Had it with point and shoot

[Sean Nelson]

Perhaps I've interpreted his post differently from the
way others have, or from the way it was intended.

Well, here are some examples from the original post, with your wrench analogy substituted:

(Thread title)

I've had it with 12" wrenches

Once you get used to the quality of a 3' wrecking bar, you will NEVER be satisfied with a 12" wrench

Every time I take out my 12" wrench I come home frustrated and disappointed

As a result I am now resolved to selling the 12" wrench

Apparently he's resolved to lugging the 3' wrecking bar around even when there's a watch that needs to be repaired... ;-D

 

[Lee Jay]

Apparently he's resolved to lugging the 3' wrecking bar around even
when there's a watch that needs to be repaired... ;-D

Frankly, I think a 3' wrecking bar is the best approach to repairing watches.

;-)

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[digitalnoise]

I want it all, both the bar and the wrench!

Still waiting for the wrench that converts into a bar.

A dslr won't fit in the pocket though it will lighten it considerably while a compact just won't match the pq of a dslr under a lot conditions.

 

[Barry Fitzgerald]

I was never convinced that a high end compact or premium other type (bridge or superzoom) was a sensible option.

With regards the S5 and FZ18, maybe I can understand that, they offer big zoom, and dont cost that much.

We have not seen a real bridge camera (bar maybe the flawed but ok R1), for ages (aka a decent sized sensor)

I dont mind using my compact for shots, even semi serious stuff. But it cost me £99, so I aint expecting SLR quality. Its not bad mind.

Same goes for the canon stuff. I dont think the lower powershots are bad at all, but more expensive ones are not offering better IQ (sometimes its worse)

Really, not sensible dumping £200+ on a compact digicamera, not when SLR's are so cheap.

Now, if they stopped slapping stupid megapixel no.s onto cameras, used less with a larger sensor, we might get somewhere..some hope on that one though!

On the plus side, 3/4 years ago ISO 400 sucked on most, its now not too bad on many, even ISO 800..ok ish (depending on where you go!) Dont expect it to get near SLR quality, but you should get smaller prints ok. I se a place for a compact with my SLR, sure nice to take some videos, or the slim throw it in pocket appeal too, but why people buy the G cameras, is a mystery to me ;-)

I think they have run out of gimmicks to slap on these cameras..so its going to have to be bigger sensors in the long run.
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

 

[dennismullen]

thank you, Lee Jay.

--
See my gallery at http://www.pbase.com/dennismullen

“Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” - Ben Franklin.

 

[Lee Jay]

I want it all, both the bar and the wrench!

Still waiting for the wrench that converts into a bar.

If you're looking for a compact with the performance of a SLR, forget it. The issue is the physical size of the optics. A bigger sensor means a bigger lens for the same zoom range and f-stop, which means you haven't gotten anywhere.

Now, if you're willing to give up zoom range, you can do very compact primes. But your average purchaser of compact cameras won't understand anything about the advantage of a "1x lens" over a "10x lens".

The problem with the wrench used to repair a watch analogy is that, in reality, a dSLR can capture any image a compact can capture, but the reverse isn't true. It's more like a 10' adjustable wrench versus a 1' adjustable wrench. The big one can do everything the little one can do from the point of view of loosening bolts, it's just bigger, heavier and more expensive.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[mamallama]

The problem with the wrench used to repair a watch analogy is that,
in reality, a dSLR can capture any image a compact can capture, but
the reverse isn't true. It's more like a 10' adjustable wrench
versus a 1' adjustable wrench. The big one can do everything the
little one can do from the point of view of loosening bolts, it's
just bigger, heavier and more expensive.

Well almost. I just happen to recall being on a whale-watching boat in Hawaii and the water got rough. The one photographer on board with a Canon dSLR with a huge lens attached couldn't use it because he had to hold on with one hand and he couldn't operate his camera with one hand. Those of us with cameras that could be operated one-handed were shooting away in the rough waters while holding on with one hand.

But I think he, along with everyone else, got some beautiful shots of the double rainbow over Lahani as we got into the calm harbor.

--mamallama

 

[Mark B.]

Well, you're dreaming if you want a 10x SLR zoom at f/4.0 for $500.
Tamron has a f/3.5 - f/6.3 for around that cost, and Sigma has an IS
18-200 f/3.5-6.3 for maybe a little more.

On a full-frame dSLR, the new Tamron 28-300VC will perform like a
17.5-187.5mm f2-f4 lens would on a crop camera. It's $600, and has
IS.

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/506046-REG/Tamron_AF020C_700_28_300mm_f_3_5_6_3_XR_Di.html

It's f/3.5 - f/6.3. On a full-frame DSLR, it will perform like a
28-300 f/3.5 - f/6.3. But since it's designed for cropped cameras,
there's likely to be serious vignetting.

It's a full-frame lens (Di), not a crop lens (Di-II).

Then I guess I'm confused. You're the one that stated it will perform differently on a full-frame camera than what the specs state. Regardless of the format, the aperture settings don't change, only the field of view. On a Canon xxD/xxxD for example, it will give a field of view of 44.8 - 480mm, but the aperture range is the same. On a full-frame camera, the lens will still be 28-300 with the same aperture range, but since it's actually designed for a cropped camera there will be vignetting. I'm not understanding your comparison.

Mark

 

[Lee Jay]

On a full-frame dSLR, the new Tamron 28-300VC will perform like a
17.5-187.5mm f2-f4 lens would on a crop camera. It's $600, and has
IS.

Then I guess I'm confused. You're the one that stated it will
perform differently on a full-frame camera than what the specs state.

No, I didn't.

"On a full-frame dSLR, the new Tamron 28-300VC will perform like a 17.5-187.5mm f2-f4 lens would on a crop camera. It's $600, and has IS.

I'm stating that it will perform on a full-frame camera like a different, hypothetical lens would on a 1.6-crop camera.

Regardless of the format, the aperture settings don't change,...

Right, but the equivalent f-stop does (f-stop is not aperture).

The definition of f-stop is focal length / aperture diameter.

For example, a 100mm, f4 lens has a 25mm aperture (100mm/4). If you select a hypothetical 4x crop camera to compare to, it would need a 25mm focal length lens for the same angle-of-view, and with a 25mm aperture, it would have an f-stop of f1.0 (25mm/25mm).

To understand this intuitively, the larger sensor camera is better at high ISO because it's got a larger sensor. This allows it to use a "slower" (higher numbered f-stop) to get the same image.

Equivalence works out like this:

Multiply focal length by crop factor
Multiply f-stop by crop factor
Multiply ISO by crop factor squared

That will get you equivalent images.

--
Lee Jay
(see profile for equipment)

 

[Birddogman]

I am an upland bird hunting guide (actually my dogs do all the work); and I also like to hunt upland birds in wild places. It is much easier to get good “action” shots of the dogs on point, the bird in the air and the Gun trying to do his/her part with my regular big Canon DSLR than with any P&S.



I can handle the DSLR, lenses, filters, etc when I am guiding and don’t need to gun myself. But, when hunting myself, handling a brace of very active dogs and needing to gun as well as handle to dogs, not to mention carrying lots of water, food, GPS, first aid and emergency stuff, cartridges, etc, etc, for maybe 15 miles/day, a DSRL is too big, too heavy and too delicate to manage. Thus, a P&S is the only option.

I’ve never found one that is ideal for my purposes – each one requires compromise and an effort to overcome the weaknesses. Still, you can get decent images that give a flavor for the activity. My current P&S is a Leica D-Lux 3 – takes more effort than a DSLR, but I don’t think the IQ is all that bad. These are from a recent trip to the Dakotas:

Sunrise – prairie fire:



Working scent:



Point!



Retrieve:



Discovering at the end of the day that the truck actually is where you thought you left it.



But for a P&S I would not have gotten any of those images (and many others).

 

[Simon97]

35mm is a small fromat for versatility and portability for its users at the cost in enlargeability. That is why there is medium and large format.

P&S cameras are a compromise for convienence in a small package/price.

Choosing and/or using the camera properly to get the maximum IQ from it can yield near DSLR quality.

Don't expect super zoom campacts to give you perfect images. Developing a wide range zoom that is free of some image defects has not happened yet. To keep the camera small, many with wide range zooms have a small sensor that will show more noise. There are a few cameras with larger sensors and better short range zooms that can deliver a nice image.

I work within the range of my P&S, the A630. I use only ISO 80 or 100. I keep sharpness, contrast, saturation down so the camera is putting minimal processing into the image as I can do better in post processing.

When I want the best i can do for IQ, I reach for the SLR and shoot RAW with quality lenses.

 

[blackmore7]

I was never convinced that a high end compact or premium other type
(bridge or superzoom) was a sensible option.

With regards the S5 and FZ18, maybe I can understand that, they offer
big zoom, and dont cost that much.

We have not seen a real bridge camera (bar maybe the flawed but ok
R1), for ages (aka a decent sized sensor)

I dont mind using my compact for shots, even semi serious stuff. But
it cost me £99, so I aint expecting SLR quality. Its not bad mind.

Same goes for the canon stuff. I dont think the lower powershots are
bad at all, but more expensive ones are not offering better IQ
(sometimes its worse)

Really, not sensible dumping £200+ on a compact digicamera, not when
SLR's are so cheap.

Now, if they stopped slapping stupid megapixel no.s onto cameras,
used less with a larger sensor, we might get somewhere..some hope on
that one though!

On the plus side, 3/4 years ago ISO 400 sucked on most, its now not
too bad on many, even ISO 800..ok ish (depending on where you go!)
Dont expect it to get near SLR quality, but you should get smaller
prints ok. I se a place for a compact with my SLR, sure nice to take
some videos, or the slim throw it in pocket appeal too, but why
people buy the G cameras, is a mystery to me ;-)

I think they have run out of gimmicks to slap on these cameras..so
its going to have to be bigger sensors in the long run.
--



Clint is on holiday! Soon to return! ;-)

-- Mystery to me I agree with this point of view , Paying DSLR price D40 ect for a G big megapixells small sensor cam and not getting anything like DSLR performance in return for your money and same as point and shoot IQ .

Dsyletic hence function and disability in posting ie bad spelling and grammer sorry .

 

[tko]

Taken with my point and shoot, EVF, trust me, the kids were moving pretty fast, they weren't just bobbing in the water. Is it a good as Canon L? Of course not! But I didn't have the Canon w/me so I got the shot, and it made the parents very happy.

 

[gkl]

Same goes for the canon stuff. I dont think the lower powershots are
bad at all, but more expensive ones are not offering better IQ
(sometimes its worse)

The top of the line Powershots (e.g. G7/9) offer a few more features, and usually better lenses compared to the cheaper ones.

Really, not sensible dumping £200+ on a compact digicamera, not when
SLR's are so cheap.

I'll be the first to agree that the G7 was overpriced, but I bought one anyway. Besides size and weight, the other side of the coin is that a DSLR is only as good as its lens. While the XTi with 18-55 kit lens will outperform a G7/9 in AF and high ISO and will give you a wide angle advantage for a similar price, that lens does not have IS and will not match the telephoto range or the overall quality of the G7/G9 lens. Putting good lenses on the XTi to cover that zoom range will cost you more than the G9 itself. In that case, the XTI is a much more capable photographic tool, but in addition to the higher cost it is also several times the size and weight of the G9. So if you want the compact size, e.g. for travel or hiking, and low light performance and speed aren't an issue, the G7/G9 still make sense, although you would of course do better costwise with an A640/650.

Now, if they stopped slapping stupid megapixel no.s onto cameras,
used less with a larger sensor, we might get somewhere..some hope on
that one though!

An 8 or 10 MP Pro2 with modern sensor technology at 2/3" size would be of interest to many people, but it looks like Sony has decided this (and even the R1) can't compete economically with DSLRS.

why people buy the G cameras, is a mystery to me ;-)

See above ;-). cheers, gkl