How to tell a rank amateur from a seasoned one, or a pro
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Winter is near
Next: CMOS sensors worthless for video?
From: Neil Harrington on 7 Jul 2010 16:33 "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2010070600313643042-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... > On 2010-07-05 23:48:54 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> said: > >> In article <i0uijd$nn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor >> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >> >>> There's only one person who objects to "P&S" - the rest of us are quite >>> happy! I own both and have no problem with the term. >> >> who cares what it's called. people know what is meant by p&s and slr >> and that's all that matters. language evolves. the whole pejorative >> nonsense is his way of arguing, particularly when his position is weak. > > Just what is objectional and pejorative about the term "Pocketable & > Small"? Apart from its redundancy? ;-) Well, few people would consider a Coolpix 8700 or 8800 pocketable & small. Yet many use the silly term "P&S" to characterize those cameras. "Point-and-shoot" was perfectly appropriate for those compact 35mm cameras to which the term was originally applied. Because they were auto-everything and had no user controls to speak of, pointing and shooting was almost literally all you could do with them. Using "P&S" to describe a camera with full user controls should be made a felony punishable by either (a) flogging or (b) forced listening to an entire speech by Joe Biden, the latter reserved for the more egregrious offenses of course.
From: Neil Harrington on 7 Jul 2010 17:00 "Pete" <available.on.request(a)aserver.invalid> wrote in message news:2010070601095535764-availableonrequest(a)aserverinvalid... > On 2010-07-05 22:56:45 +0100, Neil Harrington said: > >> Pete wrote: >>> On 2010-07-05 21:18:31 +0100, Neil Harrington said: >>> >>>> <> >>>> The term "point-and-shoot" *is* pejorative and inappropriate for most >>>> compact cameras today, IMO. >>> >>> Then answer my originally respectful question: what is the correct >>> terminology? >> >> Compact or ultracompact, depending on the size. Any camera that fits >> easily in a shirt pocket I would call an ultracompact. Otherwise, >> anything up to say a Coolpix 8800 in size I would call a compact. It >> would be ridiculous to call an 8800, which has just about every >> imaginable control, a P&S. >> >> There are very few digital cameras I'd call point-and-shoots, though I do >> have one: my first digicam, an Agfa ePhoto CL-30, bought in 1999. That >> really is pretty much the digital equivalent of the old 35mm P&S cameras. >> >>> Telling me more of what is pejorative and inappropriate is only jarring >>> me off. So, being jarred off: the term "DSLR" *is* pejorative and >>> inappropriate for the users of full-frame DSLRs cameras today, more than >>> my opinion: it is on technically delineated principles. >> >> Why? > > For a similar reason that you choose to delineate between compact and > ultra compact. That has to do (obviously) with difference in size, nothing else. Size has nothing to do with whether a camera is an SLR (digital or otherwise) or not. SLRs have been made as small as the half-frame Olympus Pen F and as large as the Graflex 5x7, maybe larger for all I know. > >>> This is absolute stupidity. It's like two owners of a Ford Focus >>> automobile arguing in a pub: mine has a 1.6 engine, yours only has a 1.4 >>> therefore it's pejorative and inappropriate for you to call yours a Ford >>> Focus, you must find a more appropriate name for it. >> >> I don't follow that at all. If both are the Ford Focus model, that's what >> they are. We're not talking about small differences in model here, are >> we? > > Yes, we are talking about small difference that don't actually matter. > Small is relative and subjective. > > If I was an expert in dishwashers I would probably get very upset with > anyone saying "dishwasher tablets" because I would know the differences > between all the powders, tablets, and liquids: lumping them all together > in one category could be taken as disrespecting my expertise. I would not > get upset by anyone talking about "washing up liquid" because I would > accept it as a generic term for something a little way outside my field of > knowledge. If you have a dishwasher then you have a choice of what: > powder, tablets, and liquid? If you wash dishes manually then you still > have a choice of products. What fuel do you put in your automobile? I > guess petrol or diesel. Talk to an industrial chemist for a day and we > would quickly feel an idiot by not being able to sub-categorize fuel > further. > > I can think of many more illustrations of the difference between macro and > micro. The most obvious is the question "Is is animal, mineral, or > vegetable?" A knowledgeable person could be pedantic and say "That is > pejorative." I don't see why a knowledgeable person would ever say that about that question. > and how would many of us accurately respond? Another example: "Today has > been a mixture of sunshine and thick cloud" the response could be "Thick > cloud is a pejorative." > > Every reply everyone has ever given can be twisted into a pejorative. I > think it's called, amongst other things, "Having a negative outlook" or as > John Navas sometimes asks "Do you feel threatened?". Answer to John Navas: > "Not at all. Pondering the reason for the question is, however, > stimulating." > > At the end of the day, these debates result from nothing more than a lack > of understanding of domain theory. Each of us needs to defend our realm > otherwise our spices will become extinct. Ok, so that would solve the > global warming issue... > > Back to my original questions: how will you sub-divide DSLRs such that you > do not offend me and how should I categorize non-DSLRs such that I never > offend anyone else? DSLRs I suppose can reasonably be subdivided by intended market, or by size. For example, the Nikon D3X is a camera intended for professional use. I wouldn't want one. It would be possible to quibble about whether a D300s is "professional" or "semiprofessional," or whether a D90 is "semiprofessional" or "enthusiast" level, etc. Any camera in the D40 family can fairly be discribed as a "compact" or "entry level" DSLR. I can't imagine anyone being offended by the use of any of these terms, so I see no reason for concern there. As for non-DSLRs, there are I think a variety of terms, "compact," "ultracompact," "bridge," and probably others. I don't see any of those as being offensive or pejorative, though they may reflect differences of opinion. "P&S" on the other hand is simply wrong in most cases, because these cameras are not "point-and-shoot" in the original and still reasonable sense of that term. You could, of course, set practically any camera, including a D3X, to point-and-shoot operation -- that wouldn't make the camera a "P&S," would it?
From: Neil Harrington on 7 Jul 2010 17:15 "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message news:lsk636hnh4pg4o76mqidbqkalmumlml3qb(a)4ax.com... > On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 07:18:36 -0700, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>On Mon, 05 Jul 2010 14:30:05 -0700, in >><4c324ed1$0$22182$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS >><scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >> >>>On 05/07/10 1:18 PM, Neil Harrington wrote: >>> >>><snip> > >>>> The term "point-and-shoot" *is* pejorative and inappropriate for most >>>> compact cameras today, IMO. > > Can you point it and shoot? Sure. You can do the same with a Nikon D3. Does that make the D3 a "point and shoot"? > The term doesn't exclude the camera > having accessibility to custom settings. That is *exactly* what the term does exclude, as that term was originally coined. "Point and shoot" meant a 35mm auto-everything camera with essentially no user controls. There would be no other reason for using such a term, would there? > It simply describes what can > be done with it. A high-end dslr can be used in a point and shoot > mode if it has an "automatic" setting. Exactly. And how many people do you know who call a D300 or D3x a "point and shoot"?
From: Savageduck on 7 Jul 2010 18:23 On 2010-07-07 13:33:19 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> said: > > "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message > news:2010070600313643042-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >> On 2010-07-05 23:48:54 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> said: >> >>> In article <i0uijd$nn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor >>> <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: >>> >>>> There's only one person who objects to "P&S" - the rest of us are quite >>>> happy! I own both and have no problem with the term. >>> >>> who cares what it's called. people know what is meant by p&s and slr >>> and that's all that matters. language evolves. the whole pejorative >>> nonsense is his way of arguing, particularly when his position is weak. >> >> Just what is objectional and pejorative about the term "Pocketable & >> Small"? > > Apart from its redundancy? ;-) Just me being silly. I always think of "Point & Shoot" in a totally different context. I though there was a possibility you might also have that in mind, but normally a little more deliberate than "point!" > > Well, few people would consider a Coolpix 8700 or 8800 pocketable & small. > Yet many use the silly term "P&S" to characterize those cameras. Yup, I had a 5700, which was not cheap. a year later I bought a D70 for less, and never used the 5700 again. > > "Point-and-shoot" was perfectly appropriate for those compact 35mm cameras > to which the term was originally applied. Because they were auto-everything > and had no user controls to speak of, pointing and shooting was almost > literally all you could do with them. Agreed. My wife had a great little Pentax PC35AF, and that was all she ever wanted. > > Using "P&S" to describe a camera with full user controls should be made a > felony punishable by either (a) flogging or (b) forced listening to an > entire speech by Joe Biden, the latter reserved for the more egregrious > offenses of course. Agreed. A camera such as a G11 has the elements of full user control, and can be quickly relegated to the role of more simplistic, ...er mindless operation. So perhaps a term such as "Full Function Compact" might be better for those. However there remain those digital compacts, which probably make up the bulk of sales, and bring nothing to the table in terms of image quality. All you might be able to say of them is, "what a cute little camera!" ....but there is a big caveat with the "Superzooms" I think one of the big problems with many of the "Superzooms" is, they are still mostly a compromise. They are a solution for the traveler wanting a single camera with a wide zoom range, and a bit more heft than a "pocketable" compact. ...but as good as they are, to claim that they have the flexibility, or image quality potential of a DSLR is just being argumentative. They are still limited with small sensors, over packed to silly pixel density. Maxing those out at around 10MP as with the G11 makes more sense. They are mostly marketed to photographers making the transition from the lesser compacts. They might be lacking a feature such as RAW capture, and emphasize shooting "scene-program/modes." The experienced/talented photographer, who buys one, and uses the user controls rather than the "scene-program/modes" is the exception rather than the rule. For the most part they will be using all that potential as a DSLR looking, scene-mode, point and shoot camera, regardless of the capability of the camera. Now, on to punishment, the Biden speech can easily be replaced with having to sit through taped reruns of the entire World Cup competition, with Vuvuzelas at full volume. ;-) -- Regards, Savageduck
From: Ben Dover on 7 Jul 2010 18:25
On Wed, 7 Jul 2010 15:23:13 -0700, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote: > >Yup, I had a 5700, which was not cheap. a year later I bought a D70 for >less, and never used the 5700 again. Judging by your photography, you must have found the D70 easier to use in point and shoot mode. |