Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S

On Fri, 05 Oct 2007 02:43:28 GMT, GetAClue <spamless.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote:

Go away xman you are so boring
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

chester_baddington wrote:

> You dslr people sure are a good source of laughs, I'll give you that much.

Since you have to change your online name daily to escape filters,
you're only a sink for pity.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

"chester_baddington" <none.TakeThisOut@antispam.org> wrote in message
news:06idg3t6oopg843fq33qfsouqu67gegudr@4ax.com...
> You dslr people sure are a good source of laughs, I'll give you that much.

So trade your PoS in on a camera-phone like most of the population. I'm sure
it will be more than good enough for your requirements.

MrT.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

"Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username DeleteThis @qwest.net> wrote in message news:4705C285.2000605@qwest.net...
> GetAClue wrote:
>> The difference between a quality professional photographer and just another
>> useless internet spammer trying to make a quick buck off of the less informed:
>>
>> The worthwhile professional photographer doesn't have to try to convince people
>> to come see his photography. They will seek him/her out and pay whatever he or
>> she asks without even questioning it.
>>
>> On the other hand, the spammer has to desperately try to get people to look at
>> his photography because everyone else already knows it's not worth it. It's all
>> they can do because their photography already failed to stand on its own merit.
>> They will buy more expensive cameras, thinking that was the problem and the
>> reason nobody is beating a path to their door. Yet they will always fail to look
>> in the mirror to see what the problem really was all along.
>>
>> Your behavior is self-evident, Roger.
>>
>>
>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:40:15 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
>> rnclark)" <username DeleteThis @qwest.net> wrote:
>>
>>> GetAClue wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:54:04 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>>>> <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The benefits I find with the DSLR include faster operation, and much
>>>>> better low-light performance. I can shoot at ISO 1600 and have almost
>>>>> noise-free pictures, whereas with the compact camera I needed to stick
>>>>> with ISO 100 to keep the noise down.
>>>> You wouldn't have this problem if you had a smaller sensor for which it is much
>>>> easier to make larger aperture lenses. How is shooting at ISO1600 better than
>>>> shooting at lower noise-free ISOs if your lens provides more light? You can pay
>>>> $500 for a Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-f/5.6, just the lens alone, and only get 112mm
>>>> to 480mm focal length range, which forces you to use ISO1600 under many lighting
>>>> situations. Or pay $300 for a whole camera plus lens and use ISO 200 at f/2.8
>>>> with 36mm to 432mm focal lengths for the same lighting situations.
>>> You forgot some critical facts. The DSLR is 12 to 16x more sensitive
>>> than the small pixel P&S so an f/5.6 lens on a DSLR is like an
>>> f/1.4 to f/1.8 lens on a P&S regarding light gathered.
>>> Then buy an f/2.8 lens for your DSLR, and its like having
>>> an f/0.7 on the small pixel P&S.
>>>
>>>> Some P&S
>>>> cameras providing even larger apertures and wider zoom ranges than that.
>>> Faster than f/2? Faster than f/1?
>>>
>>>
>>>> Sure, you can get wider apertures for that DSLR, then you are faced with having
>>>> to change them to compose each shot for the maximum resolution needed for that
>>>> subject. If you don't change that 50mm f1.2 lens for the 500mm f/4.0, then that
>>>> bird further away is going to have to be cropped to less than the resolution of
>>>> a cell-phone camera. Wait, you won't even get that. It already flew away while
>>>> your camera forced you to change lenses.
>>> You mean like this:
>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lilac-breasted.r...er.c01.
>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/eagle.c09.11.200...Z3F4717
>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.14.2003.img_...3.egret
>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/black-shouldered...te.c01.
>>>
>>> Let's see your P&S get images like that. Oh, and by the way, those
>>> make impressively sharp 16x24-inch prints (the last one I've only sold
>>> in galleries up to 16x18 inches).
>>>
>>>
>>>> Do the math. You actually get more by paying for less using a P&S camera.
>>> No, you get less with a P&S, not more. But you do get great
>>> technology, relatively speaking, and can take very nice pictures
>>> of certain things under good conditions. I actually carry a
>>> P&S more hours per month than a DSLR. But I know the difference
>>> between P&S and DSLR and use the best tool for the job.
>>>
>>>> Your
>>>> high ISOs are needed because of the larger sensor.
>>> No. High ISO are enabled ny the large sensor. You can still
>>> use low ISOs and get images with 4x lower noise (or better) than
>>> small pixel cameras.
>>>
>>>> It all averages out where
>>>> there is absolutely no gain by using a larger sensor for lower noise. I take
>>>> that back, there is a gain. The DSLR and lens makers' bank accounts. That's the
>>>> only gain that I've ever found in buying a DSLR.
>>> Absolutely incorrect.
>>>> As we've recently seen by a comparison of moon photos between Roger Clark's
>>>> $7000 MkII and someone else with a $400 Lumix FZ18, his DSLR and $1,200 L-glass
>>>> lens couldn't even provide as much resolution as a P&S camera with a 28mm-504mm
>>>> f/2.8 zoom lens, the P&S being hand-held at that. (Thanks for posting your
>>>> photos Roger, what a wonderful source for comparisons to show how much better
>>>> the P&S cameras are these days!)
>>> Again incorrect.
>>>
>>> Lets see any P&S camera with CAMERA LENSES do this good:
>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/moon-JZ3...58-60-c
>>>
>>>
>>>> I appears that DSLR owners take pride in trying to outdo each other in displays
>>>> of ignorance and stupidity. On the plus side they are more than ready to provide
>>>> examples for the rest of us to see (i.e. Roger Clark for example). Those that
>>>> can see through their smoke-screen that they keep displaying, to justify why
>>>> they spent so much have no other clear choice but to run and buy the best P&S
>>>> cameras.
>>> Your lies are getting old.
>>>> All this arguing about it boils down to just one thing: People who didn't do
>>>> their homework because they blindly followed some self-appointed authority and
>>>> self-proclaimed "pro" are now trying to justify why they spent so much money to
>>>> get a decent picture.
>>>>
>>> Absolutely false.
>>>
>>> Roger
>
> Ignore the troll. It is very jealous and full of hate.
>
> Roger


