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 |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill 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. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
In article , Helmsman3
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? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:46:03 -0800, nospam wrote:
In article , Helmsman3 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? One would think that a resident-troll like yourself with the experience of any well-versed arm-chair photographer of your caliber would be able to figure it out from the precise clues already supplied for you. Just figure out which features belong to which two cameras. Get to work! You really need to start earning your resident-troll and arm-chair photographer pay without someone always handing it to you for free all the time. :-) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Helmsman3 wrote:
Let us for a moment presume there is a sealed-lens/sensor design that doesn't allow in any dust. A minor point. Takes images in absolute silence. Nice. The lens range is a full 180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, What if I want a wide angle that does not distort like a fish eye? What about lens qualities, like flatness of field, vignetting, resolution, CA, and all the myriad things that can make an image less than appealing? Especially in soupzooms like the one you describe such things are prevalent --- even in really goood ones (for the class). all with either an aperture or sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held situations in any settings. f/1.0 and ISO 6400 or equivalent? At the same noise of any good DSLR at ISO 400? Hey, come on, full moonlight is only LV-5, so that's f/1.0 at 1/2s --- not handholdable. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme durability. Weight? Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments. Inbuild battery heaters? Battery capacity (CIPA)? 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. Technically impossible. You cannot exceed light speed, so any EVF will be slower than optical, and will thus provide worse feedback. No EVF currently on the market in consumer cameras is able to math the resolution and dynamic range of the human eye. 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. How about the capabilities of a macro bellows or the MP-E or just a common 100mm macro lens? This of course is dependent on an EVF system because no optical viewfinder in the world can accomplish this. People have been shooting IR with *film* cameras long before there was a EVF or even a digital sensor. So your 'of course' is of course, wrong. Oh what the heck, while we're at it throw in high quality video HDTV? 2k? 4k? And on which terrabyte medium will you store that? and CD quality stereo sound recording What microphone are you using? 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. "inaccurate and dim OVF". Interesting. What OVF have you been using? 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. What was that word again? Image quality? I've already had thousands of photos published with this combo. Ansel Adams managed to get the odd photo published and sold, even though he had much more restrictive gear. Of course you can produce good images with a P&S, if you know what you are doing, and if you don't, the most expensive camera will not rescue you. 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. Ah, which P&S were that again? And which lenses? How much shutter lag do they have? How fast is the AF? 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? I can name a few good reasons. Nobody thought that an 18x high-quality zoom lens was even conceivable just a short 5 years ago. My gear spans a 28x zoom range in excellent quality, and if I want to stretch it a bit, 140x is within my capabilities. 200x or 300x is not unheard of. Does your lens offer that? Lens interchangeability and the high-ISO performance are the *only* two thing to which the DSLR advocates are still tentatively holding onto. Let's add: - Excellent zoom range (see above: 100x is not a problem) - excellent macro gear (5:1? No problem! 20:1? What's a macro bellows for?) - very fast focussing, hence very low lag - 6+FPS and deep deep buffers - optical view finders --- try your EVF in moonlight - very good long exposure image quality - really good image quality and yet a portable system is possible - I can use my lenses as a makeshift club and go on shooting with them. No problem. - f/1.0, f/1.2, f/1.4 ... - DOF of 2 sheets of paper (as in, the tip of the nose and the base of the nose are already outside the DOF, but the middle of it is razor sharp. - intelligent, automatic remote multi-flash system And at what cost? Dust problems? No problem. Noise? Little if any. Camera shake from the mirror and shutter? Not really a problem. Slow mechanical shutter limitations? x-sync 1/250s, I don't think that's a 'slow' limitation. Does your P&S offer better values? Bulk? Weight? Not necessarily a drawback. Do I need to list all the drawbacks? Yes. Ultra-zoom lenses are already making one of those "benefits"(?) obsolete. Nope. They add another choice, something P&S don't have. Many P&S don't even allow their users to choose exposure and/or aperture. Practially none of them can change important parameters without going through a menu. Which is all right, if you stalk buildings --- except during earth quakes. Most of them don't move much faster than you can go through your menues. They are grasping at straws now trying to hold onto the high-ISO performance. Show me one P&S that allows me to shoot at handheld at LV -1 or -2 ... without washing out details nor drowning in image noise. 