Prev: Soviet Britain, if you are just a civilian
Next: 213 stores that don't carry Pentax
From: Bill T. on 14 Feb 2010 02:55
On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:00:04 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 13, 11:31�pm, Bill T. <bi...(a)unknown.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:38:59 -0800, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
>> >wrote in
>> ><82a97c41-b3bb-4225-9646-28f97bd28...(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >>Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
>> >>nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000. �The D90 is long in
>> >>the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
>> >>when your pro bodies don't?
>>
>> >>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/
>>
>> >Assumes more megapixels matter. �They don't.
>>
>> Let him have his fantasy. More megapixels is the only area where a DSLR can
>> barely improve, now that many P&S cameras are exceeding DSLR capabilities
>> in all other ways.
>
>Name true horror; a p&s at 1600 ISO.

Why do you need ISO1600 when you can have lenses at f/2.4-f/3.5 aperture
at focal lengths over 550mm on a P&S camera? The whole camera for less
price than a fixed focal-length DSLR lens alone. That's 2-3 EV stops more
aperture than any lenses at those focal-lengths for any DSLR on earth. So
only ISO 200-400 is needed for the same images where ISO1600-3200 would be
required on a DSLR. Some P&S cameras are exceptionally clean at ISOs of 200
and 400.

With the new back-lit CMOS sensors coming on the scene, and only being
implemented in P&S cameras, there's a good chance that even the tiny
sensors will have clean images of ISO1600 and more.

Here's test images from a Fuji Finepix F30 P&S 1/1.7" sensor camera at
ISO800. This is without the new back-lit CMOS sensors in this year's
cameras.

<http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF30/Samples/crops/Fuji_F30_ISO800_noND-crops.jpg>

Or this Fuji Finepix F31d at ISO800.

<http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF31fd/Samples/crops/Fuji_F31fd_ISO800-crops.jpg>

In all my years of professional photography I've never needed ISOs above
200, 400 rarely. Are you going to tell us that you're that lame of a lowly
snapshooter where you need that much of an ISO crutch? What a pity.

Then too with the slapping mirror and shutter in all DSLR cameras which
causes camera-shake at any shutter speed, with any lens, then P&S cameras
can even produce sharper images when hand-held. Not one DSLR can attain
full resolution with any lens at any shutter speed due to mirror and
shutter slap. Unless you use mirror lock-up and shutter-delay on a hefty
tripod. Even then you are limited by shutter-slap. You have to leave the
shutter open and then expose your subject in a totally dark room with an
off-camera flash in order to attain a situation with zero camera shake from
the DSLR's own last-century mechanical contraptions. This crippling
limitation is true for each and every DSLR on earth and will never change
until they do away with both the mirror and focal-plane shutter. You know,
just like this century's designs that every P&S camera on earth already has
for more than a decade now.

Keep reaching for excuses, you ignorant troll. And every time that you do
I'll be here to post proof in opposition to all your inexperienced
opinions, that you are just that, nothing but an ignorant and inexperienced
troll. In fact I quite like it when you spew your ignorance and examples of
inexperience. It gives me yet another chance to show the world how much
better that P&S cameras are today compared to last-century's lame and
crippled DSLR designs.



From: RichA on 14 Feb 2010 03:21
On Feb 14, 2:55 am, Bill T. <bi...(a)unknown.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:00:04 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 13, 11:31 pm, Bill T. <bi...(a)unknown.net> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:38:59 -0800, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup..com>
> >> wrote:
>
> >> >On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> >> >wrote in
> >> ><82a97c41-b3bb-4225-9646-28f97bd28...(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> >> >>Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
> >> >>nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
> >> >>the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
> >> >>when your pro bodies don't?
>
> >> >>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/
>
> >> >Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.
>
> >> Let him have his fantasy. More megapixels is the only area where a DSLR can
> >> barely improve, now that many P&S cameras are exceeding DSLR capabilities
> >> in all other ways.
>
> >Name true horror;  a p&s at 1600 ISO.
>
> Why do you need ISO1600  when you can have lenses at f/2.4-f/3.5 aperture
> at focal lengths over 550mm on a P&S camera? The whole camera for less
> price than a fixed focal-length DSLR lens alone. That's 2-3 EV stops more
> aperture than any lenses at those focal-lengths for any DSLR on earth. So
> only ISO 200-400 is needed for the same images where ISO1600-3200 would be
> required on a DSLR. Some P&S cameras are exceptionally clean at ISOs of 200
> and 400.
>
> With the new back-lit CMOS sensors coming on the scene, and only being
> implemented in P&S cameras, there's a good chance that even the tiny
> sensors will have clean images of ISO1600 and more.
>
> Here's test images from a Fuji Finepix F30 P&S 1/1.7" sensor camera at
> ISO800. This is without the new back-lit CMOS sensors in this year's
> cameras.
>
> <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF30/Samples/crops/Fuji_F30_...>
>
> Or this Fuji Finepix F31d at ISO800.
>
> <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF31fd/Samples/crops/Fuji_F3...>
>

