Mike B in OKlahoma wrote:Good show for such a non-specialized camera!
Hhmm...
You know, I'd like to argue that it's the DSLR that's
non-specialized, while the point-and-shoot is highly specialized.
The question is, "Specialized for what?"
The point-and-shoot is specialized to be easy to carry and easy to use. That introduces some pretty severe limitations. The small sensor implies a short focal length lens, which implies a small diameter aperture. That shrinks the "sweet spot" between aberration- and diffraction-limited apertures to be several times smaller than the DSLR's, which limits the artistic use of wide apertures to isolate ordinary subjects. Easy to carry and easy to use also means no interchangeable lenses, and for that matter, no 10-to-1 superzooms because the lens would be too big.
It's a quirk of optics that the small lens implied by easy-to-carry, easy-to-use also happens to be good for short-focus, wide-angle macro. It's another quirk that auto-focus works especially well in this case, apparently because the ratio of working distance to DOF is so much smaller than for the DSLR. And the quirks keep adding up -- that same small lens just happens to behave a lot like a human eyeball, which means that the point-and-shoot plays nicely with the existing eyepieces of microscopes and telescopes. Sometimes you get lucky! But don't try shooting dragonflies with this thing -- it doesn't do long-focus macro.
The DSLR, on the other hand, has none of these limitations. It's a very general tool. I love my DSLR. It can do anything -- at least, given an appropriate lens for the job, and no constraints on size, weight, maneuverability, and so on.
Bottom line, the point-and-shoot is highly specialized -- it just happens to be specialized by design for a certain set of tasks that a lot of people find desirable (like snapshots at the beach), and specialized almost by accident for a few things that
I find desirable (like short-focus macro and eyepiece compatibility).
A different point of view, perhaps?
Ken Ramos wrote:...not that I would trade off my 20D or 30D for one.
Well, neither would I, if I had to make that choice. On the other hand, given that the point-and-shoot now sells for about the cost of one good lens for the DSLR, that's not a choice I have to make. And on the third hand, if I were recommending what to buy first, to somebody who didn't already have a camera, well, it would not be the DSLR.
It's odd how these things change. 20 years ago, even 10 years ago, I considered the SLR -- then in film -- to be essentially a no-brainer because it was far superior to other types of film cameras. 5 years ago, the situation got murky because digital was clearly on the horizon but not yet very good except for expensive pro units. 3 years ago, prosumer DSLRs became clearly a good idea -- much to my surprise at the time -- though the compact digitals still ticked me off because of their high noise and low latitude. Today, the compact digitals are pretty good too (within their range of specialization
).
What happens next? I dunno. I'm pretty comfortable predicting better
ratios for price/performance, functionality/size, and so on. But whether that means cheap and small, or big, expensive, and all-powerful, I don't have a clue. Maybe all of the above. I notice that the latest issue of Consumer Reports reviews cameras from a $100 FinePix up through a $1300 Canon 30D. These are interesting times, for sure!
Ken Ramos wrote:Looks as though there is another smaller bug on the grass next to the hopper.
It does. But on close examination of the original image, those extra spots look more like fluid drops. Maybe the plant is leaking after being punctured by the hopper and its friends?
--Rik
Nice shot there Rik. Looks as though there is another smaller bug on the grass next to the hopper. 