Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > General Discussion

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 24, 2007, 7:53 AM   #41
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

fuji 3800 3meg 6x optical zoom point and shoot circa 2002

(hand held - Tiffany window, NYC)
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 7:55 AM   #42
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

fuji 3800 macro

Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:25 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 7:57 AM   #43
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

KM 7D w/ 80-200mm f2.8 APO

Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 4:25 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 10:16 AM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 5,803
Default

fldspringer wrote:
Quote:
tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
This thread is getting silly, my dad can beat up all of your dads.
The thing started when one person made a ridiculous claim that a quality P&S is better than any DSLR for every situation. Of course that is not correct.

The optics of a $4000 300mm prime lens is not going to be matched with a $400 digicam. That should be no surprise.

Same thing at the other end of the spectrum. The $1000 wide angle DSLR lens will be corrected for distortion much better than the P&S.

Does that mean that everyone should run out and buy the $5000 worth of lenses, as well as a $3000 full frame DSLR? Of course not. You can't even say that the $8000 would be a better camera than a P&S for everyone.

No matter what, I don't think were going to convince that one person. I don't think its necessary. If he's happy, it should be enough.
I completely agree, its just in my nature to point out when something is completely wrong. I should know better... but I really hate it when I have to unteach statements like that in photography class.

The problem with web posted images was pointed out by many people here - that web posts are not the best way to test image quality. This is why I offered to make a large print and send it to him. In average situations, good P&S cameras have good image quality. But once you throw something more challenging at a P&S it falls down. You *can* get flight shots with a P&S, but it's much harder - I don't find it that hard with my setup. Or low light shots where higher ISO is needed. Making larger prints can really starts to show their flaws.

It's kinda like saying that commuting in a sports car is the same as commuting in a mini-van. Basically the same, when you aren't pushing them. But try to take the off-ramp on the highway at 80 and you'll see the difference.

The D40 is not that good a DSLR. It has advanced P&S innards (except for the sensor.) Heck, it costs less than some P&S so it can't have that many advanced parts. The D200 would be a better thing to test (although since the statement was that *all DSLR* were inferior you should be looking at the best DSLRs.

His argument is basically "I can take good pictures with a P&S, therefor they are better than a DSLR". I have no problems say that he can take good pictures. I have no problems saying that a P&S can take good pictures. They can even take better pictures than a DSLR in certain situations (because of their larger DOF.) But that doesn't make them inherently better in all situations.

As I say when I teach. Photography gear is partially about standards. Buy the gear that meets you standards and have fun. Use the extra money for fun trips (where you can shoot pictures!) You don't inherently need to spend lots of money to get good pictures. But as you get better, as your standards rise and as you try to capture harder situations you might find your gear isn't up to the task. Once that happens, then upgrade. You don't have to upgrade to a DSLR, just get what meets your standards.

Sigh. I can feel my blood boiling again. I should just stop now.

Eric

ps. Since he posted a picture of a Purple Gallinule, I am going to assume that he is in Florida (where the majority of those birds live.) Maybe he was just visting, though. Photography is much easier down there. I've shot down there before. It is easier to get good pictures there because the birds are less afraid of people. The light is also better. You can get away with a shorter lens. He'd quickly find that his P&S didn't have enough reach shooting further north. I almost never say "I want a shorter lens" when I shoot in MA. On several occasions (in just one week) I found my 600mm too long for the shots that I wanted.
eric s is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 6:36 PM   #45
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Keoeeit,

I noticed you've dodged my questions/photo challenge. An award winning photographer should have these simple shots laying around. Is there any reason in particular you ignore the request and decide to post another unrelated shot?

Just curious.


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 7:18 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

OK now wait va minite.. Though I agree that people over state the saperiority of DSLR's This statement makes no sense

"The burst shots? I can equal your camera's speed and even surpass your camera in RAW photos on my S3 IS at a RAW frame every 1.2 seconds."

I can shoot a frame rate of 1.2 fps with my film camera cocking the shutter manualy. Thats not burst it's bust. OK you are talking RAW not JPG but why would anyone even use burst at such a slow frame rate.

Burst is not needed at all to get good sports shots. Timing is way more important. But lets at least keep the conversation real.
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 7:23 PM   #47
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
Default

Keoeeit wrote:
Quote:
The hand-held shot that I just posted already proved that I could surpass any of your low-light shots.
You are hilarious. You took a 1 second exposure of a vcr... I'll bet it was just flying around the room. Most DSLRs wouldn't do a 1 second exposure at that focal length, but they don't need to. You do realize John's indoor basketball shots were taken in pretty much the same light, don't you? I'll bet those would have come out great as 1 second exposures.
Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 7:40 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Corpsy wrote:
Quote:
Keoeeit wrote:
Quote:
The hand-held shot that I just posted already proved that I could surpass any of your low-light shots.
You are hilarious. You took a 1 second exposure of a vcr... I'll bet it was just flying around the room. Most DSLRs wouldn't do a 1 second exposure at that focal length, but they don't need to. You do realize John's indoor basketball shots were taken in pretty much the same light, don't you? I'll bet those would have come out great as 1 second exposures.
This is why I think it's getting silly in here.

First off
"You do realize John's indoor basketball shots were taken in pretty much the same light,"
Not likely. A HS basketball court should be quite a bit brighter than the adverage living room.

Second
"HAND HELD for 1 SECOND with the zoom focal-length set at 432mm"
Way not likely. You would have a blured mess even with IS
tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 7:46 PM   #49
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

Keoeeit wrote:
Quote:
You must be joking. Any of your examples could be accomplished with either of my P&S cameras.
And yet you don't do it? Remember we're not talking a vcr shot here. We're talking people. Every time your assertions are challenged you have excuses and unrelated shots. Put up or shut up. Post the types of shots I requested if it's so easy. I'm dying to see your ISO 3200 action shots. They should be breathtaking :G
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 24, 2007, 7:59 PM   #50
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
First off
"You do realize John's indoor basketball shots were taken in pretty much the same light,"
Not likely. A HS basketball court should be quite a bit brighter than the adverage living room.
And yet:

a. His digicams are completely incapable of coming close to duplicating the shot and

b. Unlike the vcr example,mineis a real life example. Like it or not ISO 1600, 2.0 and 1/400.

Still waiting to see how his digicam does with that. What it doesn't have 2.0 lens? OOH too bad. You mean the ISO 1600 performance is about my iso 200 performance? OOOH too bad. It isn't theory it's real world.

And it's shots I make money off every day while people like him can only watch from the stands and hope the action stops long enough for them to get a usable shot of someone standing still:G


JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:49 AM.