Decent alternative to dslr?

On Nov 5, 5:51 pm, GregoryJackson <gregjack....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
> I would have bothered to help with specifics but as you can see, all the
> insecure DSLR purchasers just can't wait to find another excuse
(mumble)
> Now watch another brigade of insecure DSLR owners
(mumble)

I mostly shoot with a prosumer.. but I can still recognise 'Greg' as
the cowardly-name-changing idiot who was traumatised at childbirth by
someone wielding a DSLR. He might have posted some useful stuff
above.. but I suspect most, like me, spotted him at the first sentence
and didn't read on. But he should keep putting a lot of effort into
those posts, and abusing people who use better equipment than him for
reasons that he cannot comprehend - for it keeps him off the streets..

As for an ontopic response - you have received some good advice and
suggestions of potential cameras to meet your needs, so I won't bother
adding to it. But maybe you should hang on to that DSLR just in case
you find the noise levels, or perhaps AF speed, of your p&s doesn't
quite cut it.

For many users, a p&s or prosumer will give excellent results (and
there are some folks, like 'Gregory' above, who can't handle anything
better...), and for possibly 80% of general photogrpahy they are
indeed more convenient and will give results very similar to a DSLR.

But there are reasons dslrs exist, and are popular.

(One dullard won't change that, 'Greg', no matter how many different
identities he *needs* to pretend he has..)
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

RichA wrote:
> An SLR with 100 speed film and a good film scanner?
>

Let's see Rich, he wants small, a film SLR is as large as a DSLR or
larger, he wants as low noise at iso 800 as possible, you suggest iso 100.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

On Nov 5, 9:49 pm, samuel sharington <spambloc....TakeThisOut@noaddress.org>
wrote:
(mumble)

'samuel' is of course just another id for 'Gregory'...

So I repeat:
'Greg/Samuel' is the cowardly-name-changing idiot who was traumatised
at childbirth by someone wielding a DSLR. sam/Greg should keep
putting a lot of effort into those posts, and keep abusing people who
use better equipment than him for reasons that he cannot comprehend -
for it keeps him off the streets..

For many users, a p&s or prosumer will give excellent results (and
there are some folks, like Sam/Greg above/below, who can't handle
anything better...), and for possibly 80% of general photography they
are
indeed more convenient and will give results very similar to a DSLR.
But there are reasons dslrs exist, and are popular. Just as there are
medium format cameras, large format...

Can you explain why those formats exist, 'sam/Greg'?

One dullard won't change the facts, 'Greg/sam', no matter how many
different identities you *need* to pretend you have.. And thanks for
*proving* you are a gutless nobody who not only hasn't the courage to
post any images, but needs to create fake identities because no-one
seems to take him seriously.

Golly, I wonder why...
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

I would have bothered to help with specifics but as you can see, all the
insecure DSLR purchasers just can't wait to find another excuse to try to
convince someone else to follow them down the same bottomless money-pit that
they fell down long ago, because some idiot convinced them to do the same.

As soon as anyone suggests a P&S camera that is not only as good as or better
than their DSLRs they just can't handle that FACT. They'll come up with any
excuse that they can to try to justify why that particular camera isn't as good
as their DSLR. Rather than give them ammunition by stating a particular make and
model--they hate that because they are then forced to research all the better
P&S cameras themselves, which they'll never do, they don't want to know they are
dead wrong--here's some generic advice.

Your best bet will be to research all the reviews. Study any resolution tests.
In doing so you'll find that many of them easily beat any of the DSLRs. Also
don't be so dedicated to that optical viewfinder requirement. That will greatly
expand your options to find many models that are as good as or better than
DSLRs. With practice and with learning some new techniques you'll find out that
a decent EVF is many times better than any OVF that you've ever used. I looked
through all my SLR equipment the other week, I just couldn't believe I was
putting up with such a dim display all those years. Not to mention that no
matter what optical viewfinder you use it is not 100% accurate framing of your
subject. An EVF is 100% accurate. I vow to never go back to the limitations and
framing errors of an optical viewfinder. Not after I've grown so accustomed to
EVFs that automatically increase the gain in dim lights, display live
histograms, slow-shutter-speed effects showing you exactly what motion blur in
water will look like, the EVF matching the shutter speed you select, and more
benefits that no optical viewfinder can ever provide. What you gain in an EVF
makes it easy to give up any advantage that you once thought you had with an
optical viewfinder.

