoo.

    He doesn't even realize that largest apertures at longest focal lengths are only
    the realm of the high-quality P&S camera. The guy knows nothing.

    No wonder that the resident DSLR trolls here would find this in any way a
    reference source, as they too know nothing.
     
    Bill Grisham, Nov 9, 2008
    #6
  7. SMS

    ASAAR Guest

    On Sun, 9 Nov 2008 11:47:04 -0500, J. Clarke wrote:

    >> There's a good web site with the trade-offs of D-SLR versus P&S at

    > "http://www.freewebs.com/dslrversusps".
    >
    > Well, there's a web site. How good it is is debatable. Some of it is
    > pure opinion--he for example steers people away from P&S with high
    > pixel density and makes assertions about the size of print that can be
    > achieved that are at variance with blind tests conducted by another
    > photographer.
    >
    > He would be more credible if he supported his arguments with evidence
    > rather than just making assertions.


    The layout and content on this website strongly resembles that on
    SMS's other websites. The language, biases, camera recommendations
    as well as the proclamation of features that are "essential" and the
    need to stick with Canon or Nikon is pure SMS, lifted unchanged from
    his newsgroup replies. The bogus assertion :

    > All the experts agree that a D-SLR is the only choice when image
    > quality is your primary concern.


    has been challenged often by experts. One was made recently by
    Michael Reichmann, favorably comparing Canon G10's low ISO detail
    with that of medium format cameras. It's also quite odd that in the
    "About the Author" section :

    > The Digital Camera Academician is professional photographer who
    > has been shooting professionally since 1980. He has photographed
    > over 800 weddings and other life events, as well as doing studio photography.


    that this "pro" doesn't identify himself, giving himself a title
    intended to imply that he is another expert, self proclaimed just as
    SMS identifies himself as a battery expert (who often lacks or
    forgets basic battery knowledge). Also odd is that this wedding and
    studio pro wouldn't provide a link for anyone that might be
    interested in his seeing examples of his work or even hiring him.
    No, I'm afraid that this is most likely just another of SMS's
    "expert" sock puppet websites.
     
    ASAAR, Nov 9, 2008
    #7
  8. SMS

    SMS Guest

    J. Clarke wrote:
    > SMS wrote:
    >> Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>> In article <ntDRk.3351$>, SMS says...
    >>>
    >>>> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always of
    >>>> utmost importance compared to convenience.
    >>> Or because for most purposes the image quality of P&S cameras is
    >>> good
    >>> enough.

    >> Yeah, that too. Though it is rather bad that those same people were
    >> taking far better photos in the olden days with a film P&S. No
    >> shutter
    >> lag, very good low light performance, no constant worrying about
    >> batteries.

    >
    > Do you have some examples that prove this or are you just repeating
    > something that you read on a Web site?


    Not from a web site, from people bitching about their digital point and
    shoot cameras, usually parents of young or teenage kids, upset about the
    crappy images they're getting at birthday parties, school sporting
    events, etc., or complaining about how quickly the batteries run out.
    They were much happier bringing their film to Costco and getting prints
    back two days later for $4. Now if they want prints, it's more of a
    hassle than it was in the past to do the uploading or take the memory
    card into the store.

    When they see how good the images are, of the same events or sporting
    event, from my D-SLR, they're amazed. For the school sports, I just
    upload them to a web site at full resolution, and give them the URL.
     
    SMS, Nov 9, 2008
    #8
  9. On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 10:32:03 -0800, SMS <> wrote:

    >They were much happier bringing their film to Costco and getting prints
    >back two days later for $4. Now if they want prints, it's more of a
    >hassle than it was in the past to do the uploading or take the memory
    >card into the store.


    I fail to see how buying a DSLR is going to alleviate this HUGE set-back of
    theirs. In fact, if they are this brain-dead then buying a DSLR and trying to
    match the right lens to their camera is going to dumbfound them to no end even
    more.

    Do try to not be so blatantly obvious in your trollish DSLR propaganda bullshit.

    That's a good boy.

    Thanks.

    Your mother is calling you from upstairs on the first floor. I think she wants
    another sponge-bath from you.
     
    stevenstamford, Nov 9, 2008
    #9
  10. SMS

    J. Clarke Guest

    SMS wrote:
    > J. Clarke wrote:
    >> SMS wrote:
    >>> Alfred Molon wrote:
    >>>> In article <ntDRk.3351$>, SMS
    >>>> says...
    >>>>
    >>>>> Oh please, P&S cameras exist because image quality isn't always
    >>>>> of
    >>>>> utmost importance compared to convenience.
    >>>> Or because for most purposes the image quality of P&S cameras is
    >>>> good
    >>>> enough.
    >>> Yeah, that too. Though it is rather bad that those same people
    >>> were
    >>> taking far better photos in the olden days with a film P&S. No
    >>> shutter
    >>> lag, very good low light performance, no constant worrying about
    >>> batteries.

    >>
    >> Do you have some examples that prove this or are you just repeating
    >> something that you read on a Web site?

    >
    > Not from a web site, from people bitching about their digital point
    > and shoot cameras, usually parents of young or teenage kids, upset
    > about the crappy images they're getting at birthday parties, school
    > sporting events, etc., or complaining about how quickly the
    > batteries
    > run out.


