Can you define a P&S?

[driver]

I found this on the internet, so it must be true

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point-and-shoot_camera

[unixrevolution]

I beat this dead horse a while ago on PentaxForums:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...int-shoot.html

To be concise, I think it varies, but a P&S has at least one of these characteristics:

1. Little or no control of aperture and/or shutter speed
2. Zone Focusing
3. Autofocus only or minimal manual focus control
4. Compact size/lightweight
5. Fixed lens

I can think of no camera I'd consider a P&S that doesn't have at least one of these characteristics.

Kodak Retina: Has 2 and 3. Despite the manual exposure controls, point and shoot.

Yashica Electro 35: Has 1 (for shutter anyway...it's Aperture Priority AE) and 5

Pentax Q: #4, posssibly 2 as well.

Are there cameras with one of these characteristics that are NOt point and shoots? Definitely. But in order to be a P&S, it must have at least one. Preferably 2.

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by unixrevolution

I beat this dead horse a while ago on PentaxForums:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...int-shoot.html

To be concise, I think it varies, but a P&S has at least one of these characteristics:

1. Little or no control of aperture and/or shutter speed
2. Zone Focusing
3. Autofocus only or minimal manual focus control
4. Compact size/lightweight
5. Fixed lens

I can think of no camera I'd consider a P&S that doesn't have at least one of these characteristics.

Kodak Retina: Has 2 and 3. Despite the manual exposure controls, point and shoot.

Yashica Electro 35: Has 1 (for shutter anyway...it's Aperture Priority AE) and 5


Pentax Q: #4, posssibly 2 as well.

Are there cameras with one of these characteristics that are NOt point and shoots? Definitely. But in order to be a P&S, it must have at least one. Preferably 2.

... mju II has all five, and an annoying flash that switches itself on every time one closes it ... and it's obviously a point and shoot because one simply points it and shoots it, anything that one points, adjusts and then shoots clearly isn't a point and shoot is it?

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by daveleo

Is there a reason that "we" must agree on this definition?
I think not.

Hi,

Well, yes, we have to agree what the words mean. Look at the words "fixed lens" that a lot of people use for, a, non-interchangeable and, b, fixed focus and, c, both AF and non-interchangeable.

To an extent it's like arguing about what value we give pi or the square root of 2, etc. I'm in favour of precision.

Regards, David

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

Hi,

Well, yes, we have to agree what the words mean. Look at the words "fixed lens" that a lot of people use for, a, non-interchangeable and, b, fixed focus and, c, both AF and non-interchangeable.

To an extent it's like arguing about what value we give pi or the square root of 2, etc. I'm in favour of precision.

Regards, David

Spoken like a true gearhead....bravo!

[Godfrey]

Originally Posted by semilog

A P&S is any relatively simple camera designed after 1980 (usually a camera that has AF) that a Leicaphile wishes to denigrate.

;-)

A P&S to me is a compact camera that requires little in way of controls other than to point it in the right direction and press the button when appropriate. My Leica Minizoom was a perfect P&S: rugged plastic, reasonably priced, nice lens, nothing truly useful in controls beyond pointing it and releasing the shutter. Easy to use and carry.

I and another friend of mine who also bought one used to refer to it as a "plastic-pig-**** Leica", but it took darn good photographs. Carried it as my daily user for a year or two.

[ElectroWNED]

Olympus XA

[btgc]

Originally Posted by ElectroWNED

Olympus XA

That's almost manual camera - except shutter speed
You mean, self developed film means using caffenol, ureanol or at least, homebrewed developer and fixer?

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by dave lackey

Spoken like a true gearhead....bravo!

Hi,

To the pure, all things are pure. And the pure are getting fewer.

Regards, david

[daveleo]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

. . . .

To an extent it's like arguing about what value we give pi or the square root of 2, etc. I'm in favour of precision.

Regards, David

The irony is killing me.

Both pi and the square root of 2 are irrational numbers that can never be determined exactly, and that in fact was my implied point . . . we will never agree on a precise definition of "P&S".