Some other hints -- Don't discount earlier makes and models. Some of the Fuji
P&S cameras easily match the low-noise high-ISOs of any DSLR made today.

Some other earlier brands of P&S cameras even have Zeiss zoom lenses with f/2.0
and titanium bodies, before all the companies got caught up in the mega-pixel
race. You can find many high-quality P&S cameras around the 5 to 8 megapixel
range from 3-4 years ago that have equal or better image quality than today's
models, including DSLRs

Now watch another brigade of insecure DSLR owners insist on trying to prove why
they wasted all that money on their choice in cameras....




On Sun, 4 Nov 2007 13:59:03, "Henry" wrote:

>Hi
>
>
>First, let me pre-empt the flame brigade by saying that I *have* done a lot
>of on-line research in an attempt to reach a decision - but I'd like some
>thoughts from people who might have hands-on experience.
>
>I've been using dslrs for about three years now - or rather *not* using
>them because I very often just can't face all the hassle of carting the
>necessary paraphernalia around with me.
>
>I know all the IQ advantages of a dslr over a P&S but I 'd still like
>something easily transportable and generally less 'fussy'
>
>So my question is, which is the *best* non-dslr camera out there below 500
>GBP??
>
>I'd define *best* for my purposes as
>
>1 - image quality - the lowest noise possible up to 800 iso
>
>2 - features - optical viewfinder is a must-have as much manual control as
>possible, decent lens.
>
>3 - size - doesn't have to be 'micro' but generally small and easy to carry
>around.
>
>4 - build quality - as rugged as possible
>
>Brand is unimportant.
>
>Any thoughts or personal recommendations would be appreciated.
>
>TIA Henry
>
>
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

Henry wrote:
>
> 2 - features - optical viewfinder is a must-have as much manual
> control as possible, decent lens.

I'm interested why an optical VF is a must-have?

True, the electronic VF in my Olympus C-770 is a complete waste of time for
manually focusing on a subject, so if manual focus is an issue, it makes
sense (if it works better with an optical VF - I don't know).

OTOH, having a histogram in the viewfinder is brilliant - something the DSLR
brigade seem not to appreciate.
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

Wilba wrote:
> Henry wrote:
>>
>> 2 - features - optical viewfinder is a must-have as much manual
>> control as possible, decent lens.
>
> I'm interested why an optical VF is a must-have?
>
> True, the electronic VF in my Olympus C-770 is a complete waste of
> time for manually focusing on a subject, so if manual focus is an
> issue, it makes sense (if it works better with an optical VF - I
> don't know).
> OTOH, having a histogram in the viewfinder is brilliant - something
> the DSLR brigade seem not to appreciate.

We must have different needs! In ten years of owning digital cameras,
most of which have the live histogram facility, I cannot ever recall once
using it! Yes, I've looked at the histogram after taking on occasions,
but never when taking. Perhaps I've been lucky with the built-in metering
systems, or perhaps year of taking slide photos has given me a feel for
how to expose. Consequently, it's not something I've missed in a DSLR.

I've also found the auto-focus adequate most of the time, and not missed
manual focus on my compact cameras (I have played with manual focus on at
least one compact camera). I have found manual focus required on the
DSLR, though, as the depth of field is much shallower, and I was
photographing a sporting event behind the spectator fence. The quality of
the view through the optical finder comes as a pleasant change from the
EVFs I've had on previous cameras.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

Henry wrote:

> TIA Henry

I guess the G9 would be the best choice.

To many people, it's not just the superior image quality of the D-SLR,
it's the lack of shutter lag that drives them to get a D-SLR rather than
a P&S.
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

On Nov 5, 9:31 am, SMS · <scharf.ste....RemoveThis@geemail.com> wrote:
> Henry wrote:
> > TIA Henry
>
> I guess the G9 would be the best choice.
>
> To many people, it's not just the superior image quality of the D-SLR,
> it's the lack of shutter lag that drives them to get a D-SLR rather than
> a P&S.


