Whatbird.com

LauraC:

Changing to a bigger lens/adding a teleconverter means the bird is gone.  You might get a nicer pic but I'll bet I get more of a variety.  I'd sure hate to miss a bird because I was changing lenses.  I still think it's a matter of whether you stand there and wait for the birds to come to you or you go walking around with a camera looking for whatever you might find that day. If you are setting up and waiting, I'll agree with you.  I also think it's why so many great small bird photos are taken at feeders.

If you have the correct lens you don't have to change lens if you have a correct range lens IE a 75mm to 300mm lens. couple that with the crop factor (with my Nikon it 1.5) that makes a 75 - 300 mm lens a 112.5 - 400mm lens. The lens I use with my Nikon is a 55-200 which means it is a 82.5 - 300mm lens

You will notice most of my shots that I take are at a feeder for a reason. I have a wife who I take care of 24/7  365 after she had a stroke in 2001 and lost a leg in 2005 I would love to get out and walk around to get my shots however we have no family or anyone else to help so her care is up to me .

I totally agree with everything that raptlvr has said a DSLR will out perform a point and shot any day.

---

My New Avatar is in memory of Nancy my darling wife of 10 years who passed away on Monday November the 16th 2009 after an illness

My photo gallery http://thekiwi.org/photography/index.php

thekiwi:

 

I totally agree with everything that raptlvr has said a DSLR will out perform a point and shot any day.

Did you see the photos from LauraC's previous post? how about a little challenge? why don't we post our best one photo of one bird. Everyone shoots the same bird. the only catch would have to be , that it is completely unedited other than cropping. then we see the difference between cameras, not photoshop abilities. I  think you will have a very hard time getting the the level of LauraC's previous post. Anyone ... Are you game?

---

http://whatbird.com/forums/photos/early_summers_birds/
IM: oldguyrich

I don't want to get into a, "my brother can beat up your brother" kind of discussion, but I have to admit that the pictures that LauraC has posted are top quality pictures and put a good many of my DSLR pictures to shame. One of the keys to being a good photographer is picking the right equipment to achieve the desired effects, and one of the keys to being a good consumer is buying the right product that suits your needs within your budget. Value for money is a big key to buying a camera and I think any DSLR user would be hard pressed to achieve the quality of images that LauraC's camera has produced for the same amount of money. LauraC's camera comes with a built in 27-486mm(35mm equivalant) Leica zoom lens, putting Leica glass on a DSLR to cover the same focal range would put many of us in the poor house. Yes, there are many advantages to using a DSLR, that's why I bought one, but those advantages don't necessarily mean you'll get better pictures. LauraC has some AWESOME photos and the pictures speak quite well for themself, I refer you to the thread I speak of.
http://www.whatbird.com/forums/forums/thread/103613.aspx

---

My unorganized pictures can be viewed at

http://picasaweb.google.com/lonestranger102

birdseye:

thekiwi:

 

I totally agree with everything that raptlvr has said a DSLR will out perform a point and shot any day.

Did you see the photos from LauraC's previous post? how about a little challenge? why don't we post our best one photo of one bird. Everyone shoots the same bird. the only catch would have to be , that it is completely unedited other than cropping. then we see the difference between cameras, not photoshop abilities. I  think you will have a very hard time getting the the level of LauraC's previous post. Anyone ... Are you game?

birdseye there would have to processing as I shoot in camera raw no exceptions I don't shoot in automatic or jpg and I don't know of ant website that can read camera raw formats. I  think that with this statement you don't understand camera raw it includes all the tonal details wanted or unwanted.

---

My New Avatar is in memory of Nancy my darling wife of 10 years who passed away on Monday November the 16th 2009 after an illness

My photo gallery http://thekiwi.org/photography/index.php

 

You dont have to shoot raw...your camera shoots a form of jpeg or jpeg/raw...you choose to shoot raw,-- but shoot raw if you must... I don't think you can keep up with her..(.and, yes i understand raw formats...i see them on a daily basis...so i know the outcome of the photo is totally dependent on the skill or lack it in the editor....)

---

http://whatbird.com/forums/photos/early_summers_birds/
IM: oldguyrich

No one said her pictures were not good. I said that a point and shoot camera cannot produce the results that a DSLR can and cannot out preform a DSLR. I don't mind posting some of my best shots, but, the challenge you speak of would not work in my opinion. If we were all in the same place at one time shooting the same bird with the same lens setting and the same conditions, it would work. I do shoot pictures in my backyard {feeders} sometimes, but, its just to pass the time of day. I am retired and I usually go out every day to take photo's unless its raining or I have some kind of appointment. Most of my photography is done while I am flying my birds after game. Here is the kind of pictures I like to take. The jack rabbit was running at full speed when caught by the Harris Hawk.

 

---

Southwestern New Mexico

Since I have already brought myself into this discussion, I would like add to it. First off I want to say that I am a DSLR user, Olympus E-510 with a 70-300mm Zuiko lens used most of the time, and I can't see myself going back to a point and shoot camera. I like my equipment and am usually satisfied with the pictures it takes. Having said that, there are a few points discussed in this thread that I'd like to comment on. Please understand that I am not trying to critisize anyone's choice in camera or equipment, I am just pointing out some observations that I believe might be relevant to those trying to decide what kind of camera to buy. Although I may challenge some of the statements made in this discussion, I am not challenging anyone's choice in their equipment.

First thing I want to address is the blanket statements that DSLR cameras are superior to point and shoot cameras. I do believe DSLR cameras CAN be superior to a P&S, but that doesn't mean that they will be. I would like to use LauraC's Panasonic FZ28 to compare with some of the DSLR equipment mentioned in this thread. Again, I want to point out that I am not critisizing anyones equipment, but I will be making comparisons.

As most users will agree, good optics are the key to good pictures. LauraC's camera has a Leica 27-486mm F2.8-4.4 zoom lens, and from the research I have done, it seems that Leica is the BEST lens manufacurer ever. I can not state facts to support that statement but it seems to be the general consensus among photographers and I think everyone here would agree that Leica is a tough lens to beat. Achieving 486mm(35mm equivalent) focal length with an aperture of f4.4 is not something that can be done cheaply with a DSLR. Comparisons made to the zoom lenses mentioned can be confusing because of the ``crop factor". In laymans terms, after the math is done the crop factor translates to the 35mm equivalent of focal length so there is a standard to compare by. So lets compare.

raptrlvr normally uses a 70-300mm VR lens on his Nikon with a 1.5 crop factor, that equates to 105-450mm in 35mm terms. That does not match the versatility of zoom range on LauraC`s 27-486mm lens on her point and shoot. Although I can`t speak with any certanty here, the information I found online suggests that raptrlvr`s lens has an aperture range of f4.5-5.6, making the 70-300mm lens on raptrlvr`s DSLR slower than the f2.8-4.4 lens on LauraC`s point and shoot. If optics were the only issue here, I would have to give LauraC the edge on the DSLR vs P&S debate.

As others have pointed out though, myself included, optics are not the only issue to consider when buying a camera. Point and shoot cameras do suffer in a few areas where DSLRs excell. Shuter lag and shutter speed being the most obvious, at least to me, shutter lag being the one issue in particular that pushed me into the DSLR user category. With P&S cameras there is a slight shutter lag, the question people have to ask themself is, is the shutter lag and shutter speed enough to warrant the added expense of a DSLR and the lenses that go with it, for me it was. As for shutter speed, I can only speak from my own experience and say that I have never used my camera with a shurtter speed higher than that offered by some of the P&S cameras. My camera has the capabilty of shooting at 1/4000 of a second, but I have never exceeded 1/2000 of a second in practical use.

I guess the point I am trying to make is that there is no way of determining one type camera as being better than the other. There are a LOT of good cameras on the market and the only thing that makes one better than the other is personal preference. It is my opinion that it is wrong to say that one persons equipment is better than someone else's equipment, or that one camera can or can't produce better quality images than all others. If you are using your camera in a situation other than a laboratory setting, and it is producing images that you're satisfied with, then it's my opinion that you bought the right equipment for your needs. If you aren't satisfied with your pictures, then maybe an upgrade is in order.

I am a DSLR user but in all honesty, I can not say that my pictures are any better than some of those taken by some of the Point and Shoot Cameras. Yes, it is MY opinion that DSLR cameras equiped with GOOD lenses are superior to most Point and Shoot cameras, but I object to blanket statements that say that ANY DSLR is superior to ALL point and shoot cameras. It is my opinion that a P&S camera with good optics built into it CAN be just as as good or better than a DSLR with cheap glass in front of it.

Once again, I'd like to emphasize that I am not trying to critisize anyone's opinion, I am just trying to state what I think is an unbiased opinion for the benefit of those that haven't already made up their minds on the DSLR vs P&S debate.

---

My unorganized pictures can be viewed at

http://picasaweb.google.com/lonestranger102

You are entitled to your opinion. The comparision you make between the zoom on the different cameras is true , but, I would like to see a picture taken with the point and shoot at 486 mm. It has been my experience that P&S cameras at the longest focal length are blurry or very soft focus. Put a picture up of the longest focal length and lets see what it looks like. With a DSLR, you don't get that. The other thing I would say, is that with a DSLR, I have the ability to change to a greater focal length than the 486mm P&S camera. I have a 400mm 5.6 lens that becomes a 600mm 5.6  lens once I put it on my camera because of the crop factor.I can also put my 300mm 2.8 lens on my camera and it becomes a 450mm 2.8 lens because of the crop factor. If I add the 1.4 teleconverter, then it becomes a 630mm f4 lens. I can also go the other way and get a shorter focal length than the P&S camera These are options that are not available to a P&S camera. I still say the quality of the image is better than the P&S camera and nothing will ever convince me differently.

---

Southwestern New Mexico

Raptrivr.. i agree with most of what you say ... being able to add longer lens is the main reason i went to DSLR...Convience, flexibility, video and more than acceptable (what some may say is excellent) quaility of shots is why i would go back... if i didnt have 800 bucks invested in my stuff, I would...and all i have is a body, 18-70m stock lens, and a 300mm ....the problem with posting any pictures for comparison here on the forums is the small size you have to stay with...Can i ask how much you have invested in all your eqiptment  you have listed above?

---

http://whatbird.com/forums/photos/early_summers_birds/
IM: oldguyrich

raptrlvr:

LauraC, there is no way you can out shoot any DSLR with a point and shoot. With a zoom lens on a DSLR, I can get more varities than your point and shoot any day. I don't have to change lens and the quality will be much better with my DSLR than your point and shoot. My DSLR has a much faster shutter speed and better aperture than your point and shoot which allows me to take in flight shots that your point and shoot would have a tough time doing. You can't shoot nearly as fast as a DSLR and you have to contend with your shutter lag. I am not one for sitting in one place to have birds come to me, so, most of my shots are taken while I am walking around. I am not a pro photographer and never will be, but, compare your shots with just about any DSLR taken shots and you will easily see the difference.

Yeah, but you missed the part about my hands slightly shaking.  Everything (meaning weight) I would add to the DSLR would make it more difficult for me to hold the camera steady and I won't lug a tripod. 

18x optical zoom on the Panasonic FZ28:  35mm film camera equivalent: 27-486mm (per dpreview).

 The Nikon P90 24x optical zoom: 35mmfilm camera equivalent: 26mm - 624mm (per dpreview)

I don't use my Nikon P90 because I don't like the image stabilization (they call it vibration reduction) again because my hands shake but if I did, how much weight would a dslr with an equivalent 624mm max zoom lens weigh?  Even if the quality of the dslr camera images are great in your hands, they might not be that great in my hands.

 

 

 

 

 

 

LauraC,, i am looking to buy a p90- can you disable the VR? have you tried it on a tripod, or leaning across something to stabilize your shot? does it work then? thanks for the help

---

http://whatbird.com/forums/photos/early_summers_birds/
IM: oldguyrich

Here is a break down of my camera investment. Original purchase price for Nikon D200 with a 18-135mm zoom lens was $1400. I then purchased a 70-=300mm VR Nikon zoom for $500. Then I bought the Nikon 300mm 2.8 lens for $2500 {used} and a Kenko 1.4 teleconverter for $125. I am 61 years old and my hands shake also, but, even without the VR I can still take shots with my 300mm 2.8 lens{ does not have VR} which weighs about 5 and 1/2 pounds not counting weight of the camera body. I don't lug around a tri-pod or a monopod. Most of my shots are handheld unless I am at home taking pictures of birds at my feeders. Here is a shot taken with my Nikon 300mm 2.8 lens and the Kenko 1.4 teleconverter from a distance of about 50 yards. This is a hand held shot with the big lens

 

---

Southwestern New Mexico

birdseye:

LauraC,, i am looking to buy a p90- can you disable the VR? have you tried it on a tripod, or leaning across something to stabilize your shot? does it work then? thanks for the help

birdseye you should only disable the VR (Nikon) or IS (canon) when using a tripod if you want to use use your lenes with the VR or IS turned off then why on earth would you spend the extra few hundred dollars on having it

---

My New Avatar is in memory of Nancy my darling wife of 10 years who passed away on Monday November the 16th 2009 after an illness

My photo gallery http://thekiwi.org/photography/index.php

kiwi... LauraC said she didn't like the way the VR worked on her P90.. as i was interested in that particular camera, i was asking her if it was possible to disable it...informational request...on that camera ou don't pay any extra... fixed lens.

---

http://whatbird.com/forums/photos/early_summers_birds/
IM: oldguyrich

No, sorry I was misunderstood.  I meant the VR doesn't work good enough for me compared to similar cameras meaning I really need good IS because I'm apparently, twitchy.  The last thing I'd want to do is disable it.  The FZ28 IS apparently corrects me, as a hand holder, better than the P90 VR.  I don't have a Nikon battery charged right now to look at the camera menu. 

I can tell you something else I observed about the P90.  The photos I kept looked a lot better on the computer than they did on review on the camera.  In other words, don't delete them from a camera review.  I think I may have deleted some that were better than what they appeared to be on the camera LCD screen. 

If I recall correctly, the P90 camera controls are opposite my FZ28.  For example, on the FZ28, you pull to the right to zoom.  On the P90, you push to the left to zoom.  That's just a matter of you getting used to the camera, though. I don't call it a problem unless you switch cameras a lot.

There may be other differences.  I saw a difference in cloudy day vs sunny day photos but that could have been me not having a feel for the P90 settings that work best under different conditions, yet.  The sunny photos I kept were good.  I think I'll take it for another spin, soon.

I was a little suspicious about the price of the P90.  I was thinking, it's a Nikon, why doesn't it cost more?