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 12:59 On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 16:23:45 GMT, "David J Taylor" <david-taylor(a)blueyonder.not-this-bit.nor-this.co.uk.invalid> wrote in <lG%Dm.432$5w5.35(a)text.news.virginmedia.com>: >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. ... To each his own. The new S90 is terrific in low light, and so small and sleek that it's far more practical as a carry around camera than a dSLR. -- 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 13:01 On Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:56:13 +1000, Bob Larter <bobbylarter(a)gmail.com> wrote in <4ae05670$1(a)dnews.tpgi.com.au>: >Jim...(8-| wrote: >> 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. > >Film vs digital was a perennial topic here a few years ago, but the >latest (1-2 years old) DSLRs are clearly better now. Likewise with compact digital cameras, and true for much longer than 1-2 years. -- 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: nospam on 22 Oct 2009 13:21 In article <e031e51rsu0li52pbkbkoo45hddkfdjfpp(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> 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. don't flatter yourself. that's not in any way an insult. it's nothing more than your standard way to weasel out of a debate which you are clearly losing. you even have the text ready to be copy/pasted whenever you need it. very telling.
From: nospam on 22 Oct 2009 13:21 In article <2131e59fuj1vutb4kua0p0htm3iacg5mro(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > Whether ISO 3200 matters or not is only a matter of personal preference, obviously. just as it is with any feature. > and to me, and I think to a large majority of other people, it doesn't > matter, making it irrelevant. you think wrong.
From: nospam on 22 Oct 2009 13:21
In article <3e31e5pt4q50r7j3oo2i7egisd9sjr4dsh(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >>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? how is your straw man? > Both questions are meaningless. it is not a meaningless. compacts suck at 1600-3200, dslrs do not. very simple. |