Re: P&S versus DSLR -- actual photos for comparison

"MartinS" <martins@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:9e1kj4d7m45409ipl2muqd1tfcstglp2hq@xxxxxxxxxx

You don't know how to pan with your subject to keep it sharp so that the
background is blurred to impart a feeling of motion in your photos? Let me
guess, your photography is as sterile and lifeless as those done with
flash.

I'm talking about people moving around at a bar at a party, for example,
where different people are moving in different directions at the same time.
I know perfectly well how to minimize blur due to camera motion; but when
the light is low enough that there is a choice between a 1-second exposure
or using higher ISO, I also know which of those choices works and which one
doesn't.

You don't know how to judge when a basketball player is at the peak of his
jump
and his motion is stopped? You don't now how to ... (I could name a
thousand
other examples).

I said low light. Basketball games don't count. Parties, bars, concerts,
dances -- those count. Where there isn't enough light to read and people
are constantly in motion. There, your choices are blur, flash, or high ISO.
I know which one I want.

You have failed to take focal length into account in computing angular
resolution. That's a factor of 5.5 that you're neglecting.

Focal-length is not a factor in this. It is the amount of resolution as
recorded
by the sensors. (Unless you can shove your DSLR sensor 5.5 times closer to
your
lens and still get a good image on it, then you will be correct.)

If you want, you can admit that a DSLR lens often puts out 5.5 (or more)
times
the amount of CA too when compared against the same resolution performance
in
P&S camera lenses, then I'll accept your reasoning.

Which will it be?

I've posted at length on this issue elsewhere, so I won't waste your
valuable time by repeating my reasoning. I will, however, repeat my
conclusion.

The Canon SD800 has 3072 pixels across a 1/2.5" sensor. Wikipedia tells me
that this sensor is 5.76 mm wide, which gives me a pixel pitch of 1.88
microns. The critical aperture (see my other posts) for 1.88 pixel pitch is
f/3.2. The images I posted were taken at f/4, which means that the lens
*cannot* significantly out-resolve the sensor, even if it is
diffraction-limited (i.e. otherwise perfect).

The Nikon D700 has 4256 pixels across a 36mm-wide sensor. That's a pixel
pitch of 8.46, which yields a critical aperture of 15.2. I set my lens at
f/11, so that the lens will come as close as it is capable to delivering all
the resolution that the sensor can offer.

So... The Canon lens is not quite capable of giving me 3072 usable pixels
across the frame; the Nikon is fully capable of giving me 4256 pixels across
the same angle of view. DSLR wins in this case, no matter how you look at
it.

I will be happy to consider any adapters that you suggest, as soon as you
post images to convince me that their quality is adequate. Failing that,
I
will not waste my time looking for them, as I do not believe they exist at
all -- let alone meet my size requirements.

Yes, you believe they don't exist so they must not exist.

I believe they don't exist, and don't particularly care -- so until someone
gives me convincing evidence otherwise, I still don't care.

"Jupiter's moons are invisible to the naked eye and therefore can have no
influence on the earth, and therefore would be useless, and therefore do
not
exist." - Pronouncement made by a group of Aristotelian contemporaries
of
Galileo, following his discovery of four Jovian moons.

Sound like you'd fit right in with them.

Think what you like -- I wouldn't dream of wasting your precious time trying
to convince you otherwise.


Please suggest to me a camera with an EVF that does not impose a
significant
time lag. Every one I have seen adds a delay of at least 1/4 second,
which
is just too much for moving subjects. I don't care about framing accuracy
because I know how to crop.

With a P&S camera with 100% accurate viewfinder and if you are talented
enough
there is no need to crop. Perfect compositions in the camera. No need to
throw
away all those valuable pixels that you paid for dearly.

Evidently you don't like to photograph moving subjects, nor do you ever like
to make prints in a different aspect ratio from the one that your camera
imposes. How limiting!

1/4 second EVF lag? Let me guess, the only P&S cameras you ever test are
those
12 year old ones that you find in the $0.10 box at your garage sales.

It's true of every EVF I've seen--but of course if you don't photograph
moving subjects, you'd never notice.

No need to post them. I already believe you. You have demonstrated in your
camera requirements that you need all the help you can get. You clearly
lack
what it would take to do any of this without technological benefits.

If I didn't care about technological benefits, I'd be a painter, not a
photographer.

Not at all. If I don't need extreme portability, my D700 is dramatically
better than anything else I've seen. And if I'm going to give up extreme
portability, I wouldn't dream of taking on the extra delay implied by an
electronic viewfinder.

Well, there's no sense in trying to convince a person who was born blind
as to
what colors must look like.

When you find such a person, how about spending some time trying to convince
him?

I never post my own photography on the net.

Well, then, we have nothing more to talk about.

Obviously. You love to live with blinders on. No doubt your photographic
creativity suffers from the same. Shoot any photos of kitty-cats lately?

A few. I also take pictures such as these:

http://i.pbase.com/g1/64/825464/2/103321283.xSNhRXwT.jpg
http://k43.pbase.com/g1/64/825464/2/103321435.bJZf4UoF.jpg

Your turn.



.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: To all 4/3 detractors
    ... It's contract is to hold motion that's four times ... be more than a few pixels off; and that really is within very ... There will be a lot more dithering in the image from a long lens than ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: To all 4/3 detractors
    ... It's contract is to hold motion that's four times the acceptable amount of motion down to the acceptable amount of motion, and the acceptable amount of motion is under one pixel. ... So while maybe in-lens IS swims widely before locking, in-body will never be more than a few pixels off; and that really is within very reasonable error tolerances. ... That distance isn't going to change with a different lens, if anything it'll be more stable with a big lens. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: To all 4/3 detractors
    ... It's contract is to hold motion that's four times the acceptable amount of motion down to the acceptable amount of motion, and the acceptable amount of motion is under one pixel. ... a few pixels off; and that really is within very reasonable error tolerances. ... That distance isn't going to change with a different lens, if anything it'll be more stable with a big lens. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
  • Re: Poll on *Really* Wide Angle Lenses
    ... >>>photographic lenses are concerned. ... >> rectilinear photographic lens. ... >fisheye lens than it is to a rectilinear lens, ... Now we make a rectilinear photograph of the wall, ...
    (rec.photo.digital)
  • Re: Availability of WA lenses
    ... I did a mediocre job on an assignment to photograph ... :>a building the other day because I don't have a wide enough lens to do it ... Is the Tokina factory ever going ... manager for a city government. ...
    (rec.photo.digital.slr-systems)
Loading