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. f/0.7? f/0.5? Less? Yes, the DSLR *IS* going bye-bye. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". In a couple billion years, when the sun turns into a red giant, we probably won't be using DSLRs on Earth any more. 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. Compared to P&S, which are based on on the box cameras, like "the Kodak" from 1888 ("You press the button - we do the rest."). They still have all the limitations inherent in that format from, uh, a full century and 19 years ago. 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. You really run out of arguments early- 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. Sure, and you will be crowned "King of the World". -Wolfgang |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Wolfgang Weisselberg" wrote in message ... Helmsman3 wrote: Let us for a moment presume there is a sealed-lens/sensor design that doesn't allow in any dust. A minor point. Takes images in absolute silence. Nice. The lens range is a full 180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, What if I want a wide angle that does not distort like a fish eye? What about lens qualities, like flatness of field, vignetting, resolution, CA, and all the myriad things that can make an image less than appealing? Especially in soupzooms like the one you describe such things are prevalent --- even in really goood ones (for the class). all with either an aperture or sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held situations in any settings. f/1.0 and ISO 6400 or equivalent? At the same noise of any good DSLR at ISO 400? Hey, come on, full moonlight is only LV-5, so that's f/1.0 at 1/2s --- not handholdable. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme durability. Weight? Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments. Inbuild battery heaters? Battery capacity (CIPA)? 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. Technically impossible. You cannot exceed light speed, so any EVF will be slower than optical, and will thus provide worse feedback. No EVF currently on the market in consumer cameras is able to math the resolution and dynamic range of the human eye. 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. How about the capabilities of a macro bellows or the MP-E or just a common 100mm macro lens? This of course is dependent on an EVF system because no optical viewfinder in the world can accomplish this. People have been shooting IR with *film* cameras long before there was a EVF or even a digital sensor. So your 'of course' is of course, wrong. Oh what the heck, while we're at it throw in high quality video HDTV? 2k? 4k? And on which terrabyte medium will you store that? and CD quality stereo sound recording What microphone are you using? 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. "inaccurate and dim OVF". Interesting. What OVF have you been using? 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. What was that word again? Image quality? I've already had thousands of photos published with this combo. Ansel Adams managed to get the odd photo published and sold, even though he had much more restrictive gear. Of course you can produce good images with a P&S, if you know what you are doing, and if you don't, the most expensive camera will not rescue you. 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. Ah, which P&S were that again? And which lenses? How much shutter lag do they have? How fast is the AF? 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? I can name a few good reasons. Nobody thought that an 18x high-quality zoom lens was even conceivable just a short 5 years ago. My gear spans a 28x zoom range in excellent quality, and if I want to stretch it a bit, 140x is within my capabilities. 200x or 300x is not unheard of. Does your lens offer that? Lens interchangeability and the high-ISO performance are the *only* two thing to which the DSLR advocates are still tentatively holding onto. Let's add: - Excellent zoom range (see above: 100x is not a problem) - excellent macro gear (5:1? No problem! 20:1? What's a macro bellows for?) - very fast focussing, hence very low lag - 6+FPS and deep deep buffers - optical view finders --- try your EVF in moonlight - very good long exposure image quality - really good image quality and yet a portable system is possible - I can use my lenses as a makeshift club and go on shooting with them. No problem. - f/1.0, f/1.2, f/1.4 ... - DOF of 2 sheets of paper (as in, the tip of the nose and the base of the nose are already outside the DOF, but the middle of it is razor sharp. - intelligent, automatic remote multi-flash system And at what cost? Dust problems? No problem. Noise? Little if any. Camera shake from the mirror and shutter? Not really a problem. Slow mechanical shutter limitations? x-sync 1/250s, I don't think that's a 'slow' limitation. Does your P&S offer better values? Bulk? Weight? Not necessarily a drawback. Do I need to list all the drawbacks? Yes. Ultra-zoom lenses are already making one of those "benefits"(?) obsolete. Nope. They add another choice, something P&S don't have. Many P&S don't even allow their users to choose exposure and/or aperture. Practially none of them can change important parameters without going through a menu. Which is all right, if you stalk buildings --- except during earth quakes. Most of them don't move much faster than you can go through your menues. They are grasping at straws now trying to hold onto the high-ISO performance. Show me one P&S that allows me to shoot at handheld at LV -1 or -2 ... without washing out details nor drowning in image noise. 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. f/0.7? f/0.5? Less? Yes, the DSLR *IS* going bye-bye. It's not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "when". In a couple billion years, when the sun turns into a red giant, we probably won't be using DSLRs on Earth any more. 