Comments on: The random endorsement: Digital SLRs (or why point-and-shoots are a waste of time) http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/ Gadgets, gear and computer hardware. Sat, 10 Jan 2009 03:08:33 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 By: Embassy Pro Books http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-822079 Embassy Pro Books Mon, 18 Aug 2008 15:20:13 +0000 http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-822079 I agree that the DSLR are one of the best investments you will make if you enjoy taking photos. There positives and negatives to everything in life. Point and shoots are great if you need something compact. If you go out on the town and night you don't want to be lugging the DSLR around. During the day walking around the city it is a must. The photo quality at times doesn't compare especially once you learn how to use it correctly. I agree that the DSLR are one of the best investments you will make if you enjoy taking photos. There positives and negatives to everything in life. Point and shoots are great if you need something compact. If you go out on the town and night you don’t want to be lugging the DSLR around.

During the day walking around the city it is a must. The photo quality at times doesn’t compare especially once you learn how to use it correctly.

]]> By: Embassy Pro Books http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-789138 Embassy Pro Books Thu, 31 Jul 2008 18:17:34 +0000 http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-789138 I think it's entertaining how many willing 'models' you can get once you enter an environment where the alcohol is flowing. I agree that point and shoot is very limiting and if you want the flexibility to explore and play with your photos it's not the way to go. I think it’s entertaining how many willing ‘models’ you can get once you enter an environment where the alcohol is flowing.
I agree that point and shoot is very limiting and if you want the flexibility to explore and play with your photos it’s not the way to go.

]]> By: Simon http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-609108 Simon Fri, 07 Mar 2008 15:31:39 +0000 http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-609108 I came out of the world of film SLRs and rangefinder cameras, and I can't understand the need for digital SLRs. I was hoping someone could explain this to me. Back in the day, range finder cameras were fine. They allowed you to adjust aperature, speed and some even had lenses you could swap. The problem was that what you framed in the viewfinder wasn't what you necessarily got a picture of, because of paralax etc. So the SLR came along and fixed this major problem. It had a mirror that allowed you to see exactly what was going to hit the film and then it would flip out of the way at the last second when you took the shot. This allowed you to frame and compose correctly. It is interesting to note that many photojournalist used/use rangefinders exclusively. They are lighter, make less noise (no clunk) and your view doesn't black out at the crucial moment. What I don't understand with digital SLRs is why are they necessary? Why is it necessary to have this bulky mechanism flipping down a mirror like with film? With a digital camera the "film" can be continuously monitored with a back display or, in theory, with a small display in the eyepiece, so you can frame and see exactly what the picture will be before you snap it, without the need for a mirror. A non-SLR (rangefinder or so called point and shoot) can also have aperature and speed priority and manual settings in theory. Finally, a non-SLR can also have changeable lenses. So to me it boils down to this: The whole advent of the SLR was to allow exact framing of your shot. But since digital already allows this without the bulk of a mirror, without the noise of a mirror, without the vibration of a mirror, without the "black out" of a mirror, why bother with the mirror? Why not develop the digital equivalent of a digital rangefinder, eliminating all of that extra mechanical stuff that is no longer needed? Thank you in advance for any insights you can provide. I came out of the world of film SLRs and rangefinder cameras, and I can’t understand the need for digital SLRs. I was hoping someone could explain this to me. Back in the day, range finder cameras were fine. They allowed you to adjust aperature, speed and some even had lenses you could swap. The problem was that what you framed in the viewfinder wasn’t what you necessarily got a picture of, because of paralax etc. So the SLR came along and fixed this major problem. It had a mirror that allowed you to see exactly what was going to hit the film and then it would flip out of the way at the last second when you took the shot. This allowed you to frame and compose correctly. It is interesting to note that many photojournalist used/use rangefinders exclusively. They are lighter, make less noise (no clunk) and your view doesn’t black out at the crucial moment. What I don’t understand with digital SLRs is why are they necessary? Why is it necessary to have this bulky mechanism flipping down a mirror like with film? With a digital camera the “film” can be continuously monitored with a back display or, in theory, with a small display in the eyepiece, so you can frame and see exactly what the picture will be before you snap it, without the need for a mirror. A non-SLR (rangefinder or so called point and shoot) can also have aperature and speed priority and manual settings in theory. Finally, a non-SLR can also have changeable lenses. So to me it boils down to this: The whole advent of the SLR was to allow exact framing of your shot. But since digital already allows this without the bulk of a mirror, without the noise of a mirror, without the vibration of a mirror, without the “black out” of a mirror, why bother with the mirror? Why not develop the digital equivalent of a digital rangefinder, eliminating all of that extra mechanical stuff that is no longer needed? Thank you in advance for any insights you can provide.

]]> By: Eric Nagel http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-608463 Eric Nagel Thu, 06 Mar 2008 18:38:53 +0000 http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-608463 The dirty little secret of DSLRs, especially the consumer priced ones, is that the sensor is scaled down from the standard 35mm frame. As a result, your photo receives less information than old film SLRs receive. Full Frame DSLRs are still 3-4k but getting cheaper. I am still using a Powershot G5 but have been tempted to upgrade to the G9 or a consumer grade DSLR. Give me a camera that takes the pain out of HDR photos and I am sold, or just give me some bacon and mayo... Linger Longer The dirty little secret of DSLRs, especially the consumer priced ones, is that the sensor is scaled down from the standard 35mm frame. As a result, your photo receives less information than old film SLRs receive. Full Frame DSLRs are still 3-4k but getting cheaper.

I am still using a Powershot G5 but have been tempted to upgrade to the G9 or a consumer grade DSLR. Give me a camera that takes the pain out of HDR photos and I am sold, or just give me some bacon and mayo…

Linger Longer

]]> By: Alex http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-608058 Alex Thu, 06 Mar 2008 05:29:04 +0000 http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-608058 I have an LG Chocolate too. Finally, after owning it for seven months, I now know how to answer a call while I'm listening to music without disconnecting the caller and having to call them back. I'm currently trying to figure out how to select what song I want to hear rather than being forced to listen to the song that the Chocolate wants me to hear. Anyway, random nonsense, please. I have an LG Chocolate too.

Finally, after owning it for seven months, I now know how to answer a call while I’m listening to music without disconnecting the caller and having to call them back.

I’m currently trying to figure out how to select what song I want to hear rather than being forced to listen to the song that the Chocolate wants me to hear.

Anyway, random nonsense, please.

]]> By: Nicholas Deleon http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-607786 Nicholas Deleon Wed, 05 Mar 2008 23:22:58 +0000 http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-607786 Let me explain the rationale, or what was *supposed* to be rationale, for the random endorsement. You see that word there, "random"? That was supposed to be the key part of the column. One week I'd "endorse"--really, all "endorse" means here is "shout out"; don't think lives are at stake here or anything--a cellphone or some other tangible tech item/gadget and the next week I'd endorse Eclipse Winterforst chewing gum or some other "random" thing. Keep it light-hearted, fun. That sort of thing. Eventually, the invisible hand sorta strangled me and the column. Now I'm struggling to find things to "endorse" since the fact of the matter is I get by with very little--I still use the original LG Chocolate as my main phone, for example. I could have the worst phone in the tech blogosphere. Show me someone with a worse phone. Also, these endorsements are only supposed to be approx. 600 words in length, hardly enough space to tackle anything in any serious manner. So if they seem brief, that's why; I'm working toward a number here. With all this in mind, help me out--would y'all rather see Washington Post-style analysis (juxtaposed with posts about funny Street Fighter cosplay actors and the like...) or something a little more breezy. I'd be totally cool with writing "what you need to download this week from what.cd" or "my favorite brands of rum." Bottom line--should the endorsement be 100 percent serious 100 percent of the time or should I embrace the ideas upon which it was founded and endorse random nonsense every so often? Keep house alive. -nd (well, na now. inside joke.) Let me explain the rationale, or what was *supposed* to be rationale, for the random endorsement.

