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

 
 
Sherry Miller
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2008
Morey Staffer wrote:
>
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml
>


If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
for their budget line of DSLR's.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
David J Taylor
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2008
Sherry Miller wrote:

http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml

> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
> lens for their budget line of DSLR's.


Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.

David

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2008
Sherry Miller wrote:
> Morey Staffer wrote:
>>
>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml
>>
>>

>
> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
> for their budget line of DSLR's.


That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.

Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Chris Malcolm
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2008
ParkerGrant <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 07:21:02 GMT, "David J Taylor"
> <(E-Mail Removed)-this-part.nor-this-bit.co.uk> wrote:


>>Sherry Miller wrote:
>>
>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml
>>
>>> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
>>> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
>>> lens for their budget line of DSLR's.

>>
>>Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
>>didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
>>price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.
>>
>>David


> Why? A talented photographer they can do all their photography even at ISO25 if
> they want to. Many real pros have done just that for many decades. High ISO is
> the amateur's crutch. Someone thinking that a selling point is just revealing
> that they know very little about how to use a camera properly and even less
> about the art of photography.


By that argument the most talented professionals are those using
pinhole cameras. Lenses are just an amateur's crutch.

--
Chris Malcolm



 
Reply With Quote
 
Doug Jewell
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2008
ben_pallace wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:25:54 +0000, bugbear <bugbear@trim_papermule.co.uk_trim>
> wrote:
>
>> ParkerGrant wrote:
>>> Why? A talented photographer they can do all their photography even at ISO25 if
>>> they want to.

>> I await such shots from a moody, smoky acoustic gig
>> in a club.
>>
>> BugBear

>
> Depends on the effect that you want to achieve. Some motion-blur is more than
> welcomed, it is required to impart some moods and overall ambiance to make a
> photo a success. A pro might also request that some strategically placed, but
> unobtrusive, lighting might be allowed.
>
> I have some photos of this nature taken at ISO80 from quite a few all-night
> outdoor music events. Most of the event lit up with just campfires with a few
> dim colored lights hitting the stage. Taken hand-held with a 300mm f.l. lens.
> You wait for the right moment to click the shutter. When the artist's face might
> be perfectly still but their hand might be in motion to show their work on the
> frets of the guitar. Or the moment when their head dips to a limit of its motion
> and catching a flair of blurry hair, but the face remains tack-sharp for that
> partial second. It's all about the timing, knowing your subject, and being able
> to anticipate when to trip the shutter. It's called talent, and the art of
> photography. Something that so few of you ever seem to discuss. Most likely
> because none of you know what it is. You all want that camera to do it all for
> you, don't you. Buy another one, maybe there's talent inside that next camera.
> Maybe it's listed on the box or in the manual somewhere. Keep looking, you might
> one day find it.
>

I call bullshit.
Based on your description of the lighting, (campfire, a few
dim stage lights), I'd estimate the subject brightness to
typically be about EV4. If you are understating the actual
lighting, and the stage lights are quite a bit brighter than
you are describing, then maybe you'd get to EV6 brightness.
If that is the case, at ISO 80 and F2.8, you'd need a
1/10sec exposure. Handheld at 300mm for 1/10 sec to give
tack sharp images? not bloody likely, even with an excellent
IS system.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2008
David J Taylor wrote:
> Sherry Miller wrote:
>
> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca..._results.shtml
>
>
>> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
>> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
>> lens for their budget line of DSLR's.

>
> Yes, it shows just how bad the cheap Canon lenses can be. Pity they
> didn't choose a Nikon instead who generally do better with their lowest
> price lenses. Let's see the same test at ISO 1600.


If anything, that comparison convinced me not to buy an SX10!

I do have the Canon 18-55mm kit lens, but I got it because the
difference in price between body-only and the kit was very small. It's
actually not as bad as that comparison shows, when used in the proper
conditions.

They could have used even worse lenses if they wanted to; the kit lenses
Canon used to include on their film Rebel cameras.

The key point is that with a D-SLR you're not stuck with crappy lenses
like you are with P&S cameras, which often don't even have glass lenses
but horrible acrylic lenses.

OTOH, if all you care about is zoom range, and don't care about image
quality, noise, dynamic range, etc., then the SX10 is an excellent
choice. They'll sell a lot of them to people that don't know any better.
 
Reply With Quote
 
frank
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2008
On Nov 20, 4:58*am, Tod Burnstein <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >Sherry Miller wrote:
> >> Morey Staffer wrote:

>
> >>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...IS/outdoor_res....

>
> >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
> >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
> >> for their budget line of DSLR's.

>
> >That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
> >as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
> >that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.

>
> >Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.

>
> 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..
>
> 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?
>
> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you even
> bother to carry them with you that is.
>
> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you add it
> up.
>
> 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.
>
> Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.


Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
optics.
 
Reply With Quote
 
Pete D
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2008

"Donald Rippley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:08:28 -0800 (PST), frank
> <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 20, 4:58 am, Tod Burnstein <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>wrote:
>>> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>> wrote:
>>> >Sherry Miller wrote:
>>> >> Morey Staffer wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...IS/outdoor_res...
>>>
>>> >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this
>>> >> shows
>>> >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
>>> >> lens
>>> >> for their budget line of DSLR's.
>>>
>>> >That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as
>>> >bad
>>> >as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
>>> >that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.
>>>
>>> >Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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?
>>>
>>> Let's not forget all the shots that you miss while changing them, if you
>>> even
>>> bother to carry them with you that is.
>>>
>>> Looks like the SX10 is still a winner over any DSLR, no matter how you
>>> add it
>>> up.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>> Got any crow? Grab a fork and start eating.

>>
>>Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
>>with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
>>optics.

>
> Can't even do the math eh? Figured as much.
>
> There's one other little important tidbit that only amateur trolls
> wouldn't
> know, or be able to keep in their itty minds, "Content trumps quality --
> EVERY
> TIME."
>


Silly girl, how sad for you.


 
Reply With Quote
 
frank
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2008
On Nov 20, 12:11*pm, Donald Rippley <(E-Mail Removed)>
wrote:
> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 09:08:28 -0800 (PST), frank <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Nov 20, 4:58*am, Tod Burnstein <(E-Mail Removed)>
> >wrote:
> >> On Thu, 20 Nov 2008 02:37:46 -0800, SMS <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >Sherry Miller wrote:
> >> >> Morey Staffer wrote:

>
> >> >>>http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...IS/outdoor_res...

>
> >> >> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
> >> >> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit lens
> >> >> for their budget line of DSLR's.

>
> >> >That was my first thought as well, 'wow, the Canon P&S lenses are as bad
> >> >as the lens that Canon put into their cheapest kits.' The difference is
> >> >that you can change the lens on the D-SLR, LOL.

>
> >> >Geez, the Panasonic looks terrible though.

>
> >> 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.

>
> >> 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?

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

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

>
> >> 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.

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

>
> >Shows you don't care about quality in your photography. A decent image
> >with a good lens is why you use a DSLR. You can't change the laws of
> >optics.

>
> Can't even do the math eh? Figured as much.
>
> There's one other little important tidbit that only amateur trolls wouldn't
> know, or be able to keep in their itty minds, "Content trumps quality -- EVERY
> TIME."


No, I've done more math than you can ever dream of in your life. More
photography also. How about a few thousand rolls of 35mm a year. Not
to mention digital.

And no, I don't post on line.

Wanker.
 
Reply With Quote
 
SMS
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      11-20-2008
Jurgen wrote:
> bradford andersen <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> On Wed, 19 Nov 2008 22:42:31 -0600, Sherry Miller
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> Morey Staffer wrote:
>>>> http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Ca...IS/outdoor_res
>>>> ults.shtml
>>>>
>>> If it beat anything, it was the lens, not the DSLR. I guess this shows
>>> that these two cameras' lenses are on par with Canon's cheapest kit
>>> lens for their budget line of DSLR's.

>> So .... that means, what? That you're going to have to throw another
>> $2000+ worth of lenses at the DSLR in order to make it beat the image
>> quality and keep the same zoom range as the P&S camera? Sounds like
>> what you are saying.
>>
>>

>
> There is a small thing called "resolving power" that is convieniently
> missing from the assment of this camera. The crap sensor is one exaple and
> the plastic element lens is another of why it will never really rival a
> DSLR.


Yeah, that's one attribute I wish would be included in the camera
databases. Too many people look only at specifications, without
understanding what _isn't_ specified.

> 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.
 
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