Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:11:39 GMT, Daniel Silevitch <dmsilev DeleteThis @uchicago.edu> wrote:

>On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:31:48 GMT, LaramieV <lv0127861 DeleteThis @mailinator.com> wrote:
>>
>> DSLRs on the other hand are limited to 10 to 30 frames before they slow down to
>> half the rate that the better P&S cameras can do non-stop. It's odd that they
>> would limit that to all resolutions in DSLRs. But there they sit, with a
>> crippled burst-mode. Let me get in line to pay more for that!
>
>From a review of one of the cheaper (i.e. lower end, i.e. slower) DSLRs:
>
>" "It does what it says on the box", and thankfully, too many camera
>manufacturer marketing departments are ready to over-inflate specs,
>Nikon however can be commended for delivering exactly the shooting rate
>quoted in their specs. The D40X achieved a consistent three frames per
>second, in JPEG mode it will shoot until the card is full (with a fast
>card), in RAW mode you're looking at between six and seven frames before
>slowing to 1.2 fps (no big concern as few people will shoot RAW
>continuously)."
>
>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/page13.asp
>
>Since in your words, that's half the rate that a good P&S can do,
>perhaps you'd care to name a specific "better P&S camera" that can shoot
>continuously at full resolution at 6 fps? Or, for that matter, a P&S
>that will get above 2.5 fps continuously in RAW mode?
>
>-dms

Let's see, a Canon S3 IS will shoot at 2.4 fps JPG non-stop to the capacity of
the card. Or RAW + JPG at one frame every 1.2 seconds. That's such a huge
difference isn't it, between your 3 fps and 2.4 fps, or the RAW 1.2 fps and .84
fps. Ooops, you forgot to add in the 6.5 second delay between each 6 shot burst
mode. Add in 1.1 more seconds per shot to your continuous RAW burst-rates. So
the S3 IS has a much higher non-stop burst-rate mode than your "best" DSLR
example available.

Try again.

Don't you just hate it when someone can go read the same data that you did for
your "proof" and add back in all the information that you conveniently left-out
in your feeble attempts to make yourself look better.

You'd better go look in the mirror, you have a little something smeared on your
face.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On 17 Nov 2007 07:45:12 -0800 (PST), Rich wrote:

>On Nov 11, 5:35 am, SMS ???* ? <scharf.ste....DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>> Daniel Silevitch wrote:
>> > As I noted above, the FZ series is pretty good for its class, but
>> > doesn't hold up to even a mid-range DSLR. So, no argument here.
>>
>> What's kind of sad is that in the film days, it _was_ possible to have a
>> P&S model that could deliver results pretty close to what an SLR could
>> accomplish, but this was lost in the transition to digital. There's
>> something to be said about buying your sensors in rolls, and every
>> camera having access to to the same 24mm x 36mm sensors. With digital,
>> it seems that P&S's are doomed to continue to be noise boxes with
>> comparatively long shutter lags, as long as the sensors remain small.
>> Which of course is the subject of this thread. To whoever started this
>> thread: yes, you're absolutely correct. All the additional features
>> added to the P&S digitals will be of little value, as long as the
>> sensors stay small.
>
>And hence we have a new class system in cameras that didn't exist
>before. In the 1980s, someone with a Pentax K1000 could theoretically
>take as good a picture of something as a Nikon F3, but now, there is
>no way in Hell someone with a 1/2.5" sensor-equipped P&S can begin to
>match what a FF, 1.5 or even a 4/3rds DSLR can deliver.

Sure you just keep telling yourself that. The camera company CEOs and their
accountants thank you for it with every new yacht and mansion they buy for
themselves off of your ignorance.
I sometimes get the feeling that the only people who promote the dslr propaganda
online own stock in a camera company. Why else would they relentlessly repeat
what's already been disproved.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:39:11 GMT, LaramieV <lv0127861 DeleteThis @mailinator.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 13:11:39 GMT, Daniel Silevitch <dmsilev DeleteThis @uchicago.edu> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 04:31:48 GMT, LaramieV <lv0127861 DeleteThis @mailinator.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> DSLRs on the other hand are limited to 10 to 30 frames before they slow down to
>>> half the rate that the better P&S cameras can do non-stop. It's odd that they
>>> would limit that to all resolutions in DSLRs. But there they sit, with a
>>> crippled burst-mode. Let me get in line to pay more for that!
>>
>>From a review of one of the cheaper (i.e. lower end, i.e. slower) DSLRs:
>>
>>" "It does what it says on the box", and thankfully, too many camera
>>manufacturer marketing departments are ready to over-inflate specs,
>>Nikon however can be commended for delivering exactly the shooting rate
>>quoted in their specs. The D40X achieved a consistent three frames per
>>second, in JPEG mode it will shoot until the card is full (with a fast
>>card), in RAW mode you're looking at between six and seven frames before
>>slowing to 1.2 fps (no big concern as few people will shoot RAW
>>continuously)."
>>
>>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond40x/page13.asp
>>
>>Since in your words, that's half the rate that a good P&S can do,
>>perhaps you'd care to name a specific "better P&S camera" that can shoot
>>continuously at full resolution at 6 fps? Or, for that matter, a P&S
>>that will get above 2.5 fps continuously in RAW mode?
>>
>>-dms
>
> Let's see, a Canon S3 IS will shoot at 2.4 fps JPG non-stop to the capacity of
> the card. Or RAW + JPG at one frame every 1.2 seconds. That's such a huge
> difference isn't it, between your 3 fps and 2.4 fps, or the RAW 1.2 fps and .84
> fps. Ooops, you forgot to add in the 6.5 second delay between each 6 shot burst
> mode. Add in 1.1 more seconds per shot to your continuous RAW burst-rates. So
> the S3 IS has a much higher non-stop burst-rate mode than your "best" DSLR
> example available.

You, just a few posts above: The continuous framerate of a DSLR drops to
half the rate of a good P&S. You have chosen the Canon S3IS as your
examplar of a good P&S, with a JPG continuous framerate of 2.4 fps.

The continuous framerate of a Nikon D40X in JPG mode is 3 fps,
sustainable until the card fills up. Under most mathematical systems
currently in use, 1.2 fps (that's the "half of the P&S framerate" that
you are claiming DSLRs are limited to) is considerably less than 3 fps
(the reality of a low-end DSLR).

In other words, you're completely and utterly wrong, and rather than
admit that fact, you bring up a whole bunch of irrelevant numbers and
lie about them. In particular, in RAW mode, the D40X will _sustain_ 1.2
fps indefinitely. That's the 'buffer full' rate that DPReview quotes. So
even _after_ the D40X has filled the buffer with RAW images, it's stil
faster than the S3IS, not "half the speed" which was your claim.

Oh, and I was being generous to you by choosing the D40X as my example.
If I wanted to choose the "best" DSLR around, I'd've picked something
like the Nikon D3, which can sustain framerates of around 10 fps in JPG
mode.

Now go back under your bridge.

-dms
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

David J Taylor wrote:
>
> John Turco wrote:
> []
> > Hello, David:
> >
> > Is it winter, there in Britain, >already<?
> >
> >
> > Cordially,
> > John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>
>
> It felt like it last night, although that meant a great view of the comet!
> To me, it's winter when the sun is low enough to penetrate far enough into
> the room that it illuminates my face when watching lunchtime TV, and I
> need to draw the curtains. But the low sun angle tends to make the light
> colour warmer, as you'll appreciate.
>
> Cheers,
> David


Hello, David:

One thing I hate about cold weather, is the possibility that my digital
"babies" could be damaged, by condensation. I'm just an "overprotective
owner," I guess!


