DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:58:59 -1000, Scott W <biphoto DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote
in <473cb323$0$15404$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

>But I often find myself with just a P&S wishing it was my DSLR instead.
>
>Two years ago I used a small waterproof camera to shoot a canoe race
>from our clubs double hull canoe, I got some very nice photos, IMO and
>it was great not to have to worry about a large expensive DSLR getting
>wet. Last year I took the DSLR on the same double hull and photographed
>the same race, and the photos came out better, IMO. It took a lot more
>work to use the DSLR in such a wet environment, but it was worth it.
>Saturday I will be on the double hull once again, and again I will be
>using the DSLR.
>
>With the point and shoot I get better photo then if I had no camera at
>all. But in almost all cases I will get a better photo if I am using my
>DSLR.

For me it's just the opposite -- the huge handling advantage of my
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 Leica super-zoom when I'm out and about lets me get
high-quality pictures I wouldn't get with my comparatively clumsy SLR
kit. (Not to mention having a lot less money at risk.) As a result the
SLR kit stays on the shelf more and more these days. "Different strokes
for different folks."

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 10:58:59 -1000, Scott W <biphoto RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote
> in <473cb323$0$15404$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>
>> But I often find myself with just a P&S wishing it was my DSLR instead.
>>
>> Two years ago I used a small waterproof camera to shoot a canoe race
>>from our clubs double hull canoe, I got some very nice photos, IMO and
>> it was great not to have to worry about a large expensive DSLR getting
>> wet. Last year I took the DSLR on the same double hull and photographed
>> the same race, and the photos came out better, IMO. It took a lot more
>> work to use the DSLR in such a wet environment, but it was worth it.
>> Saturday I will be on the double hull once again, and again I will be
>> using the DSLR.
>>
>> With the point and shoot I get better photo then if I had no camera at
>> all. But in almost all cases I will get a better photo if I am using my
>> DSLR.
>
> For me it's just the opposite -- the huge handling advantage of my
> Panasonic DMC-FZ8 Leica super-zoom when I'm out and about lets me get
> high-quality pictures I wouldn't get with my comparatively clumsy SLR
> kit. (Not to mention having a lot less money at risk.) As a result the
> SLR kit stays on the shelf more and more these days. "Different strokes
> for different folks."
>

The FZ8 does look pretty good. I think the thing that would give me the
biggest problem would be not having a manual zoom. Typically I am
shooting a canoe coming at me, zooming out as they come and then zooming
in on the next canoe. When the boats are coming in fast I am shoot about
one frame a second. With manual zoom I can zoom to anywhere in the
range in a faction of a second, which is very nice. It is also nice to
be zooming with the left hand and shooting with the right. So for me it
is the DSLR again this year.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill <ccreekin RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote
in <473c7bd6 RemoveThis @news.meer.net>:

>Arguments over relative merits of DSLR vs P&S digicams
>occupy a plurality of current traffic volume on r.p.d.
>
>In many ways it reminds me of the film vs digital debate
>of the last many years.
>
>DSLR partisans seem like the defenders of film, because
>they don't have a lot of firm evidence that their workflow
>is superior, except at high ISO or some arcane usage.

I think it's more a matter of childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR
advocates who feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs
and those who use them, like wearing a Rolex to be more cool, or worse a
fake Rolex, like cheaping out with a Sigma or Tamron lens on a Canon or
Nikon body.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

John Navas <spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:16:31 GMT, "Ali" <me.DeleteThis@privacy.net> wrote in
><3z3%i.24380$6v.11992@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>:
>
>>LOL.
>>
>>With a Rolex, I understand where you are coming from, absolutely. Of
>>course, a cheap digital watch will still accurately tell the time. P&S 'v'
>>DSLR is not the same.
>
>It actually is the same.
>Pretty much any decent camera is capable of taking great pictures.
>What really matters is the photographer, not the camera.
>Bragging about a tool is a sure mark of a not so great photographer.

Ever see a truly talented craftsman, regardless of the
craft, who *did* *not* have a set of the best tools he
could afford?

Not that there may not be several sets of El Cheapo
screwdrivers, or whatever, but when it gets down to
craftsmanship to make art, the really good tools come
out.

The same is true with the art and craft of photography.

And if you sit around with a group of craftsmen,
regardless of the craft, talk occasionally gets around
to tools. Professionals won't tell you that "bragging
about a tool is a sure mark of" anything; they'll tell
you about why they chose this brand over that brand, and
almost guaranteed that those will be two of the most
expensive sets on the market, for whatever it is. And
they will have *detailed* reasons for their choice.

The same is true with professional photographers.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.DeleteThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

In article <4kgpj3p4evtkvir4as44nlfgn3c3hrpdco RemoveThis @4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:

> I think it's more a matter of childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR
> advocates who feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs
> and those who use them, like wearing a Rolex to be more cool, or worse a
> fake Rolex, like cheaping out with a Sigma or Tamron lens on a Canon or
> Nikon body.

it's just as childish to do the reverse, putting down dslrs and in
particular, third party lenses, some of which are quite good (not all,
of course).
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

"John Navas" <spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:4kgpj3p4evtkvir4as44nlfgn3c3hrpdco@4ax.com...
> On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill <ccreekin.DeleteThis@yahoo.com> wrote
> in <473c7bd6.DeleteThis@news.meer.net>:
> I think it's more a matter of childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR
> advocates who feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs
> and those who use them, like wearing a Rolex to be more cool, or worse a
> fake Rolex, like cheaping out with a Sigma or Tamron lens on a Canon or
> Nikon body.
>

To be honest, it sure seems like these threads are started far more often by
point & shoot users.

Mark
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

EddyGleason <spamtrap.RemoveThis@noaddress.org> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:13:09 -0900, floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson) wrote:
>
>>Ever see a truly talented craftsman, regardless of the
>>craft, who *did* *not* have a set of the best tools he
>>could afford?
>
>Yeah, Michelangelo blamed his mistakes on not having carbide-tipped power tools.
>
>
>Try another analogy, this one doesn't work.

You think he *didn't* use the best technology that was
available?

It's a perfect example.

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.RemoveThis@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

Matt Ion <soundy106 DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
>> John Navas <spamfilter1 DeleteThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:16:31 GMT, "Ali" <me DeleteThis @privacy.net> wrote in
>>> <3z3%i.24380$6v.11992@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>:
>>>
>>>> LOL.
>>>>
>>>> With a Rolex, I understand where you are coming from, absolutely. Of
>>>> course, a cheap digital watch will still accurately tell the time. P&S 'v'
>>>> DSLR is not the same.
>>> It actually is the same.
>>> Pretty much any decent camera is capable of taking great pictures.
>>> What really matters is the photographer, not the camera.
>>> Bragging about a tool is a sure mark of a not so great photographer.
>> Ever see a truly talented craftsman, regardless of the
>> craft, who *did* *not* have a set of the best tools he
>> could afford?
>
>HAVING them isn't the same as BRAGGING about them, which
>I believe is John's point.

That wasn't a "point", that was his attempt at
belittling anyone who mentions a high quality tool.

>Craftsmen don't buy the "best" tools because they
>produce a better product - they buy them because they

That simply is not true. The best tools produce the
best results. Ask a gunsmith about screwdrivers, and
you'll likely get an ear full that is ten times more than
you ever knew to exist about screwdrivers.

But the same craftsman will use the screwdriver on a
pocket tool to open up the kid's toy to change a
battery.

>last longer, don't break as easily, require less
>maintenance, are nicer to handle, or any other number of
>reasons that makes them LESS OF A LIABILITY. If you're
>working wood and use a set of chisels all the time, and
>you buy a cheap chisel that needs to be sharpened every
>day and breaks under light usage, that tool adversely
>affects your productivity and therefore is a liability.

Exactly. It doesn't produce the same results that a
better tool does.

>So you shell out for quality chisels that won't go dull
>when carving white pine and snap if you look at them
>wrong.
>
>Ultimately, the quality of the product is still in the
>skill, talent, dedication, abilities, and care of the
>craftsman, regardless of the tools he uses.

Sure, but skilled craftsmen virtually *always* go for
the best tools available. (Unless the very point is to
produce something with "old" technology, which has its
own attractions too.)

There is no reason that photographers would be any
different either. The set of screwdrivers, the set of
chisels or the camera... might all be whatever is handy
for a typical unskilled person, because to them it
simply doesn't make any difference which one is used.

For a truly talented craftsman, it makes a load of
difference.

>> And if you sit around with a group of craftsmen,
>> regardless of the craft, talk occasionally gets around
>> to tools. Professionals won't tell you that "bragging
>> about a tool is a sure mark of" anything; they'll tell
>> you about why they chose this brand over that brand, and
>> almost guaranteed that those will be two of the most
>> expensive sets on the market, for whatever it is. And
>> they will have *detailed* reasons for their choice.
> >
>> The same is true with professional photographers.
>
>Bringing it up in "shop talk" isn't the same as bragging, either.

To John Navas it is. Because that is the only way he
can depreciate the significance of a photographer having
good tools.

The odd thing is, I know damned well that John happens
to be a very skilled person in at least one area. He
may not need the best camera around in order to satisfy
his photography needs... but ask him about test
equipment to analyze modem equipment, and see how many
Brand X tools he uses there!

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd DeleteThis @apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl.TakeThisOut@gol.com> wrote:
>"Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com> wrote:
>>
>> But the same craftsman will use the screwdriver on a
>> pocket tool to open up the kid's toy to change a
>> battery.
>
>One day I was trying to open a can of frozen orange juice with a Swiss army
>knife can opener.
>
>And not succeeding very well. (There's a Mark Twain joke about
>circumstantial evidence that applies here.)
>
>Then I remembered that one of the guys there had actually been in the Swiss
>army.
>
>Hey, how do you use this thing?
>
>"They only taught us how to kill people with the can opener. We used our
>bayonets for the cans."

See! Just like I said. Use the best tool for the job...

--
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd.TakeThisOut@apaflo.com
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

LOL.

With a Rolex, I understand where you are coming from, absolutely. Of
course, a cheap digital watch will still accurately tell the time. P&S 'v'
DSLR is not the same.


"John Navas" <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:4kgpj3p4evtkvir4as44nlfgn3c3hrpdco@4ax.com...
>
> I think it's more a matter of childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR
> advocates who feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs
> and those who use them, like wearing a Rolex to be more cool, or worse a
> fake Rolex, like cheaping out with a Sigma or Tamron lens on a Canon or
> Nikon body.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:16:31 GMT, "Ali" <me.RemoveThis@privacy.net> wrote in
<3z3%i.24380$6v.11992@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>:

>LOL.
>
>With a Rolex, I understand where you are coming from, absolutely. Of
>course, a cheap digital watch will still accurately tell the time. P&S 'v'
>DSLR is not the same.

It actually is the same.
Pretty much any decent camera is capable of taking great pictures.
What really matters is the photographer, not the camera.
Bragging about a tool is a sure mark of a not so great photographer.

>"John Navas" <spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>news:4kgpj3p4evtkvir4as44nlfgn3c3hrpdco@4ax.com...
>>
>> I think it's more a matter of childish mine-is-better bragging by DSLR
>> advocates who feel the need to feed their egos by putting down non-DSLRs
>> and those who use them, like wearing a Rolex to be more cool, or worse a
>> fake Rolex, like cheaping out with a Sigma or Tamron lens on a Canon or
>> Nikon body.

--
Best regards,
John Navas
Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others)
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

John Navas wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 22:16:31 GMT, "Ali" <me.TakeThisOut@privacy.net> wrote in
> <3z3%i.24380$6v.11992@newsfe2-gui.ntli.net>:
>
>> LOL.
>>
>> With a Rolex, I understand where you are coming from, absolutely. Of
>> course, a cheap digital watch will still accurately tell the time. P&S 'v'
>> DSLR is not the same.
>
> It actually is the same.
> Pretty much any decent camera is capable of taking great pictures.
> What really matters is the photographer, not the camera.
> Bragging about a tool is a sure mark of a not so great photographer.


This argument just does not hold water. I shoot for a number of years
with a point and shoot, when I started using a DSLR my photos got
better. I still shoot with a P&S from time to time, and I still am
getting better photos when I use a DSLR.

