Canon and Panasonic: updated models
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Bowser on 28 May 2010 09:02 On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:06 -0700, John Navas <jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:22:29 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in ><2kvtv5tpsrnqlso7hg4q3aalcrvq26d593(a)4ax.com>: > >>On Thu, 27 May 2010 11:16:02 -0700, John Navas >><jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>>On Thu, 27 May 2010 09:47:28 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> >>>wrote in <4bfea229$0$1618$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>: >>> >>>>One problem with these super-zooms is that their often unfairly compared >>>>to D-SLRs rather than to P&Ss. Of course they'll never be able to be as >>>>good as D-SLR with a much larger, much lower noise sensor, and the >>>>AF/lag will never be as good with contrast detection AF as it is with >>>>phase detect AF. Guess one should "never say never" but it's hard to get >>>>around the basic physics. >>> >>>Total nonsense. >> >>Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in >>the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. >>Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. > >Uh, really. I own an FZ28, which is excellent, and the FZ35 I borrowed >for a day was ever better. Autofocus speed is excellent *if* you >configure the cameras properly. Image quality likewise. >I routinely get better shots (in all respects) than those shooting the >same subjects with dSLR cameras. Perhaps you need more practice with >the FZ35. Nah, it's configured just fine. Every time we go down this road I ask you to prove what you say, we banter, and you never provide proof. Some other time, John.
From: Bowser on 28 May 2010 09:05 On Thu, 27 May 2010 18:22:59 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 27/05/10 4:22 PM, Bowser wrote: > >> Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in >> the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. >> Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. > >You've got to understand the issue here. Apparently our favorite troll >has an FZ-35/FZ-38 so by default that camera becomes the perfect camera >and it can have no faults. > >Unlike you and I, who could objectively look at most any item we own and >point out both its highs and lows to someone who inquires about it, >there are people that immediately after purchasing an item feel >compelled to justify the purchase to the entire world and make it clear >that their purchasing decision was in fact the best possible one. It's >deep-seated insecurity that causes this behavior. > >The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces >acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features. >But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image >quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR. Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore me.
From: John Navas on 28 May 2010 10:17 On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:02:59 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in <6mfvv5d0lqkk7q9b2tf9ed9niprg7t1jgd(a)4ax.com>: >On Thu, 27 May 2010 16:45:06 -0700, John Navas ><jnspam1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>On Thu, 27 May 2010 19:22:29 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in >><2kvtv5tpsrnqlso7hg4q3aalcrvq26d593(a)4ax.com>: >>>Uh, not really. I own an FZ35 and while I love it, it's clearly not in >>>the same league as any DSLR with regards to image quality or AF speed. >>>Not to say it's bad; it's quite good. But nowhere near a DSLR. >> >>Uh, really. I own an FZ28, which is excellent, and the FZ35 I borrowed >>for a day was ever better. Autofocus speed is excellent *if* you >>configure the cameras properly. Image quality likewise. >>I routinely get better shots (in all respects) than those shooting the >>same subjects with dSLR cameras. Perhaps you need more practice with >>the FZ35. > >Nah, it's configured just fine. Apparently not. >Every time we go down this road I ask >you to prove what you say, we banter, and you never provide proof. >Some other time, John. I've provided more than adequate proof repeatedly (again today), but you are still entitled to your opinion, no matter how unfounded. -- Best regards, John "Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea - massive, difficult to redirect, awe inspiring, entertaining, and a source of mind boggling amounts of excrement when you least expect it." --Gene Spafford
From: John Navas on 28 May 2010 10:19 On Fri, 28 May 2010 04:44:39 -0500, J. Caldwell <nospam(a)anyserver.net> wrote in <9v3vv5lui8umkj9fd6jcbcf2h6i61vgv0a(a)4ax.com>: >On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:52:40 +0100, "David J Taylor" ><david-taylor(a)blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote: > >>"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >>news:4bff1afc$0$1591$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>[] >>> The reality is that it at low ISO settings the FZ-35/FZ-38 produces >>> acceptable results, and it has many highly desirable features. >>> But it is neither the best quality ZLR in terms of noise or image >>> quality, nor is it anywhere close to quality of a D-SLR. >> >>Yes, many small-sensor cameras can produce adequate photos under good >>lighting conditions, but many do not work well at higher ISO settings >>(e.g. ISO 3200) and few have the wide-aperture lenses (e.g. f/1.8) >>available to DSLRs. With the DSLR can can buy whatever lens quality you >>wish to afford, with the ZLR you are stuck with what's provided. >> >>Your needs, your money, your choice. >Hmm.... buy 15 different P&S cameras, or for the same price buy worthwhile >glass for a DSLR that doesn't provide any greater resolution, better CA >correction, nor image quality .... decisions decisions ... Or buy 1 compact digital that does the job 99% of the time. Easy decision for me. YMMV. -- 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: John Navas on 28 May 2010 10:20
On Fri, 28 May 2010 09:05:00 -0400, Bowser <Canon(a)Nikon.Panny> wrote in <tpfvv5tn0cnukom6neniqc14oa1cta5e1b(a)4ax.com>: >Yes, I know the issue and I know Navas' tactics very well. He makes >ridiculous claims and never provides any proof to back them. I'll pass >on the banter this time. It's tiring and he's beginning to really bore >me. 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.' -- Best regards, John "Facts? We ain't got no facts. We don't need no facts. I don't have to show you any stinking facts!" [with apologies to John Huston] |