It's ugly. Watery with NR and washed out. Why pick a P&S that is
something like 5 years old? Surely there are better ones now?
From: Bill T. on 14 Feb 2010 05:23
On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 00:21:19 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3127(a)gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Feb 14, 2:55�am, Bill T. <bi...(a)unknown.net> wrote:
>> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 22:00:04 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 13, 11:31�pm, Bill T. <bi...(a)unknown.net> wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:38:59 -0800, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com>
>> >> wrote:
>>
>> >> >On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
>> >> >wrote in
>> >> ><82a97c41-b3bb-4225-9646-28f97bd28...(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>>
>> >> >>Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
>> >> >>nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000. �The D90 is long in
>> >> >>the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
>> >> >>when your pro bodies don't?
>>
>> >> >>http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/
>>
>> >> >Assumes more megapixels matter. �They don't.
>>
>> >> Let him have his fantasy. More megapixels is the only area where a DSLR can
>> >> barely improve, now that many P&S cameras are exceeding DSLR capabilities
>> >> in all other ways.
>>
>> >Name true horror; �a p&s at 1600 ISO.
>>
>> Why do you need ISO1600 �when you can have lenses at f/2.4-f/3.5 aperture
>> at focal lengths over 550mm on a P&S camera? The whole camera for less
>> price than a fixed focal-length DSLR lens alone. That's 2-3 EV stops more
>> aperture than any lenses at those focal-lengths for any DSLR on earth. So
>> only ISO 200-400 is needed for the same images where ISO1600-3200 would be
>> required on a DSLR. Some P&S cameras are exceptionally clean at ISOs of 200
>> and 400.
>>
>> With the new back-lit CMOS sensors coming on the scene, and only being
>> implemented in P&S cameras, there's a good chance that even the tiny
>> sensors will have clean images of ISO1600 and more.
>>
>> Here's test images from a Fuji Finepix F30 P&S 1/1.7" sensor camera at
>> ISO800. This is without the new back-lit CMOS sensors in this year's
>> cameras.
>>
>> <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF30/Samples/crops/Fuji_F30_...>

Why do you feel the need to truncate that link? Embarrassed? Insecure?
Well, then how about the page it came from where it shows that camera
beating a Nikon DSLR in image quality and noise performance.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/fujifilmf30/page14.asp

Feel better now?

P&S cameras have been beating DSLRs for over 8 years now. All the way back
to 2002 you can find P&S cameras that easily beat the image quality from
the same year's DSLRs. Haven't you been paying attention to the test
results?

>>
>> Or this Fuji Finepix F31d at ISO800.
>>
>> <http://a.img-dpreview.com/reviews/FujifilmF31fd/Samples/crops/Fuji_F3...>
>>

Why do you feel the need to truncate that link? Embarrassed? Insecure?

>
>It's ugly. Watery with NR and washed out. Why pick a P&S that is
>something like 5 years old? Surely there are better ones now?

Everyone, except you apparently, already knows that in the world of
consumer electronics that newer is not always better. If that were not
true, then a P&S camera couldn't easily beat the image quality of this
year's DSLRs.

<http://darwinwiggett.wordpress.com/2009/11/11/the-canon-7d/>

Here's another.

<http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml>

And here's one where P&S camera even rival a medium-format Hasselblad up to
and perhaps even higher than 13"x19" print sizes. The fun part is that the
P&S camera is only resting on top of the Hasselblad and triggered by hand.
The Hasselblad had to be securely mounted on a tripod and a remote shutter
release used, and still it couldn't beat the image-quality from the P&S
camera.

<http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml>

Thanks again for giving me reason to post these and make you look like a
fool troll again.

From: Sebnem Kurt Petre on 14 Feb 2010 10:20
On Feb 14, 4:10 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Feb 13, 10:38 pm, John Navas <spamfilt...(a)navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 13 Feb 2010 19:08:06 -0800 (PST), RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com>
> > wrote in
> > <82a97c41-b3bb-4225-9646-28f97bd28...(a)r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>:
>
> > >Going to be tough for them to address this, seeing as they have
> > >nothing above 12 megapixels until you hit $8000.  The D90 is long in
> > >the tooth, but how do you bring out something with 15-20 megapixels
> > >when your pro bodies don't?
>
> > >http://www.dpreview.com/previews/CanonEOS550D/
>
> > Assumes more megapixels matter.  They don't.
>
> > --
>
> Sure they do.  If they didn't, we'd be back at 1.3 megapixels.

I can live with 6.

DanP
From: Rich on 15 Feb 2010 20:23
Fred M <nobody(a)noplace.org> wrote in
news:70mhn59cevui5kpitefcp500odmruv2hf1(a)4ax.com:

> On Sun, 14 Feb 2010 21:32:59 -0600, Rich <none(a)nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>IMO, if an image shows visible signs of quality deterioration
>
> Oh my. That intangible thing that everyone runs around spouting to
> sound like they might know something, but that which nobody ever
> defines--"image quality". That makes your opinion safe, doesn't it. It
> makes you sound like you have a clue of what you are talking about.
> But we all know better, don't we.

If you don't know what image quality deterioration is, then YOU have the
problem.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: Soviet Britain, if you are just a civilian
Next: 213 stores that don't carry Pentax