rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats Canon DSLR - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3fc2177d18a4204e?hl=en
* Black and White - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2fe1e7db1fe2db03?hl=en
* Is there software out there to manipulate quantization tables or spoof
another camera? - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/26aaa5b3361dadb0?hl=en
* How to find out the shutter actuation number in a Nikon D3? - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e17afe51fd645143?hl=en
* Quick question ??? - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/69dda4b17aed3a75?hl=en
* CHDK does 1/1,000,000 second, now we are talking..... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a7e4242c5cb98016?hl=en
* OT Re: Which free software could acquire 48 bits color depth pictures from a
scanner ? - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a04fec022c17778?hl=en
* 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor typo
corrections) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/541401c3b2747095?hl=en
* Nikon D700x another Nikon upgrade? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b661268290174a96?hl=en
* adoramazonupsps is NUTS!!!! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7c8922bbef0a3ad9?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats Canon DSLR
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/3fc2177d18a4204e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 7:24 am
From: SMS
David J Taylor wrote:
> Sherry Miller wrote:
>
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>
>
>> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
>> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
>> lens for their budget line of DSLR's.
>
> Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
> didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
> price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.
If anything, that comparison convinced me not to buy an SX10!
I do have the Canon 18-55mm kit lens, but I got it because the
difference in price between body-only and the kit was very small. It's
actually not as bad as that comparison shows, when used in the proper
conditions.
They could have used even worse lenses if they wanted to; the kit lenses
Canon used to include on their film Rebel cameras.
The key point is that with a D-SLR you're not stuck with crappy lenses
like you are with P&S cameras, which often don't even have glass lenses
but horrible acrylic lenses.
OTOH, if all you care about is zoom range, and don't care about image
quality, noise, dynamic range, etc., then the SX10 is an excellent
choice. They'll sell a lot of them to people that don't know any better.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:08 am
From: frank
On Nov 20, 4:58 am, Tod Burnstein <tburnst...@repliesnotwanted.org>
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> >Sherry Miller wrote:
> >> Morey Staffer wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_res...
>
> >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
> >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
> >> for their budget line of DSLR's.
>
> >That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
> >as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
> >that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.
>
> >Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.
>
> I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
> enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) to beat the images from that camera.
>
> 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
> extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
> much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?
>
> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
> bother to carry them with you that is.
>
> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
> up.
>
> What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
> ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
> similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.
>
> Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.
Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
optics.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:15 am
From: Patrick Jorgens
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 13:59:16 GMT, Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>
>On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:23:18 -0600, Morey Staffer
><moreystafffer@pickdomainofyourchoice.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml
>
>Shows me that if you don't mind crappy pictures even in daylight, you
>can get a P&S or a Rebel XSi with a cheap lens. Now, if you want to
>see some of the differences in capability of the *camera* vs. the
>lens, from the exact same review see:
>
>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/noise.shtml
>
>Steve
So finds someone who doesn't have the talent to use anything lower than ISO1600.
Advertised how much more crippled you are. :-)
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:51 am
From: ParkerGrant
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 23:33:33 +1000, Doug Jewell <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you>
wrote:
>Based on your description of the lighting, (campfire, a few
>dim stage lights), I'd estimate the subject brightness to
>typically be about EV4. If you are understating the actual
>lighting, and the stage lights are quite a bit brighter than
>you are describing, then maybe you'd get to EV6 brightness.
>If that is the case, at ISO 80 and F2.8, you'd need a
>1/10sec exposure. Handheld at 300mm for 1/10 sec to give
>tack sharp images? not bloody likely, even with an excellent
>IS system.
f/2.4 lens at 300mm
With IS I am able to take tack-sharp hand-held images at 1 second exposure at
430mm f.l. (35mm eq.) Here's a quick sample for you:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/3046389190_e8899ef47f_o.jpg
A 100% crop, this one with -1/3EV compensation too. Check the EXIF.
(Now let's hear all the talentless insecure trolls yell it's fake, or that it
wasn't hand-held.)
You reveal much about your amateur's snapshooter status.
Keep trying. You'll figure out how to do photography and use a camera one day.
Or not.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Black and White
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/2fe1e7db1fe2db03?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 7:26 am
From: "David J. Littleboy"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
> check out russell brown's tutorial videos. here's one using ps7:
> <http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/ColortoBW.mov>
Interesting. Thanks. Quite useful, even.
But Photoshop is such a screaming pain in the butt. Picture Window Pro has a
tool that does that, but gives you a single control that lets you select the
filter in a color wheel. Simply, intuitive, easy. Photoshop hides the point
that hue wraps around.
The Photoshop CS3 "Black & White" adjustment layer's default is OK, but all
the other preset settings are so off-the-wall extreme that they're
completely useless. You think they'd give you a red filter that does roughly
what a red filter on B&W film does. No such luck.
--
David J. Littleboy
Tokyo, Japan
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 8:42 am
From: Troy Piggins
* tony cooper wrote :
>
> Sometimes, when reviewing my shots, I see on that I think will be more
> effective in black and white. I shot some today that I have been
> messing around with to this end. (I won't link to them for fear of
> offending the sensibilities of my friend who thinks that photos that
> need post-processing improvements should be discarded as as worthless
> as a McCain/Palin bumper sticker.)
>
> I find that there are several recommended techniques. Most websource
> information recommend converting to Gray Scale over Desaturation.
>
> Kelby suggests converting to Lab Mode and then changing the Lightness
> Channel to Gray Scale. He also recommends working with just one
> channel - depending on which works for the image - and then adjusting
> that channel.
>
> My best experiences resulted from converting to Gray Scale and then
> using a Curves Adjustment Layer followed by Brightness/Contrast
> Adjustment Layer. In one, I flattened, duplicated the background
> layer, set that to multiply, and then used a Layer Mask to reveal
> certain areas that the multiply blend made too dark.
>
> Any recommendations from anyone in the group? General work flow
> techniques?
>
> (I use Photoshop 7.0)
I'm learning heaps from this thread. Thanks for posting it. In
the past, I've just desaturated and used curves to get the
contrast I want, but these new techniques coming out of the
woodwork are interesting.
--
Troy Piggins - I always appreciate critique
[SI] Shoot-In http://www.pbase.com/shootin
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:17 am
From: "David J Taylor"
tony cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:42:30 GMT, "David J Taylor"
[]
>> My own use of monochrome has been mainly for night shots, where the
>> very mixed lighting sources can result in some very odd colour
>> balance. Using monochrome adds mood and reduces the visibility of
>> noise.
>
> This may sound heretical to some, but I've used it successfully with
> some failed color shots. Failed in the sense that the shot lacks the
> impact that I thought it would have when I took it. Converting that
> shot to black and white, though, can provide that impact. There are
> some situations where really blowing out the whites *adds* to the
> image.
It makes the image stand out from the crowd!
David
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:34 am
From: FourthNFifth
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 00:26:20 +0900, "David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com>
wrote:
>
>"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>> check out russell brown's tutorial videos. here's one using ps7:
>> <http://av.adobe.com/russellbrown/ColortoBW.mov>
>
>Interesting. Thanks. Quite useful, even.
>
>But Photoshop is such a screaming pain in the butt. Picture Window Pro has a
>tool that does that, but gives you a single control that lets you select the
>filter in a color wheel. Simply, intuitive, easy. Photoshop hides the point
>that hue wraps around.
>
>The Photoshop CS3 "Black & White" adjustment layer's default is OK, but all
>the other preset settings are so off-the-wall extreme that they're
>completely useless. You think they'd give you a red filter that does roughly
>what a red filter on B&W film does. No such luck.
I like using Photolines channl-mixer for this, you know what color is being
changed by what. The given tutorial example in the above link I found
interesting too. But like you, the more I played with it, it started to be
rather gimmicky. Could have some possible uses but ...
You might find this relatively inexpensive program interesting.
http://www.mediachance.com/pbrush/index.html
One of its included filters is their "FilterSIM", that allows you to choose any
one of the 65 Kodak Wratten filters and see how it affects an image when done in
B/W.
In all, it's not a bad editor for someone. It's not the best program I've ever
played but has some merits, and a few features that you won't find in any other
program. It's why I keep it installed.
Check their freebies page too. There's a free B/W-Works program with some quick
B/W presets. Some are fairly well done.
http://www.mediachance.com/digicam/bworks.htm
They also have their free FilterSIM program, but that doesn't include the B/W
option like the one included with their program.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is there software out there to manipulate quantization tables or spoof
another camera?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/26aaa5b3361dadb0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 7:38 am
From: billo
I just bought a new Nikon D90 camera -- the first higher-end consumer
camera I've ever had. A friend of mine was telling me that every
picture I took can be traced back not only to my camera, but to
roughly when I took it -- not on the date and time in the EXIF data,
but a shutter count that acts like an odometer. He said folk could
trace it back to my camera, at least to the model, by looking at jpeg
quantization tables that are model specific.
While I guess there's no big issue with someone tracing a photo of my
cat I post on my website back to my camera, there's something about
the libertarian side of me that just doesn't like the idea.
Does anybody know of software (as always, preferably open source) that
will spoof the quantization tables so that doesn't look like my D90? I
guess I'm looking for the photography equivalent of macchanger
software...
Thanks!
