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: -hh on 21 Oct 2009 22:45 John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote > > >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. More likely, its "None that you've considered". The same process happened with PCs ... that's why we're all still contently running 4.77MHz 8088 CPUs with 10MB hard drives and 640K of RAM...right? -hh
From: Eric Stevens on 22 Oct 2009 05:42 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:22:35 -0500, Base Amateurs Everywhere <bae(a)someaddress.org> wrote: >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 to have seen the light? >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. Eric Stevens
From: whisky-dave on 22 Oct 2009 06:32 "Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote in message news:37a0e51jbebgsm3ccufc93dg57ngnif722(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:22:35 -0500, Base Amateurs Everywhere > <bae(a)someaddress.org> wrote: > >>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 to have seen the light? Shouldn't that be how much light has he seen, isn't that what dictates the necessity for higher ISO settings. ;-) I'm reasonably happy with the performance of my canaon G10 P&S at 3200 although I wouldn;t use it at 1600-3200 unless I have to.
From: David J Taylor on 22 Oct 2009 07:22 "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote in message news:hbpcc6$aj0$1(a)qmul... [] > I'm reasonably happy with the performance of my canaon G10 P&S at 3200 > although I wouldn;t use it at 1600-3200 unless I have to. Here's what D P Review have to say, even at ISO 1600: "At ISO 1600 the image quality from the G10 is almost unusable. There is lots of ISO noise and very little fine detail available." http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/CanonG10/page22.asp When compared to a similarly priced DSLR and lens: "The 1000D on the other hand is quite impressive, with ISO noise quite low, and most of the fine detail retained. The larger sensor in the 1000D again is showing its benefits. For the same, or similar, money the image quality difference is huge." Putting nearly 15MP into such a small sensor does not seem to have been a wise choice, as the next model up has dropped back to 10MP: http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081908canong11.asp Cheers, David
From: Bob Larter on 22 Oct 2009 09:13
John Navas wrote: > 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. If a P&S could equal the quality of a DSLR at the ISOs I need to use (1600-3200), I'd sell off my DSLR gear & buy a P&S instead. Sadly, that's not the case. If a P&S gives you the same results as you'd get from a DSLR in the same conditions, you're a lucky man, & I wish you the best of luck. -- W . | ,. w , "Some people are alive only because \|/ \|/ it is illegal to kill them." Perna condita delenda est ---^----^--------------------------------------------------------------- |