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: John Navas on 21 Oct 2009 16:41 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:37:32 -0700, nospam <nospam(a)nospam.invalid> wrote in <211020090937323723%nospam(a)nospam.invalid>: >In article <ruaud51s75evob4rorolf8q2q12qid6gte(a)4ax.com>, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. > >the best dslrs now have very good iso 3200 performance and are very >usable at higher speeds. it opens up a world of new opportunities, many >that were considered impossible just a few years ago. None that I need. -- 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 21 Oct 2009 16:42 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:41:36 -0500, Doug McDonald <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in <hbndjr$sku$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>: >John Navas wrote: >> 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. > >Well, yes, depending on your definition of "very good". > >However, the best dSLRs have very good ISO 3200 performance, for >the same definition of "very good". That's a bit like bragging your personal equipment is an inch longer than mine. ;) -- 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 21 Oct 2009 16:43 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 09:52:09 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <74d98a8f-01c1-4576-b9a4-19f686d6adda(a)l35g2000vba.googlegroups.com>: >On Oct 21, 11:44�am, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. > >YMMV as to what constitutes "Good". In this case, the compact >digital cameras evaluated here......which specifically cites the Canon >PoerShot SX10 IS and Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ28: > ><http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/ >noise.shtml> > >...fails to deliver a good quality image at ISO 400, where "Good >Quality" is the benchmark established a decade ago by the Kodak Max >400 disposable film camera. What's needed is to use them properly, not just default settings. -- 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 McWilliams on 21 Oct 2009 16:52 John Navas wrote: > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:41:36 -0500, Doug McDonald > <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in > <hbndjr$sku$1(a)news.acm.uiuc.edu>: > >> John Navas wrote: >>> 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. >> Well, yes, depending on your definition of "very good". >> >> However, the best dSLRs have very good ISO 3200 performance, for >> the same definition of "very good". > > That's a bit like bragging your personal equipment is an inch longer > than mine. ;) > Not at all! Although the difference is more like twice as good, in body parts and eight times in ISO performance. But who's bragging? -- lsmft
From: -hh on 21 Oct 2009 17:38
John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: Restored text which Navas deleted: > > >[SNIP desperate defense of dSLR] > > > > That's really an *odd* claim, considering that I never > > even mentioned any dSLRs...or even SLRs at all: > > just old 110 film and disposable 35mm film cameras. > > > > Perhaps Mr Navas could be so kind as to point out > > *precisely* where dSLRs were clearly being defended, > > lest John be ethically compelled to withdraw his > > statement as a blatant untruth? Happy that you posted a reply John, since you have now forfeited any possible excuse that you "missed" the above invitation for you to post a correction. Continuing: > >> The best compact digital cameras now have very good ISO 400 performance. > > >YMMV as to what constitutes "Good". In this case, the compact > >digital cameras evaluated here......which specifically cites the Canon > >PoerShot SX10 IS and Panasonic Lumix DMC FZ28: > > ><http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/ > >noise.shtml> > > >...fails to deliver a good quality image at ISO 400, where "Good > >Quality" is the benchmark established a decade ago by the Kodak > >Max 400 disposable film camera. > > What's needed is to use them properly, not just default settings. "A good carpenter doesn't blame his tools." Might this sound just a tiny bit familar to you, John? How ironic. -hh |