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. Compared to P&S, which are based on on the box cameras, like "the Kodak" from 1888 ("You press the button - we do the rest."). They still have all the limitations inherent in that format from, uh, a full century and 19 years ago. 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. You really run out of arguments early- 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. Sure, and you will be crowned "King of the World". -Wolfgang Come on mate, you are not going to let all these facts get in the way of a good troll are you? ;-) What bloody rocks do these idiots crawl out from under??? I really loved the "thousands of photos published", riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, LOL! |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 04:34:46 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
wrote: Helmsman3 wrote: The lens range is a full 180-degree fish-eye to an extremely long zoom, What if I want a wide angle that does not distort like a fish eye? Then zoom in to reduce the effect. I get perfectly acceptable wide-angle images from 18-36 mm with my lenses. What about lens qualities, like flatness of field, vignetting, resolution, CA, and all the myriad things that can make an image less than appealing? Especially in soupzooms like the one you describe such things are prevalent --- even in really goood ones (for the class). Already been tested. I compared the wide-angle adapter with one of my P&S cameras compared to the top of the line Nikkor fish-eye and wide-angle lenses. Yes, there's slightly more barrel distortion on the wide-angle views. I don't mind this in the least since any photo that's for publication will have some slight post-processing done to it anyway. Are you going to tell me that every image you ever photographed didn't at least need a bit of leveling? If I have to click a button in editing to level an image I see no problem with clicking one more to remove any minor geometric distortions. And, quite frankly, I find perfectly parallel sides of buildings obscene. It's not how they look in real life and they shouldn't look that way in print either. Some idiot long ago with a view-camera thought it would be a good idea to remove all perspective distortion. It doesn't mean he wasn't an idiot, and it doesn't mean that everyone who followed in his idiotic footsteps were any less idiots. CA? Ah, I'm glad you mention this. With the lens combo I found, there's actually zero chromatic aberration. Something that I have not found in any other wide-angle lenses anywhere. It's nice of you to try to find fault, but this is another reason I see no need to buy any high-priced specialty lenses. Not when a $100 lens can run rings around any $20,000 lens on the market. Vignetting? That's only apparent at 180-degree circular fisheye. A nice black circle vignette, just like it's supposed to be. all with either an aperture or sensor ISO high enough to capture even the most difficult of hand-held situations in any settings. f/1.0 and ISO 6400 or equivalent? At the same noise of any good DSLR at ISO 400? I leave both my P&S cameras set on an ISO of 200 by default. There's so little noise I see no reason to bother using lower ISOs unless I need to use reduced shutter speeds for motion effects. 400 is also acceptable but then I will use some NR software on them. 800 in an emergency, 3200 sometimes for special effects, still quite usable with NR software. Hey, come on, full moonlight is only LV-5, so that's f/1.0 at 1/2s --- not handholdable. Hmmm... I guess one of 2 things. 1) either you've never used any of the better P&S cameras, or 2) that your hand-held photography skills are really sad. I've already tested this because I have always prided myself on my ability to shoot without any tripod most of the time. I wanted to see how far my latest P&S's IS could amplify my own abilities. 432mm focal length lens, hand-held for a full 1 second exposure. A tack sharp image the result. Given that ability I have no problems taking hand-held images by the light of the moon at shorter focal lengths. The body is of a titanium shell for extreme durability. Weight? Few moving parts allows operation in deep sub-zero environments. Inbuild battery heaters? Battery capacity (CIPA)? Well, now I realize by the last few questions that I'm just replying to another inexperienced arm-chair net-photographer troll that's beating off to whatever reply he can get. One that's never used any decent P&S cameras. More likely you've never used any cameras. I see no reason to waste my time answering any of your other questions when the last few were such an obvious attempt at stupidity. Anyone that had the least bit of experience with photography would already know the answers to your last few questions and wouldn't have even asked them because they were of no importance, or just plain stupid. Try trolling someone else into being your entertainment. I'm smarter than you. It's obvious by your questions. You can learn much more about a person by the questions they ask than anything that they will ever state. Your questions speak tomes about your inexperience and stupidity. What a shame that you revealed yourself to just be another arm-chair net-photographer troll. I scanned over your other questions and one or two of them actually looked interesting, and all easily refutable. They might have been interesting to reply to if I didn't realize in time that I was just wasting my time in entertaining another idiot with a keyboard. The rest of your words deleted, no sense even wasting more bandwidth on them. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"Helmsman3" wrote in message ... On 15 Nov 2007 09:03:18 -0800, Bill Tuthill 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. You might be right. But just as the cheap watch from Woolworths tells me in general the same time as any other watch, for some daft reason I prefer my Rolex. And while my neighbours Nissan takes him adequately from A to B, I prefer, silly as it may sound, driving there in the Mercedes. Daft I know, but personal preferences play heavily in these choices. I am sure, however, that you enjoy your P&S. Keep up the good work, the industry needs you. :-) |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Helmsman3 wrote:
On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:46:03 -0800, nospam wrote: In article , Helmsman3 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? One would think that a resident-troll like yourself with the experience of any well-versed arm-chair photographer of your caliber would be able to figure it out from the precise clues already supplied for you. Just figure out which features belong to which two cameras. In other words - he hasn't worked it out yet either! The 2 half-clues are CHDK - which is a basic toolkit for some Canon cameras with Digic chipsets - and "18x", which at this stage is available on the Oly SP550/560, Pana FZ18, and the Fuji S8000. Considering the potential cameras, it makes the trolls claims even more laughable. Get to work! You really need to start earning your resident-troll and arm-chair photographer pay without someone always handing it to you for free all the time. :-) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 19:42:35 +1000, Doug Jewell
wrote: Helmsman3 wrote: On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 17:46:03 -0800, nospam wrote: In article , Helmsman3 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? One would think that a resident-troll like yourself with the experience of any well-versed arm-chair photographer of your caliber would be able to figure it out from the precise clues already supplied for you. Just figure out which features belong to which two cameras. In other words - he hasn't worked it out yet either! The 2 half-clues are CHDK - which is a basic toolkit for some Canon cameras with Digic chipsets - Yes, CHDK was mentioned later on, but not in reference to the 2 above mentioned cameras. Pay attention, resident-troll. How do you ever expect to be a better troll if you can't even manipulate obvious data better than this? and "18x", which at this stage is available on the Oly SP550/560, Pana FZ18, and the Fuji S8000. Again, pay attention. An 18x zoom lens was mentioned in P&S camera's capabilities but not in reference to the two cameras in question. Anyone reading this thread can now see you making an obvious fool of yourself. Considering the potential cameras, it makes the trolls claims even more laughable. Considering your pathetic resident-troll skills you're not even laughable, not even mildly amusing. There's absolutely nothing interesting about you nor your reply. A resident troll that's not even mildly interesting? Usenet's usual packs of resident-trolls in every group are just not what they used to be anymore. Get to work! You really need to start earning your resident-troll and arm-chair photographer pay without someone always handing it to you for free all the time. :-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 10:32:29 +0100, "Bill Again" wrote:
You might be right. But just as the cheap watch from Woolworths tells me in general the same time as any other watch, for some daft reason I prefer my Rolex. And while my neighbours Nissan takes him adequately from A to B, I prefer, silly as it may sound, driving there in the Mercedes. Daft I know, but personal preferences play heavily in these choices. I am sure, however, that you enjoy your P&S. Keep up the good work, the industry needs you. :-) You have that quite backwards, don't you. The industry needs people like you paying $12,000 on DSLR bodies that only cost $200 to make, and paying $2000 or more per lens when it only costs them $50 each to make. Much more than they need someone like me who only puts his money where it really matters. As they say, a fool and his money are soon parted. I do the research first to know when I'm getting ripped off by some company. I also test things myself instead of depending on some self-appointed internet pros who have never been nearer to any camera than a photograph of one online. Every camera company CEO must raise a glass and a hearty round of laughter in your honor from the deck of their next new yacht that you stupidly paid for without even realizing it. By the way, you're using a really poor if not just totally illogical analogy. The images from my P&S cameras are every bit as good as any of those from any DSLR. If they were not I wouldn't have sold my DSLRs and lenses. I also obtain those images just as fast and with even more precision than you can on your DSLR. So in effect I'm getting better performance out of my Nissan than you are out of your Mercedes. Your analogy would only be correct if my images and camera performance were less than yours. Reality is quite the reverse to what you are trying to portray, I assure you. You have things so backwards. But then that's to be expected considering where most DSLR supporters have their heads all the time. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Bill Tuthill | Digital Photography | 1067 | December 29th 07 02:46 AM |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Helmsman3 | 35mm Photo Equipment | 790 | December 26th 07 05:40 PM |
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital? | Helmsman3 | Digital ZLR Cameras | 640 | December 26th 07 05:40 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |