| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/01/2004 11:09:07 PM · #1 |
This is in response to the recent threads on participation, DPC in 2005, splitting challenge levels, etc.
If there were separate challenges for DSLRs and non-DSLRs I think it could present several advantages:
1. It would even the playing field in each challenge. DSLRs can do some things with the lenses that non-DSLRs can't, such as greater depth of field on long telephoto shots, longer telephoto shots and the effects that can be created with longer telephoto shots, faster lenses for more versatility that is not possible with non-DSLRs, etc.
It would separate Professional cameras from Consumer cameras.
2. It might make voting easier because it would probably make the number of entries in each challenge smaller.
3. We could also have combined challenges like there are now (maybe as member challenges?).
I've owned a film SLR camera for over 30 years and understand the greater versatility of an SLR camera.
Just another idea to kick around. I would like to hear what others think of this idea.
edited #2, took out "would"
Message edited by author 2004-12-01 23:30:32.
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 11:16:26 PM · #2 |
I don't think that's a good idea. When you start trying to define criteria of what makes a camera advantageous as a tool, you quickly realise that there is no absolute advantage to one specific tool. There are disadvantages to a DSLR, too. Furthermore, the capability of the various photographic tools out there are on more of a continuum than merely a DSLR and non-DSLR distinction. Your F707 is much more capable, and has much more control over DOF, than a webcam, for example. Should we then make further distinctions?
|
|
|
|
12/01/2004 11:25:12 PM · #3 |
nah the idea doesn't sit right with me. I wouldn't want to compete in non-dslr challenges. They both do have advantages and they have disadvantages (in the wrong hands anyway). But I like competing against a wide range of cameras, people, and styles...it just wouldn't feel right.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2004 02:23:32 AM · #4 |
The two best photographers here ( based on ribbon count) don't use dSLRs.
So splitting the challenges along that line would leave all those high prices SLR folks out in the cold!
Remember, it is not the tool, but how you use it. Some girl told me that once ;)
|
|
|
|
12/02/2004 02:31:15 AM · #5 |
I think you are underestimating the capabilities of your F707, especially related to the supposed disadvantages you mention. It has great depth-of-field, zoom up to 190 mm and a F2 - F2.8 lens. many DSLR owners have to do with F4 lenses.....
I have made the switch myself and would not say there is a very distinct quality difference which would justify a split. Yes, they have different characteristics, but it is not a very different league.
If you would have to make a split I would rather suggest between camera's which allow (full) manual control (DSLR and F707 in same category) and camera's which don't, the real P&S.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2004 02:41:54 AM · #6 |
Well, to be fair, aperture on an SLR lens isn't the same as on an F707. While the lens is fast on the F707, for instance, you have to realise that the higher noise and (vastly) smaller sensor size negate the advantages of the fast lens. The smaller sensor and the short real focal length of the F707 lens (it's actually about 9-40mm) mean that the depth of field is much greater at equivalent f-stops and equivalent focal lenghts than a DSLR lens. If you add the noise and the limited ISO availability of the F707 (goes to 400 I believe, my F717 went to a very noisy 800) any advantage of the large aperture is gone. The 10D, in contrast, shoots low-noise ISO 800 shots.
The upshot of it all is that even at f/4 on the 10D, you can produce usable images, handheld, at much lower light conditions than the F707 can wide open.
Originally posted by willem:
I think you are underestimating the capabilities of your F707, especially related to the supposed disadvantages you mention. It has great depth-of-field, zoom up to 190 mm and a F2 - F2.8 lens. many DSLR owners have to do with F4 lenses.....
I have made the switch myself and would not say there is a very distinct quality difference which would justify a split. Yes, they have different characteristics, but it is not a very different league.
If you would have to make a split I would rather suggest between camera's which allow (full) manual control (DSLR and F707 in same category) and camera's which don't, the real P&S. |
Message edited by author 2004-12-02 02:42:57.
|
|
|
|
12/02/2004 02:44:50 AM · #7 |
i personally like the idea of a one-off non dSLR challenge. I'm not sure how anyone might say that there is no significant advantage with a dSLR - the results of 90% of the challenges and the aspirations of some P&S users like myself to move up the natural progression to dSLRdom gives some weight to the idea that they simply improve the quality of a photo. admittedly, if you have some doofus operating the machine behind the lens, then the results will still be piss poor.
But i understand that some supposedly compact compacts do have the capability of some dSLRS. so i propose that instead of segregating the type of camera, howabout age? i'm sure lots of current users have an old 2 or 3 MP camera floating around - howabout brushing off the cobwebs and having a challenge for those? or, what about camera phones - getting a good shot out of them would take REAL skill! of course, LG are going to releave a 5 MP camera phone in japan next year, but currently they're not all that great, right?
|
|
|
|
12/02/2004 05:53:02 AM · #8 |
Here are some of the photos I took with a 3Mp point and shoot with no manual settings, for basic edititing challenges:
  
You can pick up the camera now for next to nothing.
It's not the tool that's important!
If you seperate people by equipment, you are reinforcing the incorrect belief that good equipment makes people good photographers.
Why do people need to be split into groups?
When I first joined DPC, I had very little experience, and my first few photos were rubbish. I argured in the forums against separation, as I was very ambitious, and wanted to compete with the best, despite being a relative beginner. I soon earnt some ribbons (with the above camera)... this opportunity is open to everybody. |
|
|
|
12/02/2004 06:13:49 AM · #9 |
I'm going to have to agree with Bobster here. When and if I get around to submitting something worthy of a ribbon I would rather it not be devalued by the fact that I was competing in a depleted talent pool.
Bring on the best, have them woop my ass, and hey, the joy of the point and shoot is that when I do badly I can simply resort to blaming my camera :P.
Message edited by author 2004-12-02 06:14:53. |
|
|
|
12/02/2004 06:19:02 AM · #10 |
The unique feature of DPC is that the photo contests are subject based, and that should remain the focus. Can you imagine a "traditional" contest specifying different entries for point & shoots or SLRs? Besides the next wave, started by the Epson/Voightlander collaboration, are interchangeable rangefinder cameras. What category would you put those in?
Let̢۪s concentrate on our images not the tools used to create them.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 11:04:58 PM EDT.
