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
|
|||
|
|||
ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the
La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote: Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots nuff sed So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are really into photography, why not have both? A P&S camera for convenience. You can carry it anywhere and not have to worry about changing lenses or filters. It is great for candid shots, it is FAR FAR less obvious that you are carrying a camera, and IT DOESN"T MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE A PROFESSIONAL! I have been in several situations (mainly computer trade shows), where you were allowed in and allowed to take pictures if all you had was a P&S. But if you had an SLR slung over your shoulder, you first had to go to the press booth to apply for a press pass and/or photography permit to take the camera into the show. On the other hand, a DSLR is ideal for SERIOUS photography. Si why not have BOTH in your arsenal? nuff sed Gary |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
Gary Edstrom wrote in
: On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote: Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots nuff sed So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are really into photography, why not have both? Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to use a DSLR each and every time. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
"Rich" wrote in message
news Gary Edstrom wrote in : On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote: Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots nuff sed So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are really into photography, why not have both? Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to use a DSLR each and every time. Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into photography", just pretending to be! If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the time, then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that the more savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete cameras when the situation warrants it. If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset of 40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer. QED |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:47:58 +0100, Fred wrote:
Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to use a DSLR each and every time. Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into photography", just pretending to be! If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the time, then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that the more savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete cameras when the situation warrants it. If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset of 40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer. And even if you're stuck in old technology, lots of 'serious' photographers used small 35mm-cameras back then. Ofcourse, Leica has the best known example of such a small system. -- Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich wrote:
Gary Edstrom wrote in : On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote: Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots nuff sed So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are really into photography, why not have both? Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to use a DSLR each and every time. Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which most avoid for good practical reasons :-) -- Chris Malcolm |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
On 4/27/09 3:07 AM, in article t, "Robert Spanjaard" wrote: On Mon, 27 Apr 2009 08:47:58 +0100, Fred wrote: Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to use a DSLR each and every time. Well it just goes to show then that you're not "really into photography", just pretending to be! If you only haul a clunking dinosaur of a DSLR around with you all the time, then you're bound to miss out on loads of photo opportunities that the more savvy "real photographers" enjoy, carrying more discrete cameras when the situation warrants it. If your mind is closed to new technology, and still stuck in the mindset of 40 years ago, then you're obviously not a real photographer. And even if you're stuck in old technology, lots of 'serious' photographers used small 35mm-cameras back then. Ofcourse, Leica has the best known example of such a small system. Minox! Minox, I say!!! |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
Chris Malcolm wrote in
: In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich wrote: Gary Edstrom wrote in : On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote: Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots nuff sed So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are really into photography, why not have both? Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to use a DSLR each and every time. Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which most avoid for good practical reasons :-) Or, you can spend hours and hours designing and building a frigging timed exposure mechanism to GO with that little digicam, or you can tether a Pentax K20D to the ballons and use the timed shutter facility to do it instead. Nikon's D300 has the same kind of thing, but it's heavier than the Pentax. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
In rec.photo.digital Rich wrote:
Chris Malcolm wrote in : In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich wrote: Gary Edstrom wrote in : On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote: Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots nuff sed So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are really into photography, why not have both? Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to use a DSLR each and every time. Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which most avoid for good practical reasons :-) Or, you can spend hours and hours designing and building a frigging timed exposure mechanism to GO with that little digicam, or you can tether a Pentax K20D to the ballons and use the timed shutter facility to do it instead. What on earth is the use of a timed shutter when you already have full radio control of aim and zoom, radio live view to see the image, and a radio controlled shutter to take the photograph? No, none of those facilities are available from the camera manufacturer, but you don't have to design and build the kit yourself, it can all be bought from third party suppliers, and is routinely used by the aerial photographers who use balloons, kites, and masts. DSLRs are often eschewed in favour of high performance compacts because of the weight and lack of motorised zoom. -- Chris Malcolm |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message ... In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich wrote: Gary Edstrom wrote in : On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote: Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots nuff sed So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are really into photography, why not have both? Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to use a DSLR each and every time. Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which most avoid for good practical reasons :-) -- Chris Malcolm That is a load of rubbish. I know of a business who suspend both a Film Hassleblad and a DSLR from a Helium balloon at the same time. There is a local business who suspend a DSLR from a small Hot Air Balloon. It is small enough that his own weight prevents it from drifting off. Roy G |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's
In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Roy G wrote:
"Chris Malcolm" wrote in message ... In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Rich wrote: Gary Edstrom wrote in : On Sun, 26 Apr 2009 08:31:18 -0700 (PDT), La-a-a-a-a-aarry the La-a-a-a-a-a-a-mb wrote: Digital SLR cameras are bulkier than sleek point-and-shoots nuff sed So why in the world do you need to pick between the two? If you are really into photography, why not have both? Because if you are "really into photography" you will figure out a way to use a DSLR each and every time. Depends what kind of photography. For example, if you want to suspend a radio controlled camera with remote wireless live view from a helium balloon or a kite, then a DSLR is a rather problematic choice which most avoid for good practical reasons :-) -- Chris Malcolm That is a load of rubbish. I know of a business who suspend both a Film Hassleblad and a DSLR from a Helium balloon at the same time. There is a local business who suspend a DSLR from a small Hot Air Balloon. It is small enough that his own weight prevents it from drifting off. Obviously you can loft any weight you like with a big enough balloon or kite. Zeppelin had orchestras in their passenger balloons. The point is that the costs of the balloon and kite and its tethering and control rise very dramatically as the weight required to be lifted increases, and the size of the kit required shifts quickly from being easily carried in a backpack to needing a car to needing a special trailer or large van. That's why many people using that technology prefer to settle on the lightest camera whose quality will be acceptable. There's a very big difference between the cost and portability of what will loft a few pounds weight and several pounds. -- Chris Malcolm |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
ABC news warns about horrible, tiny-sensored P&S's | Gary Edstrom | Digital SLR Cameras | 1 | April 28th 09 03:04 PM |
God warns that 34.8 MP is the end of the digital road | large person | Digital Photography | 25 | March 27th 08 10:46 PM |
God warns that 34.8 MP is the end of the digital road | large person | Digital SLR Cameras | 26 | March 27th 08 10:46 PM |