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

"Manchester Jr." wrote:

<edited for brevity>

> >Hello, Rich:
> >
> >No, I stand by remark, regarding your "gray matter" -- or, should I
> >say, lack thereof? <g>
> >
> >All joking aside, you appear to be the "flip side" of another of this
> >newsgroup's top trolls (i.e., the one who's always changing his screen
> >name). Whereas he constantly rails against DSLR cameras (and their
> >expensive lenses), you delight in mocking modern P&S models.
> >
> >
>
> Top trolls? You're not too bright are you. The only time any of the
> resident-trolls even bothers mentioning a name change is as an excuse to ignore
> some FACT that they have no other argument against. Do you know how often they
> don't even notice nor mention when a new name is used? This red-herring tactic
> of theirs is just as lame as those that dive into a volley of spelling and
> syntax errors to "prove" why they must be right and the opponent is wrong. The
> moment they claim "name changing troll" to bolster their argument it only proves
> that I'm right. Just as sure as those who have nothing left but to point out
> unintentional spelling errors.
>
> If nothing else you've managed to prove that you are of the lower
> wattage-variety here. There's more than one measure to who is right and wrong.
> It will be found in all that they have left for an argument, revealing the
> miniscule limits of their ability to reason and think.

<edited>

Hello, Manchester Jr:

Hey, man, I'm just tellin' it like it is! <g> Although, I should've
added that, as opposed to the other (worthless) trolls, you often
supply a lot of useful information, at least.

Furthermore, where P&S cameras are concerned, I'm basically on your
side. If the haughty DSLR crowd can't take a little harsh criticism,
tough luck, I say.

You're quite correct, in many of your assertions, also. Some of this
newsgroup's posters are rather prejudiced, about certain things. They
ignorantly blast Kodak digicams and shamelessly promote Canon and
Nikon DSLR's, above all else, to offer a couple of examples thereof.

Personally, I'm a big Kodak fan and my lone DSLR happens to be a
Pentax K100D. Hence, I'm especially mindful of the various public
slurs against those fine brands, written by people who've probably
never even owned any of their products.

Speaking of Kodak, my best P&S model is a P850 (5 megapixels, 12x
optical "super zoom"). I've found that its overall image quality
compares quite favorably, to the K100D's. The sole area where I'd
give the latter a definite edge, is in low-light capability.

Incidentally, my P850 has a few dead pixels. As it's long out of
warranty, are you aware of any method to "map" them out?


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur RemoveThis @concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

SMS ???• ? wrote:
>
> Daniel Silevitch wrote:
>
> > As I noted above, the FZ series is pretty good for its class, but
> > doesn't hold up to even a mid-range DSLR. So, no argument here.
>
> What's kind of sad is that in the film days, it _was_ possible to have a
> P&S model that could deliver results pretty close to what an SLR could
> accomplish, but this was lost in the transition to digital. There's
> something to be said about buying your sensors in rolls, and every
> camera having access to to the same 24mm x 36mm sensors. With digital,
> it seems that P&S's are doomed to continue to be noise boxes with
> comparatively long shutter lags, as long as the sensors remain small.
> Which of course is the subject of this thread. To whoever started this
> thread: yes, you're absolutely correct. All the additional features
> added to the P&S digitals will be of little value, as long as the
> sensors stay small.


Hello, Steven:

"RichA" is the one who started this thread, if you must know. He, like
you, is a notorious anti-P&S troll, as well!


Cordially,
John Turco <jtur.RemoveThis@concentric.net>
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

SMS 斯蒂文• å¤� wrote:
> Rich wrote:
>
>> And hence we have a new class system in cameras that didn't exist
>> before. In the 1980s, someone with a Pentax K1000 could theoretically
>> take as good a picture of something as a Nikon F3, but now, there is
>> no way in Hell someone with a 1/2.5" sensor-equipped P&S can begin to
>> match what a FF, 1.5 or even a 4/3rds DSLR can deliver.
>
> This is true. Some people don't seem to understand that a system is only
> as good as its weakest link. You can improve the lenses, focusing, and
> frame rate, etc., on a small sensor camera, but you can't fix the
> inherent noise issue. You can try to do noise reduction, but it's not
> free, you lose detail.
>
> The noise issue on sensor is analogous to the leakage problem as
> transistors on CPUs get smaller. The leakage power is often more than
> the actual operating power, and the attempts to control leakage have
> been largely unsuccessful up to this point.

