good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s?

<friesian RemoveThis @zoocrewphoto.com> wrote in message
news:1193116049.635668.277140@v29g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 22, 8:59 pm, "The Spider Formally Seated Next To Little Miss
> Muffet" <muf... RemoveThis @spider.com> wrote:
>> Apparently you know about as much about cameras as your sister.
>
> No need to be insulting. I know more about cameras than you think. I
> also knowmy sister.
>
> There are
>> many reasons why someone would want a dSLR over a point and shoot,
>> advanced
>> controls, interchangable lenses, etc. aren't on the list. However, about
>> better low light capability even in full auto mode, less noise, higher
>> ISO
>> with less noise.
>
> Most decent p&s cameras have low noise. My parents use a 5 MP p&s, and
> they get very nice photos that enlarge nicely. I think it would work
> fine for my sister. Just because it is a p&s, doesn't make it junk.
>
>
> Better quality pictures overall since most dSLR's have
>> better focusing and metering. The ability to get blurred backgrounds even
>> in
>> full auto mode making shots of flowers and such look nicer with little
>> effort.
>
> To get a blurred background, you have to overide the camera. They are
> designed to stick with a medium aperature to get good sharp images all
> around.
>
>
> RAW, better memory buffer for both RAW and JPG so you can shoot more
>> shots in rapid fire mode. Actual optical viewfinder. Better response for
>> fast moving subjects.
>
> True, SLRs are typically better at this. But, honestly, does it make
> that much difference to the average person who isn't serious about
> photography? The people who are just looking for snapshots?
>
>
>>
>> As for your prime lens, not everyone wants to waste time changing lenses.
>> The fact that you liked the prime lenses doesn't mean your sister does.
>
> Just last weekend, they loaned it to her to photograph our niece in
> for homecoming. She opted to use her film camera because she was
> afraid to use the digital camera. She ended up with dark photos
> because she insists on using slow film with her slow lens. Now she
> wants me to scan them and fix them. Had she changed the lens to the
> 50mm f/1.4 lens that I bought for her, she would have some nice
> photos. But she insisted on using her slow f/5.6 lens in program
> mode.
>
> The reason I bought that lens for her was that we went to an indoor
> horse show, and she insisted on shooting 100 speed film with her f/5.6
> lens for black horses. I tried to warn her. I offered her some of my
> film. She insisted she was fine since her camera gave her a green
> light. She did not realize that it was slowing down the shutter speed
> to get enough light. She ended up with a ton of blurry photos. I
> photographed the same event with 800 speed film and an f/1.2 lens.
>
> The problem I see is that she doesn't know what her camera's
> limitations are, so she doesn't know how to work within the limits or
> change the settings. Why spend $200 on an older 3.1 MP camera plus
> more for a lens that would honestly be no better than a 5 MP p&s when
> you compare the actual settings that she will use. She isn't going to
> use any of the various settings. It doesn't record video. The buffer
> is not large and takes awhile to clear.
>
> I upgraded because the buffer was too slow for action work, there were
> only 3 focusing points, and the files weren't high enough resolution
> to get a good 8x10 if I had to crop very much. After having the new
> camera, I am thrilled with the better features. I can take more photos
> before the buffer fills, and it clears much faster. I have not had to
> wait once for it to be ready since I got it. I also discovered that it
> has a shorter shutter delay than the older camera and focuses faster.
>
> As
>> for selling yours out from under her, no biggy. If she really wants one
>> she
>> can get a good new one for about $600. What you should be telling her is
>> she
>> wants one of the entry level models. Instead of coming on here talking
>> about
>> her like she is an photographic idiot, when it is you that don't have a
>> very
>> good grip of the subject.
>>
>
>
> She hasn't got $600. If she had $200, I would have sold her my camera
> already. What I am trying to do is help her find the best camera for
> her for less than $200.
>
> For the same amount of money, she can buy a low resolution dSLR with
> features she will never use. Or she can buy a higher resolution camera
> without those features.
>
> Feel free to go back to your insults. I am doing well in my
> photography business, so I guess my lack of a "good grip" on the
> subject isn't holding me back. I seem to be able to shoot in manual
> mode just fine. I supposed I could have gone down the list of all the
> features of each type of camera, but I didn't think that it was
> necessary to give a full scale review.
>
>

Why not the original message was insulting to the sister. Eye for an Eye. I
am not worried I have a good seeing eye dog.

the Spider

--
Ignorance really is bliss, just look how happy President Bush is.
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 08:20:08 -0600, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <username RemoveThis @qwest.net> wrote:

>Meghan Noecker wrote:
>> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 07:41:42 GMT, Alex Barnes <nospam RemoveThis @noaddress.org>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> So I agree with all you say. But try a challenge sometime. Try shooting with
>>> nothing but P&S cameras for one month. Force yourself into what you think would
>>> be a constricting discipline. See if you don't find ways to get the same image
>>> quality and effects for all the same things you've used DSLRs all these years.
>>> Under some circumstances, like macro photography especially, you'll get even
>>> better results than what you could ever get with a larger sensor system. It's a
>>> rewarding challenge. One that I'm glad I tried long long ago.
>>
>> I use a p&s at home for quick photos, like photographing something I
>> want to sell on ebay or getting a quick photo of my cat doing
>> something cute.
>>
>> But I would be extremely relunctant to use it for my professional
>> work. My own p&s is much older. It is a 1.5 MP camera, but has some
>> features that I really like. It has a great buffer and a really nice
>> precapture feature eliminating shutter delay. I have used it at fun
>> events if the lighting was good.
>>
>> My parents' p&s is higher resoloution, better than my old dSLR, but
>> not nearly as good as my new dSLR. So, I would have a hard time going
>> backwards, and I have no need for a newer p&s.
>>
>> Anyway, most of my professional work is studio style, and I need to
>> bounce the flash. I also need to be able to use a better lens. I
>> haven't seen any p&s cameras that come with f/2.8 lenses. Some of my
>> clients prefer I don't use flash, so I have to be able to shoot both
>> ways.
>>
>> If it wasn't for sale, I would probably be satisfied with it. But I
>> have to do my best when I am shooting for money. And that means using
>> the best equipment that I have for the job.
>>
>>
>Meghan,
>
>This thread is being poisoned by the P&S troll, so be careful.
>The P&S troll is in the form of Alex Barnes but it changes its name
>often to make it look like more people support its position
>(check full headers and the troll's origin is easy to locate)
>and to prevent filters.
>
>P&S cameras can take great pictures and it is better in my opinion
>to have a small P&S camera than none at all (I've traveled most
>of this month with only a P&S). But there are real performance
>differences.
>
>Major factors like low light performance is basic
>physics: the larger the sensitive area of each pixel, the more light
>it gathers. Small P&S cameras have pixels smaller than 2 microns,
>while some DSLRs are more than 8 microns. Area goes as the
>square, so the area ratio is like 8*8/2*2 = 16 times difference
>in sensitivity. That means that the small pixel P&S camera at
>ISO 100 collects the same amount of light (number of photons)
>as the large pixel camera at ISO 1600! Another way to look at it
>is the DSLR with an f/4 lens collects the same amount of light
>as the P&S camera with an f/1 lens (which does not exist).
>Its like putting a larger bucket out in a rainstorm: larger
>buckets collect more raindrops.
>Again, this is basic physics and there is no way around it,
>regardless of what the P&S troll says, nor marketing hype by camera
>manufacturers.
>
>So a low-end DSLR with a zoom lens produces great images under
>more light conditions, having faster response with higher dynamic
>range and better low light performance than P&S cameras. The
>low end DSLRs are similar in size to the better P&S superzooms,
>and costs are similar. But P&S cameras can be smaller and more
>convenient, take great pictures in good lighting conditions, as
>long as your willing to accept the lower performance in less than
>ideal situations.
>
>Roger

Hey idiot, which part of Meghan's words:

>I also know from experience that she does not need a dslr. She has had
>a 35mm film camera for over 15 years, and she has never used more than
>the stanard zoom kit lens even though I bought her a nice prime lens
>for Christmas once. She also shoots in program mode all the time since
>she does not understand aperature, depth of field, etc. She has asked
>a few times, but always gets frazzled when I try to explain it.

did you fail to understand?

And yet you still push a DSLR on someone that clearly doesn't want nor need your
idiotic advice. You're nothing but a DSLR TROLL, that's ALL you are and will
ever be. Even when you are told in ADVANCE that someone doesn't want nor need a
DSLR, there you are, chomping at the bit, relentlessly trying to shove your
expensive and useless advice down someone's throat. Get a clue you idiot. Don't
you for once in your life think that other people know better than you what they
want and need for their photography? Not to mention, I've compared your images
from your MkII and L-glass. An inexpensive $400 P&S camera can STILL beat your
$12,000 photography setup. How blind can you get? How stupid can you get? Wait,
I'm sure you'll show us more examples of that .... you're too stupid to learn.
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

Alex Barnes wrote:

> And yet you still push a DSLR on someone that clearly doesn't want nor need your
> idiotic advice. You're nothing but a DSLR TROLL, that's ALL you are and will
> ever be.

You are simply a pest. Your trolling is redundant, and is completely
unoriginal.

--
lsmft
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

>> In my opinion, your average 'snapper'(of which I'm one) is far
>> better off with a nice little well specced P&S they can slip out of
>> their pocket and take a few nice shots with, than an hulking great
>> SLR that takes about 5 minutes to unpack and set up every time you
>> want to take a photo. Even if you might get slightly better shots
>> with the SLR (not necesserally a given in the hands of
>> non-professional).
>
> Now you are trolling. In the time the typical P&S is pulled out
> of a pocket, turned on, wait for the camera to boot, wait for the
> zoom lens to move into ready position, the time for you to zoom the
> lens electrically (slow motors), the DSLR can be pulled from the case,
> turned on (instant on), pointed and 5+ shots taken before the
> P&S camera is even ready to take its first shot.

I'd dispute that. The little Casio P&S that I have is ready to shoot within
a second or so of powering up.
Zoom lens is pretty fast too. (I might have been trolling a tiny bit with my
5 minutes though I suppose...)

> Then add other features, like predictive autofocus that DSLRs have
> that tracks focus on moving subjects. This is important if you
> want action pictures (e.g. baby's first step, kids at play, pets at
> play, to serious wildlife photography).
>


But some of the better P&S cameras have tracking focus and other similar
tricks as well.

I think we are best to agree to disagree... Personally, for my requirements,
I'd never bother with a DSLR - too big and bulky (not to mention expensive).
I'm quite happy with the portability and convenience of my little pocket
sized P&S, and the lower quality of the resulting pictures is not a worry to
me at the size of prints I will normally be producing. In fact, a lot of the
time, I'll only view/show my pictures on a computer/TV screen anyway.

Chris.

--
Regards,
Chris.
(Remove Elvis's shoes to email me)
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

ChrisM wrote:

> I think we are best to agree to disagree... Personally, for my requirements,
> I'd never bother with a DSLR - too big and bulky (not to mention expensive).
> I'm quite happy with the portability and convenience of my little pocket
> sized P&S, and the lower quality of the resulting pictures is not a worry to
> me at the size of prints I will normally be producing. In fact, a lot of the
> time, I'll only view/show my pictures on a computer/TV screen anyway.

That's totally good that you're happy with your gear. We all should be!
It's only when folks start telling others that their
way/gear/tone/pictures sucks that we have more noise than necessary.

--
john mcwilliams
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:39:59 GMT, Alex Barnes <nospam.TakeThisOut@noaddress.org>
wrote:


>The Sony F707, F717, F818, and other models all come standard with f/2.0-f/2.4
>throughout their zoom range. They even have a 1/1.8 or 2/3 sensor.

>The Canon S1, S2, S3, S5 all come with a f/2.7-f/3.5 throughout their huge 12x
>(36mm-432mm) zoom range. (2.7-3.1 on the 10x of the S1).
>
>This is just 2 of the many lines of P&S cameras that are out there. Add in the
>Fuji (f/2.8-f/4. and Panasonic (f/2.8-f/3.7) superzoom lines and you get the
>same kinds of f/stop ranges.
>

I will check those out. If any of them are avaiolable used at a good
price, they would be good choices for my sister.

>I don't know where all these DSLR people continually come up with this bizarre
>idea that P&S cameras can't have wide f/stops on their lenses.

Is it somewhat newer? I have never seen a p&s camera with a zoom that
was better than f/4.5. And even the SLR cameras often come with a kit
lens that is f/4.5-5.6. Fast lenses usually aren't standard equipment.

>or more lenses to accomplish it. I guess in their need to justify their DSLR
>purchases they create their own self-induced blind spots. Then I often see the
>same thing happening with the photography that they get out of their DSLRs,
>blind spots in composition and craftsmanship.

In my case, I have never seen or heard of a fast lens on a point &
shoot camera until this very post. Back when I bought my first digital
camera, I bought a p&s because I could not afford a dSLR or the new
lenses I would need. I was shooting Canon manual focus, so none of my
lenses would work on a new camera. I spent weeks looking through the
reviews and comparing cameras. I just never saw anything with a fast
lens.


>
>Bounce flash? I use external flash with all my P&S cameras, my external flash
>units all have bounce-flash capability.

My parents' p& s camera does not accept an off-camera flash. The
person was suggesting I try a month with just a p&s. I would have to
buy a new one to get one that could use my flash. The experiment is
not worth the money to me.

>the lenses. Nothing but self-induced blindness on the part of DSLR advocates.
>

Would you like me to photograph the p&s camera in this house and send
you the photo? I would like to know how I can use my flash (which
weighs a lot more than the camera) on a tiny camera with no hot shoe.
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 11:24:31 GMT, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor.DeleteThis@blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:

>Alex Barnes wrote:
>[]
>> No doubt some will display that effect in response to this post.
>> Watch ...
>
>Many, if not all, DSLR owners use compact cameras as well as DSLRs. They
>can choose the best tool for the job in hand.
>

Exactly. I do use a p&s sometimes. Just not for my professional work.
I'm not saying a p&s couldn't do it. just that the p&s in this
household cannot do it. I have a camera that works great, so I'm not
looking for a new camera.

What I want to do is convince my sister that she doesn't need a dSLR
and would be better off with a p&s. I think she wants the dSLR since
they are fancier and look more professional.

I am amazed at how many people go by looks. Until 2 years, I was
shooting with an older manual focus camera. People would see my system
and tell me it must be nice to have such a fancy camera. They didn't
know that the camera in their own hand was fancier than mine.
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 10:16:35 -1000, Scott W <biphoto.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
wrote:


>
>A DSLR has a much faster focus system, which means a shorter shutter lag
>when using auto focus.

THis one is fairly new to me as my old dSLR was my first autofocus
SLR. It felt very slow to me as I was used to no delay at all. And
now, having a newer camera, the delay is shorter, just about instant.
So, I am not able to judge fairly whether the old dSLR camera had a
reasonable shutter lag, or if it really was too slow. It seemed too
slow to me.

>
>You said you upgraded you DSLR, if it takes the sames lenses as your old
>camera then I assume you kept all your lenses, this by itself would make
>buying your old camera not too attractive to her I would think.
>

I have mentioned that to her several times, but it doesn't seem to
bother her. She bought her old system used about 15 years. She has
never bought a lens by itself. So, she probably hasn't considered that
it is going to cost some additional money. Either that, or she is
assuming I will let her borrow mine, and that just isn't going to
happen. She can't afford to replace them, so I can't afford to risk
them. Even if it wasn't her fault, I would be very upset if something
happened and I had to cancelled a show because I couldn't replace it
fast enough.
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 13:33:55 -0700, "The Spider Formally Seated Next
To Little Miss Muffet" <muffet.TakeThisOut@spider.com> wrote:


>
>Why not the original message was insulting to the sister. Eye for an Eye. I
>am not worried I have a good seeing eye dog.
>

So I should insult her worse by suggesting she waste her money on
something she won't really use? Wouldn't I be more useful by helping
her get something more useful to her for less money?

If she had bought my camera, and then even a cheap 75-300 zoom lens
(what she uses with her old camera), she would be out at least $300
for a camera that came out in 2000.
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

"Alex Barnes" <nospam.RemoveThis@noaddress.org> wrote in message
news:3p2rh3haaafh5303gqee0meolrsbher2i9@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:07:29 -0700, "friesian@zoocrewphoto.com"
> <friesian.RemoveThis@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:

> I've seen some images recently done by the new Panasonic FZ18
> that totally beat the resolution and quality of a Canon Mk II with
> near-equivalent prime lens L-glass.

?! Can I have the link to this please ?
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

"Alex Barnes" <nospam.TakeThisOut@noaddress.org> wrote in message
news:3p2rh3haaafh5303gqee0meolrsbher2i9@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 22 Oct 2007 22:07:29 -0700, "friesian@zoocrewphoto.com"
> <friesian.TakeThisOut@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
>
>>Most decent p&s cameras have low noise. My parents use a 5 MP p&s, and
>>they get very nice photos that enlarge nicely. I think it would work
>>fine for my sister. Just because it is a p&s, doesn't make it junk.

Totally Agreed, but she asked you for a dSLR.
It's a bit like asking for a racing bike for your birthday and getting a
BMX. In the right hands the BMX can do some amazing things and is far more
resilient but if it's not what you wanted you still won't be happy.
Sometimes you have to let people make what you believe to be a mistake.
Often you will be right and they would have been better following your
advice but other times they will surprise you.

> Just ignore its reply. This newsgroup is crawling to the rafters with
> doubtful
> DSLR owners that use every chance they can get to try to justify why they
> spent
> so much money on their own DSLRs.

My current DSLR setup is an old Canon 300D (Rebel) and a 50mm f1.8 Prime
lens. This would cost you less than £250 to buy these days (but the 300D
would have to be second hand as they are out of production).
Most good modern P&S would cost more as did my S3IS (which I also love).

> If they can convince everyone to follow them
> down that money pit for the same quality of image as good P&S cameras,
> then they
> can feel better about their own choices. Misery does indeed love company.
> If
> they can convince you that they made the right choice then THEY must have
> made
> the right choice. It's why they do it.

In my eyes anyone who says P&S are ALWAYS better than dSLR's (or vica versa)
are the kind of people who should be ignored.
Each type of camera has their strengths and anyone who can't realise that is
deluded.

I started out with the original digital Ixus (Elph in the states I think)
which was a 2.1Mp monster with a 3x zoom!
I loved the camera and it recorded thousands of happy memories for me but
eventually I got frustrated with the lack of zoom and very slow focusing and
start-up.
The crunch point came on a Safari trip to Kruger Park in South Africa.
Despite getting lots of nice pictures I missed out on lots more due to not
having the necesary zoom, focus speed and light sensitivity.

When I came back I tried every other camera I could find but none were
enough of an improvement to justify buying them.
At the time the Canon 300D had just been released and one shop owner
suggested I have a look at it.
I had never used a dSLR before and I didn't really understand the
differences I knew they could take interchangable lenses (which was good for
the zoom issue) but that was it.
After about ten minutes of using it in the shop I was convinced it would
solve my problems. I loved the almost instant focus, the abilty to overide
almost everything (if I wanted to) and the knowledge that I could
effectively upgrade it by buying new lenses.
At the time it was a fortune to me but I was prepared to pay as it was such
a leap from the P&S cameras at the time.

I confess that for the first month I used it on full auto and simply enjoyed
the ability to get the picture I wanted, rather than the picture my camera
wanted to take 2 seconds later.
As I became acustomed to the camera I used more and more of the manual
controls in order to hone my skills.

Since buying it I have bought a 50mm F1.8 fixed lens which is astoundingly
good for the price (£50) and as a result this spends 90% of the time on the
camera.
It is not the ideal focal length for a 1.6 cropped camera (a 35mm would be
better) but it produces beautiful results.

One year ago my wife and I decided to take a year out to travel the world
and the first stop was going to be (you guessed it) South Africa and Kruger
Park.
Having bought the 300D solely for my next trip to Kruger I was now faced
with a dilemma, in order to get the shots I wanted I would need at-least a
200mm lens (prob more likely a 400mm).
Although I could get them for a few hundred pounds they were all very heavy
and I didn't fancy lugging one round the world with me.

For this reason I decided to buy the S3IS and have not regretted it for a
second (especially since CHDK came out). As it turned out we postponed our
trip by a year and are about to set off next month but I have had great use
out of the S3IS during the past year. I have also bought a 1.5x extender
for it which will give me the equivalent of a 600mm zoom lens!

All in all I am trying to say that all cameras have their target markets and
a good photographer picks the best compromise for their intended use, taking
into account, size, weight, budget, environment, etc.

Regardless I hope your Sister enjoys her new camera as much as I have
enjoyed mine over the years.
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

Meghan Noecker wrote:
[]
> What I want to do is convince my sister that she doesn't need a dSLR
> and would be better off with a p&s. I think she wants the dSLR since
> they are fancier and look more professional.

Get her a camera and get her using it! Some of the higher-end Panasonic
"look" quite fancy (e.g. FZ18), if you want that, but I would be more
tempted by a camera which fitted comfortably in the handbag (TZ3).

FZ18:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Panasonic/panasonic_dmcfz18.asp

TZ3:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonictz3/

Both come in black, which may matter <G>.

Cheers,
David
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s? 

"Alex Barnes" <nospam DeleteThis @noaddress.org> wrote in message
news:bfhrh3t7tkggsnrbp299lipm2mnc2nvne8@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 23 Oct 2007 01:26:00 -0700, Meghan Noecker
> <friesian DeleteThis @zoocrewphoto.com>
> wrote:

> I don't know where all these DSLR people continually come up with this
> bizarre
> idea that P&S cameras can't have wide f/stops on their lenses. That's one
> of the
> advantages of having a smaller sensor. You can make long-zoom lenses that
> hold
> their large aperture throughout the zoom range with even better image
> quality in
> the lenses and less distortion. You can't even get those ranges and f/stop
> advantages on DSLR glass, at least not at any affordable price. And it
> takes 2
> or more lenses to accomplish it. I guess in their need to justify their
> DSLR
> purchases they create their own self-induced blind spots. Then I often see
> the
> same thing happening with the photography that they get out of their
> DSLRs,
> blind spots in composition and craftsmanship.

You are correct that the S3IS has a fairly wide aperture but you cannot
compare it with an equivalent on a dSLR

I don't fully understand the science behind it but my SLR somehow gets nicer
shots.

It might be down to the compromises on a 12x zoom, I don't know

Having said that the S3IS is still an awesome camera.
 >> Stay informed about: good websites for choosing between dslr and p&s?