Prev: A little nostalgia this morning
Next: Ugg! Ricoh 28-300mm superzoom module for the GXR (horrific at 800ISO)
From: Rich on 2 Jul 2010 21:07
On Jul 2, 7:01 pm, John Navas <jn...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2010 15:51:31 -0700 (PDT), in
> <acbda173-dae5-4669-bfd1-c39c777e3...(a)u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> >[SNIP troll]
>
> P: "Doctor, you gotta help me!"
> D: "What are your symptoms?"
> P: "It hurts when I hit myself in the face!"
> D; "Well then, don't ... !"
>

Just holding out the vain hope that one day I won't see what I expect.
From: Rich on 3 Jul 2010 11:57
On Jul 3, 10:09 am, "David J Taylor" <david-
tay...(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> "Paul Furman" <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8b2dnY-iaeQk37LRnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> > David J Taylor wrote:
> >> SneakyP wrote
> >>> David J Taylor wrote
> >>>> RichA wrote
> >>>> . []
> >>>>>http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/......
>
> >>>> Link doesn't work here.
>
> >>> Time limited. His post link had an expiration in it.
>
> >> Thanks. Seems rather pointless, then, for a discussion topic.
>
> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10070201ricohgxrp10samplesgallery.asp
> > -the third shot of the stadium at night is ISO 1600, 4.9mm
>
> Thanks, Paul.  For a P&S that's not too bad, is it?  At least viewed at
> Web size which might be enough for many folk.
>
> David

That proves nothing about quality. Virtually any camera can do a
reasonable shot "websized."
From: David J Taylor on 3 Jul 2010 12:25

"Rich" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5b93d10d-9172-4e4b-9510-7a19ddc3f56f(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 3, 10:09 am, "David J Taylor" <david-
> tay...(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>> "Paul Furman" <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:8b2dnY-iaeQk37LRnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> > David J Taylor wrote:
>> >> SneakyP wrote
>> >>> David J Taylor wrote
>> >>>> RichA wrote
>> >>>> . []
>> >>>>>http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/......
>>
>> >>>> Link doesn't work here.
>>
>> >>> Time limited. His post link had an expiration in it.
>>
>> >> Thanks. Seems rather pointless, then, for a discussion topic.
>>
>> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10070201ricohgxrp10samplesgallery.asp
>> > -the third shot of the stadium at night is ISO 1600, 4.9mm
>>
>> Thanks, Paul. For a P&S that's not too bad, is it? At least viewed at
>> Web size which might be enough for many folk.
>>
>> David
>
> That proves nothing about quality. Virtually any camera can do a
> reasonable shot "websized."

Comparison with similar-sized sensors would certainly tell you about
relative quality within a class, and if a camera can meet someone's needs,
isn't that enough?

From: John Navas on 3 Jul 2010 14:11
On Sat, 3 Jul 2010 17:25:35 +0100, in
<i0noa1$cok$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

>Comparison with similar-sized sensors would certainly tell you about
>relative quality within a class,

Nope, no more that trying to generalize about the controls of a class of
cameras. Different cameras can and do have substantially different
sensors and image processing, so the characteristics of one simply
cannot be used to make valid characterizations of another.

>and if a camera can meet someone's needs,
>isn't that enough?

At least we agree on something! :)

--
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: Rich on 3 Jul 2010 19:09
On Jul 3, 12:25 pm, "David J Taylor" <david-
tay...(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> "Rich" <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:5b93d10d-9172-4e4b-9510-7a19ddc3f56f(a)e5g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 3, 10:09 am, "David J Taylor" <david-
> > tay...(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
> >> "Paul Furman" <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:8b2dnY-iaeQk37LRnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> >> > David J Taylor wrote:
> >> >> SneakyP wrote
> >> >>> David J Taylor wrote
> >> >>>> RichA wrote
> >> >>>> . []
> >> >>>>>http://s3.amazonaws.com/masters.galleries.dpreview.com/......
>
> >> >>>> Link doesn't work here.
>
> >> >>> Time limited. His post link had an expiration in it.
>
> >> >> Thanks. Seems rather pointless, then, for a discussion topic.
>
> >> >http://www.dpreview.com/news/1007/10070201ricohgxrp10samplesgallery.asp
> >> > -the third shot of the stadium at night is ISO 1600, 4.9mm
>
> >> Thanks, Paul.  For a P&S that's not too bad, is it?  At least viewed at
> >> Web size which might be enough for many folk.
>
> >> David
>
> > That proves nothing about quality.  Virtually any camera can do a
> > reasonable shot "websized."
>
> Comparison with similar-sized sensors would certainly tell you about
> relative quality within a class, and if a camera can meet someone's needs,
> isn't that enough?

No. Unless you think someone's sub-standard need is justification for
producing a camera. Interestingly though, if we agree that a camera
is sufficient because it can produce a usable 800x600 image for the
web, then why not stop at 5 megapixels or even 3 and use the extra
pixel size to improve low-light images?
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: A little nostalgia this morning
Next: Ugg! Ricoh 28-300mm superzoom module for the GXR (horrific at 800ISO)