Back-illumination doesn't seem very effective
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: RichA on 6 Aug 2010 14:00 Small sensors still seem to be terrible at higher ISO's. http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/ricohgxrp10/page8.asp
From: Superzooms Still Win on 6 Aug 2010 14:34 On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >Small sensors still seem to be terrible at higher ISO's. RichA's trolling doesn't seem to be very effective. *REAL* PRO photographers have shot all their photos for the last century at ISO25 to ISO64 all their lives. Noise-free ISO 100 or 200 of any camera today is just icing on the cake. Anything more is gluttonous unneeded comforter and a crutch for crapshooters that don't know how to use any camera properly. Did you forget to mention that for low-light wildlife photography that the superzooom cameras give you about a 3-5 EV stop advantage in optical aperture? No need for high ISOs. Did you forget to mention that smaller sensor cameras give you the DOF *required* for *all* macrophotography at wide-open apertures? Allowing for handheld macrophotography in any available light conditions. Trolls rarely cover ALL the facets of importance. They've never used any cameras under any circumstances, so how would they know. They only know how to troll with misinformation, deceptions, and lies in their tool-belt.
From: RichA on 6 Aug 2010 17:00 On Aug 6, 2:34 pm, Superzooms Still Win <s...(a)noaddress.org> wrote: > On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > wrote: > > >Small sensors still seem to be terrible at higher ISO's. > > RichA's trolling doesn't seem to be very effective. *REAL* PRO > photographers have shot all their photos for the last century at ISO25 to > ISO64 all their lives. Noise-free ISO 100 or 200 of any camera today is > just icing on the cake Tell it to sports and wildlife photogs. Pros who won't and never will use cheap superzooms with crappy little sensors and who routinely use ISOs from 400-3200.
From: Superzooms Still Win on 6 Aug 2010 17:19 On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:00:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 6, 2:34�pm, Superzooms Still Win <s...(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Small sensors still seem to be terrible at higher ISO's. >> >> RichA's trolling doesn't seem to be very effective. *REAL* PRO >> photographers have shot all their photos for the last century at ISO25 to >> ISO64 all their lives. Noise-free ISO 100 or 200 of any camera today is >> just icing on the cake > >Tell it to sports and wildlife photogs. Pros who won't and never will >use cheap superzooms with crappy little sensors and who routinely use >ISOs from 400-3200. I'm living proof that you are a consummate liar and a troll.
From: Bruce on 6 Aug 2010 18:48
On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 14:00:02 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Aug 6, 2:34�pm, Superzooms Still Win <s...(a)noaddress.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 6 Aug 2010 11:00:00 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >> >Small sensors still seem to be terrible at higher ISO's. >> >> RichA's trolling doesn't seem to be very effective. *REAL* PRO >> photographers have shot all their photos for the last century at ISO25 to >> ISO64 all their lives. Noise-free ISO 100 or 200 of any camera today is >> just icing on the cake > >Tell it to sports and wildlife photogs. Pros who won't and never will >use cheap superzooms with crappy little sensors and who routinely use >ISOs from 400-3200. Troll on troll action! Really turns me on ... .... NOT. |