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: Ray Fischer on 27 Oct 2009 14:05 John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 20:01:12 -0500, Outing Trolls <ot(a)trollouters.org> >wrote in <oahce557nplg1bo3i76o357ppuakfl5vhs(a)4ax.com>: > >>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. > >That's a bit harsh, but it is true that affordable dSLR cameras don't >measure up to the top compact digitals like the Panasonic FZ35, and >disingenuous to claim a dSLR for $400 is a reasonable alternative. >Even a budget Canon dSLR kit that still falls far short of the lens >performance of the FZ35, for example, runs much more (at B&H): Apparently the lens performance of the FZ35 isn't all that great. It just has the advantage of some processing to make it look good. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: The Light and Proof Bringer on 27 Oct 2009 14:20 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:56:37 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:15:04 -0700 (PDT), -hh ><recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in ><4097b861-be9e-44b5-9dcc-bef37472935c(a)t2g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>: > > >> >>Including write times to memory cards. IME, the newer P&Ss have >>gotten slower than older P&Ss. > >Your experience must be with slower memory cards -- my Panasonic FZ28 >with SanDisk Extreme III isn't limited by write time. He's actually quite wrong (as usual). Using CHDK's in-camera benchmark tests: http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Benchmarks It's very easy to see how in-camera write-times have improved over the years. The problem stems from him not having enough knowledge on how to speed up the write-times to his card. One clue contained on that page. The other is that he he's unaware of how card-fragmentation can slow down write-times to below 50% of the rated speed for that card. Experienced that many times myself. Until I learned my lesson and found the cause. This nice part about that chart (probably one of the most extensive and complete card-brand/true-speed lists available), is that's the only one that tests the *true* write and read speeds of various brands and classes, independent of card-readers and operating systems (other than the one in the camera). You can't get any closer to the true benchmark tests for actual camera + card use. The same performance ratios (not actual numbers, which are camera OS dependent) should be applicable to any brand of camera out there. While it is true that it takes longer to save a 12 meg file than a 2 meg file, he forgets that there is much more overhead to that process than just writing the data to the card. There's no free lunch if you want to increase the resolution far beyond what you really need. Slower shot-to-shot times are not a fault of card write speeds and slower cameras, it's the fault of people thinking that unneeded resolution matters. Another not-too-bright victim of the megapixel wars.
From: George Kerby on 27 Oct 2009 14:48 On 10/27/09 10:20 AM, in article 271020090820498527%nospam(a)nospam.invalid, "nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > In article > <46c02d36-8d3e-4cf9-9743-4f1d6b982117(a)v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> Agreed, although I'd rather be optimistic and hope that he'll >> eventually have some new *actual photography* eventually to show. Of >> course, based on this subthread, these won't be available until >> sometime after the Spring Solstice, of course. Apparently, John and >> the troll are both quite afraid of the dark :-) > > he's posted a few pictures, just nothing that backs up any of his > claims. What he posted were low-res stuff he grabbed off of Google Images.
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 27 Oct 2009 15:05 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 13:48:31 -0500, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > > >On 10/27/09 10:20 AM, in article 271020090820498527%nospam(a)nospam.invalid, >"nospam" <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> In article >> <46c02d36-8d3e-4cf9-9743-4f1d6b982117(a)v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, >> -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: >> >>> Agreed, although I'd rather be optimistic and hope that he'll >>> eventually have some new *actual photography* eventually to show. Of >>> course, based on this subthread, these won't be available until >>> sometime after the Spring Solstice, of course. Apparently, John and >>> the troll are both quite afraid of the dark :-) >> >> he's posted a few pictures, just nothing that backs up any of his >> claims. > >What he posted were low-res stuff he grabbed off of Google Images. A perfect example of how trolls will troll no matter what proof is posted to the contrary. Then when they ask for proof and you don't provide it you are chastised for not playing into their troll's games. Trolls are not here for knowledge and proof, they are here to troll. Absolutely nothing more than that. Trolls seem to forget that non-trolls have figured out their childish little troll's games long ago and just won't play with them anymore. Unfortunately, this then causes genuine people to not get the help and information that they really need. Those with the real first-hand knowledge and experience that is required won't provide it, lest they get dragged into yet another of the many trolls' games. Perhaps if you got rid of the always glaringly obvious red(herring) noses it might help. (ref: children's tales, for allegorical humor)
From: -hh on 27 Oct 2009 18:18
John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> > nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> >> -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >> >> > >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. > > >> Canon S90 1/1.7" 43.3 mm² > >> Panasonic FZ28 1/2.33" sensor 28.5 mm² > >> Canon S90 sensor is thus 50% larger than the FZ28. > > >By your own admission, the FZ28 isn't using a 1/2.5" or 1/2.7" sensor > >as was explictly detailed in the above text. Congratulations on YA > >disingenous attempt to warp the statement and move the goal posts. > > The FZ28 is a "representative" and "usual" compact digital camera, > albeit better and more capable than most. Sorry, but at an original MSRP of $400, the FZ28 wasn't even close to the typical consumer P&S, which instead hits at the $100 price point...which is also why they typically also lack a "SUPER zoom", larger sensor, etc. > Are you so threatened by better and more capable compact digital > cameras that you're only willing to focus on the poorer ones? What I find unpalatable is dishonesty, and your dishonesty here is in suggesting that all dSLRs are "too expensive" while offering $400 P&S alternatives ... which costs just as much as a basic dSLR today. I have no qualms with there being higher performance P&Ss. In fact, the archives show that I've recently posted about how I was considering building a new underwater rig around the Canon G11 P&S. > FYI, while Class 6 is the fastest official class, that speed is _much_ > less than the performance of the Extreme III. Nevertheless, there was no perceptable improvement in I/O with the Class 6 card versus the completely unrated card that the camera shipped with. This suggests that the I/O bottleneck isn't from the card's rating. > >Sorry, but you were the one who introduced the Canon S90 to the > >conversation, and it is public knowledge that it is not a $100 P&S > >camera. Without any doubt, you introduced the concept of paying more > >to gain higher performance...all of your own free will. > > >Thus, your attempt to distract & deflect simply does not fly. > > What actually won't fly is this silly and childish attempt to put words > in my mouth. I don't need to put any words in your mouth: you volunteer all of your statements without any arm-twisting. What you're really trying to say is that you dislike it when someone points out the actual reprocussions of something that you've said. This is why your classical response is to try to "Shoot the Messenger" rather than to actually be a mature adult who takes responsibility, including its implications, for what you wrote. -hh |