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

On 2007-11-16 14:40:12 -0800, "Ali" <me.RemoveThis@privacy.net> said:

> SMS-san
>
> You forgot to mention the availability of big aperture, sharp, prime
> lenses. Also, some DSLR lenses go less than 16mm, although I assume you
> mean 35mm equivalent focal length.
>
> I would like to know why all DSLR's don't have 100% optical
> viewfinders. I would also like to know why camera manufacturers don't
> have aperture bracketing (for DOF), which is nothing more than
> firmware? Camera manufactures have used exposure bracketing for a long
> time, but for some strange reason don't want to provide aperture
> bracketing.

What DSLR does not have an optical viewfinder?



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

On 2007-11-18 13:06:27 -0800, ray <ray.RemoveThis@zianet.com> said:

> On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 10:58:25 -0500, Bill wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 17 Nov 2007 20:49:07 -0700, ray <ray.RemoveThis@zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:07:03 -0800, SMS ???• ? wrote:
>>>
>>>> Ten reasons to choose a Digital SLR over a Point and Shoot
>>
>>> My Kodak P850 works well at speeds I need to use.
>>>
>>
>> Yes, it works well at the speeds that YOU need
>
> Exactly the point. I'm not disputing at all that a DSLR may be a superior
> answer for some problems. Saying that it's 'better' so I need to get one
> is asinine.

Where did the OP say that? He said there were reasons to get a DSLR and
listed them. There are reasons to get a P&S instead. Does that make the
P&S better?

Some of the people here seem to think that because a hammer is all they
need that no one should ever need a saw or a screwdriver.

Cameras are tools. You use the P&S for the jobs it does well, the DSLR
for the jobs it does well, the view camera for the jobs it does well,
and even a scanner or a photocopier for the jobs they do well. Listing
the things a DSLR or a point and shoot or a hammer does well does not
mean that other tools are inferior or can't substitute for the ideal
tool in a pinch. It means that the tool does these jobs well, meaning
that you will have an easier time getting superior results with them.

Most avid photographers have many different cameras of many different
types. I have, at the moment, two DSLRs, two point and shoots (I had
three, but some creep stole one last June), and three camera phones as
well as a scanner and a photocopier, all of which I use to take
pictures. I wish I also had an x-ray machine. Heck, I have no problem
with taking pictures with my iPhone, which is not a particularly good
camera by camera phone standards. I just make sure I use it within its
limitations.

I suggest that everyone stop acting like there is a war on and just go
out and do some photography in whatever way they wish, and stop this
childish bickering about whether point and shoots are better or worse
than DSLRs. They are neither. They are simply different.

What is really ridiculous is people posting pictures on the web and
saying that they don't see any difference between this camera or that.
Well, yeah. The picture quality is limited by your computer monitor and
software, not by the camera. If all you are going to do is take
pictures for display on an electronic monitor, even a billboard on
Times Square, you probably don't need more than about 2 megapixels and
quality is not an issue because the display is so bad. Two megapixels
is more than most monitors can display no matter how big they are. So
it is really laughable for people to think that somehow the quality of
a computer monitor is the limit for how good your prints are.

If all you are going to do is look at your pictures on a computer, you
are wasting your money to get more than 2 megapixels, whether it is a
point and shoot, a DSLR, or a camera phone. They will all look pretty
much alike, no matter what kind of camera you shoot with. Nothing has
lowered our expectations of picture quality quite like the television
and the computer. Gone are the days (for most people) when Ansel Adams
would talk about how to get picture that was really sharp. If that is
all the quality you need, who gives a hoot what camera you use or
whether you even just draw the picture with a pencil taped to your
nose? No one will be able to tell the difference.

There will always be, however, people who actually care about how good
their pictures are. They will always take the utmost care with their
photography, no matter what camera they use. Such people will take
better pictures using the cheapest, meanest old beat-up camera around
than those who spend tens of thousands of dollars on the latest
equipment but who can't be bothered to learn about composition,
lighting, color, etc. A true artist can take better pictures with a
shoebox with a pinhole in it than most people can with a Hasselblad
H3DII which costs more than most cars. And I can pretty much guarantee
that the 39 megapixel Hasselblad won't look any better on your computer
monitor than a disposable digital point and shoot.

You want web photography, use a cheap web cam. You want fine art, you
probably will have to shell out some serious cash. So what?

--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor