[Mrvile]

Oh yeah and by the way, if you decide to stick with the DSLR and get more serious than taking regular snapshots (which a P&S would be perfect for), get ready to empty your wallet on glass.

 

[Jussei]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrvile /img/forum/go_quote.gif This is usually a pretty big concept, so I'll just add a few of my thoughts. First, a camera is a camera. They all do the same thing - take pictures. Most cameras, including point-and-shoots, allow for a lot of control; you just need to learn how to use it. A higher end point-and-shoot will generally have almost all the same controls and features of up to a midrange DSLR, so they will generally be able to get the job done just as well. Take a look at this guy's portfolio - he is one of my photography heroes and I can always turn to him for inspiration. Why? Not only does he take amazing photos but he does not use a DSLR. He uses two older digital point-and-shoots, a few accessories, and a vast knowledge of how to use his cameras. But again, a camera is nothing more than a tool used to capture an image. The idea is similar to a screwdriver - you can either get yourself a simple handheld electric screwdriver or a high power, customizeable drill kit. Both will get the job done, and the results will look about the same. However, one might opt for the latter because of its versatility, security, and if nothing else, its sheer power. However, one thing a lot of people don't consider is what can be had from owning and using a DSLR itself. Many amateur photographers who end up buying DSLR's use it to learn - an SLR not only provides a multifacted tool capable of photography to the nth degree but also a valuable skill set to any aspiring photographer. Sure, you can get by with a point-and-shoot and even take photos comparable to that of a DSLR, but remember, understanding your brush is the first step to mastering your art. Good luck!

Well put and I definately understand that an understanding of your tool will get you furthest.
I guess I immediately equated my newly aquired photography hobby to my longstanding audio hobby. For example, I'll never be able to make my vintage Kenwood Integrated amp sound like my modern VAC integrated. They do perform the same task, which is playing music, but the VAC does a much better job. I could tweak both to sound better, but with no understanding of either the VAC wins hands down and will every time.
My hypothesis was that the Alpha would beat the F717 in much the same way. I know I could get more out of my Alpha with a better understanding, but I figured that even with an elementary understanding, I'd be able to quickly surpass the older camera.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jussei /img/forum/go_quote.gif Done, I may have to make a trip to Borders or B&N tomorrow and look for it. Great reviews on the book and you seem to know what you're talking about and since Im an photography imbicile, you win.

Opps...just noticed that that's an updated, not really Adams's original book that I linked up there. But it's reviews do seem to indicate that they at least touch upon his exposure techniques. I notice it has a digital camera section, so you may find it more pertenant then the books authored by Adams (who wrote them before digital photography was even a thought). For some more reference, you might want to check out Adams's original books...since he's a grand master of photography

http://www.amazon.com/Camera-Ansel-A...6268719&sr=1-1

 

[borninquisitive]

Do you own the Alpha? A few sites that I would recommend:

http://www.dpreview.com/

http://www.steves-digicams.com/

http://www.fredmiranda.com/reviews/

The first, can be "unfriendly" but so much can be learned there (along with the other sites).
The second, friendlier user base. My favorite being the last. Too, this site has a buy/sell/swap forum.
It's been a-while since I have been to any of the sites I've mentioned.

Best,
~Kate

BTW preferred #2 screw-driver photo. I didn't care for either flower photos.

 

[blessingx]

Only thing I can add is, don't confuse art of photography with photographic Art. Just take photos.

 

[jjcha]

It's pretty obvious which screwdriver picture is the Alpha and which is the 717. The one with the much narrower depth of field shows what you get with the bigger sensor, even though you're at a narrower f-stop.

I can see why one would like the 717 screwdriver picture - it's nice and in focus and sharp with clear contrast and whatnot. But you can get that with the Alpha. Stop down to get the same depth of field. Get your exposure right. You will have as good or better a photo. But you can't do that in reverse - you can't get the same narrow depth of field with the 717.

As for the flowers - I prefer the Alpha photo, it pops more to me, more 3d, but I imagine that's just a contrast thing.

There's no doubt the 717 is an excellent camera, but I would not conclude it gives you more quality/flexibility/control than the Alpha at all.

Either way, enjoy both cameras. They're both lovely photographic tools. Screw the "what's better" question and just shoot pictures, man.

Best,

-Jason

 

[borninquisitive]

Quote:

Originally Posted by blessingx /img/forum/go_quote.gif Only thing I can add is, don't confuse art of photography with photographic Art. Just take photos.

What is photographic art? Curious to hear the responses. Do you mean, as in artistic or in working towards an "art form" i.e. skill?

If the latter, I think there is a healthy balance. A person who doesn't care so much, will want to keep it simple: point & shoot. Then, there are those on the opposite side of the spectrum...just tend to over-think everything. Text book "photographers"...all book learning, little experience.

I think it's good to want to learn beyond "point & shoot" but not so much that it actually prevents you from getting out there and taking photographs.

 

[borninquisitive]

What I have found is that with my dslr, it doesn't over process my photographs and I am happy for that. That said, I do find myself having to make some minor adjustment in photoshop on account of it.

 

[Mrvile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by borninquisitive /img/forum/go_quote.gif What I have found is that with my dslr, it doesn't over process my photographs and I am happy for that. That said, I do find myself having to make some minor adjustment in photoshop on account of it.

Most of the time, DSLR's are designed (or at least configured by the user) to capture as much information as possible. This usually means that lower contrast, sharpness, duller colors, and blander tones are required to squeeze all the possible information onto one image without losing anything due to artifacts, clipping, etc. Point-and-shoot cameras, on the other hand, are designed to make the photo look as good as possible straight from the camera, which caters more toward the average consumer. I can take a photo with a point-and-shoot and it will probably look better than one I take with a DSLR at first glance, until I put the image through Photoshop. Photoshop is a much more powerful processing tool than any in-camera operations, thus it's best to save any and all processing for Photoshop to handle. Only then should you make decisions like which colors to bring out, what you want the contrast to be, how sharp the image should look, etc.

Purists tend to preach the minimalist-processing approach, which means getting every aspect of the image into the image right when you take it and not to rely on post-processing too much. This is fine, but as you continue to take more and more photos, you'll learn that post-processing is an essential part of any type of photography, and learning how to do it properly to get exactly what you want out of the photo is a crucial step in mastering digital photography.

Bottom line is: Don't be afraid of post-processing. Ansel Adams was a master behind the lens, but an absolute pioneer in the darkroom. He developed many of the post-processing techniques that we continue to use, and without the critical routine of post-processing, he wouldn't be the photographer he is known as today.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mrvile /img/forum/go_quote.gif Purists tend to preach the minimalist-processing approach, which means getting every aspect of the image into the image right when you take it and not to rely on post-processing too much. This is fine, but as you continue to take more and more photos, you'll learn that post-processing is an essential part of any type of photography, and learning how to do it properly to get exactly what you want out of the photo is a crucial step in mastering digital photography. Bottom line is: Don't be afraid of post-processing. Ansel Adams was a master behind the lens, but an absolute pioneer in the darkroom. He developed many of the post-processing techniques that we continue to use, and without the critical routine of post-processing, he wouldn't be the photographer he is known as today.

QFT: This is the main reason why I don't get purists. With traditional film based photography, a good photographer will spend a lot of time in the darkroom to get the right contrast (as higher tonal ranges can be hard on film and the digital that's shown on monitors and paper). They're all 8 bit per channel mediums: meaning that they can't capture the full instensity ranges of light. Ansel Adam's zone system is a method to control the amount of tone or intensity you can see in a photo. Simply, look for shadows when you're shooting, and define your highlights while developing. This compensates for the tonal limitations of film. When you shoot in RAW, you get improved range because it's 16bit per channel. Your monitor and printer, though, are 8bit/channel mediums....so you're not seeing the full value ranges that are actually in that image. This is why it's very important to do post processing in Photoshop IMO. When you burn and dodge a RAW image file, you'll actually be getting more detail then you were able to in the darkroom!! This is why I think Adams would have loved digital

When you look at the business of photography, all fine art photographers spend more time developing/processing....to get the best control and detail. Comercial photographers such as advertising and sports do not spend much time in post because of time restraints and subject matter. Composition of the scene is the most important for them.

 

[Eagle_Driver]

Too bad the "prosumer" PAS digital cameras have become more and more rare these days. Your DSC-F717 has a 2/3" sensor - quite a bit larger than the 1/1.8" and 1/2.5" sensors typical of less-expensive PAS digicams and most SLR-style superzooms. Still, a 2/3" sensor delivers much less than one-fourth the imaging area of a typical APS-C sized DSLR sensor.

With that aside, you may like the result from a PAS more than an image from a DSLR - if only because your eyes are so much used to an almost unlimited DOF (depth of field). Unfortunately, no camera - digital or film - can achieve anywhere near that much DOF without severely degrading the sharpness due to diffraction.

 

[hudsong]

You're using a ****** lens, that's why your pictures aren't sharp, or contrasty.
The sensor on the Sony DSLR isn't a big winner in resolution tests either...
If you want sharp, beautiful images straight from a cam, stick with P&S.

 

[Mrvile]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hudsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're using a ****** lens, that's why your pictures aren't sharp, or contrasty. The sensor on the Sony DSLR isn't a big winner in resolution tests either... If you want sharp, beautiful images straight from a cam, stick with P&S.

If you use the DSLR and its lens properly, 99/100 times the DSLR will produce a better image than the P&S under the same conditions.

And the Sony Alpha sensor is much more capable than 99% of P&S sensors out there.

 

[Davesrose]

Quote:

Originally Posted by hudsong /img/forum/go_quote.gif You're using a ****** lens, that's why your pictures aren't sharp, or contrasty. The sensor on the Sony DSLR isn't a big winner in resolution tests either... If you want sharp, beautiful images straight from a cam, stick with P&S.

Well I think having good exposure is more important then having the latest and greatest in optics

An underexposed image is always going to stay underexposed no matter what it's shot with: even a Canon 1D Mark IIN with 50mm 1.0L lens

The Sony may not be a professional camera, but it's still a good starter SLR: the main things you have to learn are manual controls. In fact, that's the only weakness I've found with my Canon 5D: I miss not having a split prism focus screen

Made manual focus for DOF so much easier. But that's going to change soon: just found a place that sells the screens

 

[Lord Chaos]

Jussei, a couple of observations that haven't been made...

1. The 717 is an exceptionally good point-and-shoot, with a good lens, good sensor and good software. I almost bought one. What kept me from doing so was Sony's typically narrow dynamic range, which is the range of light values it can record. I do a lot of shooting on the beach and need a camera that can handle extremes. I'd guess that this is part of what you like about the 717: sharp, contrasty images straight from the camera.

2. The A1 has more controls, thus more things you need to learn in order to take advantage of them. You need to upgrade your skills to match those of the automatic camera. It's not that hard.

The easiest way to improve digital photography is to set the white balance of your camera manually. If you're shooting under incandescent light, set the camera for that rather than letting the camera choose. Only one camera I know of ever did a good job of auto white balance, but it was dreadful in many other ways. Setting white balance is usually easy.