"franklin-d-worth" <fdworth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:j3ijj3h3eon69e8uohq41jdsvgm6kcketu@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 16:00:50 +0100, "Bill Again" <sd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"franklin-d-worth" <fdworth@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
>>news:baajj39bvm3uhhu9rcuubtq1asipbpp3co@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>> On Tue, 13 Nov 2007 03:50:55 -0600, Ron Hunter <rphunter@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>aniramca@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
>>>>> The other day, I saw the new Sony P&S camera - DSC H3. On top of the
>>>>> camera, it was indicated that it has a strong built in flash. I went
>>>>> to search about built-in flash feature in a digital camera at the
>>>>> dpreview website and found the following:
>>>>> For P&S digital cameras: Canon G7 has a weak flash, Flash guide of
4m.
>>>>> Canon S51S is stronger. Sony H3 has a Flash guide no. of 7m, while
as
>>>>> Sony DSC H7 or H9 is the strongest I found for P&S camera - Flash
>>>>> Guide of 9.8m. Canon SX100 is even worse than the G7/G9 - at only
3m.
>>>>> Lumix Fz18/FZ8 has a flash guide of 6m, and FZ50 has 7m. Nikon 5100
is
>>>>> much better than G7/G9 at 8m.
>>>>> For DSLR: Most cameras with built-in flash has Flash Guide around
>>>>> 11-13m. Canon 5D does not even have a built-in flash. Surprisingly,
>>>>> Nikon D40 and D40x has flash guide no. of 17m. As comparison, Canon
>>>>> 40D/30D/Xti all have only a flash guide of 12m.
>>>>> - Why P&S cameras have relatively weaker built-in flash than the
DSLR?
>>>>> Could P&S cameras be designed to have stronger built-in flash like a
>>>>> DSLR?
>>>>> - I noticed that my P&S camera usually is too weak to take picture
in
>>>>> large indoors (restaurant, meeting halls, etc). Could this be
improved
>>>>> by stronger flash? I have always complained in the past that most
P&S
>>>>> cameras have tiny built-in flash, and without a hot-shoe, you cannot
>>>>> improve your lighting in indoor shots.
>>>>> - Anyone tried the built-in flash in Sony H3 or Sony H7 and H9?. Are
>>>>> they much better than flash in other cameras, particularly the low
>>>>> ones like Canon G7/SX100? Does this mean that Sony H3/H7/H9 is
>>>>> superior for taking photo indoors for people in a group than, say
>>>>> Canon G7/G9? I found that Sony H3 is a good competitor against
Canon
>>>>> G7/G9 or Nikon P5100. It may have less features than G7/G9, but it
>>>>> makes good quality images and it is cheaper than a G7/G9. It is also
>>>>> as compact as a G7/G9 or Nikon P5100.
>>>>> - Is built in flash in Nikon D40x really stronger than flash in a
>>>>> Canon Xti?
>>>>> - How much difference are relatively between a Flash Guide of 3m,
7m,
>>>>> 12m and 17m ? I assume that this is all based on ASA100? Does a
flash
>>>>> guide 17m mean that you can get a good coverage of flash to 17m
>>>>> distance?
>>>>> - Panasonic Lumix L1 is about the only DSLR camera that has extended
>>>>> pop-up flash feature (ie. 2 level heights). What is the advantage of
>>>>> this? Less red-eye images?
>>>>> - Are there digital cameras (P&S or DSLR) which have two or more
modes
>>>>> of flash strength in their built in flash?
>>>>> Thanks for the info and discussion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Ok, to begin with, larger cameras can mount larger flash tubes, and
have
>>>>space for more battery power to keep them fla****ng. Smaller cameras
>>>>just don't have the space, or battery power to accommodate the larger
>>>>flash mechanisms.
>>>>Some cameras do control the brightness of the flash, usually in
concert
>>>>with the light metering, and the focusing system. Others don't. Look
>>>>for that information in the specs.
>>>>P&S cameras aren't designed to take flash pictures in large areas, so
>>>>they don't manage well in this application. It is just a matter of
>>>>limitations of size, weight, and battery power imposed by their size.
>>>>If you routinely take pictures in such situations, then a P&S camera
is
>>>>probably not for you.
>>>>Reviews usually list the flash distances with comments about the
usable
>>>>range.
>>>
>>> Let's weigh the identical flash-reach options, shall we?
>>>
>>> dSLR + built-in high-power flash = always overweight, always
expensive,
>>> internal dedicated flash failure = whole camera goes in for repair
>>>
>>> P&S + accessory flash = lightweight w/o high-power flash, adaptable,
>>> inexpensive, flash failure = use a different or new flash, any flash
>>> option on
>>> the market
>>>
>>> Sorry, dSLR still doesn't win even for its built in flash. In fact if
a
>>> dSLR
>>> really wanted to be more of an SLR than a P&S it wouldn't have a
>>> built-in
>>> flash
>>> to begin with, taking up all that extra irremovable size, weight, and
>>> cost. I
>>> can't recall even one professional SLR from the past that would even
>>> think
>>> of
>>> including an onboard flash. Flash was always an accessory and rightly
>>> so.
>>> No Pro
>>> in his right mind would buy a camera with a flash built into it. That
>>> was
>>> a sign
>>> of cheapness and P&S convenience. It makes any camera look like a $15
>>> Instamatic. (I wonder if this is why I buy P&S cameras where the flash
>>> folds
>>> down to where you can't even tell it has one.)
>>>
>>> Isn't it funny as the years go on the dSLR "Pro" people are always
>>> clamoring for
>>> more and more P&S features on their cameras. Auto focus,
auto-exposure,
>>> live-view for that amplified viewfinder in low light and seeing
>>> shutter-speed
>>> effects, on-board flash, silent operation, ..... I bet some of them
>>> even
>>> want
>>> audio and video recording capability too now.
>>>
>>> Is this another clue into why they speak out against P&S cameras so
>>> much?
>>> It's
>>> not because they don't like P&S cameras it's really out of envy and
>>> jealousy
>>> that their dSLR can't be more like a P&S camera. If their dSLR was
that
>>> great
>>> why would they feel the need to belittle other cameras? It's all
>>> starting
>>> to
>>> make perfect sense -- P'n'S Envy.
>>>
>>> What an odd and accurate coincidental homophone, eh?
>>
>>
>>Funny. But inaccurate. There may well be a large number of amateur
>>photographers who have bought dSLRs and who later regret it because
their
>>chosen camera doesn't have the bells and whistles of a P&S. On the
other
>>hand there are a lot of photographers who have bought dSLRs because the
>>camera offers them a lot more than does a P&S in terms of control. I
guess
>>that this might be the same difference as between those who bought an
>>Instamatic or a Brownie and those who bought an analogue SLR. Personally
I
>>like the trend for a good dSLR that actually moves away from the cheap
>>digital tricks. The Pentax K10D, for one, has been designed to mimic an
>>analogue camera as nearly as possible and the designers' have ****ed away
>>from building in many of the commoner *digital* settings.
>>
>>That's all.
>>
>>Bill
>>
>
> If it's the amount of control that determines the absolute in cameras
then
> I
> guess a P&S designed to let you choose shooting between available light
or
> infra-red spectrums with the push of a button, and using manual focusing
> and
> zoom rings on an 11mm-320mm (+macro) f/2.0-2.4 Zeiss lens must be the
> ultimate
> in control, along with all the usual shutter, f-stop, !00-3200 ISO, and
> other
> manual controls. I'm accurately describing one of my own P&S cameras by
> the way.
>
> No, that's not the ultimate in control. Some of the P&S cameras that can
> run
> CHDK today are the ultimate in manual or automated control. Some of
their
> controllable options easily beating even the $12,000 dSLR bodies being
> sold this
> year. Can you manually choose what colors you'd like on your
> under/over-exposure
> viewfinder overlay or by what limits that you want that under/over
> detection
> sensitivity? Can you control up to 1024 areas of your viewfinder, their
> sampling-rates, and sensitivity levels in each region that you want to
> detect
> subject-motion to trigger your shutter? Choose between 7 different
> live-histograms? 108 different video-compression options in 2 different
> flavors?
> Can you design your own cropping and composition masks for your
viewfinder
> in
> any colors you want? This list is extremely long so I won't mention them
> all,
> there's a whole CHDK dedicated web-site to describe all that you can
> control on
> your CHDK-capable camera. The scripting options also allowing for
> automated
> control of the camera's manual features that no other cameras on earth
can
> equal
> (such as 96 steps per f-stop for EV and flash levels). If these P&S
> cameras only
> had IR and UV options too ... sigh ...
>
> If it's control that determines the best of all cameras then you're
really
> going
> to have to look into the P&S models now and in the past. I've not found
> one dSLR
> yet that allows for the amount of myriad ways that one can control a P&S
> camera.
> This includes being able to control the ways that it can record
> stereo-audio and
> videos too. Put a higher quality lower-noise sensor into any of the
> high-quality
> super-zoom P&S camera that I've already bought and that's all that
anyone
> would
> ever need.
>
> While you're trying to control the limited features of that dSLR, would
> you
> PLEASE do something about controlling that obnoxious sound they make so
> that
> cameras are allowed back into public performances? Thanks. That's
another
> control option I get to have. I can control if I want my camera to make
> noises
> or not and how loud I want them to be. My shutter can sound like a
> whinnying
> horse or round of applause if I so choose (though a phaser firing sound
> for the
> delete button is kind of fun). You have zero control over the sounds
your
> camera
> makes. You have one sound output option available clearly labeled
> "Obnoxious",
> which anyone near you can read. You do realize that the d/SLR is the
main
> reason
> that cameras have been banned so many places, don't you? The only people
> on
> earth that like dSLRs are the people that choose to buy them. The rest
of
> us
> know better and are more considerate and respectful of all others.
>
I guess that by "control" I don't actually mean how many knobs the camera
has. I have owned, so far, 9 digital cameras, only one of which is a dSLR.
The others varied from point and shoot to the Lumix fz50 which I saw as a
near-SLR camera. Yes, some of them allowed me to choose the noise they
make.
However as far as I am concerned the choice of noise emitted is
irrelevant.
If I wanted a musical instrument I would buy one. Nor do I want a camera
that records stereo audio or video. For that I would use dedicated
equipment. Perhaps you would like it to make coffee as well?
And no, the noise or otherwise that a camera makes is not the reason they
have been banned. If they are banned, and so far I have been banned from
precious few places, it is because of perceived threats to copyright. But
I
have photographed in many galleries, including the Schirn in Frankfurt and
the Hermitage in St Petersburg, no one objected to any noise, and many of
them wanted to be in the picture.
You suggest putting a higher quality lower noise sensor into a high
quality
super zoom P&S. If it was this simple then why isn't it done.
Frankly it reduces to one thing. Show me a professional photographer that
is
using a point and shoot.
That's all.
Robert R.
|
