Combating Point'n Shoot bigots on sports photography ...

I'm a Point'n Shoot convert, unlike a lot of people here with experience with

SLRs, fast lenses, etc... I'm also a budget dSLR body and lens owner, which

made a prime Pentax owner candidate even before I bought. As such, I'm always

looking for articles backing up my decision to go with a Pentax dSLR, a decision

that has given me far better results than I had with a Canon S3 IS, Sony H5 and

one other "bridge" PnS prior.

 

Understand that ever since I bought my Pentax K100D and DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6, a

lot of Point'n Shoot (PnS) owners have given me flak. Most of them overstate

their specifications (more on that in a moment), but I went with even a "slow"

telezoom lens on a dSLR for a reason. The DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 size, price and

"good enough" aspect was the primary reason I went with the K100D. I only more

recently found myself even happier as a dSLR owner as I started going

ultra-wide, whereas PnS' are typically 35-39mm effective, and most of the new,

28-29mm wider PnS options are $400+. So the wide argument aside ...

 

One thing I get tired of is the aperture argument from PnS owners. Yes, my

f/5.6 is rather "slow" at 306mm effective, and some boast f/3.5, f/3.2 or even

f/2.8. But, and correct me if I'm wrong, isn't even f/2.8 only 2 stops better

than f/5.6, whereas being able to go ISO800 or ISO1600 a full 3-4 stops better

than ISO100? I.e., I'm finding the quality of the K100D at ISO800 or even

ISO1600 as good than any 1/1.8" CCD -- typical 6x zoom or lower -- PnS at

ISO200, and always better any 1/2.5" (or 1/2.7") -- typical 10, 12 or even 15x

-- PnS at ISO100.

 

I mean, reality here, at a recent sporting event, the Canon S3 IS and Sony H3/H5

owners were having trouble getting anything close to a 1/250 shutter at a 300mm

equivalent long during the night. Boosting to ISO200+ to get such utterly

destroyed their already stretched IQ at that telezoom. I mean, the quality of

my DA 50-200 on the K100D at 200mm (306mm equiv) f/5.6 at even ISO800 at 1/750

is pretty damn good mid-disk, and ISO1600 at 1/350 (although the ball is

starting to blur -- I consider 1/750 to be "minimum required" for

football/baseball, if not 1/1000) is a crap-load better than what they can even

get at 1/125.

 

I.e., again, that brings me back to the "slow" lens, but solid IQ on a solid

body, giving me that 3-4 stop advantage versus their 1-2 stop "faster" lens, but

on a crappy 1/2.5"-2.7" CCD sensor.

 

That's even before we consider the other factors.

 

Like the fact that my K100D starts up in 1 second, and is virtually and

instantly available when already on, and in AF.C mode (which I leave it in

during sporting events**). And I get an actual 3.1fps when I shoot, from first

instant at pressing the button. As good as PnS advocates claim, the Canon S3 IS

and Sony H3/H5 do not get anywhere near 3fps at their top resolution, it takes a

bit for the first shot (compared to any dSLR), and I know the newer Canon S5 IS

and Sony H7/H9 seemingly have regressed in quality, features and shot-to-shot

performance (not just in the dpReview articles, but I've now seen that first hand).

 

If anyone has some articles or links that further exploits this reality, I'd

greatly appreciate it. I can shoot down some of the PnS bigots with the fact

that Pentax has in-body IS and other, common arguments against other dSLRs, but

most still focus on the aperture and other aspects versus slow lenses (ignoring

the wide, focusing on telezoom). Especially if anyone has any comparisons of

lens IQ at around 300mm equivalent, especially in lower light, etc...

 

Until then, feel free to comment on my 2 PnS aperture stop v. 3-4 ISO stop, as

well as the IQ of even a simple lens like the DA 50-200 and its 306mm equiv

f/5.6 versus the PnS superzooms that are f/3.5, 3.2 or even f/2.8 at a 300mm equiv.

 

**SIDE NOTE: Justin -- to your credit, you are not kidding about Li-Fe

(Energizer e2 Photo Lithium) and Li-Mn (CR-V3) making a difference over NiMH for

sports photography, as I've now found out doing a full 3+ hour game. The AF.C

mode and my heavy, pre-shot use of AF while tracking the action quickly drains

NiMH (even if still a nearly "full charge" of 1500-2000mAh "left") to the point

where the real-time voltage-current is only 4x 1.2V and sub-1.5A (clearly

affecting performance). But sticking with Li-Fe or Li-Mn, a solid 4x 1.5V or 2x

3.0V, respectively and, more importantly, over 2A of current is available for

much, much, much a longer duration. I'll have a forthcoming and extensive blog

article on "current" versus "current-time" (charge) and where NiMH works great

(walkabout, scenery, etc... when "occasionally on") and where Lithium is

required (constantly on, constantly hitting AF motors, etc...).

 

Bryan: Before delving into technical things, here, I suppose I'm mostly wondering why this matters. Are you happy with the images you can produce, given the budget you've been able to apply to the equipment you're using? If so, who CARES what someone who is singing the virtues of their P&S camera has to say? Your images should speak for themselves. I don't THINK you're still trying rationalize your purchase of a more capable camera, here. You're obviously aware that just the better high ISO performance alone (to say nothing of the lower shutter-lag issue) are making all the difference. You would, obviously, be happier with an even faster lens, but that's a bunch more money.

 

If your point, here, is to make sure that other P&S users who are thinking about perhaps going to a DSLR for casual sports shooting are aware of what an improvement that would be, then perhaps you've made that point, if a little indirectly. But if you're looking for ammo to bring to some ongoing spat you're having with someone who thinks he could be doing NFL games with his S3... well, just let them stew in the juices of their own mediocre output. Better yet, print a stack of $0.15 4x6s of a shot that only a DSLR can get, and hand them out whenever that conversation gins back up... and turn your attention back to shooting the game that's going on in front of you, rather than the one that's going on on the sidelines.

Matt --

 

Understand your point. But also understand on other forums, I regularly get trashed by two (2) dominate types out there I constantly run into ...

 

1. Point'n Shoot owners who argue to buy a $400-500 "Bridge" camera instead because they've glossed the specs one too many times, instead of actually trying to use it as they say

 

2. Nikon D200 owners pushing people to buy a D40[x] because they've drank the Nikon marketing cool'aid a bit too much instead of actually trying a D40[x] themselves

 

The Nikon D200 users pushing the D40 are typically and easily bested with the cheaper K100D, and the D40x with the awards on the equivalently priced K10D.

 

But the Point'n Shoot users are far more of a spread formation all over the place, and I'd like to have a good review to put them in their place. If I still had the Canon S3 IS and/or Sony H5, I'd put them in their place with a full review myself. But I don't (bought from a local dealer who let me return them, although they didn't carry Pentax and they couldn't sell me on a D40 or XT in its place either ;).

 

So I'm curious what others have found that would provide some "evidence" against the PnS bigots everytime they trash my Pentax recommendations.

1) Your post is too long. Get your point across with fewer words and

more people will respond.

<br>

2) I think point and shoots are terrible for sports but that's my

opinion. Stop having stupid useless verbal arguments and let your

pictures do the talking.

I would hope one would simply ignore the "P&S bigots"- after all, the proof is in the pictures.

 

If people are getting spectacular prints from their midrange point and shoot cameras, then their recommendations will carry due weight. If, as is likely, their images are lacking due to the camera they use, their arguments will be less influential.

 

If, as your second post makes more clear, you're trying to make the point that your particular brand of DSLR can make an excellent camera for sports, back it up with a gallery of beautiful pictures.

 

You should know by now that people will argue with anything. You think people are trashing your Pentax recommendations, but many would just as soon trash your Canon, Nikon, or Sony recommendation as well. You're obviously an ardent defender of your chosen brand, whatever its strengths and weaknesses. Don't expect anything different from others- love and commitment often blind people to reality, whether in their personal relationships or their relationship with their camera.

 

Looking at the gauntness of your gallery, I find nothing to convince me of the superiority of your Pentax. Try backing up your words ("My Nikon D200 is as clean at ISO 3200 as your Pentax is at ISO100 blah blah blah") with some pictures and I suspect your words will begin to carry more weight.

The supreme court should strike down the legislation requiring us to justify our DSLR purchases to the P&S Bigots. That's just a bad law.

I don't have any articles to send you to. I just know that there are only two things that count:

 

1-- what the picture looks like

2-- can I get the picture at all.

 

As regards number 1, it's possible to get amazing looking pictures out of most any camera. He isn't the first to say it, but Ken Rockwell makes a convinving argument that you can take fantastic pictures with a $300 P&S. It's the photographer's eye, and patience, that make the big difference.

 

On the second topic (can I get the picture at all), that's where ANY DSLR wins every time. High ISO performance, no shutter lag, no lag to turn on the camera, a usable optical viewfinder... these are the things that mean you can actually get the shot in less-than-ideal circumstances.

 

I have taken beautiful pictures with a 1.3mp Kodak P&S -- but they were landscapes that weren't moving anywhere while I waited for the >1 second shutter lag. I have taken nice portrait shots with a "bridge" camera (Fuji S5000), but at a wedding it was almost useless because of poor high-ISO performance, shutter lag, and slow recycle times.

 

Most P&S shooters have never handled an SLR, and have to justify a big monetary investment. Combine two motivations -- justifying money spent, and fear of the unknown, and you have a recipe for disagreements.

 

I say keep shooting, and save for some faster glass. No need to go crazy either -- one of the advantages of your Pentax is access to older glass. Try out an old f/2.8 prime -- I recently shot an event with a 135mm 2.8 M42 lens with P/K adapter. It was a dark auditorium, and I could keep the ISO low and get nice fast shutter speeds. I got much better results than the 5.6 slow zoom that I had with me, and that my dad used on his Nikon.

 

There are advantages to manual focus -- you can prefocus the lens, and then use the much-better focus ring to follow focus as the action moves. It works quite well, and let's you shoot even faster than waiting for AF. Now that's something you can't do with a P&S...

Point and shoot cameras have tiny little sensors which produce terrible noise. The so-called

bigots should be ignored.

Regarding <i>"You're obviously an ardent defender of your chosen brand, whatever its strengths and weaknesses."</i> ...<br><br>

 

I don't defend Pentax against a Canon 5D or Nikon D200 (let alone higher). I don't even go there.<br><br>

 

The only thing I point out is that a Nikon D40 is not what you get out of a D200, let alone not even a D80 or D70. So when a D200 or D80 owner starts talking up the "obvious choice" of a D40 or D40x, I have to point out their lack-luster features compared to the K100D or K10D, respectively, if the person doesn't already own Nikon glass (or even if they do, but the AF won't work). Too many people buy the D40[x] based on those recommendations only to hate it, but they are now stuck with it. It's even worse with the few owners of older Nikon F-mounts go absolutely nuts when the AF doesn't work on many of their lenses on the D40[x].<br><br>

 

Regarding <i>"you're trying to make the point that your particular brand of DSLR can make an excellent camera for sports, back it up with a gallery of beautiful pictures"</i><br><br>

 

I've already started to do this on various forums (using their photo presentation sections), and plan to upload several to Flickr when I have more time. Most are quite shocked at the quality I can get, and the PnS guys make excuses, or only post still shots (with plenty of light).<br><br>

 

I honestly haven't had the time to go through my some 1,500 sports shots taken in the last 3 weeks, but will in the coming weeks. It will be limited right now though, given all the travel I make, and I just barely have enough time to fly home to catch my Alma Mater's games in the first place.<br><br>

I think you need to learn how to ignore people. It's a valuable

skill.

 

I go to a party with my 1954 Leica IIIf with ISO 1600 B&W film.

People laugh at me for using an "antique" and whip out their new point

and shoot. They email the pics the next day and no comments. I scan

my film and email them and everyone loves them. I go to an airshow and

people laugh at me for carrying a D2X and 14 pound 400mm f2.8 lens.

 

I get the shots I want, I don't care what they think.

 

Explain how winning or even having this argument will improve the

quality of your photos? Your photos will improve by reading books

about photography, not arguing with point and shoot lovers.

I can't see anyone but the least informed chosing a P&S over a DSLR for sports photography. But, when that 'special' person comes along and states that a P&S is his choice for sports photography, you only need to ask him one question.. Why?

 

Then you can sit back and listen to some of the most uninformed, misguided and ludicrous justifications to ever be heard.

 

Keep in mind though. When someone plops down $500 or, even $150 for that matter, on a new camera they ALWAYS think theirs is the best thing since sliced bread. And, you can't deny them that, you did it too. It's all a part of the decision making process. People don't intentionally buy the worst products, they buy what they perceive to be the best products for the money. And this is how people screw up relentlessly.. They lose sight of what they're buying and get caught up in the 'other' features..

 

What good is a camera that has auto-settings for everything from 'staring at the sun' to 'rectal exploration' as well as bluetooth, pictbridge, uses AA batteries, etc, etc .. if the optics just plain suck? So many people today read the advertisement and not the real-world reviews..

 

Cellphones are notoriously adept at tricking people... People see flashing lights, videos on the screen, music playing from the speakers, internet connectivity, it takes PHOTOS TOO and they all forget about what it is they're really buying.. a PHONE! And, as you will all most certainly attest to, many of those 'do it all' phones do everything but work really well as a phone.

 

So, when some guy argues that he has 350 billion times zoom and 'rectal exploration' mode on his P&S and it's far superior to your lowly DSLR, remember how drawn into those flashing lights on the cellphone he is and send him in the direction of the nearest highway at night.

How 'bout 'just turn your back and walk away.'

 

Tom Maher wrote:

 

"What good is a camera that has auto-settings for everything from 'staring at the sun' to 'rectal exploration' as well as bluetooth, pictbridge, uses AA batteries, etc, etc .. if the optics just plain suck? So many people today read the advertisement and not the real-world reviews.. "

 

Tom, you get bragging rights. :-)

Not sure about the 'bragging rights' comment.. Care to elaborate for me? I'm slow.. :)

This is interesting thread though I don't do sport. I find my Pentax K100D lacking in AF speed. Though it is much faster than my p&s, it is relatively slower than other dSLR. That may be the subject of other discussions. But I do find the K100D and DA 50-200 very good in chasing my boy in the mountain. I would not have done it well had I brought my p&s. I was literally chasing my boy at jogging speed, paused, and shot these with K100d and DA 50-200

<br><br>

<a href="http://techtheman.blogspot.com/2007/08/chasing-my-boy-with-da-50-200.html">Chasing My Boy with DA 50-200</a>

<br><br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1123/1143940270_876bfe4352_b.jpg"></img><br>

<br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1311/1142891189_d3bc00fb18.jpg"></img><br>

<br>

<img src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1220/1142892315_4408b039af.jpg"></img><br>

<br>

I am quite proud of the results. The DA 50-200 has become my favorite lens after the hiking series with my boy. Had I brought my p&s with me instead of my dSLR, I would need to tie up my boy before I could take a photo of him.

<br><br>

Thanks,<br>

Hin

My only input here is that yes, Bryan, your posts in general are way too long and convoluted.

Too much free-association. I couldn't make it to the end of this one, and relied on how

others answered to guess at the original post.

Hin Man, thanks for illustrating the use of the "rectal mode" on your DSLR for those shots of the horses. And I thought Tom was joking :-)

Quite simply, if you are getting images you are happy with, screw everyone else. I shot

with the original 5 mp Lumix as a transition camera before buying a DSLR. This camera

has great optics with the Leica 35mm equiv. of aprox. 36-432mm zoom lens, f2.8 (how

much would a 28-300 f2.8 lens cost me today?), optical IS, etc., but it wasn't an SLR. I

could get absolutely georgous 11x14 prints from it, but it was a pain to use! Focusing

was unpredictable, manual exposure was a pain, no mechanical zoom control, and not

having an optical viewfinder sucks. I also like to shoot conciderably wider than 36mm, so

I still shot alot of film (I still shoot some film...).

 

If someone gives you flack for using a rig you are happy with, telll 'em to kiss it!

Regarding <i>"Keep in mind though. When someone plops down $500 or, even $150 for that matter, on a new camera they ALWAYS think theirs is the best thing since sliced bread. And, you can't deny them that, you did it too. It's all a part of the decision making process."</i><br><br>

 

Ah, no. I never argue the Pentax K100D is not the best camera, let alone the DA 50-200mm f/4-5.6 is far from the best lens. I would not even dream of arguing against a solid Canon or Nikon purchase. Unfortunately, too many people ass-u-me what the Nikon D40[x] comes with, only to result in one very unhappy consumer due to the ignorance of even their fellow Nikon owners.<br><br>

 

