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: Bob Larter on 22 Oct 2009 09:15 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. ;) I expect that your GF would notice the difference... ;^) -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 22 Oct 2009 09:17 -hh wrote: > the cowardly anonymous troll wrote: [...] > There is no 'club'...and is this all you can really muster up to say? > I was really expecting you to at least recycle (yet again) your > wonderfully lame "100 points" propaganda fiction....afterall, we do > know that "Copy & Paste" is within your limited > talents...usually :-). He stopped spamming that idiotic list after his ISP slapped his wrist. ;^) -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: whisky-dave on 22 Oct 2009 08:27 "Jim...(8-| " <jim(a)home.com> wrote in message news:ni5vd5hp1bqr593un2l6b3jo1jscdcncbt(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 07:20:50 -0700, John Navas > <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:05:52 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >>wrote in <4adf1543$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >> >>>LOL! wrote: >> >>>> You mean like this? >>>> >>>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml >>>> >>>> Where an inexpensive P&S clearly beats a DSLR in resolution and CA >>>> performance. Where it has more aperture available at longer >>>> focal-lengths >>>> than the most expensive fixed-focal-length DSLR lenses, so high ISO's >>>> aren't required in low light. >>> >>>*snort* Yeah, a couple of digicams equaled a 450D with a shitty kit lens >>>at their minimum ISO. Gee, what a shock. >> >>That's a pretty big concession coming from you. Good on ya. >> >>>And for a real laugh, check out the ISO 1600 shots from the digicams vs >>>the 450D: ... >> >>In other words, you have to push the envelope farther and farther from >>the majority of photographic situations to justify a dSLR. > > Its been interesting to note how you've pushed many posters here into > a bunker of extreme situations, fun too. Since when has night time become an extreme situation. > I suppose it's considered fairly normal now to go out on a moonless > night and see how good a shot you can take of city hall, thus proving > that an expensive camera is better than a cheap camera. I think it's quite normal to take pictures after sunset without flash. > Myself I'd rather wait till the light is right and use a low ISO > setting, but that doesn't seem to be a normal situation if you follow > the threads here. You do realise that lost of things in a picture actually look differnt at night to what they do during the day. Take traffic for instance, the sky, I don;t think you can really expose to see stars during daylight using low ASA. I remmebr in the mid 70s going to tower blocks and trying to get pictures of London streets with stras in the sky using HP3 left stewing in acuspeed for 25mins at ~22C hoping to get 1600 ASA. > I find taking photos a fun hobby and take a few hundred every month. In the days before digital I couldn't afford to do that. a few hundreds a year perhaps. > but of note to me is size, with use being inversely proportional to > size, I hope she was very please ;-) >with large cameras being unlikely to be carried casually. For > this reason I've just ordered a Panasonic (because of how good my FZ28 > is) ZX1/ZR1, which i plan on keeping in my pocket away from home. That's how I feel too. >I > don't go out at night so high ISO performance doesn't mean much, Here the sun presently sets at 5:50pm, seems a shame to stop taking photos. > nor > does a lack of manual controls, as long as i can make a couple of > adjustments i'll be happy, why would camera makers spend millions to > put intelligence into cameras and then have slobs like me think we > know better than them. because most of the time, we, or rather some of us do know better than them as to what we want in our photos. > > The camera you have with you is going to take a better picture than > the fanciest legacy dSLR at home. Only true if you leave it at home when you leave. But that goes for P&S's too >
From: Bob Larter on 22 Oct 2009 09:56 Jim...(8-| wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh > <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> *snort* Yeah, a couple of digicams equaled a 450D with a shitty >>>> kit lens at their minimum ISO. Gee, what a shock. >>> That's a pretty big concession coming from you. Good on ya. >> Its not a concession at all: even ancient "110" film camers could >> take reasonably acceptable images under ideal (bright) conditions. >> The key question is how often the application is *not* limited to just >> merely ideal, bright conditions. >> >> >>>> And for a real laugh, check out the ISO 1600 shots from the digicams vs >>>> the 450D: ... >>> In other words, you have to push the envelope farther and farther from >>> the majority of photographic situations to justify a