You see that word there, “random”? That was supposed to be the key part of the column. One week I’d “endorse”–really, all “endorse” means here is “shout out”; don’t think lives are at stake here or anything–a cellphone or some other tangible tech item/gadget and the next week I’d endorse Eclipse Winterforst chewing gum or some other “random” thing. Keep it light-hearted, fun. That sort of thing. Eventually, the invisible hand sorta strangled me and the column. Now I’m struggling to find things to “endorse” since the fact of the matter is I get by with very little–I still use the original LG Chocolate as my main phone, for example. I could have the worst phone in the tech blogosphere. Show me someone with a worse phone.

Also, these endorsements are only supposed to be approx. 600 words in length, hardly enough space to tackle anything in any serious manner. So if they seem brief, that’s why; I’m working toward a number here.

With all this in mind, help me out–would y’all rather see Washington Post-style analysis (juxtaposed with posts about funny Street Fighter cosplay actors and the like…) or something a little more breezy. I’d be totally cool with writing “what you need to download this week from what.cd” or “my favorite brands of rum.”

Bottom line–should the endorsement be 100 percent serious 100 percent of the time or should I embrace the ideas upon which it was founded and endorse random nonsense every so often?

Keep house alive.

-nd (well, na now. inside joke.)

]]> By: Johnal http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-607630 Johnal Wed, 05 Mar 2008 19:39:46 +0000 http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/03/05/the-random-endorsement-digital-slrs-or-why-point-and-shoots-are-a-waste-of-time/#comment-607630 Perhaps I don’t fully grasp these “random endorsements” just yet, but I think it’s a pretty weak argument to say that the reason P&S cams are a waste of time is because they may lack Av and Tv functions. There are quite a few P&S cameras available that offer these modes. Hell, I swear by my DSLR and will take it anywhere I can when a picture needs to be taken, but I still bought myself a cheap A570 IS for hooking up to my RC plane to take aerial video and aerial snapshots. I paid less than $100 for that POS P&S but it’s more than capable of handling Av/Tv modes. What it DOES lack is quality glass and overall picture quality. ISO settings above 400 are just unacceptable and are useless in my opinion. But, if for some unknown reason I really had to invest in a P&S camera, I’d probably go with a G9 that actually supports RAW (without having to use some sort of hack) and actually has excellent picture quality. I couldn’t believe this wasn’t your main argument since there are far fewer P&S cameras that support the RAW format straight from the box than there are P&S cams that have Av Tv mode. Anyway, sample pictures from the G9 rival a LOT of what I’ve seen from DSLR users so I think the photographer is still more important than the equipment he uses (to a reasonable degree). Lastly, I would just suggest that you spend the majority of your SLR buying budget on quality glass rather than the body. Lenses hold their value really well and be sold for 80-90% of the original purchase price if it’s in pretty good condition. SLR bodies drop in price so fast, it’s probably best to just get an entry level one until you realize what type of photography you’d like to pursue. Perhaps I don’t fully grasp these “random endorsements” just yet, but I think it’s a pretty weak argument to say that the reason P&S cams are a waste of time is because they may lack Av and Tv functions. There are quite a few P&S cameras available that offer these modes. Hell, I swear by my DSLR and will take it anywhere I can when a picture needs to be taken, but I still bought myself a cheap A570 IS for hooking up to my RC plane to take aerial video and aerial snapshots. I paid less than $100 for that POS P&S but it’s more than capable of handling Av/Tv modes.

What it DOES lack is quality glass and overall picture quality. ISO settings above 400 are just unacceptable and are useless in my opinion. But, if for some unknown reason I really had to invest in a P&S camera, I’d probably go with a G9 that actually supports RAW (without having to use some sort of hack) and actually has excellent picture quality. I couldn’t believe this wasn’t your main argument since there are far fewer P&S cameras that support the RAW format straight from the box than there are P&S cams that have Av Tv mode. Anyway, sample pictures from the G9 rival a LOT of what I’ve seen from DSLR users so I think the photographer is still more important than the equipment he uses (to a reasonable degree).

Lastly, I would just suggest that you spend the majority of your SLR buying budget on quality glass rather than the body. Lenses hold their value really well and be sold for 80-90% of the original purchase price if it’s in pretty good condition. SLR bodies drop in price so fast, it’s probably best to just get an entry level one until you realize what type of photography you’d like to pursue.

]]>