If you sent two people into the field...

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

RichA - 20 Jul 2005 09:07 GMT

One with one of the latest ultra zoom (say 28mm-400mm equivalents)
point and shoots and the other person with a DSLR with a zoom with
a 18mm-70mm zoom and had them both shoot a number of things, would
the extra zoom of the point and shoot tip the advantage of getting
a the best picture in favour of the P&S user? Or, would the sheer
extra quality of the DSLR shooter win out? Lets say the DSLR had
6-8 megapixels while the P&S shooter had 5 megapixels.
-Rich

Reply to this Message

Pete D - 20 Jul 2005 09:38 GMT

> One with one of the latest ultra zoom (say 28mm-400mm equivalents)
> point and shoots and the other person with a DSLR with a zoom with
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> 6-8 megapixels while the P&S shooter had 5 megapixels.
> -Rich

Lets say, please don't feed the troll, it only encourages him.

Reply to this Message

Charlie Self - 20 Jul 2005 10:28 GMT

> > One with one of the latest ultra zoom (say 28mm-400mm equivalents)
> > point and shoots and the other person with a DSLR with a zoom with
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
> Lets say, please don't feed the troll, it only encourages him.

I guess. Especially without considering shot selection, composition,
exposure choices and a host of other shot quality factors that have to
do with the shooter and not the equipment. While the equipment may
limit or enable some choices, the old idea that it's possible to take
photos with an oatmeal box still works.

Reply to this Message

Pete D - 20 Jul 2005 10:37 GMT

>> > One with one of the latest ultra zoom (say 28mm-400mm equivalents)
>> > point and shoots and the other person with a DSLR with a zoom with
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> limit or enable some choices, the old idea that it's possible to take
> photos with an oatmeal box still works.

Have you seen the test setup with a D-SLR and simply a pinhole in the body
cover and also taken one step further with a "zoom" lens made from toilet
roll tubes? Anything will work, does not mean it is the beat way to go. I
personally do lots of "playing around" with my D-SLR that is not possible
with my P&S, mind you there is a couple of features on my P&S that simply
kills the D-SLR, the holographic laser focusing is amazing in zero light
conditions (caving).

Reply to this Message

RichA - 20 Jul 2005 21:27 GMT

>> One with one of the latest ultra zoom (say 28mm-400mm equivalents)
>> point and shoots and the other person with a DSLR with a zoom with
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Lets say, please don't feed the troll, it only encourages him.

This issue has already been discussed in other forums and
a couple photographic magazines. I guess they need you
as editor?

Reply to this Message

MarkH - 20 Jul 2005 11:20 GMT

RichA <none@none.com> wrote in news:g91sd11ntjs10majlsh9cg3uptbc6l213o@
4ax.com:

Surely it would depend on a number of factors?

There are times when you can't get close enough to a subject and really
need the zoom: Advantage - camera with more zoom.

There are times when you want to take a photo, but the light is poor:
Advantage - camera with better high ISO performance i.e. D-SLR.

There are times when you need fast AF and quick response: Advantage - D-SLR

There are times when a troll will ask a question and deliberately include
factors that are stupid.

The fact is: An Ultra-Zoom P&S that has the equivalent of 28-400 will have
many disadvantages when compared to a D-SLR (including the zoom range being
limited to 28-400), but will be a good choice if its capabilities meet your
requirements.

A D-SLR can easily out perform the P&S in almost every way, but:
The D-SLR will be more expensive, especially when adding the lenses to
equal or better the zoom range of the P&S.
The D-SLR will be larger and heavier.
The D-SLR will not have certain features like movie mode or live preview on
LCD.

The P&S could be a good choice - but anyone buying one should be aware of
both the advantages AND the disadvantages. The main limitations are on
high ISO and shooting fast action, though some models may not be as bad as
others.

Signature

Mark Heyes (New Zealand)
See my pics at www.gigatech.co.nz (last updated 25-June-05)
"There are 10 types of people, those that
understand binary and those that don't"

Reply to this Message

dylan - 20 Jul 2005 11:44 GMT

..it would be George Preddy and RichA ;O)

Reply to this Message

Paul H. - 20 Jul 2005 18:10 GMT

> ..it would be George Preddy and RichA ;O)

Hear, hear!

I hope they leave soon, too...

And I hope the field is in tornado country...

And there are no phones nearby...

And wolves have been lately re-introduced into the area...

Reply to this Message

Psych-O-Delic Voodoo Thunder Pig - 21 Jul 2005 02:20 GMT

>> ..it would be George Preddy and RichA ;O)
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
> And wolves have been lately re-introduced into the area...

Let's make it a threesome and send 'Foto Ryadia's Studio' too.

Reply to this Message

Pete D - 21 Jul 2005 08:06 GMT

>>> ..it would be George Preddy and RichA ;O)
>>
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>>
> Let's make it a threesome and send 'Foto Ryadia's Studio' too.

I new there was someone else I needed to killfile!!

Reply to this Message

Hunt - 22 Jul 2005 03:07 GMT

>One with one of the latest ultra zoom (say 28mm-400mm equivalents)
>point and shoots and the other person with a DSLR with a zoom with
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>6-8 megapixels while the P&S shooter had 5 megapixels.
>-Rich

I'd say that the artistic (and in my book, art presupposes techinical talent)
talent will get the best images.

Hunt

Reply to this Message

Zed Pobre - 22 Jul 2005 21:17 GMT

>>One with one of the latest ultra zoom (say 28mm-400mm equivalents)
>>point and shoots and the other person with a DSLR with a zoom with
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I'd say that the artistic (and in my book, art presupposes
> techinical talent) talent will get the best images.

His question kind of presupposes two photographers with roughly
equivalent skills. The answer with that assumption is that it depends
on the subject matter and intended output format.

The DSLR will obviously win on landscape shots (wider angle, better
aperture range, better dynamic range, higher quality glass and
sensor), probably continue to win on portraits and scenes in less than
optimal light.

The P&S will absolutely dominate wildlife shots in bright light, even
at a 5MP to 8MP disadvantage, unless the glass on it absolutely
sucks. It may also dominate other scenes 12 hours of shooting later,
where the carrier of the heavier DSLR is too tired to keep his arms
from shaking.

It's kind of an unrealistic comparison, however, because the owner of
the DSLR will probably also have a telephoto lens to cover the
necessary range.

Personally, I'm quite fascinated by the release of the Panasonic
FZ-30. I was rather underimpressed by the FZ-20, but the FZ-30 looks
like an excellent compromise between flexibility, weight, and quality
-- at least if the lens and sensor quality bears out to be decent.

If it does, I will probably pick it up this winter to be a backup
camera to my 20D.

Signature

Zed Pobre <zed@resonant.org> a.k.a. Zed Pobre <zed@debian.org>
PGP key and fingerprint available on finger; encrypted mail welcomed.

Reply to this Message

RichA - 23 Jul 2005 05:35 GMT

>>>One with one of the latest ultra zoom (say 28mm-400mm equivalents)
>>>point and shoots and the other person with a DSLR with a zoom with
[quoted text clipped - 26 lines]
>the DSLR will probably also have a telephoto lens to cover the
>necessary range.

I doubt that for one reason, the people buying the entry level DSLRs
are not the same as people who bought SLRs 15 years ago. Go into the
better photographic stores and just listen to some of the customers
buying DSLRs. You can tell they've never owned anything more complex
than a P&S. They buy the DSLR with whatever lens is being pushed
(mostly the kits) by the seller and really don't think (at that point)
about longer lenses, especially fixed-focal length lenses.

>Personally, I'm quite fascinated by the release of the Panasonic
>FZ-30. I was rather underimpressed by the FZ-20, but the FZ-30 looks
>like an excellent compromise between flexibility, weight, and quality
>-- at least if the lens and sensor quality bears out to be decent.

The crying shame of it is that they can't afford to put a really good
sensor in a point and shoot right now. Some of the marketing even
defies logic. Fuji puts the low noise sensor in the T10, a crappy
little silver point and shoot instead of in a prosumer. Why???
As cheap DSLRs keep being introduced, the chances of getting a
prosumer with a decent sensor is even more remote.

>If it does, I will probably pick it up this winter to be a backup
>camera to my 20D.

Reply to this Message

Pete D - 27 Jul 2005 12:09 GMT

What utter rubbish, the same people that bought SLR's 15 or 20 or 30 years
ago, will buy the cheap end because that is what they can afford.

> I doubt that for one reason, the people buying the entry level DSLRs
> are not the same as people who bought SLRs 15 years ago. Go into the
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
>>If it does, I will probably pick it up this winter to be a backup
>>camera to my 20D.

Reply to this Message