From: John Navas on
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:37:32 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote
in <211020090937323723%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>:

>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.

None that I need.

--
Best regards,
John

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: John Navas on
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:41:36 -0500, Doug McDonald
<mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in
<hbndjr$sku$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>:

>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".

That's a bit like bragging your personal equipment is an inch longer
than mine. ;)

--
Best regards,
John

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: John Navas on
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:52:09 -0700 (PDT), -hh
<recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in
<74d98a8f-01c1-4576-b9a4-19f686d6adda(a)l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>:

>On Oct 21, 11:44�am, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> 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.

What's needed is to use them properly, not just default settings.

--
Best regards,
John

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: John McWilliams on
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:41:36 -0500, Doug McDonald
> <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in
> <hbndjr$sku$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>:
>
>> 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".
>
> That's a bit like bragging your personal equipment is an inch longer
> than mine. ;)
>
Not at all! Although the difference is more like twice as good, in body
parts and eight times in ISO performance.

But who's bragging?

--
lsmft
From: -hh on
John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:

Restored text which Navas deleted:

> > >[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?

Happy that you posted a reply John, since you have now forfeited any
possible excuse that you "missed" the above invitation for you to post
a correction.


Continuing:

> >> 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.
>
> What's needed is to use them properly, not just default settings.

"A good carpenter doesn't blame his tools."
Might this sound just a tiny bit familar to you, John?

How ironic.


-hh