I'm so proud, I weaned someone off a P&S to a DSLR!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Immigration: The shocking truth about the immigrants who openedthe floodgates
Next: The real cost of being sued by Getty
From: nospam on 21 Oct 2009 03:57 In article <1t8td59tl5bess5j09hvofbfr6sdg1spb8(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> Child. > > > >another insult? > > Bingo. excellent. you concede! thanks for saving me the time yadda yadda.
From: Bob Larter on 21 Oct 2009 11:05 LOL! wrote: > On 20 Oct 2009 17:07:39 GMT, rfischer(a)sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: > >> John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >>> The best of the compact digital super-zoom cameras actually have three >>> (3) full stops of exposure advantage and a big lens range advantage over >>> realistic dSLR kit, >> Smirk. It's a sign of desperation to try and claim that the best P&S >> is vastly better than a cheap dSLR. It's also a claim refuted by the >> actual facts. >> > > You mean like this? > > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml > > Where an inexpensive P&S clearly beats a DSLR in resolution and CA > performance. Where it has more aperture available at longer focal-lengths > than the most expensive fixed-focal-length DSLR lenses, so high ISO's > aren't required in low light. *snort* Yeah, a couple of digicams equaled a 450D with a shitty kit lens at their minimum ISO. Gee, what a shock. And for a real laugh, check out the ISO 1600 shots from the digicams vs the 450D: <http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/noise.shtml> Hell, even at ISO 200 they're pretty crappy. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^---------------------------------------------------------------
From: John Navas on 21 Oct 2009 10:20 On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 01:05:52 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in <4adf1543$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >LOL! wrote: >> You mean like this? >> >> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml >> >> Where an inexpensive P&S clearly beats a DSLR in resolution and CA >> performance. Where it has more aperture available at longer focal-lengths >> than the most expensive fixed-focal-length DSLR lenses, so high ISO's >> aren't required in low light. > >*snort* Yeah, a couple of digicams equaled a 450D with a shitty kit lens >at their minimum ISO. Gee, what a shock. That's a pretty big concession coming from you. Good on ya. >And for a real laugh, check out the ISO 1600 shots from the digicams vs >the 450D: ... In other words, you have to push the envelope farther and farther from the majority of photographic situations to justify a dSLR. -- 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: -hh on 21 Oct 2009 11:28 John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >Bob Larter <bobbylar...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > >*snort* Yeah, a couple of digicams equaled a 450D with a shitty > >kit lens at their minimum ISO. Gee, what a shock. > > That's a pretty big concession coming from you. Good on ya. Its not a concession at all: even ancient "110" film camers could take reasonably acceptable images under ideal (bright) conditions. The key question is how often the application is *not* limited to just merely ideal, bright conditions. > >And for a real laugh, check out the ISO 1600 shots from the digicams vs > >the 450D: ... > > In other words, you have to push the envelope farther and farther from > the majority of photographic situations to justify a dSLR. Utter Navas Nonsense. Again. First off, the difference in images is unambiguously present by ISO 400 ... it has merely progressed to a rediculous extreme by ISO 1600 such that it makes a reasonable person wonder why the manufacturers even bothered with the feature, given the clearly poor results. Second, higher ISO photography han't been rare since the 1960s, if not earlier. There have been many common applications of even ISO 1600+ for decades, such as at indoor sports events (eg basketball). Even the general consumer film of the 1990s had trended towards higher ISOs - - as a means of making it "easier" for the general consumer to achieve reasonable results - - with films such as Kodak Max 400 being promoted as the defacto new standard, as a "Do Everything" product (from bright light to the dark room with the kid blowing out candles on a birthday cake). And unfortunately, the performance of these P&Ss at even just ISO 400 makes for a relatively poor showing against what a one-use (disposable) Kodak Max 400 35mm film camera was able to do, a decade ago. -hh
From: John Navas on 21 Oct 2009 11:44
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <6f13be1b-7470-496a-a225-c616e187862e(a)k26g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>: >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >[SNIP desperate defense of dSLR] >And unfortunately, the performance of these P&Ss at even just ISO 400 >makes for a relatively poor showing against what a one-use >(disposable) Kodak Max 400 35mm film camera was able to do, a decade >ago. The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. -- 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 |