DSLR vs. PS

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #4156648
I don't know.

I've only seen that attitude from the G series owners who claim that it's their G cam that is as good as SLR and put down the lense switchers.

LOL! Perhaps it's because you voiced similar condescending remarks towards compact cameras, the G-series in particular, when you don't even have any experience with any G-series camera. Also, you said in the same breath that the 20D doesn't cut it for professional photography, a fact disputed in the same thread by some pros here who do use it. Please have first hand experience first before posting such vacuous statements.

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=2888417&po​stcount=17

MikeMcL wrote in post #4156936
Ok I'm confused, I love my Dslr and my windows... what does that make me?

Normal -- at least on the operating system side of things.

I was attempting to address only those who (like you) think Windows is good (which as far as I'm concerned is true as long as it meets your needs), but who also would look down upon those who think that a point-n-shoot is good.

You're not such a person -- you seem to recognize the strengths and uses of a point'n'shoot.

That's very interesting about the Panasonic Lumix cameras. I considered buying one, but wound up with an SD800IS instead because I wanted something very small but with really good picture quality and good build.

I did the same. But I am not giving the 30D, or D60 away to a friend.

My previous comments seem to have been misunderstood by some.
Not only do I not put down compact cameras such as the Fuji F20/30/40 or the Ixus but i love them for what they are: take anywhere cameras with perfectly decent performance. I've stated that before.
However the OP asked about the Canon S-series and for some reason the mentioning of super zooms seem to have a very bad effect on my blood pressure. People new to photography fall for them thinking they must be the ultimate pro stuff (they seem so on paper). I did too. Before going DSLR i wasted my money on an Oly C765. What really really bugs me about the U.Z. cameras is the huge marketing hype and the horribly exaggerated specifications. I mean nowadays you have 18X zooms with ISO 12.800 7fps and a big crappy plastic body mimicking a DSLR. I really hate the way manufacturers lie the average consumer taunting severely exaggerated specifications.

Dragos Jianu wrote in post #4157417
However the OP asked about the Canon S-series and for some reason the mentioning of super zooms seem to have a very bad effect on my blood pressure. People new to photography fall for them thinking they must be the ultimate pro stuff (they seem so on paper). I did too. Before going DSLR i wasted my money on an Oly C765. What really really bugs me about the U.Z. cameras is the huge marketing hype and the horribly exaggerated specifications. I mean nowadays you have 18X zooms with ISO 12.800 7fps and a big crappy plastic body mimicking a DSLR. I really hate the way manufacturers lie the average consumer taunting severely exaggerated specifications.

Ah...thanks much for this clarification. It makes a lot more sense. And my apologies for any misunderstanding on my part.

I'm in total agreement with you: I despise it when someone misrepresents a product, particularly when they do so when there's a product that really does what they're claiming (but doesn't happen to be what they're selling).

That sort of thing is far too common. Fortunately, we have forums such as this where people who really understand this stuff can talk about it with people who are relatively new to it (such as the OP appears to be). I've found that people do learn if you give them the chance.


Oh, and by the way, I, too, thought your comparison shots between the P&S and the DSLR were excellent. They really show off the difference in the depth of field, if nothing else.

BottomBracket wrote in post #4157258
LOL! Perhaps it's because you voiced similar condescending remarks towards compact cameras, the G-series in particular, when you don't even have any experience with any G-series camera. Also, you said in the same breath that the 20D doesn't cut it for professional photography, a fact disputed in the same thread by some pros here who do use it. Please have first hand experience first before posting such vacuous statements.

https://photography-on-the.net …hp?p=2888417&po​stcount=17

What lead you to conclude that I don't have experience with G series and 20D?

Please have facts straight first before posting such vacuous statements about me.

Also in my quote, you left out "event" photography, meaning low light.

Is there a bee in your bonnet? You seem to be following me around trying to disprove me.

