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

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 14:13:09 -0900, floyd RemoveThis @apaflo.com (Floyd L. Davidson)
wrote in <87hcjn6r22.fld RemoveThis @apaflo.com>:

>John Navas <spamfilter1 RemoveThis @navasgroup.com> wrote:
>>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.
>
>Ever see a truly talented craftsman, regardless of the
>craft, who *did* *not* have a set of the best tools he
>could afford?

You bet.

>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.

I didn't say that. What I wrote was "decent".

Apparently you don't know that some of the most famous photographers
have worked with quite modest equipment. Do some checking.

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

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:46:55 -0800, nospam <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <151120071546552580%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>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

That's certainly not what I'm doing -- what I've said repeatedly is
"different strokes for different folks".

>particular, third party lenses, some of which are quite good (not all,
>of course).

Those third-party lenses do not measure up to the best OEM lenses.

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

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

In article <heppj3p45i02ka2ikkk191jq30e0lkjfpu.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:46:55 -0800, nospam <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote
> in <151120071546552580%nospam@nospam.invalid>:
>
> >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
>
> That's certainly not what I'm doing -- what I've said repeatedly is
> "different strokes for different folks".

if you meant what you said, why do you chastise those who choose to
'cheaping out with a sigma or tamron lens' ?

> >particular, third party lenses, some of which are quite good (not all,
> >of course).
>
> Those third-party lenses do not measure up to the best OEM lenses.

which ones? or are you claiming *all* third party lenses are low
quality, without ever having used most of them?

also, many third party lenses fill a void that the oem lenses do not
cover, such as the recently announced sigma 4.5mm circular fisheye.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill <ccreekin.DeleteThis@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? 

In article <7kqpj31gl7798o93amk75kh8so9bn5uh6q.DeleteThis@4ax.com>, Helmsman3
<blockspam.DeleteThis@nospam.com> wrote:

> 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.

> 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.

and which two p&s cameras might those be?
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

"Helmsman3" <blockspam DeleteThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
news:7kqpj31gl7798o93amk75kh8so9bn5uh6q@4ax.com...

snip

What a load of bullshit. Get the psychological help you so desperately
need.
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 19:48:40 -0500, me.DeleteThis@mine.net wrote in
<06qpj39e3tqtfoq5ih5si0bh5ufjtiqt23.DeleteThis@4ax.com>:

>On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 00:37:31 GMT, in rec.photo.digital John Navas
><spamfilter1.DeleteThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
>>Those third-party lenses do not measure up to the best OEM lenses.
>
>Neither do the shitty OEM lenses, your point being just what?

1. Makes no sense to buy a less than high-grade lens on a high-grade
body -- glass is at least as important as the sensor.

2. Not even expensive OEM lenses measure up to the Leica lenses on
Panasonic compact bridge cameras, much less third-party lenses.

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

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 15:21:22 -1000, Scott W <biphoto.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote
in <473cf097$0$8822$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

>John Navas wrote:

>> 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.

The 2-speed zoom on the FZ8, good as it is, isn't as good as mechanical
zoom in certain circumstances, but the difference isn't enough to offset
for me the big advantages of fast lens speed, super-wide zoom range, and
optical quality comparable to the most expensive 35 mm lenses.

If you really do need manual zoom, then consider the FZ50, with
fluid-damped mechanical zoom mechanism.

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

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:02:50 -1000, Scott W <biphoto.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote
in <473cfa5b$0$28818$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:

>John Navas wrote:

>> 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.

That's you. A DSLR better suits the way you work, all well and good,
but that doesn't make it a universal truth -- my FZ8 has huge advantages
over DSLR in handling, size, weight, zoom range, and lens speed, that
make it possible for me to get shots I wouldn't get with an SLR. It's
not a matter of experience -- I've used SLRs for decades, and it's a
relief not to have to lug all that gear around.

>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.

I'm glad that works for you, but I don't think it's a good measure of
photo quality. Do you also think movies with the biggest box office are
automatically the best movies?

