Re: The end of the DSLR

On Sat, 09 Aug 2008 13:18:35 GMT, David J Taylor wrote:

It's hardly surprising that I might change my views as available equipment
changes and my own photo needs change.

That may be true, but it sidesteps my point. The "available
equipment" had been available for years, and IIRC, your point was
that being limited to your Panasonic's lowest ISOs (due to poor
image quality at higher ISOs) wasn't a problem because (for example)
the low ISOs were sufficient for the kinds of pictures you wanted to
take. I also recall your praise for the Panasonic being unusually
effusive and at the same time, unusually defensive about its
shortcomings. You didn't disagree that it would be nice if
Panasonic's cameras had better high ISO IQ and performance, but
again, for the types of pictures you wanted to take, it wouldn't be
necessary. Now that you have a camera that does very well in low
light, not just with low noise but also is able focus more quickly,
you've, shall we say, seen the light? :)


My earlier Panasonic had an f/3.3 maximum aperture at full zoom, so I'm
not sure where your f/5.6 came from.

The "f/5.6" came from your own keyboard. I only changed your "ISO
1600" to "ISO 100", and that was (as I said) *equivalent* to what
you had said a couple of years ago. The aperture wasn't the point.
The ISO (which was unusually bad at higher ISOs) was. It may be
fair to say that you weren't "sure where your f/5.6 came from", but
I'd be very surprised if you had no clue what my point was.


It is correct that I preferred to use ISO 100 to keep the noise level to
what I wanted. I bought a DSLR because it had become a cost-effective
way of taking better photos (read shorter exposure photos) in certain
available-light conditions, and I have not been disappointed, as I can
now use ISO 1600. I have since bought a further Panasonic compact
camera - because it is compact!

I agree completely. I've also bought compact cameras since the
DSLR, and for the same reason. But you're still sidestepping my
point. Before getting the DSLR, I don't recall you saying something
equivalent to "I really like my Panasonic, but there are some low
light shots I'd love to be able to take but can't, as DSLRs aren't
yet small enough and inexpensive enough." It was more like "Who
needs a DSLR? My Panasonic, although ISO limited, meets my needs
because it's sufficient for all of the kinds of pictures I want to
take." My Fuji P&S did a little better in low light, but I was well
aware of its limitations and delayed purchasing a low end DSLR,
hoping that Fuji would soon upgrade its S5xxx line with IS and add a
sensor and processor comparable to what was used in the F30. Fuji
didn't, and I stopped waiting. What we both may end up waiting for
is something from a new category of much smaller cameras. Not just
those categorized as micro 4/3, but also (according to Thom Hogan) a
line of much smaller DSLRs using APS-C sized sensors. And if they
can lose the loud shutter/mirror noise, so much the better.



Before I had digital I used film SLRs, and I did actually have
f/1.4 lenses. Today, I prefer to trade f/number for zoom range
and weight, as I prefer to carry the minimum, and that may be
a compact camera or a DSLR with a couple of lenses, depending
just what I am doing, and what compromises on the quality of
results I am prepared to make.

Now that's either too hard to believe, or supreme irony. Imagine,
trying to change those pesky DSLR lenses in the field, with several
of them rolling around and scattering in all directions like so many
round, cylindrical AA cells.


Were I after an available-light lens, the Sigma f/1.4 is certainly one I
would consider.

But of course, for the kinds of pictures you take, it isn't
needed. Yet. But by definition, if you get one, for whatever
reason, your needs or desires will have changed. :)

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Looking for a "prosumer" camera recommendation
    ... tiny sensors at higher ISOs. ... the FZ20, it won't be with the S3 or S5, which are both pretty good ... the less expensive P&S cameras would completely miss many "action" ... The OP didn't want any overpriced, noisy, and clunky DSLR or he would have ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: re 40D / request P&S galleries compare
    ... Ive noticed in comments about these cameras, ... A big piece of glass in front very often makes for a worse picture. ... Few if any dslr ... Will I post sample photos for comparison? ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Question about the Canon 100mm f/2.8 USM Macro lens
    ... Do you think MacroMania's comments about P&S cameras as a better ... Does the EOS 5D have advanced focus-bracketing capability? ... MacroMania's entire point is that most macro photos don't have sufficient ... compare to a dSLR for quality. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: A newbie request help selecting digital camera
    ... WHat I want to do is get highly crisp true-color photos of natural subjects, ... see the pic in advance, as can be done with digital cameras, and it'd be nice ... Minolta lens and my Nikkon 55mm lens. ... new dSLR hands-down in resolution and chromatic aberration problems. ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Palace of Fine Arts
    ... On Nov 18 2007 10:09 PM, DustinR. ... Now if only P&S cameras could do that well. ... I've got some remarkable P&S aurora photos and constellation photos. ... If I shared any of those at full resolution the suicide rates in the DSLR ...
    (rec.photo.digital)