Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras


"franklin-d-worth" <fdworth@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:baajj39bvm3uhhu9rcuubtq1asipbpp3co@4ax,com ...
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:50:55 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter,net >
> wrote:
>
>>aniramca@gmail,com wrote:
>>> The other day, I saw the new Sony P&S camera - DSC H3. On top of the
>>> camera, it was indicated that it has a strong built in flash. I went
>>> to search about built-in flash feature in a digital camera at the
>>> dpreview website and found the following:
>>> For P&S digital cameras: Canon G7 has a weak flash, Flash guide of 4m.
>>> Canon S51S is stronger. Sony H3 has a Flash guide no. of 7m, while as
>>> Sony DSC H7 or H9 is the strongest I found for P&S camera - Flash
>>> Guide of 9.8m. Canon SX100 is even worse than the G7/G9 - at only 3m.
>>> Lumix Fz18/FZ8 has a flash guide of 6m, and FZ50 has 7m. Nikon 5100 is
>>> much better than G7/G9 at 8m.
>>> For DSLR: Most cameras with built-in flash has Flash Guide around
>>> 11-13m. Canon 5D does not even have a built-in flash. Surprisingly,
>>> Nikon D40 and D40x has flash guide no. of 17m. As comparison, Canon
>>> 40D/30D/Xti all have only a flash guide of 12m.
>>> - Why P&S cameras have relatively weaker built-in flash than the DSLR?
>>> Could P&S cameras be designed to have stronger built-in flash like a
>>> DSLR?
>>> - I noticed that my P&S camera usually is too weak to take picture in
>>> large indoors (restaurant, meeting halls, etc). Could this be improved
>>> by stronger flash? I have always complained in the past that most P&S
>>> cameras have tiny built-in flash, and without a hot-shoe, you cannot
>>> improve your lighting in indoor shots.
>>> - Anyone tried the built-in flash in Sony H3 or Sony H7 and H9?. Are
>>> they much better than flash in other cameras, particularly the low
>>> ones like Canon G7/SX100? Does this mean that Sony H3/H7/H9 is
>>> superior for taking photo indoors for people in a group than, say
>>> Canon G7/G9? I found that Sony H3 is a good competitor against Canon
>>> G7/G9 or Nikon P5100. It may have less features than G7/G9, but it
>>> makes good quality images and it is cheaper than a G7/G9. It is also
>>> as compact as a G7/G9 or Nikon P5100.
>>> - Is built in flash in Nikon D40x really stronger than flash in a
>>> Canon Xti?
>>> - How much difference are relatively between a Flash Guide of 3m, 7m,
>>> 12m and 17m ? I assume that this is all based on ASA100? Does a flash
>>> guide 17m mean that you can get a good coverage of flash to 17m
>>> distance?
>>> - Panasonic Lumix L1 is about the only DSLR camera that has extended
>>> pop-up flash feature (ie. 2 level heights). What is the advantage of
>>> this? Less red-eye images?
>>> - Are there digital cameras (P&S or DSLR) which have two or more modes
>>> of flash strength in their built in flash?
>>> Thanks for the info and discussion.
>>>
>>
>>Ok, to begin with, larger cameras can mount larger flash tubes, and have
>>space for more battery power to keep them flashing. Smaller cameras
>>just don't have the space, or battery power to accommodate the larger
>>flash mechanisms.
>>Some cameras do control the brightness of the flash, usually in concert
>>with the light metering, and the focusing system. Others don't. Look
>>for that information in the specs.
>>P&S cameras aren't designed to take flash pictures in large areas, so
>>they don't manage well in this application. It is just a matter of
>>limitations of size, weight, and battery power imposed by their size.
>>If you routinely take pictures in such situations, then a P&S camera is
>>probably not for you.
>>Reviews usually list the flash distances with comments about the usable
>>range.
>
> Let's weigh the identical flash-reach options, shall we?
>
> dSLR + built-in high-power flash = always overweight, always expensive,
> internal dedicated flash failure = whole camera goes in for repair
>
> P&S + accessory flash = lightweight w/o high-power flash, adaptable,
> inexpensive, flash failure = use a different or new flash, any flash
> option on
> the market
>
> Sorry, dSLR still doesn't win even for its built in flash. In fact if a
> dSLR
> really wanted to be more of an SLR than a P&S it wouldn't have a built-in
> flash
> to begin with, taking up all that extra irremovable size, weight, and
> cost. I
> can't recall even one professional SLR from the past that would even think
> of
> including an onboard flash. Flash was always an accessory and rightly so.
> No Pro
> in his right mind would buy a camera with a flash built into it. That was
> a sign
> of cheapness and P&S convenience. It makes any camera look like a $15
> Instamatic. (I wonder if this is why I buy P&S cameras where the flash
> folds
> down to where you can't even tell it has one.)
>
> Isn't it funny as the years go on the dSLR "Pro" people are always
> clamoring for
> more and more P&S features on their cameras. Auto focus, auto-exposure,
> live-view for that amplified viewfinder in low light and seeing
> shutter-speed
> effects, on-board flash, silent operation, ..... I bet some of them even
> want
> audio and video recording capability too now.
>
> Is this another clue into why they speak out against P&S cameras so much?
> It's
> not because they don't like P&S cameras it's really out of envy and
> jealousy
> that their dSLR can't be more like a P&S camera. If their dSLR was that
> great
> why would they feel the need to belittle other cameras? It's all starting
> to
> make perfect sense -- P'n'S Envy.
>
> What an odd and accurate coincidental homophone, eh?


Funny. But inaccurate. There may well be a large number of amateur
photographers who have bought dSLRs and who later regret it because their
chosen camera doesn't have the bells and whistles of a P&S. On the other
hand there are a lot of photographers who have bought dSLRs because the
camera offers them a lot more than does a P&S in terms of control. I guess
that this might be the same difference as between those who bought an
Instamatic or a Brownie and those who bought an analogue SLR. Personally I
like the trend for a good dSLR that actually moves away from the cheap
digital tricks. The Pentax K10D, for one, has been designed to mimic an
analogue camera as nearly as possible and the designers' have shied away
from building in many of the commoner *digital* settings.

That's all.

Bill

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:00:50 +0100, "Bill Again" <sd@msn,com > wrote:

>
>"franklin-d-worth" <fdworth@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>news:baajj39bvm3uhhu9rcuubtq1asipbpp3co@4ax,com ...
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:50:55 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter,net >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>aniramca@gmail,com wrote:
>>>> The other day, I saw the new Sony P&S camera - DSC H3. On top of the
>>>> camera, it was indicated that it has a strong built in flash. I went
>>>> to search about built-in flash feature in a digital camera at the
>>>> dpreview website and found the following:
>>>> For P&S digital cameras: Canon G7 has a weak flash, Flash guide of 4m.
>>>> Canon S51S is stronger. Sony H3 has a Flash guide no. of 7m, while as
>>>> Sony DSC H7 or H9 is the strongest I found for P&S camera - Flash
>>>> Guide of 9.8m. Canon SX100 is even worse than the G7/G9 - at only 3m.
>>>> Lumix Fz18/FZ8 has a flash guide of 6m, and FZ50 has 7m. Nikon 5100 is
>>>> much better than G7/G9 at 8m.
>>>> For DSLR: Most cameras with built-in flash has Flash Guide around
>>>> 11-13m. Canon 5D does not even have a built-in flash. Surprisingly,
>>>> Nikon D40 and D40x has flash guide no. of 17m. As comparison, Canon
>>>> 40D/30D/Xti all have only a flash guide of 12m.
>>>> - Why P&S cameras have relatively weaker built-in flash than the DSLR?
>>>> Could P&S cameras be designed to have stronger built-in flash like a
>>>> DSLR?
>>>> - I noticed that my P&S camera usually is too weak to take picture in
>>>> large indoors (restaurant, meeting halls, etc). Could this be improved
>>>> by stronger flash? I have always complained in the past that most P&S
>>>> cameras have tiny built-in flash, and without a hot-shoe, you cannot
>>>> improve your lighting in indoor shots.
>>>> - Anyone tried the built-in flash in Sony H3 or Sony H7 and H9?. Are
>>>> they much better than flash in other cameras, particularly the low
>>>> ones like Canon G7/SX100? Does this mean that Sony H3/H7/H9 is
>>>> superior for taking photo indoors for people in a group than, say
>>>> Canon G7/G9? I found that Sony H3 is a good competitor against Canon
>>>> G7/G9 or Nikon P5100. It may have less features than G7/G9, but it
>>>> makes good quality images and it is cheaper than a G7/G9. It is also
>>>> as compact as a G7/G9 or Nikon P5100.
>>>> - Is built in flash in Nikon D40x really stronger than flash in a
>>>> Canon Xti?
>>>> - How much difference are relatively between a Flash Guide of 3m, 7m,
>>>> 12m and 17m ? I assume that this is all based on ASA100? Does a flash
>>>> guide 17m mean that you can get a good coverage of flash to 17m
>>>> distance?
>>>> - Panasonic Lumix L1 is about the only DSLR camera that has extended
>>>> pop-up flash feature (ie. 2 level heights). What is the advantage of
>>>> this? Less red-eye images?
>>>> - Are there digital cameras (P&S or DSLR) which have two or more modes
>>>> of flash strength in their built in flash?
>>>> Thanks for the info and discussion.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Ok, to begin with, larger cameras can mount larger flash tubes, and have
>>>space for more battery power to keep them flashing. Smaller cameras
>>>just don't have the space, or battery power to accommodate the larger
>>>flash mechanisms.
>>>Some cameras do control the brightness of the flash, usually in concert
>>>with the light metering, and the focusing system. Others don't. Look
>>>for that information in the specs.
>>>P&S cameras aren't designed to take flash pictures in large areas, so
>>>they don't manage well in this application. It is just a matter of
>>>limitations of size, weight, and battery power imposed by their size.
>>>If you routinely take pictures in such situations, then a P&S camera is
>>>probably not for you.
>>>Reviews usually list the flash distances with comments about the usable
>>>range.
>>
>> Let's weigh the identical flash-reach options, shall we?
>>
>> dSLR + built-in high-power flash = always overweight, always expensive,
>> internal dedicated flash failure = whole camera goes in for repair
>>
>> P&S + accessory flash = lightweight w/o high-power flash, adaptable,
>> inexpensive, flash failure = use a different or new flash, any flash
>> option on
>> the market
>>
>> Sorry, dSLR still doesn't win even for its built in flash. In fact if a
>> dSLR
>> really wanted to be more of an SLR than a P&S it wouldn't have a built-in
>> flash
>> to begin with, taking up all that extra irremovable size, weight, and
>> cost. I
>> can't recall even one professional SLR from the past that would even think
>> of
>> including an onboard flash. Flash was always an accessory and rightly so.
>> No Pro
>> in his right mind would buy a camera with a flash built into it. That was
>> a sign
>> of cheapness and P&S convenience. It makes any camera look like a $15
>> Instamatic. (I wonder if this is why I buy P&S cameras where the flash
>> folds
>> down to where you can't even tell it has one.)
>>
>> Isn't it funny as the years go on the dSLR "Pro" people are always
>> clamoring for
>> more and more P&S features on their cameras. Auto focus, auto-exposure,
>> live-view for that amplified viewfinder in low light and seeing
>> shutter-speed
>> effects, on-board flash, silent operation, ..... I bet some of them even
>> want
>> audio and video recording capability too now.
>>
>> Is this another clue into why they speak out against P&S cameras so much?
>> It's
>> not because they don't like P&S cameras it's really out of envy and
>> jealousy
>> that their dSLR can't be more like a P&S camera. If their dSLR was that
>> great
>> why would they feel the need to belittle other cameras? It's all starting
>> to
>> make perfect sense -- P'n'S Envy.
>>
>> What an odd and accurate coincidental homophone, eh?
>
>
>Funny. But inaccurate. There may well be a large number of amateur
>photographers who have bought dSLRs and who later regret it because their
>chosen camera doesn't have the bells and whistles of a P&S. On the other
>hand there are a lot of photographers who have bought dSLRs because the
>camera offers them a lot more than does a P&S in terms of control. I guess
>that this might be the same difference as between those who bought an
>Instamatic or a Brownie and those who bought an analogue SLR. Personally I
>like the trend for a good dSLR that actually moves away from the cheap
>digital tricks. The Pentax K10D, for one, has been designed to mimic an
>analogue camera as nearly as possible and the designers' have shied away
>from building in many of the commoner *digital* settings.
>
>That's all.
>
>Bill
>

If it's the amount of control that determines the absolute in cameras then I
guess a P&S designed to let you choose shooting between available light or
infra-red spectrums with the push of a button, and using manual focusing and
zoom rings on an 11mm-320mm (+macro) f/2.0-2.4 Zeiss lens must be the ultimate
in control, along with all the usual shutter, f-stop, !00-3200 ISO, and other
manual controls. I'm accurately describing one of my own P&S cameras by the way.

No, that's not the ultimate in control. Some of the P&S cameras that can run
CHDK today are the ultimate in manual or automated control. Some of their
controllable options easily beating even the $12,000 dSLR bodies being sold this
year. Can you manually choose what colors you'd like on your under/over-exposure
viewfinder overlay or by what limits that you want that under/over detection
sensitivity? Can you control up to 1024 areas of your viewfinder, their
sampling-rates, and sensitivity levels in each region that you want to detect
subject-motion to trigger your shutter? Choose between 7 different
live-histograms? 108 different video-compression options in 2 different flavors?
Can you design your own cropping and composition masks for your viewfinder in
any colors you want? This list is extremely long so I won't mention them all,
there's a whole CHDK dedicated web-site to describe all that you can control on
your CHDK-capable camera. The scripting options also allowing for automated
control of the camera's manual features that no other cameras on earth can equal
(such as 96 steps per f-stop for EV and flash levels). If these P&S cameras only
had IR and UV options too ... sigh ...

If it's control that determines the best of all cameras then you're really going
to have to look into the P&S models now and in the past. I've not found one dSLR
yet that allows for the amount of myriad ways that one can control a P&S camera.
This includes being able to control the ways that it can record stereo-audio and
videos too. Put a higher quality lower-noise sensor into any of the high-quality
super-zoom P&S camera that I've already bought and that's all that anyone would
ever need.

While you're trying to control the limited features of that dSLR, would you
PLEASE do something about controlling that obnoxious sound they make so that
cameras are allowed back into public performances? Thanks. That's another
control option I get to have. I can control if I want my camera to make noises
or not and how loud I want them to be. My shutter can sound like a whinnying
horse or round of applause if I so choose (though a phaser firing sound for the
delete button is kind of fun). You have zero control over the sounds your camera
makes. You have one sound output option available clearly labeled "Obnoxious",
which anyone near you can read. You do realize that the d/SLR is the main reason
that cameras have been banned so many places, don't you? The only people on
earth that like dSLRs are the people that choose to buy them. The rest of us
know better and are more considerate and respectful of all others.

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras


"franklin-d-worth" <fdworth@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:j3ijj3h3eon69e8uohq41jdsvgm6kcketu@4ax,com ...
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:00:50 +0100, "Bill Again" <sd@msn,com > wrote:
>
>>
>>"franklin-d-worth" <fdworth@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>>news:baajj39bvm3uhhu9rcuubtq1asipbpp3co@4ax,com ...
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:50:55 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@charter,net >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>aniramca@gmail,com wrote:
>>>>> The other day, I saw the new Sony P&S camera - DSC H3. On top of the
>>>>> camera, it was indicated that it has a strong built in flash. I went
>>>>> to search about built-in flash feature in a digital camera at the
>>>>> dpreview website and found the following:
>>>>> For P&S digital cameras: Canon G7 has a weak flash, Flash guide of 4m.
>>>>> Canon S51S is stronger. Sony H3 has a Flash guide no. of 7m, while as
>>>>> Sony DSC H7 or H9 is the strongest I found for P&S camera - Flash
>>>>> Guide of 9.8m. Canon SX100 is even worse than the G7/G9 - at only 3m.
>>>>> Lumix Fz18/FZ8 has a flash guide of 6m, and FZ50 has 7m. Nikon 5100 is
>>>>> much better than G7/G9 at 8m.
>>>>> For DSLR: Most cameras with built-in flash has Flash Guide around
>>>>> 11-13m. Canon 5D does not even have a built-in flash. Surprisingly,
>>>>> Nikon D40 and D40x has flash guide no. of 17m. As comparison, Canon
>>>>> 40D/30D/Xti all have only a flash guide of 12m.
>>>>> - Why P&S cameras have relatively weaker built-in flash than the DSLR?
>>>>> Could P&S cameras be designed to have stronger built-in flash like a
>>>>> DSLR?
>>>>> - I noticed that my P&S camera usually is too weak to take picture in
>>>>> large indoors (restaurant, meeting halls, etc). Could this be improved
>>>>> by stronger flash? I have always complained in the past that most P&S
>>>>> cameras have tiny built-in flash, and without a hot-shoe, you cannot
>>>>> improve your lighting in indoor shots.
>>>>> - Anyone tried the built-in flash in Sony H3 or Sony H7 and H9?. Are
>>>>> they much better than flash in other cameras, particularly the low
>>>>> ones like Canon G7/SX100? Does this mean that Sony H3/H7/H9 is
>>>>> superior for taking photo indoors for people in a group than, say
>>>>> Canon G7/G9? I found that Sony H3 is a good competitor against Canon
>>>>> G7/G9 or Nikon P5100. It may have less features than G7/G9, but it
>>>>> makes good quality images and it is cheaper than a G7/G9. It is also
>>>>> as compact as a G7/G9 or Nikon P5100.
>>>>> - Is built in flash in Nikon D40x really stronger than flash in a
>>>>> Canon Xti?
>>>>> - How much difference are relatively between a Flash Guide of 3m, 7m,
>>>>> 12m and 17m ? I assume that this is all based on ASA100? Does a flash
>>>>> guide 17m mean that you can get a good coverage of flash to 17m
>>>>> distance?
>>>>> - Panasonic Lumix L1 is about the only DSLR camera that has extended
>>>>> pop-up flash feature (ie. 2 level heights). What is the advantage of
>>>>> this? Less red-eye images?
>>>>> - Are there digital cameras (P&S or DSLR) which have two or more modes
>>>>> of flash strength in their built in flash?
>>>>> Thanks for the info and discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ok, to begin with, larger cameras can mount larger flash tubes, and have
>>>>space for more battery power to keep them flashing. Smaller cameras
>>>>just don't have the space, or battery power to accommodate the larger
>>>>flash mechanisms.
>>>>Some cameras do control the brightness of the flash, usually in concert
>>>>with the light metering, and the focusing system. Others don't. Look
>>>>for that information in the specs.
>>>>P&S cameras aren't designed to take flash pictures in large areas, so
>>>>they don't manage well in this application. It is just a matter of
>>>>limitations of size, weight, and battery power imposed by their size.
>>>>If you routinely take pictures in such situations, then a P&S camera is
>>>>probably not for you.
>>>>Reviews usually list the flash distances with comments about the usable
>>>>range.
>>>
>>> Let's weigh the identical flash-reach options, shall we?
>>>
>>> dSLR + built-in high-power flash = always overweight, always expensive,
>>> internal dedicated flash failure = whole camera goes in for repair
>>>
>>> P&S + accessory flash = lightweight w/o high-power flash, adaptable,
>>> inexpensive, flash failure = use a different or new flash, any flash
>>> option on
>>> the market
>>>
>>> Sorry, dSLR still doesn't win even for its built in flash. In fact if a
>>> dSLR
>>> really wanted to be more of an SLR than a P&S it wouldn't have a
>>> built-in
>>> flash
>>> to begin with, taking up all that extra irremovable size, weight, and
>>> cost. I
>>> can't recall even one professional SLR from the past that would even
>>> think
>>> of
>>> including an onboard flash. Flash was always an accessory and rightly
>>> so.
>>> No Pro
>>> in his right mind would buy a camera with a flash built into it. That
>>> was
>>> a sign
>>> of cheapness and P&S convenience. It makes any camera look like a $15
>>> Instamatic. (I wonder if this is why I buy P&S cameras where the flash
>>> folds
>>> down to where you can't even tell it has one.)
>>>
>>> Isn't it funny as the years go on the dSLR "Pro" people are always
>>> clamoring for
>>> more and more P&S features on their cameras. Auto focus, auto-exposure,
>>> live-view for that amplified viewfinder in low light and seeing
>>> shutter-speed
>>> effects, on-board flash, silent operation, ..... I bet some of them
>>> even
>>> want
>>> audio and video recording capability too now.
>>>
>>> Is this another clue into why they speak out against P&S cameras so
>>> much?
>>> It's
>>> not because they don't like P&S cameras it's really out of envy and
>>> jealousy
>>> that their dSLR can't be more like a P&S camera. If their dSLR was that
>>> great
>>> why would they feel the need to belittle other cameras? It's all
>>> starting
>>> to
>>> make perfect sense -- P'n'S Envy.
>>>
>>> What an odd and accurate coincidental homophone, eh?
>>
>>
>>Funny. But inaccurate. There may well be a large number of amateur
>>photographers who have bought dSLRs and who later regret it because their
>>chosen camera doesn't have the bells and whistles of a P&S. On the other
>>hand there are a lot of photographers who have bought dSLRs because the
>>camera offers them a lot more than does a P&S in terms of control. I guess
>>that this might be the same difference as between those who bought an
>>Instamatic or a Brownie and those who bought an analogue SLR. Personally I
>>like the trend for a good dSLR that actually moves away from the cheap
>>digital tricks. The Pentax K10D, for one, has been designed to mimic an
>>analogue camera as nearly as possible and the designers' have shied away
>>from building in many of the commoner *digital* settings.
>>
>>That's all.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>
> If it's the amount of control that determines the absolute in cameras then
> I
> guess a P&S designed to let you choose shooting between available light or
> infra-red spectrums with the push of a button, and using manual focusing
> and
> zoom rings on an 11mm-320mm (+macro) f/2.0-2.4 Zeiss lens must be the
> ultimate
> in control, along with all the usual shutter, f-stop, !00-3200 ISO, and
> other
> manual controls. I'm accurately describing one of my own P&S cameras by
> the way.
>
> No, that's not the ultimate in control. Some of the P&S cameras that can
> run
> CHDK today are the ultimate in manual or automated control. Some of their
> controllable options easily beating even the $12,000 dSLR bodies being
> sold this
> year. Can you manually choose what colors you'd like on your
> under/over-exposure
> viewfinder overlay or by what limits that you want that under/over
> detection
> sensitivity? Can you control up to 1024 areas of your viewfinder, their
> sampling-rates, and sensitivity levels in each region that you want to
> detect
> subject-motion to trigger your shutter? Choose between 7 different
> live-histograms? 108 different video-compression options in 2 different
> flavors?
> Can you design your own cropping and composition masks for your viewfinder
> in
> any colors you want? This list is extremely long so I won't mention them
> all,
> there's a whole CHDK dedicated web-site to describe all that you can
> control on
> your CHDK-capable camera. The scripting options also allowing for
> automated
> control of the camera's manual features that no other cameras on earth can
> equal
> (such as 96 steps per f-stop for EV and flash levels). If these P&S
> cameras only
> had IR and UV options too ... sigh ...
>
> If it's control that determines the best of all cameras then you're really
> going
> to have to look into the P&S models now and in the past. I've not found
> one dSLR
> yet that allows for the amount of myriad ways that one can control a P&S
> camera.
> This includes being able to control the ways that it can record
> stereo-audio and
> videos too. Put a higher quality lower-noise sensor into any of the
> high-quality
> super-zoom P&S camera that I've already bought and that's all that anyone
> would
> ever need.
>
> While you're trying to control the limited features of that dSLR, would
> you
> PLEASE do something about controlling that obnoxious sound they make so
> that
> cameras are allowed back into public performances? Thanks. That's another
> control option I get to have. I can control if I want my camera to make
> noises
> or not and how loud I want them to be. My shutter can sound like a
> whinnying
> horse or round of applause if I so choose (though a phaser firing sound
> for the
> delete button is kind of fun). You have zero control over the sounds your
> camera
> makes. You have one sound output option available clearly labeled
> "Obnoxious",
> which anyone near you can read. You do realize that the d/SLR is the main
> reason
> that cameras have been banned so many places, don't you? The only people
> on
> earth that like dSLRs are the people that choose to buy them. The rest of
> us
> know better and are more considerate and respectful of all others.
>

I guess that by "control" I don't actually mean how many knobs the camera
has. I have owned, so far, 9 digital cameras, only one of which is a dSLR.
The others varied from point and shoot to the Lumix fz50 which I saw as a
near-SLR camera. Yes, some of them allowed me to choose the noise they make.
However as far as I am concerned the choice of noise emitted is irrelevant.
If I wanted a musical instrument I would buy one. Nor do I want a camera
that records stereo audio or video. For that I would use dedicated
equipment. Perhaps you would like it to make coffee as well?

And no, the noise or otherwise that a camera makes is not the reason they
have been banned. If they are banned, and so far I have been banned from
precious few places, it is because of perceived threats to copyright. But I
have photographed in many galleries, including the Schirn in Frankfurt and
the Hermitage in St Petersburg, no one objected to any noise, and many of
them wanted to be in the picture.

You suggest putting a higher quality lower noise sensor into a high quality
super zoom P&S. If it was this simple then why isn't it done.

Frankly it reduces to one thing. Show me a professional photographer that is
using a point and shoot.

That's all.

Robert R.

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:46:10 +0100, "Bill Again" <sd@msn,com > wrote:

>
>Frankly it reduces to one thing. Show me a professional photographer that is
>using a point and shoot.
>
>That's all.


http :// www .robgalbraith,com /bins/multi_page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844


There you go. I guess you'll have to switch now since you say it reduces to just
this one thing. Just show you one pro that uses a P&S camera.

That's just one. I'm another. So are many others.

How sad that you set your equipment criteria by what others are using. Can't you
think for yourself? Do you only take photos of subjects that others have already
photographed too? If nobody else has photographed that subject in the same way
then it must not be worth photographing according to the way you choose things.
If I did that I'd find another career.

One person on dpreview who regularly provides work for house & home and
architectural photojournalism magazines regularly slips in photos from his P&S
cameras. The publishers and editors never notice any difference in his work. He
doesn't want them to know that he's using his P&S cameras for most of his
photography due to the stigma that people like you have attached to them. Then
he wouldn't be a "professional" photographer, right?

Just because they don't say they use them for their professional work doesn't
mean that they don't use them for that.

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras


"franklin-d-worth" <fdworth@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:o0qjj35lovft9c926fm7s1pbicpppdtjep@4ax,com ...
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 18:46:10 +0100, "Bill Again" <sd@msn,com > wrote:
>
>>
>>Frankly it reduces to one thing. Show me a professional photographer that
>>is
>>using a point and shoot.
>>
>>That's all.
>
>
> http :// www .robgalbraith,com /bins/multi page.asp?cid=7-6468-7844
>
>
> There you go. I guess you'll have to switch now since you say it reduces
> to just
> this one thing. Just show you one pro that uses a P&S camera.
>
> That's just one. I'm another. So are many others.
>
> How sad that you set your equipment criteria by what others are using.

Only if they are using it because it is better suited for the job.


>Can't you
> think for yourself? Do you only take photos of subjects that others have
> already
> photographed too? If nobody else has photographed that subject in the same
> way
> then it must not be worth photographing according to the way you choose
> things.
> If I did that I'd find another career.

So where did I say these things? You are making this up as you go along,
right?.


> One person on dpreview who regularly provides work for house & home and
> architectural photojournalism magazines regularly slips in photos from his
> P&S
> cameras. The publishers and editors never notice any difference in his
> work. He
> doesn't want them to know that he's using his P&S cameras for most of his
> photography due to the stigma that people like you have attached to them.
> Then
> he wouldn't be a "professional" photographer, right?

Like me? Wow. You mean that I am not alone in these views? You astound me.


> Just because they don't say they use them for their professional work
> doesn't
> mean that they don't use them for that.

And this shows exactly what?

That's all.

Bill

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras

"Bill Again" <s...@msn,com > wrote:
>
> I guess that by "control" I don't actually mean how many knobs the camera
> has.

There's a trade-off between the degree of control and the ease of
use. Having "too many" options results in a longer/steeper learning
curve as well as can be a source of frustration. However, that
doesn't necessarily mean that some manufacturers will stop the
'feature creep list', nor a USENET debate which assumes that more
always equals better.

http :// search.barnesandnoble,com /booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?isbn=0060005696



> Perhaps you would like it to make coffee as well?


> You suggest putting a higher quality lower noise sensor into a high quality
> super zoom P&S. If it was this simple then why isn't it done.
>
> Frankly it reduces to one thing. Show me a professional photographer
> that is using a point and shoot.


IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were
completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the
key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have
utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications.



(* - as opposed to changing to the moving image)


-hh

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras


"-hh" <recscuba google@huntzinger,com > wrote in message
news:1194978388.361161.171480@k79g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
> "Bill Again" <s...@msn,com > wrote:
>>
>> I guess that by "control" I don't actually mean how many knobs the camera
>> has.
>
> There's a trade-off between the degree of control and the ease of
> use. Having "too many" options results in a longer/steeper learning
> curve as well as can be a source of frustration. However, that
> doesn't necessarily mean that some manufacturers will stop the
> 'feature creep list', nor a USENET debate which assumes that more
> always equals better.
>
> http :// search.barnesandnoble,com /booksearch/isbninquiry.asp?isbn60005696
>
>
>
>> Perhaps you would like it to make coffee as well?
>
>
>> You suggest putting a higher quality lower noise sensor into a high
>> quality
>> super zoom P&S. If it was this simple then why isn't it done.
>>
>> Frankly it reduces to one thing. Show me a professional photographer
>> that is using a point and shoot.
>
>
> IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were
> completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the
> key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have
> utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications.
>
>
>
> (* - as opposed to changing to the moving image)
>
>
> -hh

You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown,
a renowned British photographer who worked for many years with the Observer
newspaper. A few lines from her article confirm that "digi " is a very
recent phenomena. I quote:

<quote>
I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a
dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I have
many lenses, I really only use either an 85mm or 50mm one now. In the same
way, I'm not all that particular about film or paper. My early work was
taken with a Rolleiflex - there is absolutely nothing like the Rollei for
texture and detail.

I work quickly using available light, have never had an assistant and
usually expose no more than two rolls of film - any more than that is
usually a sign that things aren't going well. Rather than use a light meter,
I have a setting I like - l/6o sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the picture
work around this. I normally gauge the light level by the way it falls on
the back of my hand.
<unquote>

Try putting that on a function menu!

That's all

Bill

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras

"Bill Again" <s...@msn,com > wrote:
> "-hh" <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger,com > wrote:
> >
> > IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were
> > completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the
> > key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have
> > utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications.
>
> You remind me with that comment of an article I read
> recently by Jane Bown... I quote:
>
> <quote>
> I'm not very particular about equipment: ...
> I work quickly using available light, have never had an assistant and
> usually expose no more than two rolls of film - any more than that is
> usually a sign that things aren't going well. Rather than use a light meter,
> I have a setting I like - l/6o sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the picture
> work around this. I normally gauge the light level by the way it falls on
> the back of my hand.
> <unquote>
>
> Try putting that on a function menu!


This is a very good point, as it is essentially saying that a good
photographer's abilities transcends the "mechanical" limitations of
their equipment to make them irrelevant.

In the end, composition and lighting are all that matter, and with the
technological improvements we've seen in exposure lattitude, nailing
the lighting is far less important today than years ago.

As such, it all effectively comes down to just the composition, and
there is no "compose perfectly" setting on any camera's function
dial.

And while it is obviously preferable to get both composition and
exposure perfect, the reality is that time with the subject is
invariably limited, so you having 108 different video-compression
options or 1024 zones is actually a work taskloading liability, not an
asset.


-hh

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras


"-hh" <recscuba google@huntzinger,com > wrote in message
news:1194985838.998029.239460@o80g2000hse.googlegroups,com ...
> "Bill Again" <s...@msn,com > wrote:
>> "-hh" <recscuba goo...@huntzinger,com > wrote:
>> >
>> > IIRC, there have been some Pro's who have had projects that were
>> > completed with just a P&S. However, your point is well taken: the
>> > key question to ask is what are the names of successful Pro's who have
>> > utterly abandoned all SLRs for all still image* applications.
>>
>> You remind me with that comment of an article I read
>> recently by Jane Bown... I quote:
>>
>> <quote>
>> I'm not very particular about equipment: ...
>> I work quickly using available light, have never had an assistant and
>> usually expose no more than two rolls of film - any more than that is
>> usually a sign that things aren't going well. Rather than use a light
>> meter,
>> I have a setting I like - l/6o sec at f/2.8 - and usually make the
>> picture
>> work around this. I normally gauge the light level by the way it falls on
>> the back of my hand.
>> <unquote>
>>
>> Try putting that on a function menu!
>
>
> This is a very good point, as it is essentially saying that a good
> photographer's abilities transcends the "mechanical" limitations of
> their equipment to make them irrelevant.
>
> In the end, composition and lighting are all that matter, and with the
> technological improvements we've seen in exposure lattitude, nailing
> the lighting is far less important today than years ago.
>
> As such, it all effectively comes down to just the composition, and
> there is no "compose perfectly" setting on any camera's function
> dial.
>
> And while it is obviously preferable to get both composition and
> exposure perfect, the reality is that time with the subject is
> invariably limited, so you having 108 different video-compression
> options or 1024 zones is actually a work taskloading liability, not an
> asset.
>
>
> -hh
>

-hh, I couldn't agree more. Of course it might be the case that Jane's work
would nowadays be turned down as there is some likelihood that it is "not
sharp enough" for today's publications. That, of course, would be a matter
of taste. Also we should remember that reproduction in newspapers up until,
what, the 80s was invariably halftone anyway. Not exactly renowned for
excellence in definition.

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras

["Followup-To:" header set to rec.photo.digital.]
On 2007-11-13, Bill Again <sd@msn,com > wrote:
>
> You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown,
> [...]
>
><quote>
> I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a
> dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I have
> [...]
><unquote>
>

How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a
camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus ever
saw one.

Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene
Smith on the matter.

--
Chris Savage Kiss me. Or would you rather live in a
Gateshead, UK land where the soap won't lather?
- Billy Bragg

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras

On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:13:40 +0000, Chris Savage
<spam.goes.here@devnull.savvo.co.uk> wrote:

>On 2007-11-13, Bill Again <sd@msn,com > wrote:
>>
>> You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane Bown,
>> [...]
>>
>><quote>
>> I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have about a
>> dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I have
>> [...]
>><unquote>
>>
>
>How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a
>camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus ever
>saw one.
>
>Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene
>Smith on the matter.


Just as reliable as all the other propagandistic "advice" that dSLR advocates
hand out. I was waiting to see if anyone would notice the blatant error of their
"proof". :-) Couch-potato photographers always slip up in their facts when all
they have for reference in life is what they read online, in lieu of any
real-life experience with anything related to the topic.

I still have my OM-1 and OM-2n, a nice 2n before they crippled the auto-exposure
to 3 minutes from the original 12+ minutes (due to complaints of fools that
didn't know how to deal with reciprocity). Not many of those ever reached the
market. I feel so fortunate to still have one. For astrophotography and
microphotography no better 35mm camera was ever made, before it or after.

After having those Olympus SLRs and understanding the priceless value of
compact, lightweight, ultra-bright viewfinder, and QUIET for nature photography
(as well as all other uses) it's why I moved to top-of-the-line P&S cameras when
I went from film to digital. I find it interesting that after having used some
of the best SLRs and lenses ever made I would still rather use my P&S cameras
today instead of any dSLR that have ever been on the market. If I was just
another empty-headed follower I would have bought into Nikon SLRs back then and
dealt with all that bulk, noise, and repairs they always needed. The only plus I
ever saw to owning a Nikon was that other Nikon photographers liked you more.
I've never been that desperate for anyone's approval nor company. I'm glad I
never put any faith in self-appointed "Pros" and what the next guy was doing or
I would have missed out on those Olympus SLRs and exceptional Zuiko lenses.

I really wanted to stay with Olympus after their film cameras. I was a fairly
staunch Olympus fan. But sadly they never made anything that could beat what I
could find in P&S cameras from other companies. Keep in mind though that no
other company's dSLRs could beat what I could find in the better P&S cameras
too. That's still holding true.

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras


"franklin-d-worth" <fdworth@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:gngkj3hr7hor3k003m4rob3llu932gea2h@4ax,com ...
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:13:40 +0000, Chris Savage
> <spam.goes.here@devnull.savvo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>On 2007-11-13, Bill Again <sd@msn,com > wrote:
>>>
>>> You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane
>>> Bown,
>>> [...]
>>>
>>><quote>
>>> I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have
>>> about a
>>> dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I
>>> have
>>> [...]
>>><unquote>
>>>
>>
>>How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a
>>camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus
>>ever
>>saw one.
>>
>>Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene
>>Smith on the matter.
>
>
> Just as reliable as all the other propagandistic "advice" that dSLR
> advocates
> hand out. I was waiting to see if anyone would notice the blatant error of
> their
> "proof". :-) Couch-potato photographers always slip up in their facts when
> all
> they have for reference in life is what they read online, in lieu of any
> real-life experience with anything related to the topic.
>

You are an ignorant and unmannered person. Blatant error of "their proof".
What arrogant nonsense. The quote was not proof of anything, it was a quote
from an article by Jane Bown. This photographer is now 82 years old and far
from being a "couch potato photographer" she has photographed more
personalities than you could shake a stick at. She doesn't need to prove
anything, certainly not to idiots like you.

That's all.



<snipped the rest of the junk>

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:39:22 +0100, "Bill Again" <sd@msn,com > wrote:

>
>"franklin-d-worth" <fdworth@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>news:gngkj3hr7hor3k003m4rob3llu932gea2h@4ax,com ...
>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:13:40 +0000, Chris Savage
>> <spam.goes.here@devnull.savvo.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>On 2007-11-13, Bill Again <sd@msn,com > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane
>>>> Bown,
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>><quote>
>>>> I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have
>>>> about a
>>>> dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I
>>>> have
>>>> [...]
>>>><unquote>
>>>>
>>>
>>>How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a
>>>camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus
>>>ever
>>>saw one.
>>>
>>>Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with Eugene
>>>Smith on the matter.
>>
>>
>> Just as reliable as all the other propagandistic "advice" that dSLR
>> advocates
>> hand out. I was waiting to see if anyone would notice the blatant error of
>> their
>> "proof". :-) Couch-potato photographers always slip up in their facts when
>> all
>> they have for reference in life is what they read online, in lieu of any
>> real-life experience with anything related to the topic.
>>
>
>You are an ignorant and unmannered person. Blatant error of "their proof".
>What arrogant nonsense. The quote was not proof of anything, it was a quote
>from an article by Jane Bown. This photographer is now 82 years old and far
>from being a "couch potato photographer" she has photographed more
>personalities than you could shake a stick at. She doesn't need to prove
>anything, certainly not to idiots like you.
>

I never alluded to, nor directly said that, Jane Brown was the couch-potato
photographer without any real-life experience. (Read what I said again.) Any
real photographer would have immediately noticed the error (or misquoting?) of
her statement and would have never used it as a reference for anything. My
comments refer to you and -hh alone. And rightly so, since neither of you
noticed it. :-)

Your over-reactive defensiveness speaks tomes about you. (i.e. Methinks thou
dost protest too much.)

*poof*, there just went any credibility of anything you or -hh have ever said
online

That was fun.

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras

Lame sockpuppet troll, currently under the guise of:

franklin-d-worth <fdwo...@yahoo,com > wrote:
>
> I never alluded to, nor directly said that, Jane Brown was the couch-potato
> photographer without any real-life experience.

Let's see:

"Couch-potato photographers always slip up in their facts when all
they have for reference in life is what they read online, in lieu of
any real-life experience with anything..."

Yes, it is obvious that the online couch potato with no life is the
individual who hasn't shared any of his own photos to substantiate his
life experiences - - is namely, our cowardly anonymous sockpuppet
troll.




-hh

Re: Built-in flash in P&S digital and DSLR cameras


"franklin-d-worth" <fdworth@yahoo,com > wrote in message
news:cdlkj3hoj3b2gs18kbrnus6kk5lbgdrhsb@4ax,com ...
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 02:39:22 +0100, "Bill Again" <sd@msn,com > wrote:
>
>>
>>"franklin-d-worth" <fdworth@yahoo,com > wrote in message
>>news:gngkj3hr7hor3k003m4rob3llu932gea2h@4ax,com ...
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 23:13:40 +0000, Chris Savage
>>> <spam.goes.here@devnull.savvo.co.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On 2007-11-13, Bill Again <sd@msn,com > wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You remind me with that comment of an article I read recently by Jane
>>>>> Bown,
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>><quote>
>>>>> I'm not very particular about equipment: I use Olympus OM1s and have
>>>>> about a
>>>>> dozen, all purchased second-hand more than 40 years ago, and while I
>>>>> have
>>>>> [...]
>>>>><unquote>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>How reliable a source can we consider this to be? She was buying a
>>>>camera, second-hand, more than five years before anyone outside Olympus
>>>>ever
>>>>saw one.
>>>>
>>>>Whatever. I don't understand the 'available light' dogma. I'm with
>>>>Eugene
>>>>Smith on the matter.
>>>
>>>
>>> Just as reliable as all the other propagandistic "advice" that dSLR
>>> advocates
>>> hand out. I was waiting to see if anyone would notice the blatant error
>>> of
>>> their
>>> "proof". :-) Couch-potato photographers always slip up in their facts
>>> when
>>> all
>>> they have for reference in life is what they read online, in lieu of any
>>> real-life experience with anything related to the topic.
>>>
>>
>>You are an ignorant and unmannered person. Blatant error of "their proof".
>>What arrogant nonsense. The quote was not proof of anything, it was a
>>quote
>>from an article by Jane Bown. This photographer is now 82 years old and
>>far
>>from being a "couch potato photographer" she has photographed more
>>personalities than you could shake a stick at. She doesn't need to prove
>>anything, certainly not to idiots like you.
>>
>
> I never alluded to, nor directly said that, Jane Brown was the
> couch-potato
> photographer without any real-life experience. (Read what I said again.)
> Any
> real photographer would have immediately noticed the error (or
> misquoting?) of
> her statement and would have never used it as a reference for anything. My
> comments refer to you and -hh alone. And rightly so, since neither of you
> noticed it. :-)
>
> Your over-reactive defensiveness speaks tomes about you. (i.e. Methinks
> thou
> dost protest too much.)
>
> *poof*, there just went any credibility of anything you or -hh have ever
> said
> online
>
> That was fun.

Yawn.