P&S's still have rotten quality (Canon G10)
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: It Pays Not to Own a Camera in Zimbabwe
Next: Wire Bangle-JBA104 Fashion Jewelry,Wholesale Wire Bangle
From: RustY � on 11 Nov 2009 05:28 "Rich" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:952b542b-0afb-4dce-bd6a-84c787e7e21b(a)l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com... At 1600 ISO, , there should be almost no noise visible, Trolls need to be more subtle - not stupid.
From: Pointless Posts on 11 Nov 2009 08:33 Fred wrote: > "Pointless Posts" <xyz(a)invalid.com> wrote in message > news:hddvtj$lnb$1(a)news.eternal-september.org... >> Rich wrote: >>> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. >>> This >>> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not >>> even >>> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image >>> size- >>> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, >>> IF it >>> came from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 >>> and >>> it still can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR. >>> >>> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg >> >> For god's sake, get a life! >> >> P&Ses are not intended to compete with DSLRs for low noise >> level, >> especially at high ISOs. They are meant to fill another need. >> Why >> can't you get that through your thick skull? >> > This is his sad little life, he has none beyond this group. > > He probably wouldn't have a clue what to do with a DSLR even if > he > owned one. > > He's obviously not a photographer, as all they're interested in > is > taking photos, not sniping and back-stabbing to boost their > miniscule > little egos. We've often seen pro-P&S posts claiming that DSLR owners have a need to constantly justify their purchase because, deep down, thay feel that they wasted money needlessly with expensive DSLR gear. I used to think that this was just sarcasm on their part, but with the constant stream of anti-P&S nonsense spewed by people like Rich, I'm beginning to suspect that such claims have a core of truth, at least with *some* DSLR owners.
From: Chris Malcolm on 11 Nov 2009 11:49 Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote: > I think what really bothers him is that not only do P&S cameras easily > compete with and beat images from DSLRs: > http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_PowerShot_SX10_IS/outdoor_results.shtml > But that non-stabilized P&S cameras even compete with medium format > Hasselblads securely mounted on a tripod, something that not even DSLRs can > accomplish: > http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/kidding.shtml You still haven't read that, have you, despite having been told by several folk that it doesn't say what you think it does! I guess if there's no such thing as a web page which supports your claims, you have to make do with web pages which don't :-) -- Chris Malcolm
From: Ray Fischer on 11 Nov 2009 13:43 Pointless Posts <xyz(a)invalid.com> wrote: >Rich wrote: >> No wonder Canon dropped the pixel count by 33% for the G11. >> This >> image from a blog on a Death Valley photo excursion is not even >> cropped, but LOOK at the noise! At 1600 ISO, with an image >> size- >> reduced this much, there should be almost no noise visible, IF >> it came >> from a DSLR, which it didn't. That Canon cost over $500 and it >> still >> can't compete with an entry-level $400 DSLR. >> >> http://p1podas.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/img_28461.jpg > >For god's sake, get a life! > >P&Ses are not intended to compete with DSLRs for low noise level, >especially at high ISOs. They are meant to fill another need. Why >can't you get that through your thick skull? You answered your own question in those last two words. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: rwalker on 11 Nov 2009 16:32
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 04:26:04 -0600, Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote: >snip You're as big an idiot as he is. |