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: Bob Larter on 17 Oct 2009 10:16 Helping the Clueless wrote: > On 16 Oct 2009 15:38:25 GMT, ray <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote: > >> Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the >> point, it's just a matter of degree. > > Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I > also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the > budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image > quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To > get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already > exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass, > REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000. Oh bullshit. You can take amazing photos with any random Canon[0] DLSR & the most basic ($100) 50mm/F1.8 lens. That particular one weighs all of about 100gms. If you can't take a decent photo with that combination, you aren't a real photographer. [0] Ditto for other brands, I'm sure, but Canon is the one I'm familiar with. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 17 Oct 2009 10:45 Neil Ellwood wrote: > On Fri, 16 Oct 2009 00:15:34 +0000, ray wrote: > >> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:21:43 +0000, David J Taylor wrote: >> >>> "ray" <ray(a)zianet.com> wrote in message >>> news:7jp4t5F370qnuU4(a)mid.individual.net... >>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:59:20 -0700, RichA wrote: >>>> >>>>> On Oct 14, 11:35 am, ray <r...(a)zianet.com> wrote: >>>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 20:40:27 -0700, RichA wrote: >>>>>>> I simply pointed out that they could get a demo Nikon D40 with an >>>>>>> kit >>>>>>> lens for about $250 so it was time for them to chuck their >>>>>>> sad-sack Sony P&S in the waste bin. Of course, once they saw the >>>>>>> output from the Nikon, they were thrilled. >>>>>> Probably be less thrilled when they do that first 8 mile hike or 25 >>>>>> mile bike ride. >>>>> Yes, 1.5lb's of DSLR and lens are a killer...to a five year old girl >>>>> maybe. >>>> One lens would be quite limiting - unless you had a lens that weighed >>>> more than that. >>> Nikon D40 - 522g (1.2lb) >>> 18-200mm lens - 560g (19.8 oz) >> A 400mm or so would be really nice - that's the equiv I have on my P&S. >> >> >>> Total: 2.4lbs >> That's a fair amount of tonnage. >> >> >> >>> David > > I have a 150 - 400mm as well as a couple of other lenses that I carry > round when I need to. If I can do this at 77 why can't younger people do > it? Good question. I'm only 43, & I certainly have no trouble carting around my favourite lenses. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Navas on 17 Oct 2009 13:20 On Sun, 18 Oct 2009 00:45:03 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in <4ad9ca62$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >>> A 400mm or so would be really nice - that's the equiv I have on my P&S. >>> >>>> Total: 2.4lbs >>> That's a fair amount of tonnage. >> I have a 150 - 400mm as well as a couple of other lenses that I carry >> round when I need to. If I can do this at 77 why can't younger people do >> it? > >Good question. I'm only 43, & I certainly have no trouble carting around >my favourite lenses. Good on ya for being willing and able to lug around a ton of dSLR gear, versus my light and capable super-zoom, but I've been there, done that, won't go back, don't envy you! -- Best regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> "If the only tool you have is a hammer, you will see every problem as a nail." -Abraham Maslow
From: Paul Furman on 17 Oct 2009 23:04 the troll wrote: > Bob Larter wrote: >> the troll wrote: >>> ray wrote: >>> >>>> Frankly I think you overstate the situation somewhat - I agree with the >>>> point, it's just a matter of degree. >>> >>> Not overstated at all, maybe even understated. When I did the comparison I >>> also used the most inexpensive lenses I could find for the DSLR (for the >>> budget-conscious photographer). I'm not sure that would even provide image >>> quality from the DSLR equal to what already exists in the P&S camera. To >>> get the same focal-length range, aperture, and image quality as already >>> exists in the P&S camera for under $350 it will take over 23 lbs. of glass, >>> REQUIRED tripod, and DSLR, costing upward of $6,000. >> >> ...You can take amazing photos with any random Canon[0] DLSR & >> the most basic ($100) 50mm/F1.8 lens. That particular one weighs all of >> about 100gms. If you can't take a decent photo with that combination, >> you aren't a real photographer. >> >> [0] Ditto for other brands, I'm sure, but Canon is the one I'm familiar >> with. > > ...I can take amazing photos with a Brownie > Box camera too. That's not the issue here... Yes it is the issue. I can take good photos on my cell phone but better quality with a better camera. > Nobody's talking about a fixed focal-length lens camera. Except for the OP > ...and his imaginary P&S to DSLR holy-conversion he claims to have > caused... All > he's managed to do is bring another sucker in-line for the expensive and > extensive glass purchases required to make that DSLR the least bit useful. > If a fixed focal-length lens is the only requirement then why buy an > expensive interchangeable lens camera at all? ... For DOF effects, for speed, for low light performance, less distortion & chromatic aberrations & purple fringing, more dynamic range, optical viewfinder. > Add up the weight, size, and cost for ALL the DSLR glass AND adequately > heavy tripod that is required to match or exceed the apertures and > focal-lengths available in a lightweight and compact superzoom camera, one > which has already proved to provide images even better than that DSLR. Yep, it'll cost a fortune & weigh a ton. However, one could figure ISO performance against aperture in the P&S and the numbers would change substantially. Compare a 420mm eq shot on a P&S at f/2.8 at ISO 400 with the equivalent at f/4 on a full frame DSLR using the same shutter speed and the noise level would match at about ISO 3200 so you lose one stop of lens speed but gain a total of 2 stops in ISO performance for an equivalent shot. So you can actually take a picture of that owl swooping through the dark forest which would be impossible on the P&S. I'm figuring a big 300mm f/2.8 lens with 1.4x teleconverter on FX at f/4 or without the converter on DX at f/2.8 and ISO 1600, same difference. For wideangle I can go to 12mm rectilinear or 10.5 almost circular fisheye and the P&S stops at 28mm equivalent. Again, there are things I can do that the P&S simply cannot. There is a big price to pay of course. > Then > haul that equipment on a three week or longer hike into some of the most > remote and unforgiving lands on earth. Hell, just go on a Grand Canyon > trail-hike groomed for wussy tourists, I bet you couldn't even do that with > the equivalent photo gear. You'd drop dead after the first 6 hours of > walking. Or at least we can all hope so. I did a 10 mile day hike in August Utah heat with a 15 lb kit this year: http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3844872974/in/set-72157621828932019/ I did 100 miles with a super-8 movie camera 20 years ago in the same area: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-NOmBO2TqI > A creative nature-photographer requires a wide range of lenses to get the > job done, from macro to wide-angle to extreme telephoto, always at their > disposal. There is plenty that can be done with just creativity and a prime lens and more with a reversing ring or extension tubes and 3 or 4 compact lenses. I can bring a compact tele like the 75-150 f/3.5 & get spectacular razor sharp or creamy bokeh results, that just lacks AF & VR but is real close to the performance of the 70-200/2.8 and fits in my pants pocket. > They don't have time to hike back fifty miles to go get another > lens out the studio storage-cabinet or their last transport vehicle > whenever they want. Why even bother with that hassle when the superzoom > camera can already provide images better than that DSLR In low contrast full sun, compared to a cheap kit zoom only. > and changeable > lens. That's already been proved. That's just not idle wishing and > speculation, that's a cold hard FACT. No, it's a gross exaggeration. > (we've all seen your crapshots, remember?) What about yours? > add up how many shots, or even days worth of shots, that you were forced to > miss because you had to quickly risk changing lenses during that dust > storm. All in order to capture a once-in-a-lifetime image of that immense > wall of sand rolling through the sunset-lit archeological ruins you were > photographing one-hundred miles from the nearest paved road. That's why I carry a backup DX body with the long lens mounted & ready to go <g>. How many shots have you missed while waiting for the camera to turn on & lens extend? Wide angle only possible by stitching, not enough light, etc. There are always trade-offs with different systems. > <... profanity and personal insults snipped> -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: DRS on 19 Oct 2009 04:21
"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4adbf5b1$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au [...] > I don't have the slightest problem with people who prefer a P&S to a > DSLR. The bit that confuses me is why they feel the need to post about > P&Ses to a *DSLR specific* newsgroup. Bob, Bob, Bob. The answer lies in your own signature. |