If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
P&S's day has come and gone
Scott W wrote:
On Aug 1, 8:43 am, Ron Hunter wrote: Scott W wrote: On Aug 1, 7:01 am, Rich wrote: On Aug 1, 12:41 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote: Scott W wrote: With a few notable exceptions I believe you will find that most DSLR owners also are P&S owners, I know I own a P&S camera. But my DSLR does not sit in some bag somewhere, it comes with me far more often then my P&S does. The first rule of photography is "Bring a camera". Even back in my film days, I owned an SLR for "serious" work and an P&S that rode around in my pocket BIG difference. All cameras like that used 35mm film and where able to produce images as good as SLRs. There where a few aberrations, like 110s, but their images stunk and people knew it. Now, you have tiny sensors that produce images like 110 film and yet people accept it. Why? Oh man, you need to look at some photos from a 110 camera again. I can get a good looking 8x10 print from my P&S, no way on earth can you get a good looking 8x10 print from a 110 camera. In fact most of the 4x6 inch prints I have seen from 110 cameras look like crap. Scott Yes, many 110 cameras made lousy pictures, which is why I was so impressed with this particular Kodak Pocket Instamatic 42. I suppose in any mass produced product, at some point, all the 'averages' line up and you come out with a product that does what it does MUCH better than the general run of the type. I got such a camera. As for 8x10, I have never made one. I rarely print, but when I do, it is usually 4x6, and, very rarely, a 5x7. I don't need a car that will run at 250mph, either as I only drive over 70 when I am on a turnpike, such as the Oklahoma Turnpike (speed limit is 80). BTW, my car, with 4 adults, and 2 weeks of baggage, running 85 (going 80 is an invitation to a rear ender) got 29.9mpg. I was impressed! For 4x6 inch prints my old Nikon 995 did a very good job, the problem is that are you going to be happy with such small photos for ever? There are now monitors that have more resolution then my 995 did, and in 10 more years what will we have then? In 2003 my wife and I were on a long motor home trip and I was shooting with the Nikon 995, the computer we had with us only had a 20GB drive and only half or so of that was available for photos. While we were driving down the roads I wanted to capture the feel for the travel, not just the destinations. But I figured these shoots really did not need to be high resolution, so to save disk space I shot them at 1024x768, which happened to match the resolution of the laptop we had. Late I got into making slide shows of my trip photos, the photos taken from the road give a nice sense of movement so I like to include them. The problem now is that the photos are at less resolution then what I really want for the slide show. I can’t really say for sure if you will ever wish you have higher resolution photo sometime in the future, but then again neither can you. Scott No, of course I can't, but then neither do I think that I will. I am 65, and over the course of about 55 years of taking pictures, part of which time I was quite serious about photography, I have never been fond of large prints. Perhaps working for years with limited funds was part of that equation, but that condition is even more significant now, and will likely be even moreso in the future. I doubt I will ever be able to afford to print everything at 16x20, or even 8x10. Even given that I never do that NOW. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
P&S's day has come and gone
Chris Malcolm wrote:
Douglas Johnson wrote: Rich wrote: On Aug 1, 12:41 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote: Most of the 35mm film P&S were seriously lens limited. Many were plastic. Some of the glass ones were coated. But nothing was even in the same ballpark as the Zuiko glass on my SLR. -- Doug Not even those with Zuiko lenses? The P&S were cost limited, too. I just dug through some receipts. In the 80's, I bought a Zuiko 35-105mm f3.5-4.5 zoom for $225. My P&S with Leica lens was $99 for the whole camera, which I think was kind of mid-range. -- Doug |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
P&S's day has come and gone
David J Taylor wrote:
