Hello guys........Canon Camera Decisions

Fortunately I have no money free at the moment to pursue a camera, but
I am on the hunt so that when I do have the cash flow, I’ll be able to
act almost right away. The Fujifilm S100FS is a bridge camera (I’ve
been calling them semi-compacts until this week, only just found out
the correct term). It is almost like an SLR except the lens doesn’t
disconnect. It does the things I want: long zoom, 1cm macro, image
stabilisation and so forth.
For more reviews : http://www.digitalcamerareviewsblog....era-decisions/

Get a quality used dslr instead of a "bridge camera (POS)" you can get
canon rebels for as low as 250 bucks used now.


"Nick" <digitalcamerareviewsinfo@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1d4850d7-6da9-4e38-904d-9e1e0bef6f81@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
Hello guys........Canon Camera Decisions

Fortunately I have no money free at the moment to pursue a camera, but
I am on the hunt so that when I do have the cash flow, I’ll be able to
act almost right away. The Fujifilm S100FS is a bridge camera (I’ve
been calling them semi-compacts until this week, only just found out
the correct term). It is almost like an SLR except the lens doesn’t
disconnect. It does the things I want: long zoom, 1cm macro, image
stabilisation and so forth.
For more reviews :
http://www.digitalcamerareviewsblog....era-decisions/

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:39:42 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

> Get a quality used dslr instead of a "bridge camera (POS)" you can get
> canon rebels for as low as 250 bucks used now.

What snobbery. A DSLR, particularly a cheap one, is not a gateway to
higher quality photographs.

There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom
range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent
quality.


--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 12:25:58 -0700, Mike Russell
<groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:39:42 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:
>
>> Get a quality used dslr instead of a "bridge camera (POS)" you can get
>> canon rebels for as low as 250 bucks used now.
>
>What snobbery. A DSLR, particularly a cheap one, is not a gateway to
>higher quality photographs.
>
>There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom
>range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent
>quality.


about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera.
My budget had me deciding between the 'Canon Rebel' and
'Fuji FinePix s9600'. I spend days on reviews (which is what any
potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on
and what a clever decision:-)

On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:33 +0200, Dave wrote:

> about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera.
> My budget had me deciding between the 'Canon Rebel' and
> 'Fuji FinePix s9600'. I spend days on reviews (which is what any
> potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on
> and what a clever decision:-)

There you go. I find that particularly the image comparisons are useful.
For me sharpness is very important, and I always want to compare what I
have now with what I'm thinking about getting.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
news:1gg08e3yhxq5y$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:33 +0200, Dave wrote:
>
>> about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera.
>> My budget had me deciding between the 'Canon Rebel' and
>> 'Fuji FinePix s9600'. I spend days on reviews (which is what any
>> potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on
>> and what a clever decision:-)
>
> There you go. I find that particularly the image comparisons are useful.
> For me sharpness is very important, and I always want to compare what I
> have now with what I'm thinking about getting.
> --
> Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

the canon rebel is excellent for an inexpensive entry, a pro could use it
(10 Megapixels)
fits all the excellent optics lenses by canon

camera choice such an individual decision according to your goals and needs

we already had a large assortment of Canon lenses from oldie manual Slr so
that made the decision to enter pro digital with canon 10d
the rebel now has more megapixels plus very decent repeat rate for fast
shooters like sports or fashion people etc


but I did buy a bridge camera before making the switch to canon digital
mostly for me to use as snapshot camera and hubby for intro to digital
as a pro the Minolta dimage 7 frustrated him hugely, he felt very limited
with it, but gained enthusiasm for the digital (my goal to let him discover
it's wonders)
for me the Dimage was great
got macro and decent zoom without using the optical zoom
for it's time it was a high mega pixel (now it isn't ..it's old)
I AM NOT A PRO shooter, I love the macro feature and other semi pro choices
it had (under over exposure, text setting for copy negs) the lens was
versatile enough for close and scenics the two things I shoot most

if you do lot of telephoto do not buy the fixed lens camera -
optical zoom is vastly inferior to real zoom

If you are on a tight budget though a lens collection may be out of reach
after using the old canon AF lens we realized they would not work in many
situations
we are working on replacing them now with stabilized lens
the best purchase we made from Canon 70-210 IS 2.8
make sure if you do love tele or long lens to get IMAGE STABILIZER lens
digital seems more sensitive to camera shake with them

there is one or two camera brands that do put image stabilization camera I
think the concept is superior
Sony is one
they are not know for still camera but digital is so more similar to video
in many ways
maybe research it

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 14:11:44 -0400, "KatWoman" <spamfree@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>news:1gg08e3yhxq5y$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com.. .
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:33 +0200, Dave wrote:
>>
>>> about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera.
>>> My budget had me deciding between the 'Canon Rebel' and
>>> 'Fuji FinePix s9600'. I spend days on reviews (which is what any
>>> potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on
>>> and what a clever decision:-)
>>
>> There you go. I find that particularly the image comparisons are useful.
>> For me sharpness is very important, and I always want to compare what I
>> have now with what I'm thinking about getting.
>> --
>> Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
>

KatWoman pointed out a few things which made
very important contributions to my decision to buy the s9600
>
>we already had a large assortment of Canon lenses from oldie manual Slr so
>that made the decision to enter pro digital with canon 10d
>
>
>If you are on a tight budget though a lens collection may be out of reach
>after using the old canon AF lens we realized they would not work in many
>situations
>we are working on replacing them now with stabilized lens
>the best purchase we made from Canon 70-210 IS 2.8
>make sure if you do love tele or long lens to get IMAGE STABILIZER lens
>digital seems more sensitive to camera shake with them
>
>
>

Many amateurs only stare at the word DSLR and its price but may be
mislead if they don't also compare facilities and find out what the
real price would be if including al the lenses to the DSLR which is
default part of the non-DSLR.
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082412fujis9600.asp

>
>Many amateurs only stare at the word DSLR and its price but may be
>mislead if they don't also compare facilities and find out what the
>real price would be if including al the lenses to the DSLR which is
>default part of the non-DSLR.
>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082412fujis9600.asp

Quoted from the link shown here:

........The FinePix S9600’s optional Wide Conversion Lens, WL-FXS6 ,
expands the camera’s wide-angle capability without compromising image
quality. It allows the extreme angles of view normally only available
with changeable lenses on an SLR camera.......

......Adrian Clarke, Fujifilm’s Director of Photo Products, said:
“Digital SLRs are steadily dropping in price, which has increasingly
made them an option for non-professional photographers. However, this
affordability does not necessarily mean they are the best choice of
camera, especially if the photographer is used to the flexibility and
convenience that compact digital cameras can offer. The FinePix S9600
fills the gap between two worlds by combining the usability of a
compact with performance that can challenge an entry-level digital
SLR.”....

"Dave" <dave@durbs.sa> wrote in message
news:de2ab4dks2gar5p76htea193jnt4mt2rin@4ax.com...
>
>>
>>Many amateurs only stare at the word DSLR and its price but may be
>>mislead if they don't also compare facilities and find out what the
>>real price would be if including al the lenses to the DSLR which is
>>default part of the non-DSLR.
>>http://www.dpreview.com/news/0608/06082412fujis9600.asp
>
> Quoted from the link shown here:
>
> .......The FinePix S9600's optional Wide Conversion Lens, WL-FXS6 ,
> expands the camera's wide-angle capability without compromising image
> quality. It allows the extreme angles of view normally only available
> with changeable lenses on an SLR camera.......
>
> .....Adrian Clarke, Fujifilm's Director of Photo Products, said:
> "Digital SLRs are steadily dropping in price, which has increasingly
> made them an option for non-professional photographers. However, this
> affordability does not necessarily mean they are the best choice of
> camera, especially if the photographer is used to the flexibility and
> convenience that compact digital cameras can offer. The FinePix S9600
> fills the gap between two worlds by combining the usability of a
> compact with performance that can challenge an entry-level digital
> SLR."....

not to mention there are pocket cameras now with high megapixels, very
decent zoom, and will focus on faces only or where your eyeball is looking
for some people the idea of carrying the camera in pocket and having it
available all the time is more practical than missing a shot b/c you left at
home the "too bulky" one!!!

Mike Russell <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:

> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:33 +0200, Dave wrote:
>
> > about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera.
> > My budget had me deciding between the 'Canon Rebel' and
> > 'Fuji FinePix s9600'. I spend days on reviews (which is what any
> > potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on
> > and what a clever decision:-)
>
> There you go. I find that particularly the image comparisons are useful.
> For me sharpness is very important, and I always want to compare what I
> have now with what I'm thinking about getting.

Since you already have Photoshop retouching skill so you are about 1/2 to
the goal of enjoying the beauty of DSLR. And I would suggest to go for DSLR
instead of P&S (for one with less retouching and post processing skill then
P&S may suite them better) to enjoy a much higher level of photography.

- Most DSLRs are fine, but Canon is very good with high ISO and it has a
good lens system with reasonable price. If you wanna go for Nikon then
don't settle for anything less than the newer D300 (Nikon has a newer model
but I haven't read to know much about it) which is about equal to Canon 40D

- And my only suggestion is DO NOT waste money on cheapie lens. And you
should be able to capture very sharp image with top_of_the_line_lens.

I don't worship and brandname or I have Canon, Sigma, Tamron after few
months reading as much feedbacks as I can.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 14:13:11 -0500, Joe <joe@dontspam.com> wrote:

>Mike Russell <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 22:20:33 +0200, Dave wrote:
>>
>> > about 18 months ago I decided it was time to buy a new camera.
>> > My budget had me deciding between the 'Canon Rebel' and
>> > 'Fuji FinePix s9600'. I spend days on reviews (which is what any
>> > potential buyer should do). The Fuji is what I decided on
>> > and what a clever decision:-)
>>
>> There you go. I find that particularly the image comparisons are useful.
>> For me sharpness is very important, and I always want to compare what I
>> have now with what I'm thinking about getting.
>
> Since you already have Photoshop retouching skill so you are about 1/2 to
>the goal of enjoying the beauty of DSLR. And I would suggest to go for DSLR
>instead of P&S (for one with less retouching and post processing skill then
>P&S may suite them better) to enjoy a much higher level of photography.
>
>- Most DSLRs are fine, but Canon is very good with high ISO and it has a
>good lens system with reasonable price. If you wanna go for Nikon then
>don't settle for anything less than the newer D300 (Nikon has a newer model
>but I haven't read to know much about it) which is about equal to Canon 40D
>
>- And my only suggestion is DO NOT waste money on cheapie lens. And you
>should be able to capture very sharp image with top_of_the_line_lens.
>
> I don't worship and brandname or I have Canon, Sigma, Tamron after few
>months reading as much feedbacks as I can.


Important to remember KatWoman's words when she wisely said:

>not to mention there are pocket cameras now with high megapixels, very
>decent zoom, and will focus on faces only or where your eyeball is looking
>for some people the idea of carrying the camera in pocket and having it
>available all the time is more practical than missing a shot b/c you left at
>home the "too bulky" one!!!

Go read the specs on the camera I am carrying on my hip and sometimes
forget about it because it is no burden. I should also mention I am
not a professional photographer but it is a serious hobby. I spend
more money on photographing then what I make out of it. My bread and
butter is in property and my hobby is photographing.

I have seen journalists with smaller cameras and certainly many free
lance photographers does not sport bulky DSLR's.

This is samples of my kind of work - the work I love (and certainly I
do not need any DSLR therefore):

http://dave.photos.gb.net/p42079897.html

http://dave.photos.gb.net/p40034295.html

http://dave.photos.gb.net/p40012704.html

http://dave.photos.gb.net/p40012706.html

"Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
news:x1qtgidqdroz$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 16:39:42 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:
>
>> Get a quality used dslr instead of a "bridge camera (POS)" you can get
>> canon rebels for as low as 250 bucks used now.
>
> What snobbery. A DSLR, particularly a cheap one, is not a gateway to
> higher quality photographs.
>
> There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom
> range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent
> quality.
>
>
> --
> Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

It's not snobery, if the guy wants to learn real photography and have actual
control over his shots instead of just pointing and clicking it seems to me
like a waste of money to get something you'll just want to get rid of in a
while. The little point and shoots are nice and yea they have plenty of
megapixels but they are brutally slow when it comes to shutter lag, also the
smaller sensors can't compare in terms of noise at higher isos. I'd take an
8 megapixel 20d over any point and shoot with more megapixels if I was doing
something serious like a wedding.

> There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom
> range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent
> quality.

As to the larger zoom range claim, any lens with a large zoom range is a
compromize. Either it'll be soft at the long end, short end or just all
around soft, but don't worry, the p&s camera will add plenty of sharpening
for you, along with jpeg artifacts...

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 20:57:18 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

> I'd take an
> 8 megapixel 20d

Of course, everyone knows Dirty Harry packs a cannon, LOL.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

"Dirty Harry" <nothin@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:BVCvk.245733$gc5.174343@pd7urf2no...
>
>> There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom
>> range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent
>> quality.
>
> As to the larger zoom range claim, any lens with a large zoom range is a
> compromize. Either it'll be soft at the long end, short end or just all
> around soft, but don't worry, the p&s camera will add plenty of sharpening
> for you, along with jpeg artifacts...
repeat

camera choice such an individual decision according to your goals and needs

"KatWoman" <spamfree@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:w6Wvk.21971$IB6.4505@bignews8.bellsouth.net.. .
>
> "Dirty Harry" <nothin@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:BVCvk.245733$gc5.174343@pd7urf2no...
>>
>>> There are many advantages to the non-SLR cameras, including larger zoom
>>> range, absence of sensor dust, lighter weight, as well as excellent
>>> quality.
>>
>> As to the larger zoom range claim, any lens with a large zoom range is a
>> compromize. Either it'll be soft at the long end, short end or just all
>> around soft, but don't worry, the p&s camera will add plenty of
>> sharpening for you, along with jpeg artifacts...
> repeat
>
> camera choice such an individual decision according to your goals and
> needs

Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish to
point and click.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

> Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish to
> point and click.

I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?"
Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track
myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital Camera,
the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off,
you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya,
punk?

The point is, Callahan, that the mayor's office wants you to start playing
by the book. Judge a photographer by his or her pictures, not the
equipment, or we're going to have to throw your whole case out again.

Equipment is not the be all, nor are all non-SLR's automated toys. If you
believe that, then you're playing the role of a photo snob. DLSR's are,
IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of
gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a digital
sensor put in.

All that said, I'll put up with a lot of poor attitude and behavior, even
the type you've shown, if your images are excellent. So you've got to ask
yourself one question: do you have any pictures on line that might impress?
Well, do ya ... ?
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

On Sep 4, 11:52 pm, Mike Russell <group...@MOVEcurvemeister.com>
wrote:

> IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of
> gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a digital
> sensor put in.

> Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

Hi Mike,

Odious? Really? Would you agree that a camera needs at least a fully
manual option to reliably take good photos? What camera do you use?

Ron

On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 01:34:08 -0700 (PDT), ronviers@gmail.com wrote:

[re SLR's]
> Odious? Really?

Yes, SLR's are holding us back from what digital could really do. There
are any number of things we would be able to do by now, if the high end
cameras were not tied to the SLR platform.

Yes, DSLR's are the best cameras right now, and many people have legacy
lenses that it would tear their heart out to part with. The same, I'm
sure, was true of view camera lenses when 35mm made the scene. Our digital
cameras will be much cheaper, lighter, and better when we move beyond that.

Check this out, and substitute the word "DLSR" for "fax machine" to get
another perspective on how lame, intermediate technology can hold us back.
http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.04/negroponte.html

> Would you agree that a camera needs at least a fully
> manual option to reliably take good photos?

I would agree for the most part, but consider that the manual operations
that we have available today are all derived from what mechanical
film-based cameras could do. Other camera adjustments, some automated,
some manual, will be possible. Once we really crack open the potential of
digital photography, the limited manual adjustments of an SLR will seem
like a straight-jacket.

> What camera do you use?

A CoolPix 8700.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

On Sep 5, 3:51 am, Mike Russell <group...@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 5 Sep 2008 01:34:08 -0700 (PDT), ronvi...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> [re SLR's]
>
> > Odious? Really?
>
> Yes, SLR's are holding us back from what digital could really do. There
> are any number of things we would be able to do by now, if the high end
> cameras were not tied to the SLR platform.
>
> Yes, DSLR's are the best cameras right now, and many people have legacy
> lenses that it would tear their heart out to part with. The same, I'm
> sure, was true of view camera lenses when 35mm made the scene. Our digital
> cameras will be much cheaper, lighter, and better when we move beyond that.
>
> Check this out, and substitute the word "DLSR" for "fax machine" to get
> another perspective on how lame, intermediate technology can hold us back..http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/2.04/negroponte.html
>
> > Would you agree that a camera needs at least a fully
> > manual option to reliably take good photos?
>
> I would agree for the most part, but consider that the manual operations
> that we have available today are all derived from what mechanical
> film-based cameras could do. Other camera adjustments, some automated,
> some manual, will be possible. Once we really crack open the potential of
> digital photography, the limited manual adjustments of an SLR will seem
> like a straight-jacket.
>
> > What camera do you use?
>
> A CoolPix 8700.
> --
> Mike Russell -http://www.curvemeister.com

Ok, I take your point that the SLR format does tend to stifle
innovation. But I want lenses I can change and manual control – even
more controls, like you mentioned. I would also like a remote
viewfinder I can wear over one eye. The 8700 looks very nice.

"Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
news:fyovb4vj0hnf.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:
>
>> Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish
>> to
>> point and click.
>
> I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?"
> Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track
> myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital Camera,
> the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off,
> you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya,
> punk?
>
> The point is, Callahan, that the mayor's office wants you to start playing
> by the book. Judge a photographer by his or her pictures, not the
> equipment, or we're going to have to throw your whole case out again.
>
> Equipment is not the be all, nor are all non-SLR's automated toys. If you
> believe that, then you're playing the role of a photo snob. DLSR's are,
> IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of
> gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a digital
> sensor put in.
>
> All that said, I'll put up with a lot of poor attitude and behavior, even
> the type you've shown, if your images are excellent. So you've got to ask
> yourself one question: do you have any pictures on line that might
> impress?
> Well, do ya ... ?
> --
> Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

I'm glad you asked as I'm a huge fan of night time photography. Darn, you
cant do that on a point and shoot because most of them have a max open
shutter time of 15 seconds and even at 15 seconds the sensor noise is
BRUTAL! Why? It's a physical limitation because of the sensor size,
they're trying to pack all those mega pixels on to an area the size of my
thumb nail. The small sensor also leads to a very small lens on the front.
Guess what that means? It means you're not going to be taking any photos
with a nice background blur (unless you're in the macro range, not so good
for portraits). The depth of field on a p&s is about equivalent to f 16 on
an slr (look it up if you don't believe me). You might not want background
blur for everything but its nice to have the option, I don't know how many
people have asked me "can you do those pictures with the blurry background?"
http://www.dustingodwinphoto.com/bird.jpg see the nice cage cause it was
shot in a zoo? Nope but on a p&s you sure would!
Some night shots that would be IMPOSSIBLE to take on a p&s:
http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...s/img_1425.jpg - judging by the
star trails that was at least a 5 min exposure.
http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...g_0689_5x7.jpg this was
probably only 10-15 seconds but it's completely noise free.
http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...g_2715_4x6.jpg
http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...d_img_7461.jpg
http://dustingodwinphoto.com/edmonto...100007_rt8.jpg
http://dustingodwinphoto.com/reddeer...s/IMG_8026.jpg - 30 seconds...
I could dig up another 100 images taken at night that wouldn't be possible
on a p&s but I haven't updated the site in forever...

Now don't get me wrong, even I say to myself it would be nice to have a
little camera I could throw in my pocket but for anything serious I'd be
chocked at myself if I saw something awesome and I was stuck without my slr.
ARGH how do I get a shallow DOF on this thing? What? I can't take my night
pictures unless I want more grain then the local wheat pool? Why am I
pressing the button and nothing is happening (waits for 2 seconds for the
camera to finally take the picture)? I love it when I let someone try my
camera and they take about 10 pictures the first time they press the button
because they're not expecting the camera to work so fast, followed by a
"holy shit!"

I also forgot about the wide angle thing, p&s doesn't have a wide angle,
sure you can set a silly adapter to screw on the front but the image quaity
is going to go right out the window. If you only want 4x6 picutres it's ok
but if you took some really nice pictures wouldn't you like to print them at
a decent size?
www.dustingodwinphoto.com/drhdr.jpg
www.dustingodwinphoto.com/whiteswan2.jpg
www.dustingodwinphoto.com/drhdr2.jpg
all shot at 10mm
Heres a few more long exposure pictures that wouldn't be happening on a p&s
www.dustingodwinphoto.com/doubletri.jpg
www.dustingodwinphoto.com/woot3.jpg
www.dustingodwinphoto.com/powercamera.jpg witness the power of the 20 year
old slr lol. I did that by waving around an LED flashlight, you guessed it,
for at least 30 seconds.

On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:03:20 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:

> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
> news:fyovb4vj0hnf.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:
>>
>>> Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who whish
>>> to
>>> point and click.
>>
>> I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?"
>> Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track
>> myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital Camera,
>> the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off,
>> you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya,
>> punk?
>>
>> The point is, Callahan, that the mayor's office wants you to start playing
>> by the book. Judge a photographer by his or her pictures, not the
>> equipment, or we're going to have to throw your whole case out again.
>>
>> Equipment is not the be all, nor are all non-SLR's automated toys. If you
>> believe that, then you're playing the role of a photo snob. DLSR's are,
>> IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of
>> gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a digital
>> sensor put in.
>>
>> All that said, I'll put up with a lot of poor attitude and behavior, even
>> the type you've shown, if your images are excellent. So you've got to ask
>> yourself one question: do you have any pictures on line that might
>> impress?
>> Well, do ya ... ?
>> --
>> Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
>
> I'm glad you asked as I'm a huge fan of night time photography. Darn, you
> cant do that on a point and shoot because most of them have a max open
> shutter time of 15 seconds and even at 15 seconds the sensor noise is
> BRUTAL! Why? It's a physical limitation because of the sensor size,
> they're trying to pack all those mega pixels on to an area the size of my
> thumb nail. The small sensor also leads to a very small lens on the front.
> Guess what that means? It means you're not going to be taking any photos
> with a nice background blur (unless you're in the macro range, not so good
> for portraits). The depth of field on a p&s is about equivalent to f 16 on
> an slr (look it up if you don't believe me). You might not want background
> blur for everything but its nice to have the option, I don't know how many
> people have asked me "can you do those pictures with the blurry background?"
> http://www.dustingodwinphoto.com/bird.jpg see the nice cage cause it was
> shot in a zoo? Nope but on a p&s you sure would!
> Some night shots that would be IMPOSSIBLE to take on a p&s:
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...s/img_1425.jpg - judging by the
> star trails that was at least a 5 min exposure.
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...g_0689_5x7.jpg this was
> probably only 10-15 seconds but it's completely noise free.
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...g_2715_4x6.jpg
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/landsca...d_img_7461.jpg
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/edmonto...100007_rt8.jpg
> http://dustingodwinphoto.com/reddeer...s/IMG_8026.jpg - 30 seconds...
> I could dig up another 100 images taken at night that wouldn't be possible
> on a p&s but I haven't updated the site in forever...
>
> Now don't get me wrong, even I say to myself it would be nice to have a
> little camera I could throw in my pocket but for anything serious I'd be
> chocked at myself if I saw something awesome and I was stuck without my slr.
> ARGH how do I get a shallow DOF on this thing? What? I can't take my night
> pictures unless I want more grain then the local wheat pool? Why am I
> pressing the button and nothing is happening (waits for 2 seconds for the
> camera to finally take the picture)? I love it when I let someone try my
> camera and they take about 10 pictures the first time they press the button
> because they're not expecting the camera to work so fast, followed by a
> "holy shit!"

Well, I gotta say these are some fine images, Dirty Harry. I'll give you
some slack. I'm a fan of night photography too.
--
Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com

"Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
news:1l0tpc42q1uww$.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 16:03:20 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:
>
>> "Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
>> news:fyovb4vj0hnf.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
>>> On Fri, 05 Sep 2008 00:08:49 GMT, Dirty Harry wrote:
>>>
>>>> Exactly! There are those who wish to learn the craft and those who
>>>> whish
>>>> to
>>>> point and click.
>>>
>>> I know what you're thinking. "Did he fire 21 megapixels or only eight?"
>>> Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kind of lost track
>>> myself. But being as this is a .Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III SLR Digital
>>> Camera,
>>> the most powerful DSLR in the world, and would blow your head clean off,
>>> you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya,
>>> punk?
>>>
>>> The point is, Callahan, that the mayor's office wants you to start
>>> playing
>>> by the book. Judge a photographer by his or her pictures, not the
>>> equipment, or we're going to have to throw your whole case out again.
>>>
>>> Equipment is not the be all, nor are all non-SLR's automated toys. If
>>> you
>>> believe that, then you're playing the role of a photo snob. DLSR's are,
>>> IMHO, an odious legacy from a now ancient 20th century analog world of
>>> gears and moving mirrors, only the film has been yanked out and a
>>> digital
>>> sensor put in.
>