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: nospam on 26 Oct 2009 20:47 In article <r8bce557eaivtan7sjpl9vn4rnqgmui6b3(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >If you want to be at all > >convincing, let's see some proof samples that shows its capabilities > >at suitably low EV values. For eample, my homepage image was IIRC in > >the ballpark of EV -5. > > I'm not going to waste time on a pointless exercise. it would put to rest whether your claim holds water or not. obviously it doesn't. you are all talk and no substance. > >Futhermore, the S90 isn't representative of general P&Ss, since it > >doesn't have a typically small 1/2.5" sensor. It instead follows the > >dSLR approach of using a larger sensor and is an eample of the > >emerging era of the "small camera / large sensor". > > A bit larger than usual, but nothing like the dSLR approach. > What makes it special is the fast f/2.0 lens, high-sensitivity sensor, > and advanced in-camera image processing. dslrs can do *better* than f/2, have an even higher sensitivity sensor and more advanced image processing. > >The trade-off is manifest in its $400 retail price...that's 4x the > >cost of a typical ("average") P&S. > > Irrelevant -- dSLR is far more expensive. wrong. you can get a new dslr for $400, sometimes even less. > >> There is no "ideal" -- that's just a myth promulgated by those who think > >> specs are more important than actual photography. > > > >"Ideal" merely represents the best that one can do, not utter > >perfection. > > Moving the goalposts again. yes that's what you do. > >And yet you yourself couldn't resist using an expensive > >and clearly non-representative product of the P&S segment in order to > >achieve better ... IE more ideal ... low light performance. > > On the contrary -- I simply pointed to the current state of the art. the s90 may be good, but it is not state of the art, despite your claims otherwise. the nikon d3s or canon 1d mark iv are state of the art. > >And in the realm of *actual photography*, I await some real world > >examples that illustrate the low light (negative EV values) > >performance from your current Panasonic P&Ss. Afterall, talk is > >cheap. > > I'm not going to waste time on a pointless exercise. the fact that you call it a pointless exercise means that one can only conclude that such an exercise would show you to be the fraud that you really are, which is why you refuse to do it. you spend far more time arguing with people online than it would take to just shoot a photo and post it and prove what you say to be true.
From: Outing Trolls on 26 Oct 2009 21:01 On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:47:35 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > > >wrong. you can get a new dslr for $400, sometimes even less. Until you want to put the necessary lens on it that *might* get images equivalent to a P&S camera. Then you start to consider the cost being anywhere from $1000 on up to $5000 or more. dSLR's sold with inferior kit lenses are a brilliant con game. Buy a new car but you have to buy a better engine costing as much as, or many times more than, the original car purchase before it will meet those advertised specifications.
From: nospam on 26 Oct 2009 21:17 In article <oahce557nplg1bo3i76o357ppuakfl5vhs(a)4ax.com>, Outing Trolls <ot(a)trollouters.org> wrote: > Until you want to put the necessary lens on it that *might* get images > equivalent to a P&S camera. Then you start to consider the cost being > anywhere from $1000 on up to $5000 or more. wrong.
From: -hh on 26 Oct 2009 22:15 nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > John Navas wrote: > > -hh wrote: > > >If you want to be at all > > >convincing, let's see some proof samples that shows its capabilities > > >at suitably low EV values. For eample, my homepage image was IIRC in > > >the ballpark of EV -5. > > > I'm not going to waste time on a pointless exercise. > > it would put to rest whether your claim holds water or not. obviously > it doesn't. you are all talk and no substance. And exactly what Navas complains about: "... by those who think specs are more important than actual photography." Thus, John Navas is also a hypocrite. > > >Futhermore, the S90 isn't representative of general P&Ss, since it > > >doesn't have a typically small 1/2.5" sensor. It instead follows the > > >dSLR approach of using a larger sensor and is an eample of the > > >emerging era of the "small camera / large sensor". > > > A bit larger than usual, but nothing like the dSLR approach. Where "a bit larger" is roughly 100%-300% more area versus a 1/2.5" or 1/2.7". Hard to retain credibility when trying to trivialize such relative magnitudes of difference. > > What makes it special is the fast f/2.0 lens, high-sensitivity sensor, > > and advanced in-camera image processing. > > dslrs can do *better* than f/2, have an even higher sensitivity sensor > and more advanced image processing. Including write times to memory cards. IME, the newer P&Ss have gotten slower than older P&Ss. > > >The trade-off is manifest in its $400 retail price...that's 4x the > > >cost of a typical ("average") P&S. > > > Irrelevant -- dSLR is far more expensive. > > wrong. you can get a new dslr for $400, sometimes even less. Since John expressed a hypothetical willingness to pay 4x the price of a typical P&S, the proportionally appropriate factor of 4x taken against the price of an S90, would give us a $1600 budget to work with. Plenty of options & choices. And even if we do a simple linearization to a +$300 premium, that would afford a $700 budget; there's still several choices. > > >> There is no "ideal" -- that's just a myth promulgated by those who > > >> thinks specs are more important than actual photography. > > > >"Ideal" merely represents the best that one can do, not utter > > >perfection. > > > Moving the goalposts again. > > yes that's what you do. The irony is that it was clarified that the bar was explicitly lower than the height that Navas tried to set it at. > > >And yet you yourself couldn't resist using an expensive > > >and clearly non-representative product of the P&S segment in order to > > >achieve better ... IE more ideal ... low light performance. > > > On the contrary -- I simply pointed to the current state of the art. > > the s90 may be good, but it is not state of the art, despite your > claims otherwise. the nikon d3s or canon 1d mark iv are state of the > art. I'll defend the S90 for what it is: a good compromise system for the trade-offs that it chooses to make. However, that doesn't make it the best at low-light: it is merely another example of: "Jack of All Trades, Yet Master of None." > > >And in the realm of *actual photography*, I await some real world > > >examples that illustrate the low light (negative EV values) > > >performance from your current Panasonic P&Ss. Afterall, talk is > > >cheap. > > > I'm not going to waste time on a pointless exercise. > > the fact that you call it a pointless exercise means that one can only > conclude that such an exercise would show you to be the fraud that you > really are, which is why you refuse to do it. you spend far more time > arguing with people online than it would take to just shoot a photo and > post it and prove what you say to be true. Precisely. Their unwillingness to produce when challenged on an inane claim they've made is a very reliable indicator of Internet liars/ fakes/trolls. The net result is that they undermine & damage their own credibility. -hh
From: nospam on 26 Oct 2009 22:36
In article <4097b861-be9e-44b5-9dcc-bef37472935c(a)t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > > > >convincing, let's see some proof samples that shows its capabilities > > > >at suitably low EV values. For eample, my homepage image was IIRC in > > > >the ballpark of EV -5. > > > > > I'm not going to waste time on a pointless exercise. > > > > it would put to rest whether your claim holds water or not. obviously > > it doesn't. you are all talk and no substance. > > And exactly what Navas complains about: "... by those who think specs > are more important than actual photography." Thus, John Navas is also > a hypocrite. very much so. he asks for proof to defend a claim that someone makes (and then proceeds to say the provided proof is bogus), but when he is asked, he bails. > > > What makes it special is the fast f/2.0 lens, high-sensitivity sensor, > > > and advanced in-camera image processing. > > > > dslrs can do *better* than f/2, have an even higher sensitivity sensor > > and more advanced image processing. > > Including write times to memory cards. IME, the newer P&Ss have > gotten slower than older P&Ss. for the most part, memory buffers make that a non-issue. it's very rare that anyone is going to be limited by the speed of a card except in very crappy cameras or the rare occasion of shooting a *lot* of photos at once. > > > >The trade-off is manifest in its $400 retail price...that's 4x the > > > >cost of a typical ("average") P&S. > > > > > Irrelevant -- dSLR is far more expensive. > > > > wrong. you can get a new dslr for $400, sometimes even less. > > Since John expressed a hypothetical willingness to pay 4x the price of > a typical P&S, the proportionally appropriate factor of 4x taken > against the price of an S90, would give us a $1600 budget to work > with. Plenty of options & choices. And even if we do a simple > linearization to a +$300 premium, that would afford a $700 budget; > there's still several choices. true, but you can get a decent slr for substantially less than 4x. it's not going to have the bells and whistles or speed of a d3 or 1d mark iv or even a d300s or 7d, but it will work quite well. > > > >And in the realm of *actual photography*, I await some real world > > > >examples that illustrate the low light (negative EV values) > > > >performance from your current Panasonic P&Ss. Afterall, talk is > > > >cheap. > > > > > I'm not going to waste time on a pointless exercise. > > > > the fact that you call it a pointless exercise means that one can only > > conclude that such an exercise would show you to be the fraud that you > > really are, which is why you refuse to do it. you spend far more time > > arguing with people online than it would take to just shoot a photo and > > post it and prove what you say to be true. > > Precisely. Their unwillingness to produce when challenged on an inane > claim they've made is a very reliable indicator of Internet liars/ > fakes/trolls. The net result is that they undermine & damage their > own credibility. he's all talk. |