Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot

On Nov 17, 6:06 pm, Doug McDonald <mcdonald.DeleteThis@SnPoAM_scs.uiuc.edu>
wrote:

> Dear idiot:
>
> Your P&S will need a lens with the SAME FRONT APERTURE (since a
> long focus lens uses essentially the whole aperture) as
> the big huge 500 mm f/5 gun for your full frame DSLR in order
> to get the same picture with the same exposure time. Think about it
> and, to actually LEARN SOMETHING, read Dr. Clark, who is
> far smarter than you. If you have a sensor 1/5 the size as the SLR,
> you will need a 100 mm lens at f/1.0 !!!!! for your P&S!!!
>
> Photons count
>
> Doug McDonald

He's not an idiot, since he has managed to make reading this group
almost a total waste of time. It's not just him, but if you think
about it for a bit you'll see what his tactic is and has been for the
last few weeks-and it's working!
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 01:26:24 GMT, Jürgen Exner, responding to
Misinformation Corrector <nothanks.TakeThisOut@nospam.gov> wrote:

> Misinformation Corrector wrote:
> [snip-snap]
>
> Dear Misinformation
>
> Finally you have found an appropriate name for yourself.
> May I suggest you stick with it?

We can assume that the sock puppet troll won't take your
reasonable advice. Interestingly though, it has been sticking with
a single nym when it spams us with its CHDK announcements. In this
case, it uses "KevenGaston <none.TakeThisOut@anywhere.org>". This is unlike
many of its fake names in that an anti-spam domain (such as
"spamnot@antispam.com", "spamless@antispam.org",
"spamrejectmode@noaddress.com", "blocker@nospam.net" or
"nospamforme@anyaddress.com") wasn't used. This indicates that the
troll is at least aware that it is spamming, and prefers to avoid
even hinting at the word "spam" when posting its CHDK spam.
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 22:48:15 GMT, Misinformation Corrector
<nothanks.RemoveThis@nospam.gov> wrote:


>
>Not needed when your long-zoom lenses have apertures large enough to use slower
>shutter speeds. dSLR's NEED those high ISOs to make them functional.
>
Assuming the only thing that you shoot in low light will hold still
for you. Unless you don't mind motion blur. Show me a point and
shoot that will get a half way decent image at ISO 1600 or 3200 at
a/30 second or faster.

>
>While you have a whole bag of lenses to accomplish this, only one accessory lens
>is needed for a P&S camera to attain even greater wide-angle ranges than you can
>get with your dSLR.
>
Yeah, it's a shame nobody makes a decent 18-600 mm zoom lens for a
dslr. From what I've seen, the greater the difference from min to max
zoom, the more compromise in image quality somewhere in that range.

I've tried add-ons to point and shoot cameras, but they degrade the
image to some extent.;

>>Only a high-resolution digital SLR is suitable for poster size prints.
>
>Print size is a function of the number of available pixels. Almost all P&S
>cameras these days have the same amount of pixels as dSLRs.
>
Crammed on smaller sensors, producing a higher noise to signal ratio
(therefore negating their high iso usefulness).


An finally, everyone refers to "professional" photographers. Why is
it then, that the guys that know the most about photography use SLR's?
If they could earn their livings with much less expensive equipment, I
would certainly think that they would do so.

Bill
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

Bill wrote:

> Assuming the only thing that you shoot in low light will hold still
> for you. Unless you don't mind motion blur. Show me a point and
> shoot that will get a half way decent image at ISO 1600 or 3200 at
> a/30 second or faster.

Indeed, the value advantage of D-SLRs doesn't show up nearly as much
with still images, in good light, that don't require a wide angle or
telephoto lens, and that will never have large prints made from the images.

> Yeah, it's a shame nobody makes a decent 18-600 mm zoom lens for a
> dslr. From what I've seen, the greater the difference from min to max
> zoom, the more compromise in image quality somewhere in that range.

This is true. Many newcomers don't understand the compromises inherent
in a very wide range zoom lens, both for SLRs and on P&S cameras. It may
be convenient to have a very wide range zoom, but the optical quality
suffers greatly.

> I've tried add-ons to point and shoot cameras, but they degrade the
> image to some extent.;

The accessory lenses for P&S cameras (normally called "converters") are
only marginally acceptable in terms of optics. I bought the best one for
my G series P&S (an Olympus wide angle converter that is actually no
longer made but that was highly sought after and a big seller). It works
okay, but the optical quality is not nearly as good as a true wide angle
lens like the Canon 10-22 EF-s (L quality glass). What's more, it's a
real PITA to use, taking about ten times as long to assemble all the
pieces than to change bayonet mount lenses on an SLR.

> Crammed on smaller sensors, producing a higher noise to signal ratio
> (therefore negating their high iso usefulness).

Not sure why so many people find it so difficult to understand the
physics of noise and pixel size as it relates to high ISO.

> An finally, everyone refers to "professional" photographers. Why is
> it then, that the guys that know the most about photography use SLR's?
> If they could earn their livings with much less expensive equipment, I
> would certainly think that they would do so.

The SLR offers overwhelming advantages, both to professional and amateur
photographers, and these advantages are much more pronounced in the
digital arena.

Some people seem to think that there is some huge cost savings in
eliminating the lens mount system, when in fact it's a plus for both
consumers and manufacturers, both in quality and in long term cost.
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

You are right. It really depends on the user and how interested they are in
photography and the willingness to learn more all the time.

When I bought my first film SLR, my photos could have been taken with a P&S.
However, going back to the original post, it is crazy to compare an SLR to a
P&S. Sure, you can get good results from a P&S, but it is ridiculous to try
and compare the two and say that a P&S can do what a DSLR does.


<tnom RemoveThis @mucks.net> wrote in message
news:hehsj3dupuaku5h40401avivbti3g1c9lf@4ax.com...
> You forget one of the biggest reasons.
>
> You can impress everyone. This seems to be the thinking of many, not
> all. How often have you had a discussion about digital photography
> with a DSLR owner only to find out he doesn't really even know how
> to take advantage of it's attributes. A point and shoot would be just
> as useful in his hands........ Sure is impressive though.
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

SMS <scharf.steven.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote:

: Sometimes you _want_ to be conspicuous.
:
: Two years ago I was really getting upset over how people were driving
: near my son's school. I started carrying my D-SLR with me, and taking
: photos of them driving through crosswalks without stopping, etc. It got
: to the point where just raising the camera to my face and aiming it at
: their car would get them to behave...

Of course, in these situations it need not be a functioning DSLR. I'd
guess that any big object would have the sam effect, even better if you
invest in a set of clothes that look like a uniform.
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 22:58:45 GMT, RPSinha <rpsinha.DeleteThis@null.void> wrote:

>SMS <scharf.steven.DeleteThis@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>: Sometimes you _want_ to be conspicuous.
>:
>: Two years ago I was really getting upset over how people were driving
>: near my son's school. I started carrying my D-SLR with me, and taking
>: photos of them driving through crosswalks without stopping, etc. It got
>: to the point where just raising the camera to my face and aiming it at
>: their car would get them to behave...
>
>Of course, in these situations it need not be a functioning DSLR. I'd
>guess that any big object would have the sam effect, even better if you
>invest in a set of clothes that look like a uniform.

When there are poachers on my land I drag out one of my old gigantic SLRs and
put on a 200-500mm Tamron zoom lens on it. Film not necessary. They only need to
see that lens. It works much better than calling any game warden. No repeat
poachers, just new ones that may not have heard what happens if they step foot
on my land.

If they can't be easily found to show them the camera then I use the super-zoom
P&S digital that I had in my pocket and go photograph their vehicles and license
plates. Upon returning to the house I post the evidence on a safe place on the
net. Leaving a note under their windshield of what just occurred during their
absence. Again, no repeat customers. It's very entertaining to watch them with
binoculars when they get back to read the note. They don't even know which
distant house in the area was the source. Wildly looking around wondering what
to do. Then they speed off never to be seen again. Probably shitting in their
camo-gear all the way home.
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

Harlan Alset wrote:

>> Dear idiot:
>>
>> Your P&S will need a lens with the SAME FRONT APERTURE (since a
>> long focus lens uses essentially the whole aperture) as
>> the big huge 500 mm f/5 gun for your full frame DSLR in order
>> to get the same picture with the same exposure time. Think about it
>> and, to actually LEARN SOMETHING, read Dr. Clark, who is
>> far smarter than you. If you have a sensor 1/5 the size as the SLR,
>> you will need a 100 mm lens at f/1.0 !!!!! for your P&S!!!
>>
>>
>> Photons count
>>
>> Doug McDonald
>
> Another one of those idiots that was easily baffled by the Dr. Troll's bullshit.
> Takes all kinds I guess.
>

I'm not an idiot in this, nor is Dr. Clark. Optics is our business,
and mine specifically is photon-counting optics. I know this
forward and backward. The subject is complicated because the
small P&S sensor has a lower well capacity in electrons and also
a lower well capacitance (in femtofarads), but still, in low light,
photons are photons, and noise is their square root. The smaller
maximum well capacity in electrons of the P&S means a lower
maximum S/N ratio in good light, but so far they have not made the sensors
small enough that this is a problem.

Actually the troll is not an idiot either ... he is indeed a true
master of trolling! He knows exactly how to do it well, very
well indeed.

Doug McDonald
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

Bill wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 23:38:04 GMT, Misinformation Corrector
> <nothanks.RemoveThis@nospam.gov> wrote:

<snp>
>
> Excuse me, I didn't realize that you were the world's foremost
> authority on photography and know more than anyone else. I can see
> that there is no point in arguing with you.
>
> You, sir are either a troll or a self-important puffed up ass.
>
> Good bye
> Bill

You need to change last sentence. If you replaced "or" with "and" and
deleted "either" you would hit the nail on the head.
Allen
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

"Bill" <carver-rem-33 DeleteThis @bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:73j0k3torai7so77giu47o2ednut8pujtq@4ax.com...

snip

>
> You, sir are either a troll or a self-important puffed up ass.
>


I'd say he's both.
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

waterfoot.DeleteThis@gmail.com (John Bean) wrote:

" Plus:

11. It fits in your pocket

Oops... perhaps that should be added to the 'Ten reasons to choose a
Point and Shoot over a Digital SLR' thread that hasn't yet appeared.

What a pointless load of nonsense.
-- John Bean

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

There is a point.

A sad need to justify the expense and hassle
of a DSLR.

The need to offset an inferiority complex is
probably another one as well.
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

tnom RemoveThis @mucks.net wrote:

" You forget one of the biggest reasons.

You can impress everyone. This seems to be the thinking of many, [DSLR
owners] "

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

Yup, an inferiority complex.
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot 

On 2007-11-16 14:36:44 -0800, John Bean <waterfoot.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> said:

> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:07:03 -0800, SMS ???• ?
> <scharf.steven.TakeThisOut@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
>
> [...]
>
> Plus:
>
> 11. It fits in your pocket
>
> Oops... perhaps that should be added to the "Ten reasons to
> choose a Point and Shoot over a Digital SLR" thread that
> hasn't yet appeared.
>
> What a pointless load of nonsense.

Actually, I thought it was very useful information. Your whining,
however, comes across as pointless nonsense.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
 >> Stay informed about: Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot