From: Robert Coe on 30 May 2010 10:25
On Sat, 29 May 2010 17:42:52 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
: On 29/05/10 5:13 PM, Rich wrote:
: > Not as far as you might think. They are much faster when it comes to
: > processing, hugely faster. On the order of 5-10x in some cases.
: > Resolution is also much higher than years ago. But for image quality,
: > not as far. Below are images taken with a 2004 Nikon Coolpix 5400
: > with 5 megapixels and a Panasonic LX3 (2009) with 10 megapixels. The
: > Panasonic has the superior lens, but the images are about 0.7 stop
: > dimmer than from the Nikon indicating perhaps the pixel size has
: > effected over sensitivity.
: What the camera makers should be doing is putting more powerful flashes
: on cameras as the pixel size decreases. ...
But that would require a more powerful battery, which would require a larger
camera, which ...
From: John Navas on 30 May 2010 10:29
On Sun, 30 May 2010 04:21:30 -0700 (PDT), ransley
<Mark_Ransley(a)Yahoo.com> wrote in
>On May 29, 7:13�pm, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>> Not as far as you might think. �They are much faster when it comes to
>> processing, hugely faster. �On the order of 5-10x in some cases.
>> Resolution is also much higher than years ago. �But for image quality,
>> not as far. �Below are images taken with a 2004 Nikon Coolpix 5400
>> with 5 megapixels and a Panasonic LX3 (2009) with 10 megapixels. �The
>> Panasonic has the superior lens, but the images are about 0.7 stop
>> dimmer than from the Nikon indicating perhaps the pixel size has
>> effected over sensitivity. �I equalized the images (except for WB) in-
>> terms of brightness. �Both are at 400 ISO with the same aperture (0.1
>> stop diff) and exposure time. �Both are from raw files and the
>> slowness of the Nikon when it comes to processing is in-part due to
>> the fact it was never intended to handle raws, that capability was
>> added later in a firmware upgrade.
>Isnt Panasonic know to have one of the most noisy sensors.
In a word, no. They are as good or better than comparable cameras.
Read the reviews.
Buying a dSLR doesn't make you a photographer,
it makes you a dSLR owner.
"The single most important component of a camera
is the twelve inches behind it." -Ansel Adams
From: Robert Coe on 30 May 2010 10:31
On Sat, 29 May 2010 22:33:04 -0500, ROFLMAO! <roflmao(a)roflmao.org> wrote:
: On Sat, 29 May 2010 20:13:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote:
: >On 29/05/10 7:14 PM, George Fillers wrote:
: >> "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message
: >> news:4c01b48f$0$1585$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net...
: >>> What the camera makers should be doing is putting more powerful
: >>> flashes on cameras as the pixel size decreases. I was behind someone
: >>> at Costco who was complaining to the photo person about how dim her
: >>> indoor pictures were, and that when she was using film she got much
: >>> better results. The clerk was trying to explain the reasons for this
: >>> (and I was impressed that the clerk knew enough about digital
: >>> photography and sensors to properly explain it) but the explanation
: >>> clearly went over the customer's head.
: >>> They should have some sort of visual aid with the different sensor
: >>> sizes for different camera models, along with a 35mm film frame size
: >>> so people can understand why the P&S digital cameras with tiny sensors
: >>> do so poorly in low light. It's especially a problem with ZLRs where
: >>> people buy them and think that they're going to get SLR-like
: >>> performance in low light, without realizing that they're going to have
: >>> the same problems they did with pocket size P&S models, or they'll
: >>> have to spring for a expensive flash attachment.
: >> You've got me intrigued as your posts are usually pretty good.
: >> Are you talking about noise or exposure/inverse square law?
: >Noise would be pretty hard to explain to non-techies,
: Translation: "I don't know what the hell I'm talking about, but let's see
: if he'll buy this BS I read on the net somewhere once..."
What are you doing in this thread, Turkey? I've known Labrador retrievers who
knew more about physics and optics than you do.
From: tony cooper on 30 May 2010 11:15
On Sun, 30 May 2010 06:50:49 -0700, John Navas
>On Sat, 29 May 2010 20:13:34 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com>
>wrote in <4c01d7e1$0$1638$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>:
>>Noise would be pretty hard to explain to non-techies, but showing how
>>pixel size (the same number of pixels in different size sensors) affects
>>light gathering capability should be pretty intuitive.
>Except it's not that simple. If it were, newer dSLR cameras with much
>smaller pixel sizes than older dSLR cameras would produce much worse
>images, when in fact they produce much better images.
>>Actually there are already video tutorials that explain this, but
>>putting it on a handout might be helpful not only in the photo
>>processing departments of stores but in the camera departments. Too many
>>people buy P&S cameras solely by megapixels, LCD size, and zoom lens
>>range without understanding anything else.
>Too many people buy dSLR cameras with cheap kit or independent lenses
>solely by type, brand name, and price, without understanding anything
>else, because they wrongly think, like so many here, that a dSLR is
>better because it's bigger and more expensive, and that a better camera
>will make them better photographers, only to get worse pictures than
>they would have gotten with a high-end compact digital camera, both
>because they don't know how to use a dSLR properly, and because they
>won't spend enough money on glass.
Welcome back, John, but I see you continue to blather. No one buys a
dslr and gets worse pictures than they would with a P&S. If they
don't know how to compose a photograph, they don't know how to compose
a photograph with any type of device.
You could legitimately say that buying a dslr will not ensure *better*
photographs, but there is no way that a dslr will produce worse
photographs than a P&S in the same person's hand.
There are some advantages to the P&S. If you are going to shoot
photographs from a kayak in high seas, the P&S is the better choice
because one can be purchased with a greater zoom range and no change
of lenses is necessary, and because the P&S closes when off and the
lens is covered automatically. You don't need to fiddle with putting
a lens cap on to protect the lens from splashing water.
You don't have to know how to use a dslr properly anymore than you
have to know how to use a P&S properly. All you have to do with
either type of camera is to figure out how to turn it on and set it to
Automatic. Your photographs will be *better* if you learn to use the
other settings properly, but all modern dslrs can be used exactly as a
P&S is used.
You remind me of a guy I know who incessantly brags about his 5
year-old child and how smart the child is. He even brags that his
child already knows how to use a knife and fork.
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: John Navas on 30 May 2010 11:50
On Sun, 30 May 2010 11:15:35 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net> wrote in
>Welcome back, John, but I see you continue to blather. ...
I see you continue to act like a jerk,
so I'm not going to bother with the rest of your reply.
"Never argue with an idiot. He'll drag you down to his level
and then beat you with experience." -Dr. Alan Zimmerman