dSLR. >> Utter Navas Nonsense. Again. >> >> First off, the difference in images is unambiguously present by ISO >> 400 ... it has merely progressed to a rediculous extreme by ISO 1600 >> such that it makes a reasonable person wonder why the manufacturers >> even bothered with the feature, given the clearly poor results. >> >> Second, higher ISO photography han't been rare since the 1960s, if not >> earlier. >> There have been many common applications of even ISO 1600+ for >> decades, such as at indoor sports events (eg basketball). Even the >> general consumer film of the 1990s had trended towards higher ISOs - - >> as a means of making it "easier" for the general consumer to achieve >> reasonable results - - with films such as Kodak Max 400 being promoted >> as the defacto new standard, as a "Do Everything" product (from bright >> light to the dark room with the kid blowing out candles on a birthday >> cake). >> >> 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. >> >> >> -hh > > I'd like to find a site that shows how the old film stuff compares, > I've been looking on and off for a long time now and haven't found a > url that shows how film shows up against digital cameras. Film vs digital was a perennial topic here a few years ago, but the latest (1-2 years old) DSLRs are clearly better now. > I'd be tempted to think that "grain" would be a serious distraction in > film but it never seems to be thought of as evil. It all depends on what you're shooting. For some shots, grain is a good thing. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: Bob Larter on 22 Oct 2009 09:57
Reality Czech wrote: > On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:05:43 +1000, "Jim...(8-| " <jim(a)home.com> wrote: > >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh >> <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: >> >>> John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>>> Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> *snort* Yeah, a couple of digicams equaled a 450D with a shitty >>>>> kit lens at their minimum ISO. Gee, what a shock. >>>> That's a pretty big concession coming from you. Good on ya. >>> Its not a concession at all: even ancient "110" film camers could >>> take reasonably acceptable images under ideal (bright) conditions. >>> The key question is how often the application is *not* limited to just >>> merely ideal, bright conditions. >>> >>> >>>>> And for a real laugh, check out the ISO 1600 shots from the digicams vs >>>>> the 450D: ... >>>> In other words, you have to push the envelope farther and farther from >>>> the majority of photographic situations to justify a dSLR. >>> Utter Navas Nonsense. Again. >>> >>> First off, the difference in images is unambiguously present by ISO >>> 400 ... it has merely progressed to a rediculous extreme by ISO 1600 >>> such that it makes a reasonable person wonder why the manufacturers >>> even bothered with the feature, given the clearly poor results. >>> >>> Second, higher ISO photography han't been rare since the 1960s, if not >>> earlier. >>> There have been many common applications of even ISO 1600+ for >>> decades, such as at indoor sports events (eg basketball). Even the >>> general consumer film of the 1990s had trended towards higher ISOs - - >>> as a means of making it "easier" for the general consumer to achieve >>> reasonable results - - with films such as Kodak Max 400 being promoted >>> as the defacto new standard, as a "Do Everything" product (from bright >>> light to the dark room with the kid blowing out candles on a birthday >>> cake). >>> >>> 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. >>> >>> >>> -hh >> I'd like to find a site that shows how the old film stuff compares, >> I've been looking on and off for a long time now and haven't found a >> url that shows how film shows up against digital cameras. >> >> I'd be tempted to think that "grain" would be a serious distraction in >> film but it never seems to be thought of as evil. > > "Noise" is only a concern of the most inexperienced of amateurs. They don't > know how to use a camera properly so they just crank up all the settings as > high as they can in order to have it hopefully compensate for their > inability to use it correctly. Machine-gun burst shots, high ISOs, fastest > auto-focus possible, etc. ALL are the direct needs of the permanently > crippled snapshooter who must have a camera that does it all for them, > because they don't know what the hell they are doing. ALL are signs of the > point and shoot DSLR owner. That's all it is. You can tell much about a > person's level of talent by what they require of their camera. If they > pride themselves on some equipment crutch it speaks loud and clear of their > own lameness. This is the infamous P&S troll. Please don't take anything he says seriously. (Please note that he changes names with nearly every post.) -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |