I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Immigration: The shocking truth about the immigrants who openedthe floodgates
Next: The real cost of being sued by Getty
From: John McWilliams on 21 Oct 2009 12:28 John Navas wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh > <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in > <6f13be1b-7470-496a-a225-c616e187862e(a)k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>: > >> John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> [SNIP desperate defense of dSLR] > >> And unfortunately, the performance of these P&Ss at even just ISO 400 >> makes for a relatively poor showing against what a one-use >> (disposable) Kodak Max 400 35mm film camera was able to do, a decade >> ago. > > The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. Why, yes! Depending on your definition of 'very good'. -- john mcwilliams
From: nospam on 21 Oct 2009 12:37 In article <ruaud51s75evob4rorolf8q2q12qid6gte(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. the best dslrs now have very good iso 3200 performance and are very usable at higher speeds. it opens up a world of new opportunities, many that were considered impossible just a few years ago.
From: Doug McDonald on 21 Oct 2009 12:41 John Navas wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh > <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in > <6f13be1b-7470-496a-a225-c616e187862e(a)k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>: > >> John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> [SNIP desperate defense of dSLR] > >> And unfortunately, the performance of these P&Ss at even just ISO 400 >> makes for a relatively poor showing against what a one-use >> (disposable) Kodak Max 400 35mm film camera was able to do, a decade >> ago. > > The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. > Well, yes, depending on your definition of "very good". However, the best dSLRs have very good ISO 3200 performance, for the same definition of "very good". Doug McDonald
From: -hh on 21 Oct 2009 12:52 On Oct 21, 11:44 am, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > > >[SNIP desperate defense of dSLR] That's really an *odd* claim, considering that I never even mentioned any dSLRs...or even SLRs at all: just old 110 film and disposable 35mm film cameras. Perhaps Mr Navas could be so kind as to point out *precisely* where dSLRs were clearly being defended, lest John be ethically compelled to withdraw his statement as a blatant untruth? > >And unfortunately, the performance of these P&Ss at even just ISO 400 > >makes for a relatively poor showing against what a one-use > >(disposable) Kodak Max 400 35mm film camera was able to do, > >a decade ago. > > The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. YMMV as to what constitutes "Good". In this case, the compact digital cameras evaluated here......which specifically cites the Canon PoerShot SX10 IS and Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ28: <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/ noise.shtml> ....fails to deliver a good quality image at ISO 400, where "Good Quality" is the benchmark established a decade ago by the Kodak Max 400 disposable film camera. In any event, the yardstick of what is "Good" isn't relevant what the above page also illustrates, which is by ISO 400 there is clearly an alternative which is undoubtedly "Better" in terms of delivered image fidelity. -hh
From: nospam on 21 Oct 2009 13:53
In article <74d98a8f-01c1-4576-b9a4-19f686d6adda(a)l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>, -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > Perhaps Mr Navas could be so kind as to point out *precisely* where > dSLRs were clearly being defended, lest John be ethically compelled to > withdraw his statement as a blatant untruth? john navas withdraw a statement? don't hold your breath on that one. |