«

ShawnParks <> wrote:

>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
>
>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
>on that page, I count, on average:
>
>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
>
>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).

The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.

--
Ray Fischer

LindermanGrant <> wrote:
> (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>ShawnParks <> wrote:

>>>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
>>>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
>>>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
>>>
>>>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
>>>on that page, I count, on average:
>>>
>>>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
>>>
>>>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
>>>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
>>
>>The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
>>zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
>
>Great!
>
>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?

How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
sensor? How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens? Or a 12mm lens? Or
a tilt-shift lens?

Yes, you believe that screwdrivers are better than hammers. Don't let
reality get in the way.

--
Ray Fischer

Stephen Bishop wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Nov 2008 15:36:32 -0600, LindermanGrant
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 22 Nov 2008 20:37:23 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>
>>> ShawnParks <> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
>>>> doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
>>>> using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
>>>>
>>>> Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
>>>> on that page, I count, on average:
>>>>
>>>> 4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
>>>>
>>>> 6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
>>>> (a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
>>> The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
>>> zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
>> Great!
>>
>> How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
>> How many lenses will I have to change while missing shots to do so? How many
>> extra pounds of equipment will I have to carry? Mind you, they ALL have to also
>> resolve more detail and have less CA than the P&S camera lens.
>>
>> So?
>>
>> How much will it take in money, loss of convenience, extra weight, and
>> missed-shots to beat that camera?
>>
>> You're so knowledgeable and experienced, surely you must know. Don't you?
>
> Let's look at the bottom line, shall we? Virtually NO professional
> photographers trust their livlihoods on P&S cameras. Zip. Nada.
> None. Virtually ALL professionals shooting digital shoot with a
> dslr. (With the exception of the very high dollar pros who shoot MF
> cameras with digital backs.)
>
> Maybe they all know something you don't?

No all pros use a DSLR camera or MF digital, some use a Leica or Epson
(d)RF camera.
But that wasn't quite what you're attacking in P&S troll's post though,
is it? :-p

Herb Reed <> wrote:
>On 22 Nov 2008 23:41:27 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>>LindermanGrant <> wrote:
>>> (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>ShawnParks <> wrote:
>>
>>>>>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
>>>>>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
>>>>>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
>>>>>
>>>>>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
>>>>>on that page, I count, on average:
>>>>>
>>>>>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
>>>>>
>>>>>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
>>>>>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
>>>>
>>>>The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
>>>>zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
>>>
>>>Great!
>>>
>>>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
>>
>>How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
>>sensor?
>
>Not a requirement of a pro.

Smirk. Nothing like moving the goalposts.

> High ISO's are only required by amateurs who don't
>know how to use a camera properly.

And since you're such a great photographer I'm sure you can show us
your photos taken in low-light condition at 200ISO with an f4 lens.

>> How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens?
>
>Not a requirement of a pro.

How would you know?

--
Ray Fischer

patrick-connelly <> wrote:
> (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>Herb Reed <> wrote:
>>>On 22 Nov 2008 23:41:27 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>
>>>>LindermanGrant <> wrote:
>>>>> (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>ShawnParks <> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>>I thought it would be interesting to use those two mountain example images and
>>>>>>>doing some actual measures of CA instead of just basing it on a rough guess by
>>>>>>>using sensor "crop ratio" differences.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Checking how many pixels of red/magenta CA appear in those two mountain images
>>>>>>>on that page, I count, on average:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>4 to 6 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the P&S 20X super zoom lens
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>6 to 8 pixel-widths of lateral CA created by the DSLR's very meager 3X zoom lens
>>>>>>>(a smaller zoom range *should* mean much much better quality).
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The key difference is that with an SLR you're not stuck with a cheap
>>>>>>zoom lens. You can buy a quality zoom lens.
>>>>>
>>>>>Great!
>>>>>
>>>>>How much would it cost to outfit a DSLR with a 28mm f2.8 to 560mm f5.7 range?
>>>>
>>>>How much would it cost to equip a P&S with a low-noise high-quality
>>>>sensor?
>>>
>>>Not a requirement of a pro.
>>
>>Smirk. Nothing like moving the goalposts.
>>
>>> High ISO's are only required by amateurs who don't
>>>know how to use a camera properly.
>>
>>And since you're such a great photographer I'm sure you can show us
>>your photos taken in low-light condition at 200ISO with an f4 lens.
>
>Easily.

Well?

Where are they?

>>>> How much to fit it with a f1.4 lens?
>>>
>>>Not a requirement of a pro.
>>
>>How would you know?
>
>That fact that I did know that and that you didn't have a clue,

The fact that you believe it despite the fact that it's obviously not
true merely confirms that you're a stupid troll.

--
Ray Fischer

TenneseeWillilams <> wrote:
>On 23 Nov 2008 01:57:51 GMT, (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>
>
>You're not allowed to reply to any of this until you answer this question that

LOL!

Sit on it and spin.

--
Ray Fischer

The P&S Troll wrote:
> Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
> >Ever hear the phrase, "Jack of all trades, master of none?" *
>
> Ever hear the phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and believing
> a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing" ?

And then there's: "Repeating a Lie doesn't make it true."



> You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver...

Versatility doesn't assure that it is the *best* hammer, or the *best*
screwdriver.


> Are you going to tell me that just because a camera can tell you the ambient
> temperature because it was fitted with a sensor to do just that, that the
> accuracy of that temperature is less than the dedicated 1-degree increment
> thermometer on your wall? And this is because a highly accurate digital
> temperature sensor, accurate to 1/1000 degree, was attached to a camera?

Ever hear the phrase: "False Precision."?


> How does attaching a camera to a thermometer degrade the temperature that
> that thermometer relays?

It increases thermal lag, as well as introduces an additional source
of heat and variations in power supply voltage, all of which induce
gage errors.

> By your reasoning that thermometer is now doing things
> less accurately because a silly camera is now attached to it.

See the Casio T-1000 & T-1200 wristwatches, which included a digital
thermometer, as case studies. Due to gage errors due to body heat,
they included a User-operated calibration adjustment setting based on
if the watch was being worn or not. This changed the indicated
temperature by generally 8 degrees (F). Plus it was found that
simple variations in solar radiation (sun vs shade) and clothing (long
vs short sleeved shirt) would also induce errors, generally of 5F-20F
magnitude beyond the one already mentioned. Realistically, the only
time that its thermocouple was reasonably accurate was if it was fully
immersed in water for 2-4 minutes, with the "not worn" setting being
used. Naturally, with this setting change, within roughly 10 minutes
of getting out of the water, the air temperature would then read ~8F
erroneously high.

Thus, a final phrase here of: "Those who ignore history are doomed
to repeat it".


-hh

The P&S Troll wrote:
> -hh <recscuba_goo...@huntzinger.com> wrote:
> >The P&S Troll wrote:
> >> Stephen Bishop <nospample...@now.com> wrote:
> >> >Ever hear the phrase, "Jack of all trades, master of none?" *
>
> >> Ever hear the phrase: "If even 5 billion people are saying and believing
> >> a foolish thing, it remains a foolish thing" ?
>
> >And then there's: *"Repeating a Lie doesn't make it true."

Lack of reply...noted.


> >> You fail to realize, a good P&S camera is both hammer and screw-driver....
>
> >Versatility doesn't assure that it is the *best* hammer, or the *best*
> >screwdriver.

Lack of reply...noted.


> >> Are you going to tell me that just because a camera can tell you the ambient
> >> temperature because it was fitted with a sensor to do just that, that the
> >> accuracy of that temperature is less than the dedicated 1-degree increment
> >> thermometer on your wall? And this is because a highly accurate digital
> >> temperature sensor, accurate to 1/1000 degree, was attached to a camera?
>
> >Ever hear the phrase: *"False Precision."?

Lack of reply...noted.


