Dpreview, not just whores, but CHEAP whores to boot!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Dudley Hanks on 21 May 2010 21:45 "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message news:... > > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2010052116451495335-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2010-05-21 16:14:01 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> >> said: >> >>> On 2010-05-21 12:45:45 -0700, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> >>> said: >>> >>>> >>>> "Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly4REMOVE(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message >>>> news:kandv5h8e29rv5niv3f67idubo7d1cnvb3(a)4ax.com... >>>>> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the >>>>> drugs began to take hold. I remember Val Hallah >>>>> <michaelnewport(a)yahoo.com> saying something like: >>>>> >>>>>>>> Again, great photos can be taken with pretty much *any* camera. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Up to a point. >>>>>>> A great -once in a lifetime- pic can be taken on a cheapy pos if >>>>>>> it's >>>>>>> the only one to hand during an unrepeatable event. >>>>>>> Otoh, carrying something more capable around will greatly increase >>>>>>> the >>>>>>> chances of getting something worthwhile in the majority of >>>>>>> situations. >>>>>> >>>>>> ....yeah, just wait til I change the lens.... >>>>> >>>>> That's why you ALWAYS carry a pocket p&s - which these days tends to >>>>> be >>>>> a cellphone camera. Back in the day it was just a cheapy 110, or an >>>>> Oly >>>>> X-1, or the more well-heeled might have a Minox or Rollei as pocket >>>>> cams. >>>> >>>> Then, there were the really dedicated pros who wandered around with >>>> multiple >>>> 35mm body / lens combos hanging around their necks ... >>>> >>>> Take Care, >>>> Dudley >>> >>> I remember seeing a shot of Larry Burrows with Nikon F2 in hand, two >>> more Nikon F's around his neck, with two Leica M4's, not a zoom lens in >>> sight. >>> Here he is setting up his Life Magazine Yankee Pappa shoot. Those were >>> all F's, much too early for the F2. >>> < http://imagecache6.allposters.com/LRG/27/2761/BHETD00Z.jpg > >> >> With a little more research I have found that Burrows usually also had >> three Nikkormat bodies handy. So he ran around in Vietnam with six Nikon >> SLR's and two M4's, and various lenses. >> >> >> -- >> Regards, >> >> Savageduck >> > > Those were the days ... > > Not that hardcore pro's don't still use multiple cams, but a good fast > zoom can really cut down on the neck strain ... > > Take Care, > Dudley > > Of course, it wasn't just body / lens combos that necessitated multiple cams. There were film types as well. Bright sunlight required slow, fine grained films while faster, coarser films were the norm for lower light situations. Sometimes, the same film was loaded into two cams -- processed normally from one body and pushed a stop or two from a different body. There was no such thing as, "I'll just bump up the ISO for this shot." Shooting 6400 was a dream... Take Care, Dudley
From: Rich on 21 May 2010 22:12 On May 21, 7:41 pm, R Davis <spaml...(a)anon.com> wrote: > On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:50 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon > > <grimly4REM...(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > >We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > >drugs began to take hold. I remember John Navas > ><spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> saying something like: > > >>Again, great photos can be taken with pretty much *any* camera. > > >Up to a point. > >A great -once in a lifetime- pic can be taken on a cheapy pos if it's > >the only one to hand during an unrepeatable event. > >Otoh, carrying something more capable around will greatly increase the > >chances of getting something worthwhile in the majority of situations. > > I guess that's why we see all these blurry shots from front and back > focusing problems, shots with too shallow DOF so the main subject is > completely destroyed, poor exposure, poor composition, improper > white-balances, tilted horizons, etc., on ad-infinauseum, being posted by > all these people with their pride and joy DSLRs. Yes, their cameras sure do > make them better photographers! The human eye doesn't see things in the kind of focus the average crappy p&s does, it sees them with shallow DOF. Why use a camera that produces a cluttered looking scene that takes emphasis off the main subject? If all you shoot are shots at infinity, then a P&S at very low ISO is passable. Otherwise, they suck.
From: Val Hallah on 22 May 2010 01:13 On May 22, 4:12 am, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On May 21, 7:41 pm, R Davis <spaml...(a)anon.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:50 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon > > > <grimly4REM...(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > > >We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the > > >drugs began to take hold. I remember John Navas > > ><spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> saying something like: > > > >>Again, great photos can be taken with pretty much *any* camera. > > > >Up to a point. > > >A great -once in a lifetime- pic can be taken on a cheapy pos if it's > > >the only one to hand during an unrepeatable event. > > >Otoh, carrying something more capable around will greatly increase the > > >chances of getting something worthwhile in the majority of situations. > > > I guess that's why we see all these blurry shots from front and back > > focusing problems, shots with too shallow DOF so the main subject is > > completely destroyed, poor exposure, poor composition, improper > > white-balances, tilted horizons, etc., on ad-infinauseum, being posted by > > all these people with their pride and joy DSLRs. Yes, their cameras sure do > > make them better photographers! > > The human eye doesn't see things in the kind of focus the average > crappy p&s does, it sees them with shallow DOF. Why use a camera that > produces a cluttered looking scene that takes emphasis off the main > subject? If all you shoot are shots at infinity, then a P&S at very > low ISO is passable. Otherwise, they suck. http://www.flickr.com/photos/40732837(a)N07/4628023291/sizes/l/
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 22 May 2010 01:52 On Fri, 21 May 2010 19:12:38 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On May 21, 7:41�pm, R Davis <spaml...(a)anon.com> wrote: >> On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:50 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon >> >> <grimly4REM...(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: >> >We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the >> >drugs began to take hold. I remember John Navas >> ><spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> saying something like: >> >> >>Again, great photos can be taken with pretty much *any* camera. >> >> >Up to a point. >> >A great -once in a lifetime- pic can be taken on a cheapy pos if it's >> >the only one to hand during an unrepeatable event. >> >Otoh, carrying something more capable around will greatly increase the >> >chances of getting something worthwhile in the majority of situations. >> >> I guess that's why we see all these blurry shots from front and back >> focusing problems, shots with too shallow DOF so the main subject is >> completely destroyed, poor exposure, poor composition, improper >> white-balances, tilted horizons, etc., on ad-infinauseum, being posted by >> all these people with their pride and joy DSLRs. Yes, their cameras sure do >> make them better photographers! > >The human eye doesn't see things in the kind of focus the average >crappy p&s does, it sees them with shallow DOF. Why use a camera that >produces a cluttered looking scene that takes emphasis off the main >subject? If all you shoot are shots at infinity, then a P&S at very >low ISO is passable. Otherwise, they suck. Damn. My P&S cameras must be broken. How do I get the background in these P&S camera photos to be like you describe? From all your vast experience with all manner of *real* cameras, of course. http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3414/4628674084_ea2a8df9ae_o.jpg http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4072/4628674082_b72f520936_o.jpg
From: Bruce on 22 May 2010 04:56
On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:41:02 -0500, R Davis <spamless(a)anon.com> wrote: >On Fri, 21 May 2010 18:48:50 +0100, Grimly Curmudgeon ><grimly4REMOVE(a)REMOVEgmail.com> wrote: > >>We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the >>drugs began to take hold. I remember John Navas >><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> saying something like: >> >>>Again, great photos can be taken with pretty much *any* camera. >> >>Up to a point. >>A great -once in a lifetime- pic can be taken on a cheapy pos if it's >>the only one to hand during an unrepeatable event. >>Otoh, carrying something more capable around will greatly increase the >>chances of getting something worthwhile in the majority of situations. > >I guess that's why we see all these blurry shots from front and back >focusing problems, shots with too shallow DOF so the main subject is >completely destroyed, poor exposure, poor composition, improper >white-balances, tilted horizons, etc., on ad-infinauseum, being posted by >all these people with their pride and joy DSLRs. Yes, their cameras sure do >make them better photographers! Probably the vast majority of DSLR buyers should not be buying DSLRs. Either that, or they should also be paying for some tuition. One of the great advantages of small-sensor cameras is the near-infinite depth of field. Many people had real problems with focusing when using 35mm and APS film. A significant proportion of shots were blurred because users expected to just point and shoot, without ever realising that they needed to take care with focusing. Point and shoot digital cameras put an end to all that. You could literally point and shoot. Even if the camera had focused on something other than the primary subject, the image would still be in focus most of the time. So satisfaction grew and, for most people, digital appeared to give better results than film. But now, digital camera manufacturers want their customers to trade up from comparatively unprofitable point and shoot cameras to the highly profitable DSLRs and "Micro"cameras - Micro Four Thirds and the mirrorless cameras with APS-C sensors. The danger here is that they risk customer dissatisfaction because the more limited depth of field demands a conscious effort to focus on the subject. Already, minilabs are reporting problems with complaints from customers about "blurry" images. In truth, some part of the image will be sharply focused but it may not be the subject. If a minilab operator points out to the customer that the background is correctly focused, but not the subject of the image, the customer simply blames the camera for "focusing on the wrong thing". In fact it is operator error - through sheer ignorance. Camera manufacturers need to do much more to educate buyers of entry-level DSLRs and "Micro" cameras as to the importance of careful focusing in order to get the best out of these cameras. Sadly, people seem to think that "automatic focus" means that the camera will do it all for them, when of course it won't. These people would be far better served by a point and shoot digital camera with a small sensor. |