compact vs slr

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:40:06 -0700, Denis <denisphelan.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

>Can you get a compact as good as a SLR

I presume you meant dSLR? If not, then you'll have to go back several years to
revisit the digital vs. 35mm-film wars. Suffice to say that most digital cameras
more than 5 megapixels today are capable of putting out images every bit as good
as 35mm film, if not better.

Now if you meant to say dSLR, then:

Go to dpreview.com and check out their technical data of resolution test charts
between P&S compacts and dSLR cameras of equivalent megapixels.

The answer to your question is an easy yes.

Most of them also have extra features that no dSLR can ever have, features which
more than makes up for any high-ISO quality that they might lack from smaller
sensor sizes. Some of the Fuji P&S cameras excel in high-ISO settings rivaling
many dSLR's only claims to superiority in that department.

The only 2 advantages to the dSLR are high-ISO capability and choice of
prohibitively expensive lenses.

(Which I find odd, because the very same lens designs and materials use to cost
1/10th or less of what they do today. They charge whatever price that fools are
willing to pay for them. Those are the same kind of people that think if two
lenses are sold at $300 and another at $1500, the $1500 one *must* be the better
lens. Little do they know. They're the same kind of people who think that
spending $700 on a graphic editor means it must be better than a $70 editor.
Again, living proof of "Fools and their money are soon parted.")

Super-zoom P&S = no need to change any lenses. (dSLR score 0)

Some P&S cameras are just as good at high-ISOs. (dSLR score 0)

The multitude of drawbacks to a dSLR are too long to list here.

The imagined dSLR hold on superiority is lame indeed. Add in the cost of a dSLR
and the choice is a no-brainer -- except for the brainless of course.
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

There is one thing. Frame size. You can not take picture with narrow
depth of field with compact. With DSLR you can try.
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

A.Neuman wrote:
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:40:06 -0700, Denis <denisphelan DeleteThis @gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Can you get a compact as good as a SLR

[Gazillionth rehash of age-old religious war snipped]

> The imagined dSLR hold on superiority is lame indeed. Add in the cost
> of a dSLR and the choice is a no-brainer -- except for the brainless
> of course.

Pround to be a brainless

jue
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 23:28:34 +0200, Populares <noczelny.DeleteThis@gazeta.pl> wrote:

>
>There is one thing. Frame size. You can not take picture with narrow
>depth of field with compact. With DSLR you can try.

Au contraire, mon fraire. Shallow DOF is directly proportional to true lens
focal-length vs. true imaging media size and has nothing at all to do with what
kind of camera they are built into. On smaller sensors one only needs to
increase the focal-length of their lens (using long zoom settings or telextender
lenses) while using equivalent f/stop settings to achieve identical bokeh
between the two. Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify
why they wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with their
red-herring run-arounds.

Now on the other hand, since dSLRs cannot use f/stops over f/32 on any lens no
matter how expensive, they can't achieve the amazingly deep DOF effects of
smaller sensor cameras, which are capable of using all f/stops well under any
diffraction limitations. A much sought after quality for anyone doing the least
bit of macro-photography. The P&S can duplicate the shallow DOF of a dSLR, but
the dSLR can't duplicate the deep DOF of a P&S. Yet again, the dSLR scores a
huge fat honkin' ZERO on this one. I'd even give dSLRs a minus 2 on this aspect
due to their macro-photography limitations that they can't overcome in any
manner, no matter what expensive custom-design optics that they want to put on
their cameras.

Keep trying, keep losing.
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:34:55 +0200, Populares <noczelny RemoveThis @gazeta.pl> wrote:

>
>Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.

Thanks for this reply. It proves I am dealing with a moron who can't even read,
much less comprehend what was just told to him. There's no sense in trying to
have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, it just wouldn't be fair to
either party.
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

A.Neuman wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:34:55 +0200, Populares <noczelny.TakeThisOut@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>
>> Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.
>
> Thanks for this reply. It proves I am dealing with a moron who can't even read,
> much less comprehend what was just told to him. There's no sense in trying to
> have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, it just wouldn't be fair to
> either party.
>
You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
finding another source of reliable information and studying
it. You are 100% wrong.
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:16:07 +1200, frederick <lost DeleteThis @sea.com> wrote:

>A.Neuman wrote:
>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:34:55 +0200, Populares <noczelny DeleteThis @gazeta.pl> wrote:
>>
>>> Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.
>>
>> Thanks for this reply. It proves I am dealing with a moron who can't even read,
>> much less comprehend what was just told to him. There's no sense in trying to
>> have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, it just wouldn't be fair to
>> either party.
>>
>You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
>from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
>finding another source of reliable information and studying
>it. You are 100% wrong.

I refer you to this comment:

> Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify why they
> wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with
> their red-herring run-arounds.

If even 7 billion people are running like chickens with their heads cut off
believing, doing, and telling others a foolish thing it REMAINS a foolish thing.