Doc, you go out of your way to be confrontational. It's a rare post of yours that isn't. So back off. The rest of you - OS is religion and religion is off limits. And please try to stick to repeatable facts, not personal limits, in asserting what a given camera, or class of camera, can't do. Just because you don't know how to capture a moving target with a slower-responding P&S doesn't mean that someone who's comfortable with the equipment can't. If we restrict the discussion to DSLRs and P&S with comparable focal lengths, the only reasonable area of comparison, the only advantages a DSLR offers across the board, that can't be overridden by skill, are high ISO and fast aperture lenses. And some P&S features, like the swing-out LCD, may mitigate this advantage in some shooting situations.

compare these pictures

Fuji S5500 point&shoot
http://www.pbase.com/t​ominho/image/64272910

Canon Rebel Xti
http://www.pbase.com/t​ominho/image/87415678

When you get a dSLR and a couple of sharp primes, there is no comparison to any point&shoot camera.

I thought my Fuji superzoom pics were great. But now I think they totally suck compared to EOS 400d.

Point&shoot cameras are made for crowd that print photos up to 10*15cm and that's it. They're not for anything serious.

You've extensively tested all the P&S cameras ever made? You know that sharpness is the only criterion for assessing a photo? Sorry - does not compute. Sharpness is nice, in some cases. It's even essential in some cases. But there are still others where sharpness is irrelevant and other factors come into play.

Tom, maybe thats not the best example. The Fuji is quite nice and not that much worst then the DSLR in that comparison.

I used to like and recommend Fuji...well...not anymore. Check out these samples of their new S8000FD (18x zoom ISO6400 and all).

http://www.photography​blog.com …ilm_finepix_s80​00fd_3.php

Sad to see how the previous models were actually a lot better and how everything is going down the drain for the sake of greedy marketing divisions.

For the sake of comparison : samples from the old, lowly F20 http://www.photography​blog.com …ujifilm_finepix​_f20_4.php

DocFrankenstein wrote in post #4158919
What lead you to conclude that I don't have experience with G series and 20D?

Please have facts straight first before posting such vacuous statements about me.

Also in my quote, you left out "event" photography, meaning low light.

Is there a bee in your bonnet? You seem to be following me around trying to disprove me.

Perhaps it's because you haven't posted any of your experiences with a 20D or G-series camera. There were a lot of posts though, about your 300D and S-series cameras, which are both fine cameras if I may add. Unfortunately, they are not the 20D and of the G-series respectively, and no amount of extrapolation from your experience with your cameras will result in a correct conclusion with the 20D or G-series cameras.

Your insistence though that the 20D is not good enough for professional event photography leads one to think if you really have handled one extensively. I have used the 20D, coupled with fast primes, in covering plays, dance shows, graduations, high school basketball games, street photography and other events in poor light and the photos come out quite good. There are other pros here who have done the same. Sure, it would be great to have a 1D series camera, or to have the 30D and/or 40D, but the 20D, in the hands of someone who knows its capabilities, can do quite well in low light. Unless of course, the 'professional event' you had in mind was covering the NYC blackout during a moonless night.

About me following you around the forum, don't flatter yourself. In this thread, I posted two messages before you came in, about the folly of certain members unilaterally dismissing the capabilities of compact cameras as compared to dSLR's. Then you came in with a trollish barb against a whole class of shooters here, the ones with G-series cameras. It is a dig that you are apparently fond of making, and which I have responded to you before, but in limited fashion. You do it again, and I called you out, and now you are whining about it. What gives?

To the OP and others, sorry for getting off track. dSLR's are wonderful machines, but that does not mean that compact cameras are slouches. Take the time to figure out its capabilities and learn to work around it and you may be surprised with what it can do.

To those still not convinced with what compact cameras can do, take a peek at at Alex Majoli's work here: http://www.robgalbrait​h.com …_page.asp?cid=7​-6468-7844. He is a war correspondent who uses Olympus compact cameras for his work.