I've never argued that Pentax is the greatest, and would never argue that in my life. But I've yet to find a similar dSLR + lens for less than US$450 after rebates, or any Point'n Shoot that can shoot sports with anything better than a 1/125 at night (before we even tackle the IQ issue). Trust me, I tried all high-end Point'n Shoot superzooms of at least 300mm equivalent. And then once you look at the Nikon D40[x] capability, you come back disgusted.<br><br>

 

As far as <i>"long and convoluted"</i><br<br>

 

I ask deep questions with many aspects, not just a few. Now while I could organize my thoughts a little better, they are still many aspects, not just a few, to most everything I present. If that bothers you, <b>you, of free will and sound mind</b> ;), are free to skip any of my posts. If all you wish to offer is a complaint in how I ask questions or provide answers, then that is not an answer. Again, you should know how to skip my posts and/or answers, and it will bother me not one bit.<br><br>

 

I regularly get chastised for my verbosity and length, with two major exceptions. One is in my extensive publication career. Two is when I answer, in utter complete detail, a question in many technical forums (especially engineering/technology related). While there is no end of "complaints" about my long answer covering many, basic facets many people already know, in many cases, the original poster did not know and was not aware.<br><br>

 

And yes, outside of photography, that includes -- literally -- "writing the book" (or a significant portion of it) on a subject. It has not been more than once that people will arrogantly state (not ask), "why don't you write a book on it instead of here?" and more than one person will respond back, "he already has, but apparently you have not read it, so you're getting part of it here for free. If it bothers you, move on." I surely do. ;)

Tom Mahar wrote: Not sure about the 'bragging rights' comment.. Care to elaborate for me? I'm slow.. :)

 

The right to brag about a camera with lots of features....and average IQ. But isn't that what many people who will never go beyond a P&S and 4x6 print want/need? There is nothing wrong with that and there is much more flexibility than the Instamatic I had as a kid.

<i>I ask deep questions with many aspects, not just a few.</i><p>

I disagree. In between your rambling post about how much better a DSLR is than a point and shoot I saw one question mark which was an extremely basic (not deep) question about exposure.

<p>

The Aperture scale is: 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22

<p>

Each step represents an opening which lets in twice as much (or half as much) light. The numbers are based on square roots.

<p>

2.8 to 5.6 is two stops (or 2^2 four times more light)

<p>

Divide two ISO numbers to see how much more sensitive the film or sensor is. ISO 1600 divided by 100 = 16 times more sensitive. 2^4 = 16 so ISO 1600 to 100 is a 4 stop difference.

<p>

You're not born knowing this but it is simply common knowledge among photographers and is explained in any basic photo book. I'm not trying to insult you but it's hard to take the rest of your post seriously when you don't know this.

<p>

The only other question I saw was you wanted a comparison review of a point and shoot to a DSLR so you could show it to "point and shoot bigots." Sorry but I suggest googling for it.

There are a lot of spirited discussions here about photography related issues when we could concentrate of improving our skills ect. This long winded chronicle is over the top though. Its silly to be obsessed and write whole treatises about winning debates with point and shoot enthusiasts. Spend more time shooting and less time obsessing and you will overcome your need to win some argument over a freakin' camera.

Matt, Walt...I agree with your short posts...lol

 

he really took a lot of time to say nothing. I like my Kodak Z612 but hello....the K100 D or any other similar DSLR is naturally going to be capable of taking better pictures than a P&S.

 

that is also dependant on the shooter not being a complete moron too....

 

what was the old phrase believe half of what you see and non of what you hear or read?

"The Aperture scale is: 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22"

 

This may be a noob question to ask but what about 1.7, 3.5? Are they considered half stops?

I never said I wasn't a noob. And I never said I wasn't going to be wrong. By <i>deep questions</i> I meant "deep" for a noob. I didn't claim to be an expert. In fact, by <i>deep questions</i> I <b>am looking to be corrected!</b>

<br><br>

I don't know how much more humble a person can be!

<br><br>

So, basically what many of you are saying is someone who posts like I do doesn't belong here, correct? If so, then I will recuse myself from this board. Good bye. And I'm sure I won't be missed then.

<br><br>

Sorry for not qualifying for "elite" status. I don't "bother" you'all again.

Les Lammers..

 

I don't own a camera with 'lots of features' or 'average IQ'..

 

So, what's your point?