Are we demanding too much of our digital cameras these days?

Once upon a time in Northern Minnesota, I saw a bill board that
proclaimed: "Drink Canada Dry!" so I drove across the border, but after
five years, I realized I hadn't even made a dent in the supplies.

 

Now, I'm an Irishman, and you're definitely talking my language now.

 

Pretty funny; people ask my advice about which camera to buy all the time.
Only once did I reccomend an SLR. Most of the time, it's P&S since I know
that person will never want to post process.

And they always love the camera.

 

That's the problem with DSLR owners ... their own doubts on if they bought the
right camera or not propel them to try to convince others to buy the same
cameras. If they can convince others to buy one then it's easier for them to
believe that they made the right choice. They're also the ones that will cite
sales-reports and desperately try to find "majority rules" news. These
newsgroups are crawling with people doubting if they invested in the right
camera or not. Invariably it's those that spent the most money who are always in
the most doubt, frantically trying to justify the cost to appease their own
minds, always trying to convince others to join them. Prove them wrong and they
scream bloody murder. Doing so destroys all their delusional beliefs that
they've painstakingly designed for themselves. It's bad enough if they can't get
someone to join them in their delusions, but to actually be proved wrong too?
That's grounds for a psychotic melt-down.

 

QUICK: A bird suddenly takes off from its nest, accelerating
straight at you! You have about 1 second to point your camera
and compose, determine exposure, focus, and predict focus for
the time the shutter actually fires, and take the picture
when the bird is large in the frame and having a nice pose.
If you wait more than about a second, you miss the shot.

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/c01.14.2003.img_5113.egret-flight.f-600.html

Your rant misses the fact that different tools are needed for
different jobs. Your box camera would be a poor substitute
for fast action predictive autofocus cameras. Tools enable
the desired results, whether artist, craftsman, or technogeek.

Roger

 

Of course most people with half a brain know that different
tools are needed for different jobs and that no one
tool is so good it can do everything. And those with
more than half a brain usually can earn enough money
to acquire more than one tool. ;-)

Roger

 

But then there are people like me, I bought my wife a DSLR (a 20D)
because she was just not getting along with the P&S she had. She had
spent a number of years shooting a film SLR and the P&S just was not
cutting it. She also liked to shoot indoors and the P&S was pretty bad
for that. I on the other hand kept shooting mostly with my F828, using
her camera from time to time when I really wanted to get better photos.
The more I used the DSLR the more I liked it and the less I liked the
P&S I was using, so now we are a 2 DSLR family, of course we have point
and shoots for when they work better. I know full well what a DSLR
gives me and I know what I can get off of a P&S. And it is not just
about the quality of the photo, a good P&S can under the right
conditions take very high quality photos. But I am rarely shooting in
conditions where a P&S can get really good photos.

Scott

 

Oh, you mean like this one taken under an overcast sky before sunset, deep in
the Everglades swamps, with a zoom lens at 360mm f.l.? Taken with a HAND HELD
P&S camera? The bird filling up the whole frame? Spotted, composed, and shot
before the chance was missed?

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2028/1583977610_12254e5cb5_o.jpg

Like that?

You must mean another kind I guess. Only YOUR kind of camera can take those
kinds of photos.



What a fuckin' fool. Still trying to delude himself into justifying why he
wasted all that money on a DSLR with L-glass that can't beat any of the popular
P&S cameras.

YOU AND YOUR CAMERA ARE A FUCKIN' JOKE, ROGER!!

The only one that doesn't realize it is ------------------- YOU!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Nice job: overexposed, blurry, cluttered background,
with sticks coming out of the bird's head.
The depth of field is so large it looks like you cut this
out of a larger image from an image taken at a shorter
focal length.

Try again. You anger illustrates your frustration with your camera!

More examples:

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/eagle.c01.18.2007.JZ3F7355b-700.html

http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries/gallery.bird/web/eagle.c09.11.2004.JZ3F4717.b-700.html

Roger

 

<Roger's relentless and pathetic SPAM LINKS SNIPPED>

What? And show everyone just how crappy your photography truly is? Then not even
the idiots that buy from you now would bother. You know that I don't post my
good photography to the net. Just a sample to prove that you are 100% wrong. Are
you just this fuckin' daft to not realize that? (or course you are) Let's put it
this way, you can't even afford to LOOK at my better photography, let alone own
a print from it. You'd have to sell your house and cars and land for that. Keep
that piece of shit camera, it's nothing I'd ever want.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Slam and dunk! The fool with the DSLR was proven wrong AGAIN!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

You really need to get some help.
Your continued refusal to show an actual example proving
your point shows how fictitious it is. The only thing
you've proven is how angry and foul mouthed you are.
You'll never win, nor get ahead with your tactic.

For those who would like to see more of my "crappy" photos,
they can be found at:
http://www.clarkvision.com/galleries

Please everyone, let's all show X-man our "crappy" photos.
Post your links here.

Roger

 

You really are a prat and likely you've never taken a decent photo in
your life. Whatever equipment you use, now back under your bridge.

 

Well, you could ride a bicycle to the top of Pikes Peak, or drive a
Lexus up there, and either way, you would reach the top, but I would
MUCH rather travel there in the Lexus! While it isn't the tech that
determines the artistic value of a photograph, it does contribute much
to the process, and makes life much simpler for the photographer. Some
people would enjoy the bicycle trip more, others the ride in the Lexus.
I am somewhat disabled, so the Lexus would be my route, even though I
can still ride a bicycle, just as I can still use a light meter, set
shutter speeds, and aperture, and change film (If I wanted to), but as I
get older, those things don't fascinate me any more, and I love the
results I get the easy way.

 

Not likely. We really couldn't go back, unless, of course, you want to
volunteer to take the population back to 1950's levels, but 'checking out'.

 

Humm. Fix one girl, and take 100 photos, or fix 100 photos.... Let me
think....

 

LOL!!!

This is too fucking funny. The ONLY ones that didn't see your reply are the ones
you removed it from. It didnt' change a thing about mine.

Here, let me correct your outrageous stupidity.

There, now everyone can see how amazingly stupid you are.

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

acro-caster added these comments in the current discussion du
jour ...

I "fought" strong recommendations to go to a DSLR for a couple of
years, finally I "succumbed" and bought a Canon Rebel XT, a Canon
external flash, some Canon and other zoom glass, etc. I hav not
been disappointed except for it having more noise than I
expected. However, if I put on the bigger Canon L-glass zoom,
which weighs in at over 2 pounds by itself, the flash, and even a
smallish/lighter body than a Nikon D70s, I am toting around
hearly 5 pounds, which is very tiring on my left arm that has to
hold up all that weight. Results are great, it is just big and
heavy. So, for all the folk who don't want a huge, heavy, and
expensive camera and just want some reasonably good 4 x 6 Meijer
prints plus maybe stick the little P & S in their pocket, I
recommend that. Or, if they want more features, have a somewhat
larger budget, and can stand a bigger camera, I recommend an EVF.
Depending on who asked for what and for what purpose, they are
pretty much happy campers.

The people that are the most UNhappy, a rarity for my circle of
acquaintences, is when they allow someone - anyone - to con them
into more camera than they really want, and push them hard to
post-process. This brand of unhappy people are also too big
believers of tests they read in Popular Photography. So, to each
his/her own, I say.

 

Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark) added these comments
in the current discussion du jour ...

I obviously agree with this statement, Roger. In this NG and the
SLR NG, the population is much more tilted toward more expensive,
more post-processing, more mega pixels, and DSLRs. That's OK if
everyone remembers your advice herein, but they don't always. That
IS Okey, Dokey with me so long as no one suggests that someone who
believes in less is somehow not a "real" photographer. Again, to
each their own.

 

I have been reading this newsgroup for a couple of weeks and find the
arguing and bickering entertaining - at times. I had to post a simple
message and tell you that this is *right-on-the-money*. The right tool for
the right job, and most people that are serious about what they are doing
usually have more than one tool. And, this is not just limited to
photography!!

Chris

 

No. YOU are the one with the fucked up view of the world. That shitty shot
is so fuckin' BUSY with twigs, branches and whatever shit you have in the
background that it makes it difficult to tell what is animal or vegetable.

That is one of the poorest example of avian photography I have EVER seen.
Only a child, or a child-like mind would be proud of such crap.

Get a REAL camera and get a LIFE, Buck-o!