Dpreview REALLY scraping the barrel bottom now!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: Rich on 6 Jul 2010 23:44 On Jul 6, 10:31 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:30:59 -0700 (PDT), in > <4b78f2f8-66dc-4a77-9e75-2f13199ac...(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Rich > > > > <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > >On Jul 6, 6:44 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT), in > >> <a8449e9e-410e-451d-af4d-baa5ff2ba...(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, > > >> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >> It's you that's really scraping the barrel. > > >> Do you really have so much free time that you have to troll incesantly > >> to fill it up? > > >> >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp > > >> Image quality: outdoors / daylight > >> * Best of the bunch: Canon PowerShot SX 20 IS, Panasonic FZ35 > > >Image "quality?" Is that what the examples in that group show? > > "Read 'em and weep." ;) > I looked at the test images and cried. But not with joy. In truth, at least a couple of them seem to have controlled the hideous chromatic aberration that plagues most of those overtaxed lenses those cameras sport.
From: Rich on 6 Jul 2010 23:45 On Jul 6, 10:46 pm, Russ D <ru...(a)myowndomain.org> wrote: > On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:31:28 -0700, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> > wrote: > > > > >On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:30:59 -0700 (PDT), in > ><4b78f2f8-66dc-4a77-9e75-2f13199ac...(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Rich > ><rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>On Jul 6, 6:44 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT), in > >>> <a8449e9e-410e-451d-af4d-baa5ff2ba...(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, > > >>> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > >>> It's you that's really scraping the barrel. > > >>> Do you really have so much free time that you have to troll incesantly > >>> to fill it up? > > >>> >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp > > >>> Image quality: outdoors / daylight > >>> * Best of the bunch: Canon PowerShot SX 20 IS, Panasonic FZ35 > > >>Image "quality?" Is that what the examples in that group show? > > >"Read 'em and weep." ;) > > The image quality in that FZ35 is really impressive for a super-zoom, even > at high ISOs for the night shots. But with CHDK already in beta phase for > the SX20 it would be a tough call on which I'd suggest for others to buy or > to buy for myself. If there was no CHDK on the table it wouldn't be a > contest, the FZ35 definitely. Buying one of each would be the only solution > at this point. Panasonic, to its credit have held the line on horrific noise reduction applied by some of the others. Nothing more disgusting than an image that looks like it's been washed in battery acid. I'll take some noise, good looking noise over that any day.
From: Russ D on 7 Jul 2010 02:05 On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 20:45:50 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote: >On Jul 6, 10:46�pm, Russ D <ru...(a)myowndomain.org> wrote: >> On Tue, 06 Jul 2010 19:31:28 -0700, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> >On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 18:30:59 -0700 (PDT), in >> ><4b78f2f8-66dc-4a77-9e75-2f13199ac...(a)j4g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, Rich >> ><rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>On Jul 6, 6:44�pm, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> >>> On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT), in >> >>> <a8449e9e-410e-451d-af4d-baa5ff2ba...(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, >> >> >>> RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>> It's you that's really scraping the barrel. >> >> >>> Do you really have so much free time that you have to troll incesantly >> >>> to fill it up? >> >> >>> >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp >> >> >>> � �Image quality: outdoors / daylight >> >>> � �* Best of the bunch: Canon PowerShot SX 20 IS, Panasonic FZ35 >> >> >>Image "quality?" �Is that what the examples in that group show? >> >> >"Read 'em and weep." �;) >> >> The image quality in that FZ35 is really impressive for a super-zoom, even >> at high ISOs for the night shots. But with CHDK already in beta phase for >> the SX20 it would be a tough call on which I'd suggest for others to buy or >> to buy for myself. If there was no CHDK on the table it wouldn't be a >> contest, the FZ35 definitely. Buying one of each would be the only solution >> at this point. > >Panasonic, to its credit have held the line on horrific noise >reduction applied by some of the others. Nothing more disgusting than >an image that looks like it's been washed in battery acid. I'll take >some noise, good looking noise over that any day. This is why, camera model permitting, with no access to RAW, I'll set noise-reduction to the lowest possible options. I'd much rather handle it in post-processing with tools more capable than in-camera noise-reduction. In-camera noise reduction has its purpose, but there should always be a way to suppress it as much as possible for the more serious photographer.
From: Val Hallah on 7 Jul 2010 02:39 On Jul 7, 3:29 am, Rich <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Jul 6, 5:30 pm, LOL! <l...(a)lol.org> wrote: > > > > > > > On Tue, 6 Jul 2010 13:55:51 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> > > wrote: > > > >http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp > > > Boy, I bet this part burns you to no end: > > > "Despite entry-level DSLRs getting cheaper and cheaper the super zoom > > models are as popular as ever." > > > LOL! > > > Oh, and DO take note of this: > > > "Compact Camera Group Test: > > SLR-like 'super zoom' cameras" > > > I don't see "P&S" used anywhere in that heading, do you? > > > LOL! > > Dpreview's job is to sell, which is why Amazon bought them. having said that ....Amazon could have lent them an Olympus 800uz....cos thats where I got mine from...I see it is now only GBP 235
From: David J Taylor on 7 Jul 2010 03:06
"RichA" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:a8449e9e-410e-451d-af4d-baa5ff2ba05b(a)z8g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > http://dpreview.com/news/1007/10070605superzoomgrouptest.asp Delighted to see the Panasonic FZ35/FZ38 at the top of the tree, along with the Canon SX20 IS (whose ISO 1600 images didn't look as sharp to me). We have used cameras from that range in the past, and been pleased with the capabilities and results. David |