> >> How does attaching a camera to a thermometer degrade the temperature that
> >> that thermometer relays?
>
> >It increases thermal lag, as well as introduces an additional source
> >of heat and variations in power supply voltage, all of which induce
> >gage errors.

Lack of reply...noted.



> >> By your reasoning that thermometer is now doing things
> >> less accurately because a silly camera is now attached to it.
>
> >See the Casio T-1000 & T-1200 wristwatches, which included a digital
> >thermometer, as case studies. *Due to gage errors due to body heat,
> >they included a User-operated calibration adjustment setting based on
> >if the watch was being worn or not. *This changed the indicated
> >temperature by generally 8 degrees (F). * Plus it was found that
> >simple variations in solar radiation (sun vs shade) and clothing (long
> >vs short sleeved shirt) would also induce errors, generally of 5F-20F
> >magnitude beyond the one already mentioned. *Realistically, the only
> >time that its thermocouple was reasonably accurate was if it was fully
> >immersed in water for 2-4 minutes, with the "not worn" setting being
> >used. *Naturally, with this setting change, within roughly 10 minutes
> >of getting out of the water, the air temperature would then read ~8F
> >erroneously high.
>
> >Thus, a final phrase here of: * "Those who ignore history are doomed
> >to repeat it".
>
> >-hh
>
> Was anyone talking about wristwatch thermometers? No. Totally unrelated.

Its simply YA example of a "Jack of All Trades" device and thus, is
actually directly related to your claims.


> WHEN USED PROPERLY ...

A lame backpedalling phrase

> ... A DEVICE CAN ...

"CAN", not "SHALL"? Just more lame CYA backpedalling by the P&S
Troll.


> ...HAVE 1000 FUNCTIONS AND STILL PERFORM EACH
> AND EVERY ONE OF THEM FLAWLESSLY.

And still be cheaper than a device that simply does just one thing
well? Not likely...

and lest we forget, it was lower cost was what the P&S Troll was
hanging his hat on. Now, he's in feature creep with his 1000-function
self-propelled bottle opener and simply hanging himself, instead of
recognizing the simple 99 cent church key.


> Do you own a computer?

Computer? Why bother when telepathy is far superior...and
cheaper


> FOR THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS DESIGNED THE TEMPERATURE SENSOR
> ON A CAMERA IS JUST AS ACCURATE AS ANY OTHER THERMOMETER.

And the backpedalling here is the "for the purpose" caveat. Quite
predictably lame.

"Dance Puppet Dance!"


-hh

PetePalance <> wrote:
>On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:12:38 -0500, Stephen Bishop <> wrote:
>
>>
>>If you are truly an award-winning photographer, I would think you
>>would have posted images that were more in line with your abilities.
>
>
>You don't read anything that you reply to, do you, just like all usenet-trolls.
>
>
>Didn't you just recently post a quote from someone that said exactly why real
>pros don't post their marketable photography online? Is your memory also
>hindered by your drastic lack of intellect? Must be. Those are some seriously
>disabling qualities that you're displaying about yourself.

Why do you steal from Douglas BW?

Using his words without proper attribution and pretending they are your
own constitutes plagiarism and maybe copyright infringement.

jue

In message <>, Stephen Bishop
<> writes
>On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 11:03:31 -0600, PetePalance
><> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 24 Nov 2008 06:12:38 -0500, Stephen Bishop
>><> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>If you are truly an award-winning photographer, I would think you
>>>would have posted images that were more in line with your abilities.
>>
>>
>>You don't read anything that you reply to, do you, just like all
>>usenet-trolls.
>>
>>
>>Didn't you just recently post a quote from someone that said exactly why real
>>pros don't post their marketable photography online? Is your memory also
>>hindered by your drastic lack of intellect? Must be. Those are some seriously
>>disabling qualities that you're displaying about yourself.
>
>
>You keep repeating that lie, and you keep clipping text. But don't
>worry, the FBI is very good at forensics when it comes to someone
>making online threats.

The FBI has no jurisdiction other than mainland USA. Besides ranting on
Usenet hardly translates to a real threat.

..
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/