TO THE BEGINNERS

[Overread19 7]

lets not get into a long argument about what can and can't be done in a hypothetical situation

as for point and shoots and advice on the forum (And comments on photos as to skill) - the only time I shy away from giving advice is when I see a camera in the point and shoot area and don't know if its a compact or a bridge I will refrain from exposure comments since I don't know if they are possible for the OP to be able to reproduce.
I have seen people with compacts take better shots than those with DSLRs and I have seen the reverse too - a tool is a tool and nothing more. A better tool is a better tool - but of course one must know how to use a tool to get the best use out of it

 

[tsaraleksi]

lets not get into a long argument about what can and can't be done in a hypothetical situation

as for point and shoots and advice on the forum (And comments on photos as to skill) - the only time I shy away from giving advice is when I see a camera in the point and shoot area and don't know if its a compact or a bridge I will refrain from exposure comments since I don't know if they are possible for the OP to be able to reproduce.
I have seen people with compacts take better shots than those with DSLRs and I have seen the reverse too - a tool is a tool and nothing more. A better tool is a better tool - but of course one must know how to use a tool to get the best use out of it

Right, but the point I'm making is that there is a very real difference in what can be done with the different cameras. Obviously very nice photographs can be taken with point and shoot cameras, and an SLR in no way guarantees that your photos will look good. However, it's a fools errand to argue that an SLR won't let you achieve things that a point and shoot cannot do.

 

[Jon_Are]

To the OP,

(I almost don't know where to begin)

I can understand some of your original points, but you express them so poorly it does take some effort. Based on your inability to communicate effectively, and your delusional sense of superiority (which is actually quite ironic), it's difficult to view you as anything other than a whining child.

The fact that you were in Iraq (lots of people were/are), are married (ditto) and fathered children (ditto), means absolutely nothing to me, at least within the context of this discussion. Nothing at all.

And your website - and much of the photography on it - well...I'll be kind and just say that it needs some fine-tuning.

I suggest you save this thread, seal it in an envelope, and open it once you've grown up a bit. Let us know how that goes and we can all have a good laugh.

Best of luck.

 

[TBAM]

I'm sorry, i'm not going to hold back. You (The OP) are an idiot, and stupid. All the things you judge others to be.

dSLR's and P&S' are all CAMERAS.

They all expose photographs by way of a digital sensor. They all do the SAME THING, though have different features and different levels of customisation.

They all take photos.

We can all run, but should we all tie our legs up and try and run on our knees? Then get overjoyed and condemn "normal" runners because we can run just as far and just as fast on our knees? Should we go onto athletics forums and say how stupid people are because they're surprised that we can run on our knees, even though it may be more difficult.

Even though, we were given fully functioning legs that are easier to run on than our knees?

Making a post calling people stupid and then bignoting yourself because you use your P&S to take photos more than your dSLR and that you can still get good quality images out of is ignorant, and blatantly condescending (regardless of whether you chose to write a secondary post trying to excuse the way you come across).

All cameras are on a scale of ability, quality and technical potential. Does using the worst camera available to get a photo that could be taken with a camera further up the scale make you better than anyone else?

If anything, it makes you look more stupid than anyone else. If you want to take photo's of the quality that a dSLR provides, WHY NOT JUST PURCHASE A dSLR?!

Just because you achieve the same results as someone else through more difficult or "lesser" means garners you no more respect other than your own unwillingness to do the logical thing.

Sure, you can take great photos with even the oldest and cheapest P&S cameras, however if you have the budget and are interested in photography to the point where you want to take better photographs or photographs with a more consistent level of quality, why stay with a P&S, buy an SLR?

It's like being a millionaire, purchasing an old used car, and taking it to a track and eventually winding it out to 180km/h over a number of hours going round and round. Then calling people stupid for spending more money to get to the same speed, even though they do it in a fraction of the time.

If you have the money and want to get a better quality camera, then get a better quality camera. Don't get a sh*t camera, throw away the money and then try and get the same kind of shots that you could have taken with the higher quality camera.

These kind of posts, are just a waste of time and get people fired up, and show your own ignorance and tall poppy syndrome more than anything else.

 

[kundalini]

Not without a sensor that is close to the size of 35mm film and a lens at f/1.2 your couldn't.

But yet the sky is blown as well as highlights on the ground, there is a tilt of the horizon, the top of the hedge is running through their heads, dead leaves that cover the hem of her gown and I would think an f/1.2 lens would produce a much more buttery bokeh than shown.

Could someone with a P&S get a better composition? Most likey.

 

[tsaraleksi]

But yet the sky is blown as well as highlights on the ground, there is a tilt of the horizon, the top of the hedge is running through their heads, dead leaves that cover the hem of her gown and I would think an f/1.2 lens would produce a much more buttery bokeh than shown.

Could someone with a P&S get a better composition? Most likey.

Wow where in my post did I ask for a critique? While the nitpicking you seem to eager to hand out is in fact, quite minor, the bigger issue at hand is that it's pointless bordering on trolling. The image served to illustrate my point and nothing else.

 

[sunlioness]

Oh God, I missed this place and the thrills it provides!
I would really love it if once debates (if you could call this a debate) could be held without the whole range of insulting words and phrases that are usually being used.

Come on, guys! I'm sure you can defend your stance and opinions without losing it. I know it's not always easy to be mature about things, but let's just keep it civilised....please? If you don't like someone's post either answer in a well-mannered way or just ignore it.

/that goes mostly to the ones saying or alluding that certain things, actions or people are stupid or {enter preferable word here}...

 

[TBAM]

But yet the sky is blown as well as highlights on the ground, there is a tilt of the horizon, the top of the hedge is running through their heads, dead leaves that cover the hem of her gown and I would think an f/1.2 lens would produce a much more buttery bokeh than shown.

Could someone with a P&S get a better composition? Most likey.

I didn't think the picture was posted as a C&C, and the points you raised are not isolated to DLRs or P&S.

The point was that the depth of field that was created in that shot would be very difficult to obtain on a normal P&S (for point sakes, I am talking actual P&S, not SLR-Like fully manual cameras)

Could someone with any camera get a better composition? That is entirely up to the person behind the camera, and really is irrelevant to the topic at hand.

 

[TBAM]

Oh God, I missed this place and the thrills it provides!
I would really love it if once debates (if you could call this a debate) could be held without the whole range of insulting words and phrases that are usually being used.

Come on, guys! I'm sure you can defend your stance and opinions without losing it. I know it's not always easy to be mature about things, but let's just keep it civilised....please? If you don't like someone's post either answer in a well-mannered way or just ignore it.

/that goes mostly to the ones saying or alluding that certain things, actions or people are stupid or {enter preferable word here}...

That's fair enough, but I would argue that it is stupid to use a broken shovel to dig a hole then call other people stupid when they are surprised that a normal shovel wasn't used.

Furthermore, I would also argue that it is prudent (verging idiotic) to then insult other people and consider yourself better than others on a public forum, because you did something the difficult way and others would prefer to do it the logical and easier way.

 

[manaheim]

I stand by my original point...


I like bunnies.

 

[tirediron]

I'm not sure I'm a big help because I went from borrowing a film SLR to a digital SLR rather than point and shoot to SLR, but I would say that when you can look at your images and see places where they are being lessened by technical aspects that you cannot control. Some examples that spring to mind are autofocus speed, frame rate, dynamic range, depth of field, sharpness, local contrast (the kind that comes from the lens, not the camera/photoshop), lens width or length, lens speed, control of flash/off camera flash, etc etc. Now it's certainly true that some of these things are also problems with introductory level lenses and SLR cameras. However, on a point and shoot you will never be able to overcome those things, whereas you can find just the right combination of equipment to suit you on an SLR.

For example, here's an image that would be flat out impossible with a point and shoot camera:

Agree with the points in your post, by what about this image makes capturing it with a P&S impossible?

 

[kundalini]

While the nitpicking you seem to eager to hand out is in fact, quite minor, the bigger issue at hand is that it's pointless bordering on trolling. The image served to illustrate my point and nothing else.

The whole point of this pissing contest of a thread is the image quality of P&S versus dSLR, right?

My point, which has been weaving in and out through 50 odd posts, is that with a couple of hundred or even with several thousand dollars worth of equipment in your hand, technical and compositional issues can arise from any type of camera. You seemed to have dismiss even the slightest chance that Ron could have taken that shot with his S5 IS "Not without a sensor that is close to the size of 35mm film and a lens at f/1.2 your couldn't". I have no evidence whether the S5 is capable or not and TBAM seems to think it would be very difficult to get the depth of field. However, he may not have had the issues I raised earlier about your photo either. As we all know, (in unison everyone) it's the photographer, not the camera.

I suppose considering my nitpicking to be quite minor is subjective. I would think when posting an image to illustrate a point, it should be top shelf.

Wow where in my post did I ask for a critique?

I didn't think the picture was posted as a C&C,

BTW,

Photography Beginners' Forum & Photo Gallery Brand new to photography, or brushing up on some of the basics? Don’t be shy! Talk to other beginners and ask all your basic photographic questions here. Show us some of the photos you have taken so far and get some review - so you can learn where there is room for improvement!

 

[Dao]

The whole point of this pissing contest of a thread is the image quality of P&S versus dSLR, right?

I thought this thread talked about the capability of a point and shoot camera and DSLR camera, not image quality or C&C. Maybe I miss something.

 

[kundalini]

I thought this thread talked about the capability of a point and shoot camera and DSLR camera, not image quality or C&C. Maybe I miss something.

It is certainly quite possible that I misinterpreted the OP, but when I read in post #1

... Ive taken and seen MANY point n shoot pics that blow SLR pics out of the water.

I took him to mean Image Quality.

 

[TBAM]

I thought this thread talked about the capability of a point and shoot camera and DSLR camera, not image quality or C&C. Maybe I miss something.

The point of this thread as far as I can read, is the OP thinking he is better than newbies who purchase dSLR's before mastering P&S cameras, because he has a fuji S700 and takes photos with manual settings.

As for what Kundalini said, well, I would think it is fair common sense to say that dSLR's would provide better "quality" images than a P&S merely due to the lenses used, sensor type, Megapixel yada yada. If you're talking about quality as a technical term, and not in relation to aesthetic quality.

However one thing I think that should be clarified here is the overly general term "Point and Shoot Camera". As someone else has stated in this thread, there are many kinds of P&S camera.

Because in some ways, an SLR on auto mode is a point and shoot. You point it and press the shutter.

Perhaps some new terms should be identified, like:
- SLR
- dSLR
- Snapshot camera (most comonly referred to as a P&S)
- SLR-Like (manual setting with adjustable Aperture, Shutter Speed and focus, however an Electronic Viewfinder)

Because technically speaking, what some people here might be considering as a P&S is actually very close to an SLR, except it does not have a detachable lens, has an electronic viewfinder, and the settings are adjusted via buttons rather than dials and rings on the lens.

Saying that a photo taken on a Fujifilm finepix s5500 (for example) with manually set shutter speed, aperture, ISO and focus is on par with an SLR and thinking it is an achievement for P&S photography, is a bit naive.

Wheras you have other people here who consider a P&S camera to be a snapshot camera with only the settings: ISO, Auto, Night, Portrait, landscape, Macro, with no manual focus, no manual shutter or aperture.

So essentially we have people arguing on different premises.

So perhaps we should clarify that:
Any camera where you can manually adjust the majority of the settings is capable of producing images that are aesthetically on par with the quality of a dSLR.

Any camera where the settings are not easily altered, will have great difficulty achieving the same aesthetic quality of a dSLR.

Although, technically speaking, a dSLR with a higher megapixel count, a more dynamic full-framed sensor and an expensive lens will always outperform any other camera where those options are not available. E.g. a camera where lenses are not interchangable, a camera without a full-frame sensor, a camera with a lower megapixel count, or a camera with no control over the exposure aside from automated settings.

Anyways, i think this is all a big misunderstanding perpetuated by the OP who set the tone for the whole post with his arrogant and condescending attitude.