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 22 Oct 2009 12:50 On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:15:11 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in <4ae04cd2$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >John Navas wrote: >> On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 11:41:36 -0500, Doug McDonald >> <mcdonald(a)scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in >> <hbndjr$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. ;) > >I expect that your GF would notice the difference... ;^) You would be wrong. As in cameras, what matters is the workman, not the tool. :) -- 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 22 Oct 2009 12:51 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 16:13:30 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <e71a69f7-4d2a-4a4f-8dae-9a0f08b9d22d(a)s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>: >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. 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
From: John Navas on 22 Oct 2009 12:51 On Wed, 21 Oct 2009 14:38:46 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <01247fb3-404f-4404-9dfd-55c80497721e(a)s6g2000vbp.googlegroups.com>: >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. How childish. -- Best regards, John <http:/navasgroup.com> 'Those who have evidence will present their evidence, whereas those who do not have evidence will attack the man.'
From: John Navas on 22 Oct 2009 12:53 On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 10:54:03 +1300, Eric Stevens <eric.stevens(a)sum.co.nz> wrote in <nm0vd5lna0892k4svn7idkt6kmdk254455(a)4ax.com>: >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? How is your dSLR at ISO 204800? Both questions are meaningless. -- 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 22 Oct 2009 12:56
On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 11:22:23 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in <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." The G10 was clearly a mistake by Canon, and I think it's telling that you choose to pick on it instead of the new G11. I spent some time shooting yesterday with the new S90, which uses the same high sensitivity sensor as the G11, has an even more amazing f/2.0 lens, and the results in low light were stunningly good. -- 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 |