Yes, I'm sure you did, but you seem to be either intentionally
misunderstanding my point, trying to be funny, or simply obtuse.
Very funny, how ironic. I was thinking the same thing about you and someone else in this thread. heeh
You have stated why you prefer one over the other
Did I say "always prefer" or "often prefer?" Believe me, I know the advantages of a good DSLR with fast preflash & reliable focus.
it basically
revolves around the two subjects we have been discussing, DOF or
preflash delay.
No, that's only 2 of several, and I dont think I even mentioned some of the things I dont like about the DSLR.
I have stated that I dont see an advantage in using
a P&S for DOF over a DSLR, you do, fine.
Err.. just to be clear, I said the P&S takes away the advantage (or at least some a significant part of it) from the DSLR in that particular shooting situation, not that I had tested that a P&S did a better job. Until I test back to back, I will not jump to conclusions as 99% of the people do... that usually dont know what they are talking about but are merely parrotting what they have read from others. But for the simple fact the P&S can be used at a lower ISO than a DSLR to shoot for greater depth of field in low light is pretty clear. A back to back test would show the degree of variation that a simple "equalizing ISO" test doesn't give you.
I understand the
differences chip size makes to DOF, I just haven't yet run into a
situation where I had to increase ISO more than 1 stop to get
sufficient DOF.
Well, you already stated you sometimes stop down to f/8, so that would be more than 1 stop. Therefore in some low light situations when you are already pushing the low shutter speed, everything else being equal, you will have to increase iso multiple stops to make up for the small aperture you are using, ending up with visible noise in your shot. But you will still be able to use f2.8 on your point and shoot at ISO100 for a clean shot.
In fact, as I have said 4 times already, I am
usually at or near the hyperfocal distance in most group shots that
DOF isnt even an issue.
Never said you couldn't get DOF field with a DSLR. I said that you have to use a smaller aperture on the DSLR vs the P&S for the same DOF. It appears you do believe this as a fact now, but continue to argue against it at the same time. This means less light for the DSLR, so increase your ISO to make up for it when in low light. This isn't my opinion, it's just a fact. Not trying to argue with you about opinions or shooting styles, only specify the facts. If I stated anything that was false, I would like to know what it is.
Also as I have said 5 times, I have usually been left wanting LESS
DOF rarely more. We will have to agree to disagree.
You can say this 5 more times, but I have never disputed the advantage of a DSLR in isolating the subject with a narrow depth of field. I believe that in fact, I have stated this as an advantage of DSLR's in multiple posts in various threads. So you are essentially trying to argue a fact with that statement that I never disputed in the first place and completely agree with you on.
As for the preflash issue, if you feel that the extremely weak
flash on a point and shoot is sufficient than fine
I have tested the flash on my new s6000fd. I can take shots at low ISO of someone on the other side of the room, and it does the job with good exposure, even with little ambient light to assist, and what's really nice, is the subject's eyes are completely open without even a hint of lazy eye!
Now, across an auditorium is a different story, but I have cameras with external flashes for those few instances I need to do that.
but to stick to
your logic adding a non TTL flash is no solution as that is simply
a workaround, right?
Yes, that's why I keep saying - a fast preflash delay is the "true" solution, and that's what the s6000fd gives us @98ms, and so does the D200 DSLR.
You would think, but this has got to be the most difficult time I've had explaining the same basic thing to 2 different people at the same time. If this was a conversation I was having face to face with someone and had to camera in hand also, and maybe some illustrations, I dont think they would give me any argument. But it surprises me to get this kind of response from people that have experience with both types of cameras, as I do. Sometimes I think people on here debate just to debate without even trying to understand what's being said by the other party.
For what its worth in Mexico last week I
got to use my friends KM5D, I will agree with you on that
viewfinder, thats a load of rubbish, it seemed bright enough but
very small.
I dont really have a "big" complaint about the size because I compared it to the D50 when I bought it, and it was much bigger than the Nikon's. It certainly wasn't any worse than the 350D from what I recall. But the 7D was bigger and better, and so was the Pentax DS.
Dont judge all DSLR viewfinders by that thing, try a
D80 or D200 and you will see what I mean.
Hey, haven't I already commented on those several times in this thread. I am not judging all DSLRs the same. If I get another one, I think I mentioned this earlier, I know what to look for next time. There's a chance Sony will deliver, but I'm not too optimistic after the A100.
Personally I would prefer
a 95% coverage OVF to a 100% coverage EVF any day, optimumly a 100%
I prefer 100% coverage period. Optimally, I would prefer both optical and LCD "flip & twist" live views at 100%.