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by unixrevolution

I beat this dead horse a while ago on PentaxForums:

http://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/p...int-shoot.html

To be concise, I think it varies, but a P&S has at least one of these characteristics:

1. Little or no control of aperture and/or shutter speed
2. Zone Focusing
3. Autofocus only or minimal manual focus control
4. Compact size/lightweight
5. Fixed lens

I can think of no camera I'd consider a P&S that doesn't have at least one of these characteristics.

Kodak Retina: Has 2 and 3. Despite the manual exposure controls, point and shoot.

Yashica Electro 35: Has 1 (for shutter anyway...it's Aperture Priority AE) and 5

Pentax Q: #4, posssibly 2 as well.

Are there cameras with one of these characteristics that are NOt point and shoots? Definitely. But in order to be a P&S, it must have at least one. Preferably 2.

According to the NPD market assessment all the "pro" level cameras like the Canon S100 and Panasonic LX5 are P&S's.

These cameras also have manual overrides.

So there is a major difference between what is a market sector characterization and what is decided upon arbitrarily here because at this point the only commonality from the list above now relevant in the market is #4, and even that is subjective.

[TXForester]

There is a blurring of boundary lines. I'd probably stick to no control of exposure and no control of focus. If you have some control of these then you maybe on that indistinct boundary. Also, I would not say a fixed lens (prime or zoom) puts a camera into the P&S category.

Take the Olympus 35 EC. Is it P&S or not? It is a zone/scale focus. If you rely on the zones in the viewfinder, then it is lacking in focus control. That's a point in favor of P&S. But, the lens has focus scale in feet with markings between the click stops, so it has a little more focus control than the zone icons indicate. More non-P&S?

Its exposure is automated, but there is a way around it. Adjust the ASA setting up or down to make the camera underexpose and overexpose relative to what it does with a matched ASA setting. Does any amount of exposure control move it more towards non-P&S status?

[mwooten]

me: "Here you go. Turn it on with this switch. Look through this part. Then mash this button."

her: "Is that all?"

me:" That's all."

her: "OK. I like this camera."

[ElectroWNED]

Originally Posted by mwooten

me: "Here you go. Turn it on with this switch. Look through this part. Then mash this button."

her: "Is that all?"

me:" That's all."

her: "OK. I like this camera."

you chauvinistic pig...

just kidding, we all know women have smaller brains... it's just science.

[dave lackey]

Originally Posted by mwooten

me: "Here you go. Turn it on with this switch. Look through this part. Then mash this button."

her: "Is that all?"

me:" That's all."

her: "OK. I like this camera."

Works for me, too!

Seriously, I find it gratifying to obtain some really good images with a simple point and shoot camera like the XA2 or other small digitals that I have used. There are some great images out there from iphones, too.

Smallness has crept into my life. Let's get small!

[Shade]

Well I guess P n S is what it is, a camera that only (mostly) lets you point and shoot where you can't adjust or control most of the things.

However, I think P n S is a definition of "shooting style" instead of a camera type. You can turn an M9 or a Phase1 or an Olympus OM-D to an P n S if you'd like. The results though may not always be satisfactory.

[Aristophanes]

A P&S is any camera an angel dancing on the head of a pin would use.

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by daveleo

The irony is killing me.

Both pi and the square root of 2 are irrational numbers that can never be determined exactly, and that in fact was my implied point . . . we will never agree on a precise definition of "P&S".

Hi,

My point about pi and the square root of 2 was that we can argue forever but for most practical purposes we all know the answer. But even that is a matter of how much precision you want.

As for irony, I dunno...

Regards, David

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by Shade

Well I guess P n S is what it is, a camera that only (mostly) lets you point and shoot where you can't adjust or control most of the things.

However, I think P n S is a definition of "shooting style" instead of a camera type. You can turn an M9 or a Phase1 or an Olympus OM-D to an P n S if you'd like. The results though may not always be satisfactory.

HI,

That's exactly it. We use it as both a noun and a verb. And I think we'd all agree that using a camera with a full set of manual controls and a fuller set of auto controls (weird menus etc) as a P&S doesn't make the camera a P&S.

