> SteveG wrote: > > The Irony wrote: > >> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 16:02:36 -0700 (PDT), Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> > >> wrote:
> >>> Normally I call my DSLR "my camera" if I am using my P&S I call it > >>> "the point and shoot"
> >> Even though all dSLR owners use their cameras as a point and shoot.
> > Well, I guess many of the people who have graduated to DSLR from P&S > > (because the price difference has become very small) may do that but > > it's a bit of a stretch to say ALL do. I for one seldom take my D40 - > > arguably the closest Nikon get to a P&S DSLR - out of manual mode. When > > I do it's usually set to aperture priority.
> Talk to professional photographers, and even they shoot in automatic > mode most of the time. It's rare that they'd use full manual mode. They > may set the aperture value and let the camera choose the shutter speed > depending on what they're shooting, or change the ISO setting, but full > manual is very rare these days.
> I play with manual modes on my Canon P&S models using ChDk, and it's an > interesting exercise, but really pointless, as there's only so much you > can do with such a small sensor. Since I helped write the ChDk > documentation I feel at least compelled to use the program!
Full manual is not "very rare" and in fact is the MOST useful setting.
Say you are shooting portraits outside. You background is sunlit but of course you subject is in shadows. The best way to take the pictures is to meter for the background in manual mode. Then shoot the subject and let your flashes illuminate your subject. It just doesn't work in full auto anything.
If you are using dumb slaves, then you need to kick your flash into manual mode. So you might as well kick the camera into manual too so you can control it.
Say your subject is backlit .....
Say your subject is wearing white or black ....
Say it is water with a few bright reflections .....
SteveG wrote: > Take a look around you my friend. An example: Nikon D40 with kit lens is > £280 from Amazon where the Nikon Coolpix P90 is just shy of £300. There > are dozens of P&S cameras - not even "super-zooms" - in the same price > range as the D40.
You can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost of a high end point and shoot camera. What you _won't_ have at that price point is the same zoom range, that will cost more, especially if you want multiple lenses each with a narrower range, and better quality, than the super-zoom lens on the P&S (which is necessarily a compromise lens with poor performance at the ends, and good performance in the middle). You can buy super-zooms for the D-SLR but those lenses have the same problems as the super-zooms built into the ZLRs.
A ZLR looks appealing on paper. For $360 you get a Canon SX10IS with an amazingly wide range 28-560mm lens. If you're not aware of the limitations, and from this thread it appears that at least a few people are not, you're happy and clueless all at the same time!
Maybe some people never shoot in low light, don't care about lens distortion, never will need super wide angle, don't care about fast auto-focus, and will never want to make large prints. There are probably some people like that, but I think that the majority of people that buy these ZLRs buy them without fully realizing all the issues. Certainly from this thread, there are at least two people like that, our favorite anti-DSL
With the smaller D-SLRs like the ones from Olympus, you're not at a much greater weight or size than the D-SLR either, until you get a long telephoto.
The bottom line is that most consumers would benefit from owning both a pocket size point and shoot model for when portability is more important than quality, and a digital SLR for when quality, speed, and control are more important than portability.
> The bottom line is that most consumers would benefit from owning both a > pocket size point and shoot model for when portability is more important > than quality, and a digital SLR for when quality, speed, and control are > more important than portability.
Pretty much. That's why I think it's pointless to argue over which is better. Both are designed (within the limits of physics) to do a different job and/or appeal to different people. I see them as different but complementary.
I've just got a P&S (with manual settings). It's good enough for learning, and digging into it has taught me a lot about the issues. An SLR would be nice but overkill for where I'm at and a potential waste of money.
On Thu, 09 Jul 2009 14:23:25 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote: >SteveG wrote: >> The Irony wrote: >>> On Wed, 8 Jul 2009 16:02:36 -0700 (PDT), Scott W <biph...@hotmail.com> >>> wrote:
>>>> Normally I call my DSLR "my camera" if I am using my P&S I call it >>>> "the point and shoot"
>>> Even though all dSLR owners use their cameras as a point and shoot.
>> Well, I guess many of the people who have graduated to DSLR from P&S >> (because the price difference has become very small) may do that but >> it's a bit of a stretch to say ALL do. I for one seldom take my D40 - >> arguably the closest Nikon get to a P&S DSLR - out of manual mode. When >> I do it's usually set to aperture priority.
>Talk to professional photographers, and even they shoot in automatic >mode most of the time. It's rare that they'd use full manual mode. They >may set the aperture value and let the camera choose the shutter speed >depending on what they're shooting, or change the ISO setting, but full >manual is very rare these days.
>I play with manual modes on my Canon P&S models using ChDk, and it's an >interesting exercise, but really pointless, as there's only so much you >can do with such a small sensor. Since I helped write the ChDk >documentation I feel at least compelled to use the program!
An important SMS correction. (Damn, when isn't someone busy doing that?)
He never helped to write the manual for CHDK. Unless you call interjecting wild nonsense into the documentation as "help". In fact he knew so little about how CHDK worked or what it even was, never having even used it (and still hasn't), that all he ended up doing is trashing all the documentation on the Wiki about CHDK. He thought he could just jump in there and invent all sorts of wild speculations and theories about its functions. People had to take many hours finding and correcting his blatant stupidity and ignorance. Just like SMS tries to pretend to know something about cameras and photography in newsgroups by downloading and partially reading camera manuals, he thought he might be able to also fake it by pretending to know how CHDK works and is used. He thought that CHDK was just another extension of his virtual-reality game or something. Inventing his own wild theories as he went along, just as he does on usenet. CHDK is so unique to the world of photography that he didn't have even one clue how to fake it this time and only ended up making things worse for everyone involved in the CHDK project.
Just so's you all know the kind of psychotic pretend-photographer troll and useless moron that SMS truly is.
>> I play with manual modes on my Canon P&S models using ChDk, and it's >> an interesting exercise, but really pointless, as there's only so much >> you can do with such a small sensor.
> I find CHDK has been very helpful in the realms of > "technical" image acquisition, including HDR (cue rants), > where it supports super-flexible bracketing, > and long multiple-exposure in raw mode for stacking (I captured the Orion > nebula without a telescope, and without a super zoom).
> I haven't done time lapse "film" yet.
> CHDK has been powerful enough that I've yet > to attach my laptop to my camera as a controller.
The histograms are also useful, as is the battery gauge. The 570IS which I use it on the most already supports manual, aperture and shutter priority modes. The thing is, the situations where I'd be most likely to use ChDk are the same situations where I'd want the D-SLR anyway, for the lower noise or faster sequencing, or much faster AF.
One of the reasons I like ChDk, and spent so much time helping out with the documentation (for no pay), is that I like the whole idea of restoring functionality that the manufacturer intentionally left out. It's the same reason I restore functionality to my mobile phones, functionality that the manufacturer often removes at the request of the carrier.
>> Talk to professional photographers, and even they shoot in automatic >> mode most of the time. It's rare that they'd use full manual mode. >> They may set the aperture value and let the camera choose the shutter >> speed depending on what they're shooting, or change the ISO setting, >> but full manual is very rare these days.
> We obviously live in different worlds my friend ;-)
Yes, I live in the real world.
I'm not talking about _full_ auto mode, but the program modes where the camera still does the focusing, but where the photographer selects whether or not to use the flash, ISO, white balance, etc.
>>> I play with manual modes on my Canon P&S models using ChDk, and it's >>> an interesting exercise, but really pointless, as there's only so much >>> you can do with such a small sensor.
>> I find CHDK has been very helpful in the realms of >> "technical" image acquisition, including HDR (cue rants), >> where it supports super-flexible bracketing, >> and long multiple-exposure in raw mode for stacking (I captured the Orion >> nebula without a telescope, and without a super zoom).
>> I haven't done time lapse "film" yet.
>> CHDK has been powerful enough that I've yet >> to attach my laptop to my camera as a controller.
>The histograms are also useful, as is the battery gauge. The 570IS which > I use it on the most already supports manual, aperture and shutter >priority modes. The thing is, the situations where I'd be most likely to >use ChDk are the same situations where I'd want the D-SLR anyway, for >the lower noise or faster sequencing, or much faster AF.
>One of the reasons I like ChDk, and spent so much time helping out with >the documentation (for no pay), is that I like the whole idea of >restoring functionality that the manufacturer intentionally left out. >It's the same reason I restore functionality to my mobile phones, >functionality that the manufacturer often removes at the request of the >carrier.
An important SMS correction. (Damn, when isn't someone busy doing that?)
