I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Immigration: The shocking truth about the immigrants who openedthe floodgates
Next: The real cost of being sued by Getty
From: John McWilliams on 23 Oct 2009 11:39 John Navas wrote: > On Fri, 23 Oct 2009 16:13:08 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> > wrote in <4ae13b67$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: > >>> [HUGE SNIP] > >> *snicker* > > By quoting the entire thing, adding only a single word juvenile comment, > you show yourself to be no better than the person you're trying to make > fun of. How old are you, 8? John, John, John- What'd you say earlier about ad hominems?? Yes, not snipping can be annoying, but usually Bob does so. Waaaay better if none of us replied to the original doofus. Or talked about him, or wrote comment on those who chastised those who are making fun of him who're castigating those... etc.... -- john mcwilliams
From: -hh on 26 Oct 2009 12:17 "Jim...(8-| " <j...(a)home.com> wrote: > "whisky-dave" <whisky-d...(a)final.front.ear> wrote: > >"Jim...(8-| " <j...(a)home.com> wrote: > >> > >> Myself I'd rather wait till the light is right and use a low ISO > >> setting, but that doesn't seem to be a normal situation if you follow > >> the threads here. > > >You do realise that lost of things in a picture actually look differnt at > >night to what they do during the day. Not only that, but sometimes one only has the pragmatic option of "non daylight" photography due to other schedule commitments. Such as by having a day job. > >> I find taking photos a fun hobby and take a few hundred every month. > > >In the days before digital I couldn't afford to do that. a few hundreds a > >year perhaps. > > Hardly anybody did, the cost was too great but of course another > drawback was not know how you did until the pics eventually were > processed. That as much probably more than the cost killed film stone > dead for the vast masses. Digital's instant feedback is prompting a contemporary revival of interest in photography. However, the advent of digital video is also superceding interests from still photography as well (ever heard of YouTube?). In any case, the trend of higher ISOs is effectively encouraging greater utilization by technologically minimizing the hours ...or places... upon which it used to be "too dark" for the less proficient shooter. Thus, twilight & night photography is becoming more prevalent, as well as cameo shots in nightclubs, parties, etc. > >>with large cameras being unlikely to be carried casually. For > >> this reason I've just ordered a Panasonic (because of how good my FZ28 > >> is) ZX1/ZR1, which i plan on keeping in my pocket away from home. > > >That's how I feel too. Easily-Pocketable capabilities have their utility, and thus, their place in the image-collector's "toolbox". However, one still does nevertheless have to recognize that just because something is convenient, this doesn't also mean that it will also be particularly capable at its intended task. > >>I don't go out at night so high ISO performance doesn't mean much, > > >Here the sun presently sets at 5:50pm, seems a shame to stop taking photos. Winter time sunrise / sunsets can often be quite limiting, if one resticts one's self to sunlight. For example, today's times for New York City are Sunrise: 7:19am & Sunset: 6:00pm. For your typical 8 hour day + 45 minute commute, that means that you're leaving the house by 7:15am for an 8AM start ... yes, before sunrise ... and you get home at 5:45pm, so you have all of 15 minutes to grab your gear and find a subject before the sun touches the horizon ... and in urban or hilly areas, its already behind a building or hill. > As i've said, I'm hardly ever out at night so having one of those nice > big light-gathering sensors isn't much of an issue for me. A small > sensor means less camera and lens size and cost. That suits me, and > the quality from them is more than up to what my eyes consider > good-oh. There's still two more months until the Winter Solstice (NYC Sunrise: 7:16am / Sunset: 4:30pm), and it will be another two months until the days become as long as today. Thus, effectively a full 1/3rd of the year's weekdays are effectively already "off limits" just because we're choosing to limit one's self to only shooting at lower ISOs in (any) sunlight. Its an individual choice, and at least there's still weekends, but there's also a lot of other routine chores that have to be done on the weekends too. YMMV as to what you want to make the best of. > >> nor > >> does a lack of manual controls, as long as i can make a couple of > >> adjustments i'll be happy, why would camera makers spend millions to > >> put intelligence into cameras and then have slobs like me think we > >> know better than them. > > >because most of the time, we, or rather some of us do know better than them > >as to what we want in our photos. > > I have preferences i like to pre-configure but I prefer to just tweak > what it wants a little, like more saturation. The Panasonic scene > modes i find very good and a quick way to get a presentable result > from an uncommon situation. Personally, I generally get my best results out of P&Ss for "challenging" lighting conditions by using them on mostly manual settings. Add in some hardware stabilization (often improvised) and the results are that one can compensate for their high-ISO noise by not using high ISO, but by instead using a long shutter speed. Of course, some P&Ss don't allow exposures longer than 1 second. > It's all horses for courses but a compact can get an acceptable result > (and sometimes acceptable may be far from ideal) in places that a > dSLR can't even go. With the key here being that there is the real world recognition that 'acceptable' results aren't equal to 'ideal'. It is this common sense perspective that is unfortunately all too often missed, as we get participants who irrationally claim that they've not had to make any trade-offs. If the proverbial "Have Your Cake And Eat It Too" gear really existed, there wouldn't be any debate. -hh