You need to read the latest tech. reports on this. Some progress HAS
been made. As for the sensor noise, I suspect we haven't come close to
the actual limits on lowering that noise yet, either.
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:01:30 -0600, John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net> wrote:

>"Manchester Jr." wrote:
>
><edited for brevity>
>
>> >Hello, Rich:
>> >
>> >No, I stand by remark, regarding your "gray matter" -- or, should I
>> >say, lack thereof? <g>
>> >
>> >All joking aside, you appear to be the "flip side" of another of this
>> >newsgroup's top trolls (i.e., the one who's always changing his screen
>> >name). Whereas he constantly rails against DSLR cameras (and their
>> >expensive lenses), you delight in mocking modern P&S models.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Top trolls? You're not too bright are you. The only time any of the
>> resident-trolls even bothers mentioning a name change is as an excuse to ignore
>> some FACT that they have no other argument against. Do you know how often they
>> don't even notice nor mention when a new name is used? This red-herring tactic
>> of theirs is just as lame as those that dive into a volley of spelling and
>> syntax errors to "prove" why they must be right and the opponent is wrong. The
>> moment they claim "name changing troll" to bolster their argument it only proves
>> that I'm right. Just as sure as those who have nothing left but to point out
>> unintentional spelling errors.
>>
>> If nothing else you've managed to prove that you are of the lower
>> wattage-variety here. There's more than one measure to who is right and wrong.
>> It will be found in all that they have left for an argument, revealing the
>> miniscule limits of their ability to reason and think.
>
><edited>
>
>Hello, Manchester Jr:
>
>Hey, man, I'm just tellin' it like it is! <g> Although, I should've
>added that, as opposed to the other (worthless) trolls, you often
>supply a lot of useful information, at least.
>
>Furthermore, where P&S cameras are concerned, I'm basically on your
>side. If the haughty DSLR crowd can't take a little harsh criticism,
>tough luck, I say.
>
>You're quite correct, in many of your assertions, also. Some of this
>newsgroup's posters are rather prejudiced, about certain things. They
>ignorantly blast Kodak digicams and shamelessly promote Canon and
>Nikon DSLR's, above all else, to offer a couple of examples thereof.
>
>Personally, I'm a big Kodak fan and my lone DSLR happens to be a
>Pentax K100D. Hence, I'm especially mindful of the various public
>slurs against those fine brands, written by people who've probably
>never even owned any of their products.
>
>Speaking of Kodak, my best P&S model is a P850 (5 megapixels, 12x
>optical "super zoom"). I've found that its overall image quality
>compares quite favorably, to the K100D's. The sole area where I'd
>give the latter a definite edge, is in low-light capability.
>
>Incidentally, my P850 has a few dead pixels. As it's long out of
>warranty, are you aware of any method to "map" them out?
>
>
>Cordially,
> John Turco <jtur.DeleteThis@concentric.net>

It's a shame that that model came out during a my purchasing lull between old
and new cameras . I would have given it serious consideration. I wasn't even
aware of its existence until I read about it on this newsgroup. I was busy
traveling the globe (P&S cameras at the ready) for the last 3 years.

When I saw how many gaps were going to be filled in my favorite cameras
wish-list with another model this year, I jumped on that one without looking at
earlier models. From what I've heard and seen of that Kodak it seems quite
remarkable. Maybe I'll run across a used one one day and add it to the "toy
box". (I use that term fondly, not pejoratively, just as I call anything that's
fun and a pleasure to use a "toy".)

As much as I would have liked to be a brand-whore in the past like all the
others do, it never came to be. (And thankfully so, when I see how ignorant they
become from keeping their nose firmly planted in just one book.) Seems it was
always some other company that came out with an innovation not being considered
in my present company's line-up. I'll jump ship in a heartbeat when someone
comes up with something more innovative.

Thanks for the info you've shared about that Kodak, I'll keep my eye out for one
during my explorations. (No pressing urgency, I have so much to explore with my
present camera, it's keeping me happily occupied.)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:19:55 -0800, SMS ???• ?
<scharf.steven.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote in
<473f3061$0$79901$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:

>Rich wrote:
>
>> And hence we have a new class system in cameras that didn't exist
>> before. In the 1980s, someone with a Pentax K1000 could theoretically
>> take as good a picture of something as a Nikon F3,

In fact the lens mattered much more than the body, and affordable lenses
didn't come close to top-of-the-line lenses. They still don't.

>> but now, there is
>> no way in Hell someone with a 1/2.5" sensor-equipped P&S can begin to
>> match what a FF, 1.5 or even a 4/3rds DSLR can deliver.

In fact excellent images can be taken with pretty much any decent
camera. Photographers make pictures, not cameras, which are just tools.

>This is true. Some people don't seem to understand that a system is only
>as good as its weakest link. You can improve the lenses, focusing, and
>frame rate, etc., on a small sensor camera, but you can't fix the
>inherent noise issue. You can try to do noise reduction, but it's not
>free, you lose detail.
>
>The noise issue on sensor is analogous to the leakage problem as
>transistors on CPUs get smaller. The leakage power is often more than
>the actual operating power, and the attempts to control leakage have
>been largely unsuccessful up to this point.

That's utter nonsense (like most of your pontificating) -- the weakest
link is almost always the photographer, not the camera.

When looking for the weakest link, be careful not to look in a mirror.


--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 02:38:13 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter DeleteThis @charter.net>
wrote in <CrydnV05-bhqZKLanZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d DeleteThis @giganews.com>:

>SMS ???• ? wrote:
>> Rich wrote:
>>
>>> And hence we have a new class system in cameras that didn't exist
>>> before. In the 1980s, someone with a Pentax K1000 could theoretically
>>> take as good a picture of something as a Nikon F3, but now, there is
>>> no way in Hell someone with a 1/2.5" sensor-equipped P&S can begin to
>>> match what a FF, 1.5 or even a 4/3rds DSLR can deliver.
>>
>> This is true. Some people don't seem to understand that a system is only
>> as good as its weakest link. You can improve the lenses, focusing, and
>> frame rate, etc., on a small sensor camera, but you can't fix the
>> inherent noise issue. You can try to do noise reduction, but it's not
>> free, you lose detail.
>>
>> The noise issue on sensor is analogous to the leakage problem as
>> transistors on CPUs get smaller. The leakage power is often more than
>> the actual operating power, and the attempts to control leakage have
>> been largely unsuccessful up to this point.
>
>You need to read the latest tech. reports on this. Some progress HAS
>been made. As for the sensor noise, I suspect we haven't come close to
>the actual limits on lowering that noise yet, either.

You're wasting your time (as I am).
Steven lives in an alternate "reality".

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

John Navas wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 10:19:55 -0800, SMS ???• ?
> <scharf.steven.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote in
> <473f3061$0$79901$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>
>> Rich wrote:
>>
>>> And hence we have a new class system in cameras that didn't exist
>>> before. In the 1980s, someone with a Pentax K1000 could theoretically
>>> take as good a picture of something as a Nikon F3,
>
> In fact the lens mattered much more than the body, and affordable lenses
> didn't come close to top-of-the-line lenses. They still don't.
>
>>> but now, there is
>>> no way in Hell someone with a 1/2.5" sensor-equipped P&S can begin to
>>> match what a FF, 1.5 or even a 4/3rds DSLR can deliver.
>
> In fact excellent images can be taken with pretty much any decent
> camera. Photographers make pictures, not cameras, which are just tools.
>
>> This is true. Some people don't seem to understand that a system is only
>> as good as its weakest link. You can improve the lenses, focusing, and
>> frame rate, etc., on a small sensor camera, but you can't fix the
>> inherent noise issue. You can try to do noise reduction, but it's not
>> free, you lose detail.
>>
>> The noise issue on sensor is analogous to the leakage problem as
>> transistors on CPUs get smaller. The leakage power is often more than
>> the actual operating power, and the attempts to control leakage have
>> been largely unsuccessful up to this point.
>
> That's utter nonsense (like most of your pontificating) -- the weakest
> link is almost always the photographer, not the camera.
>
> When looking for the weakest link, be careful not to look in a mirror.
>
>

Now this depends on what kind of photographer you are. There are some
who like to go out in the world and see what images they can find to
photographs, nothing wrong with that but it is not my style. Others of
use know what we want to photograph and base our gear to meet the need
of what we wish to photograph.

Many of the people how go out looking for image gravitate towards static
scenes, like a interesting staircase shot at an interesting angle, if
this floats your boat more power to you.

But I have things around me in my world that I want to capture, I let
this dictate what gear I need, I don't let the gear I own dictate what I
photograph, if I did I could live with a very simple camera indeed.
Only shoot during the day in good light using a normal lens, but then I
would not get the photograph that I want to get, so what would be the point.


When I use my P&S I often miss the photo, when I use my DSLR I don't,
the camera matters.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL 

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 08:55:14 -1000, Scott W <biphoto.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote
in <4741dc27$0$24293$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

>John Navas wrote:

>> In fact excellent images can be taken with pretty much any decent
>> camera. Photographers make pictures, not cameras, which are just tools.

>> ... the weakest
>> link is almost always the photographer, not the camera.

>Now this depends on what kind of photographer you are.

Agreed, not only style, but also experience, skill, and talent.

>There are some
>who like to go out in the world and see what images they can find to
>photographs, nothing wrong with that but it is not my style. Others of
>use know what we want to photograph

And some of us work both ways, depending on circumstances.

>and base our gear to meet the need
>of what we wish to photograph.

Where we differ is with regard to "need". While there are some cases
with a "need" for specific equipment, and some cases with a "need" that
cannot be satisfied as a practical matter, my "need" in most cases can
be handled with modest gear. The gear difference is usually just
convenience, ease of use, and/or reliability.

>Many of the people how go out looking for image gravitate towards static
>scenes, like a interesting staircase shot at an interesting angle, if
>this floats your boat more power to you.

I take all kinds of images, not only static scenes, but also fast
actions shots and more, and I've been doing it for decades, through
generations of equipment. So when someone says there's a "need" for
ultra-fast auto-focus, or ultra-fast zooming, or high ISO, I have to
chuckle, because I was getting great images before those tools even
existed. It's a matter of learning the craft, and learning how to use
available tools to best effect.

So when I recently photographed the Palace of Fine Arts at night, while
it would have been nice to have a tripod, there was no "need" --
I simply rested my camera on a parked car instead. The difference in
convenience isn't worth keeping the back of my car filled with gear.

Likewise when I was shooting motorsports years ago, I didn't "need"
ultra-fast auto-focus or ultra-fast zooming or even ultra fast shutter
response or rate. Because I had learned how to use my equipment to best
effect, I got sensational photographs without those things. Would it
have been nice to have "better" gear? Not necessarily -- I don't trust
auto-focus for something like that -- it too often focuses on the wrong
thing -- and I know that blasting away isn't the best way to get the
perfect moment.

>But I have things around me in my world that I want to capture, I let
>this dictate what gear I need, I don't let the gear I own dictate what I
>photograph,

It's not an issue for me either -- I've learned how to use the gear
I have to get the images I want.

>if I did I could live with a very simple camera indeed.
>Only shoot during the day in good light using a normal lens, but then I
>would not get the photograph that I want to get, so what would be the point.

I can use a good simple camera in a much wider range of conditions than
that. You could probably learn to do it too.

>When I use my P&S I often miss the photo, when I use my DSLR I don't,
>the camera matters.

I sincerely mean no offense, but that suggests either that your P&S was
a very poor camera or that you didn't learn how to use it effectively.

What matters is the photographer, and great gear won't make you into a
great photographer.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: Point & shoots, no improvement as long as sensors stay SMALL