Prev: What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see 8 bit?
Next: I've read about "adaptive optics" as used by the US military, intelligence agencies, etc in satellite imagery, but what about using optics to correct out of focus pictures? Is this possible?
From: Scotius on 12 Jul 2010 01:56
On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:28:24 -0500, Prime <PrimeFactor(a)primetime.com>
wrote:

>I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>
>I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
>shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
>burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
>of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.
>

I used to exclusively use a Sony Cybershot at 7.1 megapixels,
and for a lot of shots that show up on only the computer screen, you
can't see a lot of difference, provided they're shot in bright light,
etc.
However, you have to take photos in RAW format or another one
that shows many colours for print work. You may not notice the
difference on screen, but you would in print. I know that because I
printed some JPEGs for some creative projects I did in an advertising
course that covered creative as well as marketing and media, and the
difference is apparent.
Other than that, the optics of the small lenses can't match
the performance of the lenses you'd use on DSLRs. Point and shoots are
great within their limits though, but remember they have a lot more
limits than the DSLRs.
I'm now using a Nikon D3000 DSLR, and I can tell you that even
on screen the difference is more than easily apparent in terms of
resolution of farther objects, etc, even though the zoom is roughly
equal.

>For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small, 12x
>optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
>sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my Sony
>DSC-P200.
>
>When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
>equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for such
>a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
>still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
>sensor!
From: Savageduck on 12 Jul 2010 02:37
On 2010-07-11 22:56:03 -0700, Scotius <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> said:

> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:28:24 -0500, Prime <PrimeFactor(a)primetime.com>
> wrote:


< A whole bunch of old stuff snipped>

Have you noticed you are responding to threads which have been dead for
almost five (5) years?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 12 Jul 2010 02:50
On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 01:56:03 -0400, Scotius <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:28:24 -0500, Prime <PrimeFactor(a)primetime.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I've been waiting and wondering when we will see this.
>>
>>I'm personally tired of carrying big cameras. I've got a great point and
>>shoot 7mp. I would like some more lens flexibility but don't want to be
>>burdened down by a SLR. I used a film SLR but found the size differential
>>of a good point and shoot (for me) was too valuable to ignore.
>>
>
> I used to exclusively use a Sony Cybershot at 7.1 megapixels,
>and for a lot of shots that show up on only the computer screen, you
>can't see a lot of difference, provided they're shot in bright light,
>etc.
> However, you have to take photos in RAW format or another one
>that shows many colours for print work. You may not notice the
>difference on screen, but you would in print. I know that because I
>printed some JPEGs for some creative projects I did in an advertising
>course that covered creative as well as marketing and media, and the
>difference is apparent.

Only if you use high levels of JPG compression. Then this can change the
color profile. Otherwise you're just blowing smoke up everyone's asses
because the 8-bit color depth of barely compressed JPG files will in no way
change the overall printout on a 5-6-bit color space on any printer.

Having fun at playing being a pretend-photographer troll yet?

> Other than that, the optics of the small lenses can't match
>the performance of the lenses you'd use on DSLRs. Point and shoots are
>great within their limits though, but remember they have a lot more
>limits than the DSLRs.

Damn. You'd better tell these smaller-sensor camera owners that these
verifiable test results were all tampered with then.


<http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>

<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>

<http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>


Or maybe you need to go in for a psychiatric examination to determine just
how pathetically brainwashed you've become.


> I'm now using a Nikon D3000 DSLR, and I can tell you that even
>on screen the difference is more than easily apparent in terms of
>resolution of farther objects, etc, even though the zoom is roughly
>equal.
>
>>For example, I really like the Panasonic FZ5 - Leica lens, very small, 12x
>>optical+ stabilized zoom. I almost bought the camera. Yet when I look at
>>sample photos the 5mp sensor has noticable noise, even compared to my Sony
>>DSC-P200.

Now I wonder why I doubt that you even have either camera. Why is that?

OH, I know why! Because what you've written so far is so full of bullshit
and can be easily proved wrong that you obviously have never had ANY camera
in your hands! That's why!


>>
>>When and why don't we see a 6-8mp prosumer camera with an image sensor
>>equivalent to one in a digital SLR? I would expect a major market for such
>>a camera. Perhaps bigger than the smaller point and shoot cameras, but
>>still a lot smaller than SLRs. And you wouldn't worry about dust on the
>>sensor!
From: George Kerby on 12 Jul 2010 12:23



On 7/12/10 1:37 AM, in article
2010071123370758821-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2010-07-11 22:56:03 -0700, Scotius <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> said:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:28:24 -0500, Prime <PrimeFactor(a)primetime.com>
>> wrote:
>
>
> < A whole bunch of old stuff snipped>
>
> Have you noticed you are responding to threads which have been dead for
> almost five (5) years?

Maybe he has found the answer to Time Travel question?

From: Savageduck on 12 Jul 2010 13:05
On 2010-07-12 09:23:59 -0700, George Kerby <ghost_topper(a)hotmail.com> said:

>
>
>
> On 7/12/10 1:37 AM, in article
> 2010071123370758821-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom, "Savageduck"
> <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-07-11 22:56:03 -0700, Scotius <yodasbud(a)mnsi.net> said:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jul 2005 21:28:24 -0500, Prime <PrimeFactor(a)primetime.com>
>>> wrote:
>>
>>
>> < A whole bunch of old stuff snipped>
>>
>> Have you noticed you are responding to threads which have been dead for
>> almost five (5) years?
>
> Maybe he has found the answer to Time Travel question?

Maybe this is a new Alzheimer's therapy.
Utilizing retained Usenet caches to help recall the recent, and not so
recent past.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: What is the point of having 16 bit colour if a computer monitor can only display 8 bit colour? How do you edit 16 bit colour when you can only see 8 bit?
Next: I've read about "adaptive optics" as used by the US military, intelligence agencies, etc in satellite imagery, but what about using optics to correct out of focus pictures? Is this possible?