I am surprised at lack of good humor in some of the replies. Not
talking about you Chris. Andrew got it. I think I agree with you
Chris. Although I have gotten some good shots with a digital P&S and
careful post processing will allow a modest sized print, it is a
little like making a picture with a toy camera. If you are good, or
lucky, then you might get something when you left the real camera
behind. I think I have to agree with Mike that there is not much that
intrigues about them or makes you want to become better. It is more a
test of what you can get because you have acquired some skills and
knowledge along the way.
Come on guys. You did not even smile when he said "turdlet"?
Winsor
Long Beach, California, USA
On May 12, 2007, at 2:38 PM, 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.
> 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) but
> the
> digital point-n-shoots aren't don't lend a unique character to the
> image,
> they're just plain bad quality.
>
> 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.
>
>
> --
> Chris Crawford
> Photography & Graphic Design
> Santa Fe, New Mexico
>
> http://www.chriscrawfordphoto.com
>
> http://www.plumpatrin.com Something the world NEEDS.
>
>
>
> On 5/12/07 3:05 PM, "Tom Scales" <tom@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>
>> Good thing I don't agree with him -- at all -- or I would have
>> missed an
>> awful lot of amazing photographs.
>>
>> He forgets the mantra of all decent photographers.
>>
>> "It's not the camera, stupid".
>>
>> Outstanding photographs are taken by disposal cameras with plastic
>> lenses.
>> With pinhole cameras made of cardboard. With $40,000 studio cameras.
>>
>> Will the quality perhaps be better? Sure. Will the photo be better?
>>
>> No way.
>>
>> He's also forgetting mantra number two.
>>
>> "You have no photo if you have no camera".
>>
>> Would I like to take every photo with my D2X? Well, I started to say
>> "sure", but it isn't true. I couldn't possibly carry it
>> everywhere. My
>> Cannon SD1000 is tiny -- almost as small as my old Pentax S4i --
>> but 7mp.
>> The results on the finger nail sized chip are pretty decent.
>> Could I print
>> a 24x36? Well sure. Would it be any good? Maybe. Depends on the
>> subject.
>>
>> As you can see, I'm not a fan of absolutes.
>>
>> Tom
>>
>>>
>>> Mike Johnston has a very funny take on point and shoot cameras this
>>> morning.
>>>
>>> http://theonlinephotographer.blogspot.com/
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Winsor
>>
>>
>> ==============================================
>> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
>> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
>> ==============================================
>
>
>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|