Mike Johnson is anything but stupid. He has certainly stirred up a lot of interest with this post, that was most likely his intent. His posts are often very thought provoking.
I do admit that I often do not agree with his equipment likes and dislikes. But in this case I basically agree that point and shoots are generally crap and can never be anything else because of the mini sensors that they are equiped with.
I am amused that we see, what I often see elsewhere, people saying in the comments that 'yes they are crap, but my particular model isn't really a PnS' Classic denial.
If they have a tiny sensor it doesn't make any difference what lenses or other equipment you strap on to that sensor.
If Mike's diatribe will get the camera companies to sit up and take notice, then I'm all for it. I suspect however that most consumers are fine with P&Ss and that's where the money is right now.
Eolake, thanks for posting my letter to Domai the other week. It was interesting to see what topic would generate that avalance of feedback (which included my feedback). Who knew. ;o)
Point and shoot cameras have their place, if they didn't the manufacturers wouldn't make them! For the vast majority of camera buyers and users they want something to record memories, not make art. They want a simple to operate, easily affordable means of recording a moment in time. If the box is small enough (but not so small as to be fiddly), doesn't have too many complicated controls and gives a halfway reasonable result, they're happy. Personally I don't think you should be trying to please anyone but yourself with your photography, so if it's good enough for your needs, who am I to tell you you've got the wrong camera? After all, if it's one thing I've learnt about photography, it's that if you get ten photographers in the same room, you'll get fifteen different opinions! ;o)
He is probably right, but I kind of miss his point.
I never compare a Point-and-Shoot camera to a DSLR. I compare it to not having a camera with you at all. Hmm ... maybe that was his point. That any PaS is better than empty hands.
But what's with calling them shit then? I am sure the industry is making them as good as they can. And with every revision they get better.
I think I'll up the ante and declare: All DSLRs are shit! :-)
What you gonna do now Mike? Proceed to medium format? ;-)
Point and shoot introduced in the 1980's? What was I using before then? I was using my mums late 60's Kodak Instamatic 105, complete with magnesium flash cube. That was point and shoot.
I learnt a lot with a 126 camera where your only exposure control was the slowing of the shutter by having a flash cube present (the flash striking mechanism was on the same spring as the shutter. correction that was my Instamatic 102, the 105 had electric flash cubes). It was a fixed focus, with separate viewfinder.
I learnt when to shoot into the sun, I learnt when to look straight up a building for converging verticals. I fathomed out how to compose and balance a picture, even if it meant crossing the street, or taking ten paces to the left. Heck I even played with Cokin filters with that camera.
My experience with excremental cameras was only limited by the early folly of using 400 ASA and hoping for a reasonable enlargement.
In fact, though a lot of people from on PnS, and some sneer at SLR's, what about those wonderful pictures from pinhole cameras? The ultimate low tech, but what a nice soft image, and so creative in framing too.
What about the Kodak Box Brownie? If that wasn't a point and shoot camera, I don't know what is! That brought photography to the masses and ultimately created the market for "enthusiast" or "prosumer" SLRs.
I think the writer of the article had a reasonable point. Basically there's not that much to choose between compact digital cameras, and to get the best out of it you need to read the manual. But he hid it in such vitriole. He didn't have to use the wording he did to make that point. In fact the wording he chose obscured that valid message.
There does seem to be a lot of snobbery from SLR users towards compact camera owners (in general I mean, I'm not pointing the finger here you understand), and some inverse snobbery from compact users towards SLR owners. Each fits a need, and if you don't need an SLR why buy one? All cameras have their limitations, you work within them.
Interestingly, on the photography course I did, and several books I've read on the subject since, the main message was to concentrate on composition. A perfectly exposed photo of a dull subject is still a photo of a dull subject. I've seen people carting twelve lenses and a bag the size of Rutland around with them, and the person with a little KM DiMage Z3 took better photos than they did - I know because that person was me. The best photographers can take a good photograph with a variety of equipment. It's a lot cheaper, easier and more productive to improve your skills than to buy all the gear and still have no clue how to use it.
Mike does himself a serious disservice with that post. His credibility is now shot to zero. As a piece of humorous writing, or a satirical piece, its fine - but if presented as objective fact its just so wrong as to be pathetic.
P&S cameras are, by and large, fine for their intended task and market. Some are indeed POS, but many are excellent.
A poor workman blames his tools, and a poor writer expresses himself in absolutes.
I was happy with my Instamatic 50! I learnt a lot from it; I still have it, complete with original flash and some magnesium bulbs! I wonder if there's still 126 film around - I could fire up the camera again. I wouldn't mind to be everybody's mickey - that camera WAS good!.
My little friend just returned from a school outing where she took a p&s one way camera, presently the film's at the developers (you know what this is?), I'm curious about the results.
We didn't want her to spoil the big SLR in the salty and sandy air of the coast.
I know she's a talented little photographer as far as image composition is concerned, that's why I can't wait for the prints to get ready.
Once on one of my rare vacations I took some pretty good pictures on disposable cameras, and I did have fun. Sure, the pictures were soft, but you can look on that as a style.
Yeah that's what it is, a style. I think there will be occasions when the style fits the purpose so well that you don't even notice that the image was taken by a disposable.
I've had a FILM P&S for more than 10 years now. For just recording memories, I find it very satisfying. Paid it about 40 bucks. I'd say I got far more than my money's worth, all things considered. :-) TTL's right: compared to not having a camera at all, it's certainly very good. But I have to admit, I can't tell how relevant this is to digital P&S's.
Wonko said... "A perfectly exposed photo of a dull subject is still a photo of a dull subject."
Ah yes, maybe so, but at least it'll be PERFECTLY dull! ;-)
Eolake, I have to oppose you (a little) on disposable cameras. I don't know precisely how they are made, but it feels a very environmentally-unfriendly item. I mean, what's the blasted idea, making throw-away objects when the kind that can be re-used forever already exists? Can these consumerist contraptions be recycled?
Speaking of which, I'm just unable, with all my smarts, to understand how come extracting and processing raw materials from nature could ever be cheaper than salvaging them from discarded items where they were already processed, purified, etc... Forgive the bad pun, but I just don't get the picture here. Is my perception out of focus???
Besides, I still haven't seen a disposable that's not markedly more expensive than a roll of film alone. My $40 re-useable P&S has made its price worthwile years ago.
"Why do simple when it's so simple to do complicated?" - Shadok proverb.
Pascal old fruit, I like the idea of perfectly dull! ;o)
Disposable cameras can be recycled. In fact, quite often they can just be reloaded with film and sold again. I have to agree with your point that when a point and shoot film camera is so cheap - and digital is not that far behind these days - it doesn't make sense to me to buy disposable cameras all the time. That said, on the odd occaision that I have been on holiday and without a camera of any kind at all, they're a good emergency solution. I've actually taken some pretty good pictures with one, very soft as others have mentioned, but it suited the subject.
Hey, I'll have you know there's still some juice left in this old fruit! `<:o) I'm not all shriveled up just yet.
(Hope the ladies out there all got the very subtle message... or I'll be a bachelor until the day they finally put me in the can. Compost can, that is. Such valuable material as myself just has to be recycled to the max. "Pascal Max: all the taste, zero added sugar." And still fizzy!)
To some it may show humour. To the rest of us it shows American arrogance and stupidity from The Offline Photographer.
ReplyDeleteDude, have some pride in yourself and type in your name, especially when posting an attack on somebody.
ReplyDeleteMike Johnson is anything but stupid. He has certainly stirred up a lot of interest with this post, that was most likely his intent. His posts are often very thought provoking.
ReplyDeleteI do admit that I often do not agree with his equipment likes and dislikes. But in this case I basically agree that point and shoots are generally crap and can never be anything else because of the mini sensors that they are equiped with.
I am amused that we see, what I often see elsewhere, people saying in the comments that 'yes they are crap, but my particular model isn't really a PnS' Classic denial.
If they have a tiny sensor it doesn't make any difference what lenses or other equipment you strap on to that sensor.
You have a good point.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I will say: even small sensors are getting better every year. For instant my Fuji F10 makes excellent images, even to my trained eye.
And of course we can hope that they will come up with PaS cameras with bigger sensors too. Sigma is coming up with one.
For me the main thing is that the camera react fast, and not be plasticky.
If Mike's diatribe will get the camera companies to sit up and take notice, then I'm all for it. I suspect however that most consumers are fine with P&Ss and that's where the money is right now.
ReplyDeleteEolake, thanks for posting my letter to Domai the other week. It was interesting to see what topic would generate that avalance of feedback (which included my feedback). Who knew. ;o)
Point and shoot cameras have their place, if they didn't the manufacturers wouldn't make them! For the vast majority of camera buyers and users they want something to record memories, not make art. They want a simple to operate, easily affordable means of recording a moment in time. If the box is small enough (but not so small as to be fiddly), doesn't have too many complicated controls and gives a halfway reasonable result, they're happy. Personally I don't think you should be trying to please anyone but yourself with your photography, so if it's good enough for your needs, who am I to tell you you've got the wrong camera? After all, if it's one thing I've learnt about photography, it's that if you get ten photographers in the same room, you'll get fifteen different opinions! ;o)
ReplyDeleteHe is probably right, but I kind of miss his point.
ReplyDeleteI never compare a Point-and-Shoot camera to a DSLR. I compare it to not having a camera with you at all. Hmm ... maybe that was his point. That any PaS is better than empty hands.
But what's with calling them shit then? I am sure the industry is making them as good as they can. And with every revision they get better.
I think I'll up the ante and declare: All DSLRs are shit! :-)
What you gonna do now Mike? Proceed to medium format? ;-)
Point and shoot introduced in the 1980's? What was I using before then? I was using my mums late 60's Kodak Instamatic 105, complete with magnesium flash cube. That was point and shoot.
ReplyDeleteI learnt a lot with a 126 camera where your only exposure control was the slowing of the shutter by having a flash cube present (the flash striking mechanism was on the same spring as the shutter. correction that was my Instamatic 102, the 105 had electric flash cubes). It was a fixed focus, with separate viewfinder.
I learnt when to shoot into the sun, I learnt when to look straight up a building for converging verticals. I fathomed out how to compose and balance a picture, even if it meant crossing the street, or taking ten paces to the left. Heck I even played with Cokin filters with that camera.
My experience with excremental cameras was only limited by the early folly of using 400 ASA and hoping for a reasonable enlargement.
In fact, though a lot of people from on PnS, and some sneer at SLR's, what about those wonderful pictures from pinhole cameras? The ultimate low tech, but what a nice soft image, and so creative in framing too.
Now 110 and Disc cameras...
"Point and shoot introduced in the 1980's? What was I using before then?"
ReplyDeleteIndeed. Many serious photographers have happily forgotten all about Instamatic cameras because they never even considered them back then.
What about the Kodak Box Brownie? If that wasn't a point and shoot camera, I don't know what is! That brought photography to the masses and ultimately created the market for "enthusiast" or "prosumer" SLRs.
ReplyDeleteI think the writer of the article had a reasonable point. Basically there's not that much to choose between compact digital cameras, and to get the best out of it you need to read the manual. But he hid it in such vitriole. He didn't have to use the wording he did to make that point. In fact the wording he chose obscured that valid message.
There does seem to be a lot of snobbery from SLR users towards compact camera owners (in general I mean, I'm not pointing the finger here you understand), and some inverse snobbery from compact users towards SLR owners. Each fits a need, and if you don't need an SLR why buy one? All cameras have their limitations, you work within them.
Interestingly, on the photography course I did, and several books I've read on the subject since, the main message was to concentrate on composition. A perfectly exposed photo of a dull subject is still a photo of a dull subject. I've seen people carting twelve lenses and a bag the size of Rutland around with them, and the person with a little KM DiMage Z3 took better photos than they did - I know because that person was me. The best photographers can take a good photograph with a variety of equipment. It's a lot cheaper, easier and more productive to improve your skills than to buy all the gear and still have no clue how to use it.
Mike does himself a serious disservice with that post. His credibility is now shot to zero. As a piece of humorous writing, or a satirical piece, its fine - but if presented as objective fact its just so wrong as to be pathetic.
ReplyDeleteP&S cameras are, by and large, fine for their intended task and market. Some are indeed POS, but many are excellent.
A poor workman blames his tools, and a poor writer expresses himself in absolutes.
--Jeff
I was happy with my Instamatic 50! I learnt a lot from it; I still have it, complete with original flash and some magnesium bulbs! I wonder if there's still 126 film around - I could fire up the camera again. I wouldn't mind to be everybody's mickey - that camera WAS good!.
ReplyDeleteMy little friend just returned from a school outing where she took a p&s one way camera, presently the film's at the developers (you know what this is?), I'm curious about the results.
We didn't want her to spoil the big SLR in the salty and sandy air of the coast.
I know she's a talented little photographer as far as image composition is concerned, that's why I can't wait for the prints to get ready.
Once on one of my rare vacations I took some pretty good pictures on disposable cameras, and I did have fun.
ReplyDeleteSure, the pictures were soft, but you can look on that as a style.
Yeah that's what it is, a style.
ReplyDeleteI think there will be occasions when the style fits the purpose so well that you don't even notice that the image was taken by a disposable.
eolake said...
ReplyDeleteDude, have some pride in yourself and type in your name, especially when posting an attack on somebody.
1:57 PM
agreed, you anti american so called person. come over see and start spouting off! we'll show just how we deal with arrogant dudes! got it?
I've had a FILM P&S for more than 10 years now. For just recording memories, I find it very satisfying. Paid it about 40 bucks. I'd say I got far more than my money's worth, all things considered. :-)
ReplyDeleteTTL's right: compared to not having a camera at all, it's certainly very good.
But I have to admit, I can't tell how relevant this is to digital P&S's.
Wonko said...
"A perfectly exposed photo of a dull subject is still a photo of a dull subject."
Ah yes, maybe so, but at least it'll be PERFECTLY dull! ;-)
Eolake, I have to oppose you (a little) on disposable cameras. I don't know precisely how they are made, but it feels a very environmentally-unfriendly item. I mean, what's the blasted idea, making throw-away objects when the kind that can be re-used forever already exists? Can these consumerist contraptions be recycled?
Speaking of which, I'm just unable, with all my smarts, to understand how come extracting and processing raw materials from nature could ever be cheaper than salvaging them from discarded items where they were already processed, purified, etc... Forgive the bad pun, but I just don't get the picture here. Is my perception out of focus???
Besides, I still haven't seen a disposable that's not markedly more expensive than a roll of film alone. My $40 re-useable P&S has made its price worthwile years ago.
"Why do simple when it's so simple to do complicated?" - Shadok proverb.
Pascal old fruit, I like the idea of perfectly dull! ;o)
ReplyDeleteDisposable cameras can be recycled. In fact, quite often they can just be reloaded with film and sold again. I have to agree with your point that when a point and shoot film camera is so cheap - and digital is not that far behind these days - it doesn't make sense to me to buy disposable cameras all the time. That said, on the odd occaision that I have been on holiday and without a camera of any kind at all, they're a good emergency solution. I've actually taken some pretty good pictures with one, very soft as others have mentioned, but it suited the subject.
I almost wrote "recyclable camera", but it semed a clumsy term, and I figured people knew they were being recycled.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, considering the amount of trash being generated every day, I don't think a disposable camera adds up to a hill of beans in this crazy world.
Hey, I'll have you know there's still some juice left in this old fruit! `<:o)
ReplyDeleteI'm not all shriveled up just yet.
(Hope the ladies out there all got the very subtle message... or I'll be a bachelor until the day they finally put me in the can.
Compost can, that is. Such valuable material as myself just has to be recycled to the max.
"Pascal Max: all the taste, zero added sugar." And still fizzy!)