>> |
Anonymous
>>76121 1. "Sub-SLRs" (why do these people think they can get away with this marketing junk?) handle much better than normal point-and-shoots.
2. At low ISOs, the thing limiting the quality of point-and-shoots is that most of them have horrible lenses, even worse than a DSLR kit lens. A photograph from a point-and-shoot with a good lens is of pretty much equal quality to that of a DSLR.
For low light, yeah, a DSLR or a propensity to use more flash than Bruce Gilden is needed. But for up until twilight and/or for scenes one can use a tripod for, a point-and-shoot will do just fine.
3. Almost all top-end point and shoots have full manual controls. I know you didn't argue this point, but others did, so I'm just including this in this post.
4. And lastly, top-end point and shoots have eliminated shutter lag, so long as everything (focus, exposure, etc.) is set before the shutter is pressed.
The thing about point-and-shoots is that the label includes everything from a camera phone to the Panasonic FZ-50 or Fuji S9100, which even have focusing rings on the lens. The only thing they have in common is sensor size and the lack of interchangeable lenses, and to throw them in together is like putting Canonet and a disposable camera in the same basket because they both use 35mm film and have one lens.
And like a prior poster said, try carrying a DSLR with one of their superzoom lenses, and then another telephoto zoom to make up the difference, into some places. It won't work, either for reasons of convenience, allowance, or civility.
|