The G9 is a great product but my feeling on these things is that I
would much rather have a small DSLR like the Olympus E-410 than any
large point & shoot, 100% of the time. I am sure there are
environments where the stealth and quiet operation of the G9 make it a
better tool, but for my purposes it isn't really enough of a solution
to a problem to get me to go out and spend $580 (which is the street
price of the G9 in Canada).
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

In article <fglffj$8mk$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, Doug McDonald says...

> What about macro range?

Compact cameras are generally speaking very well suited for macro
photography, because of the small sensor. Lots of DOF and no need to use
dedicated macro lenses.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 7070, 8080, E3X0, E4X0 and E5X0 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

On Mon, 5 Nov 2007 20:26:05 +0100, Alfred Molon <alfred_molon.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <fglffj$8mk$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, Doug McDonald says...
>
>> What about macro range?
>
>Compact cameras are generally speaking very well suited for macro
>photography, because of the small sensor. Lots of DOF and no need to use
>dedicated macro lenses.

Not just well suited for macro photography but smaller sensor cameras greatly
excel at it compared to larger sensor cameras. I purposely chose my last camera
for a smaller sensor size just for the benefits to macro photography. Benefits
that you cannot obtain on a DSLR no matter how you try. The smaller sensor and
larger apertures of a P&S camera finally allow you to get all of your image in
focus. Without having to use the usual DSLR method of smallest of f-stops, super
high-ISOs, long shutter speeds, and flash. The flash of course ruining any
natural quality to your subject and final composition. Using a P&S for macro
photography is an available-light simplicity and hand-held shutter-speeds
pleasure.
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <fglffj$8mk$1@news.ks.uiuc.edu>, Doug McDonald says...
>
>> What about macro range?
>
> Compact cameras are generally speaking very well suited for macro
> photography, because of the small sensor. Lots of DOF and no need to use
> dedicated macro lenses.

That's not the question. One can get DOF and exactly the same
noise performance as a P&S with an SLR by stopping down.

I'll be more precise: what's the lens performance of
P&S superzoom lenses at the setting that provides the
smallest SUBJECT area? I particularly worry about
CA at that setting.

Doug McDonald
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

On Nov 5, 12:07 pm, NEWS FLASH - DSLR IDIOTS - AT IT AGAIN!
<nospamfo....RemoveThis@antispam.net> wrote:
> NEWS FLASH - DSLR IDIOTS - AT IT AGAIN!
>

> Quick! Which part of the topic of "Decent ALTERNATIVES to dslr?" do you fail to
> understand?
>


Quicker!! What part of "solution to a problem" did you fail to
understand?

As to who the idiot is, I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader.
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr? 

On Mon, 05 Nov 2007 04:42:05 -0800, mark.thomas.7.TakeThisOut@gmail.com wrote:

>On Nov 5, 9:49 pm, samuel sharington <spambloc....TakeThisOut@noaddress.org>
>wrote:
>(mumble)
>
>'samuel' is of course just another id for 'Gregory'...
>
>So I repeat:
>'Greg/Samuel' is the cowardly-name-changing idiot who was traumatised
>at childbirth by someone wielding a DSLR. sam/Greg should keep
>putting a lot of effort into those posts, and keep abusing people who
>use better equipment than him for reasons that he cannot comprehend -
>for it keeps him off the streets..
>
>For many users, a p&s or prosumer will give excellent results (and
>there are some folks, like Sam/Greg above/below, who can't handle
>anything better...), and for possibly 80% of general photography they
>are
>indeed more convenient and will give results very similar to a DSLR.
>But there are reasons dslrs exist, and are popular. Just as there are
>medium format cameras, large format...
>
>Can you explain why those formats exist, 'sam/Greg'?
>
>One dullard won't change the facts, 'Greg/sam', no matter how many
>different identities you *need* to pretend you have.. And thanks for
>*proving* you are a gutless nobody who not only hasn't the courage to
>post any images, but needs to create fake identities because no-one
>seems to take him seriously.
>
>Golly, I wonder why...

Now why on earth do you feel so threatened by that excellent and factual advice
being given about P&S cameras and how they are better at macro photography?
Anyone that knows the least bit about sensor sizes and DOF knows this. Don't
you?

It sounds like you have some serious issues going on. Are you still doubting why
you wasted all that money on your DSLRs every time someone points out how P&S
cameras have a clear advantage over them? It sure seems that way.

You might want to talk to someone about that. Seek help.
 >> Stay informed about: Decent alternative to dslr?