European trip ?'s

In article . net,
Timothy Kroesen wrote:

...It means you can disable automatic features in lieu of manual
settings, like ISO thereby indirectly aperture and depth of field;

I don't find that easier than setting the mode to a actual "Manual"
mode on a DSLR... or very accurate.


or
focus by setting it on one object/depth and then photographing another.
(As in the case of the Fuji F10)

"Focus lock" is always available, it is not disabled.


We're comparing digital cameras which are more akin than horses and
cars.

Your comparing a DSLR of 5 years ago to a p&s of this years model, that
is analogous to the horse and car.


"Pro's" *do* use p&s's commonly:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6468-7844

And yet now is main camera is a Olympus C-8080, not a p&s. In fact,
what I said early about the restrictive nature of the p&s wide-angle
focal length must have played a part in the move for him.

It is only recently that the DSLRs have had the buffing capacity and
higher speed disks to take rapid groups of shots... that is what has
kept the Pro's away. That is not really a consideration anymore.

jay
Wed Jan 11, 2006





Tim K

"Go Fig" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
Timothy Kroesen wrote:

'Scene modes' are nothing but preset time savers for common
situations;
the FujiF1 for example has only Six or so but may also be used in
more
'manual' fashion for special situations

What does this mean?

... Megapixels are only as good
as they are derived and interpolated; some rather expensive DSLR's
photo
sensors are not as sophisticated as some of the new crop of p&s's
which
can produce images with less noise...

Do you compare cars to horses too ?

Be specific, which models are you comparing ?

Again, why don't the Pro's use p&s ?

jay
Wed Jan 11, 2006




Not true that many expensive DSLR's use a photo sensor half the size
of
the image frame?

Tim K

"Go Fig" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
Timothy Kroesen wrote:

Debunking this 'absolute' statement was the issue:

"Noise levels and lenses are just as
important, and not as good in a p&s as in a DSLR."

Is not the Nikon D1 a well regarded DSLR? The Fuji p&s produces
a
'less
noisy' photo. It has fine glass optics though not
interchangeable
optics; great autofocus ability but no manual focus; extreme
battery
life; on and on the winner over *many* DSLR's costing a lot
more.

Bottom line is a well exposed and composed photo on a p&s is
easier
to
take

With most point-and-shoot, with a 35mm film focal length of about
38mm,
composition options are far more limited.

You are aware that DSLR's have full auto modes too ?


and can easily be technically superior

This goes against common sense, why do professionals not use them,
maybe having a choice of only 6 "scene" modes is technically
limiting... to say nothing of creativity.

Mewonders why expensive modern DSLR's even have 'automatic' modes as
'pro's' pay extra to eschew them...g

Sure; it may be unfair to compare cameras Five years apart in technology
but when you spent near Ten times as much you're likely to still feel
inclined to be using Five Year old tech...

As the linked article states:

"On a typical shooting day now, Majoli carries four Olympus
point-and-shoots and not a single digital SLR or film rangefinder. In
2003, he began using the C-4040's successors, the 5-megapixel C-5050 and
C-5060 cameras, and in the summer of 2004 he added a few of the
8-megapixel C-8080 cameras to his gear bag.

He carries six or seven 512MB Lexar CompactFlash cards but no shooting
accessories -- not even an external flash. When he gears up for a long
assignment he'll pack a couple of extra cameras -- i.e. six total -- so
that he can weather any equipment failures. (Six C-5060 bodies have
almost exactly the same weight as two Canon EOS-1D Mark II cameras.)"

No where does it state or imply (quite the opposite in fact) the 'pro'
abandoned the p&s style camera; just that he makes some use of a C-8080
now.

I can buy a Fuji F10 and tour Europe while taking indistinguishable
pictures with the cost savings over most DSLR's too!

Tim K

"Go Fig" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
Timothy Kroesen wrote:

...It means you can disable automatic features in lieu of manual
settings, like ISO thereby indirectly aperture and depth of field;

I don't find that easier than setting the mode to a actual "Manual"
mode on a DSLR... or very accurate.


or
focus by setting it on one object/depth and then photographing
another.
(As in the case of the Fuji F10)

"Focus lock" is always available, it is not disabled.


We're comparing digital cameras which are more akin than horses and
cars.

Your comparing a DSLR of 5 years ago to a p&s of this years model,
that
is analogous to the horse and car.


"Pro's" *do* use p&s's commonly:
http://www.robgalbraith.com/bins/mul...id=7-6468-7844

And yet now is main camera is a Olympus C-8080, not a p&s. In fact,
what I said early about the restrictive nature of the p&s wide-angle
focal length must have played a part in the move for him.

It is only recently that the DSLRs have had the buffing capacity and
higher speed disks to take rapid groups of shots... that is what has
kept the Pro's away. That is not really a consideration anymore.

jay
Wed Jan 11, 2006

Following up to Go Fig

Again, why don't the Pro's use p&s ?

because they are not as good, this is a stupid hackneyed argument
started by a troll. A big lump of glass is better thana small
one, as are interchangeable lenses. End of story.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Martin

It's better. There's not as much distortion as you get with a lens
that does the same thing.

if you carry a bloody great motorised tripod and the light
doesn't change during the exposures you mind be in with a
fighting chance (and if you don't use a P&S).
In the real world of taking photos on the move its irrelevant.

We are in the equivalent of the Vinyl Record V. CD era

True, but the future lies in full frame sensors not crazy
multiple exposure systems or P&S cameras over endowed with
"pixels".
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to

Nothing on the chart says anything about quality, and 6 years is an
eternity when it comes to improvements in digital technology.

it proves digital cameras are rapidly improving, which was fairly
obvious.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to Martin

if you carry a bloody great motorised tripod and the light
doesn't change during the exposures you mind be in with a
fighting chance (and if you don't use a P&S).

I have panoramas taken with a hand held cheap Nikon digital camera
that are seamless.

if that's good enough for you that's fine but its irrelevant to
what was being discussed (panoramic is not equal to wide angle
BTW).

In the real world of taking photos on the move its irrelevant.

I thought you were taking landscapes?

*I* am on the move and yes, landscape light can change by the
second.
--
Mike Reid
Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" -- you can email us@ this site
Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" -- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap

Following up to "eatinBelgium" :


Des Small wrote:
"eatinBelgium" writes:

The Reid schreef:

Following up to eatinBelgium

for your snaps, yes.

tell me, what picture will my Sony cybershot fail to take then ?

Max quality ones.

there is nothing wrong with the quality, how many megapixels is quality
for you ?

Contemplate an analogy: recording "CD-quality" sound (44MHz) with a
microphone bodged out of a telephone handset. Hi-fi or not hi-fi? A
sufficiently deranged number-quoter says Yes. Computer, however, says
No.

Or for a specific example, one that needs a full wide angle lens,
most saleable landscapes in other words.

I can take multiple foto's and stitch them together

(This "foto's" thing you do, is it to annoy Madge or you've gone
native or you always were native?)

Des

foto makes more sense than photo, discuss

It's the "'" , not the "f".
--
Tim C.

Following up to "eatinBelgium" :


Des Small wrote:
"eatinBelgium" writes:

foto makes more sense than photo, discuss

Using an apostrophe to form the plural makes you look semi-literate in
English; contemplate :-|

Des

using a 'ph' to make an 'f' sound is retarded

You could join Mixi's class as a teacher.
--
Tim C.

Following up to Martin :


(This "foto's" thing you do, is it to annoy Madge or you've gone
native or you always were native?)

Des

foto makes more sense than photo, discuss

It makes about as much sense as the subject.

Bump! Down to earth. :-)
--
Tim C.

Following up to Padraig Breathnach :

P&S digital cameras produce fotos; SLRs with film produce photos.

LOL!
--
Tim C.