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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old May 25, 2007, 12:15 AM   #61
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Keoeeit wrote:
Quote:
tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
If thier were a such thing as a perfect camera then we would all own the Nicanflex D1 DSLR with live view flexable 3 inch LCD and it's 10mm - 400mm f/2 lens.

As it is we own what we can afford and that dose the best job for our needs.

Or you do I'm still saving money and trying to pick a camera.
You fools just don't get it do you? I would NEVER own a DSLR because its very design limits what it can do. Not so a P&S camera that is 100% digital. Depend on and hope for last century's mirror-slapping, slow syncing, mechanical shutter, vibration inducing, noise-making, feature limiting, limited-life mechanical technology to get better. It's NEVER EVER going to beat a good P&S camera.
Just what exactly are you responding to here?

I have no doubt that as technology improves the reflex view finder will disappear. Not because it is inferior but because it's too expensive to make. But it's not to that point yet. No camera not DSLR's not P&S's (I hate using that term) is an all in one solution to all picture taking. Let's see any of you take a good digital pic of a tall building without keystoning.

Here is the real problem with this entire thread. No matter what camera you use. You will get better results if you know what the heck you are doing. Relying on automation then editing out the bad ones does not make you a good photographer. Learn to use what you have and learn to recognize it's limits. A studio photographer would be better off with a camera like the R1 than he/she would with a DSLR. But not a sports photog. Could he/she use a R1? Sure..But he/she would have to recognize the limits of it. The same as a DSLR owner would have to recognize the limits he/she would have in the studio.


tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 2:35 AM   #62
Senior Member
 
Corpsy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 879
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.
Perhaps John can correct me as he has probably been in more high school gyms than I have, but in my experience a subject standing in the middle of a room lit by a typical 60 watt bulb is about as well lit as they would be in a typical high school gym. Of course they use much brighter lights in a gym, but it's a much larger space and the lighting is very diffuse. Keoeeit says he uses an 18 watt flourescent light which is slightly brigther than an incandescent 60 watt bulb, though only by about 10%.

http://www.sizes.com/home/fluorescents.htm

Keoeeit, as far as the headstone remark which I assume was supposed to be directed at me, the picture was intended to illustrate a shot that was OBVIOUSLY taken at night, outside in the dark. For your shot we pretty much have to take your word that the situation was exactly as you described.

Look, you want to convince someone? Produce a shot that wasn't taken in direct sunlight or of a stationary object in your own controlled lighting. John's sports shots are all good examples. But perhaps there aren't a lot of sports going on in your neck of the woods, so here's an easy one for you to try:



Corpsy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 7:34 AM   #63
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 8,529
Default

For those of you joining us late, Keoeeit has claimed that digicams prduce far better quality than DSLRs and DSLRs are absolete. Now, while I own and use a digicam and believe there are great ones out there and they are the right solution for certain people, I like most other photographers here took issue with the quality claim.

To set the stage - Keoeeit is an award winning photographer with a lifetime of experience. I on the other hand have never won a photography award in my life. So, we all agree Keoeeit is the better photographer. So, we can rule out photographer ability as a reason why my shots might turn out better.

Here so far is a summary of the evidence provided.

Keoeeit's bird in flight digicam shot:



my DSLR in-flight shot:



Keoeeit's bird just sitting there shot:



My DSLR birds just sitting there:





Keoeeit's macro shot (very nice - I don't shoot any macro so I can't offer anything except to say I agree some digicams do an excellent job at macro)



After more claims of how he had proven the DSLR trolls 100% wrong, I asked to see his digicam photos of:

ISO 1600 action coming right at you from about 15 feet away

my DSLR shot (ISO 1600, f2.0, 1/400):



Keoeeit's response shot (f3.5, ISO 100 and 1 sec):





I also asked for an ISO 3200 action shot

my dslr shot (ISO 3200, f2.8 1/320):



Keoeeit's response shot:



I asked for any example of a shallow dof portrait shot indoors from about 8 feet away (implied but not stated was the portrait should be of a person).

My DSLR shot:



Keoeeit's response shot:





I also asked to see his best 7-shot less than 2 secon action sequence.

Please see my post for my sequence shots of the pitcher so I don't take up more space here.

Keoeeit's response - well he had no photos to share but did share this:

"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"

Now - the Canon 20D I use has only 5 frames per second. The 1dmkII-N has 8.5 and the new 1d mkIII ha 10fps (all DSLRs). Keoeeit's S3-IS has 2.3 frames per second. But he does claim the stunning ability to take 1 raw photo every 1.2 seconds. So clearly that's better than 5 frames per second.

I also asked for any of his 1.8 aperture shots.

My DSLR shot:



his digicam shot:

well, again no shot. What he would like to avoid telling you is: he can't show you one. No digicam on the market has an aperture of 1.8. But, hey - real photographers only need f2.8 or narrower right?

Now, I've mentioned the "challenge" photos several times (where I listed several types of photos) and he curiously avoids responding with actual photos for these very real life scenarios.

I think that about brings us up to speed.
JohnG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 9:23 AM   #64
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 61
Default

I cannot believe that any of theknowledgeable photographers here are entertaining this comparison though some might find it entertaining.

We all knowthat a DSLR is willsurpasse the limitations of any point and shoot on the market and we know the main reasons why..... sensor size and lens flexibility. The only camera that came anywhere near DSLR image quality because it had a large sensor was way to expensive and is no longer made (Sony R1). Besides, it's zoom range was limited.

We all know that composing a shot through an LCD viewfinder sucks except for the so called "live preview" advantage. We also know that this feature now exsits on the Panasonic L1 DSLR so we may see others follow suit.

We all know that that a digicam can't meet the needs of an enthusiast or professional.

We all know that if you want to take quality video, you really need a camcorder.

We all know that there is a time and a place for a digicam..... convenience time.

I doubt even the agitator really believes what he is saying and is just trying to spin everyone up. If in fact he does believe what he is saying than let him.

Let's not feed in to this... just ignore this joker. Is he by chance any relation to BenjaminXYZ?

Personally as of late, I have witnessed way too many new posters here that are posers pretending to be newbies asking for adviceor agitators such as the one in this thread that are just here because it is the only place where they can get attention.
Meatwhistle is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 9:56 AM   #65
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 133
Default

Corpsy wrote:
Quote:



No, that last one isn't a bird, but it is something I wouldn't have managed nearly as well with my p&s. It was only in my field of view for about 1 1/2 seconds before disappearing behind some trees.
Sorry that I have to correct you but that is a bird........ Whirlybird. :blah:
Gozinta is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 1:44 PM   #66
Senior Member
 
meanstreak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Posts: 1,234
Default

Keoeeit wrote:
Quote:
tjsnaps wrote:
Quote:
If thier were a such thing as a perfect camera then we would all own the Nicanflex D1 DSLR with live view flexable 3 inch LCD and it's 10mm - 400mm f/2 lens.

As it is we own what we can afford and that dose the best job for our needs.

Or you do I'm still saving money and trying to pick a camera.
You fools just don't get it do you? I would NEVER own a DSLR because its very design limits what it can do. Not so a P&S camera that is 100% digital. Depend on and hope for last century's mirror-slapping, slow syncing, mechanical shutter, vibration inducing, noise-making, feature limiting, limited-life mechanical technology to get better. It's NEVER EVER going to beat a good P&S camera.
Yeah you are a 100% right, "you would never own a DSLR because its very design limits what it can do" and you could never live with that.

Yes by it's very design a DSLR is limited to taking pictures in low light with very little noise. I have to add noise to my DSLR pictures in post processing to get the same results I get with the average superzoom P&S camera. By it's very design my DSLR is limited to being able to change lenses. That's Ok though, I'm no fool...I found a good work around for that. Just krazy glue a mediocre 28-300mm onto my DSLR and I'm as good to go as any National Geographic photographer sporting an S3.

Just look at how much better this moonshot taken with an FZ30 handheld with Image Stabilizationthan the one below taken by the same photographer with a DSLR.





This 400mm handheld shot taken with an image stabilizedKM 7D and Tamron 200-400mm lens is simply deplorable. In fact, it was so cloudy that night that I could barely see the moon with the naked eye but because of the DSLR limitations somehow I couldn't capture the clouds.





Don't worry Keoeeit, you have me on your side and I'm always willing to help you prove your point.

Oh and another good reason not to own a DSLR. I got stuck taking pictures for a dance competition to be used for a promotional DVD simply because the DSLR islimited byit'shigh ISO capability and KM's zone matchingISO setting. It has been a real curse because it cause me to get such low noise shotsin low light situations without any motion blur. I also hate that Iwas able to handhold the camera, which means I didn't get to take advantage of my tripod and had to move around more.Now I have charge money and give up my spare time. Any ideas on how I can get out of this commitment?

Wait!!!! I know.... I'll just borrow your S3 for the next competion and charge them extra for the noise. This way I will surelyget fired and be free from my long term commitment. Who wants to shoot dancers anyway when I could just sit at home and take pictures of my VCR clock.Maybe you can just post some high noise samples to save you from sending me your S3.

Here are some samples from the dance competitions. I did not have time to post process and ad noise to get the same resultsas aP&S camera









meanstreak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 2:14 PM   #67
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

now, now children .................................. play nice

Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 5:25 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 2:17 PM   #68
Senior Member
 
bernabeu's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 990
Default

28-100 'kit' lens, hand held, no flash,iso 1600, .MRW, PSE 5.0, printable 8x10 @ 300dpi

Last edited by bernabeu; Jun 27, 2015 at 5:25 PM.
bernabeu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 3:49 PM   #69
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Meatwhistle wrote:"I cannot believe that any of the knowledgeable photographers here are entertaining this comparison though some might find it entertaining." The comparison of pics is silly. But the comparison of camera styles is not. At least not for discussion purposes. It's much like the old discussion of medium format verses 35mm. Any "knowledgeable photographer" knew medium format was better. But that didn't stop 35mm from becoming the most popular amongst armatures and pro's alike.

"We all know that a DSLR is will surpasse the limitations of any point and shoot on the market and we know the main reasons why..... sensor size and lens flexibility"

I'm not going to argue with that other than to say from what I have seen the deference in quality is negligible depending on the cameras. A large part of the IQ discussion is based on high ISO ratings. For some that would be extremely important. For me…in 30 years I have shot exactly 4 rolls of 800 speed film. So it's not a deal maker or breaker.

"The only camera that came anywhere near DSLR image quality because it had a large sensor was way to expensive and is no longer made (Sony R1). Besides, it's zoom range was limited."

It's a shame this camera is no longer being made. When it was released it was a bargain. But sense then a lot of low end DSLR's have made the scene.

"We all know that composing a shot through an LCD viewfinder sucks except for the so called "live preview" advantage. We also know that this feature now exsits on the Panasonic L1 DSLR so we may see others follow suit."

Olympus and now Canon have DSLR's with liveview. And I'll bet we see a lot more cameras with it pop up. Why?? Because it does not suck. It is a very valuable tool for composing images especially if the LCD is flexible. Not everyone shoots sports and wild life exclusively. Give it a few years the optical viewfinder will disappear on many of these cameras. As with any knew technology the problem is not quality it's convincing the die hards . I still know people who say if you are serious about photography you need a film camera.

"We all know that that a digicam can't meet the needs of an enthusiast or professional."

We do?? I've seen more than one pro shooting with digicams recently. Including a local photojournalist who's been doing it for years. I'd say it would depend on what those "needs" were.

I'm not knocking DSLR's I'm just saying that they are not absolutely necessary to produce quality results. I find it a little irritating that every time a person has a question on this web site someone always jumps in with you need a DSLR. Which is not helpful in most cases. And often just bad advice. The answer is not always spending more money.





tjsnaps is offline   Reply With Quote
Old May 25, 2007, 9:46 PM   #70
Senior Member
 
tjsnaps's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sacramento, Ca
Posts: 652
Default

Keoeeit wrote:
Quote:
It's fun watching how much the DSLR trolls will rant and rant and rant about how their photos MUST be better because they wasted all that money to get them. :-)

A person's level of insecurity is directly proportional to how much they need to convince another. By the DSLR-troll posts here, their level of insecurity on if they chose the right camera design is loud and clear.

Keep trying!

NONE of your DSLR photos are better than what I can get with a decent P&S camera. Simple fact, no brag, just FACT.

Have fun trying to convince all the others to buy into last-century's DSLR technology, especially those like me that can also see a total fool with eyes of their own.

(I bet these "pros" are even going to try to tell everyone why a black camera body is better. When it's 100% true that black camera bodies cause more thermal noise in a digital camera. Black being better is another LIE that "pro" fools tell one another and they all pass it off like it's gospel. Just like they go on and on about DSLRs. Showing EVERYONE on earth what blind chumps they really are. LOL!! )
WTF

Dude you shouldn't read technical info you don't understand.

"Thermal noise" pleeeeeeas

tjsnaps 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 11:39 AM.