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?
"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. Pie in the sky. You will never see such a lens. 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. Why not indeed. Why not "while we're at it" put flapping wings on the thing as well, so it can just fly out the window and take pictures on its own, without intruding on your daydreams? 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. guffaw! Please stop. You're getting coffee on my monitor screen. So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell to the DSLR. [ . . . ] I'm afraid you have it all bass-ackwards. DSLRs have come down in price to the point that they are pushing high-end compact cameras (I despise the silly term "P&S") completely out of the market. I'm sorry to see the "prosumer" level compacts go, but going they are. I still love my Nikon Coolpix 8400 and 8800, and they will in fact do some things that my DSLRs will not. But much as I love 'em, they cannot compare with my Nikon D80 or even my entry-level D40 as far as overall capability is concerned. It's unlikely we will ever again see Nikon make a camera like the 8800. DSLRs are where it's at, as the saying goes, and will only continue to gain ascendancy over the remaining compacts. It's analogous to the SLR vs. RF situation in the 1950s. In those days most people bought rangefinder cameras because they couldn't afford SLRs, of which there were relatively few anyway. But within a decade or so the SLR was killing the RF in the marketplace as far as buyers serious about photography were concerned. Sure, they still kept making RFs, and some nice ones too, and when auto-everything came along the little cameras got a new lease on life -- but they had by then given up even trying to compete with SLRs as far as serious stuff went. And they never again became competitive at the higher level. So it is with digital. They'll keep making compacts (and I love 'em, I'll keep buying 'em along with DSLRs) but except for the occasional niche camera, which by definition will be of extremely limited appeal, compact cameras just aren't going to be taken as seriously as they used to be. What you'll see in the coming years will be the continued migration of manufacturers currently making high-end compacts, to making DSLRs. Neil |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:43:11 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in : "Helmsman3" wrote in message .. . So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell to the DSLR. [ . . . ] I'm afraid you have it all bass-ackwards. DSLRs have come down in price to the point that they are pushing high-end compact cameras (I despise the silly term "P&S") completely out of the market. I'm sorry to see the "prosumer" level compacts go, but going they are. ... Don't look now, but "prosumer" level compacts by Panasonic equipped with superb Leica lenses are going strong. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
John Navas wrote: On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:43:11 -0500, "Neil Harrington" wrote in : "Helmsman3" wrote in message . .. So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell to the DSLR. [ . . . ] I'm afraid you have it all bass-ackwards. DSLRs have come down in price to the point that they are pushing high-end compact cameras (I despise the silly term "P&S") completely out of the market. I'm sorry to see the "prosumer" level compacts go, but going they are. ... Don't look now, but "prosumer" level compacts by Panasonic equipped with superb Leica lenses are going strong. Yes, I have a FZ10 which has served me well for the past three years. Eventually, I will replace it but not until the capture ccd(s) are bigger. Meanwhile, I'll use the FZ for routine photography and my old Leica M2 for real serious work... JT |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Neil Harrington wrote:
So it is with digital. They'll keep making compacts (and I love 'em, I'll keep buying 'em along with DSLRs) but except for the occasional niche camera, which by definition will be of extremely limited appeal, compact cameras just aren't going to be taken as seriously as they used to be. What you'll see in the coming years will be the continued migration of manufacturers currently making high-end compacts, to making DSLRs. Good points, I've not made the jump yet (ignoring camera phones), a nice compact digital camera, that works like a proper camera would be nice, possibly thinking of Ricoh GR-D or probally more useful GX100, however an SLR would offer more, except the pocketableness. Price difference between the Pentax K10D and those two compacts is not much. If I buy one the K10D makes more sense. Pete -- http://www.petezilla.co.uk |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