Ron Hunter wrote: [] I would consider a DSLR, but only for a studio camera, with limited 'location' work. NEVER for fun. Not into doing that much work for a hobby. Ron, There need not be any extra work in a DSLR, indeed, there may be less work in salvaging photos taken in poor lighting. I almost always use my DSLR in "P" mode, and rarely find any need or desire to revert to manual settings. I use the on-camera flash if flash is needed, and I only have two lenses with me at a time. For me, the benefit of the DSLR is mostly in being able to use ISO 1600 and still get virtually noise-free pictures. I shoot JPEG, and 95% of my pictures are used straight out of the camera - no extra processing. And it's just a hobby for me as well. Cheers, David Hello, David: That's what I do, with my Pentax K100D, basically. Except, I haven't experimented with higher ISO settings, yet; I leave the device at its default of 200 (which is as low as it can go). Cordially, John Turco |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
P&S's day has come and gone
Scott W wrote:
On Aug 1, 7:01 am, Rich wrote: On Aug 1, 12:41 pm, Douglas Johnson wrote: edited for brevity The first rule of photography is "Bring a camera". Even back in my film days, I owned an SLR for "serious" work and an P&S that rode around in my pocket BIG difference. All cameras like that used 35mm film and where able to produce images as good as SLRs. There where a few aberrations, like 110s, but their images stunk and people knew it. Now, you have tiny sensors that produce images like 110 film and yet people accept it. Why? Oh man, you need to look at some photos from a 110 camera again. I can get a good looking 8x10 print from my P&S, no way on earth can you get a good looking 8x10 print from a 110 camera. In fact most of the 4x6 inch prints I have seen from 110 cameras look like crap. Scott Hello, Scott: In 1984, when I began my film-photography craze (which lasted about two years), I started out with a Keystone "Everflash" 110. This cheap camera (under $20 USD) produced "drugstore" 4x6 prints, which were more than acceptable, in my opinion. Cordially, John Turco |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
P&S's day has come and gone
John Turco wrote:
[] Hello, David: That's what I do, with my Pentax K100D, basically. Except, I haven't experimented with higher ISO settings, yet; I leave the device at its default of 200 (which is as low as it can go). Cordially, John Turco John, I have mine set to auto-ISO, with the top limit set to 1600. Results are excellent for viewing on my 2MP display, with just a hint of fine grain. If I wanted to, I could then use a noise reduction program (or the on in Paint Shop Pro 10). Cheers, David |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
P&S's day has come and gone
Scott W wrote:
Oh man, you need to look at some photos from a 110 camera again. I can get a good looking 8x10 print from my P&S, no way on earth can you get a good looking 8x10 print from a 110 camera. In fact most of the 4x6 inch prints I have seen from 110 cameras look like crap. Ugh, I remember buying a 110 camera in 1979, on my way out to California. It was a really "advanced" 110 camera because it had a built in xenon flash tube, with no need to use expensive Magicubes. This was a new thing for 110 cameras--K-Mart's Keystone 110 Everflash which IIRC cost a whopping $40 (about twice what the Kodak 110 cameras cost). I still have it around somewhere, but I don't think you can still get 110 film anymore (Walgreen's dropped it within the past year). The photos were mediocre at best, due to the tiny negative, and g-d help you if you tried to go bigger than 4x6 (though IIRC the standard size back then wa smaller). It was even more amusing the time I bought some Kodachrome 110 and did 110 slides. They came on regular size slide mounts, with the developed film in a tiny square in the center. My next camera after that was the Olympus XA. I had no idea I was buying a classic at the time, it was just the camera everyone was buying to take backpacking on bicycle tours. However even the tiny sensor P&S cameras are better than the 110 cameras. In bright light, at low ISO, they produce much better images than 110 ever did. One key is to try to not go more than 8 megapixels or so in order to keep the noise down. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
P&S's day has come and gone
SMS wrote:
Scott W wrote: Oh man, you need to look at some photos from a 110 camera again. I can get a good looking 8x10 print from my P&S, no way on earth can you get a good looking 8x10 print from a 110 camera. In fact most of the 4x6 inch prints I have seen from 110 cameras look like crap. Ugh, I remember buying a 110 camera in 1979, on my way out to California. It was a really "advanced" 110 camera because it had a built in xenon flash tube, with no need to use expensive Magicubes. This was a new thing for 110 cameras--K-Mart's Keystone 110 Everflash which IIRC cost a whopping $40 (about twice what the Kodak 110 cameras cost). I still have it around somewhere OMG, I found the box and receipt for it today, and it wasn't a Keystone at all, it was a Minolta PocketPak 440E, purchased at K-Mart in Lafayette, LA on December 21, 1979 for $57.88, plus $0.58 for one AA battery, and $1.39 for a roll of C110 film. "http://cgi.ebay.com/Minolta-Pocket-Pak-Camera-440E-with-case_W0QQitemZ380031767785QQcmdZViewItem?_trksid=p 3286.m20.l1116#ebayphotohosting" (not mine). |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
P&S's day has come and gone
Richard wrote:
"SMS" wrote in message ... SMS wrote: Scott W wrote: Oh man, you need to look at some photos from a 110 camera again. I can get a good looking 8x10 print from my P&S, no way on earth can you get a good looking 8x10 print from a 110 camera. In fact most of the 4x6 inch prints I have seen from 110 cameras look like crap. Ugh, I remember buying a 110 camera in 1979, on my way out to California. It was a really "advanced" 110 camera because it had a built in xenon flash tube, with no need to use expensive Magicubes. This was a new thing for 110 cameras--K-Mart's Keystone 110 Everflash which IIRC cost a whopping $40 (about twice what the Kodak 110 cameras cost). I still have it around somewhere OMG, I found the box and receipt for it today, and it wasn't a Keystone at all, it was a Minolta PocketPak 440E, purchased at K-Mart in Lafayette, LA on December 21, 1979 for $57.88, plus $0.58 for one AA battery, and $1.39 for a roll of C110 film. 110 was awful. A $15 126 camera performed much better than a $45 110. Yes, this is true. And at least you could get decent slides from 126. 110 was one more answer to a question that nobody asked. Yet there were two different 110 SLRs as well as probably a hundred P&S models. Now Disc film, that really outdid 110 in insanity, though its main purpose was to make it easier to process film. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
P&S's day has come and gone
SMS wrote: Richard wrote: "SMS" wrote in message ... SMS wrote: Scott W wrote: Oh man, you need to look at some photos from a 110 camera again. I can get a good looking 8x10 print from my P&S, no way on earth can you get a good looking 8x10 print from a 110 camera. In fact most of the 4x6 inch prints I have seen from 110 cameras look like crap. Ugh, I remember buying a 110 camera in 1979, on my way out to California. It was a really "advanced" 110 camera because it had a built in xenon flash tube, with no need to use expensive Magicubes. This was a new thing for 110 cameras--K-Mart's Keystone 110 Everflash which IIRC cost a whopping $40 (about twice what the Kodak 110 cameras cost). I still have it around somewhere OMG, I found the box and receipt for it today, and it wasn't a Keystone at all, it was a Minolta PocketPak 440E, purchased at K-Mart in Lafayette, LA on December 21, 1979 for $57.88, plus $0.58 for one AA battery, and $1.39 for a roll of C110 film. 110 was awful. A $15 126 camera performed much better than a $45 110. Yes, this is true. And at least you could get decent slides from 126. 110 was one more answer to a question that nobody asked. Yet there were two different 110 SLRs as well as probably a hundred P&S models. Now Disc film, that really outdid 110 in insanity, though its main purpose was to make it easier to process film. To show what disc film produced, a single frame: http://www.fototime.com/inv/E02FF42DC994B91 -- Frank ess |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
P&S's day has come and gone
Richard wrote:
"SMS" wrote in message ... SMS wrote: Scott W wrote: Oh man, you need to look at some photos from a 110 camera again. I can get a good looking 8x10 print from my P&S, no way on earth can you get a good looking 8x10 print from a 110 camera. In fact most of the 4x6 inch prints I have seen from 110 cameras look like crap. Ugh, I remember buying a 110 camera in 1979, on my way out to California. It was a really "advanced" 110 camera because it had a built in xenon flash tube, with no need to use expensive Magicubes. This was a new thing for 110 cameras--K-Mart's Keystone 110 Everflash which IIRC cost a whopping $40 (about twice what the Kodak 110 cameras cost). I still have it around somewhere OMG, I found the box and receipt for it today, and it wasn't a Keystone at all, it was a Minolta PocketPak 440E, purchased at K-Mart in Lafayette, LA on December 21, 1979 for $57.88, plus $0.58 for one AA battery, and $1.39 for a roll of C110 film. 110 was awful. A $15 126 camera performed much better than a $45 110. Perhaps in your experience, but not in mine. I don't believe I ever got a bad picture from the Pocket Instamatic 42 I bought. I guess in any mass produced item one comes off the line that is just a lot better than the average, and I guess I got one. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|