Prev: New photo
Next: New Infrared Gallery
From: Rich on 5 Aug 2010 19:37
Or will the camera phone still wipe them out? Once you can focus
faster, you can more fully appreciate how bad P&S images are, because
now you can't blame the ugliness on motion blur or a missed shot.

http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp

From: Superzooms Still Win on 5 Aug 2010 20:03
On Thu, 5 Aug 2010 16:37:10 -0700 (PDT), Rich <rander3127(a)gmail.com> wrote:

>Or will the camera phone still wipe them out? Once you can focus
>faster, you can more fully appreciate how bad P&S images are, because
>now you can't blame the ugliness on motion blur or a missed shot.
>
>http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp

Good thing that system allows it to choose between the two methods. I'd
NEVER want to depend on PDAF alone for my photography. After having seen
how many PDAF snapshots from these crappy auto-everything snapshooters have
always got the focus wrong, I'd rather have the slightly slower but more
highly accurate CDAF any day. My CDAF cameras focus in the dark fast enough
to perfectly focus on insects in rapid flight. With PDAF it would focus on
a flower behind the subject, or something else. NO thanks. (Well, actually,
in that scenario PDAF becomes absolutely useless, low light.) Though I
might see an advantage in combining the two. Let PDAF calculate the
approximate distance (as it always does), then let CDAF correct PDAF's
ever-present inherent focusing flaws.



From: Tzortzakakis Dimitris on 6 Aug 2010 15:03

? "Rich" <rander3127(a)gmail.com> ?????? ??? ??????
news:4ff532fc-aee9-489c-a883-773de6d14f71(a)t20g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Or will the camera phone still wipe them out? Once you can focus
> faster, you can more fully appreciate how bad P&S images are, because
> now you can't blame the ugliness on motion blur or a missed shot.
>
> http://dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp
>
While today's compact cameras are called colloquically
P&S, they have little to do with the original film P&S, which were *really*
P&S, also wothout *any* settings. So, my original Minolta Freedom II, which
my aunt brought me from Canada, had only a shutter release (obviously) and
manually changeable ISO, but only for non DX films (this was in 1985). I
think that also the rewind button was manual, otherwise it was literally
"P&S". My digital now, OTOH, has dozens of settings, my camcorder likewise.
I like to compare my P&S to an Audi, while DSLRs are Mercedes. Audi cars are
really good, but are not in the same league as Mercedes, but are much better
than VW beetles. Also, the expression "P&S" should not be taken literally,
like most people here call "Cognac" some brandy which is brewed in Greece.
Brandy goes for 30 euros a bottle, while cognac...well. Also, many people
call champagne fizzling wine which is not real champagne, of course.



--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr


From: LOL! on 7 Aug 2010 06:04
On 7 Aug 2010 08:32:41 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> It's
>well known in the bar trade that among the cognoscenti who insist on
>expensive high quality spirits few can tell the difference between
>their favourite and the standard cheap version after the first drink,
>almost none after the second.

BTW & FYI: What you state is NOT well known, except in your own imagination
and wishful thinking. They can usually always tell on the first drink and
all subsequent drinks. But if it is switched in mid-stream sensory bells
and whistles go off, even if three sheets to the wind.

Try reading before replying next time as well. He was served BAR cognac on
his FIRST drink (thinking he received the R�my Martin he had ordered for
his FIRST drink). This "cognoscenti" couldn't tell on his FIRST drink. He
had 2 drinks of BAR cognac. Then the waitress remembered her error and we
introduced a R�my Martin into what he had been drinking, as his THIRD
drink. This THIRD drink is what he said tasted like disgusting BAR cognac
(which was actually R�my Martin), so we switched it back for the BAR cognac
that he thought was R�my.

Got that now?

You're not much of a "cognoscenti" yourself if you can't even comprehend
what you read and reply to.

p.s. It was interesting in the other thread on how much experience you have
with putting cameras on their auto-everything settings. I've no reason to
doubt that, in the least.

LOL!

From: Chris Malcolm on 8 Aug 2010 10:51
LOL! <lol(a)lolololol.org> wrote:
> On 7 Aug 2010 08:32:41 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

>> It's
>>well known in the bar trade that among the cognoscenti who insist on
>>expensive high quality spirits few can tell the difference between
>>their favourite and the standard cheap version after the first drink,
>>almost none after the second.

> BTW & FYI: What you state is NOT well known, except in your own imagination
> and wishful thinking.

Not imagination, In my youth I spent a year blending and bottling
various kinds of whisky, and a year behind a bar frequented by rich
fussy drinkers.

> They can usually always tell on the first drink and
> all subsequent drinks. But if it is switched in mid-stream sensory bells
> and whistles go off, even if three sheets to the wind.

I have practical experience which says that is not always the
case. That hotel bar used to save money by not serving the expensive
stuff to people who couldn't tell the difference. They were very good
at it. In the year I was there not one customer spotted the switches.

> Try reading before replying next time as well. He was served BAR cognac on
> his FIRST drink (thinking he received the R�my Martin he had ordered for
> his FIRST drink). This "cognoscenti" couldn't tell on his FIRST drink. He
> had 2 drinks of BAR cognac. Then the waitress remembered her error and we
> introduced a R�my Martin into what he had been drinking, as his THIRD
> drink. This THIRD drink is what he said tasted like disgusting BAR cognac
> (which was actually R�my Martin), so we switched it back for the BAR cognac
> that he thought was R�my.

> Got that now?

I got it the first time. Your own assumptions are leading you up the
garden path.

> p.s. It was interesting in the other thread on how much experience you have
> with putting cameras on their auto-everything settings. I've no reason to
> doubt that, in the least.

Read my post again. I wasn't advising use of auto everything. I was
advising the use of certain specific auto modes with certain specific
camera models in certain specific circumsntances. Different models
vary markedly in how good their various different auto settings
are. Some are so good on certain auto settings in certain
circumstances that's it's a waste of valuable time not using them when
they work. Unless of course you have to use manual all the time, or
pretend to, in case someone thought you weren't a "professional"
:-)

--
Chris Malcolm
Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2
Prev: New photo
Next: New Infrared Gallery