Group: rec.photo.equipment.misc
Other formats, tripods, projectors, bags etc.
Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
>> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
>> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
>> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
>> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
>> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
>I don't believe this is true at all.
It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.
We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
reasons that have been stated.
It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
mode, then it is versatile enough for us.
It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.
It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
you should buy more.
The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
features.
Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.
We should buy the camera with the features to do what we want it to do.
It is mostly about us.
>> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
>> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
>> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
>> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
>> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
>I don't believe this is true at all.
It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.
We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
reasons that have been stated.
It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
mode, then it is versatile enough for us.
It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.
It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
you should buy more.
The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
features.
Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.
We should buy the camera with the features to do what we want it to do.
It is mostly about us.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
Wayne wrote:
>>> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
>>> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
>>> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
>>> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
>>> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
>
>> I don't believe this is true at all.
>
> It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.
>
> We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
> reasons that have been stated.
On the contrary, I'm sure many of the reasons that have been stated
drive many decisions. (I'm certainly not claiming *all* though!)
> It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
> contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
> false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
> versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
> mode, then it is versatile enough for us.
Contrast and color, in particular, are not the faults; the cheaper the
camera, the more those two are likely to be pumped up in fact!
One could stay in A mode (probably P mode actually) and still want
faster autofocus and faster general responsiveness, though.
> It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
> problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.
From listening to friends and personal experience, the P&S seem to last
1-5 years before they die.
> It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
> everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
> happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
> megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
> inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
> you should buy more.
I have 5 8x10 prints from 2MP images framed on the walls. I've put them
in stacks of photos to show people who print from medium format film in
the darkroom, too, and nobody has complained about lack of resolution.
(But I'm not claiming *every* 2MP image will print a decent 8x10; just
that it's surprising what you can get away with sometimes.)
> The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
> presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
> wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
> option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
> others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
> except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
> works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
> features.
>
> Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
> features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
> use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
> The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
> always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.
You could call them "features", but there are performance issues as
well. Fast lenses. Fast autofocus. Autofocus tracking of moving
subjects. Fast repeat rate.
> We should buy the camera with the features to do what we want it to do.
> It is mostly about us.
Always true of any tool, of course.
Wayne wrote:
>>> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
>>> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
>>> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
>>> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
>>> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
>
>> I don't believe this is true at all.
>
> It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.
>
> We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
> reasons that have been stated.
On the contrary, I'm sure many of the reasons that have been stated
drive many decisions. (I'm certainly not claiming *all* though!)
> It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
> contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
> false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
> versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
> mode, then it is versatile enough for us.
Contrast and color, in particular, are not the faults; the cheaper the
camera, the more those two are likely to be pumped up in fact!
One could stay in A mode (probably P mode actually) and still want
faster autofocus and faster general responsiveness, though.
> It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
> problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.
From listening to friends and personal experience, the P&S seem to last
1-5 years before they die.
> It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
> everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
> happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
> megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
> inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
> you should buy more.
I have 5 8x10 prints from 2MP images framed on the walls. I've put them
in stacks of photos to show people who print from medium format film in
the darkroom, too, and nobody has complained about lack of resolution.
(But I'm not claiming *every* 2MP image will print a decent 8x10; just
that it's surprising what you can get away with sometimes.)
> The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
> presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
> wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
> option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
> others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
> except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
> works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
> features.
>
> Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
> features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
> use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
> The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
> always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.
You could call them "features", but there are performance issues as
well. Fast lenses. Fast autofocus. Autofocus tracking of moving
subjects. Fast repeat rate.
> We should buy the camera with the features to do what we want it to do.
> It is mostly about us.
Always true of any tool, of course.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
In article <46527add$0$268$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse,net >, dd-b@dd-b,net
says...
>I have 5 8x10 prints from 2MP images framed on the walls. I've put them
>in stacks of photos to show people who print from medium format film in
>the darkroom, too, and nobody has complained about lack of resolution.
OK but it is certainly not the way to bet. The Fuji Frontier type of printers
print at 300 dpi. 8x12 inches at 300 dpi is 8.6 mp. 1/4 the pixels will
print at 1/2 the resolution.
In article <46527add$0$268$8046368a@newsreader.iphouse,net >, dd-b@dd-b,net
says...
>I have 5 8x10 prints from 2MP images framed on the walls. I've put them
>in stacks of photos to show people who print from medium format film in
>the darkroom, too, and nobody has complained about lack of resolution.
OK but it is certainly not the way to bet. The Fuji Frontier type of printers
print at 300 dpi. 8x12 inches at 300 dpi is 8.6 mp. 1/4 the pixels will
print at 1/2 the resolution.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
Message-ID: <Gsu4i.2124$ky6.2081@trnddc02> from Wayne contained the
following:
>It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
>everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
>happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
>megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
>inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
>you should buy more.
I've enlarged 6.1 megapixels very successfully to 20 x 16.(Nikon D70)
In fact, the resolution of the lens becomes apparent before pixels are
noticeable so if you need more pixels, you also need better lenses
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http :// www .ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Message-ID: <Gsu4i.2124$ky6.2081@trnddc02> from Wayne contained the
following:
>It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
>everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
>happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
>megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
>inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
>you should buy more.
I've enlarged 6.1 megapixels very successfully to 20 x 16.(Nikon D70)
In fact, the resolution of the lens becomes apparent before pixels are
noticeable so if you need more pixels, you also need better lenses
--
Geoff Berrow (put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs http :// www .ckdog.co.uk/rfdmaker/
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
"Geoff Berrow" <blthecat@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2ia55319j5nnsd677b8s2bck7uorhvdrsv@4ax,com ...
> Message-ID: <Gsu4i.2124$ky6.2081@trnddc02> from Wayne contained the
> following:
>
> >It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still
should do
> >everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still
quite
> >happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3
or 4
> >megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print
8x10
> >inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you
need more,
> >you should buy more.
>
> I've enlarged 6.1 megapixels very successfully to 20 x 16.(Nikon
D70)
> In fact, the resolution of the lens becomes apparent before pixels
are
> noticeable so if you need more pixels, you also need better lenses
>
> --
...and it has to be said that the 18-70mm zoom provided as standard
with the D70 is one of the best lenses on the market. Says an awful
lot about digital quality.
--
Woody (a very satisfied D70s owner)
harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
"Geoff Berrow" <blthecat@ckdog.co.uk> wrote in message
news:2ia55319j5nnsd677b8s2bck7uorhvdrsv@4ax,com ...
> Message-ID: <Gsu4i.2124$ky6.2081@trnddc02> from Wayne contained the
> following:
>
> >It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still
should do
> >everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still
quite
> >happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3
or 4
> >megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print
8x10
> >inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you
need more,
> >you should buy more.
>
> I've enlarged 6.1 megapixels very successfully to 20 x 16.(Nikon
D70)
> In fact, the resolution of the lens becomes apparent before pixels
are
> noticeable so if you need more pixels, you also need better lenses
>
> --
...and it has to be said that the 18-70mm zoom provided as standard
with the D70 is one of the best lenses on the market. Says an awful
lot about digital quality.
--
Woody (a very satisfied D70s owner)
harrogate3 at ntlworld dot com
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
Geoff Berrow wrote:
> Message-ID: <Gsu4i.2124$ky6.2081@trnddc02> from Wayne contained the
> following:
>
>> It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
>> everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
>> happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
>> megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
>> inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
>> you should buy more.
>
> I've enlarged 6.1 megapixels very successfully to 20 x 16.(Nikon D70)
> In fact, the resolution of the lens becomes apparent before pixels are
> noticeable so if you need more pixels, you also need better lenses
>
Indeed, increasing the number of pixels, beyond a certain level is a
waste of time if the lens isn't good enough to take advantage of the
increased resolution. That's why the cameras with a lot of pixels cost
more. The current trend to cameras with 12 mp or more in a compact P&S
camera are probably a waste of money as the lenses aren't likely to be
up to the task.
Geoff Berrow wrote:
> Message-ID: <Gsu4i.2124$ky6.2081@trnddc02> from Wayne contained the
> following:
>
>> It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
>> everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
>> happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
>> megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
>> inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
>> you should buy more.
>
> I've enlarged 6.1 megapixels very successfully to 20 x 16.(Nikon D70)
> In fact, the resolution of the lens becomes apparent before pixels are
> noticeable so if you need more pixels, you also need better lenses
>
Indeed, increasing the number of pixels, beyond a certain level is a
waste of time if the lens isn't good enough to take advantage of the
increased resolution. That's why the cameras with a lot of pixels cost
more. The current trend to cameras with 12 mp or more in a compact P&S
camera are probably a waste of money as the lenses aren't likely to be
up to the task.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On May 21, 6:37 pm, Wayne <nos...@invalid,com > wrote:
> >> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
> >> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
> >> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
> >> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
> >> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
> >I don't believe this is true at all.
>
> It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.
>
> We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
> reasons that have been stated.
>
> It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
> contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
> false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
> versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
> mode, then it is versatile enough for us.
>
> It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
> problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.
>
> It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
> everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
> happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
> megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
> inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
> you should buy more.
>
> The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
> presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
> wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
> option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
> others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
> except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
> works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
> features.
>
> Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
> features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
> use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
> The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
> always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.
I have to take issue with this, the advantage of a higher end DSLR is
not mainly about features but performance, works in lower light,
faster auto-focus, faster shot to shot time, better looking photos
etc. In fact it seems to be the small point and shoot cameras that
are loaded with features.
If all someone wants is a small point and shoot that is fine, but if
someone is thinking about a DSLR they should be aware that there is
much more to a DSLR then just more features.
Scott
On May 21, 6:37 pm, Wayne <nos...@invalid,com > wrote:
> >> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
> >> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
> >> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
> >> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
> >> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
> >I don't believe this is true at all.
>
> It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.
>
> We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
> reasons that have been stated.
>
> It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
> contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
> false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
> versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
> mode, then it is versatile enough for us.
>
> It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
> problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.
>
> It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
> everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
> happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
> megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
> inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
> you should buy more.
>
> The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
> presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
> wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
> option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
> others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
> except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
> works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
> features.
>
> Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
> features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
> use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
> The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
> always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.
I have to take issue with this, the advantage of a higher end DSLR is
not mainly about features but performance, works in lower light,
faster auto-focus, faster shot to shot time, better looking photos
etc. In fact it seems to be the small point and shoot cameras that
are loaded with features.
If all someone wants is a small point and shoot that is fine, but if
someone is thinking about a DSLR they should be aware that there is
much more to a DSLR then just more features.
Scott
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
In article <1179838271.905664.306890@x35g2000prf.googlegroups,com >,
biphoto@hotmail,com says...
>I have to take issue with this, the advantage of a higher end DSLR is
>not mainly about features but performance, works in lower light,
>faster auto-focus, faster shot to shot time, better looking photos
>etc. In fact it seems to be the small point and shoot cameras that
>are loaded with features.
Semantics... performance features are features, which we may choose to
purchase. Features may just be buttons or menus to you, but I'd define
features as the prominent characteristics of the camera, particularly the
differences to other cameras. Size and weight and color are features.
The principle feature of a DSLR is the TTL viewing with interchangeable
lenses. Which is quite important to me, but the vast majority dont know,
dont care, and the principle feature they want is the tinest possible camera.
In article <1179838271.905664.306890@x35g2000prf.googlegroups,com >,
biphoto@hotmail,com says...
>I have to take issue with this, the advantage of a higher end DSLR is
>not mainly about features but performance, works in lower light,
>faster auto-focus, faster shot to shot time, better looking photos
>etc. In fact it seems to be the small point and shoot cameras that
>are loaded with features.
Semantics... performance features are features, which we may choose to
purchase. Features may just be buttons or menus to you, but I'd define
features as the prominent characteristics of the camera, particularly the
differences to other cameras. Size and weight and color are features.
The principle feature of a DSLR is the TTL viewing with interchangeable
lenses. Which is quite important to me, but the vast majority dont know,
dont care, and the principle feature they want is the tinest possible camera.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On May 22, 6:31 pm, Wayne <nos...@invalid,com > wrote:
> In article <1179838271.905664.306...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups,com >,
> biph...@hotmail,com says...
>
> >I have to take issue with this, the advantage of a higher end DSLR is
> >not mainly about features but performance, works in lower light,
> >faster auto-focus, faster shot to shot time, better looking photos
> >etc. In fact it seems to be the small point and shoot cameras that
> >are loaded with features.
>
> Semantics... performance features are features, which we may choose to
> purchase. Features may just be buttons or menus to you, but I'd define
> features as the prominent characteristics of the camera, particularly the
> differences to other cameras. Size and weight and color are features.
But you were saying before that what you got for more money was
features and that if a person was not going to use these features then
it was a waste to spend money on them. But anybody using a better
performing camera will benefit from it. If for example you are
counting low noise as a feature (which I would not) then low noise
photos are a good thing for anyone using the camera, it would be hard
not to make use of this "feature".
Scott
On May 22, 6:31 pm, Wayne <nos...@invalid,com > wrote:
> In article <1179838271.905664.306...@x35g2000prf.googlegroups,com >,
> biph...@hotmail,com says...
>
> >I have to take issue with this, the advantage of a higher end DSLR is
> >not mainly about features but performance, works in lower light,
> >faster auto-focus, faster shot to shot time, better looking photos
> >etc. In fact it seems to be the small point and shoot cameras that
> >are loaded with features.
>
> Semantics... performance features are features, which we may choose to
> purchase. Features may just be buttons or menus to you, but I'd define
> features as the prominent characteristics of the camera, particularly the
> differences to other cameras. Size and weight and color are features.
But you were saying before that what you got for more money was
features and that if a person was not going to use these features then
it was a waste to spend money on them. But anybody using a better
performing camera will benefit from it. If for example you are
counting low noise as a feature (which I would not) then low noise
photos are a good thing for anyone using the camera, it would be hard
not to make use of this "feature".
Scott
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On May 21, 6:37 pm, Wayne <nos...@invalid,com > wrote:
> >> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
> >> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
> >> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
> >> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
> >> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
> >I don't believe this is true at all.
>
> It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.
>
> We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
> reasons that have been stated.
>
> It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
> contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
> false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
> versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
> mode, then it is versatile enough for us.
>
> It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
> problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.
>
> It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
> everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
> happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
> megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
> inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
> you should buy more.
>
> The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
> presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
> wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
> option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
> others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
> except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
> works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
> features.
>
> Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
> features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
> use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
> The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
> always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.
I have to take issue with this, the advantage of a higher end DSLR is
not mainly about features but performance, works in lower light,
faster auto-focus, faster shot to shot time, better looking photos
etc. In fact it seems to be the small point and shoot cameras that
are loaded with features.
If all someone wants is a small point and shoot that is fine, but if
someone is thinking about a DSLR they should be aware that there is
much more to a DSLR then just more features.
Scott
On May 21, 6:37 pm, Wayne <nos...@invalid,com > wrote:
> >> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
> >> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
> >> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
> >> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
> >> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
> >I don't believe this is true at all.
>
> It may not be true for all, but it is obviously true for most.
>
> We don't choose between a low end and a high end camera for any of the
> reasons that have been stated.
>
> It is certainly not because the low end "picture lacks sharpness and
> contrast, has poor color, and is generally disappointing." Obviously
> false, the $200 point&shoots are pretty amazing. Perhaps not so
> versatile in A mode, but capable. If all we will ever use is the Auto A
> mode, then it is versatile enough for us.
>
> It is not because of life expectency before it wears out. Shouldnt be a
> problem, especially not for a less serious photographer using it less.
>
> It is not because it may become obsolete, any will, but it still should do
> everything in ten years that it does now. We all know people still quite
> happy with 1 or 2 megapixels because they never print anything. 3 or 4
> megapixels will print 4x6 inches, and 6 or 8 megapixels will print 8x10
> inches. Few of us have any use for more megapixels. But if you need more,
> you should buy more.
>
> The reason to choose higher price is to get more features and options,
> presumably because we expect to use them. It is of course wasted if you
> wont use them, at least now and then. Interchangeable lens is the biggest
> option, which requires a DSLR. Many see this as essential, but most
> others dont even know what it is. Most have no concept of photography
> except "this button turns it on, and this button is the shutter". And it
> works for them. But if you want and need features, then you buy
> features.
>
> Even in DSLR, there is low end and high end. Differences are still about
> features. What will the camera do? More experienced photographers will
> use more of those options, and less experienced photographers will not.
> The camera features will not do it for you. Those people that instead
> always leave it in A Auto mode dont need much in features.
I have to take issue with this, the advantage of a higher end DSLR is
not mainly about features but performance, works in lower light,
faster auto-focus, faster shot to shot time, better looking photos
etc. In fact it seems to be the small point and shoot cameras that
are loaded with features.
If all someone wants is a small point and shoot that is fine, but if
someone is thinking about a DSLR they should be aware that there is
much more to a DSLR then just more features.
Scott
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
Scott W wrote:
> On May 21, 6:37 pm, Wayne <nos...@invalid,com > wrote:
>>>> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
>>>> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
>>>> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
>>>> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
>>>> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
>>> I don't believe this is true at all.
Nobody seems to have responded with the reason many of us don't buy
DSLRs: we buy what we can afford. I would love to have a DSLR with a
collection of lenses and accessories, but I get along with my S3 IS.
When medical expenses go down, gasoline goes down etc I will get a DSLR.
But in the meantime I enjoy what I have.
Allen
Scott W wrote:
> On May 21, 6:37 pm, Wayne <nos...@invalid,com > wrote:
>>>> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
>>>> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
>>>> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
>>>> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
>>>> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
>>> I don't believe this is true at all.
Nobody seems to have responded with the reason many of us don't buy
DSLRs: we buy what we can afford. I would love to have a DSLR with a
collection of lenses and accessories, but I get along with my S3 IS.
When medical expenses go down, gasoline goes down etc I will get a DSLR.
But in the meantime I enjoy what I have.
Allen
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:09:49 -0500, Allen <allen@nothere,net > wrote:
>Scott W wrote:
>> On May 21, 6:37 pm, Wayne <nos...@invalid,com > wrote:
>>>>> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
>>>>> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
>>>>> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
>>>>> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
>>>>> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
>>>> I don't believe this is true at all.
>
>Nobody seems to have responded with the reason many of us don't buy
>DSLRs: we buy what we can afford. I would love to have a DSLR with a
>collection of lenses and accessories, but I get along with my S3 IS.
>When medical expenses go down, gasoline goes down etc I will get a DSLR.
>But in the meantime I enjoy what I have.
>Allen
And yet,I have enough money to buy the top of the line dSLRs. When I saw how
many drawbacks the dSLRs have compared to a single-lens long zoom camera, I went
with 2 P&S models instead. Been doing photography professionally for 40+ years.
There's no way you can convince me to buy any dSLR. Just too many problems and
limitations to overcome compared to a high-end P&S.
Wishing for something (a dSLR) is more desirable than having it in this
instance. I've used others' dSLRs, it's why I made my choice. If someone gave me
a dSLR I'd sell it and get even more high-end P&S models for each of their
unique strengths.
Don't let the fools convince you that you are missing out on anything. They just
want more people to agree with them so they can feel good about why they dropped
that much money on last century's technology.
"If even 5 billion people are believing, saying, and doing a foolish thing ...
it remains a foolish thing."
On Tue, 22 May 2007 11:09:49 -0500, Allen <allen@nothere,net > wrote:
>Scott W wrote:
>> On May 21, 6:37 pm, Wayne <nos...@invalid,com > wrote:
>>>>> Plenty of inexpensive P&S cameras with manual overrides and zooms
>>>>> are available that take great pictures. If you are a average/casual
>>>>> user it doesn't make sense to spend the extra money to purchase a
>>>>> DSLR today only to become the not so latest and greatest tomorrow.
>>>>> That is unless you want to impress your neighbors.
>>>> I don't believe this is true at all.
>
>Nobody seems to have responded with the reason many of us don't buy
>DSLRs: we buy what we can afford. I would love to have a DSLR with a
>collection of lenses and accessories, but I get along with my S3 IS.
>When medical expenses go down, gasoline goes down etc I will get a DSLR.
>But in the meantime I enjoy what I have.
>Allen
And yet,I have enough money to buy the top of the line dSLRs. When I saw how
many drawbacks the dSLRs have compared to a single-lens long zoom camera, I went
with 2 P&S models instead. Been doing photography professionally for 40+ years.
There's no way you can convince me to buy any dSLR. Just too many problems and
limitations to overcome compared to a high-end P&S.
Wishing for something (a dSLR) is more desirable than having it in this
instance. I've used others' dSLRs, it's why I made my choice. If someone gave me
a dSLR I'd sell it and get even more high-end P&S models for each of their
unique strengths.
Don't let the fools convince you that you are missing out on anything. They just
want more people to agree with them so they can feel good about why they dropped
that much money on last century's technology.
"If even 5 billion people are believing, saying, and doing a foolish thing ...
it remains a foolish thing."
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
In article <ter653t0k8d2ltjl76o9ou97hjgakaj7jk@4ax,com >,
email@email,com wrote:
> And yet,I have enough money to buy the top of the line dSLRs. When I saw how
> many drawbacks the dSLRs have compared to a single-lens long zoom camera, I
> went
> with 2 P&S models instead. Been doing photography professionally for 40+
> years.
> There's no way you can convince me to buy any dSLR. Just too many problems
> and
> limitations to overcome compared to a high-end P&S.
Your "professional" practice must be in static subjects all at the same
distances and lighting. Quite a masterful control on your work
environment. How many jobs do you have to pass up?
> Don't let the fools convince you that you are missing out on anything.
It is you who is missing out.
--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis
In article <ter653t0k8d2ltjl76o9ou97hjgakaj7jk@4ax,com >,
email@email,com wrote:
> And yet,I have enough money to buy the top of the line dSLRs. When I saw how
> many drawbacks the dSLRs have compared to a single-lens long zoom camera, I
> went
> with 2 P&S models instead. Been doing photography professionally for 40+
> years.
> There's no way you can convince me to buy any dSLR. Just too many problems
> and
> limitations to overcome compared to a high-end P&S.
Your "professional" practice must be in static subjects all at the same
distances and lighting. Quite a masterful control on your work
environment. How many jobs do you have to pass up?
> Don't let the fools convince you that you are missing out on anything.
It is you who is missing out.
--
"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and
carrying a cross."
Sinclair Lewis
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
"Allen" <allen@nothere,net > wrote in message
news:465315cb$0$19516$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>
> Nobody seems to have responded with the reason many of us don't buy DSLRs:
> we buy what we can afford. I would love to have a DSLR with a collection
> of lenses and accessories, but I get along with my S3 IS. When medical
> expenses go down, gasoline goes down etc I will get a DSLR. But in the
> meantime I enjoy what I have.
> Allen
Have you considered getting a film scanner, and continuing to use your film
cameras and lenses for image capture?
Especially if you have several bodies, the film scanner turns them, in a
sense, into "digital cameras."
For me, the appeal of digital is in the editing, not necessarily in the
image capture phase.
"Allen" <allen@nothere,net > wrote in message
news:465315cb$0$19516$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>
> Nobody seems to have responded with the reason many of us don't buy DSLRs:
> we buy what we can afford. I would love to have a DSLR with a collection
> of lenses and accessories, but I get along with my S3 IS. When medical
> expenses go down, gasoline goes down etc I will get a DSLR. But in the
> meantime I enjoy what I have.
> Allen
Have you considered getting a film scanner, and continuing to use your film
cameras and lenses for image capture?
Especially if you have several bodies, the film scanner turns them, in a
sense, into "digital cameras."
For me, the appeal of digital is in the editing, not necessarily in the
image capture phase.
Re: Buying digital cameras - basic vs high end camera
jeremy wrote:
> "Allen" <allen@nothere,net > wrote in message
> news:465315cb$0$19516$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>> Nobody seems to have responded with the reason many of us don't buy DSLRs:
>> we buy what we can afford. I would love to have a DSLR with a collection
>> of lenses and accessories, but I get along with my S3 IS. When medical
>> expenses go down, gasoline goes down etc I will get a DSLR. But in the
>> meantime I enjoy what I have.
>> Allen
>
> Have you considered getting a film scanner, and continuing to use your film
> cameras and lenses for image capture?
>
> Especially if you have several bodies, the film scanner turns them, in a
> sense, into "digital cameras."
>
> For me, the appeal of digital is in the editing, not necessarily in the
> image capture phase.
>
>
I have scanned hundreds of my old film pictures, and not ONE of them
looks as good as any of my digital camera's pictures. Scanning is a
very poor substitute for the 'real thing'. For me, the appeal of
digital is the reduced cost, and hassle, over film. I doubt I will ever
remove my film camera from the drawer for any purpose than nostalgia in
the future.
jeremy wrote:
> "Allen" <allen@nothere,net > wrote in message
> news:465315cb$0$19516$4c368faf@roadrunner,com ...
>> Nobody seems to have responded with the reason many of us don't buy DSLRs:
>> we buy what we can afford. I would love to have a DSLR with a collection
>> of lenses and accessories, but I get along with my S3 IS. When medical
>> expenses go down, gasoline goes down etc I will get a DSLR. But in the
>> meantime I enjoy what I have.
>> Allen
>
> Have you considered getting a film scanner, and continuing to use your film
> cameras and lenses for image capture?
>
> Especially if you have several bodies, the film scanner turns them, in a
> sense, into "digital cameras."
>
> For me, the appeal of digital is in the editing, not necessarily in the
> image capture phase.
>
>
I have scanned hundreds of my old film pictures, and not ONE of them
looks as good as any of my digital camera's pictures. Scanning is a
very poor substitute for the 'real thing'. For me, the appeal of
digital is the reduced cost, and hassle, over film. I doubt I will ever
remove my film camera from the drawer for any purpose than nostalgia in
the future.
