Chris Crawford wrote:
> I actually agree with MJ on point n shoots. I think they're worthless and
> would never waste my money on one. I used to work in a camera shop here in
> Santa Fe and was amazed how truly crappy all small sensor PS cameras are.
>
Yeah, there is no way you can get a good image from them. That's why I'm
going to dump these flower pix taken with an ancient, all auto, 1.9 mp
digi P&S.
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/10-1053.htm
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Glads/pages/14-1075_.htm
Useless for indoor informal portraits, too.
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/S110Portraits/
And the newer, higher mp ones are just crap too.
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Summita/
And in dim light, like a museum where flash is not allowed,
fegeddiboutit! http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Cloisters/
Or capturing the moment with detail and tonal subtlety.
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Iron4/pages/IRON4017.htm
> Its too bad too because in 35mm there were some nice point-n-shoots like the
> Olympus Stylus (I had one but later gave it to my mother; she still likes it
> even though she has a digital camera now).
>
> To me, quality is part of making the photo good. There are times when really
> awful quality contributes to the image (eg. Holga type cameras)
Couldn't agree more, I've never been attracted by those sorts of photos
in general. There are a very few that really appeal to me, but for the
vast majority, I can't tell, and don't much care, whether they are
pretentious efforts to mimic what the few greats have done or simple
technical incompetence. Of course, I like my occasional "flub", but this
is with a DSLR. http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Home/Ghost.htm
> but the digital point-n-shoots aren't don't lend a unique character to the
> image, they're just plain bad quality.
>
I've already made my pictorial argument to the contrary. I don't claim
my above examples are those of a good photographer, but I do think they
generally demonstrate a singular lack of technical crappiness.
> I agree with you that not having a camera means not having a photo. That's
> why I keep an OM-4T with a couple lenses in my Domke messenger bag that is
> ALWAYS on my shoulder no matter where I go.
>
Different strokes. I don't carry an SLR wherever I go. Too big and
inconvenient for some of my life. I do carry a P&S pretty much
everywhere. http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/BayArea/SumaTil/
It's usually in a quick access belt pouch, so I can whip it out and
shoot, as in the first pic above, taken while waiting for an elevator to
leave a medical office building where I'd just taken my mom for a doc
appt. I guarantee I'd outdraw you by a big margin in a shootout. :-)
And the truth is, the F30 is a more capable dim light camera than my
OM-4 bodies have ever been. Not their fault, but they shoot film, which
isn't as good at high isos, and can't change iso at will.
Then, there's that time when I have used up all the "film" I brought for
the (D)SLR, think the shooting day is over and discover some amazing
murals and carvings from the WPA days in a restored building not open to
the public for decades. I guess these crappy shots will have to do until
I can get back with a real camera.
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/GGPark/Frescos/index.htm Not!
And do the F10 images stick out as poorer than those taken with a 5D in
the same gallery?
http://galleries.moosemystic.net/Monterey%20-%20June%202006/Carmel%20Valley/index.html
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|