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: nospam on 27 Oct 2009 12:09 In article <826ee59gc281ktpd71ic4f9dis9letvbck(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >> > Including write times to memory cards. �IME, the newer P&Ss have > >> > gotten slower than older P&Ss. > >> > >> for the most part, memory buffers make that a non-issue. it's very rare > >> that anyone is going to be limited by the speed of a card except in > >> very crappy cameras or the rare occasion of shooting a *lot* of photos > >> at once. > > > >I was specifically referring to the Canon A590 IS ... putting in a > >fast card (I currently have a Class 6 SDHC in it) doesn't improve its > >surprisingly slow write time. While it is 2x more pixels, it is > >perceptually slower than a 2003-vintage A80, despite being 5 years > >newer technology...a disappointment. > > You must feel very threatened to stoop to bashing a single budget > example in an attempt to denigrate more capable alternatives. you must feel very threatened to stoop to bashing a single contrived example (a dslr with a $3000 lens) in an attempt to denigrate dslrs. > Your childish ad hominem attacks only serve to make you look bad. it's not any worse than what you're doing.
From: John Navas on 27 Oct 2009 13:05 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 08:56:37 -0700, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote in <fr4ee5p9196a1mduq553nj92auolvl8pnk(a)4ax.com>: >On Mon, 26 Oct 2009 19:15:04 -0700 (PDT), -hh >>Since John expressed a hypothetical willingness to pay 4x the price of >>a typical P&S, the proportionally appropriate factor of 4x taken >>against the price of an S90, would give us a $1600 budget to work >>with. Plenty of options & choices. And even if we do a simple >>linearization to a +$300 premium, that would afford a $700 budget; >>there's still several choices. > >I've said nothing of the sort. What I have said is that even a budget >dSLR kit that still falls far short of the Panasonic FZ28 is on the >order of $1,128 (as I detailed in my earlier post to this thread), far >more expensive than the FZ28, and to get close to comparable quality, >it's more like $3,000 (Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus >lens, as I've detailed in several prior posts to this forum). >Apology accepted. Even the big and expensive Canon EF 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6L IS USM Autofocus lens isn't all that close: <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/Canon-28-300.shtml> This is a decent performing lens when it comes to sharpness, but not a great lens. The graph above shows that stopping down a couple of stops from wide open will strongly improve performance (as it does with many lenses), but at smaller apertures diffraction effects start to kill performance. F/11 and f/16 are therefore the optimum working apertures. This serves as a good example of the darkside of using slow maximum aperture lenses. Since almost all except the very finest telephoto lenses need to be stopped down to reach their sweet spot, using a lens with a slow maximum aperture to begin with means working at small apertures, and therefore needing to use higher ISO settings. As is the case in almost every aspect of life -- there's no free lunch. The Bottom Line It's big, it's heavy and it's expensive. All aspects of performance at the wide end of the lens' focal range are modest, though it improves to quite decent levels at mid and long focal lengths. I am certain that there are photographers who will find that this lens' performance meets their needs, and for whom its physical and financial challenges are acceptable. But for many photographers two separate high quality zoom lens may well prove to be a preferable solution. In other words, there simply is no real dSLR alternative to a compact digital super-zoom like the Panasonic FZ28 with Leica lens. "F/11 and f/16" more than negate the ISO advantage of the 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: -hh on 27 Oct 2009 13:39 John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > > nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: > >> > >Futhermore, the S90 isn't representative of general P&Ss, since it > >> > >doesn't have a typically small 1/2.5" sensor. It instead follows the > >> > >dSLR approach of using a larger sensor and is an eample of the > >> > >emerging era of the "small camera / large sensor". > > >> > A bit larger than usual, but nothing like the dSLR approach. > > >Where "a bit larger" is roughly 100%-300% more area versus a 1/2.5" or > >1/2.7". Hard to retain credibility when trying to trivialize such > >relative magnitudes of difference. > > Canon S90 1/1.7" 43.3 mm² > Panasonic FZ28 1/2.33" sensor 28.5 mm² > Canon S90 sensor is thus 50% larger than the FZ28. By your own admission, the FZ28 isn't using a 1/2.5" or 1/2.7" sensor as was explictly detailed in the above text. Congratulations on YA disingenous attempt to warp the statement and move the goal posts. > >Including write times to memory cards. IME, the newer P&Ss have > >gotten slower than older P&Ss. > > Your experience must be with slower memory cards... Your reading experience must have missed where I previously stated that it was a **CLASS 6** SCHD card. > >Since John expressed a hypothetical willingness to pay 4x the price of > >a typical P&S, the proportionally appropriate factor of 4x taken > >against the price of an S90, would give us a $1600 budget to work > >with. Plenty of options & choices. And even if we do a simple > >linearization to a +$300 premium, that would afford a $700 budget; > >there's still several choices. > > I've said nothing of the sort. Sorry, but you were the one who introduced the Canon S90 to the conversation, and it is public knowledge that it is not a $100 P&S camera. Without any doubt, you introduced the concept of paying more to gain higher performance...all of your own free will. Thus, your attempt to distract & deflect simply does not fly. -hh
From: John Navas on 27 Oct 2009 13:53 On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 10:39:42 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <b30b2222-bc8a-4db3-acaa-abd5c2c8a2de(a)m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>: >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> -hh <recscuba_goo...(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: >> > nospam <nos...(a)nospam.invalid> wrote: >> >> > >Futhermore, the S90 isn't representative of general P&Ss, since it >> >> > >doesn't have a typically small 1/2.5" sensor. �It instead follows the >> >> > >dSLR approach of using a larger sensor and is an eample of the >> >> > >emerging era of the "small camera / large sensor". >> >> >> > A bit larger than usual, but nothing like the dSLR approach. >> >> >Where "a bit larger" is roughly 100%-300% more area versus a 1/2.5" or >> >1/2.7". �Hard to retain credibility when trying to trivialize such >> >relative magnitudes of difference. >> >> Canon S90 � � � �1/1.7" � � � � � 43.3 mm� >> Panasonic FZ28 � 1/2.33" sensor � 28.5 mm� >> Canon S90 sensor is thus 50% larger than the FZ28. > >By your own admission, the FZ28 isn't using a 1/2.5" or 1/2.7" sensor >as was explictly detailed in the above text. Congratulations on YA >disingenous attempt to warp the statement and move the goal posts. The FZ28 is a "representative" and "usual" compact digital camera, albeit better and more capable than most. Are you so threatened by better and more capable compact digital cameras that you're only willing to focus on the poorer ones? >> >Including write times to memory cards. �IME, the newer P&Ss have >> >gotten slower than older P&Ss. >> >> Your experience must be with slower memory cards... > >Your reading experience must have missed where I previously stated >that it was a **CLASS 6** SCHD card. FYI, while Class 6 is the fastest official class, that speed is _much_ less than the performance of the Extreme III. >> >Since John expressed a hypothetical willingness to pay 4x the price of >> >a typical P&S, the proportionally appropriate factor of 4x taken >> >against the price of an S90, would give us a $1600 budget to work >> >with. �Plenty of options & choices. �And even if we do a simple >> >linearization to a +$300 premium, that would afford a $700 budget; >> >there's still several choices. >> >> I've said nothing of the sort. � > >Sorry, but you were the one who introduced the Canon S90 to the >conversation, and it is public knowledge that it is not a $100 P&S >camera. Without any doubt, you introduced the concept of paying more >to gain higher performance...all of your own free will. > >Thus, your attempt to distract & deflect simply does not fly. What actually won't fly is this silly and childish attempt to put words in my mouth. -- 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 27 Oct 2009 14:04
In article <picee5hdsk3l6bo0hnafc32g1t1isf1tjj(a)4ax.com>, John Navas <spamfilter1(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > >Thus, your attempt to distract & deflect simply does not fly. > > What actually won't fly is this silly and childish attempt to put words > in my mouth. you do a fine job of putting them in your own mouth. |