TheCaz said:
Hey bjrichus & casperwb,

I had an OM-1 & OM-10, and just thought they were great. 50mm lens, although I also had a Vivitar 24-48mm zoom that was really hot for wide angles. I did some great work with those cameras. I wouldn't mind using them again, except for the cost of film.

The biggest benefit of today's dSLR isn't the ISO range or that you can shoot in manual, AP, SP, P, or even A mode (heaven forbid :) ). It's that you can shoot an almost unlimited number of shots for "free" once you have the gear.

I also have a collection of old and slowly degenerating film gear. When I was a kid, several family members were deeply into Pentax, Yashica, Bronica and the like. Only some of that gear has found its way to me.. :( Still, I am happy to move forward.

Ah yes - as for film vs digital costs, that is indeed one of the first things on the agenda for DSLR 101 courses at community or local technical colleges - or in most modern photography beginner books.

For my money, an over-emphasis on it encourages the machine gun approach, where the photographer closes down his/her brain and fires a dozen shots hoping to get "the one" keeper out of the other dross they capture. I kind of discourage that approach, but have used it myself when time was too short for me to set up a shot in advance. As I say, it "kind of" works, but not for every subject, every person, or every situation, especially if you are doing stuff OTHER than street/photojournalism. :)

(I'm not 'dissing' the street/journo crowd, just saying... it's only ONE way of shooting not THE only way, is all).

Hey bjrichus & casperwb,

I had an OM-1 & OM-10, and just thought they were great. 50mm lens, although I also had a Vivitar 24-48mm zoom that was really hot for wide angles. I did some great work with those cameras. I wouldn't mind using them again, except for the cost of film.

The biggest benefit of today's dSLR isn't the ISO range or that you can shoot in manual, AP, SP, P, or even A mode (heaven forbid :) ). It's that you can shoot an almost unlimited number of shots for "free" once you have the gear.

casperwb said:
well said bjrichus.
to think of what we used to achieve with manual focus, needle metering,200 ISO, 400 started to get grainy, shooting racing cars.......and to look at at a D3100 now.

I still use my 1977 vintage Nikon FTn (works exactly as you describe - manual focus, needle metering,200 ISO, 400 started to get grainy), which makes me think that while we have come a damn long way since then, many of us are having old age blues about all these advances and stress too much over them!

Perhaps we should just take a less entrenched view this kind of thing and worry about the pictures?

Stand-alone P&S cameras are under pressure from cellphone cameras, but low end photography flourishes like never before. The biggest problem for P&S camera-makers is that cell phone cameras will soon enough have enough megapixels that there's almost nowhere they can go to keep the market vibrant. Why pay $200 for a P&S when you can shoot it for free with your cell phone and then pull it up in iPhoto, Picasa etc. and then crop it to meet your taste.

SLRs are a totally different story. For me, the significance is the enjoyable experience of looking through the lens and having instant control over the shot via the camera's controls, along with lenses that are much faster and smoother to use. DSLRs are a flat out more enjoyable experience, and I think the future of EVIL cameras rests on how well they can recreate that ergonomic experience, rather than whether they can technically take similar quality photos with a smaller camera. Let's face it. Squinting to see the lcd in daylight plain sucks, so I could care less that the Sony NEX 3 or 5 takes the same quality pic as dSLRs (FX obviously excepted). I'd rather use a heavier dSLR because I enjoy it more.

For this reason, it's going to be interesting to see whether Nikon and Canon take this into consideration with their EVIL entries.

bjrichus said:
Quite.

I have been taking photos on and off since the late 1960's. If it wasn't for the entry-level cameras out there, I'd never have been able to get into this. Product ranges like the Coolpix have a very important place. As you point out there used to be a clear difference, but that is much less so now.

I am always trying to reconcile myself to those who have cameras that are now considered as 'entry-level' and do more, at higher MP levels, longer and wider lenses, have a better DR and shoot at higher ISO's than cameras I used to think were clearly for professionals only. It sure is an interesting time....

well said bjrichus.
to think of what we used to achieve with manual focus, needle metering,200 ISO, 400 started to get grainy, shooting racing cars.......and to look at at a D3100 now.

bhoveyga said:
How interesting, 40 years ago I don't ever remember having a conversation like this.

Quite.

I have been taking photos on and off since the late 1960's. If it wasn't for the entry-level cameras out there, I'd never have been able to get into this. Product ranges like the Coolpix have a very important place. As you point out there used to be a clear difference, but that is much less so now.

I am always trying to reconcile myself to those who have cameras that are now considered as 'entry-level' and do more, at higher MP levels, longer and wider lenses, have a better DR and shoot at higher ISO's than cameras I used to think were clearly for professionals only. It sure is an interesting time....

How interesting, 40 years ago I don't ever remember having a conversation like this. The market was clearly divided and there was little crossover... you had 35mm with interchangeable lenses for "serious" photographers (plus a few medium format fans of course), and then there were Brownies and Instamatics and Polaroids for everyone else. As I read this thread I wondered if it was the digital medium that was the unifier, but I suppose it may have begun much earlier... once 35mm became "everybody's film," and things like autoexposure and autofocus appeared in point and shoots like the Sure Shot, maybe that was what took down the fence?

I have spent quite a few years in the photo business. For years people have contacted me about what camera to buy, etc., after seeing my side/sound shows. I am always amazed at what a leap they make when they switch to a DSLR. That alone has made me regard point & shoots with considerable reservation. I also have bought and tested a number. Still, P&S digital is the leading way people get into photography these days. The impact of those sales help keep Nikon in business.

aetas said:
Nice point bjrichus. Its more of the finished product then the equipment. Some would benefit from remembering that=)

Yeah, we all argue (in the friendliest way I might add) about the gear we use - it wouldn't be as much fun otherwise - but it's the end result that's all important.

Bram said:
Using a DSLR just increases the chance of you getting the timing (fast start up and continuous shooting)

I might argue that a number of the higher spec P&S cameras are as fast or faster than a number of DSLR cameras are today (as far as start up time) goes....

My Nikon is still cleaning it's sensor when I switch it on while my wife's dear old Vivitar P&S (remember them?) just switches on and she clicks away.

Of course, with my FT3 It's on as soon as I pull the rewind lever out from it's park position against the body... Ahh yes, instant on and full frame too... LOL!!!!

Nice point bjrichus. Its more of the finished product then the equipment. Some would benefit from remembering that=)

Composition and vision are most important. Using a DSLR just increases the chance of you getting the timing (fast start up and continuous shooting) and lighting (control over exposure and focussing) right and as you want it to be, and gives you more room to edit the shot as you want it to be (RAW, >10 bit shooting).

Uncool perhaps, but last week, I took a shot with my P&S (it's all I had with me at the time), that after a little Photoshop work, I plan to print as a limited edition run "art" print. It's not a large print, but it works well and my main critic has said she wants me to put one up on the wall at home!

For me, what matters is what works, and will sell or win a prize in competition; shot on a P&S or DSLR, or even viewcam is not the point...

I think that a lot of people will start photography using P&S cameras. If they like it and they want to do more they will "upgrade" to a DSLR. And a lot of people will stay with the brand (if they are comfortable with it). So selling P&S cameras will not only bring money to develop new DSLR cameras and lenses but also increase the sales of that business part as well. Nikon should definitely keep making and selling P&S cameras.

I dont want nikon to stop with their P&S. Like some have said the money they bring in from this part of their business helps grow the other parts (dslr)(lenses) that we all love and adore=)

DSLR's are just too complicated for most people, give some thoughts to the following:

A P M S modes

Flash and ISO settings

Autofocus modes

Lighting

Most people do not want to have to learn about all those complicated things, just point the camera, shoot and it will take a good picture. Why complicate things with those big black ugly expensive cameras when you can get a cute PS in Teal, Plum, Pink or whatever colour catches your fancy.

They want something they can carry in their pocket, take everywhere and is not complicated.

We SLR people are in the minority.

I guess I couldn't care less if they do or don't. I am a DSLR shooter so what I really hope they don't do is stop selling those.

P&S cameras will always sell well because of their size and weight.

If I put my Canon IXUS130 next to my D90 I often wonder if I am mad using a DSLR at all - lugging about a huge, heavy DSLR when I could slip the P&S unnoticed into my shirt pocket!

Plus, for simple "memory-record" pictures, outside, in good light, there's little difference in their capabilities. But beyond that a DSLR kills a P&S stone dead.

I'm waiting to see what happens with EVIL cameras. Will they be a success - quality as good as a DSLR, but size more akin to a P&S? Best of both worlds? Or will they be a flop - too big to be pocketable, but never quite as capable as a 'proper' DSLR? Worst of both worlds?

aslightdelay said:
Heck, even Leica makes them (albeit overpriced, like everything else with a Leica badge on it). Of course, Nikon could always go the Leica route and just start shilling crap to rich people... How about a $22,000 D3x upholstered in panda nipples, with sapphire accents? :P

Leica doesn't make them, they just rebrand Panasonic cameras. :D

Other than the X1 of course.

Heck, even Leica makes them (albeit overpriced, like everything else with a Leica badge on it). Of course, Nikon could always go the Leica route and just start shilling crap to rich people... How about a $22,000 D3x upholstered in panda nipples, with sapphire accents? :P

Who ever said for anyone to stop making P&S even if they are POS compared to DSLRs? Have they not tried to fit a D300 and a 24-120 lens in their pants? Even my G11 is a pain to carry at times.

I just want to see a larger sensor, 6mp, high ISO/ low noise sensitivity, decent IQ, smash/Water proof pocket rocket of a P&S camera. Add a color changing flash (i.e. Dana) and styles like pinhole, Tilt & Shift, Cross processed, Aged photo, High/Low BW contrast (with various color filters) and they will have a smash hit on their hands. MP be dammed, when I use a P&S it is in a bar or other gathering at night. And they will never be printed more than 5x7 and more likely just be posted to Facebook.

I still think this is the golden goose egg idea.

NikoDoby's comparison of P&S sales versus DSLR sales is a point well taken. But it is also one reason I am looking very close at Nikon p7000 Coolpix as I do have a Nikon loyalty although in the case of P&S's it hardly seems intelligent. Still the p7000 may be very pricey when it comes right down to the purchase time for me. I am buying the cameras as a gift if I do although i will shoot some photos with it before and after buying it if I do. I do feel that Nikon P&S sales are very critical to it's staying in business.

Nikon should have made one like this new Sony

http://www.dpreview.com/news/1002/10021801sonytx5h55.asp

Now that Sony uses SD card, I might just have to get one, and there is a pink one for you Niko if you are interested

Pete

I support every sale of a non-dslr that results in profitable income to Nikon. More $$ for researching and producing the next great DSLR product or accessory.

Like Kyoshinikon said, I know quite a few people (like, my neighbors and my former English teacher) who have bought DSLRs because they get better pictures. I think, however, point-and-shoots will remain forever because of their smallness and cheapness. I think the only thing that would put an end to them is if cellphone cameras surpass their quality. :D

Plus, many people are perfectly willing to sacrifice/don't care about quality of their photos, so the main selling point for them is the price.