Sometimes it's Just Really Sad to Watch People with P&S Cameras

John Navas wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:25:26 -0800, SMS
wrote in :

Tonight I was at an orchestra performance at my daughter's high school.
I took a bunch of photographs of the orchestra, including some close ups
of my daughter with the 300mm telephoto. Sitting in front of me was a
man with a small Canon P&S camera. He was zooming in as close as he
could holding the camera far out in front of him because it had no
viewfinder. I could see every photo he took on the LCD, and it was just
a bunch of dark, with the faces unrecognizable. We were far too far back
for his tiny flash to have any effect at all, but the stage was well lit.

What's really sad is how little experience you have with good compact
cameras, preferring instead to put down straw men like this. My compact
Panasonic FZ8 beats your bulky and obtrusive 300 mm lens with its faster
stabilized Leica-branded 432 mm super-zoom.

Yes, but I'd like to see the pics you get. Likely noisy, and with a
blurry orchestra personnel on a sharp stage. Image stabilization doesn't
slow time. And lens speed isn't everything. The FZ8 zoom is one-half
f-stop faster than the Canon 300mm (3.3 vs 4)(or even one and half if
the 300mm is really the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 zoom)(I'll ignore the 300mm
f/2.8 L). On the other hand, the FZ8 is really restricted to ISO 100
(200 for the less sensitive people) because at higher sensitivities the
pictures are crap, while the Canon low-end DSLRs can produce very nice
pictures at ISO 800. So the Canon will always have an advantage, for
one-half f-stop to 4 or more, depending on lens used and acceptabilty of
noisy pictures.

I found that I got better results using manual focus, something that's
rarely necessary.

Auto focus in such conditions is no problem with the FZ8.

Yes, the camera eventually focuses, but the music may have stopped
first. The FZ8 AF will get you very sharp pictures of... snails.

I could use my FZ8, but I'd rather use my good binoculars.

Not with the EVF, IMHO

This said, I do agree with you that the original post was entirely
avoidable, and that there could have been someone in the back with an
even better camera and bigger lens thinking "Hey, look at that prick
with the Canon".

--
Bertrand, FZ8 owner

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:07:28 -0500, Stephen Bishop wrote:

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 02:21:45 -0600, desmond g.
wrote:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:25:26 -0800, SMS wrote:

Tonight I was at an orchestra performance at my daughter's high school.
I took a bunch of photographs of the orchestra, including some close ups
of my daughter with the 300mm telephoto. Sitting in front of me was a
man with a small Canon P&S camera. He was zooming in as close as he
could holding the camera far out in front of him because it had no
viewfinder. I could see every photo he took on the LCD, and it was just
a bunch of dark, with the faces unrecognizable. We were far too far back
for his tiny flash to have any effect at all, but the stage was well lit.

I found that I got better results using manual focus, something that's
rarely necessary. I also found another good feature of the SLR, it makes
a very good monocular!

I'd rather watch that than have to listen to the lousy clattering noise that
anyone's dslr gear makes, totally destroying the sound from the orchestra.
People with dslrs at public events are every bit as annoying as people with cell
phones that aren't turned off. Even worse. The person's phone might go off only
once, whereas just one person with a dslr is destroying the evening all night
long for everyone. The next time I HEAR a dslr at a public event I think I'll
call authorities to have them do something about that moron disturbing the
peace.

Speaking of morons disturbing the peace, where is your list?



Oh wait, that's right. You don't even own a camera. You don't even get outside.
And now you have a daughter while living in your mommy's basement? Your
imaginary life is starting to breed?

Looking in the mirror again, aren't you?




Dear Resident-Troll,

Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some (new & improved) topics that
befit this newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:



1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (telextender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.

2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality telextenders, which do not reduce the lens' original aperture one
bit. Following is a link to a hand-held taken image of a 432mm f/3.5 P&S lens
increased to an effective 2197mm f/3.5 lens by using two high-quality
teleconverters. To achieve that apparent focal-length the photographer also
added a small step of 1.7x digital zoom to take advantage of the RAW sensor's
slightly greater detail retention when upsampled directly in the camera for JPG
output. As opposed to trying to upsample a JPG image on the computer where those
finer RAW sensor details are already lost once it's left the camera's
processing. (Digital-zoom is not totally empty zoom, contrary to all the
net-parroting idiots online.) A HAND-HELD 2197mm f/3.5 image from a P&S camera
(downsized only, no crop):
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3141/...1dbdb8ac_o.jpg Note that any
in-focus details are cleanly defined to the corners and there is no CA
whatsoever. If you study the EXIF data the author reduced contrast and
sharpening by 2-steps, which accounts for the slight softness overall. Any
decent photographer will handle those operations properly in editing with more
powerful tools and not allow a camera to do them for him. A full f/3.5 aperture
achieved at an effective focal-length of 2197mm (35mm equivalent). Only DSLRs
suffer from loss of aperture due to the manner in which their teleconverters
work. P&S cameras can also have higher quality full-frame 180-degree circular
fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any DSLR and its glass for
far less cost. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added to your P&S camera
which do not impart any chromatic aberration nor edge softness. When used with a
super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or
even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length up to the wide-angle setting of the
camera's own lens.

3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/...7ceaf3a1_o.jpg

4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which
usually performs well at only one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests
prove that P&S glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. See
this side-by-side comparison for example
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml
When adjusted for sensor size, the DSLR lens is creating 4.3x's the CA that the
P&S lens is creating, and the P&S lens is resolving almost 10x's the amount of
detail that the DSLR lens is resolving. A difficult to figure 20x P&S zoom lens
easily surpassing a much more easy to make 3x DSLR zoom lens. After all is said
and done you will spend anywhere from 1/10th to 1/50th the price on a P&S camera
that you would have to spend in order to get comparable performance in a DSLR
camera. To obtain the same focal-length ranges as that $340 SX10 camera with
DSLR glass that *might* approach or equal the P&S resolution, it would cost over
$6,500 to accomplish that (at the time of this writing). This isn't counting the
extra costs of a heavy-duty tripod required to make it functional at those
longer focal-lengths and a backpack to carry it all. Bringing that DSLR
investment to over 20 times the cost of a comparable P&S camera. When you buy a
DSLR you are investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips,
external flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc.
The outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.

5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 15 pounds
of DSLR body + lenses. The P&S camera mentioned in the previous example is only
1.3 lbs. The DSLR + expensive lenses that *might* equal it in image quality
comes in at 9.6 lbs. of dead-weight to lug around all day (not counting the
massive and expensive tripod, et.al.) You can carry the whole P&S kit +
accessory lenses in one roomy pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit
would require a sturdy backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large
tripods are required to stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger
DSLR and its massive lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some
of the most inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent
results.

6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots you won't so easily alert
all those within a block around, by the obnoxious clattering noise that your
DSLR is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.

7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )

8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)

9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_...%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must pulse their light-output for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to
pass slowly over the frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units is
that the light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any
shutter speed used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off
some of the flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity
of the flash is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the
case of CHDK capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster
than the lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's
duration is 1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to
1/20,000 of a second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S
cameras also don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any
of them may be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive
slave-trigger that can compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions.
Example: http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html

10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/ch...istortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.

11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments; or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street; you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do; and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.

12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available at longer focal-lengths
allow for the deep DOF required for excellent macro-photography when using
normal macro or tele-macro lens arrangements. All done WITHOUT the need of any
image destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on
the planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that
can be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera. (To clarify for
DSLR owners/promoters who don't even know basic photography principles: In order
to obtain the same DOF on a DSLR you'll need to stop down that lens greatly.
When you do then you have to use shutter speeds so slow that hand-held
macro-photography, even in full daylight, is all but impossible. Not even your
highest ISO is going to save you at times. The only solution for the DSLR user
is to resort to artificial flash which then ruins the subject and the image;
turning it into some staged, fake-looking, studio setup.)

13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.

14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.

15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)

16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.

17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.

18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.

19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.

20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.

21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.

22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box Camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" If they just
throw enough money at their hobby then the talent-fairy will come by one day,
after just the right offering to the DSLR gods was made, and bestow them with
something that they never had in the first place--talent. Camera company's love
these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will make their
photography better, because they never were a good photographer to begin with.
They're forever searching for that more expensive camera that might one day come
included with that new "talent in a box" feature. The irony is that they'll
never look in the mirror to see what the real problem has been all along.
They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their ****-poor photography skills. It also reveals the harsh reality that
all the wealth in the world won't make them any better at photography. It's
difficult for them to face the truth.

23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.

24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.

25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.

There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.

The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:

"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 07:46:01 -0500, Cynicor
wrote:

Nucular Reaction wrote:
On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 22:25:26 -0800, SMS
wrote:

Tonight I was at an orchestra performance at my daughter's high school.
I took a bunch of photographs of the orchestra, including some close ups
of my daughter with the 300mm telephoto. Sitting in front of me was a
man with a small Canon P&S camera. He was zooming in as close as he
could holding the camera far out in front of him because it had no
viewfinder. I could see every photo he took on the LCD, and it was just
a bunch of dark, with the faces unrecognizable. We were far too far back
for his tiny flash to have any effect at all, but the stage was well lit.

I found that I got better results using manual focus, something that's
rarely necessary. I also found another good feature of the SLR, it makes
a very good monocular!

Does it make you feel less inadequate to make fun of people?

I can't speak for him, but it definitely makes me feel better about myself.

Makes sense. When you think you're a turd, pretty much anything will
make you feel better. It's good that you know that about yourself.

Stephen Bishop wrote:

No, you're supposed to say "Dear Resident-Troll." Remember?

Ah, the stuff you miss when you have a good filter!

Seriously though, taking photographs during the performance would be in
bad taste because the flash disturbs the performers. Of course that
didn't stop the moron in front of me, who continued to take flash
pictures while they were playing, and still didn't get anything usable
because of the low light and the wimpy flash. At least no one's cell
phone rang!

All my pictures were before the performance, and between pieces, since I
had to use the flash, and the shutter noise would have disturbed the
people around me. That's one other thing I've noticed about D-SLR users,
they tend to be much more considerate about when they use their cameras,
they don't run around annoying other people at public events. I think it
comes from learning how to be a photographer, rather than just running
around taking snapshots.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 08:08:44 -0800, SMS wrote:

Stephen Bishop wrote:

No, you're supposed to say "Dear Resident-Troll." Remember?

Ah, the stuff you miss when you have a good filter!

And he lies again. This SMS troll has replied to many posts that he claims he's
filtered. What a moron.


Seriously though, taking photographs during the performance would be in
bad taste because the flash disturbs the performers. Of course that
didn't stop the moron in front of me, who continued to take flash
pictures while they were playing, and still didn't get anything usable
because of the low light and the wimpy flash. At least no one's cell
phone rang!

(Now the pretend-photographer troll changes his tune. Let's play along, shall
we?)


All my pictures were before the performance, and between pieces, since I
had to use the flash, and the shutter noise would have disturbed the
people around me. That's one other thing I've noticed about D-SLR users,
they tend to be much more considerate about when they use their cameras,
they don't run around annoying other people at public events. I think it
comes from learning how to be a photographer, rather than just running
around taking snapshots.

Yes, DSLR users, if they have any intelligence at all, learn the very first time
when someone throws their camera into the sidewalk or floor and smashes the DSLR
owner in the face for having been so amazingly annoying at any public event.
This probably accounts for them having to always buy more than one. I recall one
poor DSLR sod that jumped off a boardwalk into the Everglades swamp to retrieve
his obnoxiously loud piece-of-**** DSLR that somehow found it's way near an
alligator, after a well-placed heft and a heave-ho. ****, was that jerk
annoying. More considerate people buy silent P&S cameras that don't need flash
so they are never disturbing anyone with noise nor flash at any time.

But for something like you? I'll bet it took at least 5 bleeding noses before
you to finally learned your lesson, part way. Even then you still offend people
all before and during public events with the noise and blinding flash of your
DSLR. You just admitted it.

By the way, what's the matter? I thought you didn't need flash with a DSLR for
stage performances. Are you now going to back-peddle and claim you needed to use
flash too (a blindingly bright and even more annoying one) because your piece of
**** DSLR's larger sensor and small aperture zoom didn't have enough light grasp
at high ISOs? Oh dear.

The DSLR-Trolls finally start to get honest -- Film at 11.

I don't use any flash with a P&S camera at stage performances. I get along just
fine. Due to the larger aperture at longer zooms available for P&S cameras
there's no need for flash. It's nice to see that you useless DSLR-Trolls finally
admit that you need flash for stage performances--totally negating all the
deceptive claims that you've made for the last decade.

DSLR LIARS REVEAL THEIR DECEPTIONS -- Film at 11.

I think I'll start a fun new fad. Anyone shooting photos with an obnoxiously
noisy and blinding flash of a DSLR at a public event gets their tires slashed.

I know what would be even more fun. Anytime some jackoff like you at a stage
performance shoots a photo with the high-powered strobe on your DSLR before,
during, or after any part of the performance; all the stage members pull out a
high-powered strobe and flash the **** out of you in return to blind your sorry
ass. Hopefully permanently. THEN they should slash your tires while you're
trying to find your way to your car.

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 06:02:07 -0500, Stephen Bishop
wrote in
:

On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 23:17:15 -0800, John Navas
wrote:

My compact
Panasonic FZ8 beats your bulky and obtrusive 300 mm lens with its faster
stabilized Leica-branded 432 mm super-zoom.

Was intended to be a dig, but I forgot the smiley. Oops.

But I'd still bet a dslr with a decent lens turned out better images
than the p&s, given photographers with the same abilities.

Sometimes yes, often no -- it all depends on the situation.

When I'm shooting sailboat races out on the water, for example,
I routinely get great photos that are missed by dSLR pros due to the
size, weight and handling advantages of my FZ8. The kiteboarding photo
on my sailing website http://sail.navas.us/ is a good example.

Only rarely do I find that I'd need a dSLR to get a significantly better
image than I can with my FZ8.

To be clear, I'm not talking pixel-peeping, which interests me as much
as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin -- I'm talking image.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 11:08:11 GMT, "David J Taylor"
wrote in
:

Stephen Bishop wrote:
[]
The fact is, at school concerts, the people who hold up their p&s
cameras with all the beeping and flashing are every bit as annoying as
the ones who use their big dslrs. Whatever camera you have, you
should learn to use it as stealthy as possible.

The fact is, that all those cameras should be left outside or in the
handbag or pocket, and people should just sit back and enjoy the concert.
Let the school have either video or stills folk doing the job properly,
discreetly, and make a few extra pennies by selling the DVD after the
concert....

I personally think it's better to keep parents happy by letting them
take pictures of their own kids as long as they do their best not to
interfere with other parents. That's why they're there. They've
already heard their kids ad nauseam. The usual pro does crappy work
at a high price, and often fails to get what the parent wants. One of
my favorite videos of my daughter on her sax is a good case in point.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 13:49:02 +0100, Ofnuts
wrote in :

John Navas wrote:

What's really sad is how little experience you have with good compact
cameras, preferring instead to put down straw men like this. My compact
Panasonic FZ8 beats your bulky and obtrusive 300 mm lens with its faster
stabilized Leica-branded 432 mm super-zoom.

Again, that was intended to be a sly dig, not a silly brag.

Yes, but I'd like to see the pics you get. Likely noisy, and with a
blurry orchestra personnel on a sharp stage. Image stabilization doesn't
slow time.

Depends -- stages are often pretty brightly lit. Regardless, I keep ISO
down, use Neat Image in post processing, and the results are excellent.

And lens speed isn't everything. The FZ8 zoom is one-half
f-stop faster than the Canon 300mm (3.3 vs 4)(or even one and half if
the 300mm is really the 75-300mm f/4-5.6 zoom)(I'll ignore the 300mm
f/2.8 L).

I get a full stop with my FZ20, which is f/2.8 throughout its zoom
range, and the Canon has to be stopped down 1-2 stops for comparable
sharpness.

On the other hand, the FZ8 is really restricted to ISO 100
(200 for the less sensitive people) because at higher sensitivities the
pictures are crap,

With Neat Image I get excellent results at ISO 200, all I usually need,
but still get good results even at ISO 400.

while the Canon low-end DSLRs can produce very nice
pictures at ISO 800. So the Canon will always have an advantage, for
one-half f-stop to 4 or more, depending on lens used and acceptabilty of
noisy pictures.

In practice the difference between what dSLR people can actually afford
and my inexpensive compact super-zooms, for stage images of comparable
sharpness, tends to be roughly even, with my lens advantage offsetting
the dSLR ISO advantage.

Auto focus in such conditions is no problem with the FZ8.

Yes, the camera eventually focuses, but the music may have stopped
first. The FZ8 AF will get you very sharp pictures of... snails.

High-speed 1- and 3-spot autofocus (not the default, must be configured
by menu) is actually fast and accurate even in lower light. Plus I have
pre-focus and manual focus.

I could use my FZ8, but I'd rather use my good binoculars.

Not with the EVF, IMHO

"Different strokes for different folks."
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:42:07 -0600, "HEMI-Powered" wrote
in :

SMS added these comments in the current discussion du jour ...
[SNIP snide remarks]

Haven't you ever seen people at concerts or sporting events with
the older snapshot cameras shooting with flash from the stands?
Maybe they just don't know better or maybe they never took the time
to learn how to set the camera better.

Perhaps a more useful thing to do is help these people if you can
instead of decrying their stupidity by making fun of them.

Amen. But that's who he is.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]

On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 05:29:53 -0800, Nucular Reaction
wrote in
:

Makes sense. When you think you're a turd, pretty much anything will
make you feel better. It's good that you know that about yourself.

Totally uncalled for.
--
Best regards,
John
[Please Note: Ads belong *only* in rec.photo.marketplace.digital, as per
http://bobatkins.photo.net/info/charter.htm http://rpdfaq.50megs.com/]