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 7:48 am
From: Pat
On Nov 20, 10:38 am, billo <ven...@billoblog.com> wrote:
> I just bought a new Nikon D90 camera -- the first higher-end consumer
> camera I've ever had. A friend of mine was telling me that every
> picture I took can be traced back not only to my camera, but to
> roughly when I took it -- not on the date and time in the EXIF data,
> but a shutter count that acts like an odometer. He said folk could
> trace it back to my camera, at least to the model, by looking at jpeg
> quantization tables that are model specific.
>
> While I guess there's no big issue with someone tracing a photo of my
> cat I post on my website back to my camera, there's something about
> the libertarian side of me that just doesn't like the idea.
>
> Does anybody know of software (as always, preferably open source) that
> will spoof the quantization tables so that doesn't look like my D90? I
> guess I'm looking for the photography equivalent of macchanger
> software...
>
> Thanks!
If you are that paranoid, you have two good options. You could (a)
print the image and rescan it or (b) steal someone else's camera and
use that.
Of course in either case, you still have the image on your computer so
they can find it there.
So ideally, I guess the best option is to shoot film, print the image,
burn the negatives and then shred the pictures. That's the only real
safe way to do it.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 7:53 am
From: nospam
In article
<2b08bfae-1ab2-41f5-87b4-b18d8d1b4cdc@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
billo <vendor@billoblog.com> wrote:
> I just bought a new Nikon D90 camera -- the first higher-end consumer
> camera I've ever had. A friend of mine was telling me that every
> picture I took can be traced back not only to my camera, but to
> roughly when I took it -- not on the date and time in the EXIF data,
> but a shutter count that acts like an odometer. He said folk could
> trace it back to my camera, at least to the model, by looking at jpeg
> quantization tables that are model specific.
all cameras will save the date/time that the photo was taken and some
cameras even embed the serial number of the camera (i don't know if the
d90 does that). while it's easy to determine that a d90 took the
photo, it's not so easy to trace it back to you specifically.
> While I guess there's no big issue with someone tracing a photo of my
> cat I post on my website back to my camera, there's something about
> the libertarian side of me that just doesn't like the idea.
>
> Does anybody know of software (as always, preferably open source) that
> will spoof the quantization tables so that doesn't look like my D90? I
> guess I'm looking for the photography equivalent of macchanger
> software...
there are various utilities to strip the exif data entirely.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:28 am
From: "jaf"
Mr. Bill,
This news group is monitored by the Precrime Force of The United States Department of Justice.
You are obviously planning to commit a crime and document it with your camera.
Report to your local constabulary for persecution.
Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated.
John
"billo" <vendor@billoblog.com> wrote in message news:2b08bfae-1ab2-41f5-87b4-b18d8d1b4cdc@v13g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>I just bought a new Nikon D90 camera -- the first higher-end consumer
> camera I've ever had. A friend of mine was telling me that every
> picture I took can be traced back not only to my camera, but to
> roughly when I took it -- not on the date and time in the EXIF data,
> but a shutter count that acts like an odometer. He said folk could
> trace it back to my camera, at least to the model, by looking at jpeg
> quantization tables that are model specific.
>
> While I guess there's no big issue with someone tracing a photo of my
> cat I post on my website back to my camera, there's something about
> the libertarian side of me that just doesn't like the idea.
>
> Does anybody know of software (as always, preferably open source) that
> will spoof the quantization tables so that doesn't look like my D90? I
> guess I'm looking for the photography equivalent of macchanger
> software...
>
> Thanks!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to find out the shutter actuation number in a Nikon D3?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/e17afe51fd645143?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 7:41 am
From: dmkAlex
I've just purchased an used D3. Seller claimed it has only 8000
actuation.
How do you find out from the camera?
Thanks.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 7:48 am
From: nospam
In article
<7209dde2-ce6b-4c4b-a645-66b39d2253b8@d32g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
dmkAlex <dmkfoto@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've just purchased an used D3. Seller claimed it has only 8000
> actuation.
> How do you find out from the camera?
take a photo and then use exiftool and look at the shutter count field:
<http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/~phil/exiftool/>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Quick question ???
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/69dda4b17aed3a75?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 8:31 am
From: Chris Malcolm
Lowel Abrahms <lowelabrahms@removetoreply.org> wrote:
> On 20 Nov 2008 11:57:01 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>>You are greatly in favour of those that are present in
>>digital P&S cameras, and don't think it unprofessional to exploit
>>them, but you seem to think it's amateurish cheating to want to use
>>those innovations which are only available to DSLRs.
> What "innovations" in DSLRs? A possible 2 stop advantage in ISO that is quickly
> negated by the larger apertures at longer focal lengths on P&S cameras? Faster
> auto-focusing by .2 seconds? Surely you jest.
> That's it. That's the sum total of "innovations" that a DSLR has over a decent
> P&S camera.
If that's the state of your knowledge of digital camera technology it
goes a long way to explaining your unusual point of view.
> Still trying to justify why you paid out the ass for a DSLR + useful glass, eh?
Not in the slightest. It's not difficult to discover that my P&S cost
about the same new as my DSLR plus equivalent lenses. I guess you
must be new around here. I am, as it happens very pleased with both my
P&S and my DSLR. Each has its specific virtues, which is why I'll
continue to use both.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:12 am
From: sanders_t
On 20 Nov 2008 16:31:21 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>It's not difficult to discover that my P&S cost
>about the same new as my DSLR plus equivalent lenses.
Thanks for the laugh. :-)
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:38 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Lowel Abrahms <lowelabrahms@removetoreply.org> wrote:
>On 20 Nov 2008 11:57:01 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>You are greatly in favour of those that are present in
>>digital P&S cameras, and don't think it unprofessional to exploit
>>them, but you seem to think it's amateurish cheating to want to use
>>those innovations which are only available to DSLRs.
>
>What "innovations" in DSLRs? A possible 2 stop advantage in ISO that is quickly
>negated by the larger apertures at longer focal lengths on P&S cameras?
How many P&S cameras have f1.4 lenses?
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 10:00 am
From: baxter-G
On 20 Nov 2008 17:38:08 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>How many P&S cameras have f1.4 lenses?
How many talented photographers really need one?
How many DSLRs have an excellent 1248mm f/3.5 lens? (as exists on one of my P&S
cameras) How many wildlife photographers could really use one?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHDK does 1/1,000,000 second, now we are talking.....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/a7e4242c5cb98016?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:08 am
From: Wallace baiels
On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 08:35:00 -0600, George Kerby <ghost_topper@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>
>
>
>On 11/19/08 12:50 PM, in article 9pn8i4he4ovaer38ljo2ji8l55pf9gj6gg@4ax.com,
>"Darren M Crowell" <dmcrowell@removeddomain.org> wrote:
>
>> On 19 Nov 2008 18:42:51 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> Perry L <pl@domainhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 21:59:29 +1100, "Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> And again.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dear Resident-Troll,
>>>>
>>>> Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
>>>
>>> Dance, puppet, dance.
>>
>>
>> Dear Resident-Troll,
>>
>One of your many sock-puppet names should be "Pavlov's Dog"...
Dear Resident-Troll,
Your reply is completely off-topic. Here are some topics that befit this
newsgroup. Please consider them for future discussions and posts:
1. P&S cameras can have more seamless zoom range than any DSLR glass in
existence. (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) There are now some excellent
wide-angle and telephoto (tel-extender) add-on lenses for many makes and models
of P&S cameras. Add either or both of these small additions to your photography
gear and, with some of the new super-zoom P&S cameras, you can far surpass any
range of focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made for
larger format cameras.
2. P&S cameras can have much wider apertures at longer focal lengths than any
DSLR glass in existence. (E.g. 549mm f/2.4 and 1248mm f/3.5) when used with
high-quality tel-extenders, which by the way, do not reduce the lens' original
aperture one bit. Only DSLRs suffer from that problem due to the manner in which
their tele-converters work. They can also have higher quality full-frame
180-degree circular fisheye and intermediate super-wide-angle views than any
DSLR and its glass in existence. Some excellent fish-eye adapters can be added
to your P&S camera which do not impart any chromatic-aberration nor
edge-softness. When used with a super-zoom P&S camera this allows you to
seamlessly go from as wide as a 9mm (or even wider) 35mm equivalent focal-length
up to the wide-angle setting of the camera's own lens.
3. P&S smaller sensor cameras can and do have wider dynamic range than larger
sensor cameras E.g. a 1/2.5" sized sensor can have a 10.3EV Dynamic Range vs. an
APS-C's typical 7.0-8.0EV Dynamic Range. One quick example:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3142/2861257547_9a7ceaf3a1_o.jpg
4. P&S cameras are cost efficient. Due to the smaller (but excellent) sensors
used in many of them today, the lenses for these cameras are much smaller.
Smaller lenses are easier to manufacture to exacting curvatures and are more
easily corrected for aberrations than larger glass used for DSLRs. This also
allows them to perform better at all apertures rather than DSLR glass which is
only good for one aperture setting per lens. Side by side tests prove that P&S
glass can out-resolve even the best DSLR glass ever made. After all is said and
done, you will spend 1/4th to 1/50th the price that you would have to in order
to get comparable performance in a DSLR camera. When you buy a DSLR you are
investing in a body that will require expensive lenses, hand-grips, external
flash units, heavy tripods, more expensive larger filters, etc. etc. The
outrageous costs of owning a DSLR add up fast after that initial DSLR body
purchase. Camera companies count on this, all the way to their banks.
5. P&S cameras are lightweight and convenient. With just one P&S camera plus one
small wide-angle adapter and one small telephoto adapter weighing just a couple
pounds, you have the same amount of zoom range as would require over 10 to 20
pounds of DSLR body and lenses. You can carry the whole P&S kit in one roomy
pocket of a wind-breaker or jacket. The DSLR kit would require a sturdy
backpack. You also don't require a massive tripod. Large tripods are required to
stabilize the heavy and unbalanced mass of the larger DSLR and its massive
lenses. A P&S camera, being so light, can be used on some of the most
inexpensive, compact, and lightweight tripods with excellent results.
6. P&S cameras are silent. For the more common snap-shooter/photographer, you
will not be barred from using your camera at public events, stage-performances,
and ceremonies. Or when trying to capture candid shots, you won't so easily
alert all those within a block around, from the obnoxious noise that your DSLR
is making, that you are capturing anyone's images. For the more dedicated
wildlife photographer a P&S camera will not endanger your life when
photographing potentially dangerous animals by alerting them to your presence.
7. Some P&S cameras can run the revolutionary CHDK software on them, which
allows for lightning-fast motion detection (literally, lightning fast 45ms
response time, able to capture lightning strikes automatically) so that you may
capture more elusive and shy animals (in still-frame and video) where any
evidence of your presence at all might prevent their appearance. Without the
need of carrying a tethered laptop along or any other hardware into remote
areas--which only limits your range, distance, and time allotted for bringing
back that one-of-a-kind image. It also allows for unattended time-lapse
photography for days and weeks at a time, so that you may capture those unusual
or intriguing subject-studies in nature. E.g. a rare slime-mold's propagation,
that you happened to find in a mountain-ravine, 10-days hike from the nearest
laptop or other time-lapse hardware. (The wealth of astounding new features that
CHDK brings to the creative-table of photography are too extensive to begin to
list them all here. See http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CHDK )
8. P&S cameras can have shutter speeds up to 1/40,000th of a second. See:
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/CameraFeatures Allowing you to capture fast subject
motion in nature (e.g. insect and hummingbird wings) WITHOUT the need of
artificial and image destroying flash, using available light alone. Nor will
their wing shapes be unnaturally distorted from the focal-plane shutter
distortions imparted in any fast moving objects, as when photographed with all
DSLRs. (See focal-plane-shutter-distortions example-image link in #10.)
9. P&S cameras can have full-frame flash-sync up to and including shutter-speeds
of 1/40,000th of a second. E.g.
http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Samples:_High-Speed_Shutter_%26_Flash-Sync without
the use of any expensive and specialized focal-plane shutter flash-units that
must strobe for the full duration of the shutter's curtain to pass over the
frame. The other downside to those kinds of flash units, is that the
light-output is greatly reduced the faster the shutter speed. Any shutter speed
used that is faster than your camera's X-Sync speed is cutting off some of the
flash output. Not so when using a leaf-shutter. The full intensity of the flash
is recorded no matter the shutter speed used. Unless, as in the case of CHDK
capable cameras where the camera's shutter speed can even be faster than the
lightning-fast single burst from a flash unit. E.g. If the flash's duration is
1/10,000 of a second, and your CHDK camera's shutter is set to 1/20,000 of a
second, then it will only record half of that flash output. P&S cameras also
don't require any expensive and dedicated external flash unit. Any of them may
be used with any flash unit made by using an inexpensive slave-trigger that can
compensate for any automated pre-flash conditions. Example:
http://www.adorama.com/SZ23504.html
10. P&S cameras do not suffer from focal-plane shutter drawbacks and
limitations. Causing camera shake, moving-subject image distortions
(focal-plane-shutter distortions, e.g.
http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/chdk/images//4/46/Focalplane_shutter_distortions.jpg
do note the distorted tail-rotor too and its shadow on the ground, 90-degrees
from one another), last-century-slow flash-sync, obnoxiously loud slapping
mirrors and shutter curtains, shorter mechanical life, easily damaged, expensive
repair costs, etc.
11. When doing wildlife photography in remote and rugged areas and harsh
environments, or even when the amateur snap-shooter is trying to take their
vacation photos on a beach or dusty intersection on some city street, you're not
worrying about trying to change lenses in time to get that shot (fewer missed
shots), dropping one in the mud, lake, surf, or on concrete while you do, and
not worrying about ruining all the rest of your photos that day from having
gotten dust & crud on the sensor. For the adventurous photographer you're no
longer weighed down by many many extra pounds of unneeded glass, allowing you to
carry more of the important supplies, like food and water, allowing you to trek
much further than you've ever been able to travel before with your old D/SLR
bricks.
12. Smaller sensors and the larger apertures available allow for the deep DOF
required for excellent macro-photography, WITHOUT the need of any image
destroying, subject irritating, natural-look destroying flash. No DSLR on the
planet can compare in the quality of available-light macro photography that can
be accomplished with nearly any smaller-sensor P&S camera.
13. P&S cameras include video, and some even provide for CD-quality stereo audio
recordings, so that you might capture those rare events in nature where a
still-frame alone could never prove all those "scientists" wrong. E.g. recording
the paw-drumming communication patterns of eusocial-living field-mice. With your
P&S video-capable camera in your pocket you won't miss that once-in-a-lifetime
chance to record some unexpected event, like the passage of a bright meteor in
the sky in daytime, a mid-air explosion, or any other newsworthy event. Imagine
the gaping hole in our history of the Hindenberg if there were no film cameras
there at the time. The mystery of how it exploded would have never been solved.
Or the amateur 8mm film of the shooting of President Kennedy. Your video-ready
P&S camera being with you all the time might capture something that will be a
valuable part of human history one day.
14. P&S cameras have 100% viewfinder coverage that exactly matches your final
image. No important bits lost, and no chance of ruining your composition by
trying to "guess" what will show up in the final image. With the ability to
overlay live RGB-histograms, and under/over-exposure area alerts (and dozens of
other important shooting data) directly on your electronic viewfinder display
you are also not going to guess if your exposure might be right this time. Nor
do you have to remove your eye from the view of your subject to check some
external LCD histogram display, ruining your chances of getting that perfect
shot when it happens.
15. P&S cameras can and do focus in lower-light (which is common in natural
settings) than any DSLRs in existence, due to electronic viewfinders and sensors
that can be increased in gain for framing and focusing purposes as light-levels
drop. Some P&S cameras can even take images (AND videos) in total darkness by
using IR illumination alone. (See: Sony) No other multi-purpose cameras are
capable of taking still-frame and videos of nocturnal wildlife as easily nor as
well. Shooting videos and still-frames of nocturnal animals in the total-dark,
without disturbing their natural behavior by the use of flash, from 90 ft. away
with a 549mm f/2.4 lens is not only possible, it's been done, many times, by
myself. (An interesting and true story: one wildlife photographer was nearly
stomped to death by an irate moose that attacked where it saw his camera's flash
come from.)
16. Without the need to use flash in all situations, and a P&S's nearly 100%
silent operation, you are not disturbing your wildlife, neither scaring it away
nor changing their natural behavior with your existence. Nor, as previously
mentioned, drawing its defensive behavior in your direction. You are recording
nature as it is, and should be, not some artificial human-changed distortion of
reality and nature.
17. Nature photography requires that the image be captured with the greatest
degree of accuracy possible. NO focal-plane shutter in existence, with its
inherent focal-plane-shutter distortions imparted on any moving subject will
EVER capture any moving subject in nature 100% accurately. A leaf-shutter or
electronic shutter, as is found in ALL P&S cameras, will capture your moving
subject in nature with 100% accuracy. Your P&S photography will no longer lead a
biologist nor other scientist down another DSLR-distorted path of non-reality.
18. Some P&S cameras have shutter-lag times that are even shorter than all the
popular DSLRs, due to the fact that they don't have to move those agonizingly
slow and loud mirrors and shutter curtains in time before the shot is recorded.
In the hands of an experienced photographer that will always rely on prefocusing
their camera, there is no hit & miss auto-focusing that happens on all
auto-focus systems, DSLRs included. This allows you to take advantage of the
faster shutter response times of P&S cameras. Any pro worth his salt knows that
if you really want to get every shot, you don't depend on automatic anything in
any camera.
19. An electronic viewfinder, as exists in all P&S cameras, can accurately relay
the camera's shutter-speed in real-time. Giving you a 100% accurate preview of
what your final subject is going to look like when shot at 3 seconds or
1/20,000th of a second. Your soft waterfall effects, or the crisp sharp outlines
of your stopped-motion hummingbird wings will be 100% accurately depicted in
your viewfinder before you even record the shot. What you see in a P&S camera is
truly what you get. You won't have to guess in advance at what shutter speed to
use to obtain those artistic effects or those scientifically accurate nature
studies that you require or that your client requires. When testing CHDK P&S
cameras that could have shutter speeds as fast as 1/40,000th of a second, I was
amazed that I could half-depress the shutter and watch in the viewfinder as a
Dremel-Drill's 30,000 rpm rotating disk was stopped in crisp detail in real
time, without ever having taken an example shot yet. Similarly true when
lowering shutter speeds for milky-water effects when shooting rapids and falls,
instantly seeing the effect in your viewfinder. Poor DSLR-trolls will never
realize what they are missing with their anciently slow focal-plane shutters and
wholly inaccurate optical viewfinders.
20. P&S cameras can obtain the very same bokeh (out of focus foreground and
background) as any DSLR by just increasing your focal length, through use of its
own built-in super-zoom lens or attaching a high-quality telextender on the
front. Just back up from your subject more than you usually would with a DSLR.
Framing and the included background is relative to the subject at the time and
has nothing at all to do with the kind of camera and lens in use. Your f/ratio
(which determines your depth-of-field), is a computation of focal-length divided
by aperture diameter. Increase the focal-length and you make your DOF shallower.
No different than opening up the aperture to accomplish the same. The two
methods are identically related where DOF is concerned.
21. P&S cameras will have perfectly fine noise-free images at lower ISOs with
just as much resolution as any DSLR camera. Experienced Pros grew up on ISO25
and ISO64 film all their lives. They won't even care if their P&S camera can't
go above ISO400 without noise. An added bonus is that the P&S camera can have
larger apertures at longer focal-lengths than any DSLR in existence. The time
when you really need a fast lens to prevent camera-shake that gets amplified at
those focal-lengths. Even at low ISOs you can take perfectly fine hand-held
images at super-zoom settings. Whereas the DSLR, with its very small apertures
at long focal lengths require ISOs above 3200 to obtain the same results. They
need high ISOs, you don't. If you really require low-noise high ISOs, there are
some excellent models of Fuji P&S cameras that do have noise-free images up to
ISO1600 and more.
22. Don't for one minute think that the price of your camera will in any way
determine the quality of your photography. Any of the newer cameras of around
$100 or more are plenty good for nearly any talented photographer today. IF they
have talent to begin with. A REAL pro can take an award winning photograph with
a cardboard Brownie Box camera made a century ago. If you can't take excellent
photos on a P&S camera then you won't be able to get good photos on a DSLR
either. Never blame your inability to obtain a good photograph on the kind of
camera that you own. Those who claim they NEED a DSLR are only fooling
themselves and all others. These are the same people that buy a new camera every
year, each time thinking, "Oh, if I only had the right camera, a better camera,
better lenses, faster lenses, then I will be a great photographer!" Camera
company's love these people. They'll never be able to get a camera that will
make their photography better, because they never were a good photographer to
begin with. The irony is that, by them thinking that they only need to throw
money at the problem, they'll never look in the mirror to see what the real
problem is. They'll NEVER become good photographers. Perhaps this is why these
self-proclaimed "pros" hate P&S cameras so much. P&S cameras instantly reveal to
them their piss-poor photography skills.
23. Have you ever had the fun of showing some of your exceptional P&S
photography to some self-proclaimed "Pro" who uses $30,000 worth of camera gear.
They are so impressed that they must know how you did it. You smile and tell
them, "Oh, I just use a $150 P&S camera." Don't you just love the look on their
face? A half-life of self-doubt, the realization of all that lost money, and a
sadness just courses through every fiber of their being. Wondering why they
can't get photographs as good after they spent all that time and money. Get good
on your P&S camera and you too can enjoy this fun experience.
24. Did we mention portability yet? I think we did, but it is worth mentioning
the importance of this a few times. A camera in your pocket that is instantly
ready to get any shot during any part of the day will get more award-winning
photographs than that DSLR gear that's sitting back at home, collecting dust,
and waiting to be loaded up into that expensive back-pack or camera bag, hoping
that you'll lug it around again some day.
25. A good P&S camera is a good theft deterrent. When traveling you are not
advertising to the world that you are carrying $20,000 around with you. That's
like having a sign on your back saying, "PLEASE MUG ME! I'M THIS STUPID AND I
DESERVE IT!" Keep a small P&S camera in your pocket and only take it out when
needed. You'll have a better chance of returning home with all your photos. And
should you accidentally lose your P&S camera you're not out $20,000. They are
inexpensive to replace.
There are many more reasons to add to this list but this should be more than
enough for even the most unaware person to realize that P&S cameras are just
better, all around. No doubt about it.
The phenomenon of everyone yelling "You NEED a DSLR!" can be summed up in just
one short phrase:
"If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
foolish thing."
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT Re: Which free software could acquire 48 bits color depth pictures
from a scanner ?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/4a04fec022c17778?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:34 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Wyatt Alsworth <wyattalsworth@insertdomainhere.com> wrote:
> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Walt-Kasner <wkasner@kasner.com> wrote:
>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
>>>>people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.
>>>
>>>Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.
>>
>>Don't start lying. It doesn't do anything for your credibility.
>>
>>>Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....
>>>
>>>http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html
>>
>>Notice that this is almost a decade old and it's an artificial situation
>>that doesn't occur in real life.
>>
>>Which you'd know if you were educated.
>
>I guess your electricity is useless too, that's been around for ages now.
Electricity hasn't changed in the past decade. Software has.
Idiot.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:35 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Wyatt Alsworth <wyattalsworth@insertdomainhere.com> wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2008 18:50:57 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Walt-Kasner <wkasner@kasner.com> wrote:
>>>On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
>>>>people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.
>>>
>>>Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.
>>
>>Or you're a liar who doesn't even use Photoshop professionally.
>>
>>>Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....
>>>
>>>http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html
>>
>>Outdated, artificial, and irrelevant.
>>
>>Which you'd know if you were educated.
>
>I guess your electricity is useless too, that's been around for ages now.
Electricity hasn't changed in the last decade, idiot. Software has.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:36 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
gary porter <gporter@spamwontwritehere.com> wrote:
>On 19 Nov 2008 18:50:57 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Walt-Kasner <wkasner@kasner.com> wrote:
>>>On 19 Nov 2008 08:49:33 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>They're not likely to spend the effort just to allow some clueless
>>>>people to check off a "feature" that they don't even understand.
>>>
>>>Only the most lame of amateurs wouldn't know why you'd choose Lanczos routines.
>>
>>Or you're a liar who doesn't even use Photoshop professionally.
>>
>>>Let us educate yet another pretend-photographer moron troll ....
>>>
>>>http://www.all-in-one.ee/~dersch/interpolator/interpolator.html
>>
>>Outdated, artificial, and irrelevant.
>>
>>Which you'd know if you were educated.
>
>Do want to know the most hilarious part about your replies?
>
>You and all others pride yourselves on wanting the most detail, the most
>precision, the highest resolution, the best lenses and cameras that money can
>try to buy.
Another dishonest strawman from anther stupid asshole
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 25 Reasons to Choose a P&S Camera Instead Of an Overpriced DSLR (minor
typo corrections)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/541401c3b2747095?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:39 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
Stephen Bishop <nospamplease@now.com> wrote:
>Hogwash.
>
>There are just five reasons why dslrs are superior, and each of them
>trump your 25 reasons.
"Hammers are superior to screwdrivers. Here's why."
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nikon D700x another Nikon upgrade?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/b661268290174a96?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:39 am
From: "Ken Hart1"
"Shiva Das" <shivadas@kashmir-hindu.org> wrote in message
news:K9adnYmGUsUbZ7nUnZ2dnUVZ_qadnZ2d@bway.net...
> In article <yrydnX8LWNGzS7nUnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@comcast.com>,
> John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Shiva Das wrote:
>> > In article <s2u8i4t4lcvnim9gsnf5i4ji8n07n3igi2@4ax.com>,
>> > Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:12:59 -0500, Shiva Das
>> >> <shivadas@kashmir-hindu.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> In article <rhd8i4lpebmguc91da8eullahl3092no3g@4ax.com>,
>> >>> Steve <steve@example.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>> A good pro will use the right tool for
>> >>>> the job, which could be either depending on the job.
>> >>> This is the correct answer to _every_ "which is better...", "which is
>> >>> best...", "is Nykon better than Cannen..." question.
>> >>>
>> >>> The right tool for the right job, and how well does it fit your
>> >>> hands.
>> >>> No one wants to hear these answers though.
>> >>>
>> >>>> But for general purpose all around shooting if you could only have
>> >>>> one
>> >>>> camera and had to make a choice between the D3 and 1DsMkII
>> >>> Oh dear, I'm afraid I'd have to give up photography if faced with
>> >>> that
>> >>> choice. Neither one of those cameras is compatible with this
>> >>> new-fangled
>> >>> stuff called "film" that I use :-)
>> >>>
>> >> You should consider using dry glass plates. I find they are much more
>> >> convenient than the wet collodion process I have been using up till
>> >> now.
>> >
>> > Actually, I have a dry-plate camera which I use as a convenient point
>> > 'n' shoot since it takes so little time and expense compared to my
>> > "pro"
>> > Daguerreotype setup... It's also a nice break from breathing mercury
>> > fumes all day.
>>
>> How maddening!
>>
>> You can save a bit of weight, though, by using rigid but thin sheets of
>> plexiglass instead of glass for the plates. You do coat your own, no?
>
> Luxury! We used to DREAM of using Plexiglas ["Perspex" to our British,
> Ozzie, and Kiwi friends]! My mum and dad used to make us get up at four
> o'clock in the morning and steal panes of glass from the mill, then coat
> them before the sun came up, before sending us to school barefoot with
> nowt but two lumps of coal for lunch.
>
> And you try telling kids today ...
This parrot is dead. If you hadn't nailed his feet to the perch, he'd be
pushing up daisies.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: adoramazonupsps is NUTS!!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/7c8922bbef0a3ad9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Nov 20 2008 9:41 am
From: rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer)
J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote:
>Placed an order for a Sto-fen Omnibounce with Amazon, shipped from
>Adorama.
>
>Well, as of this morning UPS tracking had it 5 miles from my house.
>So instead of finding it on the doorstep this afternoon, I find that
>UPS has _mailed_ it to me by US Snail.
>
>The more I deal with any delivery service that has a "U" in the name,
>the more I appreciate FedEx.
Maybe you should have PAID for the faster delivery.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment