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: Eric Stevens on 21 Oct 2009 17:54 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:44:06 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> 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. Even assuming you are correct - how are they at 1600 or 3200? Eric Stevens
From: -hh on 21 Oct 2009 19:13 nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > > 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? > > john navas withdraw a statement? don't hold your breath on that one. Oh, I know not to bother. It really just serves as YA public reminder ... mostly to dear Mr. Navas himself .. that not only do we all know just what a dishonest individual he truly is, but he knows it too... Afterall, the only person who is forcing John to lie is John himself. And it is Mr. Navas who is once again incapable of "Manning Up" to take responsibility for his own actions. -hh
From: Base Amateurs Everywhere on 21 Oct 2009 20:22 On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:54:03 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote: >On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:44:06 -0700, John Navas ><spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> 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. > >Even assuming you are correct - how are they at 1600 or 3200? > > > >Eric Stevens Why does that matter when ISO1600 and ISO3200 are only needed by base amateurs? Are you claiming you need a camera that will compensate for the ignorance and lack of talent that is only within the realm and needs of base amateurs? Yes, that's exactly what you are saying.
From: Reality Czech on 21 Oct 2009 20:28 On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 09:05:43 +1000, "Jim...(8-| " <jim(a)home.com> wrote: >On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 08:28:50 -0700 (PDT), -hh ><recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > >>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 > >I'd like to find a site that shows how the old film stuff compares, >I've been looking on and off for a long time now and haven't found a >url that shows how film shows up against digital cameras. > >I'd be tempted to think that "grain" would be a serious distraction in >film but it never seems to be thought of as evil. "Noise" is only a concern of the most inexperienced of amateurs. They don't know how to use a camera properly so they just crank up all the settings as high as they can in order to have it hopefully compensate for their inability to use it correctly. Machine-gun burst shots, high ISOs, fastest auto-focus possible, etc. ALL are the direct needs of the permanently crippled snapshooter who must have a camera that does it all for them, because they don't know what the hell they are doing. ALL are signs of the point and shoot DSLR owner. That's all it is. You can tell much about a person's level of talent by what they require of their camera. If they pride themselves on some equipment crutch it speaks loud and clear of their own lameness.
From: Ray Fischer on 21 Oct 2009 22:39
John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> >>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. Because everybody knows that people only take pictures out-of-doors in full sunlight. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net |