A dSLR's fastest shutter-speed is really no faster than its flash-sync speed.

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by SelfImporantName, Jul 7, 2007.

  1. SelfImporantName

    SMS Guest

    Well you can get the conversion lenses for many P&S cameras, though
    these are not great. Of course they are no faster, and while you can get
    both wide-angle and telephoto converters for the better P&S cameras, the
    optical quality is not great.

    There really is no alternative to a D-SLR at this time. While it'd be
    possible to build a larger sensor point and shoot, essentially a D-SLR
    without the ability to swap lenses), there is really no point in doing
    this other than the elimination of dust contamination. The D-SLR is so
    far superior in so many ways, that the obsession with flash sync speed
    is puzzling.
    SMS, Jul 11, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. dj_nme wrote:
    Different small-sensor cameras behave differently at low light levels. Of
    the three I have to hand, the Panasonic FZ5 does not "gain-up", the Ricoh
    R5 has moderate "gain-up", and the Nikon 8400 has full "gain-up". This is
    a feature you might rate as important if low light level shooting is your

    While the best SLR lenses are f/1.4, the typical kit-zooms are f/5.6 at
    their telephoto end. We have an FZ20, and its f/2.8 Leica lens is a
    delight to use. You do, of course, have to pay more for the large
    aperture zooms which a DSLR uses, and they have a significant size and
    weight penalty. If you want f/1.4, you are stuck with a single focal
    length or the time penalty of changing lenses and perhaps missing shots.

    Depending on your needs and priorities, you choose the camera you want.
    There is no one "correct" camera type.

    David J Taylor, Jul 11, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. When I wrote "finer control" I did not mean to imply "more accurate". The
    quality of the image in many EVFs is quite poor, and does not allow such
    "fine" framing as a DSLR does. You are quite right that the DSLR will
    typically not show 100% of the actual image, but this can also happen with
    small-sensor cameras (as the number of pixels in the viewfinder is
    limited). I was also meaning that the mechanical direct control of zoom
    offered a "finer control" of framing than push-buttons, although this is a
    lens and not a viewfinder issue.

    I do not understand the obsession some people have with a direct optical
    finder on a small-sensor camera, with all the problems of zoom and
    parallax they can bring.

    Have you any examples of changing lenses affecting the accuracy of an SLR

    David J Taylor, Jul 11, 2007
  4. SelfImporantName

    Bill Funk Guest

    I don't understand this.
    If the glass piece in the viewfinder is at the right distance for one
    lens, it will be at the right distance for all lenses, as it's the
    same distance as the sensor, and doesn't move.
    I've never seen a complaint that the mirror shifts around as you
    imply, either; it's either right, or broken.
    You also imply that all P&S cameras use EVFs; obviously, this isn't


    Al Gore's son was pulled over by police on the
    San Diego Freeway Tuesday with marijuana, Valium,
    Xanax and Vicodin on him. The kid never had a
    chance. He got hooked on downers at an early
    age listening to his father read him bedtime
    Bill Funk, Jul 11, 2007
  5. SelfImporantName

    ASAAR Guest

    To better understand, consider this :

    **** CHDK / Photoline 32 / anti-DSLR Sock Puppet Troll List ****
    ASAAR, Jul 11, 2007
  6. SelfImporantName

    dj_nme Guest

    Conversion lenses are a bit of kludge and the very best ones cost almost
    as much some SLR lenses.
    If you can't change the lens attached to your camera, then they're the
    only game in town and better than absolutely nothing.
    Even the idea that P&S cameras are immune to dust is more than a little
    suspect, any device which telescopes in and out will also draw dirt and
    grit into it's mechanism.
    dj_nme, Jul 11, 2007
  7. SelfImporantName

    dj_nme Guest

    DSLR cameras are not "he only game in town".
    There are also DRF cameras (made by Epson and Leica) which could easily
    compete against the best of the DSLR cameras.
    P&S cameras require so many kludges and work-arounds to match the
    versatility of even the most basic of DSLR camera systems that I find
    your suggestions extreemly amusing.
    dj_nme, Jul 11, 2007
  8. It does depend on what you need to photograph, and how you need to display
    the image. For prints up to, say, A4 size (or 8 x 10 inches), a 5MP or
    greater camera may be quite acceptable, and the image quality of the
    better small cameras can be very good.

    If you are shooting under typical outdoor conditions, or bright indoor
    conditions (e.g. small room with flash), a small-sensor camera may produce
    results as good as a DSLR. If you must have a compact, lightweight
    camera, and need good telephoto coverage (up to 300-400mm focal length
    [35mm eq.]), something in the Canon or Panasonic range with image
    stabilisation will be difficult to beat. A DSLR isn't going to fit into
    your purse.

    David J Taylor, Jul 11, 2007
  9. SelfImporantName

    ASAAR Guest

    Watch out. Ken Rockwell got into quite a lot of trouble here when
    he said the same thing. ($150 P&S vs $5000 DSLR) :)

    That sure won't fly. I have as many purses as I have sow's ears.
    But do tell us, how large is your purse, and how often do you use it
    to carry your small P&S? <g>

    "Is that a P&S or are you happy to see me?" -- Mae West

    (Warning: not to be read aloud!)
    ASAAR, Jul 11, 2007
  10. SelfImporantName

    email Guest

    Where did you get the idea that all zoom lenses on all P&S cameras telescope in
    and out? Some of the better long-zoom P&S cameras used fixed barrel lengths in
    well-sealed housings and only move the lens elements internally, resulting in
    zero change in inner and outer air-pressure differentials. I personally made
    that a selection criteria when choosing mine because of the harsh environments
    that I would need to use it in.

    I swear, you people stuck in DSLR brainless-land really need to do your research
    before you start slamming P&S cameras. You keep making fools of yourselves
    incessantly. Its easy to see now why you choose DSLRs over other cameras, none
    of you can think for yourselves let alone make any intelligent decisions on your
    own. I can only imagine how piss poor your photography skills must be.
    email, Jul 12, 2007
  11. SelfImporantName

    John Sheehy Guest

    Well, I was thinking of a slave or a manual flash. I can use 3rd-party
    manual flash with my FZ50 at 1/2000. I can bounce it over my shoulder with
    a magenta filter on it and get a saturated RAW exposure at ISO 100 (the
    magenta light means the noise doesn't have any chromatic bias in the deep

    John Sheehy, Jul 12, 2007
  12. SelfImporantName

    John Sheehy Guest

    Great, if you like highlights with a 1:1 SNR.

    John Sheehy, Jul 12, 2007
  13. SelfImporantName

    John Sheehy Guest

    Wow; that must be one heavy lens. The f/2.8 300mm lenses weigh enough.
    My P&S has a FOV equivalent to 300mm on an APS DSLR, and the IS combined
    with the lack of mirror slap is good enough to hand-hold at "shutter
    speeds" impossible with an APS DSLR and a 300mm IS lens.
    I would think that sharpness would be pretty low without any lens to
    focus light.
    That's nice, but it is actually quite easy to make a lens that is sharp
    at a range of focal lengths and can achieve close focus with a tiny
    sensor, and close-up diopters can get even closer focus.
    Great, I have 4 DSLRs waiting here for when I'm ready, about 20 lenses,
    Speedlights and a master, remote releases with timers and intervalic
    capabilities, a better beamer, etc. They're a little worn out, though.

    John Sheehy, Jul 12, 2007
  14. SelfImporantName

    dj_nme Guest

    Unless you're writing about a camera desgined to be used underwater,
    none of the P&S cameras currently made have an optical zoom have a fixed
    lens-barrel permanently set at one length.
    Even the smallest of them have a lens which telescopes out from the body
    when the camera is turned on and vary in length as the lens is zoomed in
    and out.
    I can make just as sweeping and ridiculous as you can.
    You can continue to make outrageous and exaggerated claims about the
    benefits of P&S cameras, meanwhile I will laugh heartily at your naivety.

    I have the advantage over you in that I have actually owned and used a
    variety of P&S, "prosumer P&S" and DSLR cameras which I can actually
    compared their performance and while comparing them to what's available
    today draw a resonable conclusion as to their true usefulness, strengths
    and weaknesses.
    Most of the P&S cameras fall down quite badly in low-light situations,
    in both focusing ability and image quality, hunting for focus badly and
    producing very noisy images.
    Low light is where it's at, and P&S cameras (except maybe the Sony
    DSC-R1, because of it's large sensor size) just aint there.
    dj_nme, Jul 12, 2007
  15. SelfImporantName

    dj_nme Guest

    Go on then, sage of all wisdom (this is sarcasm) and font of all
    knowledge: how would a P&S be able to do any different?
    The physics of bouncing light off objects does not change with the
    sensor size of the camera.
    dj_nme, Jul 12, 2007
  16. The only difference is that you're just ridiculous and what he posted is not.
    The Sony Cybershot F-series cameras all had, or have, fixed length zoom lenses
    that are sealed from the elements. These are not underwater cameras. Just
    high-quality P&S cameras whose images often surpass those that can be obtained
    with a DSLR. And any of the Canon Powershot series can have a filter-adapter
    mounted on the front. Which is usually left on the camera once you get one.
    Putting a protective UV or Daylight filter on that effectively makes it a
    fixed-length sealed zoom lens that keeps the camera from exchanging any air with
    the outside world as it telescopes in or out.

    The other poster was also correct in other regards too. You DSLR owners and
    supporters appear to be less educated and experienced, while you dearly love
    making public fools of yourselves at every turn.
    GilfordBrimly, Jul 12, 2007
  17. SelfImporantName

    ASAAR Guest

    Ah, yet another ersatz krelboyne to add to the newly revised

    **** CHDK / Photoline 32 / anti-DSLR Sock Puppet Troll List ****
    ASAAR, Jul 12, 2007
  18. SelfImporantName

    ASAAR Guest

    The only difference is that dj_nme isn't a sock puppet troll and
    you are, so . . .

    Yet another ersatz krelboyne is added to the newly revised

    **** CHDK / Photoline 32 / anti-DSLR Sock Puppet Troll List ****
    ASAAR, Jul 12, 2007
  19. SelfImporantName

    dj_nme Guest

    Do you mind if purloin your list of puppets for my killfile?
    Thanks in advance :)
    dj_nme, Jul 12, 2007
  20. SelfImporantName

    dj_nme Guest

    For the picture he posted on that webpage, it appeared to not too far
    from the truth.
    But then again, the size of the webshot image is a bit too small to see
    if there would be any difference if printed out at 200ppi.
    Depends how hard you throw it and how strong the updraft is ;-p
    Have you seen the size of fashionable handbags these days?
    Some of them are bigger than my "walk around" DSLR kit bag!
    So, using the "does it fit into a handbag?" as one of the critea for
    choosing a digicam, then almost anything short of a medium format camera
    with a tethered back could qualify.
    dj_nme, Jul 12, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.