[joele]

but in the meantime, I'm deliriously happy with my Pentax A20.

And thats all that matters in the end

[trog100]

"i have to admit, when I am using one of those "compact" camera's, i do just tend to .... "point and shoot""

an odd one this cos when i use my k100d i "mostly" like to "point and shoot" with it as well.. am i doing something wrong.. ??

and it also seems from phil askeys recent comments about the new nikon d40.. something along the lines of.. the perfect "point and shoot" dslr

even entry level dslr cameras will soon be refered to as "point and shoot" cameras..

perhaps i am posting in the wrong forum.. i should be in here.. he he

the definitions of the term are changing.. not long ago it did mean a camera with next to no manual adjustment.. i have such a camera a kodak dx 3600.. its fully automatic and thats it.. all u can do with it is "point and shoot"..

it strikes me that no camera is really a point and shoot any more and perhaps the term ought to disappear into the history books..

either that or all cameras are point and shoot if the user wants them to be.. but either way "point and shoot" as a means of categorizing cameras is somewhat pointless.. and also somewhat elitist..

i have just been told somewhere today that because i shoot jpegs and not raw i should be useing a point and shoot.. he he he

as soon as my k100 gets refered to as "point and shoot" i will really object.. it seems the day is coming thow.. he he

trog

[foxglove]

I'm assuming, after reading the responses so far, that trog objects to 1) how ill-defined the term "point and shoot" is and 2) how derogatory it seems to be. And I have to agree.

Taking point 2 first, there is absolutely no reason someone should feel obliged to use an SLR to be considered a good photographer. Someone said recently in another thread that photography still comes down to light and composition. Doesn't matter how great your camera is, if you don't understand light and composition, you won't get good photos. By the same token, if you understand basic photographic principles and have a good eye, you can take arresting images using a home-made pinhole camera. It may be true that the vast majority of people using P&S cameras take boring snapshots, but that's because most people want to take a quick snap of Auntie Flo's 90th birthday party without thinking too much about it. No reason someone can't take the same basic camera and take a thoughtful, beautiful image.

To digress slightly, the same argument applies to using jpeg vs raw. I use raw because I enjoy fiddling with my photos. I used to develop and print my own B&W, raw gives me much the same experience (minus the stinky chemicals) and then some. But I have no illusions that shooting raw will make me a better photographer, it's just a personal preference. Imagine two photos, one a carefully exposed and processed image, shot raw with an expensive dSLR, of a boring subject unimaginatively framed, the other properly exposed and converted to jpeg by a cheap P&S camera, carefully framed, of a really gripping subject. Who is going to care if the dynamic range of the boring photo is greater, that the colour rendition is better, that there are fewer jpeg artefacts, lower noise, and better detail? Pixel-peepers might enjoy it, but I'm betting even they would find their eye wandering to the more interesting image.

Back to point 1, I'm not entirely sure P&S is being used as broadly as you think, but then I'm not paying much attention. Don't the fixed-lens cameras with more controls get called "prosumer" or something awful like that? I do agree that these terms need defining.

Whew, I blethered on there, didn't I? Sorry. Just thought it was an interesting question, and it got me thinking. I'll shut up now.

Julie

[-=JoN=-]

well, I "point and shoot" w/ my k10d too, but usually, something happens between the pointing and the shooting....

[trog100]

yes when u shoot raw it has to... but when u shoot jpeg nothing much does..

but the whole essence of categorizing kinda leads to divisions and factions..

what was a"pro-sumer" then became a "bridge camera" now it seems both categories have met on the bridge.. he he

the pro-sumer and the cheaper dslr rushing in different directions have met head-on and the wreckage looks like being a "point and shoot"..

u have to laff..

trog

[SpecialK]

As per trolls I don't know it is just because they have problems... I have seen plenty of people post I have X or Y problem with my camera, and people have discussed it without anyone being called a troll or fanboy.. The problem usually arises when someone titles a thread "Pentax is crap" or "K10d fatally flawed" and it turns out the thread is about the camera not focusing accurately at EV -3 or something that is out of the advertised metering range anyway..

Don't forget the fatal flaw with the Pentax SR feature - it doesn't work with slow shutter speeds when panning :-) Someone in another forum thought we are nuts for "trying to save a few bucks", when it is clearly substandard to the VRII system that allows you to have that type of stablization with the ($1000 per lens) system...(blah, blah, blah...) Then in a separate thread from someone deciding to get a Pentax over his brand, says "that's OK, it's all personal preference".

Oh, I mostly use the rotating LCD (at chest or stomach level) when I use my Canon...point-and-shoot. :-) I say "digicam", or very rarely, "compact digicam" when I don't want to offend.