Random Chit Chat

[MetalOverlord76]

I downloaded a voice changer and got my cousin to sing chocolate rain perfectly lol.

Lucky

 

[foothead]

Are you talking about digital cameras in general?

Sorta. What I am talking about is how everything has gone automatic and digital, so nothing is good if you are like me and need very good results. I went through a gazillion point-and-shoot cameras before I finally settled on a DSLR. What I really don't like is the way non of them have a viewfinder, and the color rendering on live view tends to be horrible, so you can't adjust the settings properly to compensate for improper lighting.

That's just my opinion on all the cameras I've tried, but that was about a year and a half ago, and I really haven't been keeping up-to-date on these types of things, but I will assume they have improved on the higher-end models, but I'm sure some of the way-lower-end models have lost even more because in the maufacturer's opinion, nobody likes to fool with those types of things anymore, except the professionals, who aren't buying the cheaper cameras.

Yes I think some are good, but after using a polaroid digital camera, I just gave up hope.

 

[Teny]

ARGH!! SFIV is already out in some countries. But I still have to wait 8 days to get my copy...

 

[Rubber314Chicken]

Sorta. What I am talking about is how everything has gone automatic and digital, so nothing is good if you are like me and need very good results. I went through a gazillion point-and-shoot cameras before I finally settled on a DSLR. What I really don't like is the way non of them have a viewfinder, and the color rendering on live view tends to be horrible, so you can't adjust the settings properly to compensate for improper lighting.

That's just my opinion on all the cameras I've tried, but that was about a year and a half ago, and I really haven't been keeping up-to-date on these types of things, but I will assume they have improved on the higher-end models, but I'm sure some of the way-lower-end models have lost even more because in the maufacturer's opinion, nobody likes to fool with those types of things anymore, except the professionals, who aren't buying the cheaper cameras.

Yes I think some are good, but after using a polaroid digital camera, I just gave up hope.

I think DLSRs are better because you are getting a large pictures with a large sensor, unlike these point and shoot cameras that are like "1289349347234897 mega pixels" on a tiny ass sensor.

 

[01001010]

Sorta. What I am talking about is how everything has gone automatic and digital, so nothing is good if you are like me and need very good results.

That's really an unfair statement to make. I've seen excellent pictures taken by standard digital cameras. You don't need a DSLR to produce good results. If you do, then it's probably you and not the camera at fault.

Yes I think some are good, but after using a polaroid digital camera, I just gave up hope.

Have you ever tried one from a reputable manufacturer like Canon or Sony?

 

[foothead]

That's really an unfair statement to make. I've seen excellent pictures taken by standard digital cameras. You don't need a DSLR to produce good results. If you do, then it's probably you and not the camera at fault.



Have you ever tried one from a reputable manufacturer like Canon or Sony?

Well, I generally prefer the photos taken by a DSLR. They tend to be much more clear, and I can manual focus. I HATE autofocus. I like to take landscape pictures, and it tends to make things extremely difficult.

Yes I have used both canon and Sony.

The Sony was terrible. All its pictures came out blurry. The autofocus was not very good, plus I'm not paying like $100 for an inferior memory card.

The canon wasn't bad, but it tended to take forever to actually take the picture, so in a lot of cases, i would get the picture about 5-10 seconds after actually pushing the shutter button because it had to re-focus the picture.

I'm not saying that all point-and-shoots are bad, but a lot of them are nowadays.

If you don't believe me, find one professional photographer who uses a point-and-shoot (even the ones that are more than $1000)

 

[01001010]

The Sony was terrible. All its pictures came out blurry. The autofocus was not very good, plus I'm not paying like $100 for an inferior memory card.

Then you're obviously doing something wrong, because I've never had any problems with my Sony cameras.

The canon wasn't bad, but it tended to take forever to actually take the picture, so in a lot of cases, i would get the picture about 5-10 seconds after actually pushing the shutter button because it had to re-focus the picture.

Like I said earlier, you're doing something wrong. You're either relying too much on the auto settings, or you simply don't know how to use a camera.

If you don't believe me, find one professional photographer who uses a point-and-shoot (even the ones that are more than $1000)

What does that exactly prove? If they're doing this for a living, I'd expect them to have the best equipment.

 

[foothead]

Jeez.

Look. I've just found that SLR's are way better for me. I really don't want to keep arguing about it, since it won't really accomplish anything.

The real deal-maker for me though was the fact that it came with a 14-55mm lens, and then for $100 more I got a 50-250mm lens. Plus it takes the best macros I have ever seen.

 

[Rubber314Chicken]

For 99% of the population a point and shoot is all you need. Darn good pictures, and easy to use. Hell, that's probably all I'll ever own. But for photography nerds, a DSLR is the only way to go to get professional pictures. There is a reason all the pros use those and NOT point and shoot cameras.

 

[Teny]

What about those old SLR cameras that uses films? Or are they outdated now?