You have described a whole bunch of things that I'd never take pictures of. Who takes pictures of the trash bin? Who takes their camera to work (other than photographers)? Shopping? Seriously?
None of the things you describe, other than the party or dancing, lend themselves to photography. What you are talking about is taking pictures, when this thread is asking about learning about photography.
So I'll rephrase...if you can't be bothered to take your compact DSLR with a small 50mm lens with you, then you aren't interested in photography, you are interested in "taking pictures". By spouting the "best camera you have is the one on you" line, the only thing you are contributing is, "keep doing what you are doing, mate. The camera on your mobile is the best camera you have because it's the one on you".
It's hard to learn about depth-of-field, manual focus, tough lighting situations/backlight, bracketing, aperture - shutter relationship, etc. etc. with a point and shoot. And by hard, I mean "not possible".
Those finest photographers in the world are using optics that are 100 times better than most point and click cameras today, regardless of how "primitive" you think their gear is. My grandfather took pictures with an old 1970s era SLR and has covers on Alaska and National Geographic magazines, because of his skill and the optics of his gear. You can't get pictures like his with a modern point and shoot. The electronics on modern DSLRs are what make them advanced. Good optics are good optics, regardless of the tech.
No extremes needed. There is nothing extreme about lugging a Canon Rebel with a prime lens (the cheap 50mm one I mentioned).
If anyone tells me they are interested in photography, that is what I recommend. Room to grow, professional quality images, enough tech to have to learn the ropes. If you whip out your cell phone or your point-and-shoot. You aren't interested in photography, you are interested in taking pictures (nothing wrong with that, btw).
Who said anything about price? Notice I was talking about the entry level Rebel (and whatever Nikon makes). I happen to think the Nikon electronics are better, but that doesn't stop me from NOT recommending a Canon.
No. I'm implying it's the quality of the optics that matters, not the zoom factor, not the type of battery, not the megapixel count, not the type of memory card it takes, not even the form factor (although I'd say that is the second most important feature).
All of the other features are minor convenience/inconvenience and cannot overcome poor lens quality. It's kinda like Microsoft Windows -- just because you have a long feature list on the box doesn't mean it's any good. But that will sell a lot of copies, and putting 12x zoom and (insert megapixel count here) will get most people to buy one model over an optically superior other model.
I'll say it again...no other feature on a camera is important enough to overcome bad optics.
I keep hearing this argument, and frankly, it is lame. If you don't have your DSLR with you, then you aren't interested in photography or learning about photography. It's a complete non-argument. As soon as you get an interest in photography, grabbing the Rebel plus an extra lens becomes second nature.
If indeed you can't be bothered to bring a DSLR with you, then this entire thread should just be deleted.
It's not a myth if you buy entry-level Canon, buy an L-lens for your entry level Canon, then upgrade to a better Canon body. If you jump ship to Nikon, then you just sell your gear on eBay/Craigslist for not much less than you bought if for and start over. Good luck with that if you start with Sony.
I suggested Canon/Nikon solely because you can't go wrong. Sure Sony, Olympus, Pentax, et. al. make some good gear, but it's a crap shoot. Plus, with Canon or Nikon, you can see if you like photography, buy some nice lenses, and if you like it, upgrade your camera body while keeping the lenses.
Then there's the whole used market advantage for Canon and Nikon. It's much easier to find good used gear for Canon and Nikon than it is the other brands.
Point-and-shoots can't replicate the quality SLRs because of the lenses. A Rebel + $100 "nifty 50" 50mm lens cannot be duplicated by a point-and-shoot.
The Canon or Nikon entry level DSLRs...you can't go wrong, except for the fact they are made for really small hands seemingly. For a little more money, get the next step up from either of those brands so you get a camera body that actually fits average human hand sizes.
But this is Slashdot. I expect to see people misuse MacOS about as frequently as I see MAC used to describe a computer. You all know better than that around here.
By definition, it is intuitive. By eliminating the buttons and menu entries, the concept of affordance kicks in. That is, the only thing you can do is drag the partition size up or down. There are no other options or distractions. That is the definition of intuitive, and this is why Apple is generally considered expert in this field.
Actually it is the point, the OS devs know exactly what hardware their software has to run on, that obviously makes the job of compatibility easier.
Yes, because a 2011 27" iMac uses the same stuff that my 20" 2006 iMac uses. Yet, amazingly, both still work with modern software and old software written for OS X. Compatibility is not a function of programming to the hardware specs available at the time of software development. Apple changes hardware out several times a year, sometimes even within the same product line.
While not my favorite "branch" of learning theory, constructivism indeed has merit, depending on the situation. As with everything, a proper learning needs assessment will determine if critical thinking (cognitivism) or applying your own knowledge (constructivism) (or something else entirely) is the best model for a given situation.
Hmm, my own anecdotal evidence completely smashes your crusty, get-off-my-lawn theory.
See, I was raised by working class parents with no technology skills. They bought me a PET, Vic-20, Atari 2600, Commodore 64 (in that order?) because they wanted me to have a better life than being a secretary or a mechanic. They didn't know why it seemed like a good idea at the time, other than they had good instincts. I now make a 6-figure salary that is only remotely related to technology (I design training for a giant tech company), but my interest in technology at age 12 in 1982 is what got me here. My parents' decision to feed my interests as opposed to spending all my free time earning minimum wage to pay for gas, or slaving around the house because the grownups "work all day" is the vehicle that got me here.
They also didn't let me have a job while I was in high school. Kids should be learning, not working menial burger jobs. And if learning means spending more time playing M.U.L.E. or Ultima with friends, then so be it. How is that social construct any different/better/worse than kids meeting at the park and playing baseball? (And before you say it, I went to college on a cross-country scholarship)
I didn't have a bed time because I was tired from being at school all day, being in band, orchestra, sports, then coming home and playing Ultima with friends and doing menial chores. Therefore, wait for it...I went to bed at a decent hour because I was tired and everyone needs sleep. Only the most socially maladjusted 20-somethings I work with think it's sustainable to work from 10-7, then stay up until 6 am playing WoW, then sleep for 3 hours before returning to 8 hours of menial coding.
Kids only need "bedtime" when it becomes a problem. My 12 year-old stays up later than me, but has yet to miss the bus to school (even though I leave before he is awake). I suppose if he starts "sleeping in", a bedtime will be imposed. Why crush a kid who is acting responsibly already? "Well that's how my daddy durn raised me"!
Slashdot Mirror
You have described a whole bunch of things that I'd never take pictures of. Who takes pictures of the trash bin? Who takes their camera to work (other than photographers)? Shopping? Seriously?
None of the things you describe, other than the party or dancing, lend themselves to photography. What you are talking about is taking pictures, when this thread is asking about learning about photography.
So I'll rephrase...if you can't be bothered to take your compact DSLR with a small 50mm lens with you, then you aren't interested in photography, you are interested in "taking pictures". By spouting the "best camera you have is the one on you" line, the only thing you are contributing is, "keep doing what you are doing, mate. The camera on your mobile is the best camera you have because it's the one on you".
It's hard to learn about depth-of-field, manual focus, tough lighting situations/backlight, bracketing, aperture - shutter relationship, etc. etc. with a point and shoot. And by hard, I mean "not possible".
Those finest photographers in the world are using optics that are 100 times better than most point and click cameras today, regardless of how "primitive" you think their gear is. My grandfather took pictures with an old 1970s era SLR and has covers on Alaska and National Geographic magazines, because of his skill and the optics of his gear. You can't get pictures like his with a modern point and shoot. The electronics on modern DSLRs are what make them advanced. Good optics are good optics, regardless of the tech.
No extremes needed. There is nothing extreme about lugging a Canon Rebel with a prime lens (the cheap 50mm one I mentioned).
If anyone tells me they are interested in photography, that is what I recommend. Room to grow, professional quality images, enough tech to have to learn the ropes. If you whip out your cell phone or your point-and-shoot. You aren't interested in photography, you are interested in taking pictures (nothing wrong with that, btw).
Very few people will bother seeking out a nice 50mm prime lens for shooting.
But it is the single most important thing he can do if he wants to get into photography.
Who said anything about price? Notice I was talking about the entry level Rebel (and whatever Nikon makes). I happen to think the Nikon electronics are better, but that doesn't stop me from NOT recommending a Canon.
That's can't be true. I had a Pentax in high school (1980s) and my grandfather's Pentax lenses wouldn't fit my new fangled Pentax.
No. I'm implying it's the quality of the optics that matters, not the zoom factor, not the type of battery, not the megapixel count, not the type of memory card it takes, not even the form factor (although I'd say that is the second most important feature).
All of the other features are minor convenience/inconvenience and cannot overcome poor lens quality. It's kinda like Microsoft Windows -- just because you have a long feature list on the box doesn't mean it's any good. But that will sell a lot of copies, and putting 12x zoom and (insert megapixel count here) will get most people to buy one model over an optically superior other model.
I'll say it again...no other feature on a camera is important enough to overcome bad optics.
I keep hearing this argument, and frankly, it is lame. If you don't have your DSLR with you, then you aren't interested in photography or learning about photography. It's a complete non-argument. As soon as you get an interest in photography, grabbing the Rebel plus an extra lens becomes second nature.
If indeed you can't be bothered to bring a DSLR with you, then this entire thread should just be deleted.
Skip all the features...zoom is marketing. Go for image quality, which isn't measured by a feature listed on the box.
I'm just going to go ahead and assume this guy already has a cell phone camera. Why would you suggest something he already has?
It's not a myth if you buy entry-level Canon, buy an L-lens for your entry level Canon, then upgrade to a better Canon body. If you jump ship to Nikon, then you just sell your gear on eBay/Craigslist for not much less than you bought if for and start over. Good luck with that if you start with Sony.
I suggested Canon/Nikon solely because you can't go wrong. Sure Sony, Olympus, Pentax, et. al. make some good gear, but it's a crap shoot. Plus, with Canon or Nikon, you can see if you like photography, buy some nice lenses, and if you like it, upgrade your camera body while keeping the lenses.
Then there's the whole used market advantage for Canon and Nikon. It's much easier to find good used gear for Canon and Nikon than it is the other brands.
Point-and-shoots can't replicate the quality SLRs because of the lenses. A Rebel + $100 "nifty 50" 50mm lens cannot be duplicated by a point-and-shoot.
Yes. I am. You don't learn anything about photography using point-and-shoot. A used Rebel costs less than many point-and-shoots.
The Canon or Nikon entry level DSLRs...you can't go wrong, except for the fact they are made for really small hands seemingly. For a little more money, get the next step up from either of those brands so you get a camera body that actually fits average human hand sizes.
I can compensate for the SUV's handling by changing my driving habits.
And also as a point of information, I don't own a SUV.
Too bad most SUV drivers don't think like you.
But this is Slashdot. I expect to see people misuse MacOS about as frequently as I see MAC used to describe a computer. You all know better than that around here.
MacOS refers to the legacy MacOS (up to MacOS 9) that was discontinued in 2001. Mac OS X is not MacOS, for reasons far beyond a Roman numeral.
The last version of MacOS was "left in the cold" in 2001. I think you mean Mac OS X.
They stopped making MacOS in 2001. Please, call it Mac OS X.
Yeah, once you wade through the 242 virus-laden scam sites, you might find one usable freeware product for Windows with a Google search.
And I'll just pretend you didn't write the second paragraph.
By definition, it is intuitive. By eliminating the buttons and menu entries, the concept of affordance kicks in. That is, the only thing you can do is drag the partition size up or down. There are no other options or distractions. That is the definition of intuitive, and this is why Apple is generally considered expert in this field.
Actually it is the point, the OS devs know exactly what hardware their software has to run on, that obviously makes the job of compatibility easier.
Yes, because a 2011 27" iMac uses the same stuff that my 20" 2006 iMac uses. Yet, amazingly, both still work with modern software and old software written for OS X. Compatibility is not a function of programming to the hardware specs available at the time of software development. Apple changes hardware out several times a year, sometimes even within the same product line.
While not my favorite "branch" of learning theory, constructivism indeed has merit, depending on the situation. As with everything, a proper learning needs assessment will determine if critical thinking (cognitivism) or applying your own knowledge (constructivism) (or something else entirely) is the best model for a given situation.
Hmm, my own anecdotal evidence completely smashes your crusty, get-off-my-lawn theory.
See, I was raised by working class parents with no technology skills. They bought me a PET, Vic-20, Atari 2600, Commodore 64 (in that order?) because they wanted me to have a better life than being a secretary or a mechanic. They didn't know why it seemed like a good idea at the time, other than they had good instincts. I now make a 6-figure salary that is only remotely related to technology (I design training for a giant tech company), but my interest in technology at age 12 in 1982 is what got me here. My parents' decision to feed my interests as opposed to spending all my free time earning minimum wage to pay for gas, or slaving around the house because the grownups "work all day" is the vehicle that got me here.
They also didn't let me have a job while I was in high school. Kids should be learning, not working menial burger jobs. And if learning means spending more time playing M.U.L.E. or Ultima with friends, then so be it. How is that social construct any different/better/worse than kids meeting at the park and playing baseball? (And before you say it, I went to college on a cross-country scholarship)
I didn't have a bed time because I was tired from being at school all day, being in band, orchestra, sports, then coming home and playing Ultima with friends and doing menial chores. Therefore, wait for it...I went to bed at a decent hour because I was tired and everyone needs sleep. Only the most socially maladjusted 20-somethings I work with think it's sustainable to work from 10-7, then stay up until 6 am playing WoW, then sleep for 3 hours before returning to 8 hours of menial coding.
Kids only need "bedtime" when it becomes a problem. My 12 year-old stays up later than me, but has yet to miss the bus to school (even though I leave before he is awake). I suppose if he starts "sleeping in", a bedtime will be imposed. Why crush a kid who is acting responsibly already? "Well that's how my daddy durn raised me"!