As more evidence that the camera does in fact matter take a look at this
photo contest site. People vote without knowing who took the photos or
what camera was used, and yet the vast majority of winners are from
people who used a DSLR.
http://www.dpchallenge.com/

When I switched from a P&S to a DSLR my scores went up.

When my wife and I go out photographing together whoever has the better
camera at the time gets the better photos.

Scott
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill <ccreekin RemoveThis @yahoo.com> wrote:

>Arguments over relative merits of DSLR vs P&S digicams
>occupy a plurality of current traffic volume on r.p.d.
>
>In many ways it reminds me of the film vs digital debate
>of the last many years.
>
>DSLR partisans seem like the defenders of film, because
>they don't have a lot of firm evidence that their workflow
>is superior, except at high ISO or some arcane usage.
>
>I know DSLRs are selling well, but do these flame wars
>indicate the beginning of the end?

Pretty much.

Let us for a moment presume there is a sealed-lens/sensor design that doesn't
allow in any dust. Takes images in absolute silence. The lens range is a full
180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, all with either an aperture or
sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held
situations in any settings. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme
durability. Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments. Let
us also presume that the electronic viewfinder (LCD and EVF) is high resolution
enough that its display, feedback, and articulation abilities far exceed
anything that has been implemented so far, optically or otherwise. Lets also
presume that these P&S camera designers also had the foresight to include the
options of shooting in the IR and UV portions of the spectrum too. This of
course is dependent on an EVF system because no optical viewfinder in the world
can accomplish this. Oh what the heck, while we're at it throw in high quality
video and CD quality stereo sound recording too so you don't even need your
camcorder as an accessory anymore. Why not.

Poof! There goes any need for the cumbersome lens interchangeability, size,
weight, noise, dust, high-cost, focal-plane shutter limitations, inaccurate and
dim OVF, and all the other drawbacks to using any DSLR.

Surprisingly I've already found all of these conditions met in only 2 P&S
cameras (minus the UV capability and a slightly higher resolution EVF) with only
2 inexpensive, small, and light-weight adapter lenses. I've already had
thousands of photos published with this combo. Not one person yet can tell that
they were done with P&S gear. A whole kit of 1 camera + 2 lenses fitting into
one large pocket. If these two P&S camera's features were combined nobody would
think twice about buying a DSLR. I certainly never do.

So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell to the
DSLR. Why would anyone need lens interchangeability if all those ranges,
precision, and capability were built into one dust-free sealed lens? Nobody
thought that an 18x high-quality zoom lens was even conceivable just a short 5
years ago. It's just foolish to duplicate in many parts what can be accomplished
with just one. Speaking of all-in-1 options, CHDK is clear proof of that. You
can do all the same things, and even more than, what was one time only possible
by tethering your camera to a bulky and energy-hog computer. Now you don't even
need the expense, bulk, travel limitations, and power-requirements of a computer
if your camera can run CHDK.

Lens interchangeability and the high-ISO performance are the *only* two thing to
which the DSLR advocates are still tentatively holding onto. And at what cost?
Dust problems? Noise? Camera shake from the mirror and shutter? Slow mechanical
shutter limitations? Bulk? Weight? Do I need to list all the drawbacks?

Ultra-zoom lenses are already making one of those "benefits"(?) obsolete. They
are grasping at straws now trying to hold onto the high-ISO performance. When
it's already been clearly shown that if your long-zoom P&S lens has enough
aperture then even that is not the holy-grail to owning a DSLR.

Yes, the DSLR *IS* going bye-bye. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of
"when". And to my findings the sooner the better. They're a waste of time, cost,
weight, materials, research, and labor. Based on a design that is half a century
old with all the same limitations that were inherent in that format from way
back then. The only ones still clamoring to wanting a DSLR appear to be those
more bent on status, peer pressure, and acceptance by those around them than
actually wanting to increase their chances at getting a decent photo. You know,
the ones who are still emotionally insecure, the ones that have to run with the
mindless herd for fear of getting lost.

The DSLR will have about the same fondness in 15 years as we do when looking
back on the flash-cube Instamatic from the late 60's with all its inherent
faults, drawbacks, and limitations. The phrase "I can't believe we put up with
those DSLRs back then," will be commonly heard.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?