Prev: Two camera shows in Toronto this weekend
Next: Steve Jobs: Funniest line of the decade
From: Rich on 13 May 2010 20:16
Check out the tests on the Ricoh with the back-illuminated sensor. It is a
PIECE OF JUNK for any ISO over 200, which is NO surprise. Current sensors
are not inefficient. Not NEARLY so much as the nuts hyping back
illumination are pretending. Does back illumination work, at all? Yes, it
can, but not with TINY, CRAPPY sensors like the "dime a dozen" 1/2.3."
Back illumination might be interesting on a bigger sensor, and it is viable
for scientific CCDs with huge pixels, but for now, you can't make a silk
purse out of a sow's ear no matter what tricks you try.
From: N on 14 May 2010 07:29

"Rich" <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:dPadnYLij-_qC3HWnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
> Check out the tests on the Ricoh with the back-illuminated sensor. It is
> a
> PIECE OF JUNK for any ISO over 200, which is NO surprise. Current sensors
> are not inefficient. Not NEARLY so much as the nuts hyping back
> illumination are pretending. Does back illumination work, at all? Yes, it
> can, but not with TINY, CRAPPY sensors like the "dime a dozen" 1/2.3."
> Back illumination might be interesting on a bigger sensor, and it is
> viable
> for scientific CCDs with huge pixels, but for now, you can't make a silk
> purse out of a sow's ear no matter what tricks you try.

What's your opinion of a Nikon P100?

--
N

From: Alfred Molon on 14 May 2010 16:08
What problem do you have?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site
From: RichA on 15 May 2010 16:02
On May 14, 7:29 am, "N" <N...(a)onyx.com> wrote:
> "Rich" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message
>
> news:dPadnYLij-_qC3HWnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> > Check out the tests on the Ricoh with the back-illuminated sensor.  It is
> > a
> > PIECE OF JUNK for any ISO over 200, which is NO surprise.  Current sensors
> > are not inefficient.  Not NEARLY so much as the nuts hyping back
> > illumination are pretending.  Does back illumination work, at all? Yes, it
> > can, but not with TINY, CRAPPY sensors like the "dime a dozen" 1/2.3."
> > Back illumination might be interesting on a bigger sensor, and it is
> > viable
> > for scientific CCDs with huge pixels, but for now, you can't make a silk
> > purse out of a sow's ear no matter what tricks you try.
>
> What's your opinion of a Nikon P100?
>
> --
> N

Haven't seen it yet, I'll check it out though.
From: N on 16 May 2010 04:25

"RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:d73ad005-c9b1-427a-8c78-6e605cc6069f(a)e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
> On May 14, 7:29 am, "N" <N...(a)onyx.com> wrote:
>> "Rich" <n...(a)nowhere.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:dPadnYLij-_qC3HWnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>
>> > Check out the tests on the Ricoh with the back-illuminated sensor. It
>> > is
>> > a
>> > PIECE OF JUNK for any ISO over 200, which is NO surprise. Current
>> > sensors
>> > are not inefficient. Not NEARLY so much as the nuts hyping back
>> > illumination are pretending. Does back illumination work, at all? Yes,
>> > it
>> > can, but not with TINY, CRAPPY sensors like the "dime a dozen" 1/2.3."
>> > Back illumination might be interesting on a bigger sensor, and it is
>> > viable
>> > for scientific CCDs with huge pixels, but for now, you can't make a
>> > silk
>> > purse out of a sow's ear no matter what tricks you try.
>>
>> What's your opinion of a Nikon P100?
>>
>> --
>> N
>
> Haven't seen it yet, I'll check it out though.

It's getting bad reviews.

--
N

 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: Two camera shows in Toronto this weekend
Next: Steve Jobs: Funniest line of the decade