--
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 16:02:50 -1000, Scott W <biphoto.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote
> in <473cfa5b$0$28818$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>:
>
>> John Navas wrote:
>
>>> 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.
>
> That's you. A DSLR better suits the way you work, all well and good,
> but that doesn't make it a universal truth -- my FZ8 has huge advantages
> over DSLR in handling, size, weight, zoom range, and lens speed, that
> make it possible for me to get shots I wouldn't get with an SLR. It's
> not a matter of experience -- I've used SLRs for decades, and it's a
> relief not to have to lug all that gear around.

I can understand the weight and size issues, which is why I do use a P&S
from time to time and in fact in the market for a new one.
The FZ8 lenses has to be fast to make up for it needing to stay at low
iso. And the lens is not all that fast, at the wide end it is a f/2.8,
which is not bad but not great. When I am in low light I use a 28mm
f/2.8 lens and shoot at iso 800. The best that can be said for the
speed of the lens is it somewhat offsets the height noise of the sensor.

>> 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.
>
> I'm glad that works for you, but I don't think it's a good measure of
> photo quality. Do you also think movies with the biggest box office are
> automatically the best movies?

What I think about movies is those that are film in I-Max are more fun
to watch then the 35mm version, go see the same movie in both versions
and tell me the camera does not matter

And with still photograph the camera matters even more, this is no sound
and no acting to aid the image, there is only image.

In some cases it takes more work to use a DSLR, whether that work is
worth the difference between a P&S and a DSLR is what each person
decides, sometime I take the P&S sometime I take the DSLR.


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

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:02:50 -1000, Scott W <biphoto DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>John Navas 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.
>
>
>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

Well, there's just no arguing with that. If you think a better camera will turn
you into a better photographer, I bet you think that a better wife would turn
you into a better husband too. Or a better frying pan will turn you into a
better chef. Guess what? A better frying pan won't make you a better chef but it
*may* make it easier to accomplish the exact same thing. Are you able to follow
any of this yet?

Yeah .... you keep trying to justify why you wasted all that money. I'm sure
it'll sink in one day what a fool you've made of, and are making of, yourself.

Why do those who post photos from dSLRs get more votes? That answer is so
obvious I'm surprised you can't see it. Well, no, I'm not surprised, you're
pretty blind. People who have years of experience in photography migrated to
dSLRs when they went digital. I happened to be one of the exceptions when I
found out P&S cameras were every bit as good with more convenience. It's not the
camera, fool, it's the experience behind whatever camera they choose. May you
come to grips with that one day.

You remind me of that little duck that couldn't think he could swim unless he
held a "sky hook" to keep him from sinking, or that flying elephant that
couldn't fly unless he held his magic feather. What a shame if your "sky hook"
breaks one day and all you have are your lowly P&S cameras to depend on. You've
already convinced yourself that you can't take pictures with them, your camera
will be all too happy to prove it to you.

Self-fulfilling prophesies invented by fools, anyone?
 >> Stay informed about: DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:32:46 -0800, nospam <nospam.RemoveThis@nospam.invalid> wrote
in <151120071732463674%nospam@nospam.invalid>:

>In article <heppj3p45i02ka2ikkk191jq30e0lkjfpu.RemoveThis@4ax.com>, John Navas
><spamfilter1.RemoveThis@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> That's certainly not what I'm doing -- what I've said repeatedly is
>> "different strokes for different folks".
>
>if you meant what you said, why do you chastise those who choose to
>'cheaping out with a sigma or tamron lens' ?

I'm actually just expressing my own opinion of the quality of those
lenses, an opinion based on lots of actual experience.

>> Those third-party lenses do not measure up to the best OEM lenses.
>
>which ones? or are you claiming *all* third party lenses are low
>quality, without ever having used most of them?

I've used quite a few of them, and I've yet to see one that measures up
to (say) Canon L glass.

>also, many third party lenses fill a void that the oem lenses do not
>cover, such as the recently announced sigma 4.5mm circular fisheye.

Suit yourself. I'll pass.

Except when paid to do so, most serious working pros won't use
third-party lenses.

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