Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Best Camera for NIght Shots?

Reply
Thread Tools

Best Camera for NIght Shots?

 
 
Roger N. Clark (change username to rnclark)
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
John Navas wrote:

>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter
>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...l.size.matter2

>
> Unfortunately, those citations completely ignore the difficulty of
> building comparable true zoom optics for larger sensor sizes, as I've
> discussed here in some detail.


It has nothing to do with the difficulty of building optics.
It has everything to do with pixel size.

Add:
http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...rmance.summary

Roger
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:55:05 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in <061120071555056972%(E-Mail Removed)>:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> My DMC-FZ8 doesn't come with an image quality price in most of the
>> conditions I care about.

>
>thank you for qualifying it with 'the conditions i care about.'


Of course. As I've made clear from the beginning, "Different strokes
for different folks."

>> My images don't have visible noise.
>>
>> Here's a long-exposure full-res out-of-camera example with EXIF:
>> <http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5259/p1030578nx3.jpg>

>
>if you don't see noise in that image then the rest of this discussion
>is moot.


Then we are done. Time to move on.

>plus, there are some artifacts that suggest that noise
>reduction was applied which means that there probably was *more* noise
>than what is currently visible. and all that at iso 100!


Not so. You're pixel peeping and exaggerating.

>post an unretouched image straight out of the camera as well as an
>image from a dslr, both of the same subject in the same conditions, and
>lets see just how noisy it is.


I'll leave that to you.

>> I've not been proven wrong.

>
>photozone's numbers show that the tamron 90mm lens beats two canon
>macro lenses in mtf measurements, one of which is an l lens. other
>tests show similar results. actual images that i and others have seen
>from the lens are consistent with those tests and support the fact that
>it is an excellent lens.
>
>to quote you, "Why is it so hard for you to concede the issue?"


Because you've failed to prove anything.

>> >> We'll just have to agree to disagree.
>> >
>> >of course. facts kind of get in the way.

>>
>> Opinions, not facts.

>
>photozone's measurements are not opinions, nor are other lens tests
>that show similar results, nor are actual images taken with the lens.


No such facts exist.

>> >as for 'best,' ask the people who have a soft copy of the 100-400 about
>> >'best.' even photozone had a mediocre first copy. apparently one must
>> >take a chance even with canon to get a good lens.

>>
>> Nothing is perfect, but Canon L comes a lot closer than Tamron.

>
>except when it doesn't.


It does.

>> If you can't afford Canon L quality, then of course you'll have to use
>> something less.

>
>who said anything about price? i'm looking at *results*. if the
>tamron is cheaper, all the better.


Canon is better.

>> >how do you know tamron won't measure up if you won't take a chance with
>> >off-brand lenses?

>>
>> Been there; down that. Read more carefully.

>
>do you own the tamron 90mm macro? yes or no.


Irrelevant.

>> >both lens tests and experience of people who actually
>> >use them show that they *do* measure up.

>>
>> I disagree.

>
>that's fine. you're entitled to be wrong.


I'm not wrong.

>> Since you're now down to straw man and diversionary arguments,
>> and refuse to concede unequivocal facts, we're obviously done.
>> I have no interest in pointless argument.

>
>*me* refuse to concede facts?
>
>did photozone fabricate their results?


You are the one doing the fabricating.

Since you're now clearly trolling, and since I've already disproved your
claims with facts, I'm not going to waste any more time on this.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 23:04:46 -0000, -hh <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in <(E-Mail Removed) .com>:

>[SNIP]


Since you're now clearly trolling, rehashing the same ground over and
over again, and since I've already disproved your claims with facts, I'm
not going to waste any more time on this.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 15:55:06 -0800, nospam <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in <061120071555067028%(E-Mail Removed)>:

>In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, John Navas
><(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> Image size alone is meaningless -- viewing distance has to be taken into
>> consideration as well. Larger images from my DMC-FZ8 are equally good
>> when viewing distance increases to match.

>
>but not as good as images from a better camera.


Wrong.

>> When I intend sufficiently large images viewed at close distances,
>> then I will often turn to stitched/mosaiced images (super-resolution),
>> which can boost quality enough for my DMC-FZ8 to blow away any single
>> image from even a high-end 35 mm DSLR.

>
>comparing multiple stitched images with a single image from another
>camera?? anything else you want to do to stack the deck in your
>favour?


"If you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen."

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
On Tue, 06 Nov 2007 20:07:18 -0700, "Roger N. Clark (change username to
rnclark)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in <(E-Mail Removed)>:

>John Navas wrote:
>
>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...el.size.matter
>>> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedeta...l.size.matter2

>>
>> Unfortunately, those citations completely ignore the difficulty of
>> building comparable true zoom optics for larger sensor sizes, as I've
>> discussed here in some detail.

>
>It has nothing to do with the difficulty of building optics.
>It has everything to do with pixel size.


Not true.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
-hh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> Since you're now clearly trolling, rehashing the same ground over and
> over again, and since I've already disproved your claims with facts, I'm
> not going to waste any more time on this.


Here's some facts from my last post that you still haven't touched
with a ten foot pole, let alone actually disproven, John:

Your beloved Panasonic DMC-FZ8 gets outperformed in all of the
following performance categories by a now-discontinued 3 year old
dSLR:

- Signal/Noise ratio
- Startup time
- Shutoff time
- Focus Speed
- Shutter Lag
- Zoom speed
- Frames/sec
- Buffer Depth

Granted, I hadn't previously disclosed the exact dSLR model since that
fact wasn't relevant to pixel size noise issues and I didn't want a
generalized discussion to be tainted by brands, plus these factors are
generally true for many dSLRs. But so that you can go verify facts,
the dSLR I was referring to was the 2004 vintage Canon 20D.

For example, as per dpreview, this old dSLR's startup/shutdown times
are 0.3sec & 0.3sec, whereas your DMC-FZ8's are 2.6sec and 2.8sec,
plus it shoots twice as many frames/sec (5 vs 2.5) and has 5x the
buffer (25 vs 5). Similarly, with manual control on a generic SLR's
zoom, it takes <1sec to go from end to end if you want to go fast
(although with the trade-off of needing a second hand), whereas on
your FZ8, it takes 2.6sec - 8.4sec, depending on if you have it set
for "high" or "low" speed. Heaven forbid how long it takes you to
find that setting on your menus to change it.

Finally, for zoom, shutter lag, buffer depth and frames/sec examined
holistically together, there's nothing like your own website's photos,
specifically P1010652 and P1010653 (099: Albert T Simpson Regatta,
July 21-22, 2007). I can't be positive that "Item: 27 of 51" and
"Item: 28 of 51" on the same webpage are also from your Panasonic, but
if they are, they're examples too. Now please understand that I'm
not trying to critique your work unsolicited, but I'm merely pointing
out the gross discontinuities between your claim as to how your DMC-
FZ8 allows you to work miracles but unfortunately, that claim
conflicts signficantly with the objective results visible in each of
these four illustrations.


Nevertheless, after all is said and done, I do agree that P&S cameras
have value and have their place. Personally, when I travel overseas
on business, I try to make room for my P&S and because work comes
first, it usually gets used after sunset. It does take some time to
learn how get reasonable results despite the limitations, but the
effort can be rewarding.


-hh

 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 23:15:53 GMT, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>On Fri, 02 Nov 2007 20:16:29 GMT, "David J Taylor"
><(E-Mail Removed)-this-bit.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote in
><xALWi.41312$(E-Mail Removed) >:
>
>>[]
>>>>> Panasonic DMC-FZ8. See unretouched sample image at
>>>>> http://img254.imageshack.us/img254/5259/p1030578nx3.jpg

>>[]
>>> You obviously didn't bother to look at the image, which is as good or
>>> better than anything the others would have produced, especially since
>>> the superb stabilized Leica super-zoom lens was near the far end of
>>> its 12x zoom range. Glass matters.

>>
>>Excellent shot, John! Like you, I keep my Panasonic at ISO 100 for best
>>results.

>
>Thank you (although the camera deserves much of the credit -- I just
>composed the shot and left the rest up to camera automation).


I should add that:

* I keep Noise Reduction and Contrast turned down to Low, which produces
the best images out of the camera to my eye at least. Many (most?) of
the image quality complaints seem to come from people that haven't
bothered to explore non-default settings.

* The image was shot as a high-quality JPEG. I could have used RAW for
even better results, but I frankly haven't found that to be necessary
except in unusual circumstances.

* The image was shot in Night Scheme mode, with the camera making all
settings automatically. Thanks to live histogram, I was able to see the
camera was doing quite well on its own, difficult lighting
notwithstanding.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:09:33 GMT, John Navas
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
<(E-Mail Removed)>:

>* The image was shot in Night Scheme mode, with the camera making all
>settings automatically. Thanks to live histogram, I was able to see the
>camera was doing quite well on its own, difficult lighting
>notwithstanding.


Oops! That should have been Night Scene.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
John Navas
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 04:01:20 -0800, -hh <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote in <(E-Mail Removed). com>:

>John Navas <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>> Since you're now clearly trolling, rehashing the same ground over and
>> over again, and since I've already disproved your claims with facts, I'm
>> not going to waste any more time on this.

>
>Here's some facts from my last post that you still haven't touched
>with a ten foot pole, let alone actually disproven, John:
>[SNIP]


Not so, and since you're just trolling and rehashing, I'm not going to
waste any more time responding.

--
Best regards,
John Navas <http:/navasgroup.com>
 
Reply With Quote
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-07-2007
John Navas wrote:
> On Wed, 07 Nov 2007 17:09:33 GMT, John Navas
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> <(E-Mail Removed)>:
>
>> * The image was shot in Night Scheme mode, with the camera making all
>> settings automatically. Thanks to live histogram, I was able to see
>> the camera was doing quite well on its own, difficult lighting
>> notwithstanding.

>
> Oops! That should have been Night Scene.


And I was quite looking forward to seeing if my Nikon D40 or Panasonic TZ3
also had a Night Scheme mode!

<G>

David


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
The non-night night shot Vance Digital Photography 3 10-13-2010 01:47 AM
Best night compact digital camera? slowreader@gmail.com Digital Photography 4 12-22-2005 06:00 PM
Good night shots with a mini camera? Bob Travis Digital Photography 3 11-22-2003 02:59 AM
What camera for night photos? Ed Digital Photography 6 11-15-2003 07:46 AM
Night shots are better with digital camera- No film vs camera debate zxcvar Digital Photography 4 09-01-2003 06:38 PM



Advertisments