Velocity Reviews

Velocity Reviews (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/index.php)
-   Digital Photography (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f37-digital-photography.html)
-   -   Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S (http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t649485-re-the-sickening-reality-of-high-iso-on-a-p-and-s.html)

Mark Thomas 12-20-2008 10:14 PM

Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
 
First, John Navas wrote:
>> I didn't think so.
>> I'm done with the pointless debate.
>> You have the last word.


And *then* John Navas wrote (to the same person):
>
> Still nothing. Just hot air.


(and many other posts.)

So apart from anything else, he is certainly having trouble with the
'last word' concept.

I think in simple terms it boils down to this.

John, like the anti-dslr-troll, is very protective and proud of his camera.

John, like the a-d-t, doesn't often print large or crop.

John, like the a-d-t, doesn't often shoot at high iso's in low light.

John, like the a-d-t, has his very own quality standards.

He will, of course take all of those lines as insults. Yet I would
apply them to me as well... But I still recognise why there are larger
formats, be they dslr, mf, lf.. It's not rocket science.

Some call it 'pixel-peeping', others need/want that quality.

Mark Thomas 12-20-2008 11:55 PM

Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
 
No comment on the last word, I see.

John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 08:14:17 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in
> <gijqnm$vcm$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>
>> John, like the anti-dslr-troll, is very protective and proud of his camera.

>
> On the contrary, just happy with it, and prepared to correct some of the
> bogus bashing and pejoratives (like wording of this Subject) by dSLR
> fans.


Well, there's:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/Q408...oup/page10.asp

Looks quite sickening to me. Compare to:
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos400d/page27.asp

Sure, those p&s results won't be completely horrid at 6x4, or even 7x5
maybe, but you did say you enlarged and shot in low light (never at the
same time, perhaps?)...

And even in good light, some cameras look awful:
http://img113.imageshack.us/img113/9...ilteredex6.jpg
Oh.. dear..

>> John, like the a-d-t, doesn't often print large or crop.

>
> On the contrary, I do both.

And yet you don't see the artefacts that show very clearly on the images
you have posted, and are missing from the dslr images? Feel free to
post better ones. I and several others see them clearly, and if you
print at 13x19 (or cropped to the equivalent) or larger, then those
artefacts *will* be clearly visible. Unless of course you stand back so
that it is equivalent to 7x5.. In which case you can excuse anything,
and enlargement means nothing.

>> John, like the a-d-t, doesn't often shoot at high iso's in low light.

>
> True, I shoot at lower ISOs in low light.


So post examples at sizes large enough for judgement - half-res would be
fair (especially given you are talking about enlarging) - so go ahead.
And then dslr owners could post similar shots.

Sort of like this:
http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Pa...28/noise.shtml

Can you not spot the difference at say 800 or 1600? You don't think
that would show in an enlargement? If your answer is 'no', please
forgive my mirth in advance, and refer to the next item.

>> John, like the a-d-t, has his very own quality standards.

>
> On the contrary, my standards are comparable to other _photographers_
> (as distinct from armchair quarterbacks).


Well, there are several who disagree here and clearly have different
quality standards. I'm very puzzled as to why you take that as an
insult. I don't have the quality standards of someone who is shooting
for pin sharp fashion/landscape billboards or needs to use LF for
whatever purpose. Does that mean LF users shouldn't extol that format's
virtues *where appropriate*? Similarly, shouldn't potential camera
buyers be aware of the limitations of a p&s, like the artefacts you have
shown, the relatively poor low-light performance shown above? Do you
think they are so dumb they can't work out for themselves what is
important TO THEM by being presented with examples and facts?

>> He will, of course take all of those lines as insults.

>
> Comparing me to the a-d-t over and over is an insult.

Why? Some of what a-d-t says is correct, and I agree with it. It's
just his methodology that is in question. I already said that I would
apply the exact same 'insults' to myself. You appear to be simply
looking for a fight.


> The rest are
> mostly just mistaken guesses on your part.

Oh? Be specific, John. I've dealt with specific points, offered links.
And we are all still waiting for a full-res artefact-free image.

>> apply them to me as well... But I still recognise why there are larger
>> formats, be they dslr, mf, lf.. It's not rocket science.

>
> So do I, and use them when appropriate.

So you are saying that larger formats and sensors give better IQ then.
Good, we agree. So where possible, if you want the best quality, you
should take a dslr if you can. Yep, we agree. Progress.

>> Some call it 'pixel-peeping', others need/want that quality.

>
> Pixel-peeping and image quality are not the same thing.

When you are enlarging, then they are *very* closely related. Does your
printer somehow magically fix up artefacts and other problems that
display on your monitor? Perhaps something needs calibrating. If not,
please explain what is happening.

Or perhaps you just stand far enough back to convince yourself - see above.

Or perhaps you don't actually print large, but tell us otherwise.

Got to be one of those.

Mark Thomas 12-21-2008 12:33 AM

OT Re: The sickening reality of high ISO on a P&S
 
John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Dec 2008 09:55:54 +1000, Mark Thomas
> <markt@_don't_spam_marktphoto.com> wrote in
> <gik0m7$ch8$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>
>> Well, there are several who disagree here and clearly have different
>> quality standards.

>
> I'm quite aware of that.
>
>> I'm very puzzled as to why you take that as an
>> insult.

>
> Language, tone and style.
> But then you already know that,
> you're just being argumentative.

(grin)

yes, John, snip it and it doesn't exist...


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:27 PM.

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