Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11

 
 
Jurgen
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2008
joshua_brandt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):


>>
>>> Good luch with your faith in the toy. It doesn't "beat" a DSLR or
>>> for that matter even rival one with image quality. All it has is a
>>> lens that might last out the camera and might not - that has a reach
>>> few people will ever need at a sacrifice in quality that will never
>>> show up until you try to print an enlargement.

>>
>>Very true. All the experts agree on this.

>
> Clarify that statement: All "'expert' pretend-photographer
> resident-DSLR-trolls on usenet agree on this." Then you will be
> believed.
>
> "I always break the word expert in two -- into X, the unknown
> quantity; and spurt, a drip working under pressure." - Edwina
> Mountbatten
>


I guess it school holiday time again.

The children come to play in an adult world.
Complete with their juvenile opinions and fake knowledge. Josh, get some
experience under your belt before you start telling professional
photographers you know more than them. You don't. You just prooved that.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2008
Jurgen wrote:

<snip>

> I guess it school holiday time again.
>
> The children come to play in an adult world.
> Complete with their juvenile opinions and fake knowledge. Josh, get some
> experience under your belt before you start telling professional
> photographers you know more than them. You don't. You just prooved that.


+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| Thank you, | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| rec.photo.digital | ( (_) )
| management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
================================================== ====================
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Rich
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2008
On Nov 20, 9:04 pm, Stephen Bishop <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 12:35:26 -0600, ParkerGrant
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 11:51:48 -0600, ParkerGrant <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >wrote:

>
> >>http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/...899ef47f_o.jpg

>
> >Sorry, bad link. Try again:

>
> >http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/...0aed5157_o.jpg

>
> Ok, that link worked. Unfortunately, even at that low magnification
> the purple fringing is terrible. That's typical of many p&s cameras.


Dpreview could use a standard review for all P&S's:
-Coloured fringing at the edge of the field.
-Difficult achieving good focus on the long end.
-Focus response and shutter response slow.
-High noise at any ISO beyond 200 with noticeable, detail-killing
noise reduction beyond 800.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-21-2008
Rich wrote:

<snip>

> Dpreview could use a standard review for all P&S's:
> -Coloured fringing at the edge of the field.
> -Difficult achieving good focus on the long end.
> -Focus response and shutter response slow.
> -High noise at any ISO beyond 200 with noticeable, detail-killing
> noise reduction beyond 800.


And remember, they don't publish reviews of the really horrible cameras.
The worst rating you'll ever see is "above average" and that's reserved
for the worst of the worst that they review, such as the Sigma DP1, the
Olympus, SP-550 UZ, and the Sony DSC-H7.
 
Reply With Quote
 
measekite
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-22-2008
On Fri, 21 Nov 2008 12:04:07 -0800, SMS wrote:

> Rich wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
>> Dpreview could use a standard review for all P&S's:
>> -Coloured fringing at the edge of the field.
>> -Difficult achieving good focus on the long end.
>> -Focus response and shutter response slow.
>> -High noise at any ISO beyond 200 with noticeable, detail-killing
>> noise reduction beyond 800.

>
> And remember, they don't publish reviews of the really horrible cameras.
> The worst rating you'll ever see is "above average" and that's reserved
> for the worst of the worst that they review, such as the Sigma DP1, the
> Olympus, SP-550 UZ, and the Sony DSC-H7.


And why do you think that is?
 
Reply With Quote
 
Paul Furman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-24-2008
Vern <ParkerGrant> wrote:
> Vern <ParkerGrant> wrote:
>>
>> With IS I am able to take tack-sharp hand-held images at 1 second exposure at
>> 430mm f.l. (35mm eq.) Here's a quick sample for you:
>>
>> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3067/...899ef47f_o.jpg

>
> Sorry, bad link. Try again:
>
> http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3159/...0aed5157_o.jpg


This pic:
"tack-sharp hand-held images at 1 second exposure at 430mm"
http://l.yimg.com/www.flickr.com/ima...navailable.gif

Wow, really really impressive!!!!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-29-2008
Tod Burnstein <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

[SX10 IS]
> I wonder ... just how much money and weight will it cost to equip a DSLR with
> enough glass (28-560mm @ f2.8~5.7) to beat the images from that camera.


Oh, about any fixed focal lengh lens will beat the images to
a finely ground pulp. To wit:
- The 'f/2.8' has the DOF of a full frame camera at f/16,
or a crop frame camera at f/8. The f/5.7 is FF: f/32 and
CF: f/16. You have to search to find such slow lenses.
- The pixel size is 1/11th compared to CF and 1/30th compared
to FF. ISO 80 compares to ISO 880 on CF and to ISO 2400 on
FF --- at the same noise, unless the SX10 is inherently so
noisy that it's no longer photon noise limited.

Think that through, and you'll see that the crop DSLR at ISO 800
and f/8 has a slightly better performance and noise behaviour on
your SX10's ISO 80 and f/2.8, while delivering a similar image.

> 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
> extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
> much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?


Surely: any 18-200/250mm and a 2x converter.
Though you don't need the 2x converter, simply cropping the
image and inventing random pixels to fill the gaps will do fine.

Yes, that's using cameras to drive nails into walls and
hammers to take images, but Tod-Troll --- btw., are you
cleared with the owner of "repliesnotwanted.org" to use that
email adress? --- wants that comparison. Proper DSLRs are
sturdy enough to handle nails, too.

> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
> bother to carry them with you that is.


Uh ... zero?

> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
> up.


Go ahead, show me your 16mm (35mm equivalent) wide angle. My DSLR can do.
Go ahead, show me your available light shots. 320mm (35mm
equivalent), f/2.8, ISO 3200 or 6400 (equivalent via push
development), 1/120s. Handheld, of course.

I wait with bathed breath.

> What was it that all the DSLR-Trolls were recently crying? That no P&S could
> ever beat the image quality of a DSLR? This is only one example. I've seen many
> similar examples in the last 3 years where the P&S clearly does win.


Suuure. I can make the worst P&S win against the best
DSLR, by just holding the hand over the lens at the right
moment.

> Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.


Got any indoor pictures? Grab a webserver and start showing.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2008
Vic Preston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:32:58 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Tod Burnstein <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


>>Think that through, and you'll see that the crop DSLR at ISO 800
>>and f/8 has a slightly better performance and noise behaviour on
>>your SX10's ISO 80 and f/2.8, while delivering a similar image.


> Pro's don't need high ISO's.


First, the plural of "Pro" is "Pros", not "Pro's". Unless you
claim the singular is "Pro'".
An apostrophe does *not* mean "Wake up, here comes a plural s".

Second, thank you for proving that all these professional cameras
--- that are those who excel in ruggedness and reliability and
cost lots of money, not ones that have a 'pro' in their name ---
don't have anything above ISO 100. Canon will be delighted to
hear that their 1D series does not have capabilities they thought
it had, Nikon will shake their heads sadly, ...
Professional shooters (i.e. those who make money by producing
photographies) worldwide will abandon almost all action and sports
shooting. Press photographers will once more run around with huge
magnesium powder flashes. Paparazzi and high society reporters
(just look at many of the shots in the illustrated magazines of
that kind, many are really high ISO and pushed hard) will
commit mass suicide, flooding the streets with their blood,
as they cut their throats with their shattered lenses ...

In other words, you don't even have the faintest idea what you
talk about. A simple google search would enlighten you, if
you dared to open your eyes just a bit.

I pity you, dumbass.


>>> 2 lenses to lug around at an extra 7lbs. for $1000? 3 lenses to lug around at an
>>> extra 10lbs. for $2000? 4 lenses to lug around at an extra 15lbs. for $5000? How
>>> much? Surely you devout DSLR-trolls can do the math for us, can't you?


>>Surely: any 18-200/250mm and a 2x converter.
>>Though you don't need the 2x converter, simply cropping the
>>image and inventing random pixels to fill the gaps will do fine.


> Sorry, you just lost major aperture doing that.


Doing what --- *not* using a 2x converter?
At ISO 800 and f/8 a *CROP* DSLR still beats the SX10's ISO
80 and f/2.8.

>>> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
>>> bother to carry them with you that is.


>>Uh ... zero?


> You must not do any photography then. Thanks for proving that.


Using a single 18-250mm lens I loose how many shots changing
that lens to itself? Zero, maybe?

>>> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
>>> up.


>>Go ahead, show me your 16mm (35mm equivalent) wide angle. My DSLR can do.
>>Go ahead, show me your available light shots. 320mm (35mm
>>equivalent), f/2.8, ISO 3200 or 6400 (equivalent via push
>>development), 1/120s. Handheld, of course.


>>I wait with bathed breath.


> My P&S cameras go seamlessly from 9mm f2.0 to 1248mm f/3.5.


Liar. You have to change lenses. That's not seamless.
And you don't own such a camera nor the necessary
wannabe-converters.

Show me your 9mm shots.
Show me your 1248mm shots.
Show me your 320mm, f/2.8, 1/120s, ISO 3200 shots.

> With virtually no image degradation whatsoever at any of those focal
> lengths.


Read: With crappy images at all focal lengths, the
degradation due to your "converters" is not visible.

> Available light shots are never a problem.


Show me your shots.

> That's specifically why I switched to high quality
> P&S cameras.


That's specifically why I switched *away from* P&S cameras,
"high quality" or not: they can't hack it.

> Available light photography has been my forté all my life.


You hide your knowledge well.

> I detest using flash.


You don't know how to use flash, that's all.

> Available light photography requires spontaneity, you must capture
> it as you see it.


If you only "capture it as you see it", you need only one
focal length, ca. 50mm. Your 9mm and 1248mm swaggering is
completely irrelevant to AL.

> You can't be fumbling with 20 lbs. of gear and changing 5
> lenses trying to find the right one in hoping to get that shot in time before
> the perfect moment of light is lost.


That's why you only shoot with 50mm if "you must capture it
as you see it". But you need high ISO, the human eye has
~ISO 800 and can integrate up to 15 seconds.

>>Got any indoor pictures? Grab a webserver and start showing.


> I'll leave it to you to find out why you've just revealed and proved your wholly
> amateur level of photographic knowledge and total lack of any talent whatsoever
> to the whole world.


Thank you for proving you don't even have the gear you claim.
You're even to stupid to find these shots somewhere on the web.

Amateur? Sure am: I do photography for love, not for money!
Is paid sex better for you than sex out of love?

And "total lack of any talent whatsoever"? Simply because I have
a different oppinion? And you judge without ever having seen
a single shot from me? Tell me, did your mom raise you to be a
prejudiced, overbearing, fatally stupid brat, or is she turning
in her grave?

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Andrew Koenig
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-06-2008
<"mcdonaldREMOVE TO ACTUALLY REACH ME"@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message
news:gheg9u$ml4$(E-Mail Removed)...

> The P&S troll is NOT a dumbass. He's a very, very smart and
> accomplished troll. He know exactly how to make people mad,
> which is his reason for posting. I suspect that he knows
> exactly what he is talking about ... that is, he considers
> every point he could make and is careful to make every technical
> thing he says quite wrong. He is careful to calibrate
> every insult to be so silly on its face that it makes people
> really mad.


Reminds me of this phenomenon:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/03/ma...3trolls-t.html


 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      12-19-2008
LeonardoVincente <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2008 17:11:52 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>Vic Preston <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Nov 2008 23:32:58 +0100, Wolfgang Weisselberg
>>>>Tod Burnstein <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:


Dear idiot,
I have removed 136 lines of uncommented quotes. I had
secretly hoped you'd be in a mood to enter a serious silly
debate, but you're only interested in a ****-flinging
screaming match.

Oh well, I refuse to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed
opponent, no matter how loud you scream.

> Many (new & improved) points


All your 'new and improved' points are moot: I have already
proven them wrong. Example: your first point:

> (E.g. 9mm f2.7 - 1248mm f/3.5.) [with] wide-angle and telephoto
> (telextender) add-on lenses [...] you can far surpass any range of
> focal-lengths and apertures that are available or will ever be made
> for larger format cameras.


Where's 1600mm f/2.8? That's currently available, AS I
POINTED OUT BEFORE, today, for larger format cameras.[1]
Where's your 2000mm f/3.5? [2]
Where's your 3400mm f/4? [3]
And that's before adding any "telephoto add on lenses" to the
front ...

Not only are P&S cameras with their huge crop factors *much*
worse performance when it comes to numerically identical focal
lengths and apertures --- they cannot even match the focal lengths
and apertures in first place ...

The rest of your babbling is of similar quality and veracity.

New material? Practically none, except mislabled shots that
have falsified and inconsistent EXIF data and you pointing
out that 'an experienced photographer [...] will always rely on
prefocusing' ... which speaks for itself. Not to mention that the
theoretical low shutter lag of a P&S is completely overshadowed
by the display lag ...

> "If even 5 billion people are saying and doing a foolish thing, it remains a
> foolish thing."


If you say the same thing more than a dozen times, it's foolish,
and so are you.


-Wolfgang










[1] Sigma 300-800mm f/2.8 + 4/3rds camera.
[2] [1] + 1.25x extender
[3] Zeiss' 1700mm f/4 medium format lens + 4/3rds camera.
 
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
Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - OFF TOPIC Colin.D Digital Photography 6 12-07-2008 04:53 PM
Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11 Ray Fischer Digital Photography 103 12-05-2008 01:18 PM
Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11 Wolfgang Weisselberg Digital Photography 3 12-01-2008 05:20 AM
Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11 Ray Fischer Digital Photography 11 11-25-2008 07:47 PM
Re: Super-Zoom P&S Camera Beats DSLR (again) - Film at 11 Steve Digital Photography 2 11-20-2008 11:55 PM



Advertisments