Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   The UGLY output from P&S superzooms (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t562955-the-ugly-output-from-p-and-s-superzooms.html)

Rich 12-22-2007 03:57 AM

The UGLY output from P&S superzooms
 
What is the point, really? Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olym...0uz/page16.asp

Scott W 12-22-2007 04:47 AM

Re: The UGLY output from P&S superzooms
 
On Dec 21, 5:57*pm, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is the point, really? *Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
> depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olym...0uz/page16.asp


I would not call it the idiocy of the marketing dept. as much as the
sleaziness of the marketing dept. there are people who will either
simply read the specs. on the box or asked the sales person, I am not
sure which would be worse. But in either case being able to say the
camera goes to iso 1600 will sell cameras, even if the images are junk
at iso 1600.

Scott

flambe 12-22-2007 06:01 AM

Re: The UGLY output from P&S superzooms
 
Knowledgeable users of these cameras will realize that they are really
limited to their base ISO, usually 100, and possibly up to 400 in a pinch if
they allow RAW recording and the user is familiar with noise reduction
processing.
P&S level users will not know, will not care.
However these long zoom EVFs are much noisier than a dSLR at their base ISO
which makes it difficult to switch over to them if one is used to dSLR raw
image quality despite how ponderously heavy the dSLR camera and lens combo
may be, e.g. Nikon D80/18-200VR.
Personally I am on the fence about the Panaleicasonic or Olympus long zoom
EVFs: I think I will wait for the nest generation to see if noise levels go
down.



David J Taylor 12-22-2007 07:20 AM

Re: The UGLY output from P&S superzooms
 
flambe wrote:
[]
> Personally I am on the fence about the Panaleicasonic or Olympus long
> zoom EVFs: I think I will wait for the nest generation to see if
> noise levels go down.


Or go back a generation or two when pixel counts for small-sensor cameras
were at a more appropriate level (5-6MP). There are some good bargains to
be had.

David



J.Barrington 12-22-2007 08:45 AM

Re: The UGLY output from P&S superzooms
 
On Fri, 21 Dec 2007 22:01:24 -0800, "flambe" <fac187@hotmail.com> wrote:

>Knowledgeable users of these cameras will realize that they are really
>limited to their base ISO, usually 100, and possibly up to 400 in a pinch if
>they allow RAW recording and the user is familiar with noise reduction
>processing.
>P&S level users will not know, will not care.
>However these long zoom EVFs are much noisier than a dSLR at their base ISO
>which makes it difficult to switch over to them if one is used to dSLR raw
>image quality despite how ponderously heavy the dSLR camera and lens combo
>may be, e.g. Nikon D80/18-200VR.
>Personally I am on the fence about the Panaleicasonic or Olympus long zoom
>EVFs: I think I will wait for the nest generation to see if noise levels go
>down.
>


It appears that the resident troll, wannabe-photographer, cyber roll-playing,
don't have a real photography career so they have to invent one from
misinformation on the net and then try to pass it off as if they've had any
experience at all with any cameras, attention-whores ... are at it again.

LOL


Chris Malcolm 12-22-2007 10:06 AM

Re: The UGLY output from P&S superzooms
 
Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 21, 5:57?pm, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What is the point, really? ?Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
>> depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olym...0uz/page16.asp


> I would not call it the idiocy of the marketing dept. as much as the
> sleaziness of the marketing dept. there are people who will either
> simply read the specs. on the box or asked the sales person, I am not
> sure which would be worse. But in either case being able to say the
> camera goes to iso 1600 will sell cameras, even if the images are junk
> at iso 1600.


What is junk depends on your purposes. A lot of folk here are very
snobbish about high ISO noise, and sneer at anything that would
produce noise unacceptable in a 16x20 print. However, in circumstances
where any photograph is better than none, what would be a horribly
noisy 16x20 print might be an acceptably sharp clean 4x5 snapshot, and
might even be an exhibition-worthy large art print in black and
white. In other words, those crappy high ISOs can actually sometimes
be very useful.

--
Chris Malcolm cam@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]


Kalinka 12-22-2007 11:23 AM

Re: The UGLY output from P&S superzooms
 
On 22 Dec, 04:57, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
> What is the point, really? Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
> depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olym...0uz/page16.asp


heres some ugly output from a 550...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/17891891@N02/

Alfred Molon 12-22-2007 11:31 AM

Re: The UGLY output from P&S superzooms
 
In article <7699b196-9b99-4ab5-9069-38cb832fc914
@e4g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>, Rich says...
> What is the point, really? Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
> depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
>
> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olym...0uz/page16.asp


Don't forget that ISO 1600 on a compact is an emergency mode anyway,
where having a noisy photo is better than having nothing. Having said
this, I'm surprised that the Fuji S8000 produces such results at ISO
1600.
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus 50X0, 8080, E3X0, E4X0, E5X0 and E3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

Mark B. 12-22-2007 02:13 PM

Re: The UGLY output from P&S superzooms
 
"Kalinka" <michaelnewport@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7de39883-feee-4c18-8f08-84ce36a48f83@k72g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On 22 Dec, 04:57, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> What is the point, really? Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
>> depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
>>
>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olym...0uz/page16.asp

>
> heres some ugly output from a 550...
>
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/17891891@N02/


They obviously weren't at ISO 1600, you missed the point of the original
post.



Neil Harrington 12-22-2007 04:19 PM

Re: The UGLY output from P&S superzooms
 

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:5t45tnF1bumotU1@mid.individual.net...
> Scott W <biphoto@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Dec 21, 5:57?pm, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> What is the point, really? ?Of even offering a 1600 ISO (or more,
>>> depending on the idiocy of the marketing dept) on these cameras??
>>>
>>> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/olym...0uz/page16.asp

>
>> I would not call it the idiocy of the marketing dept. as much as the
>> sleaziness of the marketing dept. there are people who will either
>> simply read the specs. on the box or asked the sales person, I am not
>> sure which would be worse. But in either case being able to say the
>> camera goes to iso 1600 will sell cameras, even if the images are junk
>> at iso 1600.

>
> What is junk depends on your purposes. A lot of folk here are very
> snobbish about high ISO noise, and sneer at anything that would
> produce noise unacceptable in a 16x20 print. However, in circumstances
> where any photograph is better than none, what would be a horribly
> noisy 16x20 print might be an acceptably sharp clean 4x5 snapshot, and
> might even be an exhibition-worthy large art print in black and
> white. In other words, those crappy high ISOs can actually sometimes
> be very useful.


I agree. Anyway, I've always thought much of the crabbing about digital
camera noise is way overdone. I never objected to a reasonable amount of
grain when shooting 35mm, and feel the same way about noise in digital. I've
seen a lot of complaints about noise in shots where it wouldn't bother me in
the least. And it is worth remembering that grain was sometimes deliberately
exaggerated in film for artistic effect.

Neil




All times are GMT. The time now is 04:35 AM.

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.