[StarScream]

An interesting and deep discussion that I totally missed!

One factor that may have been discussed here and is relevant is - if your needs are basic and portability is paramount then go for a P&S. If your needs are basic but you aspire at some point to take up photography more seriously then an entry-level DSLR is a wiser investment, with the added advantage of better quality.

There is also the issue of ease of use. I personally have found digital p&s' to be very fidgety to use. The layout of most DSLR's is just better and more intuitive IMHO.

One other point was made here by Anirban about the zoom factor on p&s' and the cost of getting the same on a DSLR. The logic that an 18-200 on a DSLR will cost a lot more is correct given the assumption that only one lens is used. If you go for a two-lens combo - say a D40 with an 18-55 and 55-200 - the total cost drops substantially. And you get a very competent photo-making kit with room to grow.

[clevermax]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Cough, cough, We have a pro who lurks around here who made it possible.

Attachment 113041

Looks so good. Care to share some more information on how you got that big print? You must have resized the image to a higher resolution in PS or something before printing didn't you? Bicubic? Bicubic softer? Or am I completely wrong?

[kaushik_s]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Cough, cough, We have a pro who lurks around here who made it possible.

Attachment 113041

The exif for the above image is here, it was shot in auto, in jpg mode, in a P&S, before I got seriously into photography: SmugMug Photo Sharing. Your photos look better here.

Gosh, that print on the wall and the original photograph have the difference level of a Ferrari and Zen . Awesome post processing done and I can guess who must've done it. I wish he gives us some lessons on Black & White post processing.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by clevermax

Looks so good. Care to share some more information on how you got that big print? You must have resized the image to a higher resolution in PS or something before printing didn't you? Bicubic? Bicubic softer? Or am I completely wrong?

It is way too complex than I can fathom. Only Rudra can tell how he did it.

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

An average prosumer prints a full resolution @ 8MP which is a very normal norm on date will print about a size of 2448 x 3264 at 300 DPI will print a size of 8"x10". Tell me how often do you print such sizes? It's about regular use for which a prosumer was referred to. Not, for posters to cover walls. The defacto size of PC or 4"x6" is very much attainable and invisible to the naked eyes when printed by a prosumer or by a DSLR. Where the DSLR rules is when you need more control over the settings.

Call me a pixel peeper or whatever but there's a difference even in the crops.
I moved from a Canon S3 IS to a Canon 40D and not just for better image quality. The discussion we are having here pertains to someone who moved from a simple P&S to a bridge cam with all the manual controls and now wants to move to a DSLR for serious photography. A bridge camera gives you almost as much control as a DSLR would in absolute terms. For that matter my S3 IS has a spot metering mode which even the Canon 20D hasnt but that really isnt the point here.

They say you should move to a DSLR only if you the limitations of your current equipment. Apart from better IQ a DSLR gives you so much more freedon especially true in my case. Firstly the Auto Focussing performance, my S3 IS just wouldn't focus in harsh sunlight because the sensor would just blow out all the highlights due to strong light and the contrast detect auto focus would just fail. All through the years we have been listening to things like a DSLR has faster and better auto focussing performance compared to a prosumer even in low light, I learnt it the hard way even in broad daylight!
There's also the handling, AI Servo and needless to mention high ISO performance. You have more control over the DOF too. The photography articles would just tell you to keep the aperture open to get a shallow DOF which my S3 IS just wouldnt give me until and unless I was at max focal length, shooting from the minimum focussing distance or shooting macro. There are hundred other factors but you only realize once you have seen what a DSLR is capable of. I have gone horribly offtopic here.

[NomadVagabond]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Call me a pixel peeper or whatever but there's a difference even in the crops. I moved from a Canon S3 IS to a Canon 40D and not just for better image quality. The discussion we are having here pertains to someone who moved from a simple P&S to a bridge cam with all the manual controls and now wants to move to a DSLR for serious photography. A bridge camera gives you almost as much control as a DSLR would in absolute terms. For that matter my S3 IS has a spot metering mode which even the Canon 20D hasnt but that really isnt the point here.

Accepted and agreed that your 40D will be giving you better IQ along with more controls etc etc. Anyway why are you comparing S3IS with a Canon 20D?? Canon 20D was launched on 19th August 2004, while S3IS was launched on 21st February 2006. That’s nearly 1 1/2 yr of development which might have gone into digital photography!! What I fail to understand is why doesn’t anyone compare something with something within the same time frame or the same category? Earlier Dr. Pullock was on the case of comparing a 5D with a 20D which again was like 2 different classes compared. And FYI Canon 400D which I currently use doesn’t have “Spot Metering” either. How about that? It’s just what features the company is providing. Even though that time S3IS was very well much present in the market.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Firstly the Auto Focussing performance, my S3 IS just wouldn't focus in harsh sunlight because the sensor would just blow out all the highlights due to strong light and the contrast detect auto focus would just fail.

