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 8 Jul 2010 11:50 "John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:69ma36hta1238ihmca4mfj16lrd6ffn5iv(a)4ax.com... > On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:05:46 -0400, in > <hrudnW_5HOM_06jRnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" > <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: > >>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message >>news:2010070715231316807-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom... >>> On 2010-07-07 13:33:19 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> >>> said: > >>> a year later I bought a D70 for less, and never used the 5700 again. >> >>I have hardly used my 8700 at all. But it's a treasured part of my Nikon >>collection. > > Likewise the FZ35 apparently. ;) I've actually used the 8700 even less than I have the FZ35, though I've owned the former a lot longer. I bought it when they were still selling 'em new. > >>> 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. >> >>Absolutely. I have several, like them very much as intriguing instruments >>and marvels of design, but seldom actually use them. > > Painfully obvious from the off-the-mark criticisms of them. > Yet you presume to judge them even though your not familiar with them. I admire them, especially the FZ35, as marvels of camera engineering. That type of camera has certain shortcomings, compared to DSLRs, that are not Panasonic's fault. > >>To claim (as a couple >>here do) that they are in any way equal to DSLRs is just plain >>nonsensical. > > I'm certainly not saying that. What I am saying is that they are better > tools for the kind of photography I do, as they are. dSLR cameras are > better suited of certain other kinds of photography. "Different strokes > for different folks." (How many times must I repeat it before you get > it?) You repeat it often but never illustrate it with an example. I am curious to know what "kind of photography" the tiny-sensor superzoom is a "better tool for." > >>> 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. >> >>Definitely. I wish Nikon would follow Canon's lead in that respect. > > Yet the FZ35 ranks higher in image quality than the FZ28, just as the > FZ28 ranks higher than prior generations with less megapixels. In other > words, that claim is patent nonsense. Yet Panasonic is somewhat notorious for high noise levels at higher ISOs. It seems at least likely that this quality would be improved with less pixel cramming. It isn't a problem for me because I never use the FZ35 at anything but its lowest ISO. When I may have to do with less light, I always bring a DSLR which is inherently far more capable for that sort of thing. > >>> 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. >> >>They are handy when one needs a compact camera with a wide range of focal >>lengths without carrying anything beside the camera itself, and THERE WILL >>BE PLENTY OF LIGHT. I took my FZ35 to Florida this last winter, just a few >>days' trip and traveling very light. It was the only time in I've taken a >>trip without an SLR of some kind in at least the last 40 years. I wanted >>to >>get some shots of pelicans and other sea birds, and with the strong >>Florida >>sun I think it would've been ideal for that. But in the event I was >>occupied >>with other things and didn't get to do any of that anyway. > > Offensive put-downs from dSLR fans threatened by them. Shame on you. > Are you really that insecure? How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I took the FZ35 because I thought it would be ideal for that situation. That's an "offensive put-down"? I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John.
From: Neil Harrington on 8 Jul 2010 12:31 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:i13qdl$llq$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message > news:MJ6dndNMn4CffKnRnZ2dnUVZ_o2dnZ2d(a)giganews.com... >> >> "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message >> news:i0uijd$nn$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > [] >>> There's only one person who objects to "P&S" >> >> I think two of us, at least. >> >>> - the rest of us are quite happy! I own both and have no problem with >>> the term. >> >> My objection is that it stands for "point and shoot," which does not >> properly describe most of the cameras one sees referenced in that way. >> >> If it stood for "Pittsburgh and Seattle," or "phenolphthalein and sugar," >> I would object that those terms are not relevant -- though hardly less so >> than "point and shoot." > > There are many terms in both British and American English which I don't > feel are 100% accurate, but they are in such common usage that it would be > difficult to change them. The term ZLR was used for a while for SLR-like > cameras without a mirror - cameras like my FZ5 and FZ20, John's FZ28, and > your FZ35 - but that term didn't stick. "ZLR" wasn't really correct to begin with, since cameras of this type are not reflex. That is the same sort of mistake some apparent newbie made here just a few days ago (and was jumped on for) when he called a compact digital camera a "DSLR" because it had some DSLR-like features. "Zoom Lens Reflex" was what Olympus years ago called certain 35mm models that had a non-interchangeable zoom lens -- but those ZLRs really *were* reflex. > > What term would you suggest for such cameras - they certainly aren't > "compact". Well, my FZ35 is significantly more compact than my D40-family cameras (with usual kit lens), and those I regard as "small body" Nikons. But I'll agree some others (Coolpix 8800, DiMAGE 7Hi, etc.) would be stretching the term "compact" too far. I suppose "superzoom" is the best term for that type of camera since it isn't likely to be confused with anything else. "Compact" I think is the best used for more or less pocketable cameras (Optio 750Z, Coolpix 5900, Powershot S80, etc.) while "ultracompact" should be reserved for those cameras that are really shirt-pocket size (Optio S4i, Coolpix S510 and thereabouts).