He never helped to write the manual for CHDK. Unless you call interjecting wild nonsense into the documentation as "help". In fact he knew so little about how CHDK worked or what it even was, never having even used it (and still hasn't), that all he ended up doing is trashing all the documentation on the Wiki about CHDK. He thought he could just jump in there and invent all sorts of wild speculations and theories about its functions. People had to take many hours finding and correcting his blatant stupidity and ignorance. Just like SMS tries to pretend to know something about cameras and photography in newsgroups by downloading and partially reading camera manuals, he thought he might be able to also fake it by pretending to know how CHDK works and is used. He thought that CHDK was just another extension of his virtual-reality game or something. Inventing his own wild theories as he went along, just as he does on usenet. CHDK is so unique to the world of photography that he didn't have even one clue how to fake it this time and only ended up making things worse for everyone involved in the CHDK project.
> SteveG wrote: > > Take a look around you my friend. An example: Nikon D40 with kit lens is > > £280 from Amazon where the Nikon Coolpix P90 is just shy of £300. There > > are dozens of P&S cameras - not even "super-zooms" - in the same price > > range as the D40.
> You can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost of a > high end point and shoot camera. What you _won't_ have at that price > point is the same zoom range, that will cost more, especially if you > want multiple lenses each with a narrower range, and better quality, > than the super-zoom lens on the P&S (which is necessarily a compromise > lens with poor performance at the ends, and good performance in the > middle). You can buy super-zooms for the D-SLR but those lenses have the > same problems as the super-zooms built into the ZLRs.
> A ZLR looks appealing on paper. For $360 you get a Canon SX10IS with an > amazingly wide range 28-560mm lens. If you're not aware of the > limitations, and from this thread it appears that at least a few people > are not, you're happy and clueless all at the same time!
> Maybe some people never shoot in low light, don't care about lens > distortion, never will need super wide angle, don't care about fast > auto-focus, and will never want to make large prints. There are probably > some people like that, but I think that the majority of people that buy > these ZLRs buy them without fully realizing all the issues. Certainly > from this thread, there are at least two people like that, our favorite > anti-DSL
> With the smaller D-SLRs like the ones from Olympus, you're not at a much > greater weight or size than the D-SLR either, until you get a long > telephoto.
> The bottom line is that most consumers would benefit from owning both a > pocket size point and shoot model for when portability is more important > than quality, and a digital SLR for when quality, speed, and control are > more important than portability.
I love my Canon dSLR. I have a battery-grip and a "wedding bracket" which is pretty much permanently mounted with a 580EX. It's a nice rig. But it doesn't slip into my pocket like my Nikon P&S. Which camera I use depends on what I am doing.
In fact, I'm thinking of disassembling one of the old dSLRs and removing the IR filter just to have a IR camera. That would be cool. Useless, but cool.
> I'm not talking about _full_ auto mode, but the program modes where the > camera still does the focusing, but where the photographer selects > whether or not to use the flash, ISO, white balance, etc.
<gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: >On Jul 10, 10:31 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote: >> SteveG wrote: >> > Take a look around you my friend. An example: Nikon D40 with kit lens is >> > £280 from Amazon where the Nikon Coolpix P90 is just shy of £300. There >> > are dozens of P&S cameras - not even "super-zooms" - in the same price >> > range as the D40.
>> You can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost of a >> high end point and shoot camera. What you _won't_ have at that price >> point is the same zoom range, that will cost more, especially if you >> want multiple lenses each with a narrower range, and better quality, >> than the super-zoom lens on the P&S (which is necessarily a compromise >> lens with poor performance at the ends, and good performance in the >> middle). You can buy super-zooms for the D-SLR but those lenses have the >> same problems as the super-zooms built into the ZLRs.
>> A ZLR looks appealing on paper. For $360 you get a Canon SX10IS with an >> amazingly wide range 28-560mm lens. If you're not aware of the >> limitations, and from this thread it appears that at least a few people >> are not, you're happy and clueless all at the same time!
>> Maybe some people never shoot in low light, don't care about lens >> distortion, never will need super wide angle, don't care about fast >> auto-focus, and will never want to make large prints. There are probably >> some people like that, but I think that the majority of people that buy >> these ZLRs buy them without fully realizing all the issues. Certainly >> from this thread, there are at least two people like that, our favorite >> anti-DSL
>> With the smaller D-SLRs like the ones from Olympus, you're not at a much >> greater weight or size than the D-SLR either, until you get a long >> telephoto.
