Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Regular digital or digitial SLR?

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:18:15 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.

My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
it's a fai trade-off.

Thanks in advance.

Jeff
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Jitz" <jitz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_s51...
> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I
always
> use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors
seem
> OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much
better,
> it's a fai trade-off.
>

I have a Canon A70 and a Digital Rebel. You can get pretty damned good
pictures out of the non-DSLRs but my main complete with my A70 is that it is
slow as hell, I try to take pictures of my niece and nephews and they're
never in focus. With my DSLR my action photos are almost always in focus.
I must say that it was pretty similar with my p&s and SLR film cameras.

Greg
--
"destroy your safe and happy lives before it is too late,
the battles we fought were long and hard,
just not to be consumed by rock n' roll" - the mekons
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:18:15 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Jitz"
<jitz@comcast.net> wrote:

>I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
>never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
>use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
>OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
>I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
>take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
>as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
>My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
>picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
>digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
>spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
>options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
>it's a fai trade-off.

First, you need to find out why your M70 photos were blurry/fuzzy. I would
suspect this was due to slow shutter speeds, exacerbated by shutter lag,
slow focusing and non-optimal technique in lower light situations.

A dslr has a much different focusing system and as such focuses better and
much more quickly in low light situations. This can be improved more by the
addition of a fast (ie, non-kit) lens.
________________________________________________________
Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
http://EdwardGRuf.com
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
January 1, 2005 1:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Jitz wrote:
> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
> use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
> OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
> it's a fai trade-off.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeff


Any decent cameras should produce sharp photos, in a sunny day or using
flash. DSLR has an advantage in low light, due to larger sensor and
possibility of getting fast lens (read: expensive). DSLR is especially
good for portraits because it has shallow depth of field, when comparing
to pin-sharpe compact digicams, so you can isolate the subjects from
distracting backgrounds.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Just a few thoughts from an on again, off again amateur. First
question, are you sure it's not you instead of the camera? Try some
shots from a tripod or set the camera on a firm surface and use the
self timer. Are the shots still blurry/fuzzy? If not, work on your
technique. Even the best camera in the world won't correct for an
operator who's not holding the camera still.

As to camera? I just ordered an 8x10 online to try out Wal Mart's new
one hour service and I was astounded by how good it was. I took it
several years ago with a Kodak 2 megapixel point and shoot. Telling
you what we've done might help you, since I'm sure that most folks will
tell you similar stories about changing needs and wants. We shot
hundreds upon hundreds (probably thousands) of exposures with that
Kodak and a Fuji 2 mp of the same ilk and we were never disappointed.
Understand that CD slide shows, on screen/online, and 4x6's off of a
little snapshot printer were about the extent of what we used them for.
Those cameras work great as long as you recognize their limitations
and practice good technique when shooting. About six months or so ago,
we bought a little Canon 3mp job with image stabilization. Wow! What
a difference. Now, even those long shots and the ones where I did move
a little were great. All these cameras take quite acceptable pictures
for most applications. The one big downside is speed. Time to start
up, time between shots, time to focus. Well, after saving for two
years, my Christmas present to me was a Nikon D70. Although I haven't
even scratched the surface yet, I don't see how it can get much better.
Turn it on and it's ready. Shoot several pics in a row and you can
see through the viewfinder for every one. I actually did that this
afternoon kind of by accident and after I shot about three exposures of
a duck playing in the water, I thought, OMG! It was just like my old
SLR, only with a motor drive that I didn't have then. I am totally
impressed and can see I'm going to spend the next several months
relearning and learning anew. Of course, now I need another five grand
or so for lenses and gadgets, but in the meantime, I've got a great toy
to play with!

Now, there are a lot of variations on the progression my wife and I
took. There are some real long zooms with image stabilization, high
megapixels and better speed for lots less than a DSLR if you include
lenses in the cost of the DSLR. There are also high mp cameras with
good optics that are nearly miniature cameras that you can literally
stick in a shirt pocket... and then there's everything in between.
Here's where you have to decide what your personal needs and
preferences are. There's a camera out there for you.

As far as technophobia goes with the more sophisticated cameras, when
the wife uses it, put it on full auto and it *is* a point and shoot.
They're as easy or difficult as you want them to be.

Just be aware that they've become just like computers. As soon as you
buy one, they'll come out with three others that are better, faster,
cheaper and prettier. ;o)
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

In article <HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_s51>, "Jitz" <jitz@comcast.net>
wrote:

> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
> use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
> OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
> it's a fai trade-off.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeff
>
If you're like most people I've seen using digital cameras, you hold the
camera out and look through the LCD to compose the shot. They don't seem
to be gripping the camera very firmly; I don't see how they can get a
good, crisp that way--I know I don't trust myself to do it that way. I'd
rather use the LCD (vs the viewfinder with potential parallax error) to
compose, so I look through the LCD but hold the camera next to my
forehead to steady the camera, keeping my elbows close to my body. Maybe
that's all you need to do to get crisper shots.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

"Jitz" <jitz@comcast.net> writes:

> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
> use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
> OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

It's *very* unlikely that the blur/fuzz problem you're seeing is a
result of low resolution. How are you viewing the pictures when you
see the problem? On a computer monitor, or after printing on paper?
And what size? It's probably a question of camera shake, slow shutter
speeds, and subject motion, and can only really be solved by better
technique on your part (including not trusting the camera
automation).

> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
> it's a fai trade-off.

I can't obviously give a meaningful answer about what you'd be happy
enough with. I can make some guesses in that direction, though.

My guess is that you're not dedicated enough to photography to take
the effort to lug around the big DSLR plus lenses, or to work them
hard enough that you get much benefit from them compared to the better
P&S cameras. Please don't take this as criticism; there are many days
when I'm not dedicated enough to lug around my big cameras either, and
either shoot nothing, or some kind of P&S. Fancy equipment that ends
up being more trouble than you're willing to spend doesn't contribute
to better pictures for real people! You have to decide how hard
you're willing to work vs. what quality of photo you'll be happy
with. None of the choices there are "wrong"; you're taking pictures
for yourself and your family, not for me.

Before spending money on a new camera, I'd make some serious attempts
to figure out what's really causing your problems with the results
from your current camera. If you can identify the specific ways it's
failing you, that'll make it much easier to select your next camera,
because you'll know in more detail what you need it to do better.
(And you might learn that you can make your current camera produce
results you like, which would save you money.)

Two things to check -- on a bunch of unsharp pictures, check the 35mm
equivalent focal length and the shutter speed in the EXIF
information. The rule of thumb is that the shutter speed should be
1/focal length or shorter (but with sloppy hand-holding technique you
can do worse than that, and with good technique you can do much
better).

Also, try taking some pictures of detailed subjects holding still with
your camera on some kind of support (a tripod is traditional, but just
setting it on a table works for this). The intention is to eliminate
any question about your technique holding the camera steady. If
*these* pictures are unsharp, blaming it on the camera in some way
looks more reasonable.

Or is it possibly as simple as you're letting the focus spot fall
between subjects, so you're focusing at the wrong distance? Make sure
you know how your autofocus system works, and how to lock focus.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:D d-b@dd-b.net>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/&gt;
RKBA: <http://noguns-nomoney.com/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/&gt;
Pics: <http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/&gt; <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/&gt;
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/&gt;
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

For someone who just wants nice images, but is not really wanting to mess
with photography, I'd go with a high end Prosumer model. You don't have to
worry about dust, and high end models have many of the features that a low
end DSLR has. The huge advantages of SLR's is next to zero shutter lag,
fast in general, bigger sensor, external flash control, SLR shooting, and
interchangeable lenses.

The high end prosumer models are a bit slower, have less image quality due
to MUCH smaller sensor areas, generally have compromised optics, and are
MUCH slower. I'm betting that these things are not going to matter much to
many when the SLR disadvantages are cost, size, and more complexity.

Ron



"Jitz" <jitz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_s51...
> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I
> always use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The
> colors seem OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much
> better, it's a fai trade-off.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
January 1, 2005 1:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Hi,

I am very happy with my new Canon Digital Elph S500, with a 5 MP chip. I make
very nice prints up to 8.5 x 11" with good color and sharpness. There are a
few manual adjustments possible, if you care to put the camera into manual
mode. It fits into a pocket, and comes from Canon which has a good reputation.
My H-P printer, let alone my laptop, allows me to make improvements in the
print-making process.

As with any camera, you must hold it steady and push the shutter button gently
to avoid shake-blur. Also, you must first depress the release button halfway to
allow the camera to focus, then press further to take the picture. Should you
just press down quickly all the way on the shutter release, the camera may not
focus properly.

Good luck.

Mort



Jitz wrote:

> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
> use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
> OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
> it's a fai trade-off.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeff
>
>
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Jitz wrote:
> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
> use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
> OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
> it's a fai trade-off.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However, if
you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may disappoint.
The reason is that the better the equipment is, the more skilled you
need to be to use it to best advantage. You can buy a $1500 DSLR, and
spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if you just use the general
purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you might as well get a good
quality point and shoot.

A good sensor, and a good lens are the most important aspects of the
camera, but the end result also depends on the person behind the camera.

I suggest you look at some of my pictures on Webshots. Those of the
cruise to Cozemel were taken with a 2mp Kodak DX3600, and the ones of
the Alaskan cruise were taken with a 4MP Kodak DX6440. The userid to
search for is rphunter42. Both of these cameras cost under $400.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
January 1, 2005 1:18:16 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital, rec.photo.digital.slr-systems, rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

I also own the Toshiba PDR-M70 and moved up to the drebel. There are
well-known problems with the Toshiba. The main one is poor
auto-focusing in not-so-bright light. The flash is also anemic.
Shutter lag, characteristic of P&S cameras is also a problem.
However, it has razor sharp Canon optics. I have gotten some really
good pictures. They can easily be blown up to 8x10. Bottom line,
there is more likely something wrong with the way you ar taking
pictures.

Jim
January 1, 2005 1:33:17 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Just from not even finishing your post you indicated you don't want to "lug
around a bigger camera". Stop right there, DO NOT buy a DSLR camera. I use
to have an Olympus Stylus 400 and liked it a lot and it took great pictures.
Not to mention it was weather resistant. I took it out on rainy days and
never had any problems with it.


"Jitz" <jitz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_s51...
> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I
always
> use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors
seem
> OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much
better,
> it's a fai trade-off.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:51:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Ed Ruf wrote:
> On Fri, 31 Dec 2004 22:18:15 GMT, in rec.photo.digital "Jitz"
> <jitz@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>
>>I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
>>never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
>>use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
>>OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>>
>>I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
>>take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
>>as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>>
>>My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
>>picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
>>digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
>>spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
>>options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
>>it's a fai trade-off.
>
>
> First, you need to find out why your M70 photos were blurry/fuzzy. I would
> suspect this was due to slow shutter speeds, exacerbated by shutter lag,
> slow focusing and non-optimal technique in lower light situations.
>
> A dslr has a much different focusing system and as such focuses better and
> much more quickly in low light situations. This can be improved more by the
> addition of a fast (ie, non-kit) lens.
> ________________________________________________________
> Ed Ruf Lifetime AMA# 344007 (Usenet@EdwardG.Ruf.com)
> See images taken with my CP-990/5700 & D70 at
> http://EdwardGRuf.com
If you've had problems (IMHO) a DSLR won't help - stick with P&S

There is nothing wrong with 3MP if you know how to handle it

Aerticeus
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:55:50 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Also look at the Canon A85 and A95 if P&S is really your thing. I think if
you have to ask the question then a top line camera will just be a waste of
money.

"Jitz" <jitz@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_s51...
> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I
> always use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The
> colors seem OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much
> better, it's a fai trade-off.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 2:22:41 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Jitz wrote:
> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and
> I've never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega
> pixel, I always use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and
> shoot." The colors seem OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and
> mostly take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering
> cameras such as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is
> the picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up
> to a digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd
> rather not spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus
> the manual options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is
> that much better, it's a fai trade-off.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeff

In short: You don't need a SLR. There is nothing you listed that you
want that requires a SLR. In fact, I suspect, you would not be happy with
an SLR. While I have one and I believe it is best for me, I am not you, our
needs, willingness to put a lot of work into a photo and skills are
different.

First make sure you are doing the best with what you have. Find someone
who can evaluate your results and see if they can spot places where you may
be able to improve results with your current camera. You might also try
visiting your local camera shop and try the non-SLR camera of your-their
choice and see what kind of results you can get.

I don't know what your acceptable quality threshold is, but I would
guess you may find that with a little help you may find you can do a good
job with what you have.

--
Joseph Meehan

26 + 6 = 1 It's Irish Math
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 6:49:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

<< My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
digital SLR prosumer type camera? >>

Jeff-

Do your kids sit still and wait for you to take their picture?

There are some fine non-SLR cameras out there. However one common
characteristic of these cameras is that they have long delays between pushing
the button and actually taking a picture. I've often had people move out of
the frame before the picture could be taken.

Most of the SLRs have a small focus delay, but nothing like the point & shoots.
I'm quite pleased with the speed of the Canon 300D. Other models may be even
faster, but usually cost a lot more as well.

Fred
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 11:48:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On 2004-12-31, Jitz <jitz@comcast.net> wrote:
> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
> use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
> OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.

Expectations too high, or sloppy technique, or possibly a lemon camera.

> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
> it's a fai trade-off.

What kind of film camera would you buy? Point and shoot, or SLR? Same
for digital.

Big difference between SLR and non-SLR cameras is the shutter lag. Some
of the problems I've seen and heard of have to do with shutter response.
Press the button, and if the shutter doesn't fire when expected, it
might fire when the camera's already moving again afterward.

I got a Canon G2 a few years ago with the idea I'd use it for a lot of
shooting. Shutter lag killed that idea! What it does do is great
product shots for the web, and that's all it does now. Processing time:
minutes from shot to up on site.

All modern cameras, both film and digital, have bangshooter mode for the
technophobic. Great for the wife.

You decide whether or not you want to work for the quality you'd like,
and choose your gear accordingly. If not, get a point and shoot and
don't worry about the quality. I'll probably be good enough in any
case. OTOH, if you want to step up to taking responsibility for quality
shots, get a Canon DReb or the like, a decent zoom lens, and learn how
to use your gear properly. Never know, you might really like
photography, as opposed to snapshooting.

Will D.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 1:12:19 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fred McKenzie wrote:
> << My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or
> is the picture quality significantly enough better that I should step
> up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? >>
>
> Jeff-
>
> Do your kids sit still and wait for you to take their picture?
>
> There are some fine non-SLR cameras out there. However one common
> characteristic of these cameras is that they have long delays between
> pushing the button and actually taking a picture. I've often had
> people move out of the frame before the picture could be taken.

In case the OP isn't aware, you can half-press the shutter button on many
cameras to set up the focus and exposure for a particular shot, which
reduces the final delay quite dramatically.

I'm now using a Nikon Coolpix 8400 which has a secondary focussing aid to
reduce even the basic focussing delay - perhaps you can try one in a
store? It has a particularly wide maximum angle (24mm equivalent) making
it great for indoor shots.

Cheers,
David
January 1, 2005 1:32:26 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

I thought about this and rather than spend the extra $500 for a DSLR I
purchased an Oly 5060. One deciding factor was that I have telephoto and
wide-angle adapters(used with my trusty 2020z) that are very small and
give me enormous reach. Yes, the camera is a bit slower than a DSLR and
there are times when I wish I could open the lens up a bit more and get
a quicker start, but it produces dramatically good photographs, with its
lenses and a spare battery can be put in a very small case, and has more
features than I will ever need. This is not to say that I won't get a
DSLR but I find that for my semi-professional work I have a lot of
camera and when I travel I have plenty of room in a conventional bag for
a small point and shoot, MP3 player and other tools and goodies.

I have some fine K mount lenses and when a Pentax DSLR kills dust and
uses CF cards, or there is an adapter for my lenses so I can use them
with an Oly DSLR I may taken the plunge -- when the price point gets
below $700.

Finally, though cameras in the 5060 class are 'point and shoots' or
'prosumer' they have an enormous number of overrides and manual controls
to satisfy just about every need you run across, particularly if what
you want to do is a lot of domestic photography. From your list I would
go with the G6. I doubt very much that in terms of basic photo quality
you will lose much of anything.

Jitz wrote:
> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
> use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
> OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
> it's a fai trade-off.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:21:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

nosredna wrote:
> In article <HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_s51>, "Jitz" <jitz@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>>I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
>>never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
>>use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
>>OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>>
>>I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
>>take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
>>as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>>
>>My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
>>picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
>>digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
>>spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
>>options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
>>it's a fai trade-off.
>>
>>Thanks in advance.
>>
>>Jeff
>>
>
> If you're like most people I've seen using digital cameras, you hold the
> camera out and look through the LCD to compose the shot. They don't seem
> to be gripping the camera very firmly; I don't see how they can get a
> good, crisp that way--I know I don't trust myself to do it that way. I'd
> rather use the LCD (vs the viewfinder with potential parallax error) to
> compose, so I look through the LCD but hold the camera next to my
> forehead to steady the camera, keeping my elbows close to my body. Maybe
> that's all you need to do to get crisper shots.

It is amazing how many people I see using a digital camera held out in
front of them. I can't imagine how they can hold it steady. I need the
stabilization of that ten pounds of ugly fat (my head) to damp out minor
motions.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:30:47 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Fred McKenzie wrote:
> << My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? >>
>
> Jeff-
>
> Do your kids sit still and wait for you to take their picture?
>
> There are some fine non-SLR cameras out there. However one common
> characteristic of these cameras is that they have long delays between pushing
> the button and actually taking a picture. I've often had people move out of
> the frame before the picture could be taken.
>
> Most of the SLRs have a small focus delay, but nothing like the point & shoots.
> I'm quite pleased with the speed of the Canon 300D. Other models may be even
> faster, but usually cost a lot more as well.
>
> Fred
>
>
>
Perhaps you need to check on the shutter lag on such cameras as the
Kodak DX7590. Even DSLRs aren't significantly faster. Faster
processors, and economy of scale is making shutter lag a problem of the
past.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 3:53:39 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

In article <HekBd.375$3m6.56@attbi_s51>, jitz@comcast.net says...
> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
> use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
> OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
> it's a fai trade-off.
>
> Thanks in advance.

Sounds like you'd be happy with a higher-end, regular digicam, perhaps with
some manual options to play around with. Check out Canon A95, Olympus C-770
(if you want a big zoom) or a C-60.

--
Feel the Sound - www.audiofil.net
d.B.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 8:59:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:

> There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
> if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
> disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
> more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
> buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
> you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
> might as well get a good quality point and shoot.

I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Andrew.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 8:59:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
>>if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
>>disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
>>more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
>>buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
>>you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
>>might as well get a good quality point and shoot.
>
>
> I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
> and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
> everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
> shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
> would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.
>
> Andrew.

If you will compare the specs on some of the latest model P&S cameras in
the $400-$500 range, you will find them much closer to the DSLRs of only
last year. This should be more than adequate for 90% of users. I am
quite impressed by the performance of my Kodak DX6440 (which is last
year's model), and newer ones are even more advanced, with faster focus,
faster processors, and more pixels. The quality of newer P&S cameras is
amazing, and is a moving target as well.
Anonymous
January 1, 2005 9:30:49 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems,rec.photo.marketplace.digital (More info?)

Jitz wrote:
> I've had a digital camera for almost 4 years (Toshiba PDR - M70) and I've
> never been happy with the quality of picture. It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
> use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
> OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
> I would like to invest in a new camera. I have three young kids and mostly
> take pictures of them, both indoors and out. I am considering cameras such
> as Sony DSC P150, Canon G6, and Canon Digital Rebel.
>
> My question: Would I be happy enough with a "point and shoot," or is the
> picture quality significantly enough better that I should step up to a
> digital SLR prosumer type camera? All things being equal I'd rather not
> spend the $900 or so plus lug around a bigger camera (plus the manual
> options scare my technophopic wife), but if the result is that much better,
> it's a fai trade-off.
>
> Thanks in advance.
>
> Jeff
>
>
>
>
With kids, you should skip the digital camera and get a digital
camcorder. I've been looking at the Sony DVD-301. It's got image
stabilization to minimize the blur and also records direct to mini-DVD.
Price is about a grand.

Bill
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 6:20:11 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
> In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>
>>There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
>>if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
>>disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
>>more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
>>buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
>>you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
>>might as well get a good quality point and shoot.
>
>
> I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
> and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
> everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
> shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
> would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.
>
> Andrew.

Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between, say a
Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and size? Only
the person paying for it can really decide. Not everyone wants to carry
around several pounds of camera, lenses, and other accessories. I have
one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST fit in a trouser pocket without
making me uncomfortable. If it won't, then I won't carry it around,
which renders even the most sophisticated camera in the world useless
for my purposes.
January 2, 2005 9:47:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:r1CBd.10008$uo1.1881@fe07.lga...
> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
> > In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
> >>if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
> >>disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
> >>more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
> >>buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
> >>you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
> >>might as well get a good quality point and shoot.
> >
> >
> > I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
> > and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
> > everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
> > shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
> > would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.
> >
> > Andrew.
>
> If you will compare the specs on some of the latest model P&S cameras in
> the $400-$500 range, you will find them much closer to the DSLRs of only
> last year. This should be more than adequate for 90% of users. I am
> quite impressed by the performance of my Kodak DX6440 (which is last
> year's model), and newer ones are even more advanced, with faster focus,
> faster processors, and more pixels. The quality of newer P&S cameras is
> amazing, and is a moving target as well.

I agree on the faster AF. Go and play with the Canon SD300. Its AF is very
fast. Personally I own a 20D DSLR, mainly due to lens choices and the sensor
size (not to mention fast "everything"). Not sure if anyone has pointed this
out but a DSLR will have MUCH LESS NOISE due to larger sensor. For example,
my old Oly C-5050 (P&S) was noisy at ISO 64. My 20D shoots at ISO 1600 with
very low noise. But when you actually look at image quality, the P&S models
are usually sub-par compared to a DSLR with a "decent" lens, eg CA etc. If
flexibility outweighs compactness in importance - SLR is the only choice.
You want to avoid buying the wrong thing and then regretting it. I found
that compactness quickly lost its charm when the camera starts to be the
limiting factor.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:49:15 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
>> In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
>>>There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
>>>if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
>>>disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
>>>more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
>>>buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
>>>you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
>>>might as well get a good quality point and shoot.
>>
>> I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
>> and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
>> everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
>> shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
>> would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

> Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between,
> say a Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and
> size? Only the person paying for it can really decide. Not
> everyone wants to carry around several pounds of camera, lenses, and
> other accessories.

Sure, but that is a totally different issue. You seemed to imply that
high-end gear is harder to use to get good results. I don't believe
it -- full auto mode on a top quality DSLR makes a *great* point and
shoot camera.

Andrew.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 1:53:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>
> Perhaps you need to check on the shutter lag on such cameras as the
> Kodak DX7590. Even DSLRs aren't significantly faster. Faster
> processors, and economy of scale is making shutter lag a problem of the
> past.

It says in dpreview.com that "

Half-press Lag (0->S1) Wide angle ~0.6
Half-press Lag (0->S1) Telephoto ~1.0 - 1.8

"Due to the wide variation in focus times at telephoto we have
included a range, rather than an average figure. The average was 1.13
seconds. This includes focus time and is an average of 25 shots. When
focus is found quickly (using continuous AF helps here), the figure
drops to around 1.75 seconds."

This seems pretty bad.

Andrew.
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 5:25:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

In article <10tdp76iotk50fd@news.supernews.com>,
<andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid> wrote:
>In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>
>> There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
>> if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
>> disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
>> more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
>> buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
>> you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
>> might as well get a good quality point and shoot.
>
>I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
>and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
>everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
>shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
>would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.

Nobody is saying that a good DSLR won't do the job. The question
is whether a far cheaper camera will do all the original poster needs.

I believe it would. Modern P&S cameras have just about solved the
shutter lag problem. The AF and metering are good enough for almost
all situations. The only area where the DSLR is indubitably superior
is flash photography, end even there you can find a few P&S bodies
that will accept an external flash for those problem cases.

I'm speaking from experience; I use either, as the situation demands.
January 2, 2005 9:21:43 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:g1PBd.11824$a62.7962@fe08.usenetserver.com...
> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
> > In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
> >>if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
> >>disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
> >>more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
> >>buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
> >>you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
> >>might as well get a good quality point and shoot.
> >
> >
> > I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
> > and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
> > everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
> > shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
> > would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.
> >
> > Andrew.
>
> Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between, say a
> Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and size? Only
> the person paying for it can really decide. Not everyone wants to carry
> around several pounds of camera, lenses, and other accessories. I have
> one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST fit in a trouser pocket without
> making me uncomfortable. If it won't, then I won't carry it around,
> which renders even the most sophisticated camera in the world useless
> for my purposes.
>

So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own DSLR
then?
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:21:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:g1PBd.11824$a62.7962@fe08.usenetserver.com...
>> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
>>> In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
>>>> if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
>>>> disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
>>>> more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
>>>> buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but
>>>> if you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting,
>>>> you might as well get a good quality point and shoot.
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag,
>>> flash, and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a
>>> near-neophyte, set everything to auto, and after just a few minutes
>>> instruction said "go shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure
>>> they were better than would have obtained with a good quality point
>>> and shoot.
>>>
>>> Andrew.
>>
>> Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between,
>> say a Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and
>> size? Only the person paying for it can really decide. Not
>> everyone wants to carry around several pounds of camera, lenses, and
>> other accessories. I have one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST
>> fit in a trouser pocket without making me uncomfortable. If it
>> won't, then I won't carry it around, which renders even the most
>> sophisticated camera in the world useless for my purposes.
>>
>
> So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own
> DSLR then?

Let me ask you, Musty: can you imagine any good, legitimate purpose
served by his being in this NG? Please?


--
Frank ess
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 9:21:44 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

Musty wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:g1PBd.11824$a62.7962@fe08.usenetserver.com...
>
>>andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
>>
>>>In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
>>>>if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
>>>>disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
>>>>more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
>>>>buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but if
>>>>you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting, you
>>>>might as well get a good quality point and shoot.
>>>
>>>
>>>I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag, flash,
>>>and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a near-neophyte, set
>>>everything to auto, and after just a few minutes instruction said "go
>>>shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure they were better than
>>>would have obtained with a good quality point and shoot.
>>>
>>>Andrew.
>>
>>Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between, say a
>>Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and size? Only
>>the person paying for it can really decide. Not everyone wants to carry
>>around several pounds of camera, lenses, and other accessories. I have
>>one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST fit in a trouser pocket without
>>making me uncomfortable. If it won't, then I won't carry it around,
>>which renders even the most sophisticated camera in the world useless
>>for my purposes.
>>
>
>
> So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own DSLR
> then?
>
>
No, I don't, but then I am NOT in the DSLR group. Someone cross-posted,
I replied.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
January 2, 2005 11:42:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

"Frank ess" <frank@fshe2fs.com> wrote in message
news:ip6dnVhhvJ-h20XcRVn-2g@giganews.com...
> Musty wrote:
> > "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:g1PBd.11824$a62.7962@fe08.usenetserver.com...
> >> andrew29@littlepinkcloud.invalid wrote:
> >>> In rec.photo.digital Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter.net> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> There are some obvious advantages to a high-dollar DSLR. However,
> >>>> if you want good sharp pictures, then this type of camera may
> >>>> disappoint. The reason is that the better the equipment is, the
> >>>> more skilled you need to be to use it to best advantage. You can
> >>>> buy a $1500 DSLR, and spend a like amount on a set of lenses, but
> >>>> if you just use the general purpose lens, and the 'auto' setting,
> >>>> you might as well get a good quality point and shoot.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I don't agree. A good DSLR has better autofocus, shutter lag,
> >>> flash, and metering. I've put a D1x into the hands of a
> >>> near-neophyte, set everything to auto, and after just a few minutes
> >>> instruction said "go shoot". The results were fine, and I'm sure
> >>> they were better than would have obtained with a good quality point
> >>> and shoot.
> >>>
> >>> Andrew.
> >>
> >> Perhaps, but at what cost? Is the difference in quality between,
> >> say a Kodak DX7590 and a D70 worth the difference in price, and
> >> size? Only the person paying for it can really decide. Not
> >> everyone wants to carry around several pounds of camera, lenses, and
> >> other accessories. I have one fixed criteria for a camera, it MUST
> >> fit in a trouser pocket without making me uncomfortable. If it
> >> won't, then I won't carry it around, which renders even the most
> >> sophisticated camera in the world useless for my purposes.
> >>
> >
> > So what exactly are you doing at this NG? I am assuming you dont own
> > DSLR then?
>
> Let me ask you, Musty: can you imagine any good, legitimate purpose
> served by his being in this NG? Please?

I will let you know once I can think of something, it may take some time ;-)

Its strange to me that someone with such a firm camera criteria (must fit in
pocket!!) would even be posting in such a NG - I would think
rec.photo.digital would be more appropriate. I can speak from experience, I
have owned 2 P&S digicams and currently own a 20D (over a short period of
time my needs evolved realizing that the shot and flexibility was more
important than compactness). The last P&S was the Oly C-5050Z which was an
excellent camera (f/1.8 lens), but by no means would fit into my pocket.
Cameras that fit into a pocket are usually good for one thing - for doing
very candid happy snaps at parties or being out with friends at a bar.
Beyond that, they have no use UNLESS the user does not care about color,
clarity, dynamic range, noise, sharpness, tonality etc. Having said that I
plan to get a Canon SD300 just for the purpose of candid happy snaps for
situations where carrying my gear is inappropriate.

>
>
> --
> Frank ess
>
>
Anonymous
January 2, 2005 11:42:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital,rec.photo.digital.slr-systems (More info?)

On Sun, 02 Jan 2005 20:42:03 +0000, Musty wrote:


> Its strange to me that someone with such a firm camera criteria (must fit in
> pocket!!) would even be posting in such a NG - I would think
> rec.photo.digital would be more appropriate. I can speak from experience, I

Ummm ... read your newsgroups line.

This is crossposted to rec.photo.digital and rec.photo.digital.slr-systems.

-- Patrick Mansfielkd
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 6:14:25 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

> It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
>use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
>OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.


I could not tell the difference between a 4x6 print from a HP 3.2mp and a Sony
6.1.
higher res is used for cropping.
just reduce the size of the pic using Irfanview, press HALF.

P&S have a higher shutter lag delay than DSLR.
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 6:14:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Developwebsites commented courteously ...

> I could not tell the difference between a 4x6 print from
a
> HP 3.2mp and a Sony 6.1.

[snip]

You need 150 PPI min, maybe 200 or so for a decent print.
For 4 x 6 that'd be 600-800 x 900-1200, or 1 mega pixel.
Please remember also that there's much more to sharpness
and detail than mega pixels, which can frequently be the
manufacturer's marketing hype since "everybody" thinks the
greater the MP, the better the pictures.

The camera's lens, sensors, and electronics pay a big
part, not to mention the amount of JPEG compression (if
using JPEG) have a lot to do with it.

I bought my wife a $150 Kodak 3MP and my daughter a $200
Kodak 4MP. Both are great p&s cameras but the quality
stinks even at the full resolution for all of the reasons
above.

--
ATM, aka Jerry Rivers
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 6:14:26 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Developwebsites wrote:
>>It's 3.2 mega pixel, I always
>>use the highest resolution, and I mostly "point and shoot." The colors seem
>>OK, but the pictures are usually blurry/fuzzy.
>
>
>
> I could not tell the difference between a 4x6 print from a HP 3.2mp and a Sony
> 6.1.
> higher res is used for cropping.
> just reduce the size of the pic using Irfanview, press HALF.
>
> P&S have a higher shutter lag delay than DSLR.

generally speaking, that is true, but in the latest lines of P&S
cameras, the difference is much less significant. For instance, the
Kodak DX7590 advertises a delay of about .1 sec. Well in line with a DSLR.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
January 3, 2005 6:14:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

All Things Mopar wrote:
> Developwebsites commented courteously ...
>
>
>>I could not tell the difference between a 4x6 print from
>
> a
>
>>HP 3.2mp and a Sony 6.1.
>
>
> [snip]
>
> You need 150 PPI min, maybe 200 or so for a decent print.
> For 4 x 6 that'd be 600-800 x 900-1200, or 1 mega pixel.
> Please remember also that there's much more to sharpness
> and detail than mega pixels, which can frequently be the
> manufacturer's marketing hype since "everybody" thinks the
> greater the MP, the better the pictures.
>
> The camera's lens, sensors, and electronics pay a big
> part, not to mention the amount of JPEG compression (if
> using JPEG) have a lot to do with it.
>
> I bought my wife a $150 Kodak 3MP and my daughter a $200
> Kodak 4MP. Both are great p&s cameras but the quality
> stinks even at the full resolution for all of the reasons
> above.
>
At that price level, you can hardly expect the best lenses, or sensors.
Try looking at output from DX7440 or a 7530.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
!