Regards, David

[Aristophanes]

Originally Posted by David Hughes

HI,

That's exactly it. We use it as both a noun and a verb. And I think we'd all agree that using a camera with a full set of manual controls and a fuller set of auto controls (weird menus etc) as a P&S doesn't make the camera a P&S.

Regards, David

The NPD marketing group, BCN and others no longer make that differentiation. The market is measured between compacts and system cameras.

[unixrevolution]

Originally Posted by mwooten

me: "Here you go. Turn it on with this switch. Look through this part. Then mash this button."

her: "Is that all?"

me:" That's all."

her: "OK. I like this camera."

Sounds like my fiancee. She is bemused by my rangefinders and utterly bewildered by my 4x5's, though she likes her Pentax manual focus SLRs pretty well.

Maybe that's what we need. No camera is really a point and shoot unless it passes the "Grandma Test."

Originally Posted by TXForester

There is a blurring of boundary lines. I'd probably stick to no control of exposure and no control of focus. If you have some control of these then you maybe on that indistinct boundary. Also, I would not say a fixed lens (prime or zoom) puts a camera into the P&S category.

Take the Olympus 35 EC. Is it P&S or not? It is a zone/scale focus. If you rely on the zones in the viewfinder, then it is lacking in focus control. That's a point in favor of P&S. But, the lens has focus scale in feet with markings between the click stops, so it has a little more focus control than the zone icons indicate. More non-P&S?

Its exposure is automated, but there is a way around it. Adjust the ASA setting up or down to make the camera underexpose and overexpose relative to what it does with a matched ASA setting. Does any amount of exposure control move it more towards non-P&S status?

There are a thousand P&S digital cameras on the market that offer some kind of override for at least one of the aspects that a P&S camera is supposed to do. Are they all something other than a point and shoot?

If I put a Canon EOS-1Dx into Program, switch on AF and glue the controls, is it a point and shoot?

Originally Posted by Sparrow

... mju II has all five, and an annoying flash that switches itself on every time one closes it ... and it's obviously a point and shoot because one simply points it and shoots it, anything that one points, adjusts and then shoots clearly isn't a point and shoot is it?

Strictly speaking, I can't make a compelling argument, except for Pre-1980 (and in most cases, pre-1950) cameras with fully manual controls that, in their era, were definitely considered to be in the same class we call point and shoots now. Folding 120 scale focus cameras like the Brownie and the Tourist, box cameras with rudimentary aperture control like the Kodak Duaflex, and other such.

So they may be simple cameras, but are they really Point and Shoot? Probably not. But my mind considers them to be cut from the same cloth.

[David Hughes]

Originally Posted by Aristophanes

The NPD marketing group, BCN and others no longer make that differentiation. The market is measured between compacts and system cameras.

HI,

Hmmm, I don't know what the situation is where you live but in Wales it is legal and encouraged to disagree with marketing groups.

I wouldn't want to do anything that would encourage them and so I'll be proposing a few, new categories of cameras. Large and small come to mind, so does simple and serious, dear and cheap and so on.

Regards, David

[leicapixie]

The camera must fit into a pocket. It must have a viewfinder. It must have a flash. It must have an attitude to any change wanted by the user! My Kodak Easy-share and Olympus Infinity have all these attributes.In addition must be totally battery dependent on a special, read, expensive cell. The Kodak uses any power source. That is a negative for the marketing dept. The Kodak has stunning color. It's files work way quicker than my other digital files! No they are not small. It's attitude though...

[mathomas]

How's this:

The degree of P&S-ness is directly proportional to how difficult it is to make manual adjustments to exposure and focus.

So, there's a scale from the Brownies to the fully-manual SLRs many of us love. From no-choice-at-all (thus no need for automation), through automatic-only, through automatic-by-default-and-difficult-to-do-manual-things, through automatic-or-manual-your-choice-and-it's-fairly-easy-to-make-manual-adjustments, and finally there-are-settings-to-make-and-you-gotta-make-em-all-by-yourself-dammit.