P&S's day has come and gone

"Richard" wrote in message
...

I have 2 P&S's, bought on whims. I dislike the images from either and
will go out of my way never to use them. Once you get used to a compact
DSLR, you don't feel like going back to a P&S, ever.


If you had bought decent P&S cameras, maybe you wouldn't have been so quick
to discard them. No matter how used I would get to a dSLR, it would still be
of no use as a carry everywhere camera, for exactly the same reasons that my
bridge cameras sit unused most of the time.

There are very good reasons why high quality P&S cameras were popular
(although most of them now cram too many pixels on to produce clean images),
and that is simply the fact that are pocketable, whereas dSLRs are and never
will be.

FFS don't dSLR owners get it, YES dSLRs take slightly better pictures, I
think everyone gets that message by now, unless they're totally brain dead,
but there ARE many reasons why a LOT of people still chose not to lug one
around everywhere. Live with it and stop continually slating P&S owners, who
are out there enjoying photography at each and every opportunity, because
they actually HAVE their cameras with them, not sat in some bag somewhere
like dSLRs, which only come out for special occasions.

Fred wrote:
"Richard" wrote in message
...
I have 2 P&S's, bought on whims. I dislike the images from either and
will go out of my way never to use them. Once you get used to a compact
DSLR, you don't feel like going back to a P&S, ever.


If you had bought decent P&S cameras, maybe you wouldn't have been so quick
to discard them. No matter how used I would get to a dSLR, it would still be
of no use as a carry everywhere camera, for exactly the same reasons that my
bridge cameras sit unused most of the time.

There are very good reasons why high quality P&S cameras were popular
(although most of them now cram too many pixels on to produce clean images),
and that is simply the fact that are pocketable, whereas dSLRs are and never
will be.

FFS don't dSLR owners get it, YES dSLRs take slightly better pictures, I
think everyone gets that message by now, unless they're totally brain dead,
but there ARE many reasons why a LOT of people still chose not to lug one
around everywhere. Live with it and stop continually slating P&S owners, who
are out there enjoying photography at each and every opportunity, because
they actually HAVE their cameras with them, not sat in some bag somewhere
like dSLRs, which only come out for special occasions.


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 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

On 2008-08-01, Mxsmanic wrote:
Ron Hunter writes:

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.

A SLR is too small for studio work.

I think Hasselblad, Mamiya, Leaf, Phase One, ... might take issue with
that generalisation, even if it were true for 35mm SLRs. It isn't.

--
savvo orig. invib. man

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 or
briefcase. In fact, the first digitals I bought were P&S until DSLRs caught
up with my film SLR.

But this is just a variation on the brand wars we see here. Folks, enjoy your
equipment and let others enjoy theirs.

-- Doug

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


But, if you don't do all those settings things, why mess with all that
extra size, weight, and expense? OK, you get a bigger sensor, and
better low light performance, but would most users ever notice the
difference in a 4x6 print? My camera works very well for what I need,
and produces pretty good pictures for display on my computer monitor.
Yes, it could do much better at low light pictures, but for the
difference, I would rather NOT truck around a larger camera, extra lens,
and miscellaneous accoutrements. I suspect it will be several more
years before I need another camera, and who even can guess what may be
available in 5 years...
If I have one complaint about my camera, it is that Kodak chose a very
aggressive compression algorithm, and there is little need for
compression with 2GB SD cards selling for under $20.

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!

Ron Hunter wrote:
David J Taylor wrote:
[]
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


But, if you don't do all those settings things, why mess with all that
extra size, weight, and expense? OK, you get a bigger sensor, and
better low light performance, but would most users ever notice the
difference in a 4x6 print? My camera works very well for what I need,
and produces pretty good pictures for display on my computer monitor.
Yes, it could do much better at low light pictures, but for the
difference, I would rather NOT truck around a larger camera, extra
lens, and miscellaneous accoutrements. I suspect it will be several
more years before I need another camera, and who even can guess what
may be available in 5 years...
If I have one complaint about my camera, it is that Kodak chose a very
aggressive compression algorithm, and there is little need for
compression with 2GB SD cards selling for under $20.

Why? Bigger sensor, meaning that I can use ISO 1600 rather than ISO 200,
so an indoor shot becomes 1/30s rather than 1/4s, with a much greater
chance of the subject not being blurred. Why? Much faster auto-focus on
moving objects e.g. at airshows and on the race track. Why? Much better
image quality. Comparing even my lowly 6MP DSLR with a similar P&S the
image quality difference is immediately obvious even on my 2MP display.
Why? Because the in-lens IS stabilises the viewfinder image as well as
the taken image - which when coupled to the DSLRs optical viewfinder makes
it a delight to use.

Yes, I could have RAW, but I choose not to use it. Yes, size and weight
are an issue for me, but when I compared the weight of the DSLR with the
18-55mm and 55-200mm VR lenses to the two P&S cameras I needed to carry
before to cover the same focal length range, the DSLR and two lenses were
only about 3oz heavier!

Oh, and I think the DSLR and "kit" lens cost less than some of my compact
cameras (check Nikon 990 new versus Nikon D40 & kit lens).

But if I want compact - I use my Panasonic TZ3 which has an excellent
28-280mm coverage, as I did the other day when taking hand luggage only,
including a portable PC and GPS, for a four-day trip.

Of course, just because those were my choices doesn't mean they will be
the right choices for anyone else.

Cheers,
David

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.

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

Douglas Johnson wrote:
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.

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?

--
Chris Malcolm DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]