On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 19:43:04 +0000, Paul Dormer
wrote:

"dave weil" emitted :

Well ... the little point-and-shooter finally got on my tits one time
too many. Screwed up what should have been some nice family photos.
Instead I got a washed-out sky and blue bars all around wooden beams
that had sky behind them. My boy is off to get a 300D for me tomorrow.
I've read Askey's review--and a bunch of others--and decided it's
definitely the one for me. Image quality is gorgeous, and I don't
think it's too big or too heavy for me to take it out and about. I
know it doesn't have the complex feature-set of some of the others,
but the image quality is top-notch and it seems to take great pictures
without all the faffing with settings and gizmos. Plenty enough
flexibility for where I'm at now. When I get the hang of it, I'll get
me some lenses.

Very cool.

I still think that you should go ahwad and pop for the new 20D, since
money isn't an issue for you. You'll be happier in the long run.
Apparently, they've speeded the darn thing up from the 10D/300D
generation *plus* there's a little niggling "problem" with low light
focusing that they seem to have addressed with the 20D. Is it a little
bigger and bulkier? Yes. But it's bulkier in a cool way.

Thanks a bunch, guys. You're making my wallet itch!

Now, read this carefully.

THERE'S A BIG LEARNING CURVE WITH DSLRs. Call me and we'll discuss it.
I'm off all day today. It would be easier for me just to tell you
about the "pitfalls" than to write them up. The main thing is that
you'll need to get used to post-processing. But there's more, such as
the fact that they aren't always great as "point and shooters". Call
me.

Would you mind giving a brief summary...? Sounds like something I
would like to know about.

Sure. A lot of it is due to the sort of in-camera processing that P&Ss
do. They are tweaked (somewhat aggressively, many people think) to
create nice looking snapshots at around 4X6. Sure, they can also do
larger sizes now, and sure, the parameters can be adjusted, just like
with the SLRs. Still, I think that the consensus is that for doing
snaps, P&Ss seem to be *generally* more "snap friendly", even when
comparing SLRs that have been more aggressively set "in-camera". I
think it's something to do with the algorithms being precisely
adjusted to make a photo pop at snaps size with a specific sensor/lens
combo (more about this below). One of the big hits that newbies make
against Canon's SLRs (myself included) is that the shots "out of the
camera" are too soft. Well, yes. They are designed to be that way so
that the user can do his or her own sharpening to their own specs.
What seems a bit less clear is whether or not you can set the
parameters to mimic the sort of processing that P&Ss do and it doesn't
seem so. There doesn't seem to be an "ideal" "P&S" setting. There's
also the issue of DOF (where the advantage goes to SLRs), which is too
complex to go into here. Check out the forums at dpreview. There's a
lot of discussion about the differences between P&Ss and SLRs,
especially in the Canon forum.

There's also the additional problem with the extreme adjustability of
SLRS. The very thing that makes them so appealing is a little bit of a
drawback when it comes to whipping it out in auto mode to capture a
quick "snaps opportunity". Many owners have the "custom functions"
(read parameters) set for more demanding conditions. Also, they
recognize that some post-procession is desirable, in order to retain
as much control over the final product. This is sometimes in conflict
with the idea of taking a simple auto mode shot.

One advantage that the P&Ss have over the SLRs is the fact that you
can design the algorithms with a specific lens/sensor combo in mind.
Of course, this is also a disadvantage as it will always be a HUGE
compromise over the best combos that an SLR/great lens can offer, but
for snaps, it's probably an advantage, unless you're willing to do a
LOT of post-processing.

I'm not saying that you can't P&S with an SLR, but you will *still*
probably have to more post-processing to get the same result (in
general). Of course, one can argue how much difference it makes for
snaps size shots anyway...

Anyway, not sure if I'm being cogent here. If you have specific
questions, feel free to ask.