    Now, is the crappiness the result of anything inherent in the camera
    or is it that they can't manage something of that complexity when
    they're used to simply shoving in a roll of film and clicking the
    shutter?

    > They were much happier bringing their film to Costco and
    > getting prints back two days later for $4. Now if they want prints,
    > it's more of a hassle than it was in the past to do the uploading or
    > take the memory card into the store.
    >
    > When they see how good the images are, of the same events or
    > sporting
    > event, from my D-SLR, they're amazed. For the school sports, I just
    > upload them to a web site at full resolution, and give them the URL.


    One suspects that if they had your DSLR they'd still get crappy
    results.

    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 9, 2008
    #10
  11. SMS

    SMS Guest

    J. Clarke wrote:

    > Now, is the crappiness the result of anything inherent in the camera
    > or is it that they can't manage something of that complexity when
    > they're used to simply shoving in a roll of film and clicking the
    > shutter?


    Yes, and yes.

    They were used to photography where you stuck in a roll of film and
    clicked the shutter, and got pretty good results, even in relatively
    poor lighting. The technology allowed this. Now, getting the equivalent
    results is a lot more complicated.

    A novice going from a $700 film SLR to a $700 digital SLR is going to be
    a lot happier with the results than someone going from a $200 film P&S
    to a $200 digital P&S. OTOH, they're likely to be using the digital
    camera a lot more, because they're not having to pay to print every shot.

    I don't think anyone would disagree that PHD digital P&S cameras will
    usually give poorer results than PHD P&S film cameras in low light, or
    unusual light.
     
    SMS, Nov 9, 2008
    #11
  12. SMS

    TaylorBAdams Guest

    On Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:24:25 -0800, SMS <> wrote:

    >J. Clarke wrote:
    >
    >> Now, is the crappiness the result of anything inherent in the camera
    >> or is it that they can't manage something of that complexity when
    >> they're used to simply shoving in a roll of film and clicking the
    >> shutter?

    >
    >Yes, and yes.
    >
    >They were used to photography where you stuck in a roll of film and
    >clicked the shutter, and got pretty good results, even in relatively
    >poor lighting. The technology allowed this. Now, getting the equivalent
    >results is a lot more complicated.
    >
    >A novice going from a $700 film SLR to a $700 digital SLR is going to be
    >a lot happier with the results than someone going from a $200 film P&S
    >to a $200 digital P&S. OTOH, they're likely to be using the digital
    >camera a lot more, because they're not having to pay to print every shot.
    >
    >I don't think anyone would disagree that PHD digital P&S cameras will
    >usually give poorer results than PHD P&S film cameras in low light, or
    >unusual light.


    How nice that he has so much experience to speak for every camera owner that
    ever lived about every camera ever made.

    What a fuckin' useless usenet troll.


    LOL
     
    TaylorBAdams, Nov 9, 2008
    #12
  13. SMS

    J. Clarke Guest

    SMS wrote:
    > J. Clarke wrote:
    >
    >> Now, is the crappiness the result of anything inherent in the
    >> camera
    >> or is it that they can't manage something of that complexity when
    >> they're used to simply shoving in a roll of film and clicking the
    >> shutter?

    >
    > Yes, and yes.
    >
    > They were used to photography where you stuck in a roll of film and
    > clicked the shutter, and got pretty good results, even in relatively
    > poor lighting. The technology allowed this. Now, getting the
    > equivalent results is a lot more complicated.
    >
    > A novice going from a $700 film SLR to a $700 digital SLR is going
    > to
    > be a lot happier with the results than someone going from a $200
    > film
    > P&S to a $200 digital P&S. OTOH, they're likely to be using the
    > digital camera a lot more, because they're not having to pay to
    > print
    > every shot.


    Uh, how many film P&S with lenses faster than, say, f/5.6 were sold
    for under $200? I don't remember any film P&S being particularly good
    in low light--indoors I don't care what I put in the ones I had they
    still needed flash if I was to get a usable result indoors.

    > I don't think anyone would disagree that PHD digital P&S cameras
    > will
    > usually give poorer results than PHD P&S film cameras in low light,
    > or
    > unusual light.


    Can you give an example of a "PHD digital P&S" and a "PHD P&S film
    camera"? I'm not coming up with anything that used 35mm film (or APS
    for that matter) that had both autoeverything and a lens fast enough
    that 800 speed film could be used indoors without a flash.


    --
    --
    --John
    to email, dial "usenet" and validate
    (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)
     
    J. Clarke, Nov 10, 2008
    #13
    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. Robert Blackwell

    Access Point (not router) with mac filtering, does one exist?

    Robert Blackwell, Aug 30, 2004, in forum: Wireless Networking
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    664
    Sooner Al
    Aug 31, 2004
  2. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Mar 31, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    438
    Mark B.
    Apr 1, 2007
  3. wagwheel

    Cameras--Cameras--Cameras

    wagwheel, Apr 1, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    422
    Ken Lucke
    Apr 1, 2007
  4. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    997
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  5. RichA
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    301
    Bruce
    Dec 30, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page