Canon and Panasonic: updated models
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Russ D on 28 May 2010 15:16 On Fri, 28 May 2010 11:31:52 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >In article <XNTLn.5310$z%6.360(a)edtnps83>, Dudley Hanks ><dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >> The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his >> comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art >> / science of picture taking. > >very true, and he considers anything other than what he purchased is >junk. point out an advantage of a different product and it's "i don't >need that feature." that's wonderful but other people might. > >> As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can >> produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but >> the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens >> interchangeability. > >of course. it depends whether someone wants convenience and portability >versus quality and flexibility. there's a reason why pro photographers >don't use compact digicams. More words coming from a role-playing pretend-photographer troll. MANY Pros use P&S cameras. I being one of them. You forget, nospam, that we've PROVED that you have never used any camera in your lifetime. You only know about the imaginary ones you hold inside that little head of yours.
From: Henry Olson on 28 May 2010 15:26 On Fri, 28 May 2010 12:04:11 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >On 28/05/10 11:18 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote: >> "SMS"<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >> news:4bffdaf5$0$1600$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to >>> digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at >>> first, then as you stated, it gets boring. >> >> He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well... >> >> The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his >> comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the art >> / science of picture taking. > >It's always amusing, though rather sad, to see Usenet (and other forum) >posts where the sole purpose of the poster is to try to justify their >purchase. It's as if it's a personal insult when someone points out even >the slightest flaw in the product and why some other product might be >better. > >For most people, there's not a single item they've ever purchased that >they could not point out some issue with, and often they were well aware >of the issue prior to the purchase. If someone asks about something they >own, they're likely to be honest about it and point out both the pros >and cons, and why they made their selection. > >> As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can >> produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, but >> the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and lens >> interchangeability. > >For outdoor photos in good light with non-moving subjects, a superzoom >can produce good results, and is certainly more convenient than a D-SLR. >The reason why D-SLR sales are going up so much faster is the situations >where they excel--low light, moving subjects, and better wide angle and >telephoto lenses than the compromise lenses on the ZLRs. That's all complete and total nonsense coming from a troll that has never used any of these cameras. EVER.
From: Dudley Hanks on 28 May 2010 15:29 "SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4c0013b7$0$1639$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > On 28/05/10 11:18 AM, Dudley Hanks wrote: >> "SMS"<scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message >> news:4bffdaf5$0$1600$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... >>> On 28/05/10 6:05 AM, Bowser wrote: >>> >>>> 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. >>> >>> I kill-filed him years ago. His lack of knowledge is not limited just to >>> digital cameras, but extends to other fields as well. It's amusing at >>> first, then as you stated, it gets boring. >> >> He's a member in good standing of my kill file as well... >> >> The sad thing about John is that, as has been previously pointed out, his >> comments seem more intended to justify his purchase than to explore the >> art >> / science of picture taking. > > It's always amusing, though rather sad, to see Usenet (and other forum) > posts where the sole purpose of the poster is to try to justify their > purchase. It's as if it's a personal insult when someone points out even > the slightest flaw in the product and why some other product might be > better. > > For most people, there's not a single item they've ever purchased that > they could not point out some issue with, and often they were well aware > of the issue prior to the purchase. If someone asks about something they > own, they're likely to be honest about it and point out both the pros and > cons, and why they made their selection. > >> As a recent purchaser of a superzoom, I like it, and I believe it can >> produce better pics than my Rebel XSi in a limited number of situations, >> but >> the overall nod has to go to the DSLR because of the larger sensor and >> lens >> interchangeability. > > For outdoor photos in good light with non-moving subjects, a superzoom can > produce good results, and is certainly more convenient than a D-SLR. The > reason why D-SLR sales are going up so much faster is the situations where > they excel--low light, moving subjects, and better wide angle and > telephoto lenses than the compromise lenses on the ZLRs. In my case, my SX120 has a f/2.8 IS lens and an ISO 3200 setting which help it outperform my XSi in certain low-light situations, since I don't have a large-apertured, long focal-length lens for the XSi. It goes without saying that, if I were to pick up a f/2.8 70 - 200mm EOS lens, the situation would quickly reverse itself, as the quicker DSLR performance, lower noise sensorand superior optics of the lens could not be surpassed in a $250 P&S package. Also, given I don't have a macro lens for the XSi, it's pretty easy for the SX120 to beat the XSi in that catagory. :) As an aside, I've had good feedback, initially, about the SX120's HDR-like wider latitude than the XSi. It seems to do a good job of pulling out shadow detail and keeping highlights from blowing in most situations. But, my XSi is a few years old, and newer DSLR's in that price range are quite likely to have better dynamic range than my cam. On the flip side, distortion and purple-fringing in SX120 pics is worse than I'd expected, even after reading several reviews containing warnings about these problems. It's a good thing my aim isn't spot on at longer focal lengths, so I'm unlikely to shoot many pics in the longer zoom range. Take Care, Dudley
From: Jeff Jones on 28 May 2010 15:40 On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:29:44 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >On the flip side, distortion and purple-fringing in SX120 pics is worse than >I'd expected, even after reading several reviews containing warnings about >these problems. I highly doubt that anyone in your family would know what you were talking about (judging by the poor quality of photos that they let you post to the net) let alone them knowing how to compare those things between different cameras. You truly are blind. In more ways than one. As are any that would believe your equipment reviews.
From: Dudley Hanks on 28 May 2010 16:08
"Jeff Jones" <jj197109671(a)mailinator.com> wrote in message news:ks6006tmm4jona1eus72t8i0s101139dvb(a)4ax.com... > On Fri, 28 May 2010 19:29:44 GMT, "Dudley Hanks" > <dhanks(a)blind-apertures.ca> wrote: > >> >>On the flip side, distortion and purple-fringing in SX120 pics is worse >>than >>I'd expected, even after reading several reviews containing warnings about >>these problems. > > I highly doubt that anyone in your family would know what you were talking > about (judging by the poor quality of photos that they let you post to the > net) let alone them knowing how to compare those things between different > cameras. > > You truly are blind. In more ways than one. As are any that would believe > your equipment reviews. > > > Who said I was referring to family members? And, who says they "let" me post pics? I choose what to show after asking a variety of questions to various friends and family members. They are encouraged not to express a personal preference, only to convey to me as objectively as possible what they see in the image. After an image is posted, I receive feedback from persons who post responses to the host where I placed my links, and also from users who e-mail their responses. You might be surprised at who views my shots... Take Care, Dudley |