I understand your frustration when you said all that. I agree to all that you mentioned above. I myself had a Sony H-5 which turned out to be as bad in the focusing department. But, then again AF is not always depended on the sensor. It’s also dependent on the lens. Anyway that’s not applicable when prosumers or any other digital camera is in question.

Originally Posted by Samurai

Cough, cough, We have a pro who lurks around here who made it possible.

I know about that. But, my dear friend. Not, everyone is a pro isn’t it? So, had that been me when I started photography 2yrs back I’d have been stuck there and done nothing about my photographs just because I was having a stupid camera!!

Originally Posted by Samurai

I guess that is where we differ in our definition of professional. Most wedding photographers and press photographers in India use auto mode and jpg in their dSLR, and they are professional photographers. No, I didn't have them in mind. When I said professional I meant photographers who sell their photographs as artwork.

That’s exactly what I said before too.

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

P.S: Photography is an art. It's not limited by the equipment. Sometimes a simple pin-hole camera might produce the most amazing photograph which a Hassleblad might fail to take. After all the beauty lies in the eye of the beholder.

@ Samurai

But, having said that. If you say that only those who sell photographs as work of art are professionals not the ones who do them for commercial activities specially press photographers or wedding photographers. Then I am sad then famous photographers like Steve McCurry, Ansel Adams, Nick Brandt, Dabboo Ratnani, Ashok Dilwali etc wouldn’t be professionals the first place. So, hence my definition for a professional photographs stands its ground.

And how exactly do you know that they use jpeg?? Atleast 3 of the press photographers I know use RAW and Aperture Priority/Manual modes. I find that comment very baseless. People who get their bread and butter from photography are totally in for advanced methods not Auto. They wouldn’t be buying huge CF cards if they really did shoot in jpeg. And well RAW is the basic lifeline for serious photographers let alone professionals. They go one step ahead and shoot RAW + JPEG at the same time.

Originally Posted by navin

Medium Format digital backs offer even less magnification ratio than DSLRs.

That’s news to me. Please check the datasheet on this link. It’ll give you the exact pixel x pixel resolution of which results into magnification ratio on a medium format, this belongs to Hassleblad H3-DII 50, which is one of the foremost medium format digital back camera’s on date. http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/media/13...tasheet_v2.pdf (Page 5 has all the required technical aspects related to this issue)

Infact, the resolution of the lowest variety of these models which is 4872x6496 pixels is more than the current Nikon D3x which has 6048 x 4032 which is even more than the Canon 1Ds MK III.

Regards,

Anirban.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

But, having said that. If you say that only those who sell photographs as work of art are professionals not the ones who do them for commercial activities specially press photographers or wedding photographers. Then I am sad then famous photographers like Steve McCurry, Ansel Adams, Nick Brandt, Dabboo Ratnani, Ashok Dilwali etc wouldn’t be professionals the first place. So, hence my definition for a professional photographs stands its ground.

I said most wedding/press photographers, not all. Besides, you are naming exceptions, some of that always exist. I meet wedding photographers all the time and sometimes press photographers too. The former category depends on PhotoShop for all the effects and don't worry about camera settings. The latter category needs to take newspaper quality BW prints, so they don't worry too much about quality.

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

And how exactly do you know that they use jpeg??

I have never seen a wedding photographer who uses raw, that's how.

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

Atleast 3 of the press photographers I know use RAW and Aperture Priority/Manual modes.

That's a rare species.

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

I find that comment very baseless. People who get their bread and butter from photography are totally in for advanced methods not Auto.

You apparently know some very serious press photographers, good for you. But that doesn't mean other's experience is baseless.

[NomadVagabond]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I said most wedding/press photographers, not all. Besides, you are naming exceptions, some of that always exist. I meet wedding photographers all the time and sometimes press photographers too. The former category depends on PhotoShop for all the effects and don't worry about camera settings. The latter category needs to take newspaper quality BW prints, so they don't worry too much about quality.

Maybe they are exceptionals. But, once they were also amateurs. Anyway, Do you know that for Photoshop editing. RAW is the best possible format? So, knowing that I doubt there are many wedding photographers who don't use RAW. Maybe the ones you've seen till now are exceptions as well. Press photographers do publish quite some color photographs too. What about the sports pages? I think these days that's almost always color. I've not seen Sachin Tendulkar in B/W in ages now. Magazines like Week, India Today etc etc publish almost 99% color photographs which need quality photographs.

Originally Posted by Samurai

I have never seen a wedding photographer who uses raw, that's how.

That's a rare species.

You apparently know some very serious press photographers, good for you. But that doesn't mean other's experience is baseless.

Not really. I know some amateur press photographers who are currently doing their internship in Times Of India. And 2 of them shoot for Page 3 column and another does the sports section.

And why I said baseless, was as these days even prosumer users are using RAW. So, I couldn't even imagine DSLR professionals using JPEG.

Regards,

Anirban.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

Anyway, Do you know that for Photoshop editing. RAW is the best possible format?

Hmm, Interesting. Anyway, the discussion has veered too much away from my initial query. So, I'll sign out now.

[kaushik_s]

@Nomad, May be it's OT: How do you directly process the RAW without even converting it to some other format? Would you please explain? Or am I lagging behind the technologies too much(still using older version of PS)

As per the DSLR or Prosumer or whatever debate, the camera is as good as the person behind anyway.

[NomadVagabond]

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

@Nomad, May be it's OT: How do you directly process the RAW without even converting it to some other format? Would you please explain? Or am I lagging behind the technologies too much(still using older version of PS)

Well, I use the proprietary Canon EOS software for normal editing (mostly noise related editing) and then porting it out on Adobe Lightroom 2.0 for further editing and then finally onto Adobe Photoshop CS3.

BUT, here's the direct method. If you have Adobe Camera RAW installed onto your Photoshop then it'll open most of the RAW formats supported. For sure it opens Canon RAW .CR2 and Nikon RAW NEF formats. I've not worked with any other RAW format so I can't comment on those. For more info please check this link Adobe - Adobe Photoshop CS4: Digital camera raw file support

Originally Posted by kaushik_s

As per the DSLR or Prosumer or whatever debate, the camera is as good as the person behind anyway.

Ditto!!

Regards,

Anirban.

[navin]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

That’s news to me. Please check the datasheet on this link. It’ll give you the exact pixel x pixel resolution of which results into magnification ratio on a medium format, this belongs to Hassleblad H3-DII 50, which is one of the foremost medium format digital back camera’s on date. http://www.hasselblad.co.uk/media/13...tasheet_v2.pdf (Page 5 has all the required technical aspects related to this issue)

Infact, the resolution of the lowest variety of these models which is 4872x6496 pixels is more than the current Nikon D3x which has 6048 x 4032 which is even more than the Canon 1Ds MK III.

Ok this might be a miscommunication on my part since I am still stuck on film.

A Hassie 500cm for example uses 6"x6" film. A SLR uses about 1.5" x 1". To make a print of say 36" x 36" using a Hassie I need to magnify the negative 6 times. For the SLR I need to magnify the negative 24 times (at least).

FYI this is the "Hassie" I am refering to
Photoethnography.com - Classic Cameras

[Rudra Sen]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

Well, I use the proprietary Canon EOS software for normal editing (mostly noise related editing)

What's this exactly? Do you mean to say that you always shoot with very high ISO?

Originally Posted by navin

FYI this is the "Hassie" I am refering to

Super machine that was. Only, I never liked 6/6 format for space wastage.
And this is what I started with. My father's camera. Photoethnography.com - Classic Cameras

I think we must get back to digital camera discussion quickly.

[amitoj]

Originally Posted by NomadVagabond

BUT, here's the direct method. If you have Adobe Camera RAW installed onto your Photoshop then it'll open most of the RAW formats supported. For sure it opens Canon RAW .CR2 and Nikon RAW NEF formats.

I second that. If the user knows what he/she wants from the picture, Adobe's Camera RAW is all that is required. However, i am not sure whether its available as a standalone software or not. You need Lightroom or Photoshop.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by amitoj

I second that. If the user knows what he/she wants from the picture, Adobe's Camera RAW is all that is required. However, i am not sure whether its available as a standalone software or not. You need Lightroom or Photoshop.

It is a free download from Adobe, can be used as standalone. First few months after buying E3, I couldn't use CS2 directly since ACR 3.X didn't support E3 raw. So I had to use ACR 4.X with DNF converter as a standalone, convert E3 .ORF rawfile to Adobe DNF before opening it in CS2. Now that I upgraded to CS4, don't have to worry about that extra step.

CS2 uses ACR 3.x
CS3 uses ACR 4.x
CS4 uses ACR 5.x
ACR is Adobe Camera Raw.