From: Neil Harrington on 8 Jul 2010 12:34 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:i13qmg$nfe$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... > > "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote in message > news:UeydnQBCeaSTdqnRnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d(a)giganews.com... > [] >> DSLRs I suppose can reasonably be subdivided by intended market, or by >> size. For example, the Nikon D3X is a camera intended for professional >> use. I wouldn't want one. It would be possible to quibble about whether a >> D300s is "professional" or "semiprofessional," or whether a D90 is >> "semiprofessional" or "enthusiast" level, etc. Any camera in the D40 >> family can fairly be discribed as a "compact" or "entry level" DSLR. I >> can't imagine anyone being offended by the use of any of these terms, so >> I see no reason for concern there. > > What DSLR could be described as unprofessional? By me? None. :-)
From: Neil Harrington on 8 Jul 2010 12:36 "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:070720102340501324%nospam(a)nospam.invalid... > In article <i13qmg$nfe$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, David J Taylor > <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >> What DSLR could be described as unprofessional? > > sigma sd14 :) I'd forgotten Sigmas when I answered that question, "None." :-)
From: John Navas on 8 Jul 2010 13:04
On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 11:50:56 -0400, in <g7qdnUKqyat0bqjRnZ2dnUVZ_gidnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >"John Navas" <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in message >news:69ma36hta1238ihmca4mfj16lrd6ffn5iv(a)4ax.com... >> On Thu, 8 Jul 2010 00:05:46 -0400, in >> <hrudnW_5HOM_06jRnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d(a)giganews.com>, "Neil Harrington" >> <nobody(a)homehere.net> wrote: >>>Absolutely. I have several, like them very much as intriguing instruments >>>and marvels of design, but seldom actually use them. >> >> Painfully obvious from the off-the-mark criticisms of them. >> Yet you presume to judge them even though your not familiar with them. > >I admire them, especially the FZ35, as marvels of camera engineering. That >type of camera has certain shortcomings, compared to DSLRs, that are not >Panasonic's fault. Again, that's a matter of your own personal skill and style, not the equipment, and, "It's a poor workman who blames his tools." >>>To claim (as a couple >>>here do) that they are in any way equal to DSLRs is just plain >>>nonsensical. >> >> I'm certainly not saying that. What I am saying is that they are better >> tools for the kind of photography I do, as they are. dSLR cameras are >> better suited of certain other kinds of photography. "Different strokes >> for different folks." (How many times must I repeat it before you get >> it?) > >You repeat it often but never illustrate it with an example. I am curious to >know what "kind of photography" the tiny-sensor superzoom is a "better tool >for." The kind of photography I do, where a single, easy to handle, superzoom meets my needs in ways no dSLR I know of can. I've posted many specifics here, and if you haven't seen them, then "Google is your friend." For example, when I'm shooting racing on the water, the handling advantages of the superzoom, the ability to easily protect it from the environment when not actually shooting, and the lack of need to change lenses, are overwhelming advantages that have allowed me to consistently get better images than dSLR pros working the same events. A case in point is the image I posted here recently of the start of the Clipper Round the World race. >> Yet the FZ35 ranks higher in image quality than the FZ28, just as the >> FZ28 ranks higher than prior generations with less megapixels. In other >> words, that claim is patent nonsense. > >Yet Panasonic is somewhat notorious for high noise levels at higher ISOs. >It isn't a problem for me because I never use the FZ35 at anything but its >lowest ISO. Used properly, the FZ28 does quite well up to ISO 400. I don't need to use higher ISO than that, so more is irrelevant to me. I likewise didn't use high ISO with film, almost never shooting higher than ISO 400, and never found that to be an issue for the kind of photography I do. Likewise for a great many others, many pros included. >When I may have to do with less light, I always bring a DSLR >which is inherently far more capable for that sort of thing. Less light doesn't necessarily mean high ISO. I've taken lots of great low light images with Panasonic superzooms. >>>> 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. >>> >>>They are handy when one needs a compact camera with a wide range of focal >>>lengths without carrying anything beside the camera itself, and THERE WILL >>>BE PLENTY OF LIGHT. I took my FZ35 to Florida this last winter, just a few >>>days' trip and traveling very light. It was the only time in I've taken a >>>trip without an SLR of some kind in at least the last 40 years. I wanted to >>>get some shots of pelicans and other sea birds, and with the strong Florida >>>sun I think it would've been ideal for that. But in the event I was occupied >>>with other things and didn't get to do any of that anyway. >> >> Offensive put-downs from dSLR fans threatened by them. Shame on you. >> Are you really that insecure? > >How is anything I said an "offensive put-down"? I just said I took the FZ35 >because I thought it would be ideal for that situation. That's an "offensive >put-down"? With the plural "put-downs" I was referring both to the derogatory comments by Duck and to your shouting of "THERE WILL BE PLENTY OF LIGHT" when you simply don't know how to use your FZ35 effectively. >I think you are getting paranoid about this whole business, John. You admit to not even being familiar with cameras you own, much less to have any experience with my camera, yet you presume to judge it. I'm willing to admit when I lack the experience to judge -- why won't you? I can only assume you have some need to justify your own choices. -- John Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams |