OK let's see if we can bring this thread back on track.
My beliefs in the delta between SLR and SLR have previously been discussed as folks explained to me.
My latest camera was acquired for many reasons to include a series of full manual settings. In doing so I knew it was not an SLR and from what limited info I had gathered saw very little difference in comparison with NSLR, when viewing the specs. That was then this is now.
What I have come to find out in the last few days, assisted by what can be termed a heated discussion, is that outside of the capability of using previously acquired lenses (read good) to suit a particular situation, the main component of the DSLRs that renders them many steps above the NSLRs is sensor size (something I did not know about until yesterday) and their ability to go into full manual not unlike a 35mm, and not the lense itself as was allured to, intentional or not.
Because of the gambit of features on my present camera: shutter speed, white, aperture, ISO adjustments etc... Now I fully understand the delta between the two. SLRs do indeed have a wider range for settings and a finer adjustment vice coarse adjutment of said settings as found on NSLRS. I was looking for information on what folks use for settings. I had remembered that Carl had mention some settings when taking photos, but do not remeber where. I thought it was in his article, which contains good info but is not what I was looking for. Walter had previously mentioned how he took pictures and what he used, I did find a portion over at IBC after many searches as it was burried in a thread vice a thread on photography.
As I stated in my first post I was inquisitive not argumentative. I did not want to turn this thread into a debate. I do not like to quote in posts but will do so for the sake of clarity vice anything else. It seems Al you summarized the discussion in one post and left out some important aspects of
"our" discussion, this was further amplified in one of my responses, where I stated more or less that you have not had the opportunity to clarify your statements (or something along those lines) and would surely chime in and enlighten us.
No matter how well you frame the picture you will always have mega distortion because of the fisheye lens included in most non SLR digitals.
Now we know this particular statement to be untrue as even with expensive lenses on SLRs there will always be a certain amount of distortion present. Every camera has a sweet spot where this phenomena doesn't occur. On DSLRs as you have stated, because of manual adjustments this fault can be compensated and corrected with exposure, shuter speed and to some degree ISO adjustments. My 110 which was a point and shoot, auto flash never took a "fisheye" shot as far as I can remember. When picking up my photos I was often commented on their quality from the attendant.
My question was in my reply, and perhaps it was not clear. We can all see the distortion apparent with the use of the Fuji 2800 in comparison with the D50. What was not clear in your post was: was the distortion caused by the inability to shoot in full manual with the Fuji vice directly related to the lense? The reason I raised the point was that upon review of the D50 it mentioned the D50 did contain a fair amount of barrel distortion, which after the fact I have come to understand can be compensated for with manual adjustments. From what I have read to date it seems that "fisheye" can be pretty much eliminated by altering settings, and that regardless of the camera a certain amount will exist and be demonstrated unless we can correct for it and based on that data, then yes a DSLR will win hands down over an NSLR because of the flexibility, vice it being solely because of the lense.
What did surprise me is the last set of pics which all were taken with a black background, which I have come to find out is a product of light and exposure. Would you care to elaborate on how you achieved this? as the last picture represents a sort of umber background.
On SLR's the white balance is adjustable in many formats while color temperature is changeable. ISO speeds can be changed as well as many different shooting options outside of AUTO. Most non SLR digitals must be used in auto mode to focus the camera. On an SLR the camera can be put in manual, focused and the ISO changed to take a longer exposure picture to capture image possibilities just not capable on a non SLR camera.
Would you care to elaborate? As previously mentioned I can do all that. The range is not there and will openly admit it, nor is the fine settings achievable, but changeable nonetheless. Your statement seems to imply that only SLRs can achieve this mode of photography. I know in your statement you used "most" but in light of your opening line, it leads to mis-interpretation of your intentions.
My contention in that reply was to let Rick know that most of what Carl is talking about in his tutorial will not help him as much as it will for a person with an SLR. I had a point and shoot when he wrote it, it it did nothing for me since what he was talking about was not available on my camera.
Am I to understand that manual was not available on this particular camera? If so, then yes your argument makes sense, but once again should not be construed as strictly a function of the lens.
While some of the features that he talks about might be available to Rick in a small part there is a trade off in performance in his camera.
Yes indeed this is what I was referring to when I posted my original reply and since amplified in this one. I do not kid myself wrt the camera's capability. I do not own world class trees and probably never will. What I do want to do is render reasonable photographs of my trees, where depth albeit a 2D representation, is apparent compared to my previous camera. Since I have come to understand the importance of lighting, exposure, DOF etc... My old camera did not have the capability to capture depth on a steady basis, hopefully I will be able to resolve some of these issues with this one.
Carl used to have a signature that said something like, "why argue for mediocrity". I agree. Why are we arguing for mediocrity. We all know DSLR cameras are far superior to point and shoots, so why all the fuss.
No argument there!
Having said that not everyone has the luxury of owning a DSLR nor have reason to own one. At times the way you come across in your posts is that: "unless you have spent enormous sums of money, all you have is junk" I will concede that perhaps you do not intend to come across that way, but unfortunately you do, and the latter is not just related to camera issues.
Dis-appointed as usual, Al
... and so am I. I thought I had put forth some legitimate questions, ones that would generate a discussion where information would be shared and where we can all learn from it.
I would rather you guys commented about my photos rather than nitpicking over the inadequacy of my verbiage. I posted photo's, like I always do. I let my photo's always do my talking. Like I said I eagerly await photo's from other people to look at. Trust me if they are good I will tell you so.
Pat on the back! Bravo!! Yes I am being facetious Al, I am also dis-appointed because I posted a serious question to which I woke up to this morning to your verbiage. In my discussion I was merely trying to clarify points raised to better understand the mysteries of photography, not exchange in mud slinging.