Actually I think their argument is entirely baseless, which means it is probably a zodiak problem
as in incompatable or opposite sun signs of birth. Always a little hard to overcome but it takes
maturity and genuine LOVE!

What are everyones signs?

--
Giant_Alex
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

fredapain DeleteThis @hotmail.com (Fred) wrote:

" What the DSLR crowd don't and will NEVER, EVER get, is that not
everyone wants their shoulder weighed down lugging a big bag full of
camera gear around. YES WE ALL KNOW that DSLRs produce better pictures,
NOBODY is disputing that. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Better pictures, in SOME situations.

=====================================




fredapain DeleteThis @hotmail.com (Fred) wrote:

" There are however, believe it or not, people who simply want good
quality pictures (not the ULTIMATE quality), and are quite happy to make
that slight sacrifice for the sake of owning a camera that will slip
unobtrusively in a coat or trouser pocket. "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

I could NOT agree more!

=====================================




fredapain DeleteThis @hotmail.com (Fred) wrote:

" Try telling that to the DSLR owners of today and they won't believe
you! "

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

The
D irty
S ensor
L enses
R equired
crowd?

They have a need to believe it was worth all
the hassle and expense.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

allr1.TakeThisOut@webtv.net wrote:
> fredapain.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (Fred) wrote:
>
> " What the DSLR crowd don't and will NEVER, EVER get, is that not
> everyone wants their shoulder weighed down lugging a big bag full of
> camera gear around. YES WE ALL KNOW that DSLRs produce better pictures,
> NOBODY is disputing that. "
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> Better pictures, in SOME situations.
>
> =====================================
>
>
>
>
> fredapain.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (Fred) wrote:
>
> " There are however, believe it or not, people who simply want good
> quality pictures (not the ULTIMATE quality), and are quite happy to make
> that slight sacrifice for the sake of owning a camera that will slip
> unobtrusively in a coat or trouser pocket. "
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> I could NOT agree more!
>
> =====================================
>
>
>
>
> fredapain.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com (Fred) wrote:
>
> " Try telling that to the DSLR owners of today and they won't believe
> you! "
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> The
> D irty
> S ensor
> L enses
> R equired
> crowd?
>
> They have a need to believe it was worth all
> the hassle and expense.
>

