|
Post by kiev4a on Dec 19, 2007 9:20:16 GMT -5
Gene:
That's the model I've been considering. I believe it also has a viewfinder--something missing for even some of the higher end P&Ss.
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Dec 19, 2007 11:58:20 GMT -5
Gene: That's the model I've been considering. I believe it also has a viewfinder--something missing for even some of the higher end P&Ss. There may be a newer model of it now -- I haven't kept up. I suspect there is because the SD800 I got was discounted considerably from its original selling price. The 28mm equiv is really useful, and with IS you can hand hold it at ridiculously slow shutter speeds even at iso100. Gene
|
|
|
Post by herron on Dec 19, 2007 12:35:50 GMT -5
Wayne: Have you checked with Digital Photography Review? It's a great resource for finding out comparative info the latest digital cameras, including reviews, both P&S and SLR. It sometimes even mentions things that are soon to be released. I've been tracking it lately, for many of the same reasons you mention. I dragged a lot of photo gear with me on our cruise in '06...dSLR and lenses, regular Mamiya SLR and lenses, and an old folder. Plus all the attendant film. Never again. I spent far too much time trying to manage where everything was, and get it ready...instead of enjoying the trip. Got a few memorable shots, but think I would have been just as happy with one of the new digital P&S, for all I ever do anymore with the output. P.S. Don't tell my Mamiya collection. They all still think they're the best.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Dec 19, 2007 16:38:34 GMT -5
Ron: Even my D100 with one zoom lens was somewhat of a hassle lugging it over my shoulder for two weeks and we were on the run every day on the bus and on foot. Got to admit I envied some of the folks with their P&S digitals (although I suspect my photos were better than most the stuff they shot). The previous year on the Alaskan Cruise My F4, FM and several lenses were no problem because much of the time we were never more than a 10-minute stroll from our room on the ship.
|
|
|
Post by John Parry on Dec 19, 2007 21:19:44 GMT -5
Wayne - it's a cabin, not a room.
A small point I know, but there's a feeding frenzy going on at the moment with developers. As Oddball said "I only ride 'em - I don't know what makes 'em work" LOL
Regards - John
|
|
|
Post by Dan Vincent on Jan 17, 2008 22:47:50 GMT -5
It's nice to have a variety of cameras for different situations.
There are many situations where I found myself undergunned by not having a DSLR in my hands.
The instantaneous shutter click of a DSLR cannot be matched for sporting events, especially when you have to stand behind a fence and need to reach out a little.
Go to a little league baseball game with a P&S camera and you'll soon wish you had a DSLR. My Grand-daughter's horse shows are another situation where instant shutter reaction and distance become critical. Car races, air shows and many other situations will quickly make you a believer in a DSLR if you've tried to take pictures with a pocket camera.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 18, 2008 11:23:50 GMT -5
I sorta went back on my plan to downsize. With the D300 on the way it's unlikely we'll be replacing the Canon 4 mp P&S any time soon. That's OK My mate is confortable with it and it takes photos that can be blown up to about any size we likely will want them. The D300 is only slightly heavier and larger than my D100 was so I'm not too worried about that aspect.
If they ever come up with a point and shoot with a 28-300mm (or wider) f2.8 zoom and NO SHUTTER LAG, there will be a lot less folks buying DSLRs The instant shutter response (like a REAL camera) is a big reason I stayed with the DSLR.
As I have said before, I can point the Canon P&S digital at our granddaughter, press the shutter release---and she's three rooms away before the camera fires!
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 30, 2008 13:45:36 GMT -5
I wonder why it is that they don't seem to be able to make a P&S digital camera w/o shutter lag? Is it because technologically they can't at this point (at least at an affordable price) or is it that the average P&S user doesn't care if it takes awhile for the camera to focus and fire.
To the best of my knowledge, ever the high end P&S like the Leica/Panasonic have this problem.
I suppose it's like everything else. Eventually one camera maker will decide instant shutter response is a way to seperate its cameras from other brands--and within three years every P&S will have an instant shutter.
|
|
|
Post by GeneW on Jan 30, 2008 14:11:51 GMT -5
Wayne, the shutter lag is caused primarily by the AF system trying to lock onto something (which is why they also perform so much slower than 'normal' in dim light). I suspect in the inexpensive digicams (most of the P&S fall into this category) they use basic AF techniques based on contrast resolution rather than something more sophisticated.
BTW, I've used a lot of digicams and have noticed that, if you prefocus and hold the focus (shutter slightly depressed) there is very little lag in actually taking pics. Some of the digicams I've owned (Canon models) allow me to set manual focus. I've done this for street photography -- set the manual focus to 10' -- and it shoots almost like a film cam. No delay as it tries to focus.
Gene
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Jan 30, 2008 14:36:28 GMT -5
Gene: I think the Canon we have will allow manual focus---but it must be done through the menu and I suspect it's more hassle than it's woth under most circumstances.
|
|
Dave
Lifetime Member
Posts: 124
|
Post by Dave on Jan 30, 2008 20:18:13 GMT -5
I have a Konica Minolta Dimage A2, 28-200 f2.8, 8mg. I also have lenses to fit the Sony Alpha series. Everytime I consider buying the Sony Alpha, I back off for the reasons cited above. The Dimage easily gives me cropped 8x10s which is about as big as I generally go. Relatively light weight, everything from full auto to full manual, etc. Much as I would like to rationalize the DSLR, I just can't do it. Dave
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Feb 18, 2008 13:59:15 GMT -5
Having used an aging P&S digicam (an Olympus C - 750 UZ) exclusively for several years until rediscovering film, I'm familiar with most of the advantages and disadvantages of the format. Some of the most annoying problems with P&S are there in spades with the Oly -slow & noisy startup, poor focussing in low light, wonderful manual control which can only be accessed by pushing an array of buttons, push button focus (that's my pet hate), a cacophony of beeps and fake shutter noises that have to be manually turned off everytime the batteries are changed and considerable shutter lag Despite all this, the Oly and its enthusiast level P&S bretheren are considerable picture making tools, breathtaking really when compared to the hi quaity but basic rangefinders I personally love or the truly awful 35mm P&S zooms of the 90s that we all loath. I can and have used the Oly for action photography, not because I'm clever, just because I'm not alowed a DSLR! I've learned a few tricks which may translate to other cameras. Some have been mentioned already, but are worth reinforcing. 1 - if your camera uses the familiar AE and AF lock with the shutter release half depressed, then use it! (Gene W has already pointed this out). True snap shots are almost impossible with a P&S digicam of the Oly's level. But by prefocussing and metering where you think the action is going to happen, things will speed up considerably to a workable level. 2 - if your camera allows different modes of control (the Oly offers full Auto, Program, AP, SP and full manual metering), experiment a bit. I've found that the Oly reacts most quickly on AP, and that's where I've got the most spectacular results. eg: Taken on AP, with the shutter release half depressed to pre focus/meter, then panning with the subject. 3. Look for a camera with a manual focus ring.The worst feature of P&S is poor focus performance. (are any still available? I know the Photokina watchers are complaining of a lack of enthusiast P&S as manufacturers steer punters towards more profitable DSLR). Despite the problems, I'm still a DP&S enthusiast. for candidly photographing people they are so much less intimidating than any SLR, D or not, they are light & quiet (if, unlike me, you avoid a model that beeps and bings at you). I'm seriosly excited about Ricoh's GR Digital II and especially their Caplio GX 100. P&S for grown ups? I reckon the Caplio would satisfy 99% of my travel camera needs, on paper at least. BTW, getting back to the origins of this thread, the colours produced by the Oly are slightly muted and less contrasty than those produced by a typical high quality Japanese SLR lens on Velvia. Definitely not the 'TV with the colour turned up to high' look. Saturation is settable in camera, but generall I don't fiddle with it.
|
|
|
Post by kiev4a on Feb 18, 2008 17:17:30 GMT -5
That's a very nice shot--shows what panning can do. Seems like that's sort of a lost art nowadays.
You are right about the intimidation factor. Most folks aren't self conscious when you point a device the size of (dare I say) a pack of cigarettes at them. My DSLR is large enough to get their attention and give some a nervous facial tic.
|
|
|
Post by doubs43 on Feb 18, 2008 18:09:02 GMT -5
I agree with Wayne. That's an excellent example of a correctly panned shot that few photographers even try today. I used to see a lot of similar race car and athlete pictures which I always found to be interesting. It gives a feeling of motion that a "frozen" shot can't match. Wayne, I suppose a facial tic is better than a Deer Tick! Walker
|
|
|
Post by nikkortorokkor on Feb 18, 2008 19:32:38 GMT -5
A bit OT, but: Those are interesting comments by Wayne and Walker about panning not being so popular now.
I have to admit that P&S or not, digital has helped me experiment much more freely with panning: being able to check results and correct technique is a distinct advantage that digital offers the the tyro. I've always loved the technique iwhen used by the pros and have continually experimented with it myself. Even with the Oly's limitations, being abe to try and check, try and check made the learning curve much faster. I'd imagine that any digital camera that has full manual control must offer the photography tutor a fantastic opprtunity to run a lesson that seemlessly melds theory with practice. Previously, it was the darkroom that offered this chance, hence, I guess, the importance of the darkroom in photography class. Feel free to flame me for that one!
I wonder if the 'loss' of the pan shot is related to AF, Not because AF can't pan (certainly not since the coming of high end Canon USM AF, anyway) but because it opened up other truly spectacular shots that were a real challenge with manual focus. Here I'm thiking the big, fast lens that not only freezes the action and offers razor sharp detail of the subject, but which also blows out the background to a pleasing blurr. Sprinters lunging for the line, ice skaters jumping, shot putter letting fly (or watching, with wrapt attention, her shot fly through the air) or long jumper landing in a shower of sand. All achievable before by te best pros, but far more so now with the advent of fast, Pro-level AF. Somehow, the poor old pan shot , which was probably a technicaly easier way to produce spectecular action images with shorter, slower non AF glass, has got left behind except by those of us too poor to afford that big, fast AF glass.
I have recently been reminded of another technique consigned to the dustbin of time. I was looking through an old 35mm handbook the other day, the kind of thing pumped out by John Hedgecoe and the ilk, and there was a whole two page spread on the snap-zoom effect (I dunno what else to call it) that came into fashion with the advent of one touch zooms. You know, stick the camera on the 'pod, have the car/ bike/ runner/ skater come straight at you, release the shutter whilst snaping the zoom from tele to wide (or vice versa). I remember trying it on a neon sign and thinking the result was tre cool. Now it just looks very 1982. The same thing happened 10 years ago or so when digicams and affordable computing meant that 'digital photography' meant naff fantasy images cooked up on the computer and served up with a warmed over synth pop sound track. Sometimes taste lags a bit behind technology (more flaming can be applied if deemed necessery).
|
|