>> The bottom line is that most consumers would benefit from owning both a >> pocket size point and shoot model for when portability is more important >> than quality, and a digital SLR for when quality, speed, and control are >> more important than portability.
>I love my Canon dSLR. I have a battery-grip and a "wedding bracket" >which is pretty much permanently mounted with a 580EX. It's a nice >rig. But it doesn't slip into my pocket like my Nikon P&S. Which >camera I use depends on what I am doing.
>In fact, I'm thinking of disassembling one of the old dSLRs and >removing the IR filter just to have a IR camera. That would be cool. >Useless, but cool.
If you had bought any of the extremely good Sony P&S cameras with "Night Shot" mode in them in the first place, instead of being swayed by all the empty dSLR hype, then you wouldn't even have to do that. The best of both all in one. No need to destroy the less used one for the added functionality of a full fledged IR camera. Allowing you to have your hammer and your screwdriver too.
Hint: Use a Wratten Green and #87 IR filter for the perfect combo to lower sunlight levels to the perfect range to match Sony "Night Shot"'s more limited IR EV range. Sony stupidly, on the insistence of a small handful of puritanical insecure morons, crippled the full useful range of their IR mode because they feared people would take images through certain types of swimsuit fabrics. You need to lower sunlight levels to within that range. Hence, the Wratten Green added to the stack. If you are budget conscious, then do a search for squares of Lee Polyester IR filter material. Works just as well as glass ones, is more forgiving in harsh environments, and costs about 1/20th the cost for a comparable size. Cut to fit any old filter-ring you might have. Now you can afford that 77mm IR filter just for "fooling around with IR" purposes at only $24 instead of $495. But for Sony P&S cameras you'll only need the 3" square filter for $14, since the built-in filter thread on their cameras is generally 58mm. Not sure about the dia. on their most recent "Night Shot" cameras.
>> I'm not talking about _full_ auto mode, but the program modes where >> the camera still does the focusing, but where the photographer selects >> whether or not to use the flash, ISO, white balance, etc.
> Then why don't you say what you mean?
You're right, I shouldn't have said that they use auto, I should have said that they rarely use full manual mode.
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 21:48:59 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote in <fHO5m.54476$OO7.29...@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>SMS wrote:
>> I'm not talking about _full_ auto mode, but the program modes where the >> camera still does the focusing, but where the photographer selects >> whether or not to use the flash, ISO, white balance, etc.
>Then why don't you say what you mean?
Because he meant what he wrote, and was then shown to be a fool (again), so he's not trying to pretend he actually meant something else.
-- 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
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:23:54 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote in <KMD5m.54122$OO7.10...@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>John Navas wrote: >> It's likewise a bit of a stretch to sway "the price difference has >> become very small" -- the total cost of dSLR kit comparable to a compact >> super-zoom is many times the cost even at a lower performance level.
>Take a look around you my friend. An example: Nikon D40 with kit lens is >£280 from Amazon where the Nikon Coolpix P90 is just shy of £300. There >are dozens of P&S cameras - not even "super-zooms" - in the same price >range as the D40.
D40 with kit lens doesn't even come close to the capabilities and lens quality of the Panasonic DMC-FZ28. To match the DMC-FZ28 with the D40 would take a lot of additional expensive glass, and even then you wouldn't have the full capability of the Leica-branded lens.
-- Best regards, John
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer, it makes you a dSLR owner. "The single most important component of a camera is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 07:31:45 -0700, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote in <xgI5m.6820$j84.6...@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com>:
>Maybe some people never shoot in low light, don't care about lens >distortion, never will need super wide angle, don't care about fast >auto-focus, and will never want to make large prints.
None of these are problems for a good compact super-zoom. You need to get out more, and actually use some cameras.
-- 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
<spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:23:54 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote in ><KMD5m.54122$OO7.10...@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>John Navas wrote:
>>> It's likewise a bit of a stretch to sway "the price difference has >>> become very small" -- the total cost of dSLR kit comparable to a compact >>> super-zoom is many times the cost even at a lower performance level.
>>Take a look around you my friend. An example: Nikon D40 with kit lens is >>£280 from Amazon where the Nikon Coolpix P90 is just shy of £300. There >>are dozens of P&S cameras - not even "super-zooms" - in the same price >>range as the D40.
>D40 with kit lens doesn't even come close to the capabilities and lens >quality of the Panasonic DMC-FZ28. To match the DMC-FZ28 with the D40 >would take a lot of additional expensive glass, and even then you >wouldn't have the full capability of the Leica-branded lens.
I took this with my D40, and the D40 kit lens, as a .jpg. I didn't start shooting RAW until later.
It doesn't have near the detail the other horse/sulky shot has, but I'll match it with anything you've shown from your DMC-FZ280.
My biggest problem with the series of shots I took at this training facility was that the coat of sweaty dark horses "blew out" in places. You can see the problem more pronounced on the horse's shoulder in this one.
On Jul 10, 6:24 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> SteveG wrote: > > SMS wrote:
> >> I'm not talking about _full_ auto mode, but the program modes where > >> the camera still does the focusing, but where the photographer selects > >> whether or not to use the flash, ISO, white balance, etc.
> > Then why don't you say what you mean?
> You're right, I shouldn't have said that they use auto, I should have > said that they rarely use full manual mode.
I disagree. I think that most pro use manual regularly and are the most likely to us it because they understand the lighting and the need for manual. I couldn't live without it. I would give up any other mode rather than that. In fact before I went digital, I never owned a camera that was anything other than manual.
As for the stupid modes, like sports or scenic or portrait or whatever those silly little icons mean, those could be done away with completely and I would never notice it.
>>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:23:54 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote in >><KMD5m.54122$OO7.10...@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>> It's likewise a bit of a stretch to sway "the price difference has >>>> become very small" -- the total cost of dSLR kit comparable to a compact >>>> super-zoom is many times the cost even at a lower performance level.
>>>Take a look around you my friend. An example: Nikon D40 with kit lens is >>>£280 from Amazon where the Nikon Coolpix P90 is just shy of £300. There >>>are dozens of P&S cameras - not even "super-zooms" - in the same price >>>range as the D40.
>>D40 with kit lens doesn't even come close to the capabilities and lens >>quality of the Panasonic DMC-FZ28. To match the DMC-FZ28 with the D40 >>would take a lot of additional expensive glass, and even then you >>wouldn't have the full capability of the Leica-branded lens.
>I took this with my D40, and the D40 kit lens, as a .jpg. I didn't >start shooting RAW until later.
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
> <gro...@artisticphotography.us> wrote: > >On Jul 10, 10:31 am, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote: > >> SteveG wrote: > >> > Take a look around you my friend. An example: Nikon D40 with kit lens is > >> > £280 from Amazon where the Nikon Coolpix P90 is just shy of £300. There > >> > are dozens of P&S cameras - not even "super-zooms" - in the same price > >> > range as the D40.
> >> You can now buy a D-SLR and a decent lens for less than the cost of a > >> high end point and shoot camera. What you _won't_ have at that price > >> point is the same zoom range, that will cost more, especially if you > >> want multiple lenses each with a narrower range, and better quality, > >> than the super-zoom lens on the P&S (which is necessarily a compromise > >> lens with poor performance at the ends, and good performance in the > >> middle). You can buy super-zooms for the D-SLR but those lenses have the > >> same problems as the super-zooms built into the ZLRs.
> >> A ZLR looks appealing on paper. For $360 you get a Canon SX10IS with an > >> amazingly wide range 28-560mm lens. If you're not aware of the > >> limitations, and from this thread it appears that at least a few people > >> are not, you're happy and clueless all at the same time!
> >> Maybe some people never shoot in low light, don't care about lens > >> distortion, never will need super wide angle, don't care about fast > >> auto-focus, and will never want to make large prints. There are probably > >> some people like that, but I think that the majority of people that buy > >> these ZLRs buy them without fully realizing all the issues. Certainly > >> from this thread, there are at least two people like that, our favorite > >> anti-DSL
> >> With the smaller D-SLRs like the ones from Olympus, you're not at a much > >> greater weight or size than the D-SLR either, until you get a long > >> telephoto.
> >> The bottom line is that most consumers would benefit from owning both a > >> pocket size point and shoot model for when portability is more important > >> than quality, and a digital SLR for when quality, speed, and control are > >> more important than portability.
> >I love my Canon dSLR. I have a battery-grip and a "wedding bracket" > >which is pretty much permanently mounted with a 580EX. It's a nice > >rig. But it doesn't slip into my pocket like my Nikon P&S. Which > >camera I use depends on what I am doing.
> >In fact, I'm thinking of disassembling one of the old dSLRs and > >removing the IR filter just to have a IR camera. That would be cool. > >Useless, but cool.
> If you had bought any of the extremely good Sony P&S cameras with "Night > Shot" mode in them in the first place, instead of being swayed by all the > empty dSLR hype, then you wouldn't even have to do that. The best of both > all in one. No need to destroy the less used one for the added > functionality of a full fledged IR camera. Allowing you to have your hammer > and your screwdriver too.
> Hint: Use a Wratten Green and #87 IR filter for the perfect combo to lower > sunlight levels to the perfect range to match Sony "Night Shot"'s more > limited IR EV range. Sony stupidly, on the insistence of a small handful of > puritanical insecure morons, crippled the full useful range of their IR > mode because they feared people would take images through certain types of > swimsuit fabrics. You need to lower sunlight levels to within that range. > Hence, the Wratten Green added to the stack. If you are budget conscious, > then do a search for squares of Lee Polyester IR filter material. Works > just as well as glass ones, is more forgiving in harsh environments, and > costs about 1/20th the cost for a comparable size. Cut to fit any old > filter-ring you might have. Now you can afford that 77mm IR filter just for > "fooling around with IR" purposes at only $24 instead of $495. But for Sony > P&S cameras you'll only need the 3" square filter for $14, since the > built-in filter thread on their cameras is generally 58mm. Not sure about > the dia. on their most recent "Night Shot" cameras.
>>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:23:54 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote in >><KMD5m.54122$OO7.10...@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>> It's likewise a bit of a stretch to sway "the price difference has >>>> become very small" -- the total cost of dSLR kit comparable to a compact >>>> super-zoom is many times the cost even at a lower performance level.
>>>Take a look around you my friend. An example: Nikon D40 with kit lens is >>>£280 from Amazon where the Nikon Coolpix P90 is just shy of £300. There >>>are dozens of P&S cameras - not even "super-zooms" - in the same price >>>range as the D40.
>>D40 with kit lens doesn't even come close to the capabilities and lens >>quality of the Panasonic DMC-FZ28. To match the DMC-FZ28 with the D40 >>would take a lot of additional expensive glass, and even then you >>wouldn't have the full capability of the Leica-branded lens.
>I took this with my D40, and the D40 kit lens, as a .jpg. I didn't >start shooting RAW until later.
>It doesn't have near the detail the other horse/sulky shot has, but >I'll match it with anything you've shown from your DMC-FZ280.
>My biggest problem with the series of shots I took at this training >facility was that the coat of sweaty dark horses "blew out" in places. >You can see the problem more pronounced on the horse's shoulder in >this one.
Too bad that you didn't have live-view with over/under-exposure overlay or live-histogram in your viewfinder. You'd never have that problem. I know lots of P&S cameras that have these features. This is why there's no fear of running into that problem or having to repair it later. Printable right from the camera.
I guess you'll just have to resort to RAW to repair what your camera failed to expose properly in the first place. That's why all DSLR owners crave and depend on RAW, their cameras can't produce a proper photo to begin with.
Thanks for providing proof of what I've explained many times.
tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: >On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:21:37 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>D40 with kit lens doesn't even come close to the capabilities and lens >>quality of the Panasonic DMC-FZ28. To match the DMC-FZ28 with the D40 >>would take a lot of additional expensive glass, and even then you >>wouldn't have the full capability of the Leica-branded lens.
And Navas sets himself up one more time...
>I took this with my D40, and the D40 kit lens, as a .jpg. I didn't >start shooting RAW until later.
Both of your images would have benefited from shooting RAW rather than JPEG and display some obvious technical errors on the photographer's part, but even so they are exceptionally good examples for the purposes of this discussion.
>It doesn't have near the detail the other horse/sulky shot has, but >I'll match it with anything you've shown from your DMC-FZ280.
Actually it does have detail. Try using a little bit of sharpening, or a little USM, and you'll see that detail is not what either image lacks after being reduced to a typical resolution suited for the web.
You just don't have the fabulously dramatic composition of the other image!
>My biggest problem with the series of shots I took at this training >facility was that the coat of sweaty dark horses "blew out" in places. >You can see the problem more pronounced on the horse's shoulder in >this one.
There are two significant values there. One is the apparent backing off just slightly from the maximum focal length using a less than stellar zoom lens, which is obviously a very good idea. But you also shot wide open with it, which was not a great idea. The other image was taken with a 300mm f/4 fixed focal length lens (which is significantly sharper than your zoom), and further was shot with it stopped down one fstop.
The blown highlights on the horse would have been much less of a problem if the Exposure comp had been set to -2/3 too! Or if Manual exposure had been used. The point in any case would have been to reduce exposure by stopping the lense down to f/8 to take better advantage of the lens too.
It appears that you were relying totally on the light meter for auto exposure, and probably did not check the histogram or the highlight display to determine if a manual correction was appropriate or not. (My practice in situations like that is to use manual exposure and take a few test shots to see what is right. The light isn't going to change, but the exposure meter may give you a variety of readings depending on reflectivity of the scene; hence manual mode is more consistent.)
It sounds as if you were working with a "new" camera and still getting to know it, so none of the above is anything other than the common problems we all have to work out when using a new tool. The overall analysis of your images though is that, at least if we compare what you have presented with what Navas has presented, a Nikon D40 with a common garden variety kit lens will run circles around a Panasonic P&S used by an incompetent operator who cannot tell what good photography is.
<spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 22:55:46 -0400, tony cooper ><tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote in ><42vf55do3ccm6p8pi2crtke13btj545...@4ax.com>:
>>>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:23:54 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote in >>><KMD5m.54122$OO7.10...@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>> It's likewise a bit of a stretch to sway "the price difference has >>>>> become very small" -- the total cost of dSLR kit comparable to a compact >>>>> super-zoom is many times the cost even at a lower performance level.
>>>>Take a look around you my friend. An example: Nikon D40 with kit lens is >>>>£280 from Amazon where the Nikon Coolpix P90 is just shy of £300. There >>>>are dozens of P&S cameras - not even "super-zooms" - in the same price >>>>range as the D40.
>>>D40 with kit lens doesn't even come close to the capabilities and lens >>>quality of the Panasonic DMC-FZ28. To match the DMC-FZ28 with the D40 >>>would take a lot of additional expensive glass, and even then you >>>wouldn't have the full capability of the Leica-branded lens.
>>I took this with my D40, and the D40 kit lens, as a .jpg. I didn't >>start shooting RAW until later.
What are you trying to pull? The first link compares a Panasonic point & shoot with a Canon and a Sony point & shoot. What does that have to do with the D40?
The second link compares a Canon, Pentax, and a Nikon dslrs. What does that have to do with a Panasonic point and shoot?
Like I said, I'll match my shot with your shot. You claim to be using some sort of quality glass and that I'm using a lens that "falls far short". You have a decent picture of boats and I have a decent picture of a horse and sulky. Where's this advantage you claim to have?
That zoom didn't help you much with that image, did it? You captured 90% of two boats and no details. James R. Hoffa could be crewing one of those boats and you wouldn't know.
You have a nice little pocket camera, John. That's it.
Floyd L. Davidson wrote: > The blown highlights on the horse would have been much > less of a problem if the Exposure comp had been set to > -2/3 too! Or if Manual exposure had been used. The > point in any case would have been to reduce exposure by > stopping the lense down to f/8 to take better advantage > of the lens too.
Too bad Nikon left off exposure bracketing on the D40. The D40x has it. That would have made it a lot easier to do different exposures and take the best result.
Davidson) wrote: >tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: >>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 19:21:37 -0700, John Navas >><spamfilt...@navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>D40 with kit lens doesn't even come close to the capabilities and lens >>>quality of the Panasonic DMC-FZ28. To match the DMC-FZ28 with the D40 >>>would take a lot of additional expensive glass, and even then you >>>wouldn't have the full capability of the Leica-branded lens.
>And Navas sets himself up one more time...
>>I took this with my D40, and the D40 kit lens, as a .jpg. I didn't >>start shooting RAW until later.
>Both of your images would have benefited from shooting >RAW rather than JPEG and display some obvious technical >errors on the photographer's part, but even so they are >exceptionally good examples for the purposes of this >discussion.
I was still in the learning process with this camera. At the time, I was shooting only .jpgs. I've since purchased CS4 and Lightroom, so I shoot only RAW.
>>My biggest problem with the series of shots I took at this training >>facility was that the coat of sweaty dark horses "blew out" in places. >>You can see the problem more pronounced on the horse's shoulder in >>this one.
I took a whole series of shots at a winter training facility for harness horses, and lost a lot to blow-out. Some really good shots of horses being hosed down were unusable. I talked to a professional photographer who does a lot of horse photography and he explained the problem as being one of refraction. The water - from a hose or from sweat - on a dark horse becomes very reflective. Not a problem on a lighter-colored horse.
He suggested a (circular) polarizing filter for my next trip to the facility. (They are closed for the summer. All the horses are back north.) I have a CPR now, and I'm waiting for the horses to return.
>>>On Fri, 10 Jul 2009 09:23:54 GMT, SteveG <_@_._> wrote in >>><KMD5m.54122$OO7.10...@text.news.virginmedia.com>:
>>>>John Navas wrote:
>>>>> It's likewise a bit of a stretch to sway "the price difference has >>>>> become very small" -- the total cost of dSLR kit comparable to a compact >>>>> super-zoom is many times the cost even at a lower performance level.
>>>>Take a look around you my friend. An example: Nikon D40 with kit lens is >>>>£280 from Amazon where the Nikon Coolpix P90 is just shy of £300. There >>>>are dozens of P&S cameras - not even "super-zooms" - in the same price >>>>range as the D40.
>>>D40 with kit lens doesn't even come close to the capabilities and lens >>>quality of the Panasonic DMC-FZ28. To match the DMC-FZ28 with the D40 >>>would take a lot of additional expensive glass, and even then you >>>wouldn't have the full capability of the Leica-branded lens.
>>I took this with my D40, and the D40 kit lens, as a .jpg. I didn't >>start shooting RAW until later.
>>It doesn't have near the detail the other horse/sulky shot has, but >>I'll match it with anything you've shown from your DMC-FZ280.
>>My biggest problem with the series of shots I took at this training >>facility was that the coat of sweaty dark horses "blew out" in places. >>You can see the problem more pronounced on the horse's shoulder in >>this one.
>Too bad that you didn't have live-view with over/under-exposure overlay or >live-histogram in your viewfinder. You'd never have that problem. I know >lots of P&S cameras that have these features. This is why there's no fear >of running into that problem or having to repair it later. Printable right >from the camera.
Some Nikons have comparable features...you can take a shot, repair it in the camera, and have the camera take the next shots with new settings.
But I have a question. What do you do in the sunshine when you can't see the camera display? Wait till you get home to see what you got? I'm serious, it's the reason lots of people get DSLR's, so they can see the REAL image they are going to shoot, not some TV.
>I guess you'll just have to resort to RAW to repair what your camera failed >to expose properly in the first place. That's why all DSLR owners crave and >depend on RAW, their cameras can't produce a proper photo to begin with.
I don't shoot raw, with a D90 you don't need it. You are SO fucking retarded!
On Sat, 11 Jul 2009 01:28:52 -0400, m...@notavailable.com wrote: >But I have a question. What do you do in the sunshine when you can't see the >camera display? Wait till you get home to see what you got? I'm serious, it's >the reason lots of people get DSLR's, so they can see the REAL image they are >going to shoot, not some TV.
You get a P&S camera with a good LCD/EVF combo. All the better if the LCD is reticulated so you can use it for a whole slew of creative photography possibilities unavailable to nearly all DSLR cameras. The EVF for extra-bright sunlit conditions where the brightness in that is the same as in any good optical viewfinder, or even brighter than a DSLR's view in dim lighting where a DSLR's optical viewfinder has become useless long ago. You can also get an inexpensive LCD shield that prevents unwanted sunlight from washing out lesser-quality LCD displays. They just fold-up and collapse to the back of the camera when not in use. Not all LCD displays are equal. Just because someone claims their old LCD viewfinder isn't useful in bright sunlight doesn't mean all of them are like that. They just use that excuse to bash all P&S cameras. Their experience is really that limited, they choose to remain ignorant now.
DSLR-ONLY people have no idea what creative possibilities and new photography opportunities they miss out on by chanting that worn out mantra of needing an optical viewfinder. I guess their creativity is just as limited as their ability to learn to use new tools in new ways. Their loss.
Here's some portions from the "P&S Is Far Better Than DSLR: FAQ" pertaining to EVF and LCD displays, explaining some of their other superior qualities.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony)
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or 1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls, instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
|