But pretty much everyone who owns a DSLR also owns a small point and
shoot, we own several. And we have the choice of which to take.
Sometimes the point and shoot wins out, when a small light camera is a
must. Most of the time the DSLR wins out, not just for image quality
but also the fun of using a fast responsive camera. I also like to take
my DSLR when I know I am going to be shooting in low light. I take the
350D with the 28mm f/2.8 lens, a pretty small combination and one that
does far better in low light then any point and shoot that I have seen.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

AAvK wrote:
>
> "Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)" <username.RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote
> in message news:4705C285.2000605@qwest.net...
>> GetAClue wrote:
>>> The difference between a quality professional photographer and just
>>> another
>>> useless internet spammer trying to make a quick buck off of the less
>>> informed:
>>>
>>> The worthwhile professional photographer doesn't have to try to
>>> convince people
>>> to come see his photography. They will seek him/her out and pay
>>> whatever he or
>>> she asks without even questioning it.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the spammer has to desperately try to get people
>>> to look at
>>> his photography because everyone else already knows it's not worth
>>> it. It's all
>>> they can do because their photography already failed to stand on its
>>> own merit.
>>> They will buy more expensive cameras, thinking that was the problem
>>> and the
>>> reason nobody is beating a path to their door. Yet they will always
>>> fail to look
>>> in the mirror to see what the problem really was all along.
>>>
>>> Your behavior is self-evident, Roger.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 19:40:15 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
>>> rnclark)" <username.RemoveThis@qwest.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> GetAClue wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:54:04 GMT, "David J Taylor"
>>>>> <david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The benefits I find with the DSLR include faster operation, and
>>>>>> much better low-light performance. I can shoot at ISO 1600 and
>>>>>> have almost noise-free pictures, whereas with the compact camera I
>>>>>> needed to stick with ISO 100 to keep the noise down.
>>>>> You wouldn't have this problem if you had a smaller sensor for
>>>>> which it is much
>>>>> easier to make larger aperture lenses. How is shooting at ISO1600
>>>>> better than
>>>>> shooting at lower noise-free ISOs if your lens provides more light?
>>>>> You can pay
>>>>> $500 for a Canon 70-300mm f/4.5-f/5.6, just the lens alone, and
>>>>> only get 112mm
>>>>> to 480mm focal length range, which forces you to use ISO1600 under
>>>>> many lighting
>>>>> situations. Or pay $300 for a whole camera plus lens and use ISO
>>>>> 200 at f/2.8
>>>>> with 36mm to 432mm focal lengths for the same lighting situations.
>>>> You forgot some critical facts. The DSLR is 12 to 16x more sensitive
>>>> than the small pixel P&S so an f/5.6 lens on a DSLR is like an
>>>> f/1.4 to f/1.8 lens on a P&S regarding light gathered.
>>>> Then buy an f/2.8 lens for your DSLR, and its like having
>>>> an f/0.7 on the small pixel P&S.
>>>>
>>>>> Some P&S
>>>>> cameras providing even larger apertures and wider zoom ranges than
>>>>> that.
>>>> Faster than f/2? Faster than f/1?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Sure, you can get wider apertures for that DSLR, then you are faced
>>>>> with having
>>>>> to change them to compose each shot for the maximum resolution
>>>>> needed for that
>>>>> subject. If you don't change that 50mm f1.2 lens for the 500mm
>>>>> f/4.0, then that
>>>>> bird further away is going to have to be cropped to less than the
>>>>> resolution of
>>>>> a cell-phone camera. Wait, you won't even get that. It already flew
>>>>> away while
>>>>> your camera forced you to change lenses.
>>>> You mean like this:
>>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/lilac-breasted.r...er.c01.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/eagle.c09.11.200...Z3F4717
>>>>
>>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.14.2003.img_...3.egret
>>>>
>>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/black-shouldered...te.c01.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Let's see your P&S get images like that. Oh, and by the way, those
>>>> make impressively sharp 16x24-inch prints (the last one I've only sold
>>>> in galleries up to 16x18 inches).
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Do the math. You actually get more by paying for less using a P&S
>>>>> camera.
>>>> No, you get less with a P&S, not more. But you do get great
>>>> technology, relatively speaking, and can take very nice pictures
>>>> of certain things under good conditions. I actually carry a
>>>> P&S more hours per month than a DSLR. But I know the difference
>>>> between P&S and DSLR and use the best tool for the job.
>>>>
>>>>> Your
>>>>> high ISOs are needed because of the larger sensor.
>>>> No. High ISO are enabled ny the large sensor. You can still
>>>> use low ISOs and get images with 4x lower noise (or better) than
>>>> small pixel cameras.
>>>>
>>>>> It all averages out where
>>>>> there is absolutely no gain by using a larger sensor for lower
>>>>> noise. I take
>>>>> that back, there is a gain. The DSLR and lens makers' bank
>>>>> accounts. That's the
>>>>> only gain that I've ever found in buying a DSLR.
>>>> Absolutely incorrect.
>>>>> As we've recently seen by a comparison of moon photos between Roger
>>>>> Clark's
>>>>> $7000 MkII and someone else with a $400 Lumix FZ18, his DSLR and
>>>>> $1,200 L-glass
>>>>> lens couldn't even provide as much resolution as a P&S camera with
>>>>> a 28mm-504mm
>>>>> f/2.8 zoom lens, the P&S being hand-held at that. (Thanks for
>>>>> posting your
>>>>> photos Roger, what a wonderful source for comparisons to show how
>>>>> much better
>>>>> the P&S cameras are these days!)
>>>> Again incorrect.
>>>>
>>>> Lets see any P&S camera with CAMERA LENSES do this good:
>>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.astrophoto-1/web/moon-JZ3...58-60-c
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I appears that DSLR owners take pride in trying to outdo each other
>>>>> in displays
>>>>> of ignorance and stupidity. On the plus side they are more than
>>>>> ready to provide
>>>>> examples for the rest of us to see (i.e. Roger Clark for example).
>>>>> Those that
>>>>> can see through their smoke-screen that they keep displaying, to
>>>>> justify why
>>>>> they spent so much have no other clear choice but to run and buy
>>>>> the best P&S
>>>>> cameras.
>>>> Your lies are getting old.
>>>>> All this arguing about it boils down to just one thing: People who
>>>>> didn't do
>>>>> their homework because they blindly followed some self-appointed
>>>>> authority and
>>>>> self-proclaimed "pro" are now trying to justify why they spent so
>>>>> much money to
>>>>> get a decent picture.
>>>>>
>>>> Absolutely false.
>>>>
>>>> Roger
>>
>> Ignore the troll. It is very jealous and full of hate.
>>
>> Roger
>
>
> Actually I think their argument is entirely baseless, which means it is
> probably a zodiak problem
> as in incompatable or opposite sun signs of birth. Always a little hard
> to overcome but it takes
> maturity and genuine LOVE!
>
> What are everyones signs?
>
Science!
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

On Sun, 07 Oct 2007 19:21:20 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username.TakeThisOut@qwest.net> wrote:

>> maturity and genuine LOVE!

Therein lies the problem. You can make love to your computer and the words on it
if you want. Many do and don't even realize what they are really doing. Millions
are emotionally masturbating to their computers at this very moment. Projecting
any emotions they want into any words just to simulate themselves with it.
Providing for quite the humor and image of disgust for those of us who know
better. How far they've all come. Anyone trying to cure them would be fraught
with failure, but would make a fortune if they found the solution to this new
digital mental/emotional-illness.

