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 18:20 In article <84cd2ddf-350b-41ad-ab51-0ce50c93b453(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote: > What you're really trying to say is that you dislike it when someone > points out the actual reprocussions of something that you've said. understatement of the year, if not longer. > This is why your classical response is to try to "Shoot the Messenger" > rather than to actually be a mature adult who takes responsibility, > including its implications, for what you wrote. bingo.
From: -hh on 27 Oct 2009 18:36 the cowardly troll writes: > > http://chdk.wikia.com/wiki/Benchmarks > > It's very easy to see how in-camera write-times > have improved over the years. Its very easy to see that the benchmark I mentioned isn't listed on that chart. > The problem stems from him not having enough knowledge on how > to speed up the write-times to his card. One clue contained on that > page. The other is that he he's unaware of how card-fragmentation > can slow down write-times to below 50% of the rated speed for > that card. Full format & empty card - - the best case condition for which your mantras of fragmentation don't apply. > While it is true that it takes longer to save a 12 meg file than a 2 meg > file, he forgets that there is much more overhead to that process than just > writing the data to the card. There's no free lunch if you want to increase > the resolution far beyond what you really need. Slower shot-to-shot times > are not a fault of card write speeds and slower cameras, it's the fault of > people thinking that unneeded resolution matters. Another not-too-bright > victim of the megapixel wars. What's not too bright on your part was in comprehending what was said. Specifically, it was a 4MP to 8MP data growth - just a single doubling - but this was being compensated by easily five years of hardware technology advancement, which is roughly three (3) iterations of Moore's Law of doubling. From this understanding & perspective, would you have really expected for there to have been zero observable improvement? -hh
From: -hh on 28 Oct 2009 06:26 John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: > > 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...As is the case in almost every aspect of life -- there's > no free lunch. "No Free Lunch"...something that everyone except John/troll have said all along. > 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. Before concluding your Panasonic hardware hero worship, it really is worth looking at the same reviewer to see how much he pans the product that you're trying to elevate. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a review of the FZ28, but he does have a review of the FZ50: <http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/pan-quick06.shtml> "I've become a big fan of the so-called super-telephoto genre of digicams....But the trade-off with small sensors having high pixel pitch is noise, and frankly Panasonic does not have a sterling reputation in this area..." (hmm...a poor reputation, despite that 'Leica' lens label?) "The answer to the question about noise with the new 10MP chip and Venus III is that it's not as good as one would wish nor as bad as many had feared." (mmm...what a *glowing* statement...) "As can be seen below, ISO 100 is clean, though not without obvious smoothing artifacts when viewed at 100%. (All shots were taken with JPG settings to their lowest levels, and with no post processing)." ("obvious smoothing" is already evident at ISO 100...) "At ISO 200 noise is still suppressed, but artifacting starts to become more noticeable as detail continues to become smoothed over. By ISO 400 noise is evident, though not terrible, as is an even greater amount of detail smoothing and artifacting due to noise reduction (look at the eyelashes). ISO 800 is simply unacceptable to my eye, and 1600 isn't worth discussing." (Plus: "(I did not try the special mode which gives ISO 3200. I didn't have the heart).") "Panasonic has clearly decided that there are customers who want higher resolution, and who will accept a trade-off of either noise or detail loss to gain it." And the article's conclusion: "During the past roughly 7 years, as the digital capture side of photographic technology has taken hold and flourished, there has been a constant push by manufacturers and a pull by consumers for more megapixels. This is no bad thing, in and of itself. More pixels means more resolution, bigger prints sizes and a greater ability to crop." "In the DSLR environment this continues to be a worthwhile pursuit....But high resolution (better to call them high pixel count) chips in digicams are another thing. The 10MP sensor in the Panasonic FZ-50 is 7.18 X 5.32mm in size, while the 10MP sensor in the 10MP Nikon D80, for example, is 23 X 15.8mm. Do the math.... the Nikon's sensor [has] nearly10X the recording area for the same number of pixels. So what do we get as a result when a digicam tries to match megapixel count with a DSLR? Noise, or possibly worse noise reduction artifacts." "It seems to me that the race to make digicams with pixel counts equivalent to current DSLRs is one being fueled by camera maker's marketing departments. Of course the naive consumer plays right into their hands. If camera A has 10MP and camera B has 10MP, then other factors aside they must be pretty similar right? Certainly standing at the camera counter holding a 10MP DSLR in one hand and a 10MP super- zoom digicam in the other, the uninformed consumer won't understand that one has a sensor 10X the area of the other, and the salesman likely won't explain this or possibly even fully appreciate it himself." Thus, the very same reviewer that Mr. Navas picked ...of his own free will... is emphatically stating that the camera class that Mr. Navas has been advocating is designed to appeal to the "NAIVE CONSUMER" genre. And John fell for it, hook, line and sinker. -hh
From: John Navas on 28 Oct 2009 10:26 On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 03:26:39 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <27bd957b-1f57-44d3-a83a-d14775dc36fc(a)a32g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>: >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> 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. > >Before concluding your Panasonic hardware hero worship, it really is >worth looking at the same reviewer to see how much he pans the product >that you're trying to elevate. Unfortunately, he doesn't have a >review of the FZ28, but he does have a review of the FZ50: Totally different camera and a different generation to boot. >Thus, the very same reviewer that Mr. Navas picked ...of his own free >will... is emphatically stating that the camera class that Mr. Navas >has been advocating is designed to appeal to the "NAIVE CONSUMER" >genre. And John fell for it, hook, line and sinker. Wrong on both counts. You must really feel threatened and desperate. -- 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 28 Oct 2009 10:35
On Tue, 27 Oct 2009 15:18:10 -0700 (PDT), -hh <recscuba_google(a)huntzinger.com> wrote in <84cd2ddf-350b-41ad-ab51-0ce50c93b453(a)k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>: >John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote: >> Are you so threatened by better and more capable compact digital >> cameras that you're only willing to focus on the poorer ones? > >What I find unpalatable is dishonesty, and your dishonesty here is in >suggesting that all dSLRs are "too expensive" while offering $400 P&S >alternatives ... which costs just as much as a basic dSLR today. Nope. As I detailed recently here, the price point for even a basic, much less capable dSLR alternative is well over $1,000, with even the $3,000 level still not measuring up. >> FYI, while Class 6 is the fastest official class, that speed is _much_ >> less than the performance of the Extreme III. > >Nevertheless, there was no perceptable improvement in I/O with the >Class 6 card versus the completely unrated card that the camera >shipped with. This suggests that the I/O bottleneck isn't from the >card's rating. If so, then the particular camera (your choice) is the problem, not the class of camera. Choose a better one. (In the interests of a better Usenet, I'm simply ignoring your childish and rude personal attacks.) -- 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 |