It's nice to see how easily you are manipulated by them to join their mindless
ranks.
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:11:53 GMT, A.Neuman wrote:

>> You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
> > from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
>> finding another source of reliable information and studying
>> it. You are 100% wrong.
>
> I refer you to this comment:
>
>> Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify why they
>> wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with
>> their red-herring run-arounds.
>
> If even 7 billion people are running like chickens with their heads
> cut off believing, doing, and telling others a foolish thing it
> REMAINS a foolish thing.

And that's also true if a single idiot runs around telling others
foolish things. You may not be an idiot, but you do a serviceable
job of playing one.


> The only 2 advantages to the dSLR are high-ISO capability and choice
> of prohibitively expensive lenses.
>
> (Which I find odd, because the very same lens designs and materials use
> to cost 1/10th or less of what they do today.

I find it odd that you find that odd, since when I bought my first
DSLR, gasoline could be bought for less than 25 cents per gallon.
Before that, Coke, Pepsi and other soft drinks could be bought for 5
or 10 cents per bottle. Prices change, but once an idiot, always an
idiot, I suppose.


> Some P&S cameras are just as good at high-ISOs. (dSLR score 0)

If by that you mean that the recent P&S cameras with the best high
ISO performance do as well as the recent DSLRs with the worst high
ISO performance, you're probably wrong. And the P&S with the best
high ISO performance has many limitations, such as no viewfinder
other than its LCD display. Score: DSLR 1, Idiot 0.


> The imagined dSLR hold on superiority is lame indeed. Add in
> the cost of a dSLR and the choice is a no-brainer -- except for
> the brainless of course.

Except that my DSLR cost less than many P&S cameras. Cheaper than
some even if you include a lens. And of course it used all of my
old lenses. The WA and TELE lens adapters bought for my P&S cameras
are unlikely to work properly with most new P&S cameras. They also
interfere with using the flash. Score: DSLR 2, Idiot 0. But of
course we can't really hold this against a lame, brainless sock
puppet. Especially one that's so clueless that he's immediately
recognized by his favorite motto "What, me worry?". And he
really has little to worry about, since he has earned a niche in :

the all new . . .

> **** CHDK / Photoline 32 / anti-DSLR Sock Puppet Troll List ****
>
> A.Neuman, Allan D., Baumbadier, BigBrother, Brad M, Bucky,
> CharleiD, CoffeeTalk, CoolGuy, Craig Stevens, D. Farmington,
> Dartagnon, DaveB, DOCJohnson, D-Rexter, Danny V., EdBancroft,
> DSLRs SUCK!, email.TakeThisOut@email.com, FeastForThought, Fed-Up-With-Corel,
> FixItMan, FrankLM, Gaile S., GilfordBrimly, Glen Bankwood,
> GnomeAlaska, GoKiting, GreggAkin, GregoryH., Henry Hank, HatTrick,
> HokusPokus, IdiotDetector, ImpressMe, Jack Johnson, JoeBS, Lurk,
> John Kaiber, M. Goode, MoronDetector, NameHere, NameThere,
> New2_S3, nobody.TakeThisOut@noplace.org, OptionsRus, OTPolice, RealityCheck,
> ReplyingToStupid, Rob Akins, RockyZ, SayWhat, SelfImporantName,
> SelfImportantName, Siskel, SmartGuy, Soujourner, spamless, SpamAlert!,
> TryinToHelp, Wayne J.L., WillyWonka, X-Man and Yeti.
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

A.Neuman wrote:
> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 11:16:07 +1200, frederick <lost.DeleteThis@sea.com> wrote:
>
>> A.Neuman wrote:
>>> On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 00:34:55 +0200, Populares <noczelny.DeleteThis@gazeta.pl> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Large repost but try to do a portrait with comapct.
>>> Thanks for this reply. It proves I am dealing with a moron who can't even read,
>>> much less comprehend what was just told to him. There's no sense in trying to
>>> have a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent, it just wouldn't be fair to
>>> either party.
>>>
>> You would do yourself a favour by reading some of the posts
>>from more experienced people posting to these forums, or
>> finding another source of reliable information and studying
>> it. You are 100% wrong.
>
> I refer you to this comment:
>
>> Don't let the prolific posters who are only trying to justify why they
>> wasted so much money on their dSLR systems try to fool you with
>> their red-herring run-arounds.
>
> If even 7 billion people are running like chickens with their heads cut off
> believing, doing, and telling others a foolish thing it REMAINS a foolish thing.
>
> It's nice to see how easily you are manipulated by them to join their mindless
> ranks.


You do realise that such a strong belief that you are right
and everyone else is wrong is symptomatic of a mental disorder?
See a psychiatrist - but do it quick before scientologists
and others from tin hat brigades pounce on you.
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 20:59:58 -0400, ASAAR <caught.DeleteThis@22.com> wrote:

<desperate attention-seeking moronic drivel snipped>

Just another one for the "useless & mindless club" asswipe-filter.
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

"A.Neuman" <noname DeleteThis @noplace.com> wrote in message
news:bb51d3dk35m7poqb1qecg7hmohrrm1pnd7@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Aug 2007 11:40:06 -0700, Denis <denisphelan DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Can you get a compact as good as a SLR
>
> I presume you meant dSLR? If not, then you'll have to go back several
> years to
> revisit the digital vs. 35mm-film wars. Suffice to say that most digital
> cameras
> more than 5 megapixels today are capable of putting out images every bit
> as good
> as 35mm film, if not better.
>
> Now if you meant to say dSLR, then:
>
> Go to dpreview.com and check out their technical data of resolution test
> charts
> between P&S compacts and dSLR cameras of equivalent megapixels.
>
> The answer to your question is an easy yes.
>
> Most of them also have extra features that no dSLR can ever have,

Which?



features which
> more than makes up for any high-ISO quality that they might lack from
> smaller
> sensor sizes. Some of the Fuji P&S cameras excel in high-ISO settings
> rivaling
> many dSLR's only claims to superiority in that department

No they don't, not atall.


>
> The only 2 advantages to the dSLR are high-ISO capability and choice of
> prohibitively expensive lenses.

You seem to have forgot speed at which the camera processes the images, my
old fuji could manage a RAW file every 18 seconds (and it was a good fuji
cam) now my new DSLR manages 3 RAW's per second for 9 or 10 images in a row
(and it is the lowest of Canon's line). Also, not all lenses are expensive,
but most are better than super-zoom lenses of compact fame (and the fact
that you can get a lens to do what you want for anything you want goes a
long way). DSLR's also generally have a much bigger sensor, meaning that
you can take images at a higher ISO without as much noise as a compact and
you can acquire better images. Faster Frames Per Second, much longer
battery life, much more apertures available, an inconsiderable amount of
viewfinder quality difference (simply amazing on a DSLR), better menu
control and customisability all make DLSR's a mcuh better choice, for those
who can afford to take the step UP.


>
> (Which I find odd, because the very same lens designs and materials use to
> cost
> 1/10th or less of what they do today.

And so do houses, but what relevance dodes this have? (but 1/10th must be
going back at least 50 years, as far as lenses are concerned)

They charge whatever price that fools are
> willing to pay for them. Those are the same kind of people that think if
> two
> lenses are sold at $300 and another at $1500, the $1500 one *must* be the
> better
> lens.

Stupid, stupid.

Little do they know. They're the same kind of people who think that
> spending $700 on a graphic editor means it must be better than a $70
> editor.
> Again, living proof of "Fools and their money are soon parted.")

Quoting famous quotes doesn't that you know what you are talking about. Here
is definite proof of that!

>
> Super-zoom P&S = no need to change any lenses. (dSLR score balls)

and no good lenses


>
> Some P&S cameras are just as good at high-ISOs. (dSLR score balls)

some? Name "some" of them.


>
> The multitude of drawbacks to a dSLR are too long to list here.

The only drawbacks that exist are price and flash sync speed.


>
> The imagined dSLR hold on superiority is lame indeed.

Stupid.

Add in the cost of a dSLR
> and the choice is a no-brainer -- except for the brainless of course.


That would be YOU. Don't bother wasting your time and the time of others
that may read your stupid comments and you should accept the fact that
DSLR's are better, even if you can't afford one.
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr 

On Sun, 26 Aug 2007 01:29:34 GMT, "Matalog" <matalog.DeleteThis@ntlworld.com> wrote:

>The only drawbacks that exist are price and flash sync speed.

You forgot some of them (but then clueless idiots are like that).

Noisy shutter and mirror that scares wildlife and alerts others
Slow flash sync at last century speeds
Dust on the sensor and mirror requiring servicing and extreme care
Ungainly weight and equipment needed to use one
Huge size making candid photography impossible
Focal-plane shutter symmetry distortions of anything that moves
No programmable exposure sequences
Overpriced lenses with less resolution than most P&S camera lenses
Needing 3 to 5 overpriced lenses to match just one P&S super-zoom
Exorbitant costs
Being denied access to events because of appearances
Outlandish repair costs and equipment downtimes
Huge shooting delays when changing lenses to find the right one
Condensation on the sensor and mirror when temps change
Easily scratched mirror
Short shutter and mirror mechanism life-span
No internal EVF so any live-preview LCD is washed out by lights
Inaccurate framing in the OVF
No DOF and Hyperfocal readings in OVF
No exact focal-length readings relayed to the user when using zoom
The wrong exposure readings if you don't block the OVF from stray light
Limited length burst modes with HUGE delays when writing to media
Black-bodies-only ensuring excess thermal absorption to increase noise
No video and audio recording capabilities

This list goes on and on and on and on and on and on and on .....
 >> Stay informed about: compact vs slr