Read "The Terminal Man", a novel by Michael Crichton, published in 1972. It has
become an uncanny prophesy for millions who never even realized that they fell
into that inescapable mental and emotional trap long ago when they hooked up to
the internet with their computer terminals. An endless parade of the new
living-dead, counted in millions.

Now, back to a more important topic, photography.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

In article <bQkOi.27591$c_1.10876@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David J
Taylor <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

> I used to use film SLRs, but the kit became too heavy for me to carry
> around everwhere. I've used small-sensor digital cameras for the last ten
> years or so, and watched DSLRs develop. They are now at a similar price
> level to the best compact cameras, so you can now make a choice on
> functionality wihout cost coming into the equation anything like as much
> as it did years ago. The best of the compact cameras in the last few
> years (and I don't necessarily mean today's models) can certainly produce
> good quality images - given favourable circumstances.
>
> Choose the tool which best suits you and the task in hand.


A film SLR that's to heavy? What a pussy! I've spent years lugging
around Hasselblads, RB67s, and Pentax 6x7s.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

On 10/8/07 10:41 AM, in article 081020070841194683%rag@nospam.techline.com,
"Randall Ainsworth" <rag RemoveThis @nospam.techline.com> wrote:

> In article <bQkOi.27591$c_1.10876@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David J
> Taylor <david-taylor RemoveThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> I used to use film SLRs, but the kit became too heavy for me to carry
>> around everwhere. I've used small-sensor digital cameras for the last ten
>> years or so, and watched DSLRs develop. They are now at a similar price
>> level to the best compact cameras, so you can now make a choice on
>> functionality wihout cost coming into the equation anything like as much
>> as it did years ago. The best of the compact cameras in the last few
>> years (and I don't necessarily mean today's models) can certainly produce
>> good quality images - given favourable circumstances.
>>
>> Choose the tool which best suits you and the task in hand.
>
>
> A film SLR that's to heavy? What a pussy! I've spent years lugging
> around Hasselblads, RB67s, and Pentax 6x7s.
Yeah?!?

Try an Ikegami 3CCD and a cabled Sony 3/4" deck.

Of course, in those days, I *was* a lot younger...


 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
[]
> A film SLR that's to heavy? What a pussy! I've spent years lugging
> around Hasselblads, RB67s, and Pentax 6x7s.

You are lucky, then. I found that after a day lugging round a bag of SLR,
flash, lenses etc. I was more than happy to leave the camera bag in the
hotel at night. I don't use a car for transport, and I was not being paid
to carry the kit. So I missed night shots. I could see that eventually I
would end up leaving the camera at home, so a waste of time even having a
camera.

By comparison, the modern DSLR and lightweight DX lenses are a revelation,
and compact cameras which slip into the pocket or handbag can really
expand one's photographic opportunities.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

In article <WssOi.27805$c_1.24550@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David J
Taylor <david-taylor DeleteThis @blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> []
> > A film SLR that's to heavy? What a pussy! I've spent years lugging
> > around Hasselblads, RB67s, and Pentax 6x7s.
>
> By comparison, the modern DSLR and lightweight DX lenses are a revelation,
> and compact cameras which slip into the pocket or handbag can really
> expand one's photographic opportunities.

These days, although I'm not in the business any more, I still lug
around a Canon 10D with BigEd. That's a handful.
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S 

Randall Ainsworth wrote:
> In article <WssOi.27805$c_1.24550@text.news.blueyonder.co.uk>, David J
> Taylor <david-taylor.RemoveThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> Randall Ainsworth wrote:
>> []
>>> A film SLR that's to heavy? What a pussy! I've spent years lugging
>>> around Hasselblads, RB67s, and Pentax 6x7s.
>>
>> By comparison, the modern DSLR and lightweight DX lenses are a
>> revelation, and compact cameras which slip into the pocket or
>> handbag can really expand one's photographic opportunities.
>
> These days, although I'm not in the business any more, I still lug
> around a Canon 10D with BigEd. That's a handful.

There's the difference - I'm into photography - not lugging! <G>

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: Rockwell on DSLR vs. P&S