"John Navas" wrote in message ... On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:43:11 -0500, "Neil Harrington" wrote in : "Helmsman3" wrote in message . .. So yes, the advancements of the P&S camera are definitely the death-knell to the DSLR. [ . . . ] I'm afraid you have it all bass-ackwards. DSLRs have come down in price to the point that they are pushing high-end compact cameras (I despise the silly term "P&S") completely out of the market. I'm sorry to see the "prosumer" level compacts go, but going they are. ... Don't look now, but "prosumer" level compacts by Panasonic equipped with superb Leica lenses are going strong. I'm glad to hear it. Panasonic does make an excellent product. I've had an FZ15 for a few years now and I agree, the Leica lens (probably should be "Leica" in quotes, but still) is excellent. On my model it's 35-420mm (equiv.) stabilized and f/2.8 *all the way* which is very nice indeed. Still, there's only so much you can do with that small CCD, and the very best EVF you can get is no joy compared to a real mirror reflex viewinder. These I think are the chief shortcomings of the "prosumer" compact compared to a DSLR. Neil -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 09:43:11 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote: "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. Pie in the sky. You will never see such a lens. 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. Why not indeed. Why not "while we're at it" put flapping wings on the thing as well, so it can just fly out the window and take pictures on its own, without intruding on your daydreams? 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. guffaw! Please stop. You're getting coffee on my monitor screen. "You can't blow the dust away without making a lot of fools cough." - Prince Philip Duke of Edinburgh |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 16:19:28 -0500, "Neil Harrington"
wrote in : "John Navas" wrote in message .. . Don't look now, but "prosumer" level compacts by Panasonic equipped with superb Leica lenses are going strong. I'm glad to hear it. Panasonic does make an excellent product. I've had an FZ15 for a few years now and I agree, the Leica lens (probably should be "Leica" in quotes, but still) is excellent. On my model it's 35-420mm (equiv.) stabilized and f/2.8 *all the way* which is very nice indeed. Since the lens is designed by Leica and built to Leica standards, I'd personally say it's a Leica (without quotes). Still, there's only so much you can do with that small CCD, and the very best EVF you can get is no joy compared to a real mirror reflex viewinder. These I think are the chief shortcomings of the "prosumer" compact compared to a DSLR. Current EVF have gotten very good, and can now do things that can't be done with an optical viewfinder, including 100% image, visible image in very low light, and magnification while focusing, not to mention image replay. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
Neil Harrington wrote:
I'm glad to hear it. Panasonic does make an excellent product. Panasonic consistently excels in the "features" department. Where it always falls apart for Panasonic is in noise. You can shoot at ISO 100 pretty well (though some reviewers complain about the noise even at ISO 100). It all comes down to the sensor and the over-aggressive noise reduction that is Panasonic's forte. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
DSLR vs P&S a replay of Film vs Digital?
On Fri, 16 Nov 2007 14:03:08 -0800, SMS ??? ?
wrote in : Neil Harrington wrote: I'm glad to hear it. Panasonic does make an excellent product. Panasonic consistently excels in the "features" department. Where it always falls apart for Panasonic is in noise. You can shoot at ISO 100 pretty well (though some reviewers complain about the noise even at ISO 100). Painfully obvious that you have no first-hand experience, and thus no real idea what you're talking about. It all comes down to the sensor and the over-aggressive noise reduction that is Panasonic's forte. There's nothing wrong with the sensor, which is current state of the art, and the noise reduction can be turned down (or even off with RAW) if you don't like it. Get some real experience so you'll hopefully not make yourself look so foolish. -- Best regards, John Navas Panasonic DMC-FZ8 (and several others) |
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 |
Film lenses on dslr | quess who | Digital Photography | 4 | September 22nd 06 10:07 PM |
[IMG] "REPLAY" - Minolta 100mm f/2 with Sony Alpha DSLR | Jens Mander | Digital Photography | 0 | August 13th 06 11:06 PM |
Film lens on DSLR? | [email protected] | 35mm Photo Equipment | 9 | January 3rd 05 02:45 PM |
EOS Film user needs help for first DSLR | Ged | Digital Photography | 13 | August 9th 04 10:44 PM |