From: John Navas on 26 Oct 2009 12:31 On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 09:17:00 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <942c6e60-2071-4593-a8d6-bc468f6c72a8(a)m25g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>: >"Jim...(8-| " <j...(a)home.com> wrote: >> Hardly anybody did, the cost was too great but of course another >> drawback was not know how you did until the pics eventually were >> processed. That as much probably more than the cost killed film stone >> dead for the vast masses. > >Digital's instant feedback is prompting a contemporary revival of >interest in photography. However, the advent of digital video is also >superceding interests from still photography as well (ever heard of >YouTube?). I don't see video "superceding" still photography -- they serve different needs -- what we're seeing is video becoming easier and less expensive. >In any case, the trend of higher ISOs is effectively >encouraging greater utilization by technologically minimizing the >hours ...or places... upon which it used to be "too dark" for the less >proficient shooter. Thus, twilight & night photography is becoming >more prevalent, as well as cameo shots in nightclubs, parties, etc. True, but fairly minor. >> >>with large cameras being unlikely to be carried casually. For >> >> this reason I've just ordered a Panasonic (because of how good my FZ28 >> >> is) ZX1/ZR1, which i plan on keeping in my pocket away from home. >> >> >That's how I feel too. > >Easily-Pocketable capabilities have their utility, and thus, their >place in the image-collector's "toolbox". However, one still does >nevertheless have to recognize that just because something is >convenient, this doesn't also mean that it will also be particularly >capable at its intended task. True, but pocket cameras can and do approach, and even exceed, the capabilities of their larger brothers, as in the case of the excellent new Canon S90, essentially a G11 in a small svelte package, with f/2.0 lens versus f/2.8 lens. >> I have preferences i like to pre-configure but I prefer to just tweak >> what it wants a little, like more saturation. The Panasonic scene >> modes i find very good and a quick way to get a presentable result >> from an uncommon situation. > >Personally, I generally get my best results out of P&Ss for >"challenging" lighting conditions by using them on mostly manual >settings. Add in some hardware stabilization (often improvised) and >the results are that one can compensate for their high-ISO noise by >not using high ISO, but by instead using a long shutter speed. Compact digital cameras, like the new Canon S90, and now capable of taking excellent low light images on full automatic settings. >> It's all horses for courses but a compact can get an acceptable result >> (and sometimes acceptable may be far from ideal) in places that a >> dSLR can't even go. > >With the key here being that there is the real world recognition that >'acceptable' results aren't equal to 'ideal'. ... There is no "ideal" -- that's just a myth promulgated by those who think specs are more important than actual photography. -- Best regards, 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
From: -hh on 26 Oct 2009 17:53 John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >"Jim...(8-| " <j...(a)home.com> wrote: > >> Hardly anybody did, the cost was too great but of course another > >> drawback was not know how you did until the pics eventually were > >> processed. That as much probably more than the cost killed film stone > >> dead for the vast masses. > > >Digital's instant feedback is prompting a contemporary revival of > >interest in photography. However, the advent of digital video is also > >superceding interests from still photography as well (ever heard of > >YouTube?). > > I don't see video "superceding" still photography -- > they serve different needs -- > what we're seeing is video becoming easier and less expensive. You also didn't see that I said that video is superceding *interests*. I didn't try to claim that current still photographers are jumping the fence to video. Instead, what his happening (yes, because video is cheaper/easier) is that the next generation of "creatives" are choosing to explore video _instead of_ choosing to explore still. > >In any case, the trend of higher ISOs is effectively > >encouraging greater utilization by technologically minimizing the > >hours ...or places... upon which it used to be "too dark" for the less > >proficient shooter. Thus, twilight & night photography is becoming > >more prevalent, as well as cameo shots in nightclubs, parties, etc. > > True, but fairly minor. Dismissively "minor" from the perspective of merely only those that aren't interested in, or aren't already doing it. If you objectively look, you'll probably find that many hobbiest photographers have shot more night/twilight photographs in the past 5 years than they had in the 25 years before that. > >Easily-Pocketable capabilities have their utility, and thus, their > >place in the image-collector's "toolbox". However, one still does > >nevertheless have to recognize that just because something is > >convenient, this doesn't also mean that it will also be particularly > >capable at its intended task. > > True, but pocket cameras can and do approach, and even exceed, the > capabilities of their larger brothers, as in the case of the excellent > new Canon S90, essentially a G11 in a small svelte package, with f/2.0 > lens versus f/2.8 lens. They may be able to equal it 80% of the time (daytime lighting, etc), but that's not germane to this application. If you want to be at all convincing, let's see some proof samples that shows its capabilities at suitably low EV values. For eample, my homepage image was IIRC in the ballpark of EV -5. > >Personally, I generally get my best results out of P&Ss for > >"challenging" lighting conditions by using them on mostly manual > >settings. Add in some hardware stabilization (often improvised) and > >the results are that one can compensate for their high-ISO noise by > >not using high ISO, but by instead using a long shutter speed. > > Compact digital cameras, like the new Canon S90, and now capable of > taking excellent low light images on full automatic settings. If you limited your generalization to a picture that used fill flash for a portait composition, I wouldnt disagree. However, that qualifier wasn't present. Futhermore, the S90 isn't representative of general P&Ss, since it doesn't have a typically small 1/2.5" sensor. It instead follows the dSLR approach of using a larger sensor and is an eample of the emerging era of the "small camera / large sensor". The trade-off is manifest in its $400 retail price...that's 4x the cost of a typical ("average") P&S. > >> It's all horses for courses but a compact can get an acceptable result > >> (and sometimes acceptable may be far from ideal) in places that a > >> dSLR can't even go. > > >With the key here being that there is the real world recognition that > >'acceptable' results aren't equal to 'ideal'. ... > > There is no "ideal" -- that's just a myth promulgated by those who think > specs are more important than actual photography. "Ideal" merely represents the best that one can do, not utter perfection. And yet you yourself couldn't resist using an expensive and clearly non-representative product of the P&S segment in order to achieve better ... IE more ideal ... low light performance. And in the realm of *actual photography*, I await some real world examples that illustrate the low light (negative EV values) performance from your current Panasonic P&Ss. Afterall, talk is cheap. -hh
From: John Navas on 26 Oct 2009 19:20
On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 14:53:46 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <fcfdb937-881a-4c44-b31b-16013e24a69c(a)l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>: >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: >> >Digital's instant feedback is prompting a contemporary revival of >> >interest in photography. However, the advent of digital video is also >> >superceding interests from still photography as well (ever heard of >> >YouTube?). � >> >> I don't see video "superceding" still photography -- >> they serve different needs -- >> what we're seeing is video becoming easier and less expensive. > >You also didn't see that I said that video is superceding >*interests*. > >I didn't try to claim that current still photographers are jumping the >fence to video. Instead, what his happening (yes, because video is >cheaper/easier) is that the next generation of "creatives" are >choosing to explore video _instead of_ choosing to explore still. I don't see that either. >> True, but pocket cameras can and do approach, and even exceed, the >> capabilities of their larger brothers, as in the case of the excellent >> new Canon S90, essentially a G11 in a small svelte package, with f/2.0 >> lens versus f/2.8 lens. > >They may be able to equal it 80% of the time (daytime lighting, etc), >but that's not germane to this application. The S90 is actually better in low light than the G11. Hint: f/2.0 versus f/2.8 I've actually used the S90. It's pretty clear you haven't, making your comments pretty silly. >If you want to be at all >convincing, let's see some proof samples that shows its capabilities >at suitably low EV values. For eample, my homepage image was IIRC in >the ballpark of EV -5. I'm not going to waste time on a pointless exercise. >> Compact digital cameras, like the new Canon S90, and now capable of >> taking excellent low light images on full automatic settings. > >If you limited your generalization to a picture that used fill flash >for a portait composition, I wouldnt disagree. However, that >qualifier wasn't present. What I wrote is correct as written. >Futhermore, the S90 isn't representative of general P&Ss, since it >doesn't have a typically small 1/2.5" sensor. It instead follows the >dSLR approach of using a larger sensor and is an eample of the >emerging era of the "small camera / large sensor". A bit larger than usual, but nothing like the dSLR approach. What makes it special is the fast f/2.0 lens, high-sensitivity sensor, and advanced in-camera image processing. >The trade-off is manifest in its $400 retail price...that's 4x the >cost of a typical ("average") P&S. Irrelevant -- dSLR is far more expensive. >> There is no "ideal" -- that's just a myth promulgated by those who think >> specs are more important than actual photography. > >"Ideal" merely represents the best that one can do, not utter >perfection. Moving the goalposts again. >And yet you yourself couldn't resist using an expensive >and clearly non-representative product of the P&S segment in order to >achieve better ... IE more ideal ... low light performance. On the contrary -- I simply pointed to the current state of the art. >And in the realm of *actual photography*, I await some real world >examples that illustrate the low light (negative EV values) >performance from your current Panasonic P&Ss. Afterall, talk is >cheap. I'm not going to waste time on a pointless exercise. -- Best regards, 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 |