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: whisky-dave on 22 Oct 2009 12:03 "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message news:PfXDm.326$5w5.90(a)text.news.virginmedia.com... > "whisky-dave" <whisky-dave(a)final.front.ear> wrote in message > news:hbpcc6$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.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/4029985669/ I'm not really looking for very fine detail at 3200, and I do understand that if I'd spent 3X more money then I'd get a better result quality wise, but for someone to use on myspace to promote their band it's not really necessary. Had to lean out of the upstairs window and get a snap before this cat disappeared http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/4014882643/ I wouldn't have taken a dSLR to the pub with me, but I'm glad I didn't miss these few shots. http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/3089493631/ But I have been considerign a dSLR for some time now, considering a 50D, but I may wait until the summer(UK) if it arrives. > 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, But it wouldn't have fitted in my inside pocket of my jacket. I wasn;t overly keen on the 1000D. > 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: yes but I chose the G10 over the G9 only because it was 28mm rather than 35mm wide-angle. The G11 seems a bit over priced, and wasn't out when I brought the G10 > http://www.dpreview.com/news/0908/09081908canong11.asp Yes I looked at dp before deciding that the G10 would be the best[1] replacement for my canon s70, which had a similar use. I've still got a canon A1, AE1 and lenes/flash/filters/bellows rifle grip, 50mm, 400mm, 24mm, 35-70mm, 80-210mm lenses& tripod if I want to do weight training as well as taking pictures ;-) [1] for ther money I was willing to spend
From: Paul Furman on 22 Oct 2009 12:20 > ISO1600 isn't even needed on the P&S camera > because it has 3 stops advantage of aperture on the long focal-lengths > compared to what is available for any DSLR. Right, and the DSLR has ISO flex to allow matching the same DOF and noise level but also has the option to open up. -- Paul Furman www.edgehill.net www.baynatives.com all google groups messages filtered due to spam
From: David J Taylor on 22 Oct 2009 12:23 "whisky-dave" <> wrote in message news:hbpvo1$gs3$1(a)qmul... [] > Yes I looked at dp before deciding that the G10 would be the best[1] > replacement for my canon s70, > which had a similar use. I've still got a canon A1, AE1 and > lenes/flash/filters/bellows rifle grip, 50mm, 400mm, 24mm, 35-70mm, > 80-210mm lenses& tripod if I want to do weight training as well as > taking pictures ;-) > > [1] for ther money I was willing to spend http://www.flickr.com/photos/whiskydave/4029985669/sizes/l/ At the 768 x 1024 pixel resolution it looks not too bad, although so contrasty that all the noise is the shadows has been darkened below black. The DP Review was making the point that it was for the /same/ money as the G10 (and certainly for the G11) that you could have got much better quality at ISO 1600, and you could probably be shooting at ISO 12800 or ISO 25600 to get similar quality to your G10/3200 images. I also have a compact camera for those occasions when it's more appropriate, although I find myself using it less and less now that the DSLR has video. You were right to choose the wider angle lens - it took a histogram of the focal lengths I used to confirm my own impression of my photographic needs. This is the program I used to analyse my pictures. http://www.cpr.demon.nl/prog_plotf.html You've missed summer, by the way! I sold my 35mm film gear - it was just gathering dust. Make sure you've taken the batteries out. Pity you can't use older Canon lenses on the current cameras, but in fact today's cameras and lenses are so much lighter, and with IS and high ISOs you may be able to do away with the flash and tripod! Cheers, David
From: John Navas on 22 Oct 2009 12:45 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 19:45:37 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <8be68d16-45ac-4579-9ab8-93a98ee20fda(a)f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>: >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". With that insult you concede the debate. Thanks for saving me the time. And feel free to rant on without me -- I'm giving you the last word. -- John
From: John Navas on 22 Oct 2009 12:49
On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 13:52:49 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw(a)comcast.net> wrote in <hbnsb2$1mv$1(a)news.eternal-september.org>: >John Navas wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:41:36 -0500, Doug McDonald >> <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in >> <hbndjr$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. Whether ISO 3200 matters or not is only a matter of personal preference, and to me, and I think to a large majority of other people, it doesn't matter, making it irrelevant. My car likewise gets me where I'm going just as fast as the most expensive Ferrari, making the difference in top speeds irrelevant, good only for (childish) bragging rights. >But who's bragging? Who's being disingenuous? ;) -- 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 |